Who must bear responsibility for the deception delaying tabling the 2010 Auditor-General’s reports until after the end of the general debate on the 2012 Budget – Prime Minister or Chief Secretary?

Who must bear responsibility for the deception and sleight-of-hand delaying tabling the 2010 Auditor-General’s reports on the annual and continuing “horror of horrors” of government financial hanky-panky, mismanagement and misappropriations of public funds until after the general debate in Parliament on the 2010 Budget (except for the official Ministerial winding-ups) is over?

Is he the Prime Minister or Chief Secretary? Or nobody need be held responsible for this gross parliamentary disrespect and deception?

Although the Auditor-General’s Reports for 2010 rated most ministries and government departments as “excellent” in their financial management, the Auditor-General nonetheless made history producing two thickest and most voluminous reports in Malaysian history on the Federal Government’s Accounts totally over 1,330 pages – retailing the hair-raising pecaddiloes and major transgressions in the government’s public finances in the first full year of Najib’s premiership in 2010.

The first public conclusion from the 2010 Auditor-General’s Reports is that there is no difference between Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s National Transformation Policy and his predecessor Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s “Islam Hadhari” – as horror tales of financial hanky-panky, mismanagement and misappropriations continue unchanged, year in and year out, whether under Najib, Abdullah or even Tun Mahathir’s time as Prime Minister.

Just before the political tsunami of the March 2008 general elections, Malaysians were outraged by the revelations at the end of 2007 of financial hanky-panky in the 2006 Auditor-General’s reports, eg:

National Youth Skills Institute (under the Youth and Sports Ministry) project where a car jack that cost RM50 was bought for RM5,700, a digital camera that cost RM2,990 was bought for RM8,254 and RM1,146 was paid for a set of technical pens with a market price of RM160;

Police Air Wing – purchase of two helicopters worth RM117.75 million, which could not be used, as they did not meet specifications. Another RM15.4mil was spent to train pilots to fly these helicopters.

Customs Department under-utilised its RM290mil information technology system but was planning to spend another RM451.30mil to develop a new one.

Now, on the eve of the 13th General Elections, Malaysians are equally outraged by the revelations of the 2010 Auditor-General Reports on the continuing financial scandals, hanky-panky and gross financial negligence in government, eg:

National Sports Institute acquired 23 horses totally RM5.66 million without a Financial Ministry go-ahead with none of the horses competed in two recommended international championships;

the RM142 million RazakSAT malfunctioned barely a year after being commissioned;

The Malaysian Marine Parks Department spent a whopping RM56,350 for a pair of night vision Marine binoculars, 29 times more than its market value of RM1,940; and paid the same amount for another pair of night vision Bushnell binoculars, or 1,893 per cent more than its actual price of RM2,827.

Decimal point and accounting mistakes which should not happen if there are efficient and proper internal audit systems as  resulting in a pensioner receiving RM21,433 a month instead of RM214.33 for 16 months and the Giatmara Centre mistakenly paying RM170 per kg instead of RM1.70 per kg for sugar for a poverty eradication programme or RM25,500 for 150 kg of sugar!

In his response to the 2010 Auditor-General’s Reports, the Chief Secretary to the Government Tan Sri Sidek Hassan has repeated his annual reaction and call to  all departments and agencies to take heed of  the Auditor-General’s comments and views.

Clearly, the Chief Secretary’s past responses to previous Auditor-General Reports had been ineffective, or there would have been no need this year to resort to the parliamentary sleight-of-hand of delaying the tabling of the 2010 Auditor-General’s Report to ensure that it would not completely overshadow Najib’s 2012 Budget by focussing on the over 1,300 pages of exposes of financial irregularities, hanky-panky as well as misappropriation of public funds in the first full year of Najib’s premiership.

Malaysians are still waiting for the Prime Minister or the Chief Secretary to own up to the parliamentary deception in delaying tabling the 2010 Auditor-General Reports until after the end of the parliamentary debate on the 2012 Budget – so as to prevent the 2010 Auditor-General Report from becoming the foremost parliamentary issue.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 27 October 2011, 4:09 pm and is filed under
Auditor-General Report
,
Budget Debate
,
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Beng Hock’s family demands criminal charges against MACC trio

By
Melissa Chi

The Malaysian Insider

Oct 28, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 28 — Teoh Beng Hock’s family today demanded that the police investigate the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officers named in the royal commission of inquiry (RCI) into Teoh’s death for contributing to the DAP aide’s death.

The family accused the Najib administration yesterday of “taking grieving family members for a ride” by not pushing for criminal charges against three national graftbusters despite a royal investigation panel finding the trio contributed to the political aide’s death two years ago.

Today, the family lodged a police report in the hope of initiating a criminal probe.

“It’s not that we do not have patience. We have been so patient but it has been taken advantage of.

“We’ve waited long enough and there is still no serious action from the government,” Beng Hock’s sister Lee Lan told reporters outside the Tun H.S. Lee police station here.

The Teohs had said the government’s inaction casts serious doubt not only on the credibility of the RCI the prime minister foisted on the family, but its chairman, Federal Court judge Tan Sri James Foong Cheng Yuen.

The still-grieving family was responding to de facto law minister Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz’s statement four days ago that the government would not be prosecuting the three officers from the MACC despite being named in the RCI report released three months ago because no one had filed a police report to do so.

Today, Lee Lan, accompanied by lawyer and Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo and Serdang MP Teo Nie Ching, lodged a police report.

Teo pointed out that the police could have lodged a report and started an investigation, just as they did with Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng, when he claimed that Beng Hock was murdered.

The Teohs said they found it incredulous the government remained suspicious and sceptical of the RCI report and left it to the MACC to head another “special task force investigating their own officers”.

They pointed out the RCI had incriminated the MACC trio — Mohd Anuar Isamil (named in the report as “the bully”), Mohd Ashraf Mohd Yunus (“the abuser”) and Hishammuddin Hashim (“the arrogant leader”) — in its report for using inappropriate violence to draw information out of Beng Hock who was only a witness.

Beng Hock, political secretary to Seri Kembangan assemblyman Ean Yong Hian Wah, was found dead on July 16, 2009 on the fifth-floor external corridor of the Selangor MACC office in Shah Alam after a marathon questioning overnight.

The government set up the RCI in January this year after the coroner delivered an “open verdict” ruling out both suicide and homicide.

The royal panel found that Teoh had been driven to suicide after harsh, relentless questioning by MACC officers.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 28 October 2011, 3:31 pm and is filed under
Teoh Beng Hock
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


I’m 25, Malaysian. Should I give up on Malaysia?

by
Alex Lee

Friday, 28 October 2011

My recent trip back to Malaysia made me realise the lack of political awareness in the country. Business owners, working individuals, family and friends have virtually given up trying, or simply not want to court unnecessary trouble. They continue to complain of our government’s incompetence. But simply complaining will take us nowhere.

Only abusers and authoritarians, who do not want to hear the truth and how we feel want us to be silent, allowing them to continue squandering our nation’s coffers and they be left unpunished. Countless loopholes in the legislations are making the rich even richer, and the poor to continue to suffer.

A simple example is the real estate situation in Malaysia. Housing has become impossible for new starters to own, with the unaffordability standards at an all-time high. Yet, the rich are still able to continue reaping gains from the market, inflating prices, causing houses to be even more and more unaffordable. In the rural areas, people are struggling to access basic needs such as water and electricity, not to mention basic healthcare.

Malaysia has an incredible pool of talent, and I would attest to that, having gone to school with many of them. Unfortunately there has been a continuous brain drain from our country; and these are intellectuals with tertiary-level education. The outflow of talent has not been matched with equal and compatible inflow, thus damaging the quality of Malaysia’s narrow skills base.

54% of the brain drain can be traced to Singapore, 15% to Australia, 10% to the US, and 5% to the UK, resulting in Malaysia’s economic growth rate to fall to an average of 5% pa. Major push factors include corruption, social inequality and lack of academic freedom.

Malaysia is now at a unique moment in its history. For the first time, there’s a broad realisation that the country must move in a new direction.

Malaysia is fortunate to have some great political leaders, who have made huge sacrifices, and facing countless allegations, are still standing strong to fight another day for our country. They have shown us the way and given us hope to introduce the true essence of a democracy.

We are on the verge of being able to make a great change to our country in the next coming election, but will it be possible without the support from all of us?

Is it important for Malaysians to realise that each of us have a role to play in creating a Malaysia we can be proud of? We live in Malaysia, and we love Malaysia. Malaysia has so much potential, and so much unique diversity that if we are able to deal with all the grouses and discontent that people speak about, we would be a world-class country.

But we must act. Our communities must be transformed and become independent, action communities that perhaps one day there is no need or a reduced need for us to rely on politicians. We need to build a non-partisan, issue-based, youth-driven, community-centred platform to promote greater ownership, participation and seek workable solutions to problems that affect our communities.

We need to learn how to ask the right questions and make more informed choices in our daily lives. We need to have more control more of over our well-being rather than having “top-down” policies implemented on us without our consent, tacit or otherwise.

Most of all, we need to claim our civil space for otherwise, ruthless, manipulative, racist elements will claim that space for us.

By that time, the damage will be too deeply embedded to allow any rescindable change. The time is now. We need to activate all Malaysians to drive our agenda for a better Malaysia.

Let us all unite and work towards creating a society with integrity.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 28 October 2011, 7:24 pm and is filed under
Letters
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Implement hudud by force, he says

by
Zan Azlee

The Malaysian Insider

Oct 28, 2011

OCT 28 — “Hudud needs to be implemented by force!”

I was shocked to hear an academician, Assoc Prof Dr Mohd Ridhuan Tee Abdullah, utter those words at a recent Islamic forum on hudud.

According to the academician who teaches at the National Defence University, time is running out and it looks like the non-Muslims will never accept hudud and Islam.

As a Muslim myself, I felt ashamed and embarrassed by what he said at such a public forum.

First of all, I would like to ask one vital question. If non-Muslims are not willing to accept hudud or Islam, why question their reasoning for it?

The non-Muslims would have made their decision based on what they have seen, heard and observed. Can you blame them if what they’ve seen has been all negative?

So, maybe what he should have said, instead of using force, look within and solve the internal problems before you start preaching outside.

Any educated individual who has even a little bit of learned experience, Muslim or non-Muslim, will tell you that Islam is not, and never was, a religion of force.

Free will and compulsion is something that is stressed upon in the religion and is stated all over the Quran.

Surah Al Baqarah states that:

“There is no compulsion in religion. Certainly, right has become clearly distinct from wrong.”

And this is reaffirmed in Surah Al Ghashiyya:

“(Muhammad), preach, you are only a preacher. You do not have full control over them.”

And again in Surah Qaf:

“We know best what they say and you (Muhammad) cannot compel them. Remind, by way of the Quran, those who have fear of My warnings.”

He also, during the forum, said that hudud is the law of God and that is one of the reasons why it should be implemented even by force.

Here, I would like to take the opportunity to remind him that these laws are men’s attempt to understand God’s decree in a particular context, and hence are man-made.

Hudud and syariah rules are really just opinions of jurists from a long time ago (mainly the Abbasid period). This is known as fiqh, or jurisprudence.

The laws that are being planned to be implemented today consist of what were made during this long gone period, which did not even resemble our modern society today.

And the problems that arise are exactly the kind that we see today. We see it as something archaic, medieval and barbaric.

Our society today has evolved way beyond the 8th century of the Abbasid period. And it is only natural to expect the laws to also evolve.

Which brings me to the Islamic concept of Khilafat which decrees that a government needs to be ruled by the free choice of the people.

And Shura, which means that anything that is to be implemented in a certain society needs to be done with the consultation of the people.

Surah Al Shura states:

“Those who listen to their Lord, and establish regular prayer; who conduct their affairs by mutual consultation; who spend out of what we bestow on them for sustenance, [are praised].”

“The blame is only against those who oppress men with wrong doing and insolently transgress beyond bounds through the land, defying right and justice: for such there will be a penalty grievous.”

And again in Surah Al Imran:

“So by mercy from Allah, [O Muhammad], you were lenient with them. And if you had been rude [in speech] and harsh in heart, they would have disbanded from about you. So pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult them in the matter. And when you have decided, then rely upon Allah. Indeed, Allah loves those who rely [upon Him].”

For someone with numerous academic qualifications and a member of several Islamic consultative organisations and agencies, he must surely know this.

Then, in his rant, he goes on to say that it was never the intention of God to have in existence a multiracial country and that each country is intended for a specific race.

By then, I just gave up in exasperation and concluded that no one could actually take the words of this man seriously. Thank God for that!

                This entry was posted on Friday, 28 October 2011, 6:04 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
Islamic state
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Kirby warns CHOGM at ‘watershed’ moment

Sabra Lane
reported this story on Wednesday, October 26, 2011 12:30:00

The World Today

ABC

ELEANOR HALL
: Australia’s representative on the panel looking at how to revamp the Commonwealth is the former High Court justice Michael Kirby.

He spoke to our chief political correspondent, Sabra Lane.

MICHAEL KIRBY
: Unfortunately it hasn’t been released to be available to citizens but it is all there and it is 116 unanimous recommendations and I do hope it will receive very careful attentions at a critical moment.

SABRA LANE
: Are you worried that because the report hasn’t been released publicly that the Commonwealth is under pressure to water down what you’ve recommended, especially on things like the proposed commissioner for democracy and the rule of law and human rights?

It is known that there is a fair amount of activity happening behind the scenes for the Commonwealth not to go ahead with that.

MICHAEL KIRBY
: Well, I’m not worried in the sense that I’ve discharged my duty by performing the working on the group and putting our recommendation forward now in the orderly way these things happen. It is left to the politicians to decide what should be done.

There has to be more visible action by the Commonwealth that you just can’t espouse great principles and then do nothing when they are under threat, that the machinery of the Commonwealth has to work more quickly and more visibly and that secret diplomacy is sometimes useful but it isn’t the whole picture.

So I hope all of that is realised. Of course, the British exported many very good things to the world but one of them was Sir Humphrey. Sir Humphrey was always there in the British administration – honest, cautious, integrity and that is going to be a question as to whether that stands in the way of action on this report. It may be a battle between the EPG and the Sir Humphreys of this world but time will tell. I’m optimistic.

SABRA LANE
: The report also talked about the Commonwealth putting together a charter of principles, guiding principles for all Commonwealth countries. I think you’ve had a crack at writing an introductory part of that on the back of a serviette and I think you intend giving that to the secretary general this weekend.

Why is that charter important and is that true, did you write it on the back of a serviette?

MICHAEL KIRBY
: The Eminent Persons Group, on the suggestion of our chair, Tun Abdullah Badawi, past prime minister of Malaysia did accept and make a recommendation that there should be a charter of Commonwealth values so that the values of the Commonwealth citizens are not given them to by politicians at CHOGMs but are asserted by the citizens as their entitlements as citizens of Commonwealth countries.

We agreed in principle with Tun Badawi’s suggestion and we were going to just put it forward as a recommendation of principle which would have been a perfectly reasonable thing to do but I said I would have a go at it and it wasn’t just the foreword or the preamble, I did the lot and it is in the report.

It is not a recommendation of a draft by the Eminent Persons Group as such but it is to get the discussion started. I learned in my years in the Law Reform Commission that if you’ve got a document, if you’ve got something that is there, then that does help people to focus their minds.

As to the serviette, well it’s true that I penned down a few of the early words of it in a Qantas jet on my back from London and that historical but somewhat tattered piece of paper will ultimately find their way to the secretary general one day, I hope. I hope soon we will have charter of Commonwealth values and I hope that my little draft will have helped that process.

ELE
ANOR HALL
: And that’s Australia’s representative on the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group, Michael Kirby, speaking to Sabra Lane.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 28 October 2011, 4:01 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Human Rights
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Liar, liar, pants on fire

—
James Chin

The Malaysian Insider

Oct 28, 2011

OCT 28 — When it was announced that AirAsia had bought a stake in Malaysia Airlines, many people in east Malaysia were worried that the competition between Firefly and AirAsia would cease and fares would go up. But this was what was reported on October 18 “End of the road for Firefly’s jet service” (TMI, October 18): “… Fernandes however said that AirAsia will not increase fares following the strategic collaboration…”

I come from Sarawak and rely on the competition to give me the best fare and service. My last two trips with my children to Sarawak to see their grandparents were on Firefly because it had the best deal with a return trip for two adults and two children at under RM600. As a bonus, you get to use the aerobridge on Firefly flights.

Now when you cannot even book on Firefly anymore because it no longer does the KLIA-Kuching route, you have to book AirAsia.

The cheapest fare I could find on AirAsia for my family over the new year period was RM1,100.

It is very clear that AirAsia “killed” Firefly and monopolised the east Malaysian routes. As a monopoly, the fares can only go up and this is exactly what is happening now. So much for Tony’s assurances.

This is the same guy who makes it so difficult for you not to buy insurance — you actually have to click three times just to say no to AirAsia insurance!

I can only tell all east Malaysians that you know what to do with your vote in the coming general election. You know who is responsible for this sorry state of affairs.

In this country, the corporate boys win over the guys on the street. The government does not care.

The only way is to punish them via the ballot box. There is no other way.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 28 October 2011, 5:42 pm and is filed under
Sarawak
,
Transport
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The Commonwealth: Will wise heads prevail?

By
Sir Ronald Sanders

Huntington News

October 27, 2011

A visitor to Perth in Australia during the week ending 30th October would be forgiven in believing that the City revolves around the 54-nation Commonwealth.

The entire city is festooned with banners highlighting “CHOGM 2011” as Presidents, Prime Ministers, Ministers and hundreds of representatives from every Commonwealth country have gathered here for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) with several important side events.

Among the side events are a Commonwealth Business Forum which, on this occasion brought together businesspeople from many Commonwealth countries, and a People’s Forum – a meeting of many of the 90 civil society organisations that exist under the Commonwealth banner.

Perth has certainly been a great host and its people have reacted well to the disruption of their lives with closed-off streets, restricted areas and armed police along the main routes from hotels to the impressive Perth Convention Centre where the CHOGM is taking place, and for which Queen Elizabeth II  came as Head of the Commonwealth.

Pedestrians are pleased to be helpful to Commonwealth delegates seeking direction on the streets, and vehicular traffic – even buses – have been ready to stop to allow visiting Commonwealth pedestrians to take precedence on the streets.

While there is no doubt that Perth has successfully hosted the Commonwealth meeting and all the activities associated with it, judgement of the success of the actual Heads of Government Conference will have to await the end of what Commonwealth Secretary General Kamalesh Sharma said he believed would be a ‘landmark event’ that would raise the bar for future such gatherings.

The Conference has before it two seminal documents: a report from an Eminent Persons Group (EPG) which sets out a road map of urgent reform for the association if it is to remain relevant to its time and its people now and in the future; and another report from the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) which is the body charged with ensuring that Commonwealth member governments behave in a manner consistent with Commonwealth values and principles related to democracy, the rule of law and human rights.  CMAG, too, is recommending reform of itself to make it more effective.

The EPG has submitted a 200 page report to the Commonwealth leaders with 106 recommendations.  The Report entitled. “A Commonwealth of the People: Time for Urgent Reform is the centrepiece of the Conference and it warns that the Commonwealth is in danger of losing its relevance unless significant changes are made.

The report speaks directly to Heads of Government, and declares: “Now is the time for the Perth CHOGM to authorise the urgent reform this report recommends and to mandate a concrete implementation plan”. Among those reforms is the appointment of a Commissioner for Democracy, the Rule of Law and Human Rights that would investigate and verify claims of violations by governments of Commonwealth values set out in several declarations between 1971 and 2009.

The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative and the Royal Commonwealth Society united to call on leaders to back the EPG reforms.  So, too, has the Commonwealth Civil Society, which, in a statement issued at the People’s Forum, called on Heads of Government to “build on the recommendation from the EPG to convene a Commonwealth Ministers of Foreign Trade Meeting and mandate the Commonwealth Secretariat to convene a joint meeting with Commonwealth Ministers of Finance to develop a joint approach to engagement in international trade and finance processes underpinned by consultation with civil society and a rights based approach to economic development”.

The Civil Society statement was issued by more than 250 civil society representatives from every region of the Commonwealth.   In an encounter with Commonwealth Foreign Ministers on the eve of CHOGM, the Civil Society leaders criticised a decision not to publish the EPG report ahead of the Commonwealth Summit even though the EPG had requested that it be released to allow for the “broadest consultation and responses”.

Prior to the meeting several governments had indicated their objection to the creation of the post of Commissioner, believing that it would be “intrusive” and “punitive”.   Among the governments that indicated this unease publicly were India and Sri Lanka.   The latter country has been fingered by human rights groups, the UN Secretary-General, and even some Commonwealth governments over human rights abuses.

The EPG has argued that countries accused of violating Commonwealth values should embrace the Commissioner and utilise the expertise of the office to remedy situations quickly and in their own interest. The Group has said that “a country that works with the Commissioner would be in a good position to ward off criticism and demonstrate in a credible way that it is working to maintain Commonwealth values”.   It has also been pointed out that false or exaggerated allegations against a government could be exposed and dismissed by the Commissioner who would work as a link between the Commonwealth Secretary-General and CMAG.

However, some governments have maintained opposition to the creation of the post, even though it is obvious that it is a missing link between CMAG, which has censorial powers, and the Secretary-General who must try his best, by diplomatic means, to ensure that governments rectify violations quickly.

Having received over 330 written submissions from organisations all over the Commonwealth that point to the need for the Commonwealth to act in defence of the values for which it says its stands, or lose it moral authority and global influence, the EPG report stresses that the creation of the post by whatever appropriate name – Commissioner or Special Representative – will be a litmus test for the Commonwealth’s future.

By focussing on this one issue over which fears are expressed, some governments have stopped discussion and acceptance of the EPG’s 105 other recommendations which include urgent action on the harmful effects of global warming; securing a voice for small and vulnerable countries in the world’s decision-making bodies; improving inter-Commonwealth trade and investment; job creation; providing funds for youth entrepreneurial schemes; ending discrimination against women; and improving knowledge of the Commonwealth.

Hopefully wise heads will prevail at the Commonwealth Summit.

Sanders, a contributor to Huntingtonnews.net,  is a member of the Eminent Persons Group that has produced a report on reform of the Commonwealth. Responses and previous commentaries at: www.sirronaldsanders.com

                This entry was posted on Friday, 28 October 2011, 4:13 pm and is filed under
Commonwealth
,
Human Rights
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Was Rahim Noor’s Perkasa speech warning of “a human rights wave” an open proxy shot in a battle of three Malaysian Prime Ministers?

Was the former Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Rahim Noor’s Perkasa speech warning of “a human rights wave” which would be like “a new religion” and threaten and erode the basis on which the nation was founded an open proxy shot in a battle of three Malaysian Prime Ministers about democracy, human rights and the rule of law not only in Malaysia but in the Commonwealth and the world?

It can be no coincidence that Rahim Noor’s speech was immediately given endorsement by his former boss and the fourth Malaysian Prime Minister of 22 years, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, who warned that “Opposition politicians are using human rights issues for their political benefit”.

It can also be no coincidence that the two warnings by Mahathir and Rahim, made in a matter of 24 hours, came on the eve of the 2011 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Perth, which is to consider the scathing report of the 11-member Eminent Persons Group (EPG) with wide-ranging and far-reaching reform proposals to end its organizational “decay” and to avoid the Commonwealth being condemned by history as “hypocritical” allowing rogue member states to violate human rights and democratic conventions.

It has been reported that the 220-page report of the EPG, which has not been made public despite the EPG’s request that it be released before the CHOGM opening this morning, contained “a wide ranging and at times unexpectedly radical road map for change, outlined in 106 detailed recommendations aimed at hauling the organization into the 21st century” – including the appointment of an independent Commonwealth Commissioner for Democracy, the Rule of Law and Human Rights commissioner empowered to monitor violations and propose action against them.

And heading the EPG – which includes former British Conservative foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind and retired Australian High Court justice Michael Kirkby – is none other than the fifth Malaysian Prime Minister, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Were the warnings by Mahathir and Rahim Noor pre-emptive strikes in the battle of the three Malaysian Prime Ministers, with the fourth Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad warning the sixth and current Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak not to support or have any truck with fifth Prime Minister, Tun Abdullah’s EPG proposals to improve the Commonwealth record in responding to human rights violations?

What is Najib’s stand – to endorse Abdullah and the EPG proposals at the Perth 2011 CHOGM or to buckle under to pressures by Mahathir and Rahim Noor and to prevent the  rogue Commonwealth countries which violate human rights from scrutiny and censure by a Commonwealth Commissioner for Democracy, the Rule of Law and Human Rights?

The stand Najib will take in Perth 2011 CHOGM on the EPG report on Commonwealth reforms and the appointment of a Commonwealth Commissioner for Democracy, the Rule of Law and Human Rights –  whether to back Mahathir or Abdullah –  will be a clear indication as to whether his promises of democratisation and political transformation, whether on electoral reforms, repeal of the Internal Security Act, removal of draconian and undemocratic laws and measures, have any credibility at all.

Najib should take serious note of the blunt warning of the EPG report about the Commonwealth “in danger of losing its relevance”.

The EPG report had warned:

“Now is the time for the Perth CHOGM to authorise the urgent reform this report recommends and to mandate a concrete implementation plan.

“Reform has never been more necessary.

“There may not be another chance to renew, reinvigorate and revitalise the Commonwealth to make it relevant to its times and people in the future.”

The warning of the EPG report that “there may not  be another chance to renew, reinvigorate and revitalise Commonwealth to make it relevant to its times and people in the future” is of equal pertinence to Najib as to the relevance of his premiership and UMNO/Barisan Nasional rule to the people and country of Malaysia.

Will Najib prove to be unequal not only to the task of Commonwealth reform but also to the challenge of reform and national transformation of Malaysia?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 28 October 2011, 12:33 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Commonwealth leaders refuse to publish EPG report

by
Matthew Franklin,

chief political correspondent,

The Australian

October 29, 2011

MEMBERS of an Eminent Persons Group (EPG) advising the Commonwealth have attacked the 54-nation body for refusing to publish its report recommending ways to make the organisation more relevant.

UK representative Sir Malcolm Rifkind today said it was a “a disgrace” the report had not been released to promote debate about Commonwealth reform, while Canada’s Hugh Segal said it was apparent some nations believed silence was the best option in dealing with serious issues like human rights violations among the group’s members.

Today’s unanimous criticism by the seven-member EPG has turned the three-day CHOGM meeting on its head after Commonwealth leaders last night declared they had acted to secure the Commonwealth’s ongoing relevance.

At yesterday’s session, leaders lifted the powers of the Commonwealth ministerial action group, made up of foreign ministers of member nations, to intervene when member nations were slipping away from the observance of basic democratic principles.

But this morning, revealing leaders had not authorised the publication of their report, the EPG, including former Australian High Court judge Michael Kirby, renewed its call for the appointment of an independent Commonwealth commissioner for human rights on the rule of law to bring attention to democratic and human rights abuses.

EPG members also complained Commonwealth leaders had responded to only two of their 116 recommendations and appeared to have so far taken no action on important issues such as the spread of HIV-Aids among Commonwealth members and climate change.

The CHOGM in Port of Spain two years ago appointed the seven-member panel to propose ways to renew the Commonwealth amid claims it had become too timid and had eroded since its glory days in the 1980s, when its leadership helped defeat the South African system of apartheid.

The report recommends a range of actions, including the elimination of wasteful Commonwealth spending programs, the creation of a Commonwealth charter and action on debt issues facing small nations.

A statement form the EPG chairman and former Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi  said: “The reform arrangements of CMAG, as the chairman of CMAG has indicated, will not fill the gap.”

“After very careful study over 16 months the EPG is convinced that there is an urgent need for bold initiatives to reform and strengthen the Commonwealth as a beneficial force for the future.

“If CHOGM does not deliver such reforms, it is our duty to sound the caution to you that this CHOGM will be remembered not as the triumph it should be, but as a failure.”

During a media conference, Sir Malcolm said he believed increasing the power of the Commonwealth to deal with human rights violations was  fundamental and there was a tendency for the CMAG to “look the other way and take no action” on human rights abuses or misbehaviour by members states.

The panel, he said, was concerned its report had not been published.

“The Commonwealth is not a private club of the governments or the secretariat,” Sir Malcolm said.

“It belongs to the people of the Commonwealth.”

Sir Ronald Sanders, representing small Commonwealth states, said he feared the substantial recommendations of the group would be “kicked into the high grass” for consideration by foreign ministers next year.

The Caribbean former diplomat said CHOGM should also be discussing the fact small nations which did nothing to cause the global financial crisis were unable to obtain bank financing for big infrastructure projects because banks had changed their lending practices in response to excesses in large nations.

Sir Ronald also warned the need for action on climate change was urgent and large Commonwealth nations needed to understand not acting could see them facing the need to accommodate climate change refugees.

Mr Kirby said last night’s announcements about stronger powers for CMAG seemed to have created the expectation among some nations there was no need to consider the appointment of a commissioner for human rights.

But he said while politicians could handle most of the world’s problems, they were sometimes unable to deal with sensitive issues, such as the fact HIV-AIDS levels were twice as high in commonwealth nations as non-commonwealth nations.

“If you leave matters entirely to politicians, sensitive matters will sometimes not be addressed,” Mr Kirby said, arguing an independent commissioner could intervene in such cases to press for action when politicians would not act.

Canada’s Senator Segal, asked about human rights abuses in Sri Lanka, said he would not comment on individual members nations but noted Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper had made clear he would not attend the next CHOGM if, as was planned, it was held in Sir Lanka.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 29 October 2011, 1:37 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Commonwealth
,
Human Rights
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Mahathir  has won the shadow power battle of three Prime Ministers on the sidelines of Perth 2011 CHOGM

The fourth Malaysian Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir seems to have won the shadow power battle with the fifth Prime Minister, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and the sixth Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razaki on the sidelines of the Perth 2011 CHOGM (Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting) 2011 on the Eminent Person Group’s (EPG) proposal for a Commonwealth Commissioner for Democracy, Rule of Law and Human Rights.

The latest news from the Perth 2011 CHOGM is that the Commonwealth heads of government have not only rejected the EPG’s proposal for a Commonwealth Commissioner for Democracy, Rule of Law and Human Rights,  they have taken the shocking decision not to publish the EPF report on Commonwealth reforms to make it relevant and not an anachronism.

This has led to the unprecedented unanimous criticism by the seven-member EPG in Perth against the CHOGM decision.

It is good to see Abdullah, who is chairperson of the seven-member EPG, leading the EPG  attack  against CHOGM and issuing the warning:

“After very careful study over 16 months the EPG is convinced that there is an urgent need for bold initiatives to reform and strengthen the Commonwealth as a beneficial force for the future.

“If CHOGM does not deliver such reforms, it is our duty to sound the caution to you that this CHOGM will be remembered not as the triumph it should be, but as a failure.”

The Perth CHOGM decision to reject the EPG Report and its reform recommendations, particularly for the appointment of a Commonwealth Commissioner for Democracy, the Rule of Law and Human Rights, must have delighted Mahathir and former Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Rahim Noor in vindicating their warnings of “a human rights wave” as a new threat, akin to a new religion, comparable to the previous “wave” of communism and threatening “the principles upon which the nation was built”.

It is shocking and most deplorable that as the current Prime Minister, Najib had failed to give full support to the EPG proposal for a Commonwealth Commissioner for Democracy, the Rule of Law and Human Rights and played a leading role to push for its adoption as well as acceptance and implementation of the EGP Report: “A Commonwealth of the People: Time for Urgent Reforms”.

When the Prime Minister of Malaysia is not prepared to give full-hearted support to the EPG Report which is chaired by his predecessor the previous Prime Minister, how could one fault the  other Commonwealth Heads of Government who opposes the EPG and its reform recommendations?

Abdullah is right. Perth CHOGM 2011 will go down in Commonwealth history as a failure when the Commonwealth heads of government were not visionary and bold enough to act on the EGP Report to make the Commonwealth relevant to changing times.

Is the triumph of Mahathir against his two predecessors in the shadow power battle of three Prime Ministers on the sidelines of the Perth CHOGM 2011 a  foreshadow of the political developments in Malaysia, casting a very dark shadow on the promises of democratization and political transformation which Najib had pledged to carry out in the country?

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 29 October 2011, 2:55 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Commonwealth
,
Human Rights
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Commonwealth leaders refuse to publish key report’s findings

By Mark Kennedy, Postmedia News

Vancouver Sun

PERTH, Australia – Commonwealth leaders have ignored warnings that their decaying association will die without urgent reforms and have failed to reach significant agreement on how to ensure its member nations abide by human rights principles and the rule of law.

The development came Saturday, as the leaders spent the second day of their biennial gathering – known as the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) – debating the merits of a report delivered by an advisory group established two years ago.

But instead of endorsing the report, the leaders adopted a distrustful view about its contents – even deciding that it should be kept secret and not be published.

The report by a panel of “eminent persons” which includes Canadian senator Hugh Segal called for major reforms to ensure the Commonwealth – which is quickly losing its international credibility – becomes relevant and avoids a slow slide to death.

The advisory group made 106 recommendations, including the establishment of a charter of the Commonwealth and the appointment of a Commissioner for Democracy, the Rule of Law and Human Rights to keep track of whether member nations are persistently violating human rights, and who also would recommend “remedial action.”

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who is attending the meeting, is a strong supporter of the report, as is his British counterpart, David Cameron.

But others within the association have strongly objected and dug in their heels to ensure its major recommendations go nowhere.

Among those said to be opposing the reforms are India, Nigeria, South Africa and Sri Lanka, which is facing accusations itself of war crimes and human rights violations in the final weeks of its civil war with the Tamil Tigers in 2009.

On Saturday, Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, host of the meeting, acknowledged that some countries had blocked the proposal for a human rights commissioner.

“Australia and a number of delegations indicated that they were supportive of this proposal but there were a number of delegations concerned by it,” she told reporters.

“And the Commonwealth is an organization that involves consensus in decision-making.”

The leaders did agree to the creation next year of a Charter to “bring together the Commonwealth’s values, principles and aspirations in one clear and powerful statement,” said Gillard.

But the leaders have effectively decided to deep-six the proposal for a human rights commissioner.

That recommendation will be sent to a committee for review, a move that members of the eminent persons group had feared would mean the idea is shelved.

Even before the leaders held their closed door discussions, members of the advisory group acknowledged at a news conference Saturday that they saw a troubling development emerging.

Segal noted that his group’s 205-page report concluded that the Commonwealth had to be more proactive and acknowledge that “silence is not an option” when some countries are violating the human rights of their own citizens.

“Clearly there are some people at this meeting for whom silence is the best option,” said Segal. “Would silence have been a way to bring apartheid to an end?”

Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the British member of the group, said it was a “disgrace” that the leaders refused to publish the report.

“The Commonwealth faces a very significant problem,” he said.

“It’s not a problem of hostility or antagonism. It’s more of a problem of indifference. Its purpose is being questioned, its relevance is being questioned and part of that is because its commitment to enforce the values for which it stands is becoming ambiguous in the eyes of many member states.

Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, the former prime minister of Malaysia who chaired the advisory group, warned that the leaders were in danger of making a big mistake if they left the summit without major progress.

“There is no doubt that this CHOGM is expected to deliver meaningful reforms of the Commonwealth,” he said.

“If this CHOGM does not deliver such reforms, it is our duty to sound the caution to you that this CHOGM will be remembered not as the triumph it should be, but as a failure.”

Even by the time this year’s summit began, it had become increasingly clear that the Commonwealth is losing its relevance.

Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh, whose country’s 1.2 billion people constitute half the population of the entire Commonwealth, chose not to attend the meeting.

Indeed, about one third of the countries chose not to send their head of government to the summit – opting instead to send a foreign affairs minister or senior diplomat.

At their last meeting in 2009, it appeared the Commonwealth leaders were aware of their own association’s deterioration when they appointed the 11-member eminent persons group to propose modernization reforms.

The result was a hard-hitting report that is filled with constructive recommendations but which pulls no punches.

It says the Commonwealth has a “proud record” in past times of responding to serious violations of human rights by its member countries – including apartheid in South Africa and Southern Rhodesia, the “excesses” of dictator Idi Amin in Uganda, and military coups in Nigeria, Fiji, Sierra Leone and Pakistan.

In each case, the Commonwealth intervened, through actions ranging from condemnation to sanctions, such as suspension from the organization.

But it concluded there has been a growing criticism in recent years that the Commonwealth does not take a stand, at least in public, on violations of its values by its member states, other than in the case of the unconstitutional removal of governments.

“This failure by the Commonwealth is seen as a decay that has set in to the body of the organization and one that will occasion the association’s irrelevance – if not its actual demise – unless it is promptly addressed.”

As the conference began on Friday, Segal met with reporters, warning that the Commonwealth is at a crossroads.

“The organization will either be seen as an instrument for modern co-operation between sovereign states with common values, or it will be seen as a vestige of history with no role to play in the future.”

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 30 October 2011, 1:13 am and is filed under
Commonwealth
,
Human Rights
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Surcharge the public officers responsible for over payments of 2,900-11,400 % more the market price and such financial hanky-panky will cease in future AG Reports

Malaysia must be the only country which aspires to be developed nation status where year in year out, the Auditor-General reports of horror tales of financial hanky-panky, irregularities, abuses of power and financial indiscipline in Federal Government accounts.

Malaysians are entitled to know why such financial hanky-panky and irregularities could not be stamped out when there should be quite easy ways of achieving this objective.

For instance, surcharge the public officers responsible for paying RM5,700 or 11,400% more the market price of a car jack or RM56,350 or 2,900 per cent higher than the market price of binoculars and I am sure, such financial hanky-panky will cease in future Auditor-General’s Reports once the message is sent out the government servants who authorize irregular payments will have to personally account for their financial indiscipline from their personal pay checks.

At present, these public officers do not have to pay for their financial misfeances and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission is a standing joke as it has proved to be completely impotent and ineffective in taking actions against errant public servants based on the voluminous Auditor-General’s annual reports.

However, it will not be possible for the government to surcharge errant public servants for their financial misdeeds as authorizing payment exceeding 2,900 per cent or even over 11,400 per cent of the market price of items procured, which comes to several thousand or tens of thousands of ringgit per item, if the “big sharks” in high political and government places are allowed immunity and impunity for corruption and abuses of public funds running into millions, tens or even hundreds of millions of ringgit – as for instance improperly approving mega-projects without proper open tender procedures.

It has been estimated that the government loses some RM28 billion a year from corruption, malpractices and “leakages”.  How can the authorities have the credibility and authority to introduce a “surcharge” regime to hold public servants to account for improper public expenditures unless there is in place a “no tolerance for corruption” policy where everyone, including the “sharks”, are mercilessly brought to justice for any corruption practice or abuse of public funds?

Unless there is the political will to launch an all-out war against corruption including those occupying high political and government positions under a “no tolerance for corruption” campaign,  financial abuses and malpractices as those retailed in the Auditor-General Annual reports will continue to be an annual and commonplace occurrence.

[
Speech at the opening of the new Bentong DAP Branch and Pahang DAP State premises in Bentong on Sunday, 30th October 2011 at 2pm
]

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 30 October 2011, 6:59 pm and is filed under
Auditor-General Report
,
Corruption
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Did Malaysia mature when we were not looking?

— Ooi Kee Beng

The Malaysian Insider

Oct 31, 2011

OCT 31 — The flurry of Malay organisations making the news in Malaysia bodes well for the country, whether or not these group together extreme rightists, opposition voices, concerned students or professors, or green or human right activists.

The matter has now become too obvious to be denied, which is that the Malay community in Malaysia is like any other community anywhere in the world. Its collectiveness, like anyone else’s, is pragmatic and contingent. This is how it should be. They are not an entity whose extremely diverse and individual needs, thoughts and aspirations can be articulated through one single political party.

The myth is broken. What will take its place is a cacophony of noises or a symphony of tunes, depending on one’s politics and disposition.

That powerful party, Umno, is the oldest in the country, founded as it was just one year after the Second World War. It has dominated Malaysian politics to this day, but now rightly fears that it will lose power in the very near future.

When the party started, its slogan was “Hidup Melayu” — Long Live the Malays. Only after changing that to “Merdeka” in March 1951 did it begin to make serious headway into the popular consciousness.

From the very beginning, Malay political consciousness went in many directions. There were pan-Indonesianists, communists and other leftists, monarchists, Fabian socialists and republicans. The British, with their reputation lost through their defeat by the Japanese, favoured conservatives who were willing to work closely with the nine sultanates. This entity was Umno.

The amazing diversity found in the Malay community — as in all communities — was obvious from the onset. Those more concerned about religious values broke away to form PAS in 1951, while Umno itself split around the same time when its president, Onn Jaafar, left with his group of followers to form the Independence of Malaya Party (IMP).

Umno gained the upper hand through co-operation with the Malayan Chinese Association, formed at the instigation of the British to draw Chinese support away from the communists. This coalition managed to gain independence in 1957 for the country after its electoral successes saw the British abandoning the IMP, which they had favoured since its founding.

Even after 1969, when the so-called Malay agenda could be applied fully through the New Economic Policy, internal fighting continued within Umno, leading to outright splits in 1988 and 1998.

Today, when more and more Malays are urban and well educated, and make up an increasing portion of the population, the expression of diversity within that community — the breaking of the collective myth — should be seen as the coming into being of Malaysia’s modern citizen, largely determined by the Malays.

Opposition from other communities since 1969 has been generally weak, and based on the activism of certain individuals. The propaganda that had served Umno for so long, that the Malays are in danger of extinction, does not work anymore.

This became most obvious when the group Himpun recently demonstrated with a cry against purported Christian threats to Islam.

Despite the claim that a massive crowd of one million would turn up, the Umno government granted the permit. Only 5,000 people showed up, indicating quite clearly that Malays in general cannot relate to the old idle logic any longer.

The Malays continue to decide the national discourse, as they have done since the beginning. But most hearteningly, diversity is taken for granted, and a lot of activism is done in collaboration with non-Malays.

The Malaysian citizen has come into his and her own right.

There is no longer any doubt that the Malays will “hidup”; and Merdeka was won a long time ago. What seems to be the problem now is, how quickly will the death of the old myth mean the fall from power of Umno?

Instead of 1 Malaysia, Umno’s latest slogan, to be correctly reflective of the government’s concerns, should be “Hidup Pemimpin Umno” — Long Live Umno Leaders. — Today

                This entry was posted on Monday, 31 October 2011, 9:37 am and is filed under
Islam
,
nation building
,
Politics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


GE 13 – “I can DELIVER” talk is cheap!

by Richard Loh

A primary one student can also claim easily that he can deliver. In fact all salesmen, businessmen and any Tom Dick and Harry can promised and said “I can deliver”.

I was disconnected from the virtual and outside world for almost a month and have no idea what the local political scenes have turned into. While eating the bungkus nasi lemak I read from the wrapped star paper headlines “I can deliver – Najib Razak”.

Today after getting connected again and having read most of the political news, I wonder what the PM meant by “I can deliver”. By just giving a salesman type of answer “I can deliver” means nothing if the whole system of manufacturing the product is not working in sync.

Way back in the late 90’s when I was in the US, I applied for a delivery job in a restaurant. The boss asked me one question ‘can you deliver?’ and of course my answer was ‘I can deliver’. He started laughing and told me that he had fired six delivery men within six months, all answering the same question with ‘I can deliver’. I asked what went wrong.

The boss than explained, either the car broke down frequently, not able to read the road map, poor working relationship with co-workers or flirting around. I then assured the boss that these will not be my problems and to try me out for a month. Since the restaurant was in urgent need of a delivery man I was employed.

Within two months I was named the fastest delivery man in town and of course the boss was laughing all the way to the bank because I can make so many deliveries for him each day. What the people wanted when they order delivery were the food arrive in time and still in warm and tasty condition. I seldom cross the speed limit and never got caught for any traffic offences. There were complaints to the boss that I deliver too fast, no joke. So, how did I successfully make the delivery? Here is how.

Within two weeks of employment I changed my old broken down Fort Escort for a brand new Nissan Sentra. Inside the kitchen there were the Chinese (China) chef, Indonesian helpers (preparing the raw ingredients), Americans taking the phone orders and packaging. I work very closely with them all. Once orders were taken, the American will let me know the addresses (I always reminded the Americans to make sure the addresses are always correct) and I will study the map and find the locations. Next I will work with the chef to speed up on the delivery orders. The American will follow the list that I provided that highlights which address I will deliver first and packed them accordingly to the routes that I will be driving.

You can deliver successfully only when the whole system is functioning properly. Najib Razak alone cannot make any delivery if he fails to clean up the whole system that runs the government. The whole system is rotten to the core. Even his own DPM is not working or talking in sync with his policies, how can the PM than make any delivery. Sending his cybertroppers to attack oppositions with unsubstantiated claim of wrong doings, sexual misconduct and created lies upon lies do not help either.

Giving out goodies only near election time is no delivery but an insult to the voters. Playing cool on the outside but cold inside that calls for “crushed bodies and lost lives” ain’t delivery. Flip flopping and making u-turns after policy statements cannot count as delivery. Copying from others and treated as yours are not delivery.

Without making changes to the judiciary, PDRM, MACC, EC, laws that hinder democracy and race and religious relationships and appoints suitable, qualified and capable candidates to important Minister posts such as finance and education I can bet that Najib can only deliver zero.

Today PM Najib has given us a very good advise, “don’t be afraid to take risks”, so what are you all waiting, grumbling or indecisive about. BN is Umno that has been in power for over five decades and we have seen and heard how bad they are and yet we keep voting them in because we dare not take the risks. With Najib’s advise we can now take the risks to CHANGE the bad and filthy Umno government. Go for it, believe me, this risk is worth taking.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 31 October 2011, 6:33 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Ignore your VC, or, the death of our academia

Mohamad Tajuddin Mohd Rasdi | 12:43PM Oct 29, 2011

Malaysiakini

Ever since my firstborn showed an interest to be an academic like me, I began thinking of writing a book about being a good and responsible academic who contributes meaningfully to society and, in turn, gets the rewards of satisfaction in life through the blessings of Allah and the material gains that comes with it.

The one single message I wanted to impart to her and to all my PhD and Masters candidates who aspire to be academics is simple: don’t listen to the vice chancellor (VC), just focus on what your conscience leads your academic area towards and to contribute meaningfully to advancing a better quality of life to your immediate community, nation and, perhaps, the world (in that order).

At first, I meant no disrespect to the VCs of public universities as the book was meant to tell the young academics that “hey you are supposed to be the expert in your own particular and specific fields, why the heck do you need the head of department, the dean or the VC to tell you what to write, what to publish, where to go and who to be your mentor!”.

You should decide where or with whom you wish to set up a research centre or when you wish to leave your present university and go off to another one that you see fit to advance your academic and scholarly agenda. Simple.

The undergraduate or post graduate students do not care two cents who the VC of a university is …they want to study with you, the expert and leading figure in the country in your specific area. I thought that was pretty obvious.

But apparently, young academics coming home from overseas with their PhD degrees become overwhelmed – not by enthusiasm of teaching, writing and researching, but by clearly dictated and computerised KPI’s that list difficult journals to be published.

Furthermore, there are so many QA formats, accreditaion formats and God knows what else that syphon off valuable quality time to reflect and philosophise about where we as a people should be as a matured nation. The departmental and faculty meetings at UTM for 24 years have dwelled with teaching subjects, students problems and hardly ever propose any discourse of national importance.

It always starts with, “the dean wants this” or “the VC wants that… and they wanted it yesterday”. So the heads of departments are nothing more than nursemaids to push lecturers to teach and the dean is the mother hen to make sure that the VC’s orders are carried out to the letter.

I, being a lowly lecturer, then senior lecturer, then associate professor and finally a professor grade C knows nothing of what the VC does. If the VC comes once a year to the faculty, that is when I see him (although, to be fair, the present UTM VC makes himself available every single month to see the ‘people’).

Then it dawned on me that the VC’s of public universities have never inspired young academics with the ideals of knowledge that I subcribe to. Their line has always been something like…make the university proud…don’t you dare embarass the university, don’t forget to publish in journals and more journals….earn and get those million ringgit grant… and of course the favourite line of all…get noticed by the ministers or prime minister!

That’s about it. Aside from the present VC of UTM, I have never seen any UTM VC inspiring academics to promote exchange of ideas and discourses throughout my 24 years. At UTM, there are no inter-faculty discourses that I know off. Whatever public lectures held seems to border on an over sophisticated and jargonised lecture about this micro thingy or that chemical formulae.

Our academics, apparently, do not know how to talk public lingo. Why? It is not an important KPI. This is a strange attitude because what I know of our international visiting professors, those mat salleh academics,  have books that speak to the public and their CV is filled with a lot of public lectures. It is clear what their role in society is wheteher in their country or in the world.

Our academics? Well, just scan through the newspapers and see how many are willing to volunteer opinions, write columns and even grant interviews to help the nation understand the implications of their oh so sophisticated areas. One dean of engineering actually mocked me when I ask about explaining things to the public by saying, “Ala, prof your area in architecture boleh lah you explain, tapi kita orang punya banyak mathematics, for the lay public to understand.”

I just stayed silent but thought to myself if the PM wants to give you RM20 million for your centre I am sure you will find an easy way to explain to the ‘layman’ PM … I’ll bet! On another occassion, a deputy VC also said almost the same thing but this time about making time to write in the mass media or the press.

She said, “Tak ada time-lah nak tulis kat newspaper…lagipun the public only wants to read about jin or tahyul you know… and they have no capacity to understand our fields”. Such attitude is much prevalent in the Malaysian academia I think by virtue of such a person being appointed to that position.

There was also a professor who wanted to strike out the 5 percent allotment of writing to the newspapers as he sees it a totally populist and an unworthy criterion for professorship. I quickly put a different viewpoint. That fellow was appointed to a deputy VC post a few years later.

Lastly, I still remember a time when my colleague professor and I explained to the VC a project to help high school students appreciate electronics engineering. The VC listened and pronounced the project a “third priority”. I interjected by saying that I thought the project should be a “first priority” as we are investing in our future generations to become what the West is now.

It was thus that I explained to my daughters and my post graduate students that the VC knows next to nothing about our specialised areas. For instance, my field of mosque architecture requires me to engage in workshop after workshop attended by mosque committee members about how to make the mosque as a community place for Muslims and also accept visits by non-Muslims in order to project the true nature of Islam from the sunnah.

My field does not require me to get those multi million ringgit grants. I operate quietly well on a zero grant to publish hundreds of papers, articles, over 30 books and supervise more than 20 post graduates. Zero grants. I set up two research centers without any grant or minister’s help and these two are operating well.

The secret? I just went and did it. If I had told the university they would probably say something like ‘oh that is a small private university, or that is not on par with us’ kind of answer. The public universities in Malaysia love glamour and especially basking in the sweet shadows of the political or royal elites.

So I  just let the VC play their game and go on my merry way to do the stuff I think is absolutely necessary to further my field of islamic architecture, mosque and community development and housing for multicultural communities. Now my house in Kajang is becoming the modern madrasah for me to give free lectures to aspiring academics and post graduate students as well as a think tank centre to further my academic agendas without any beauracratic hindrance. Much of my speechess are now transcribed or posted on Youtube for public access by students who are internet savvy. (I only know how to turn on the computer).

In a nutshell, the title of the book ‘Don’t Listen to Your VC’ has gone from simply focusing on youself as an academic without waiting for guidance from DOD, dean or VC, to a situatuion where I see the VC of public universities straying away from the idea of knowledge and community development.

The VCs seem to favour the idea of rankings and ‘world class stature’ without fully understanding the foundation that makes a society truly civilised. To me there is no point being published in a ‘world class’ journal but your neighbour can’t understand anything about the importance of your field in this country.

Professor Shamsul Amri Baharuddin of UKM once told me that whenever he interviews candidates for professorship he would ask, “Well Sir/Madam how can your academic field be relevant to a little old fisherman in the coastal areas of Kelantan?” If he or she could answer that, I would reccommed his or her professorship.

I have the same feeling as that seasoned professor. I often feel a special sense of pride when the many mosque competitions for students and practitioners resulted in creative solutions, such as mosques without domes and compositions of a community centre, which perhaps in a small way was my contribution of sort.

Now, with recent events, the title of my proposed book ‘Don’t Listen to your VC’ has taken a new meaning. With the action of the UIA VC on their law professor Aziz Bari, I think the last nail in the academia’s coffin has been placed.

Not only does this reflects the notion that most VC’s no longer possess or subscribe the traditional views of knowledge and social responsibility, one VC is now the killer of academic freedom. I thank all the VC’s of UTM who had kept silent about my writings to express my ideas.

Until this day I do not have an iota of conception whether they agree or disagree with my statements in the media but I am eternally grateful that they had kept silent and never served me a show cause letter (though I had waited for those letters to come with much apprehension).

Academics like me fully understand the implications of the AUKU or University and University Colleges Act. Now we perhaps have to deal with a ‘newer’ act not yet passed by ParIiament that I dub the EASA (the Ezam Academic Sedition Act).

It is too much to ask a VC to support his or her academic staff talking about their own fields, it is another to sit silent. But to actually become a vehicle of academic assassination…well it is time for people like Aziz Bari and me to say adieu to public universities of Malaysia perhaps.

There is no place for people like us, I suppose, in Malaysian public universities. I am seeking my optional retirement come this January and I look now to private universities in Malaysia or overseas universities (in my opinion Indonesia has the potential to grow intellectually as they have the proper political framework after the ousting of Suharto) to lay the foundation of a new academic culture.

Since I have no clue to any political intervention in the case of Aziz Bari, I am forced to conclude that the apathy of VCs of public universities in Malaysia over the past twenty years concerning the role of knowledge in society, has naturally peaked at the scenario of this case with the forceful demise of academic freedom.

In summary, my proposed book entitled ‘Don’t listen to your VC’ is not a tirade or a condemnation of the office of the vice chancellor of public universities in Malaysia. It is about inspiring young academics to chart their path towards a meaningful career by engaging them on subjects of how to publish books, get on mainstream media, penetrate ministries or organisations, set up centres, find the best post-graduate students, look for a good mentor and many, many more tips that I have learnt across 24 years of academic life.

There is only one section in a chapter on academic leadership where I would take to task the vice chancellors who are irresponsible and who have forgotten the honourable creed of academia; that knowledge is for the development of all, not just the few. I have no time to spend deliberating on vice chancellors and they do not figure in anywhere in my grand scheme of pushing the discourse of Islamic and community architecture in Malaysia and in the Islamic World.

Don’t get me wrong. There have been two or three excellent VCs in Malaysia that I have seen in my 24-year career and I appreciate the work done by these people in general. It is not an easy thing to be in charge of thousands of self opinionated academics who think that they are right and everyone else is wrong! Not an easy task indeed.

But the true worth of the VC is simply to aid and support those idealistic and hard working academics and provide the maximum leeway for their efforts. The best VCs are either great visionaries or simply great supporters of visionariy academics.

Finally, of course I know about the context of political coercion in Malaysia’s academia but that is not an excuse for academics who wear the title of deans and vice chancellors to destroy academic freedom.

If we ‘tak tahan’ (cannot take) the political pressure, we can always tender our resignation as deans, and vice chancellors. But we can never resign from being a scholar. We are academics… scholars… ulama. Upon us lies the fate of the nation we live in to set the path to enlightenment.

We have no armies, no police, no money and no support staff to light the path to a glorious civilised nation. We have only our words, our zeal and our creative ways of explanation. And we also have our conscience, that what we teach or prevent others from teaching will be accountable in this world and the next.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 31 October 2011, 6:22 pm and is filed under
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #87

By
M. Bakri Musa

Chapter 10: Freedom, Justice, and the Law

Personal Liberty in Malaysia –

              Chilling Effects of Repressive Laws like ISA

An editor of a Malaysian professional publication invited me to be its regular contributor. I readily agreed, and aware of the local psyche and ambiance, purposely submitted a rather bland first piece. He readily published it but chided me for being too cautious as Malaysia “has changed” since I left the country. Encouraged, my next piece was more critical, and sure enough, his earlier encouragement notwithstanding, he sheepishly told me that his board had vetoed my submission! Thus ended my brief career as a columnist for that outfit! I later submitted the same piece to a mainstream paper (owned by the ruling party) and much to my surprise, it was published unchanged. I later sent the editor of the first publication the published copy; he felt rather small. The truth was, the mainstream paper had a new editor and I decided to test his professionalism and independence.

            In another episode I submitted sample chapters of my first book (choosing carefully the least critical ones) to an establishment Malaysian publisher. He was enthralled and added that he had published a number of books by members of the ruling elite and that he looked forward to publishing mine as it would be a pleasant departure from the usual staple. But when I submitted my entire manuscript which contains chapters much more critical, he demurred. Receiving publishers’ rejection letters is not a novel phenomenon with me, but what startled me was his apologia. He complimented me ad nauseam, for being “brave” and “forthright,” but he was afraid of the backlash as he did considerable amount of business with the government. I also approached other Malaysian publishers and printers, but the refrain was always the same. They had too much business with the government and its myriad companies to risk publishing my book. It would have been better if they had simply told me that my book was not up to their standard. Or perhaps that was their soft Asian way to “save face” and spare me any embarrassment! My book was finally published in America and again, thanks to the Internet and globalization, my publisher had no difficulty marketing it not only in Malaysia but also worldwide. Had I used a Malaysian publisher, my book would not have had global exposure.

            I relate these incidents to illustrate the chilling effects of these intrusive rules and restrictive regulations. People exercise self-censorship and excessive caution for fear of official reprisal. Instead of expanding the envelope they stick to the tried-and-true. But progress depends on citizens daring to explore the edges and beyond.

            These restrictive laws also foster the kind of behavior that is crudely referred to as “sucking up.” This is an absolute anathema to progress. Subordinates and citizens would then choose a decision or path of action that they think would please those in power. The results can be disastrous as exemplified by the following recent examples.

            It is an open secret that Malays are preferentially admitted to local universities while non-Malays with comparable or even far superior grades are routinely rejected. None deny this racist practice and indeed many in the senior levels of the establishment go to great length and contorted logic to justify what is clearly an unacceptable practice. But because there was no public outcry and more significantly, lack of open denunciation by the leaders, the practice persisted and indeed spread.

            In late 2001 it was revealed that such obnoxious practices are also being done at the primary school level. That is, students are academically streamed based on their race even at such a tender age. When it was first revealed, the education minister denied, but later in the face of more evidence, he admitted it occurred but was an isolated incident and thus not worthy of his attention. But when the teachers’ union exposed that it was indeed a rampant practice, the minister went through great hoops to justify it! Taking their cue from the minister, bureaucrats began repeating the same mantra – “in the national interest” – to justify their actions. Only when the prime minister and his deputy condemned the practice did everyone realize how institutionalized racism is in the education ministry specifically, and the government generally. This sordid affair occurred because those underlings thought they were doing what their leaders wanted them to do. “Sucking up to the powerful” wrapped as the “national policy.”

            To be fair, the minister did finally convene a committee of outside educators to examine the allegations. Chaired by a retired academic, the committee refuted the charges, claiming that there was no intent to discriminate. A further controversy ensued following the release of that report, as the committee made public only an executive summary, not its methodology and full findings.

            That primary school debacle came in the heels of another major scandal, this one at the other polar end of the education spectrum involving the Certificate for Law Practice (CLP) examination. The CLP is required of all law graduates of private colleges; those from public law schools are exempted. To appreciate the unfolding drama, one has to understand the political background. Public law faculties in Malaysia, “in the national interest” are the near exclusive preserve of Bumiputras, while the private ones cater to non-Bumiputras. One does not have to be particularly astute to sense the poisonous race potential of the CLP mess.

            It started out rather routinely: the tests’ questions were leaked. The results of the investigations were also routinely Malaysian: some minor clerks were arrested. But from there things unraveled very quickly. It turned out that such leaks had been going on for years! But the greatest bombshell was that the released scores were not the same as what the candidates had earned from their examiners.

            The scores had been tampered, and that this too had been standard practice for years. This brought forth an outpouring of outrage from many, including Law Minister Rais Yatim. The upshot was that the director was suspended. No further details were forthcoming; the man chose to keep quiet.

            In the flurry of letters to Malaysiakini (the mainstream media saw fit not to cover the issue extensively), it was revealed that the director was a former associate dean of MARA law school (a public and exclusively Malay institution) and he was chosen at a time when those MARA law students had to sit for the CLP. And they were not doing too well; thus the insidious practice probably began then. Today those MARA students do not need to sit for the CLP, but old habits die hard. When the truth finally emerges I am sure that the misguided soul thought that what he was doing, tampering with the CLP, was also “in the national interest.” To imagine that hundreds of Malay would-be lawyers at MARA were under his tutelage boggles the imagination!

            Malaysia’s many restrictive laws have another more corrosive effect on society. They discourage healthy public debates on important issues. Indeed certain topics are deemed “sensitive” and beyond the pale of discussion. The leaders have decided, in their wisdom, no further new inquiry or insights are needed on such important issues. They are deemed settled. No more discussion!

            This mindset reminds me of the mentality of Muslim scholars and leaders of the 10th Century when they decided that everything were deemed settled in Islam and that no new inquiries were needed. Today, Malaysians too have their own secular or political “closure of the gate of Ijtihad (rational discourse).” The effect on the nation of this stricture will be equally destructive.

            The issues deemed sensitive include among others, the Malay language, special privileges, and the status of the sultans. With time the list will surely expand. Anyone breaching such prohibitions is subject to the dreaded ISA or the equally feared Sedition Act. Many scholars, politicians, and writers have met this fate. Even more startling, such gross violations of the basic rights of the citizens evoke minimal or no outrage from the general public.

            Malaysian leaders view public discourses as dangerous. The ghost of the 1969 savage race riot still haunts them. They still view Malaysians a generation later as being dumb and easily swayed by emotional and chauvinistic exhortations of opportunistic politicians. Unfortunately today many Malaysians, especially Malays, still demonstrate this juvenile tendency. The 1998 ugly demonstrations over the firing of former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim merely confirmed the worse suspicion of leaders like Mahathir that Malaysians cannot act rationally or discuss their differences in a civil manner.

            This leads to a “Catch 22” situation. Unless Malaysians are trained or encouraged to have healthy public discussions, they will never learn to tolerate dissenting opinions and have civil disagreements. Learning to disagree agreeably is an art, and Malaysians must be trained and prepared for this difficult skill.

            Foreign visitors to America are always impressed with and surprised at how civil American political leaders are toward each other. In the Senate, a flaming left wing liberal like Edward Kennedy could cosponsor legislative bills with an archconservative right wing Orrin Hatch. The two may view the world very differently; nonetheless they can still work together for the good of the nation. Indeed the two actually admire and hold each other in high personal regard. While they may profoundly disagree with each other politically, their private and public exchanges have always been civil and decorous. No resorting to name calling.

            The Republican and very conservative President Reagan used to invite Tip O’Neill, the very liberal Democrat Speaker of the House of Representatives, to the White House especially after some particularly contentious congressional debates for an evening of drinks and cigar smoking. Such amiable personal gestures go a long way. More significantly, such very public displays of civility are not lost on the general populace. This of course has not always been the case in America. There was time when there had been actual open brawls and gun duels in Congress.

            Malaysia during Tunku’s time was remarkable for the personal amiability and personal rapport among its various leaders. The Tunku made it a habit after the opening of parliament for example, of having a social get together at his residence for all members of parliament so they could get to know each other socially and outside the usual context of party politics. The aristocratic and worldly Tunku had very warm personal relationships with the socialist Tan Chee Koon as well as the leaders of PAS. It is to be noted that while Tunku was in his personal behaviors less than a pious Muslim (he admitted as much in his personal writings), nonetheless none of PAS leaders ever called him a kafir. Today PAS leaders callously labeled Mahathir as “Mahafiraun” (evil Pharaoh) and other epithets. PAS followers of course take their cue from their leaders. Mahathir too is equal to the task in return, calling PAS leaders and followers simpletons and backward.

            As the result of this coarsening of public discourse, Malaysians have difficulty tolerating differences of opinions among themselves. This is particularly true among Malays. Malays cannot seem to disagree with each other either in political or religious views without imputing ugly motives. This state of affairs will continue as long as Malaysians are denied the opportunities to express their disagreements in the appropriate channels without fear. This trend, uncorrected, will only lead to further polarization and division.

            Perversely, the nation’s leaders implicitly encourage this. They would prefer that the citizens be docile and passive followers and leave the decision making to the leaders. The assumption is that they and only they have the exclusive wisdom as to what is good for the country. This is definitely not a recipe for progress.

            It is a tribute to the bravery and ingenuity of Malaysians that despite such intrusive and highly restrictive rules, they still manage to express themselves and circumvent those barriers. The government and the ruling party may control the mainstream media, so committed citizens created their own news outlets. When the government denied Harakah, the daily publication of PAS, from expanding because it was attracting an increasing number of readers, its publishers turned to the Internet.

            Similarly, Steven Gans together with other committed and independent-minded journalists, fed up with the self-censorship of their editors at the traditional papers, started the Internet daily, Malaysiakini.com to provide an alternative to the government-controlled media. It is a reflection of the hunger Malaysians have for reliable and trustworthy news that within a year, Malaysiakini was getting more daily hits than the established papers. Malaysiakini’s success is also an indicator of the citizens’ distrust of the mainstream media. Indeed newspapers controlled by the ruling parties saw their circulation substantially reduced. In addition to providing an independent source of news, Malaysiakini is also performing a vital public service by providing an avenue for such refreshing new writers as Amir Muhammad and Hishamuddin Rais. Amir was a regular contributor to the establishment newspapers, until his editors mangled his essays beyond recognition.

            Another brave soul deserving much praise is the political writer Syed Hussein Alattas, or Pak Habib, as his myriad readers and fans know him. When established publishers would not touch his books, he started his own publishing company. He has, in his words, “written more books than the average Malaysian professor has ever read!” His power and influence is such that former Deputy Prime Minister Musa Hitam blamed (credited?) him for his (Musa’s) fall from power. When Pak Habib writes, observes Asiaweek’s Roger Mitton, Malaysian politicians tremble.

            I cannot help imagining how many more writers and talents out there that are being suppressed by Malaysia’s many oppressive rules. The flowering of arts and literature in the West is precisely because of the freedom their citizens enjoy. Malaysia will never see a similar renaissance if its citizens are kept on a very tight leash.

Next:   The Judiciary: Justice in Jeopardy

                This entry was posted on Monday, 31 October 2011, 10:49 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
ISA
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Meminta Kerajaan menyiasat tuduhan rasuah terhadap Peguam Negara dan mengapa laporan Ketua Audit Negara 2010 tidak dibentangkan di Parlimen walaupun Bajet 2012 telah dibentangkan

Yang Berhomat Ipoh Timur meminta Kerajaan menyiasat tuduhan rasuah terhadap Peguam Negara yang dilemparkan oleh bekas Ketua CID Kuala Lumpur, Dato’ Mat Zain Ibrahim yang dibuat melalui surat terbuka.

Jawapan Bertulis YB Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri Bin Abdul Aziz, Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri semasa Menggulung Perbahasan Bajet 2012 (Peringkat Dasar) di Dewan Rakyat pada 24 Oktober 2011

Untuk makluman Yang Berhormat, perkara ini telah pun diperjelaskan oleh saya pada 14 Disember 2010 di Dewan Yang Mulia ini.

Ahli Panel Bebas yang terdiri daripada Datuk Abdul Kadir Sulaiman dan Datuk Wira Mohd. Noor Ahmad, mantan Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan dan Datuk Mohd. Noor Abdullah, mantan Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan mendapati tiada kes ke atas Peguam Negara dengan majority 2-1.

*****

Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh, Yang Berhormat Ipoh Timur, Yang Berhormat Kuala Kedah, Yang Berhormat Rantau Panjang dan Yang Berhormat Pokok Sena ingin mengetahui kenapa laporan Ketua Audit Negara 2010 belum dibentangkan di Parlimen walaupun Bajet 2012 telah dibentangkan.

Jawapan Bertulis YB Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri Bin Abdul Aziz, Menteri
di Jabatan Perdana Menteri semasa Menggulung Perbahasan Bajet 2012 (Peringkat Dasar) di Dewan Rakyat pada 24 Oktober 2011

Untuk makluman Yang Berhormat, tidak ada peraturan yang menetapkan Laporan Ketua Audit Negara perlu dibentang pada hari yang sama dengan pembentangan bajet. Sejak tahun 2010, Laporan Ketua Audit Negara tidak dibentangkan pada hari yang sama dengan pembentangan Bajet bagi membolehkan kedua-dua perkara mendapat liputan yang saksama untuk semua pihak. Laporan Ketua Audit Negara bagi tahu 2010 telah dibentangkan di Dewan Yang Mulia pada hari ini bersekali dengan laporan maklum balas yang disediakan oleh Perbendaharaan Malaysia.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 31 October 2011, 4:07 pm and is filed under
Auditor-General Report
,
Corruption
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Of Muslim bigots and Malay zealots

Ahmad Farouk Musa | Oct 24, 2011

Malaysiakini

After much hype, the Himpun gathering at Shah Alam Stadium on Saturday was a non-event.  The dismal attendance of roughly 5,000 hankering souls was a total letdown from the expected one million.

Despite the claim that Himpun was a success by the organisers, it was clear that it was more of a self-reassurance. Himpun failed miserably in their effort to instigate thinking Muslims into supporting their crusade.

Their assertion that it was an awareness campaign was very difficult to swallow. The mainstream media, especially Utusan Malaysia, had been harping on this issue for weeks. It must have been a real disappointment that despite the good weather, the incessant stimulation had failed to result in the expected turnout.

Slogans

One of the more conspicuous banners during the event reads: ‘Melayu Sepakat, Islam Berdaulat’ (‘When Malays unite, Islam becomes sovereign’).

For many Islamic workers, this slogan does not sound unfamiliar. It belongs to an Islamic movement that claims to be the “true” representative of ‘al-Ikhwan al-Muslimoon’ – the Muslim Brotherhood; Isma or Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia.

One is left to wonder whether their unabating claim of being the only movement that truly follows the methodology of da’wah (propogation) of the Muslim Brotherhood is truly well-founded. It may not be presumptuous for anyone who reads articles on their website to make a conclusion of how bigoted they are.

Speakers

As expected, a former leader of Abim – the Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia, Yusri Mohamad, was the first speaker during the gathering. This is not surprising since he was the “war general” during the Lina Joy issue and is currently the president of Pembela – a loose coalition of Muslim organisations in defence of Islam.

Yusri claimed that there is no greater infringement of human rights other than apostasy.

Most notable among the subsequent speakers were the Perak Mufti, Harussani Zakaria, and Himpun co-chairperson Azmi Abdul Hamid.

Harussani claimed that the Malays are the most special race in the world as all Malays are “bound to Islam in the constitution”.

Meanwhile, Azmi defended the right of Himpun to hold a gathering. It was a democratic right enshrined in the constitution, he said.

He also read out the 10 Himpun resolutions that include demands for an Anti-Apostasy and Proselytisation Act. And this will be the main focus of our discussion.

Anti-Apostasy and Proselytisation Act

We have seen so far the collusion between the Islamist camps and the nationalists in promoting their main agenda in defending the faith.

Both camps agreed on one fundamental issue that faith is an issue that falls under the domain of the state. Hence their call for the state to intervene by enacting an Act that would prevent Muslims from leaving the faith and non-Muslims from propagating their faith among Muslims.

It is inexplicable that a great religion such as Islam requires such an Act to protect its believers from abandoning it.

A religion that has survived throughout all the different ages from its inception suddenly needs a protective Act to ensure its survival? Has Islam, a religion that always speaks to reason, turned to become authoritarian in nature? Has it become so outdated that it is unable to face the challenges of modernity that knows no boundary that it requires such an Act to protect it? Why do Muslims have to live in this siege mentality, a defensive and paranoid attitude that others are hostile towards them?

Freedom of Conscience

One of the most celebrated features about Islam is that it honours freedom of conscience. And the most oft-quoted verse is: “There shall not be any coercion in matters of faith” [2:256]

This verse is one of the many other verses that affirm the principle of free choice in matter of personal belief.

Many quarters among the adherents of the faith, scholars not excluded; have an interpretation that the verse only means that non-believers should not be coerced into the religion. However once the faith is professed, there is no way out.

Similarly a person, who is born a Muslim, must profess the faith, despite it being contrary to the entire percept of freedom of conscience.

Suffice to say that the Qur’an is replete with evidence apart from the quoted verse above that depict human as a free agent empowered to make his or her own free choice. The argument that once someone is a Muslim, then he or she must remain a Muslim forever is nothing but a fallacy.

Such an argument does not render the true message of freedom of belief. Since Islam etymologically means to attain inner peace through willing and voluntary submission to God, it becomes inconceivable in attaining that peace if someone is coerced to become a Muslim or to remain so against his free will.

Such an argument no matter under what excuse and justification is inconsistent with the main tenet of the Qur’an. It is against the incontrovertible verses in the Qur’an that upholds freedom of conscience that is above all an inner feeling of acceptance and conviction.

State interference

Another main evidence that is often cited as a basis for state interference in matters of faith is the act of Abu Bakr, the first caliph after the Prophet in waging war against Musailamah ‘al-Kazzab’, (‘Musailamah The Liar’) who claimed prophethood after the death of the Prophet.

The defenders of faith believed that this is indisputable evidence that the state has the authority to intervene when it involves believers leaving the faith.

As said before, faith is a personal conviction. The state has no authority to interfere in one’s choice of faith. One is answerable to God for the decision he or she makes in her life.

One can never find a single verse in the Qur’an that forbids a person to embrace or leave a faith he or she does not believe in. A state has a responsibility to monitor any forces that might seek to deny people of their freedom of belief, either embracing or leaving the religion.

The state can only interfere if an act of apostasy is associated with evidence of treason and sedition, since they are state matters.

Hence the action of Abu Bakr, the first caliph, was made in his capacity as a leader of a state who views the act of apostasy as an act of treason and aggression against the state. In Islamic terminology, this is known as ‘siyasah syar’iyyah’ – syari’ah-based political decisions – and implies that decisions and policies can be taken by a leader on matters for which no specific ruling could be found in the syari’ah.

Siyasah syar’iyyah is tantamount to acting on maslahah, or public interest, which the lawgiver has neither upheld nor over-ruled.

Rachid Ghanoushi, a Tunisian Islamist, founder and former exiled leader of Hizb an-Nahdah  – the Renaissance Party – held the opinion that ‘riddah’ – turning away from religion, or apostasy – which was the first challenge faced by Abu Bakr, was more of a military insurrection than an act of apostasy from religion.

Meaning to say that Ghannoushi viewed ‘riddah’ as an act of treason and aggression towards the state and not simply an act of apostasy or turning away from religion.

Community of hypocrites

As a concluding remark, it is pertinent to emphasise that freedom of belief operates as a safeguard against any sort of oppression from a superior source of power.

The much-touted Anti-Apostasy and Proselytisation Act is not only against the spirit of the Qur’an in ensuring freedom of conscience and freedom of belief, but instead promotes the emergence of a community of hypocrites or ‘munafiqeen’.

This is the ultimate outcome when a state started enforcing its power in preventing Muslims from leaving the faith they do not believe in any more.

Name it ‘amar ma’ruf nahi munkar’ – enjoining good, forbidding evil – or whatever Islamic concepts, the only effect is that it will only depict Islam as an intolerant religion that weighs on power and authority instead of a religion that speaks to reason.

——————————————————————————–

AHMAD FAROUK MUSA was trained as a cardiothoracic surgeon. He is an academic at Monash University and chairman of the Islamic Renaissance Front, an intellectual movement that focuses on youth empowerment.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 31 October 2011, 12:27 am and is filed under
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.