A nation of failed economic development plans

Malaysiakini

AB Sulaiman

Sep 20, 10

COMMENT

The world can be a nasty place especially in terms of planning, where your best and well intentioned plans can produce the worst unintended results. The country’s numerous development plans is a perfect example of this.

Since Independence we have always strived to be a country with strong social, economic and political credentials: a strong healthy and united people, public safety and security, great infrastructure, mature democracy, clean human rights record, good education system, governed under rule of law, and of course, a justice-minded judiciary.

To top them all off we are to enjoy a per capita income equal to the peoples in advanced economies. We wish to be an advanced country in our own right.

The current realities are anything but. The people are fragmented while some are migrating to friendlier lands, our infrastructure while adequate is wasteful, our democracy is an ugly disguise for authoritarianism, our education system produces non-thinking graduates, the rule of law has become the rule by law, and the judiciary is an international laughing stock.

The latest world indices would confirm this. There are many but I’d mention just two. First, the 2009 figures for FDI showing an 81 percent fall from US$7.32 billion to US$1.38 billion. At this paltry level we now have joined investment-unattractive countries like Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos and Timor–Leste.

Not only that, apparently the FDI into Thailand and Indonesia have overtaken that coming into Malaysia, once the darling of international investors.

Two, as for per capita income we are at about US$7,000 while the advanced countries we wish to join are at US$30,000 and above. We are less than a quarter of the way to our self-proclaimed goal.

On looking back, we started well in the arena of economic development, but somewhere along the line we faltered and very badly.

Faltered from the start

I reckon we faltered beginning 1970 when we introduced the New Economic Policy (NEP). This was when we began propounding and experimenting economic development plans beyond the parameters of sound economic principles.

Specifically we made plans and projections not in the interest of the country, but in the interest of a segment of the population, namely the Malays.

Now this might be an explosive statement to make so I have to make my stand clear.

The fact of the matter is that the factors of production in an economic set-up are land, labour, capital, entrepreneurship, and in an increasingly knowledge-based world economy, on the ability to access and utilise knowledge. I ‘borrow’ these factors as principles for economic development.

For an economy to expand therefore, all scarce resources must be optimally channelled for the development of these principles.

I’d reiterate: develop land, inject capital optimally for investment, encourage entrepreneurship, enhance the level of knowledge through smart education. Only then can the economy expand and achieve sustainability.

This last element of sustainability is important – the developing economy must reach a level when it can sustain or regenerate itself without anymore support from any planning agency.

Anything less than this and we can see an economy not going anywhere, and could in fact regress, like our current situation. Lim Kit Siang sums it well – the economy would be a ‘work in regress’.

What has gone wrong with our string of development plans? In my view there are several, and I mention them here despite being aware that many commentators have mentioned them constantly. Perhaps there can be some wisdom in saying the same things again, hoping somewhere along the line the decision makers can begin to listen.

Several hundred billion USD wasted

First, after 1970 we seem to divert the elementary formula for economic development mentioned above, into some non-optimal channels resulting in massive wastage. Our planners channelled land development mainly to the Malays. We made development plans for sectarian, not for national interests.

In this way the Malays gain comparatively easy access to scarce capital they cannot fruitfully use because of their lack in entrepreneurial skill and spirit. Their lack in education and knowledge have rendered their productivity level below that of their non-Malay counterparts.

I am aware of course that this resource misallocation was for a special reason and thereby meant to be implemented only for twenty years. But when this time was up the authorities would merely forget this proviso.

As events turn out, such allocations have proven to be below optimum level; even wasteful of scarce resources. External observers have noted that the NEP wasted several hundred billion US dollars!

Favouring race over economics

When the leaders saw that the Malays could not cope and the non-Malays restive they use race and religion to both spur the Malay on and to push away any non-Malay disgruntlement. In other words the leaders dismissed the traditional economic factors of national asset creation in favour of Malay racism and cultural hegemony under the banner of Ketuanan Melayu; and of Islam.

I might be out of academics but I have never known racism and religion to substitute economic factors in any country’s asset creation efforts. Surely the planners have not forgotten that this new formula was experimental in nature and to last only for twenty years.

In any case, here we see the early unintended results of the NEP. On the part of the Malays we see a community of people developing a false sense of confidence that they have progressed ahead on the platform of race and religion; whereas in actuality they have not.

On the part of the non-Malays they see the wastefulness of the country’s allocation of scarce resources in the interest of racism and religion as the sure way towards non-sustainability and regression.

And yet the authorities would prevent the citizens to even debate the issue.

No post mortem conducted

Come 1990 and the NEP report card had shown the recklessness of this development programme. Malay achievements were nowhere in sight.

Would there be some form of post-mortem analysis to see the good and bad points? To see whether the country should progress ahead in the same race-and-religion principles?

There has been no such effort, not to my knowledge anyway. It has been more of the same: more racism, more religion. And here we see the continuation of a string of failed development programmes.

Dr Mahathir Mohamad (left) announced the Vision 2020 stating that the country would join advanced nations by this magical year. It was well-intended perhaps, but with the economic principles remaining unchanged, that is in favour not of the country but of the Malays, the country began its slide downwards.

When Abdullah Ahmad Badawi took the reins of power, many people had thought that he might just do the right thing to put the country back on the right track again. But he used religious motives (remember Islam Hadhari) to lead the people forward – there was no change there either.

Now we have Najib Razak leading the nation out of the dangerous zone of falling into the steep precipice of a failed state. He has his own plans of course, and its called 1Malaysia: people first, performance now. Will he make any headway?

I just say this to him for whatever it is worth. Go ahead with your development plans based on the proven factors of production as mentioned severally above.

But do not be distracted by sectarian interests, nor for religious considerations. Go for optimum scarce resource allocation and economic sustainability.

AB SULAIMAN is an observer of human traits and foibles, especially within the context of religion and culture. As a liberal, he marvels at the way orthodoxy fights to maintain its credibility in a devilishly fast-changing world. He hopes to provide some understanding to the issues at hand and wherever possible, suggest some solutions. He holds a Bachelor in Social Sciences (Leicester, UK) and a Diploma in Public Administration, Universiti Malaya.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 20 September 2010, 3:37 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Economics
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
,
NEP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Congrats Nazri for being the first in Cabinet to declare he is Malaysian first and race second – Ministers who refuse to make such declaration should be dropped from Cabinet

Congrats to Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz for being the first in Cabinet to declare that he is Malaysian first Malay second in his open letter in reply to Awang Selamat of Utusan Malaysia (The Malaysian Insider).

Why it has taken more than six months since my challenge to Cabinet Ministers  during the debate on the Royal Address in Parliament on March 18, 2010 to declare that they are Malaysian first and race second is really beyond me, as it demonstrates their total lack of support, commitment and political will to make Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s 1Malaysia policy work and suceeed.

I had at the time posed  three simple tests of 1Malaysia to determine whether all the Cabinet Minsiters were  sincerely and seriously committed to Najib’s 1Malaysia, viz:

•	Whether he or she agrees to the establishment of an Opposition-headed Parliamentary Select Committee on 1Malaysia;

•	Is he or she prepared to declare that the basis of 1Malaysia is “ketuanan rakyat Malaysia” and not “ketuanan Melayu”; and

•	Is he or she prepared to endorse the objective of 1Malaysia as defined by the 1Malaysia Government Transformation Programme (GTP) Roadmap to create a nation where every Malaysian perceives himself or herself as Malaysian first, and by race, religion or region second.

This is what I said in Parliament on that day:

“Are Najib, Muhyiddin and all the Umno leaders prepared to stand up and declare that they are Malaysian first and Malay second?

“I declare that I am Malaysian first and Chinese second. Is every Cabinet Minister prepared to make a similar declaration?

“How many Cabinet Ministers, including the DPM, have the 1Malaysia DNA and able to pass these three simple 1Malaysia tests?”

During the debate on the Royal Address  in March this year, I had asked whether the Prime Minister has  got his entire Cabinet, including the Deputy Prime Minister, with him on the same page on what 1Malaysia means.

This was because the utterances and actions of  Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin were most  inimical to the realisation of the 1Malaysia slogan and concept, including:

•	His defense of the racist “brain washing” and indoctrination on “ketuanan Melayu” by Biro Tata Negara despite criticisms and expose of its racist, divisive and seditious content for the past two decades;

•	His attempt to mitigate the Nasir Safar outrage claiming that it could have been “a slip of the tongue” when Najib’s senior political aide labelled Indians and Chinese in Malaysia as “pendatang”, alleging that the Chinese came as beggars and the Chinese women as “prostitutes”; claimed that Umno was solely responsible in drafting the constitution sidelining the contribution of MCA and MIC; and issued the threat to revoke the citizenship of those vocal about the subject cap for SPM examination.

•	His conspicuous silence at the JAKIM (Islamic Development Department of the Prime Minister’s Office) forum at the end of January for 800 civil servants tantamount to an insurrection against Najib’s 1Malaysia concept – with government speakers making inflammatory and incendiary speeches, blaming Christians for provoking Muslim anger by challenging the ban on the use of the word “Allah” and Umno/BN politicians for failing to defend Islam, with one speaker suggesting that a repeat of the May 13 riots was possible if the Christians, whom he accused of practising “extremism” did not “back down”, uttering the threat: “Who knows, there might be a Feb. 13?”

•	His conspicuous silence when the racialist rantings of Umno executive secretary Datuk Abdul Rauf Yusoh at an Umno club function in London earlier this month was exposed; and

•	His hamfisted attempt to aid and abet the inflammatory and incendiary campaign by Umno-controlled media like Utusan Malaysia, Berita Harian, government television and radio stations, playing the race and religious cards to viciously and falsely paint Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng and Pakatan Rakyat Penang State Government as “anti-Malay” and “anti-Islam”.

During my speech in Parliament I posed two  questions point-blank to Muhyiddin: firstly, was  he aware that the Najib administration’s sincerity and seriousness about 1Malaysia was  under great test in Penang because of the  vicious and sustained exploitation of the race and religious card by Umno media and agents in the conspiracy to defame the Penang Chief Minister and Pakatan Rakyat Penang State Government as anti-Malay and anti-Islam?

Secondly, if the people of Penang regarded the 1Malaysia concept as fake and hypocritical, how could he expect the people of Sabah and Sarawak and the rest of Malaysians to have much confidence in the slogan?

I stressed that as  Deputy Prime Minister, Muhyiddin should be in the forefront to secure the co-operation of all MPs and political parties outside the Barisan Nasional fold to make a success of the 1Malaysia campaign, on the ground that it is a national issue and not a party agenda unless the 1Malaysia concept was merely an Umno and Barisan Nasional gimmick.

I had also asked why the Najib Cabinet was full of Ministers who were quite skeptical about the 1Malaysia concept treating it as nothing more than political theatre not to be taken seriously?

I had asked: “Who are the Ministers in the Najib Cabinet who have the 1Malaysia DNA? I do not see anyone. No wonder neither Muhyiddin nor the other Cabinet Ministers comport themselves with any conviction that they are the standard-bearers of the 1Malaysia slogan and concept.”

Muhyiddin subsequently proved my criticisms right when on March 31, he responded to my challenge and declared that he is “Malay first” and then only a Malaysian.

He said: “I am Malay first! But being Malay does not mean you are not Malaysian. It is not a race issue.”

Accusing me of trying to drive a wedge between him and Najib, he said:

“The question of 1 Malaysia should not be brought up. When a leader talks about the interest of his own race, it does not mean he doesn’t support 1 Malaysia. 1Malaysia is based on the Constitution.

“How can I say I’m Malaysian first and Malay second? All the Malays will shun me and say that it is not proper.

“There is nothing wrong in leaders fighting for their own race. Don’t tell me Kit Siang does not fight for the Chinese?”

He even challenged me to declare that I was  Malaysian first and Chinese second, until he was told by reporters that I had already made such a declaration – in Parliament during the debate on the Royal Address on 18th March.

And for six long months, not a single Cabinet Minister dare to declare publicly that he or she is a Malaysian first and race second, until Nazri today!

Although it has taken more than six months for Nazri to break ranks with Muhyiddin for the former to declare that he is Malaysian first and Malay second, in accordance with the objective of Najib’s 1Malaysia policy, it is better late than never.

With the example set by Nazri, all 1Malaysia-minded Ministers, should declare their stand to demonstrate to Malaysians that the 1Malaysia policy is taken seriously by Ministers themselves.

In fact, MCA, MIC, Gerakan and Sabah and Sarawak Ministers should rush to declare themselves to be Malaysian first and race second or be dropped from the Cabinet.

I would suggest that the last one of the four MCA Ministers and seven Deputy Ministers to make such a 1Malaysia declaration should be sacked from the Cabinet!

                This entry was posted on Monday, 20 September 2010, 10:28 am and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Gerakan
,
MCA
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
Najib Razak
,
Sabah
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


National integration with constitutional integrity

—
Azzat Kamaludin

 (
loyarburok.com
)

Malaysian Insider

September 20, 2010

SEPT 20 — Our lives, attitude and outlook are formed by the encounters we experienced. I shall begin my discussion of this subject, by sharing with you two encounters that have so shaped me.

The first occurred after I passed out from the Royal Military College, then known as the Federation Military College. It was a college set up in 1953 by the then British High Commissioner to Malaya, Sir Gerald Templar. Its Charter was and is “Preparing young Malayans (now Malaysians) to take their places as officers in the Armed Forces, in the higher divisions of the Public Services and as leaders in the professional, commercial and industrial life of the country”. It was the second full boarding school to be established in the country.

The first full boarding school established on 2 January 1905 was the Malay College Kuala Kangsar, originally known as the Malay Residential School of Kuala Kangsar, it was conceived by the then Inspector of Schools for the Federated Malay States who in a letter to the Resident-General in February 1904 wrote about “establishing at a suitable locality in the Federated Malay States a residential school for the education of Malays of good family and for the training of Malay boys for admission to certain branches of Government service.”

I joined the Military College in Form 3, three years after Malaya became independent. After a few months of making friends I came to know Malays from Kota Baru, Besut and Kuala Lumpur; Chinese from Penang, Ipoh and Pontian; Indians, Sikhs and other races from Kuala Pilah, Seremban and Muar. Clearly the composition of students had been carefully constituted — there was not only geographical representation but also racial representation. I understood later that a racial quota was employed for admission to reflect the racial composition of the country then.

My two best friends when I left the College were a Chinese and a Sikh boy. As it happened, all three of us had decided to study law. We knew we could not pursue it without assistance from the State. I found that I had no problem whatsoever in obtaining a scholarship for my purpose. But it was not so for my two friends. Although there were scholarships for non-Malays, there was none for law. I tried to help them.

The mentri besar from the State that we all hailed from was married to my father’s sister. I prevailed on my father to take me to see him so that I could appeal to him to award scholarships to my two friends. I explained to the mentri besar that they came from very poor families. The father of my Chinese friend was not working as he was paralysed; the mother had had to take his place as a lawyer’s clerk. The father of my Sikh friend was a watchman; the mother worked at home. I knew the extent of their plight because we visited and stayed in each other’s house during the holidays. In fact I was in better circumstances than my friends as my father was an officer in the State Religious Department and my mother was a primary school teacher. To clinch my case I informed the mentri besar that they were both from Muar which was also his home town.

It was all to no avail. There was not to be any State assistance for them. They had to work and study their way through law school. They duly did; they became successful lawyers. And they have remained to live and be loyal to this country.

The second encounter occurred during my first Hari Raya in England. I went down to London to join in the celebrations. After the morning prayers at the Malayan High Commission, we had the option to join a coach tour to Woking to visit the mosque and the Muslim cemetery located there. The coach was full with students studying various subjects from different universities and colleges. Of course we were all Malays. I talked to the person seated next to me. In the course of it I said how fortunate that we could get scholarships to enable so many of us to study abroad and in various subjects. I also said that at some point in the future, when all of us graduated and worked we should be able to afford to pay for our own children’s education; that at that point we should consider reviewing the special status with respect to the obtaining of scholarships as such a need would have withered away. Almost as soon as I said that, a student who was sitting behind me and had obviously been listening, came forward and berated me for saying such a thing. I was accused of forgetting my roots, ignorance of the history of the country and the plight of the Malays.

My attempt to argue in reply was to no avail. He could not see how we can talk of doing away with state assistance — it was a right that we are entitled to and must remain for all time. He was duly called to the English Bar and upon returning, practised law in a northern state. He later served, if I am not mistaken, two terms as a member of parliament. Our paths did cross twice but they were not of any moment to the subject that we are about. Suffices it to say, that on both occasions he did not seem to remember the encounter.

The encounters took place about 45/46 years ago. I am sure that many who were born between the second World War and August 31 1957 will have had some such encounters or similar experience. Although I did not know it then, the encounters were enabled by Article 153 of the Federal Constitution. Set out under Part XII headed “General and Miscellaneous” the Article is entitled “Reservation of quotas in respect of services, permits, etc., for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak.”

Because it underlies so much of the debate raging publicly and privately now, especially now, about what this country is and where it is headed, I think it is useful to set it out in full:

(1) It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, but subject to the provisions of Article 40 and of this Article, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall exercise his functions under this Constitution and federal law in such manner as may be necessary to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak of such proportion as he may deem reasonable of positions in the public service (other than the public service of a State) and of scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities given or accorded by the Federal Government and, when any permit or licence for the operation of any trade or business is required by federal law, then, subject to the provisions of that law and this Article, of such permits and licences.

(3) The Yang di-Pertuan Agong may, in order to ensure in accordance with Clause (2) the reservation to Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak of positions in the public service and of scholarships, exhibitions and other educational or training privileges or special facilities, give such general directions as may be required for that purpose to any Commission to which Part X applies or to any authority charged with responsibility for the grant of such scholarships, exhibitions or other educational or training privileges or special facilities; and the Commission or authority shall duly comply with the directions.

(4) In exercising his functions under this Constitution and federal law in accordance with Clauses (1) to (3) the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall not deprive any person of any public office held by him or of the continuance of any scholarship, exhibition or other educational or training privileges or special facilities enjoyed by him.

(5) This Article does not derogate from the provisions of Article 136.

(6) Where by existing federal law a permit or licence is required for the operation of any trade or business the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may exercise his functions under that law in such manner, or give such general directions to any authority charged under that law with the grant of such permits or licences, as may be required to ensure the reservation of such proportion of such permits or licences for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may deem reasonable; and the authority shall duly comply with the directions.

(7) Nothing in this Article shall operate to deprive or authorise the deprivation of any person of any right, privilege, permit or licence accrued to or enjoyed or held by him or to authorise a refusal to renew to any person any such permit or licence or a refusal to grant to the heirs, successors or assigns of a person any permit or licence when the renewal or grant might reasonably be expected in the ordinary course of events.

(8) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, where by any Federal law any permit or licence is required for the operation of any trade or business, that law may provide for the reservation of a proportion of such permits or licences for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak; but no such law shall for the purpose of ensuring such a reservation:

(a) deprive or authorise the deprivation of any person of any right, privilege, permit or licence accrued to or enjoyed or held by him; or

(b) authorise a refusal to renew to any person any such permit or licence or a refusal to grant to the heirs, successors or assigns of any person any permit or licence when the renewal or grant might in accordance with the other provisions of the law reasonably be expected in the ordinary course of events, or prevent any person from transferring together with his business any transferable licence to operate that business; or

(c) where no permit or licence was previously required for the operation of the trade or business, authorise a refusal to grant a permit or licence to any person for the operation of any trade or business which immediately before the coming into force of the law he had been bona fide carrying on, or authorise a refusal subsequently to renew to any such person any permit or licence, or a refusal to grant to the heirs, successors or assigns of any such person any such permit or licence when the renewal or grant might in accordance with the other provisions of that law reasonably be expected in the ordinary course of events.

(8A) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, where in any University, College and other educational institution providing education after Malaysian Certificate of Education or its equivalent, the number of places offered by the authority responsible for the management of the University, College or such educational institution to candidates for any course of study is less than the number of candidates qualified for such places, it shall be lawful for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by virtue of this Article to give such directions to the authority as may be required to ensure the reservation of such proportion of such places for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may deem reasonable; and the authority shall duly comply with the directions.

(9) Nothing in this Article shall empower Parliament to restrict business or trade solely for the purpose of reservations for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak.

(9A) In this Article the expression “natives” in relation to the State of Sabah or Sarawak shall have the meaning assigned to it in Article 161A.

(10) The Constitution of the State of any Ruler may make provision corresponding (with the necessary modifications) to the provisions of this Article.

The other provisions of the Constitution relevant to Article 153 are:

*Article 136 (as provided in Clause 5 of Article 153). Headed “Impartial treatment of Federal employees”, it stipulates that “All persons of whatever race in the same grade in the service of the Federation shall, subject to the terms and conditions of their employment, be treated impartially.”

*Clause 4 of Article 10. In providing for the “Freedom of speech, assembly and association” Article 10 also provides that Parliament may by law impose restrictions on the rights conferred; in respect of the right to freedom of speech and expression, Clause 4 allows Parliament, in the interest of the security of the Federation of any part thereof or of public order, to pass laws “prohibiting the questioning of any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III, Article 152, 153 or 181 otherwise than in relation to the implementation thereof as may be specified in such law.”

*Clauses (3) and (5) of Article 159 which entrenches Article 153 and Clause (4) of Article 10 by requiring two-thirds of both Houses of Parliament and consent of the Conference of Rulers for any law to amend them.

*Article 40 is referred to in Clause (2) but since it is merely to provide for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or of a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet in the exercise of his functions under the Article, it seems to be little consequence. But if one takes the view, as judges are wont to do, that every word, phrase in a law, must be intended by the framers to mean something, then the qualification “but shall be entitled, at his request, to any information concerning the government of the Federation which is available to the Cabinet” should mean something. I would think that at the least it should mean that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong would be entitled to ask for the basis – the facts and figures – upon which recommendations by the Cabinet for directions, instructions or authorisations in pursuance of the “special provisions” contemplated by Article 153 are founded so as to satisfy himself that both “the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities are safeguarded.”

Save for the amendment to include the “natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak” on the formation of Malaysia, the Article in the main, remains as it was when the Constitution came into force. It is an acknowledged fact that the provision of Article 153 was the principal quid pro quo for the Articles under Chapter 1 headed “Acquisition of Citizenship”. The constitutions of countries with diverse ethnic, tribal or geographical groups, are invariably the result of compromise. There is therefore nothing special in the fact that our Federal Constitution embodies the compact of the people of Malaya at that time.

As Constitution, it is more than just the supreme law of Malaysia. It is also more than just the framework for the organisation of the Government of Malaysia and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within Malaysia. As Tunku Abdul Rahman, the chief minister then and the first prime minister, in his speech delivered to the Federal legislative Council on 10th July 1957 to adopt the Constitutions said (and I have taken this as quoted by Tommy Thomas in his article in 2005):

“…there can, I consider, be no doubt whatsoever that these Constitutions will provide the independent Federation of Malaya with a firm foundation on which the people of this country can build a great and prosperous nation.”

The fact that we meet today and I to discuss a topic entitled “National Integration with Constitutional Integrity”; that today we have to speak of 1Malaysia, even as some speak of ketuanan Melayu, that today one citizen can tell another that he is a pendatang or to balik cina, speak volumes of our failure to build upon that firm foundation so proudly planted 53 years ago and extended 47 years ago. The failure is not in the provisions but in their interpretation and in the abuse of their application by those on the fringes of the political parties that we have – be the political parties be organised and based on communal lines or otherwise.

As if the ever widening racial divide is not enough, the political leaders and parties have added to it the element of religion. As I see it, religion, although of course important to the citizens of Malaysia diverse as we are in faith as we are in race, was not much of an issue until September 2001. True we have a political party based on the Islamic religion with an avowed aim of making of Malaysia an Islamic state. But given the composition of the population even the PAS knew that it was an aim to win votes than an achievable objective. It is also true that Clause (1) of Article 3 Part I of the Constitution states that:

“Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.”

But it is also true that if the proviso is not clear, Clause (4) of the Article states:

“Nothing in this Article derogates from any other provision of this Constitution.”

And “any other provision of this Constitution” must surely include Part II entitled “Fundamental Liberties under which is Article 11 entitled “Freedom of Religion”, Clause (1) of which provides:

“Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it.”

The right includes managing its own religious affairs; establishing and maintaining institutions for religious or charitable purposes; and acquiring and owning property and holding and administering it in accordance with law.

The limitation of the right, if you want to call it that, in clause (4) is that State law or Federal law, as the case may be, may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam – a paternalistic provision intended presumably to protect those professing the religion of Islam from being converted to other faiths or beliefs. But are Muslims of Malaysia so feeble of faith or feeble of mind that they need to be protected?

Those are the salient provisions of the Constitution regarding religion and Islam. Nowhere is there a provision or statement that the Federation is an Islamic State. As far as I understand the representations and deliberations which led to the formulation found in Clause (1) of Article 3, none intended that thereby Malaya is an Islamic State. If at all, all who argued for such a statement to be included were at great pains to point out that they did not intend that Malaya is an Islamic State. The Constitution itself in providing for inter alia, a federation of states, a Westminster-style Parliament, the sovereignty of the Sultans, the fundamental liberties of citizens is not a constitution of an Islamic State. And to be sure the highest judicial body in Malaysia, the body that is entrusted with interpreting the Constitution, has in a number of cases in no uncertain terms, rejected the contention that Malaya or Malaysia is an Islamic State. (As a side note, the irony in most of the cases where the contention was advanced, it was advanced by a defendant trying to escape the stipulations of the penal code.)

Yet in 2001 the then prime minister in his opening address to the Gerakan Party’s national delegates conference, said that “Umno wishes to announce loudly that Malaysia is an Islamic country”. It is a measure of the respect that Umno has for the judiciary that the prime minister went on to say “that this is based on the opinion ofulamaks who had clarified what constituted an Islamic country.” It was just as loudly disputed by the PAS and exhaustively disputed in a 20 page article by Tommy Thomas in the article which I have referred to.

In a mature country whose citizens are aware of their Constitution such an announcement would be clearly seen as an Umno ploy to pull the Islamic state carpet from under PAS. And we probably would not have heard of it any more. But as with all religion there is always those with a holier than thou attitude and in Malaysia Muslims seem to have more than our fair share. The result is that now hardly a week passes without an ulamak or an ustaz declaring that eating this or doing that or dressing like this or wearing that is haram or not Islamic.

And that does not include what is not loudly announced.

The other day I visited a sick friend in hospital. A Malay and a Muslim, he was at the Military College after I had left. He asked me whether I knew that the college bell that had hung next to the dining hall and used to summon students for lunch, dinner and whenever else students were required to assemble had been removed on the advice of an ulamak. It should be easy for you to guess the reasoning of the ulamak. My friend and I did not know whether to laugh or cry.

It is no laughing matter though when the measures taken in the name of religion keep or drive people apart. Acrimony and animosity of religion and race will destroy the firm foundation that our founding fathers built. In recent years they have increased, are increasing and ought to be diminished.

How it may be diminished is what this convention will be discussing. Bickering about what bargain was made, what kind of state are we in, who does this country belong to or who belongs to this country is sterile.

For my part, with the encounters of the past in my mind as if it were yesterday, I believe that we must begin by acknowledging that our Constitution clearly intends, and as the composition of its citizens dictate, that we build a multi racial, multi religious and a multi cultural nation. Education in racial isolation will keep the races apart. I believe that to make this country a nation, we must educate the young together, that they may know one another and learn to trust one another. Our fathers compromised to fashion a common front to face down the colonial power and make this an independent country. We must now fashion a new compromise within the provisions of the Constitution if we are to build a nation. I suggest that it is a hindrance not a help to invoke or apply concepts such as traditional or indigenous elements no matter what they may be, to understand the provisions of the Constitution. I believe we can, with the provisions of the Constitution properly understood, honestly interpreted and applied with the objective of nation building, build “a great and prosperous nation”.

In 1975, in the case of Loh Kooi Choon v. Government of Malaysia [1977] 2 MLJ 187, Raja Azlan Shah FJ (as His Royal Highness then was), (as quoted in the recent 2009 case of Dato’ Seri Ir Hj Mohammad Nizar Jamaludin v Dato’ Dr Zambry Abd Kadir) said in delivering the judgment of the Court:

Whatever may be said of other Constitutions, they are ultimately of little assistance to us because our Constitution now stands in its own right and it is in the end the wording of our Constitution itself that it is to be interpreted and applied, and this wording can never be overridden by the extraneous principles of other Constitutions — see Adegbenro v. Akintola & Anor. Each country frames its constitution according to its genius and for the good of its own society. We look at other Constitutions to learn from their experiences, and from a desire to see how their progress and well-being is ensured by their fundamental law.

Provisions of a law are either amended to better meet the circumstances of the times or repealed because they have served the need and purpose of the times. But it is not always necessary to repeal a provision that has served its purpose. Such a provision should be retained to remind future generations how their forefathers resolved the problems of their time. I suggest that Article 14 (1) (a) of the Federal Constitution if not already, will in time, be one such provision.

And I would like to think that one day the provisions that enabled my encounters would be another such provision, that those who have been served by it will say “I have no need for it”.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 20 September 2010, 4:37 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Constitution
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


‘1Malaysia’ – the enemy within

Christopher Barnabas | Sep 20, 10

Malaysiakini

As the nation celebrated the 47th anniversary of the formation of Malaysia, it is crucial to note that we are a nation divided at unprecedented levels in the history of the country. While political ideologies may differ from both sides of the divide, it is the treacherous levels of racism and extremism that are most disturbing to the common people today.

It was timely that during his Malaysia Day message entitled ‘Our Fight against Extremism’, Najib Abdul Razak took upon himself to warn against the rise of extremism in the country, articulating his sadness that by rejecting the diverse way of life, they are rejecting his ‘1Malaysia’ vision.

Going through some government websites, I came across the ‘1Malaysia’ concept paper, with one key point that stood out particularly clearly: ‘Malaysians, regardless of race or religion need to think and act as one race, that is the Malaysian race, that thinks and acts towards a common goal to build a world that is prosperous, progressive, peaceful, and safe thus enabling it to compete with the other communities in the world’.

Now having read that, let us examine several unsettling incidences since its inception which have resulted to an absolute failure of this vision thus far:

1. The Mahathir factor: The longest-serving former Umno president/PM of Malaysia has been labeled the ‘father of all racism’ by an Umno cabinet minister last year. Not surprising therefore that he appears unconvinced publicly about the ‘1Malaysia’ vision. Recently, he went as far as to conclude that even the newly proposed NEM which supports ‘merit-based’ policies are clouded with a racist agenda, prompting Zaid Ibrahim to diagnose him as having a psychological disorder.

2. Malay First: Muhyiddin Yassin’s insistence that he is Malay First, and then only a Malaysian contradicts the very foundation of the 1Malaysia vision. Obviously, our DPM either doesn’t subscribe to the 1Malaysia vision, or he is showing outright defiance of our PM.

3. The ‘Allah’ issue: The issue of non-Muslims using the word would not have been an issue in the first place had the Umno-led government respected the legitimate rights of other faiths communities. Even PAS agrees that historically, the word ‘Allah’ predates Islam, with the word being used by other faiths in all other Muslim dominated countries worldwide. A suggestion by an Umno leader that non-Muslims in Sabah and Sarawak be allowed to use the word, while those in the peninsula are banned seems incomprehensible.

4. Cow-head protest: Hissammudin Hussien’s infamous defense of this disgraceful extremist act potentially led to a form of ‘suburban terrorism’ in various parts of the country. Numerous religious sites were vandalised, where violence and intimidation were used to achieve a racist agenda.

5. Umno posterboys: Who could ever forget the ‘pendatang’ comment of Ahmad Ismail from Penang, then Najib’s aid (Nasir Zafar) Chinese women came as prostitutes and Indians as beggars’ remark, and Azhar Ibrahim’s (Penang Umno) May 13 threat? Not to be outdone, Umno appointed Perak Mufti Harussani continues with his lies, such as Muslims conversion in a Perak church or an alternative constitution erasing the special rights of the Malays.

6. Biro Tata Negara: Racism isn’t born; rather it has to be taught. BTN courses serve this purpose surely. Muslim civil servants have long complaint that BTN teachings cultivated racism instead of nation building. Instead of being the catalyst in promoting the 1Malaysia vision to future leaders of our nation, we now have school principals and teachers churning our racial slurs reminiscing Mugabe’s Zimbabwe or the Apartheid regime, surely a result of the Umno-BTN indoctrination.

7. Utusan Malaysia: The mouthpiece of Umno has been propagating outright racial and extremist commentaries, recently suggesting a massive war to take place shortly between the Malays and non-Malays. How and why Utusan remains defiant and bold in its reporting indicates clearly the stand taken by its owners.

8. The ‘doa’ by the Penang khatib: Instead of investigating first, Penang Umno chief Ahmad Zahid sensationalised the matter almost into a racial catastrophe. As it turned out, the preacher confirmed it was his own doing with no directives from Guan Eng as originally insinuated. Religious differences aside, since when does praying for someone from a different faith warrants a police case?

9. Sabahans bullied: From the agreed rotational chief minister role, Umno has taken a firm grip of this position, recently publicly demanding seats that historically belong to BN component parties. Illegal immigrants continue to be rampant with annual renewal of immigration permits for over 84,000 refugees, with signs of new refugee settlements being organized in the state.

10. Perkasa: An off-shoot of Umno with Mahathir and Ibrahim Ali leading the pack, this group advocates extreme racial politics to disgusting levels. Umno leaders participate in this movement’s activities, while many of its members coming from Umno itself. Enough reports about this group, so I shun say more to prevent further publicity for this ‘neo-Nazi’ movement!

Surely there are more points to be added, but if we just examine these facts, it is clear that the positive intentions of the 1Malaysia vision have failed miserably since its highly publicized launch last year. Disregarding our political affiliations, we cannot deny the fact that Malaysia truly needs this vision to unite our divided nation.

The only option for success is therefore to eliminate the root cause of the problem, which is none other than Umno. Collectively as a party, Umno is beyond transformation. It is an institution that currently thrives on extreme ethnic and tribal sentiments, even confirmed as being a racist party by Mahathir last year. It was therefore baffling to hear Dr Chua Soi Lek defending the party recently, stating that Umno is not a racist party. It would be interesting to hear his comments on the points listed above.

However, not everyone in Umno can be considered as being the antithesis of 1Malaysia, judging from some refreshing views from the likes of Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, Nazri Abdul Aziz, Khairy Jamaluddin and even Najib himself, but individually however, they will be buried with their views within the party. It would be ideal that these ‘transformers’ leave Umno and form alliance with the true believers of ‘1Malaysia’ before they face extinction from the political landscape in the country.

It is worth to remember these words: ‘You don’t fight racism with racism. The best way to fight racism is with solidarity’ – by Bobby Seale. As we celebrate the formation of Malaysia, let us all, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, unite to purge this tumor known as Umno into destruction in order to accomplish the vision of a peaceful, just, and truly united 1Malaysia.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 21 September 2010, 9:10 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Mahathir
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
Najib Razak
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


An open-and-shut case

Mariam Mokhtar | Sep 20, 10

Malaysiakini

During the Raya celebrations at his home in Pekan, the Prime Minister, Najib Abdul Razak, encouraged us to hold open houses and receive guests irrespective of race and religion to foster national unity based on ‘1Malaysia’. He said that an open house would be more meaningful if “we also open our hearts to our guests”.

The PM should also include an open mind. A willingness to listen to other people’s opinions should promote greater understanding and harmony.

If only Najib was aware of the level of intolerance some Malays have for non-Malays and non-Muslims. I don’t expect him to know what happens at the ground level and I doubt if his advisers and close associates tell him the truth.

Fewer Malays visit non-Malay open houses for the various festivals. The issue is not just with food. Some object to visiting places where there is a shrine. A few refuse to eat off crockery and cutlery that has ‘touched’ pork. Others worry about the content of the soap with which to wash their hands. Many Malays are oblivious to how their non-Malay colleagues go out of their way to accommodate Malay sensitivities. Sometimes, even the best efforts are in vain.

When it comes to pot-luck or giving food as presents, non-Malays express frustration that their contributions are refused, even if the non-Malay took great pains to ensure the use of halal ingredients. Rejection of their unappreciated and wasted efforts, is hard to accept.

Official functions are also dominated by Malay intolerance. Recently, the Malay organisers of a parent-teacher association dinner at a school in Malacca arranged for a restaurant which had the ‘Halal’ accreditation, to cater the function. It would have been a halal Chinese dinner. Unfortunately, the arrangement was cancelled as a few of the Malay parents and teachers objected, because the restaurant owner and his staff were Chinese.

Earlier in the week, Najib told us to fight extremism. By his definition, I am probably an extremist. We can’t deny that each one of us harbours some extremist or radical beliefs, even racist views. The difference is that we do not use these to subjugate others.

When Najib says that extremist groups or individuals reject the ‘1Malaysia’ concept, he is wrong. Many of us embraced what he calls ‘1Malaysia’, at school, home and work, long before this slogan was engineered. True Malaysians don’t require a soundbite to live in a multicultural society.

I am appalled by the aggression of some Malays who show a shocking intolerance towards non-Malays and non-Muslims just so they can retain their 30% bumiputera quota, university admission quotas and other perceived ‘special rights’. Some individuals have even accused the Chinese of being ‘too greedy’ and ‘controlling the Malaysian economy’.

Increasing slurs go unchecked

The increasing racial slurs from the Malays go unchecked. It has little to do with maintaining racial interest but more to do with safeguarding personal interests.

Najib may defend his ‘1Malaysia’ concept, claiming that it had not failed but was merely “work in progress”. He said it needed the help of all segments of society before it could be realised.

Is he aware that in our schools, racial interaction is limited? Malay teachers actively discourage Malays from mixing with or even sharing their food with the ‘kafirs’ – the non-Malays. Parents are reluctant to report racist teachers because children will be victimised.

If ‘1Malaysia’ exists, then why are West Malaysians subject to immigration controls in East Malaysia?

How can Najib excuse the terrible religious intolerance of the holier-than-thou Muslims who have no qualms about disrespecting people of other faiths? When they fall short of rational arguments, Malays tend to fall back on religion and then claim that they cannot compromise on their beliefs.

Thus, it is extremists like Ibrahim Ali (right) and Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who succeed in making Malays indolent and lose their competitive edge.

If ‘1Malaysia’ is working; why has Najib failed to entice overseas Malaysians home? The non-Malays are worried about the future of their children. They lament the lack of equal educational opportunities. Overseas Malays resent the patronising extremists’ tone. They prefer to be acknowledged for their hard work and not through being sycophants or because they are entitled to grab.

If the collective cabinet responsibility is to adopt Najib’s ‘1Malaysia’, then why are some members of his cabinet excluded? Why are the extremists, who force their feelings onto others, not silenced?

BN’s policies have only stifled growth, stunted creativity and slowed productivity. Malays who are swayed by the voices of extremism do not attempt to make a better life for themselves or their kids. Why should they take personal responsibility when they can depend on the state?

Debilitating effect

It is like the RM15 million slush fund to help Muslim single mothers and divorced wives who fail to receive maintenance from their ex-husbands. It may help the women in the short term but its debilitating effect is to make the man irresponsible because he knows the state will pick up his responsibilities.

So why should right-minded Malaysians approve of a horde of people who contribute little to society yet believe it owes them a living? What kind of future does any child have whose parents believe that the world owes them a living, rather than working to earn a decent living?

Malays are entitled to substantial discounts for house purchases, university places, scholarships and public sector jobs. ‘1Malaysia’ means nothing if privileges are reserved only for the Malays.

The system the extremists espouse isn’t working. Why should good-for-nothing scroungers deserve anything which they did not work to achieve, never have to take responsibility for and don” have to live by the rules, the rest of us do?

Like many concerned Malaysians, I do not support a theory which compromises my values, integrity and conscience. Najib’s message to the Malays should be to embrace change, and open their minds.

Furthermore, why should we refrain from sensitive issues? A reasonable and intelligent dialogue helps create a bedrock of trust and understanding. Bottling things up is dangerous. Forget about the open heart, it is our minds that should be opened.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 21 September 2010, 8:43 am and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Najib Razak
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Question for first day of Parliament on Oct. 11 – why police inaction over spate of police reports for past five years against lawyer brothers suspected of killers in mass murders of Sosilawati and three others

My first question for the first day of the 34-sitting 2011 budget meeting of Parliament beginning on Oct. 11 will be in connection with the gruesome and heinous mass murders of  cosmetic millionaire Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya and three others in Banting on National Day.

The question directed at the Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein  is asking for the list of the “dates/nature of police reports lodged against the lawyer brothers in Banting suspected responsible for the Sosilawati mass murders, reasons for police inaction which have gravely undermined public confidence in police professionalism and latest actions on these police reports”.

The new Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Ismail Omar has publicly admitted that Sosilawati’s case could have been prevented if fast action, including proper investigation, had been conducted over earlier reports of missing persons.

He said a task force had been formed to investigate all missing persons reports linked to the lawyer brothers, adding:

“There should be no more slacking. Those caught slacking or ignoring missing persons reports will be severely reprimanded.”

This is clearly not good enough as Sosilawati and the three others would most probably be still alive if the police had been efficient and professional in handling all police reports which had been made against the lawyer brothers in the past five years.

I join the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak in congratulating the police for their efficiency in solving the mass murders of Sosilawati and three others, as the police have claimed that the mass murders have been solved.

Malaysians regardless of race, religion or political affiliation demands speedy justice to be meted out to the mass murderers who should not expect any mercy for their horrific crimes.

With the police halting evidence gathering at the farm in Ladang Gadong where the murders allegedly took place and Sungai Panchau where their bodies were believed to have been burnt and dumped, the time has come for the authorities to address the other public concern arising from the mass murders of Sosilawati and the three others.

This is the shocking police inaction over numerous police reports lodged against the two lawyer brothers linked to the Sosilawati mass murders going as far back as 2005, involving fraud, criminal breach of trust, missing persons and murder, and the public concern that Sosilawati and the three other victims would still be alive today if the police had acted efficiently and professionally on these police reports.

There can be no denial that the efficiency of the police action in solving the Sosilawati mass murders cannot undo the grave damage to the country’s investment climate caused by adverse national and international media reports of how serious and rampant crimes had been allowed to go unchecked – with foreign media reports speculating that up to 20 people both local and foreign could have been killed and their bodies dumped into a river based on 300 bone fragments recovered in Sungai Panchau.

The Banting mass murders and its various implications should be on the Cabinet agenda tomorrow.

As an internal police investigation is completely inadequate,  unsatisfactory and unacceptable to restore both public and investor confidence, I call for the  establishment of  a  Royal Commission of Inquiry to establish  why no action had been taken on  earlier police reports dating as far back as 2005 against the lawyer brothers linked to the mass murders of Sosilawati and three others.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 21 September 2010, 3:35 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Who is the second UMNO/BN Minister who dare to publicly declare that he/she is Malaysian first and race second in keeping with Najib’s 1Malaysia policy?

I am surprised that in the past 24 hours, the other Ministers have not rallied behind the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz who had courageously declared that he is Malaysian first and Malay second.

Who is the second UMNO/Barisan Nasional Minister who dare to publicly declare that he/she is Malaysian first and race second in keeping with Najib’s 1Malaysia policy?

It has taken Nazri more than six months to respond to my challenge in Parliament in March this year to all Cabinet Ministers to declare that they are Malaysian first and race second.

Surely, Malaysians do not have to wait for another six months before another Minister plucks up sufficient courage to follow Nazri to declare that he/she is Malaysian first and race second.

I have given notice to ask the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak a specific question on the commitment and loyalty of Ministers and top civil servants to his 1Malaysia concept when Parliament reconvenes for the 2011 Budget meeting beginning on Oct. 11.

My question to Najib in the first week of the Parliamentary meeting next month read:

To ask the Prime Minister why the majority of Cabinet Ministers and top civil servants still do not accept the 1Malaysia concept of being Malaysian first and race second after 18 months, how he proposes to unite the entire administration under this concept.

It is precisely because Najib’s 1Malaysia concept has not found overwhelming support from his own Cabinet and government that there is so much back-stabbing, back-sliding, obstruction and even sabotage to the 1Malaysia policy from within the government.

A good illustration is the unequivocal statement by Najib just before National Day of zero tolerance for racism, but the Prime Minister’s writ does not seem to run in the Education Ministry which is under the charge of the Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, infamous for his “I am Malay first, Malaysian second” declaration.

As a result, more than three weeks have passed but no action has yet been taken to discipline and punish the two school principals, one from Johore and the other Kedah, who had made racist slurs against the students in their schools last month.

What is even more shocking, the school principal in Kedah has returned to his posting although the parents and the Malaysian public have been given to understand that he would be transferred away – as if nothing serious had happened, making a total mockery of Najib’s “zero tolerance for racism” declaration.

All eyes will be on the Cabinet meeting tomorrow – not only on whether the Cabinet would take a stand to ensure that the two school principals who had made racial slurs against their students in school should be severely punished as an example to all education officers, but whether the Cabinet would at long last give full endorsement to Najib’s 1Malaysia policy with every Cabinet Minister declaring support for the 1Malaysia policy to create a Malaysian nation where every Malaysian regards himself or herself as Malaysian first and race second.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 21 September 2010, 12:08 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
Najib Razak
,
nation building
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


How real is the Economic Transformation Programme?

The Economic Transformation Programme (ETP), the latest pronouncement by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Idris Jala, follows upon a number of other pronouncements that have become the hallmark of Dato Seri  Najib’s administration.

Like the previous pronouncements of 1Malaysia People First Performance Now, the Government Transformation Programme, the 10th Malaysia Five Year Plan, the ETP is rich in rhetoric.

The sloganeering and spin that is common to all of these exercises provides a clear indication that the Government led by Najib is wholly at sea in tackling the enormous challenges that the country faces.

These challenges have accumulated over the wasted three decades characterized by mismanagement, corruption and abuse of power that has benefited a small coterie.

A common feature of the series of announcements is that they contain unrealistic assumptions about economic growth prospects; they use clichés that are taken from business school texts that have been spun in order to create a false impression of a rethinking of policies.

The various announcements of “policies” and “strategies” are littered with a slew of abbreviations such as KPIs, NKRAs, MKRAs, NKEAs, EPPs and BIZ Ops are freely bandied about.

Of late the Government has developed a passion for peppering every announcement with an alphabetic jumble.

It would appear that the Government has substituted sound policies with what appear to be tools from the corporate world.

These may be appropriate tools in the business world. The Government is not a corporate entity; it is accountable to the public and cannot be driven by notions of “profit”.

The concepts embodied in the ETP are beyond the comprehension of the public at large. We are subjected to lofty speeches peppered with colorful Power Point presentations loaded graphics that confuse rather than enlighten.

Each event at which these so-called policies are unveiled lays bare the inability of and impotence of the Government to boldly deal with the core and fundamental policy distortions that are responsible for the country becoming trapped in the middle income group.

The glimmer of hope offered earlier this year that the Government would embark on a path of reforms under the rubric of the New Economic Model has been rapidly extinguished by the ferocious attacks launched by PERKASA and its patron against any policy reforms that attempt to remove the distortions brought about by failed policies linked to the NEP.

The ETP acknowledges and reaffirms that the private sector will need to play a central and decisive role in enabling Malaysia to achieve a doubling of per capita incomes by 2020 through sustained economic growth of 6 percent per annum.

To attain these targets, private firms, according to Idris Jala, will invest US$ 266 billion (60 percent), GLCs US $144 billion (32 percent) and the public sector US$ 34 billion (8 percent), making a total investment of US$ 444 billion.

These assumptions – these it must be stressed are assumptions rather than forecasts – are wholly unrealistic in view of the historic growth rates attained over the past decade and a half and the current flows of FDI which are NEGATIVE in view of capital flight.

The underlying assumption appears to be that the private sector will make a remarkable shift without the Government doing its part.  This assumption lacks all credibility as such a turnaround cannot be anticipated so long as the Government remains entrapped by the policy framework espoused by PERKASA and others of its ilk.

The ETP has set a target of US$ 444 billion for investment over the next decade. No overall macroeconomic framework has been presented, a practice common to previous Perspective Plans. There is hardly an indication of how this amount of investment will come about.

The reality is that FDI has declined in recent years with no sign of a revival; at the same time domestic savings are not being fully invested with capital flight becoming sizable.

There are few indications that FDI will revive and take off without a radical change in the investment climate e.g. implementation of reforms of the type talked of in the context of the NEM.

It is becoming abundantly clear that the NEM is going nowhere. A weak and divided Government is now being held hostage by PERKASA and the die-hearts in UMNO.

Domestic investors are fighting shy and if anything voting with their feet by engaging in the capital flight. Idris will have to do better if he is to be believed – more details of specific projects will be needed before he is taken seriously.

Be it as it may, there are other curious and contradictory features of the ETP. On the one hand the formulation is built upon the notion that the private sector will be unleashed; and yet the ETP is a top-down creation.

PEMANDU is seemingly picking “winners” and it would imply that Malaysia is about to embark upon a new form of central planning to get to highly untenable targets.

The approach contradicts the very notion that the private sector will be freed to make investment decisions without interference from the Government.

A grave omission in the ETP is the singular lack of an articulation of changes in the policy regime to arrest corruption, increase competitiveness and transparency in procurements, introduce meaningful safety net programs, rationalize labor market policies including the adoption of a minimum wage policy and the abolition of anti-competitive measures e.g. APs.

The failure to deal with the issue of tax reform within the context of the ETP is yet another indication of the lack of an integrated and wel-designed programme of reforms that are imperative if the private sector is to be permitted to function effectively.

It is hard to believe that the Government anticipates that the private sector can be induced to perform as if by Royal Command.

The mind-boggling and totally unrealistic pie in the sky nature of the ETP and the linked announcements may well become Malaysia’s version of Mao’s GREAT LEAP FORWARD fiasco that was built on unrealistic targets and dubious performance indicators. Micro management and planning of the kind— to planning for Bird Nests and Bird spit production as part of the effort to double incomes! – cannot be taken seriously.

To resort to what is obviously a system of central planning — with unrealistic targets, dubious statistics to show “performance”, picking “winners”, maintaining constraints to growth via quotas and a system of approvals together with subsidies to corporate entities (both GLCs and selected private corporate tycoons) — is totally in contradiction to the announced intent to let the private sector act freely.

Indeed, the system the country appears to be slipping into has many of the features that brought about the collapse of the Soviet economy in the late 1980s. It is also salient to note that the remarkable success of China and its modernization program which can be attributed to the dismantling of central planning is being largely ignored.

The real danger is that the country is going nowhere until there is a determined effort to implement real reforms.

Each day it becomes clearer that Najib does not have the strength to get out of the quicksand he is caught in.

He cannot go on much longer singing the APCO written songs. These are no longer being reported in the Utusan, an organ that in the scheme of things is supposed to sing songs desired by Najib. Now that it is openly becoming a mouthpiece for Mahathir and PERKASA, the end may not be far away.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 22 September 2010, 8:55 am and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Economics
,
Finance
,
Najib Razak
,
NEM
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


If it’s a problem, don’t recognise it

by
Kee Thuan Chye

Malaysiakini

Sept 22, 2010

COMMENT

Idris Jala is a good speaker. If you listen to him and you don’t watch it, he will sell you an idea.

That’s what he did – or tried to do – when he gave the keynote address at the “We Are Malaysia” event hosted by UCSI University on Malaysia Day.

He spoke of 1Malaysia and its aims, and how national unity can be achieved. One of the central aims of 1Malaysia is upgrading the diverse population’s attitude towards one another from tolerance to acceptance and, eventually, the celebration of diversity. And one of the central strategies of achieving that is the recognition that, in Idris’ own words, “in life, there are only two types of issues”.

Sounds rather pat, as if coming from a self-enrichment guru. But as I said, Idris Jala (left) is a seller of ideas.

What are these two types of issues?

Problems and polarities. A problem, expounded Idris, is something that can be solved. A polarity is something that cannot be solved but must be managed. The examples of polarities he gave are old and young, urban and rural, good and evil, rich and poor. Like the North and South Poles, they cannot be removed; therefore a balance must be struck between them.

To illustrate further, he gave the example of his wife and him. She is fastidious in wanting him to place his socks in a proper basket for washing, but he is used to leaving them all over the house. Despite her repeated attempts to get him to conform, he is incorrigible. She on her part takes an inordinate amount of time to get ready when they have a function to attend. It annoys him that because she can’t decide on what to wear, they often turn up late.

“That’s the situation,” said Idris, “but if we tried to solve it, we could end up in divorce.”

Extending the idea to a wider realm, Idris said race and religion are also polarities, which means they cannot be solved.

“If you try to solve them,” he said, “you could get something like Hitler’s Final Solution and the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia.”

Just a game of semantics?

On that UCSI occasion, Idris got away with not having to answer questions from the floor as there is usually no provision for such in a keynote address. But if there had been, the key question would be: Isn’t this all just a game of semantics? How do you decide what is a problem and what is a polarity? Or is there really no difference between the two?

Let’s look at the issue of race in the present context. Let’s bring in Perkasa, which insists that the 30 percent equity for bumiputeras must be upheld in the New Economic Model (NEM). For want of an opposing camp, let’s bring in the MCA, which recently called for the 30 percent to be gradually reduced.

Is this situation of two opposing viewpoints over a racial issue a problem or a polarity? What does it translate into when from this dispute, policy has to be made?

Policy is policy. It provides a guideline for operations to be performed and actions to be taken. It provides a clear-cut solution. It does not merely manage. So how will it solve this Perkasa-MCA dispute?

If Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak decides to listen to Perkasa and includes the 30 percent in his NEM, the MCA might have something to say. Not to mention other groups opposed to Perkasa as well. But since the MCA is a Barisan Nasional partner, Najib or his deputy, Muhyiddin Yassin, can ask its party leaders to shut up and toe the coalition line, and chances are they will obey. Is that managing the issue or solving it?

While we mull over this, let’s consider another point – for an issue to be resolved, it calls for negotiation and sometimes arbitration. There was negotiation between the two differing groups over the ge tai issue in Penang last week and the outcome was satisfactory to both sides. Do we say they found a solution to the issue or that they merely managed it? Does it matter what we call it?

The constitution is the arbiter

It’s all semantics. And semantics are of no practical use. Sometimes, semantics create further problems. In any case, the fact that you enter into a negotiation shows that you want to find a solution. If after negotiating, you still can’t find it, you may seek an arbiter.

For racial disputes, there is already an arbiter. And that, plain and simple, is the constitution. So how we solve or manage – whichever word you want to use – racial disputes should be guided by that arbiter.

Article 153 of the constitution is the bone of contention. But as lawyer Azzat Kamaluddin (left), who also spoke at the “We Are Malaysia” event, astutely pointed out, there is no mention in that article of special rights for the Malays.

Clause 1 of Article 153 states: “It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the states of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article.”

Note that there is only mention of “special position”. And the second part says, significantly, that the Agong shall also be responsible for safeguarding “the legitimate interests of other communities”. It’s not all one-sided.

Azzat pointed out that “everyone stops at Clause 1”. But if they were to look at Clause 2, they would see clearly that the special provisions for Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak pertain only to positions in the public service; scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities; and permits and licences for the operation of any trade or business.

And in these areas, the provisions have to be “of such proportion as [the Agong] may deem reasonable”. In other words, it’s not carte blanche.

Look also at Clause 5, which states that Article 153 “does not derogate from the provisions of Article 136”.

What does Article 136 say?

It says: “All persons of whatever race in the same grade in the service of the federation shall, subject to the terms and conditions of their employment, be treated impartially.” This is another limit to the scope of Article 153.

If the government follows the rule of law and interprets the constitution as it should be interpreted, we wouldn’t have a racial problem. Yes, problem. Let’s call a spade a spade. The racial problem we have now is mostly the result of what the government has done and not done.

It has not followed the rule of law. It has not told Perkasa to grasp the proper provisions of Article 153. Instead, it has been affirming that Perkasa’s doing the right thing – only a few days ago, Deputy Education Minister Puad Zarkashi said Perkasa was championing the people’s rights as spelt out in the constitution. Perhaps Puad hasn’t read beyond Clause 1. Perhaps he doesn’t understand it fully.

Gov’t has chosen to take sides

In terms of what the government has done, it has chosen to take sides to formulate policies that are contrary to the spirit of the constitution. For instance, is the discount for bumiputeras purchasing property constitutional? If so, where is it written in that sacred document?

The government favours one race and marginalises the other races. With regard to the civil service, it has not upheld Article 136 of the constitution, which calls for impartial treatment for civil servants of all races. Over the past four decades, the promotion of civil servants to the highest positions has been almost totally confined to those of one particular race. Is that impartial treatment?

As for religion, it is again the government that has created problems. Just to name two, one is its action to deny Christians the right to use the word “Allah”; the other, and more far-reaching, action is declaring Malaysia an Islamic state, as Najib did in 2007 when he was Deputy Prime Minister.

“Islam is the official religion and we are an Islamic state,” he said.

He must surely have read Article 3 of the constitution but chose to ignore what it says: “Islam is the religion of the federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the federation.”

Nowhere is it stated that Malaysia is an Islamic state.

Declaration caused fresh anxieties

But by his declaration, Najib caused fresh anxieties to surface and made the issue of religion more contentious. In extreme situations, the provisions of Article 3 have been disrespected. A recent example is Perkasa’s lodging of a police report against a church in Shah Alam for planning to stage a Christian play during Ramadan on the grounds that it was seditious and insulting to the sultan.

That police report became a problem to the church. How would it be solved? In an ideal Malaysian setting, the government would have stepped in and told Perkasa to respect Article 3. But of course, it did not. For the church and other Christian groups, these problems will continue to crop up in future and there will be no solution in sight if the government stays silent.

Is the government silent because it now believes it can call such a problem a polarity? And with a polarity, which cannot be solved, the less said about it, the better? Similarly, in the case of the Johor school principal who allegedly made racist remarks, it is better to let the issue be until the public forgets about it?

If so, 1Malaysia is not about taking a radically honest approach towards national unity and the celebration of diversity. It seems to shy away from calling a problem a problem and solving it. Calling it a polarity merely adds a new twist to the propaganda.

So, if Idris Jala comes to your neighbourhood and tries to sell you that idea, be sure to ask him some difficult questions. He’s a good speaker and can easily mesmerise his audience. His words may sound pretty until you probe them for substance. If you do, you might find that they amount to nothing more than public relations prattle.

KEE THUAN CHYE is the author of March 8: The Day Malaysia Woke Up, which won 3rd prize in the Popular Readers’ Choice Awards. It has also been translated into Chinese

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 22 September 2010, 7:09 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Kee Thuan Chye
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


MCA Ministers should explain why MCA so deadset against my parliamentary question on police inaction on previous five-year police reports vis-a-vis Sosilawathi mass murders suspects

The four MCA Ministers should explain why the MCA is so deadest against my parliamentary question on police inaction on previous five-year police reports against the brother lawyers suspected of the heinous and gruesome  Sosilawati mass murders that the MCA cybertrooper launched a concerted attack against me on twitter last night.

The cause of this MCA cybertrooper attack was my parliamentary question for the first day of the 34-sitting 2011 budget meeting of Parliament beginning on Oct. 11 which is addressed to the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, asking him “to list the date/nature of police reports lodged against the lawyer brothers in Banting suspected responsible for the Sosilawati mass murders, reasons for police inaction which have gravely undermined public confidence in police professionalism and latest actions on these police reports”.

Today, we read of another heart-rending story of a housewife, Samson Nahar Mohd Dali, 35, from Sungai Petani,  whose husband Shafik Abdullah disappeared in April, being told by the police that there was a high probability that her missing husband had been murdered and was related to the Sosilawati mass murder suspects.

Shafik is among three people still listed as missing by police investigating the Sosilawai mass murders. The other two missing men have been identified as Indian businessman A. Muthuraja 34 and another businessman, identified as Thevaraj Shanmugam, 28, from Taiping.

Another case which police are working on is the murder of housewife T. Selvi, 44, who was slashed to death by two men outside her home in Banting in April last year.

The new Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Ismail Omar has publicly admitted that Sosilawati’s case could have been prevented if fast action, including proper investigation, had been conducted over earlier reports of missing persons.

This could only mean one thing – that the cosmetic millionaire Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya, 47, her driver, Kamarudin Shansudin, 44, lawyer Ahmad Kamil Abdul Karim, 32, and CIMB bank officer Noorhisham Mohammad 38 would still be alive if  the police had been efficient and professional in handling all police reports which had been made against the lawyer brothers in the past five years going back to 2005,  involving fraud, criminal breach of trust, missing persons and murder.

I would have thought all reasonable Malaysians, regardless of race, religion or political affiliation, could unite in wanting to have an efficient, incorruptible, professional world-class police service as envisaged by the 2005 Dzaiddin Police Royal Commission of Inquiry to perform the  three core functions of ensuring the safety of citizens, investors, visitors and tourists by keeping crime low, fight corruption and protect human rights and would stand as one in demanding to know why the Police, particularly in Banting, had failed to take necessary measures against the spate of police reports against the brother lawyers going back for five years which would have spared Malaysians and our international image a lot of pain and damage.

It is therefore with shock that I find that my question for the first day of Parliament demanding to know from Hishammuddin the reasons for police inaction against the spate of police reports against the brother-lawyers for the past five years had attracted such animosity and provoked  ferocious fire by MCA cybertroopers.

MCA leaders have always been nursing the illusion that just because no MCA Minister had ever held the portfolio of Home Ministry in charge of police, MCA need not bear any responsibility for the degradation of the Malaysian police service from the high international esteem in the early years of nationhood to the present status of a laughing stock among the police services in the world!

But this is a great fallacy, for MCA had always been a component party of the ruling coalition in the 53 years from the nation’s independence to the present day and it cannot disclaim responsibility from the principle of collective responsibility for the terminal degradation and deterioration of the key national institutions in the country, including the police.

The four MCA Minister should explain why the MCA is so deadset and hostile to my question demanding the Home Minister to account for police inaction over the spate of police reports against the Sosilawai mass murder suspects, as  illustrated by the stance of the MCA cybertroopers.

If this is the MCA mentality, how can Malaysians expect MCA Ministers to speak up in Cabinet and government for an efficient, professional world-class police service to ensure safety of citizens, investors, visitors and tourists by keeping criminals at bay?

I have another question for the Home Minister in Parliament next month – “To ask the Home Minister the number of missing persons reported to police for each year since 2,000, giving separate breakdown for states; the success rates to locate the missing persons and why”.

Is this question also going to upset the MCA and if so why?

Is there anyone from among the MCA Ministers, Deputy Ministers and MPs who dare to support my call for a Royal Commission of Inquiry  to establish why no action had been taken on earlier police reports dating as far back as 2005 against the lawyer brothers linked to the mass murders of Sosilawati and three others?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 22 September 2010, 3:49 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Syabas, Hatta, for standing up for press freedom

by
Thomas Lee

My.Sinchew

22nd Sept. 2010

I wish to commend and congratulate the newly-elected National Union of Journalists (NUJ) president Hatta Wahari for making a bold and brave stand in defence of press freedom. It has been a long time since any leader of the NUJ has stuck his or her neck out to speak out against the abuse and exploitation of the media, especially in the mainstream newspapers.

In an interview with Malaysiakini, Hatta blamed the top editors of Utusan Malaysia for the daily’s frequent confrontation with politicians.

According to the senior journalist at Utusan, the conflicts are between Utusan chief editor Aziz Ishak, supported by the senior editors, against the politicians from both the Barisan Nasional and the Pakatan Rakyat.

Hatta said it is unfair to fault the newspaper company per se with the alleged manipulation of its paper’s content by the editors with vested political interest.

He said there are many Utusan journalists, photographers, graphic artists and other staff members who do not agree with the agenda of the editors, but are powerless to do anything.

Obviously these lower-ranking journalists and staff members do not have any say in the decision-making process of the newspaper, let alone criticize or challenge the chief editor and senior editors on their political slant.

Hatta said the NUJ feels that the Utusan chief editor and senior editors do not advocate or practise press freedom, but merely take care of the interest of their political masters.

He said the public and politicians should not direct their anger at the newspaper company, but should take to task the chief editor for the controversial reports published by the newspaper.

“The chief editor determines the agenda, news and opinions which are published by Utusan and should be held fully responsibility for any negative elements, complaints and discontent hurled at the daily,” he said.

Hatta also pointed out that at stake is the rice bowl of the estimated 1,000 Utusan employees and their family members, in subtle reference to the daily’s gradually declining circulation figures.

Many people and opposition political leaders have been condemning the Utusan for its racial slants and heavily skewed reporting towards its owner Umno.

Hatta certainly deserves our accolade and support for speaking out, without fear or favour, on the very fundamental matter of press freedom, despite the very real risk of jeopardizing his career.

An outspoken and crusading journalist is usually a marked person, and a file will be opened to record every little mistake he makes, to build a case against him. He will be lucky if there are no trumped-up charges like sexual harassment, etc to get rid of him.

I doubt there are many editors and journalists who are prepared to stand up and be counted for truth, righteousness, justice, freedom, fairness, equality, and human rights. The cost is certainly very high, and the price for the sacrifice includes being sidelined for promotion, and alienated to insignificant positions and tasks.

I have worked as a journalist and editor in the mainstream news media since 1975, in the now defunct National Echo, the New Straits Times, Malay Mail, The Sun, and The Star, and had also served as the NUJ secretary-general in the late 1970s.

Throughout the 35 years in the newspaper industry, I have worked with all sorts of editors and journalists, and have identified five types of journalists in the media community.

First, there are the EEs — Editorial Eunuchs, who take orders from their political emperors and write and spin stories to promote the emperor’s cause. These political appointees are usually in top and senior positions, not because they are good journalists or great writers, but because of their connection to powerful political godfathers. They are first class cronies. Many are ghost writers for their political masters. Some are made Datuks or given various civil awards. Several have become millionaires.

I thank God that, except for one or two cases, the editors I had worked with are not such people. I can vouch that people like P.C. Liew, Ng Poh Tip, Michael Aeria, Wong Sulong and Wong Chun Wai are good people of principle and top class journalists, not EEs. My good friend Chong Cheng Hai, the managing editor of The Sun, is another person of integrity.

Secondly, there are the PPs — Press Prostitutes, who have sold their souls and principles to gain favours and privileges from their political and/or business clients. They will write what pleases their political masters. The amount of hampers and gifts they receive during festive seasons is perhaps a good indication of their rising status in their media organization. (Perhaps the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission should consider looking at this practice of giving editors hampers, gifts and big fat ang pows during festive seasons).

Thirdly, there are the MMs — Media Marionettes, the puppets who have no brains but are used and abused by opportunists to advance their own political or business agenda. The manipulative opportunists usually feed such journalists with twisted information and deceive these gullible writers to propagate their schemes of things. Our education system has produced many such gullible, unthinking, uncritical, and dumb people; and some of them are found in the media organizations.

Fourth, there are the JJs — Junket Journalists, those who will write anything for the sponsors of their overseas trips. Let me illustrate how some big corporate companies use such overseas junkets to bribe editors and journalists to do their biding. Company A has a product which the Consumers Association of Penang (CAP) considers harmful to the people. The CAP keeps issuing press statements on its research on the harmful product and the newspapers keep publishing the statements. Company A wants to put a stop to such bad publicity of its product. So, it organized a week-long trip for senior editors to visit the product’s factory in Japan. Everything was paid for and provided for, including pocket money for shopping. The editors had a thoroughly good time. On their return, they repaid their wonderful host by stopping all negative reports on its product.

Finally, there are the WWs — Wise Writers, the rare breed who know how to survive through the controlled press situation and get their honest views into print without rousing the suspicion of their media bosses, who are usually political cronies. There are very few such honest writers with integrity and principles, and they are usually not in positions of power.

I believe that Hatta as the NUJ president can contribute significantly to preserve, promote and advance press freedom in Malaysia. My hope is that the other members of the NUJ executive council, and all NUJ members will mobilize under Hatta’s leadership to fight for press freedom to flourish in Malaysia.

For a start, Hatta and the NUJ should launch a campaign to get the federal government to repeal or amend the oppressive anti-press laws such as the Printing Presses and Publications Act, Internal Security Act, Official Secrets Act with its mandatory jail term, Sedition Act, and other related rules and regulations curbing press freedom.

How can we expect to have OneMalaysia when we do not really have a free and credible press?

If Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak is truly sincere in wanting to take the country to greater heights as OneMalaysia, then the first thing he needs to do is to liberate the press by abolishing the oppressive legal restraints, and enact a Freedom of Information Act. Then, he must revamp the whole administration system to get rid of those known to be corrupt, racist, and incompetent. Most importantly, there must be reform in the judiciary, enforcement agencies, and the election commission. Local council elections should be reinstated.

OneMalaysia? It will remain a slogan and a dream if the current federal government does not take concrete actions to reform the whole political and administrative environment in the country. And the first thing Najib must do is to remove the unjust oppressive laws and crack the whip on those in his party Umno and in the civil service who propagate and promote racism.

If the Barisan Nasional administration is unable to bring about such reforms, then we must throw it out at the next general election.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 22 September 2010, 7:23 pm and is filed under
Media
,
Thomas Lee
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Call on political parties from both sides of divide – BN and PR  – and civil society to come forward to defend Hatta Wahari and NUJ to uphold professional ethics and  integrity of Malaysian journalists

Congratulations to Hatta Wahari the newly elected President of National Union of Journalists (NUJ) for bringing  in fresh air with the courage of conviction to uphold journalistic professionalism and ethics.

Although Hatta is from Utusan Malaysia, he has drawn the line in the sand to uphold, defend and promote  journalistic ethics and  professionalism when he blamed Utusan Malaysia’s editors for the daily’s frequent run-ins with politicians.

Hatta, who is a senior journalist at Utusan,  said the conflicts were between the daily’s chief editor Aziz Ishak, backed by senior editors, against the politicians from both BN and Pakatan Rakyat.

He said: “NUJ sees that it is unfair to fault Utusan Malaysia which includes journalists, photographers, graphic artists and other staff who don’t share the agenda (of the editors).

“They also do not have the authority to criticise the chief editor and the senior editors.

“NUJ is also of the opinion that the chief editor and senior editors of Utusan were not advocating media freedom but instead merely fulfilling the needs of their ‘political masters’.”

I am sure all the suffering journalists in the mainstream media, who have not been able to fully practise the ethics and professionalism of their craft, fully endorse the intrepid stand taken by Hatta, who deserves the support of political parties from both sides of the divide – Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat – as well as the civil society.

Hatta’s stand has attracted an immediate attack from Utusan Malaysia Veteran’s Club president Raja Ahmad Niza Raja Ismail who lambasted him for “going against the company”, calling on Hatta to resign from the company if the latter “insists on biting the hand that feeds him”.

I agree that there is no reason for Hata to resign from Utusan. Hatta has a higher duty not only to defend professional ethics and integrity of Malaysian journalists  but also the interests and welfare of more than 1,000 staff working under in Utusan Malaysia to ensure that newspapers do not discredit and kill themselves by becoming “rubbish” papers.

At a time when the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak is talking about a national transformation to take Malaysia to another stage of development, this transformation must include the restoration of the honour, ethics, high standards and integrity of the profession of journalism in Malaysia.

For this reason, I call on BN and PR –  political parties from both sides of fence – and civil society to come forward to defend Hatta Wahari and NUJ to protect and uphold high standards,  ethics  and integrity of the journalistic profession which have become rare commodities in the mainstream media.

Raja Ahmad’s talk about not “biting the hand that feed him” reminds me of Utusan Malaysia’s sidelining of the RM1.3 trillion Economic Transformation Programme of the Najib administration which was announced by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Idris Jala on Tuesday.

This was front-page headline in yesterday’s New Straits Times “RM1.3 tril investment roadmap”, Star “RM115 bil start – Seven projects under ETP to triple nation’s income” and Sun “No business for govt” but conspicuously absent from Utusan Malaysia’s front-page, as it was relegated to lesser importance in the inside pages.

Who is biting the  “hand that feeds him”?

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz asked Utusan Malaysia a  most pertinent question as to  who is the Utusan Malaysia’s boss if not Najib as Umno President.

Instead of asking Hatta to resign from Utusan Malaysia, Raja Ahmad should have asked the Utusan chief editor Aziz Ishak to leave Utusan if he is not prepared to accept Najib as Prime Minister and Umno President unless Aziz and the senior Utusan editors  have hijacked Utusan Malaysia in an ongoing  plot and conspiracy to unseat Najib both as Prime Minister and Umno President.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 23 September 2010, 4:26 pm and is filed under
Media
,
Najib Razak
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.