Define sedition for us simple folk

By Dato’ Dr Amar-Singh HSS and Datin Dr Lim Swee Im | MMO

7 September 2014

SEPTEMBER 7 — The recent spate of illogical arrests for alleged sedition has confused many of us. It seems that any simple statement can be viewed as sedition and seems to depend on personal interpretation. In view of this can we suggest that the authorities circulate guidelines as to what constitutes sedition from their point of view.

To aid us some examples are listed below. Which of these would be considered seditious? Please enlighten us so we can be careful not to upset the sensitivities of the government. Please note that we are just quoting what has been said by others or reported in media and in no way are uttering these potentially seditious comments.

Example 1: Describing our national football team as duds?

Many Malaysians have attested to this and it is supported by the extremely poor performance of the team. Most of us just want a good football team we can be proud of, and feel that speaking out would be constructive. But it can be construed that criticising the team is an affront to our national pride of “Malaysia Boleh” and may “raise discontent or disaffection amongst the … inhabitants of Malaysia” as stated under the Sedition Act 1948.

Example 2: Calling non-Malays “pendatang”?

This horrible phrase “pendatang” was made popular by Tun Dr Mahathir in his book The Malay Dilemma. It has been uttered ad nauseam (“so many times we want to vomit”) by many government leaders and widely recorded. But is deemed not seditious by the authorities and no one has been ever arrested. We find this confusing because it clearly falls under the Sedition Act 1948 which states “…to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia”. In addition our esteemed Prime Minister has been reported in the press (24th June 2012) that “Malaysian Chinese are not ‘pendatang (immigrants)’ and those who labelled the community as such were ‘lunatics’”. So if we do not want to charge these ministers and NGO leaders under the Sedition Act, let us at least commit them to a mental institution.

Example 3: Suggesting that civil service has institutionalised corruption?

We all know that corruption is an enormous problem in Malaysia. Our Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has included reducing corruption as one of the most important in the six National Key Result Areas (NKRA). A survey by Ernst & Young in 2013 has found that Malaysia (together with China) has the highest levels of bribery and corruption anywhere in the world. Our Auditor General each year has published horrific stories of corruption in the civil service. So as tax payers can we question this issue or will it be viewed as seditious i.e. “to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against (the) Government” or “to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established”? Can pointing out possible criminal behaviour, by any Malaysian, ever be considered seditious?

Example 4: Calling our PM a liar and going against his directives and wishes?

Our Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has repeatedly stated that the Sedition Act 1948 will be replaced. This was first reported on 11th July 2012 and repeated again on 5th September 2014. He has also kept his promise to repeal the Internal Security Act. Yet his own ministers are insisting that he did not say this and are saying they want a return of the ISA. Are they being seditious by contravening the Sedition Act “to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against (the) Government”?

Example 5: Making an Ah Beng joke about our PM?

Finally what about jokes? We all crack jokes and we have heard our fair share about government figures. Datuk Lat always used to exaggerate Tun Dr Mahathir’s nose with great effects, Dato’ Seri Samy Vellu always left us in stitches and the hairstyle of a VIP’s wife offers opportunities to graphic cartoonists. However we learnt a lot from the Queen of England when we were in the UK. Occasionally negative comments or jokes (graphic or written) are made about her, even quoted in the press. She never responds or acknowledges them, and so they die out and are dismissed.

We recently heard a hilarious, but innocent, Ah Beng joke about our PM. Is this seditious?

We could continue on issues related to religion, class differences, corruption, royalty and special rights but the message is clear. We share these so that clarity can come to this current crisis. Like our Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib, we know that the Sedition Act 1948 is an archaic and repressive legislation. It has no place in a democratic and progressive Malaysia.

Yes there is a need to watch what we say and write. To respect everyone, especially in areas of religion and ethnic/cultural differences.  But any legislation used to curb these excesses must be uniform and used with sensibility. Sometimes what is said it is just plain stupidity and an apology or ignoring it will do. Others who are repetitive or have an agenda of hatred need to be curbed. Our Prime Minister has already empathically stated that the Act will be removed. Can we suggest the authorities listen to him and not use this outdated and offensive legislation. The continued selective use of it damages our nation. We need to stop the world laughing at Malaysians, yet again, and regain our dignity and basic human rights.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 8 September 2014, 11:00 am and is filed under
nation building
,
Sedition
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Discomfiting glare falls on journalists after sedition rap

BY Joseph Sipalan | MMO

September 8, 2014

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 8 — Journalists in Malaysia have been thrust under the unaccustomed glare of the spotlight, grappling with the startling arrest of one of their number in a sedition blitz that has snagged politicians and an academic over the past couple of weeks.

The detention of Malaysiakini journalist Susan Loone drew silent indignation among many in the industry, who saw no call for punitive action against a reporter simply doing her job.

Malaysia, already low on  a key gauge of press freedom, could  sink further.  The World Press Freedom Index 2014 , released by global media watchdog, Reporters Sans Frontières, ranked  Malaysia at 147th out of a total of 180 nations., tumbling 23 places from  2013.

Loone was detained on September 4 and reportedly questioned for nine hours in connection to police reports lodged against her and Malaysiakini over an article she wrote related to the police’s recent crackdown on the Penang Volunteer Patrol Unit (PPS).

The journalist and news portal are being investigated under Section 4(1)(C) of the Sedition Act over the article, “Disoalsiasat selama 4 jam, dakwa dilayan seperti penjenayah (Interrogated for four hours, treated like a criminal)”, in which she quoted state executive councillor Phee Boon Poh in recounting the latter’s earlier arrest in connection with the PPS.

Despite the outrage, however, an even greater worry looms over the profession with the realisation that the messenger may well end up getting proverbially shot.

While there has not been any clear directive to be more “careful” in writing stories from the higher-ups in news organisations — be it mainstream or alternative — Loone’s arrest reinforces the long-practiced habit of self-censorship in the Malaysian media.

Even  foreign media are not taking chances, with one journalist for a foreign publication admitting that they are not touching any story that concerns the royalty — one of the sticking points that landed at least one politician with a sedition rap.

The situation is not helped by a recent challenge by Home Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, who called out a reporter from The Sun for misquoting him in a story that had quoted him as calling non-Malays arrogant.

“So if the reporter has the guts, whether he is a male or female, step out and talk to me. If he made a mistake and retracted and apologised, I will forgive him, if not, I will know what to do,” he said in his speech at the Bukit Bendera Umno delegates conference last week.

The National Union of Journalists Peninsular Malaysia (NUJ) did speak out against Loone’s arrest, condemning it as an attempt “to intimidate and interfere with press freedom” and demanded that the police apologise to Loone over the incident.

But this was not the first time a journalist was arrested using a colonial era law in recent years.

Sin Chew Daily reporter Tan Hoon Cheng was briefly detained under the now-defunct Internal Security Act (ISA) in September 2008, over a story regarding racist remarks uttered by former Bukit Bendera Umno division chief Datuk Ahmad Ismail during the Permatang Pauh by-election campaign.

Which leaves a heady question for journalists in Malaysia — can they continue to do their work without fear of the full brunt of the law bearing down on them?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 8 September 2014, 11:04 am and is filed under
Media
,
Sedition
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Most Selangor voters believe water shortage due to politics, survey shows

BY ANISAH SHUKRY | TMI

8 September 2014

The number one issue that Selangor voters want resolved soon is the state’s water shortage, with the majority of them believing that politics is behind the constant disruption in water supply, according to a recent survey.

The joint survey by The Malaysian Insider and Merdeka Center found that water supply topped Selangor voters’ list of concerns at 43%, followed closely by crime (40%), cost of living (20%), affordable housing (19%) and traffic congestion (11%).

Asked whether they believed the water crisis was due to politics, 63% of the 808 respondents said “yes”. They were polled from August 11 to August 17.

However, voters were split over who was responsible, with 24% blaming the state government, 22% blaming Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor (Syabas), and 22% blaming the weather.

Voters were also almost equally divided on whether or not the state’s water resources were well-managed, with 40% saying yes and another 48% saying no.

“As far as the public is concerned, all they want is regular and uninterrupted water supply. They are not really interested in the issue of the takeover (of water services by the state), or the construction of Langat 2,” Merdeka Center executive director Ibrahim Suffian told The Malaysian Insider.

“They believe it’s political because they are increasingly aware of the wrangling between the state government under Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim and Syabas over this water issue.”

But he said that people were not sure exactly who to blame as there were many different views and the situation was “fluid”.

When asked whether Pakatan Rakyat (PR) supporters might have pinned the blame on Syabas, while pro-Barisan Nasional (BN) voters had fingered the state government, Ibrahim said this was possible.

“But the dynamics are changing, so now it’s difficult for the people to decide who is responsible. The issue itself is nearing conclusion as we speak, with different parties working out the agreement.”

The Selangor water restructuring agreement was one of the six reasons PKR wanted Khalid removed from his menteri besar post, according to the party’s 24-page report “The Decision to Replace the Menteri Besar”, which was distributed to DAP and PAS on August 5.

The report said Selangor was on the losing end of the deal, as the federal government had obtained the state’s approval to construct the Langat 2 water treatment plant without being obligated to force a takeover of the water concessionaires.

Another reason Khalid had to go, according to PKR, was the controversial Kidex highway project.

The party accused him of ignoring public criticisms and defying Datuk Seri Dr Anwar Ibrahim’s call against burdening the people with more toll charges.

Voters polled by Merdeka Center generally supported PR’s position to reject proposals to build new toll roads, with 57% of respondents agreeing with the coalition’s stance.

However, a breakdown of the respondents’ ethnicities showed that Malay voters were almost equally split over PR’s stance on toll roads, while most Chinese (78%) and Indians (64%) agreed with PR’s rejection.

More than half (58%) of the respondents also disapproved of the state government’s decision to allow another six new toll roads to be built in Selangor.

Again, Malay voters were split over the matter, with 45% agreeing to it and 44% opposing it. In contrast, 74% and 67% Chinese and Indian voters, respectively, did not agree to another six toll roads being built.

Ibrahim said Malay voters were split between political loyalty to BN and personal interests.

“A big chunk of the Malays live in rural areas of Selangor, where they are not affected by toll roads and are not so concerned. Some even think it helps with the development of the state,” he said.

“Those who live in the centre of the Klang Valley, near either side of the Federal Highway, are of mixed ethnic background and they are against tolls.”

The survey also revealed that Selangor voters were almost equally divided on the Selangor Islamic Council (Mais) and Department’s (Jais) seizure of Malay and Iban-language Bibles in January.

Almost half (45%) of the voters polled said that Mais and Jais had either “somewhat overstepped” (19%) or “very overstepped” (26%) their authority in seizing the Bibles, while 35% said they had “not overstepped” (28%) and “somewhat not overstepped” (7%) their authority.

Most of those who believed the religious authorities had acted appropriately were Malay – 64% of Malay voters in Selangor believed that Mais and Jais had not overstepped their authority, according to the survey.

In contrast, only 7% and 8% of Chinese and Indian voters, respectively, felt the same way.

Ibrahim said the Malays in Selangor were largely a conservative lot, with the majority of them being BN supporters.

“The survey shows that anything to do with Islam, or royalty, the Malays tend to take the traditional line. A lot of people are not testing the boundaries,” said Ibrahim.

Since Malays were largely BN supporters, they were also more likely to follow the coalition’s stance on the matter, he said.

In June, Selangor BN had expressed support for MAIS and its refusal to return the seized Bibles to The Bible Society of Malaysia.

Khalid had also faced mounting pressure from PKR to resign over his handling of the Bible raids, before he was finally sacked from the party on August 9. – September 8, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 8 September 2014, 11:08 am and is filed under
Selangor
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Datuk Seri, please do the right thing

By Azrul Mohd Khalib | MMO

September 9, 2014

Datuk Seri Najib Razak, I, like many Malaysians around the country, support your call to repeal the Sedition Act of 1948.

There are periods in history when we are at the right place, at the right time and are called upon to act. To do what our conscience tells us as necessary because only we can. Times like these are few and far in between, when we are called to action to make right that which is wrong, heal that which has been hurt and practise that which we speak of. This is one such opportunity.

The 1948 Sedition Act is a piece of colonial era legislation which was born during a time when our penjajah, the English, intended to suppress dissent, maintain power and continue the oppression and subjugation of the people of Malaya.

It was intended to extinguish the flame of democracy which burned brightly amongst those who yearned for freedom and a better future for everyone in this country. It is an instrument born of fear, insecurity, is against democratic principles and aimed to tyrannise the ruled and to see and treat the rakyat as the enemy. It was used on the people who fought for this country’s independence.

It has been 57 years since the cry of “Merdeka!” rang seven times in the ears of all those present at Stadium Merdeka as tears ran down cheeks during that glorious moment.

How ironic is it that we have been independent for decades but continue to keep and utilise the tools of oppression and tyranny left by our colonial masters more than a century ago? Have we become today’s colonial masters who brook no opposition, no contrarian opinions and no check and balance?

Surely, Malaysia and the Malaysian people deserve better?

How can we call ourselves truly independent and democratic when we allow for the continued existence, use and abuse of such an unjust law against our own people?

Datuk Seri, you know as I do, that nobody is arguing for changes which compromise or threaten the security of the country.

Contrary to what the proponents of this law say and often deliberately misrepresent, Malaysia does not need this law to maintain its security and maintain the harmonious and peaceful existence which is our way of life. It does not make us a better people or a better government. Perkasa described the act as a “weapon” to aim at “traitors.” A weapon certainly does not promote national harmony.

What this Act does is to cultivate a culture and climate of fear, impunity, distrust and oppression where dissent and contrarian opinion are not tolerated or accepted, and even criminalised. Only extremists, people with selfish interests and those who jump at shadows and imaginary enemies or “traitors” will argue for its continued existence.

They are the ones who moan and groan of the inconvenience of democracy and prefer the authoritarian approach where might makes right. Where there is only one way. Their way. They are afraid of change, doubt the maturity of the Malaysian people and do not believe in a different and better Malaysia. They doubt your vision for the country, Datuk Seri.

Two years ago, when you announced the government’s intent and your vision to repeal the Internal Security Act of 1960 and the Sedition Act and later acted on the former, we saw hope of change for the better.

The mere act of being in disagreement or in opposition against the policies and actions of the government should never be considered either a crime or seditious. If a person cares about Malaysia, he or she will talk about both her strengths and weaknesses, warts and all. After all, what is democracy if not the right to stand up, speak out and stand for what you believe in without fear or favour. It is how together we build a better country.

But of late in the past year and these few months, many of us have seen with dismay the exponential vigorous use of a law which has resulted in activists, politicians, journalists and even academics being hauled up, accused and charged with sedition.

Far from being seditious and traitorous, many of them are in fact the very moderates which you speak so highly and are supportive of as being the bulwark against extremism and injustice in this country. They speak out in support or opposition because they care about and love this country. The extremists on the other hand seem to have a freehand, are unaccountable and act without fear and with impunity regardless of the damage, tensions and fear they create and cause.

Datuk Seri, we are concerned that even members of your own Cabinet, as recently as last week, have openly questioned or disputed, directly or indirectly, your vision of a better Malaysia without these laws. They have also tried to undermine the mandate given to the NUCC to help draft the National Harmony Bill to replace the Sedition Act.

A great change is at hand, and you are in the right time and the right place to make this happen, peacefully, constructive and of benefit for all.

The right actions are rarely easy or even popular. But it is the right thing to do. Let’s get rid of the Sedition Act of 1948 and be truly independent in deed and spirit.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 9 September 2014, 11:59 am and is filed under
General
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib desperate to be relevant

By M Bakri Musa | TMI

9 September 2014

Last Saturday, September 6, 2014, marked a milestone of sorts for Prime Minister Najib Razak. On that day he exceeded the tenure of his predecessor, Abdullah Badawi. Abdullah served for five years, five months, and three days, the extra day thrown in with the 2008 leap year. Najib had his too in 2012. The traditional time lines for a new leader are the first hundred and first thousand days. For Najib that was July 12, 2009 and December 18, 2011.

The “First 100 Days” is President Roosevelt’s (FDR) phrase. To him that was the best or most opportune period for a new leader to reshape the course of a nation. Did he ever? The “First One Thousand Days” also referred to FDR, the title of a book by his senior aide. The expression now is associated more with Kennedy’s Camelot days in the White House. In my profession, thousand days refer to the period before a child’s second birthday when good health and nutrition, as well as parental involvement and a stimulating home environment, are critical.

Najib had little to show by all three time lines. Today he struggles and is in fact desperate to be relevant. He is less criticised, more ignored – a much worse fate for a leader.

Najibs’ one hundred days

In a television interview on his hundredth day in office, Najib pleaded for his administration to be assessed after a full term, not a hundred days. Fair enough, after all he is no FDR. The end of Najib’s first term came and went with the May 2013 election that saw his coalition’s worst performance, surpassing the humiliation suffered by his predecessor. Abdullah took responsibility for his debacle and resigned, albeit after much prodding. Najib continued on.

When he assumed office I predicted that with Malaysians now sensitised to and less forgiving of incompetence having been through with Abdullah, Najib would have an even briefer tenure. Alas, I was wrong; I overestimated Najib’s sense of honour or responsibility. He has neither. So unlike Abdullah, voters would have to kick him out, and do so in no uncertain terms. A point to remember come the next election.

Najib announced his brave economic liberalization moves soon after taking office. At the first resistance however, he did not just flip flop like Abdullah but reversed course. He assured his Umno Putras that their favourite rent-seeking activities would not be curtailed but in fact enhanced. Over five years and an election later, Najib is still busy buying favours.

Then there was the Commission of Inquiry he was forced to set up to investigate Teoh Beng Hock’s death. Teoh was a “friendly” witness who died after being interviewed by the anti-corruption agency in the early hours of the morning. Later, a few days before Najib’s hundredth-day anniversary, there was a massive but peaceful Bersih 2.0 rally which he had earlier declared illegal.

That notwithstanding, there were its leaders – a beaming Ambiga Sreenivasan and Poet Laureate Samad Said–getting an audience with the King. Apparently His Majesty too ignored Najib, and so soon into his tenure!

If Abdullah was a main-main (play-acting) or “practice” Prime Minister, then Najib is the sacrificial zinc anode one. He attracts the corruption, ugliness, and extremism of his supporters. Then when weighted down with the accumulated accretions, voters would toss him out, sparing the nation. Najib, however, collects those corrosions way too fast. Malaysians must consider chucking him sooner. I had suggested doing that during the last parliamentary budget debate on October 2013. There will be another opportunity next month.

Najib’s one thousand days

Najib’s thousandth day in office went unheralded. Not even he took notice, and for good reason. He had nothing to show for it. In a speech Najib was forced to defend his 1Malaysia.

“It is a philosophy, not a mere slogan,” he insisted. Poor fellow, when you have to defend or clarify what you mean three years on, it could not have had much of an impact.

By his thousandth-day Najib had forgotten or ignored his earlier “courageous” move to liberalize the economy. He was back to his bribing ways, offering RM400 million to the mostly Malay bus companies’ owners. Despite many more and ever generous giveaways to buy his way into the election, Najib fared worse than Abdullah.

Najib outlasting Abdullah

A few days before Najib exceeded Abdullah’s tenure, Teoh’s death haunted Najib again. To recap, a lower court had earlier declared an open verdict, meaning, no one was at fault, incredulous though that may seem. The family appealed, and a few days ago in a landmark and unanimous decision, the Appeals Court set aside that verdict.

The court went beyond and declared that his death was caused or accelerated by unlawful acts by individuals unknown, inclusive (my emphasis) of MACC’s officials. Justice Mohamad Ariff asserted that the interests of the family and the public required the case to be further investigated. Justice Ariff is indeed Yang Arif, the honorific exclusive for judges. It means wise and knowledgeable.

That is a rare public rebuke from an increasingly assertive and independent judiciary; a good omen for Malaysia but a bad one for Najib.

That was not the only past to haunt Najib. His earlier commitment to do away with the sedition and internal security acts was exposed for the fraud that it was when he charged his prominent critics, including law professor Azmi Sharom, for sedition.

The Economist was wrong when it concluded that those charges hurt Najib’s image as a reformer. The man was never one. That tag merely reflects smart packaging, like his earlier string of high-profile international “interviews” later exposed to be unabashed infomercials. Even CNN and the venerable BBC were snared.

Najib’s memory must be faulty as he is oblivious of these inconsistencies. This May he vowed “no bailouts” for beleaguered Malaysia Airlines. Today he declared the over six billion-ringgit infusion as “investment” and equating it to a patriotic duty!

Kata di kota, goes an old Malay wisdom, but with Najib, kata di lupa. Our word (kata) must be as dependable as a fort (kota); otherwise forget (lupa) it.

Malaysians cannot forget Najib as his image appears everywhere, rivalling the gaudiness and ubiquity of North Korea’s “Dear Beloved Leader.” Malaysians can however ignore him, and they are doing just that.

Former Law Minister Zaid Ibrahim sums up Najib best. Referring to Najib’s questioning the opposition’s “loyalty” to the Sultan of Selangor, Zaid wrote on September 8, 2014, two days after Najib exceeded Abdullah’s tenure in office, “This cheap political trick… should not come from a Prime Minister. … Instead of telling the people … the complexities of democracy and how constitutional monarch and political leaders should conduct themselves, the PM took the lazy route of inflaming the feelings of the Malays …. For a man who talks about the great transformation for the country, this is irresponsible conduct and most disappointing.”

Malaysians cannot ignore an irresponsible leader. That would be height of irresponsibility.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 9 September 2014, 11:55 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


RM5,900 a month income is simply not true

By Steven Sim | TMI

9 September 2014

People say politicians often tell lies. But really, more often than not, they actually give us statistics. What is the difference? I’ll let Mark Twain tell you: “There are three kinds of lies; lies, damned lies and statistics”.

The latest statistics our government proudly brandish at us is the report that household income in Malaysia has surpassed RM5,900 a month. This was presented by Datuk Seri Abdul Wahid Omar, the former Maybank boss roped into the Cabinet as “economy minister”.

Intuitively, most Malaysians know it’s a farce. Why?

Because many families we know, maybe including our own, earn much lesser than RM5,900 a month.

Because even the government itself proudly claimed that its cash transfer programme BR1M has benefited 80% of Malaysian households. The only condition for BR1M is that a recipient household must earn less than RM3,000 a month.

Because as recent as September of 2013, the government said that 82.5% of young Malaysians below the age of 30 earn below RM3,000 a month. They constitute more than one-third the workers in Malaysia.

Because according to the 2012 Household Income and Basic Amenities Survey (HIS/BA 2012), the bottom 40% of Malaysian households only earn about RM1,800 per month.

Additionally, while the HIS/BA 2012 already noted that the average Malaysian household earns RM5,000 a month, 50% of Malaysian households actually earn less than RM3,626 monthly.

How did that happen?

Statistics, the art of telling official “lies”

(Caveat: I love statistics because if used responsibly, they provide useful insights into reality.)

The “economy minister” used the latest HIS/BA 2014 which has yet to be published by the Department of Statistics on its website. Hence, I will use the HIS/BA 2012 to illustrate how he has cleverly used statistics to paint a rosy picture of our earnings.

Abdul Wahid used mean household income to demonstrate that we are already earning RM5,900 a month. In the HIS/BA 2012, as mentioned above, the mean household income was already RM5,000 a month. This was basically arrived at by averaging the total income of all households with the total number of households.

As we all know, an average works well if the data set is symmetry, i.e., if everyone has roughly the same salary in this case. Otherwise, a one or two greater values in the set will significantly skew the average from the other values.

We may just add a local twist to the famous anecdote: Bill Gates entering into a workmen’s bar, immediately turned everyone into a millionaire, if a minister like Abdul Wahid comes in to take an income survey and presented the mean income of the bar patrons.

On the other hand, the HIS/BA 2012 also reported that the median household income in Malaysia was only RM3,626. Median gives a better picture of an asymmetrical set of data, that is, a set with values which differ greatly from one another. It divides the set equally into two parts above and below the median value.

Thus according to the HIS/BA 2012, 50% of Malaysian households actually earn less than RM3,626 monthly although the average income is RM5,000 a month.

Both are valid statistical outputs, so what is the problem?

If you ask me, the problem with such “dishonesty” is not much about the government lying to us but rather the government lying to itself. By patting its own back on the so-called achievement, the government created a false sense of its own success, thus risked ignoring the real situation and the work that still needed to be done.

During my first parliamentary sitting in 2013, the self-same “economy minister” proudly told the House that because our country’s unemployment rate was below 4%, according to economist John Maynard Keynes, we can be deemed to have full employment. Since then, I have been pointing out that such self-congratulatory perspective continues to blind the government towards the real condition of employment in this country, ranging from high unemployment among young Malaysians including graduates to the issue of underemployment, from unfair industrial practices to gender discrimination in the job market, from our over-dependence on low-skilled migrant labour to brain drain.

Similarly, when someone the stature of an “economy minister” says we are already earning RM5,900 a month, the government risked overlooking the actual problems of low wages, high cost of living, high indebtedness among Malaysians and income inequality.

Even with all the reports showing economic growth, we have failed in the last 20 years to achieve any significant improvement to close the gap on inequality.

According to Second Finance Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Husni, Malaysia’s Gini Coefficient Index, which measures inequality (0 means perfect equality, 1 means perfect inequality), was 0.431 in 2012, one of the highest in the region, compared to countries such as Thailand 0.4 and Indonesia 0.37.

Thus, the problem about telling lies is not that others will be convinced but rather the one telling the lies believed his own lies.

* Steven Sim is DAP MP for Bukit Mertajam.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 9 September 2014, 11:52 am and is filed under
Economics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Teoh Beng Hock appeal verdict a turning point?

 – Koon Yew Yin

The Malaysian Insider

10 September 2014

In the last few years, the reputation of Malaysia’s judiciary for fairness and adherence to do justice strictly according to the law has taken a severe beating.

Notorious cases such as the Linda Joy, Anwar Ibrahim, Nizar vs Zambry, and other less politically visible cases have raised public doubts as to whether our judges, especially in cases with politically sensitive outcomes, are able to arrive at fair and just decisions.

Or whether in fact the opposite has taken place with judges more concerned with career advancement and playing ball with the powers that be.

Public concern that our courts, including at the highest level, may in fact be filled with partisan, unfair or even corrupt judges, has been rising non-stop since the Mahathir era. In my piece, “How low can our judiciary go” last April, I noted that at no time in the country’s history has there been such a large and wide variety of politically charged cases being brought to the courts of law.

This includes the present batch of ridiculous sedition cases which have made the Attorney-General’s Chambers a laughing stock among knowledgeable legal circles all over the world.

I have also noted that “if we take these cases individually and collectively, the overall impression that can be obtained from the many articles and analysis which have appeared in the Internet media is that the Malaysian judiciary has come under tremendous political pressure when arriving at their judgments”.

Some authoritative observers of the deterioration in judicial standards in the country have been much more critical of judges.

The highly respected former Court of Appeal judge N.H. Chan, a legal expert who was called to the English Bar in 1959 and has more than 50 years of experience in Malaysian legal practice at the private and public level, has asked with understandable exasperation how could it be that we are the only country, out of all the other common law countries, in the entire world that has so many incompetent judges? His answer is that there must be something wrong in our system for the appointment of judges.

Many people from the legal fraternity agree with him. There was a time when judges were appointed from the cream of the legal profession and the law departments in our universities produced graduates who knew their law and were of some standard.

With the decline in educational standards, it was inevitable that the standards of law graduates in the country, and with it, also the standard of judges, recruited to administer justice, would also fall.

Apart from the decline in educational standards, the factor of politically-biased appointments has played a role.

The Lingam case and the shocking disclosures arising from the Royal Commission of Inquiry, in particular, show clearly that the appointment of judges in the country has been tainted, and that there was evidence of ethical and criminal misconduct by lawyer Lingam, various judges, politicians and businessmen on the matter of judicial appointments.

Despite this finding, the Attorney-General chose not to put Lingam in the dock. This was not because no law had been broken but because of the fear that the skeletons that would emerge out of the closet during the trial would bring down the government.

We are still living with the legacy of a compromised judiciary and the dark shadows cast by prominent members of the judiciary who are more interested in the pursuit of power and self interest rather than with the pursuit of justice.

But every now and then, a verdict comes from out of the blue which shows that there are also good and honourable judges in the system who are not interested in the pursuit of power and self interest, and who are willing to stand firm in the administration of impartial and principled justice.

The most recent example of this has just arrived from the Teoh Beng Hock case, a landmark case which has riveted the attention of the nation for over five years now.

Members of the public who were expecting that this case would go unpunished by our judicial authorities were pleasantly surprised. As a result we see in the internet media the almost universal praise and accolades accorded to the three appeal court judges, Ariff Yusuf, Mah Weng Kwai and Hamid Sultan for their reasoned, meticulous and rigorous written judgments when they struck down the earlier open verdict on the case arrived at by the Shah Alam High Court in refusing to set aside the coroner’s open verdict in the Beng Hock inquest.

In their unanimous decision, the judges held that Teoh’s death was caused by multiple injuries from a fall from the 14th floor of Plaza Masalam as a result of, or which was accelerated by an unlawful act or acts of persons unknown, inclusive of Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officers who were involved in his arrest and investigation.

Teoh’s sister, Lee Lan, has lodged a police report at the Shah Alam police quarters to speed up police investigation. The police must remember that some MACC officers have caused the death and the culprits must be caught and punished adequately.

Whatever happens next in the case, it is important that we should not lose faith in the integrity of our judiciary which forms the first line of defence in the protection of our constitutional rights.

It is not only judges themselves who must exercise vigilance so that their independence is not compromised by political, legislative and other pressures. It is all Malaysians who must stand firm so that there is no political or executive interference with the judicial process. – September 10, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 10 September 2014, 9:11 pm and is filed under
Judiciary
,
Teoh Beng Hock
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


How far back do we go before being seditious becomes ridiculous?

COMMENTARY BY THE MALAYSIAN INSIDER

10 September 2014

Today, a Malaysian preacher was charged with sedition for something he wrote in his Facebook account in November 2012. That is about 22 months ago.

How far will the authorities go back to decide what is seditious and what is not?

Would what Tunku Abdul Rahman say about seeking independence or what Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said in the constitutional crisis of 1983 and 1993 be considered seditious under the Sedition Act 1948?

What is the golden standard being used to measure this seditious tendency? Is it something considered seditious in 2014 rather than whatever was said or written in 2012 or 1957?

How far back before being seditious becomes ridiculous?

One must ask the Attorney-General how his colleagues decide to prefer such charges considering he has said there is review for Universiti Malaya’s law lecturer, associate professor Dr Azmi Sharom.

And why stop at Azmi? How about the rest of those who have been charged with sedition without even knowing they have tripped on the law? The A-G should review all cases and let the public know which line they should not cross.

Otherwise, the sedition cases are just another way of shutting up opinions or debate which the authorities appear incapable of arguing. The easier option is to use the Sedition Act, rather than engage and counter dissenting views.

Azmi put it succinctly today at Universiti Malaya when he said, “There are those who believe that using the Sedition Act is a sign of strength. Wrong! Using the Sedition Act is a sign of weakness!”

This is 2014. The authorities must now live under the illusion that the Sedition Act can do what the now-repealed Internal Security Act had done in the past –  shut up or put away people it feels are a danger to society.

It is not society that they are a danger to, it is the government of the day. And that is the difference betweennational security and insecurity.

If Putrajaya is motivated to push Malaysia into the ranks of a developed and high-income nation, it must start with allowing civilised discourse rather than brandishing laws to silence those it cannot argue against. – September 10, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 11 September 2014, 12:10 pm and is filed under
Court
,
Judiciary
,
Law & Order
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Testy times call for soul searching of the Fourth Estate

Terence Fernandez

The Malaysian Insider

10 September 2014

It has been a testy time for the media with the powers that be. In just two weeks, we have had a reporter from an online portal detained for sedition in Penang, Home Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi demanding an English daily retract and apologise for a news report which depicted him as being a chauvinist (which the paper duly did and apologised) and attempts by a lawyer representing a well-connected firm to compel yours truly and a colleague to reveal sources who were quoted in a front page report last month.

On a separate note, there is also the ongoing repartee between the Malaysian Press Photographers Association (MPPA) and the family of a MH17 victim following a fracas at the Nirvana Memorial Park on September 2 when a grieving family member punched a photographer and broke his camera for allegedly invading their privacy.

Meanwhile, colleague Azril Annuar has been preoccupied entertaining the continuous requests from Kajang Police for statements on an article quoting Rafizi Ramli on the reason for the “Kajang Move” that saw PKR leader Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail contest a vacated Kajang state seat to enable her to throw her hat into the menteri besar ring.

As we now know, Rafizi was charged for sedition on August 28.

The relationship between the media and the authorities has, for most of the time, been more than cordial which is why for a long time the mainstream press especially have borne the unflattering title of the government or ruling party’s mouthpiece.

And with the advent of online portals, the public’s disdain for stenographic journalism (as well as reading trends among the young) saw a decline in newspaper sales and readership.

Then some daily papers decided to be bold – this is partly credited to the initial reform-centred administration of Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi – and to look to commercial interests where advertisers follow readers’ eyeballs.

With the public demanding more critical reporting and analysis, a number of newsmen and news organisations felt the need to up their game, and in the last decade or so we saw what some would deem “mainstream” press coming out with critical pieces including investigative reports that put the ruling elite on the spot.

The powers that be – and I include both federal and state leaders from both sides of the divide – soon saw the need to engage the media more aggressively in search of allies, an exercise which inevitably also unveiled “unfriendly” parties who were blacklisted.

Two years ago, I attended a briefing by a minister on the eve of the Bersih 3 rally.

There were representatives from about a dozen news organisations at the meeting where we were told to only report official accounts from the police and not to play up “sensational” news or publish pictures of injured demonstrators.

Following the briefing, the editors followed the minister into his office. However, after five senior editors from the mainstream dailies had entered, the rest of us literally had the door shut on our faces.

“It’s a special briefing,” we were told.

The following day, the similar angling of the rally in these dailies gave one the impression that the “special briefing” was to determine the following day’s headlines.

So these days, you have some reporters being told to leave press conferences as they are deemed to be one-sided; press briefings with “friendly parties” are the norm while others are blatantly left out.

However, the perennial retort by politicians to uncomfortable questions – “What paper are you from?” – is not exclusive to those in the federal government. Several of those who have only become administrators in the last few years have also become adept at deflecting questions through this form of intimidation.

With the authorities and powerful politicians using defamation suits and laws such as the Printing and Publications Act and the Sedition Act to go after the media, it is important for the Fourth Estate to be united.

The press in Malaysia unfortunately, is divided – the “mainstream” and “alternative” divisions are magnified by political and ideological differences.

That there seem to be a number of unions and groups representing newsmen is indicative of this.

How many of us have had colleagues from other media give dirty looks when we ask “sensitive” questions to a minister?

How many reporters have snickered instead of coming to the aid of a colleague who is ripped by someone in power for a “stupid question”, although the issue demands attention?

How many reporters have substituted “you” when addressing a politician to “we”?

How many have chided their colleagues for “spoiling the market” by not accepting brown envelopes from politicians?

The onslaught against the media has been heightened as we have seen lately with the suspension of The Heat and ongoing legal efforts of FZ Daily to obtain a print licence, and now attempts to out sources.

Although High Court judge Justice Datuk Lau Bee Lan ruled in favour of protecting sources on August 29, there will be no let-up in attempts to remove this protection.

Which is why it is incumbent upon members of the Fourth Estate to band together to protect what is essentially their rice bowl – freedom of information and the people’s right to know – and also to call out without fear or favour those who abuse their positions.

But the press must first hold ourselves to the standards we expect of those about whom we report.

This includes demonstrating the highest standards of impartiality, accuracy, ethics and confidentiality.

It is imperative that we do not provide ammunition to those out to justify shackling the media.

The right to know must be tempered with the need to respect what is “off record”; public interest must always come first; and the right to tell a story must be complemented with the other side’s right to be heard.

And sometimes good journalistic practice includes knowing when to put down our pens and cameras. – September 10, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 11 September 2014, 11:21 pm and is filed under
Media
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why broadband is slower and costlier in Malaysia

G Sharmila

KiniBiz

Sept 8, 2014

Malaysia has ambitions of becoming a developed nation in six years’ time, yet broadband speed and affordability remains a critical, unresolved issue. In fact, research shows that even Thailand is ahead of us in terms of broadband speed and affordability. Where did we go wrong?

Although Malaysia is targeting developed nation status by 2020, our broadband speeds are still lagging behind our closest neighbour Singapore, and even that of Vietnam and Thailand, as shown by a study in April this year by Asean DNA.

The study was highlighted in an article by Asean Briefing, which said that within Asean, Singapore and Thailand have the fastest average Internet speeds at 61 megabits per second (mbps) and 17.7 mbps. Vietnam has an average speed of 13.1 mbps while Cambodia has 5.7 mbps. Malaysia on the other hand, has an average speed of 5.5 mbps. The average Asean Internet speed is 12.4 mbps, which puts our broadband speed well below average.

What’s more disturbing is that while Malaysia lags behind in Internet speeds, it’s service comes at a much higher price – more than triple that of services in countries such as Singapore and Thailand on a comparable basis .

A Comparison of Broadband Speeds and Charges 090914 02For instance, Telekom Malaysia Bhd’s UniFi charges RM199 (US$62.40) a month for its 10mbps fibred Internet service, while as the article by Asean Briefing points out Singapore’s largest telco offers 15 mbps Internet for US$30 a month and Thailand charges around US$25 a month for 12 mbps speeds.

The root of the problem

To understand the root of the problem, it pays first to understand the national broadband policies of countries like Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Like Malaysia, all three have national broadband plans. However what differs in Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam is that their markets are deregulated, allowing for multiple broadband service providers to own infrastructure and offer broadband services. Competition in these markets fuels demand and supply, thus users are offered higher speeds at competitive prices.

The situation is very different in Malaysia. The fixed broadband market is dominated by government-linked incumbent Telekom Malaysia (TM), which owns 90% of telephone lines and fibre infrastructure in the country, say industry experts. In fact, it is the sole infrastructure provider for the High Speed Broadband (HSBB) project under the National Broadband Initiative (NBI). And the agreement between TM and the government for the HSBB falls under the Official Secrets Act.

Because TM owns last-mile access, other players are ‘forced’ to lease infrastructure from the incumbent to offer broadband services. Again, as an industry expert points out, the industry has been given the raw end of the deal as TM dictates wholesale rates to players who want to provide broadband services.

“Their (TM’s) wholesale rates are not as competitive as the market anticipated and this has left the other players no choice in the end but to offer higher-priced broadband services,” says the industry expert.

This dominance by one player has led to the present-day situation of high broadband prices and partly the near-stagnating broadband penetration rate. Ironically, a National Key Economic Area under the Economic Transformation Programme is to increase the penetration of high-quality and affordable broadband to 95% of the population by 2020. That’s a mere six years away yet our broadband speeds and prices are nowhere near that of Singapore, our closest neighbour.

Of course one may argue that household broadband penetration in Malaysia was only at 31.7% in 2009 and that this jumped to 55.6% in 2010 owing in part to the deployment of the first phase of the HSBB under the NBI.

However this includes the Streamyx service which is based on copper cabling and not fibre. If this is excluded, then broadband penetration can be lot lower. Also, 2010 was the year in which the true broadband service Unifi was introduced, which means that the large jump could be because of that.

The issue however, is that household broadband penetration does not seem to be increasing as fast as it should be in recent years. According to data from the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC), as of the first quarter of this year, broadband penetration in Malaysia per 100 households was only 67.3%, compared to 66.6% during the same period last year. That’s a paltry year-on-year increase of 0.7 percentage points.

Analysts believe it won’t be long before broadband penetration hits a saturation point. “I believe saturation under normal circumstances should be closer to 80% (this can change if broadband becomes a basic utility just like electricity and water). If you see the breakdown by states (see table), you will have an idea why the broadband penetration has stayed around 67% in the past year. The low penetration is in rural and East Malaysia – the areas are ‘underserved’ by mobile players as well as fixed-line incumbent TM for broadband,” a telco analyst tells KiniBiz.

“It is a function of economics – the telcos will focus on urban areas first to maximise the returns on capital expenditure. For the mobile players, they have just extended 3G coverage to 80+% of population in the past year or so,” he added.

To achieve higher penetration rates, the government needs to take the lead, the analyst said. “To achieve 80+% penetration, the government will need to take the initiative and even allow the release/use of lower-band spectrum (e.g. 700MHz for longer-range 4G-LTE) so that the rural areas can benefit from wireless broadband. It does not make economic sense to ‘cable up’ rural and vastly populated areas. Hitting more than 90% penetration is a long shot,” he added.

The analyst pointed out also that fixed line broadband is still very expensive and that to push broadband penetration to the next level, prices have to drop. And that is going to be virtually impossible with one player dominating the broadband market.

“Maybe MCMC can require all telcos to provide a basic broadband package (with limited data usage) with low entry cost such as RM30 a month. In fact, the mobile players are pushing their prepaid clients to jump on the data bandwagon by offering ‘bite-sized’ data offerings to get prepaid users to use data. I suspect the broadband penetration may exceed 70% if mobile broadband gets more prevalent with the increasing availability of cheap smartphones,” the analyst explained.

The industry expert suggests that to level the playing field, the government should call for an open tender for the second phase of the HSBB project, due to start later this year. “However, TM still has the last mile connectivity. To open up a tender may prove difficult as TM already has a dominant position,” he said.

One may argue that having millions of broadband customers already means that TM has achieved the economies of scale to allow it to drop prices of its broadband packages. Yet customers continue to pay steep prices for even its ADSL services (Streamyx packages), while in other countries like Singapore, prices have dropped for ADSL packages as other wireless and fibred broadband technologies have overtaken ADSL.

Malaysia isn’t the only country that started out with an incumbent player. Even Singapore started out with SingTel as the only broadband player and South Korea with Korea Telecom. Yet these markets have evolved for the better and ours hasn’t. How did South Korea do it? In our next instalment, KiniBiz speaks to a South Korean expert on how the country achieved the high broadband penetration rates it has today.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 11 September 2014, 2:13 pm and is filed under
IT
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Bringing Malaysia back to the ‘middle’

― Ahmad Iskandar

The Malay Mail Online

September 10, 2014

SEPT 10 ― At the formation of Malaysia, its leaders charted a course for a nation where a multiracial society would live within a democratic framework that embodied the spirit of harmony and understanding. On 16 September 2014, Malaysia will be 51 years old. From recent developments, it seems that Malaysia is veering away from the ideals envisioned when it was first formed.

In recent years and months,Malaysians have been relentlessly bombarded with hateful statements from the likes of Perkasa, Isma and other Malay ethnocentric groups. They have questioned the loyalty of their fellow Malaysians and suggested that the majority of non-Malays are a threat to Malays and national unity. Hiding behind the mask of race and religion, they claim to represent the voice of the majority of Malaysians particularly Malays.

Much more worrying are government ministers who pander to these groups. In efforts to gain political mileage and consolidate their waning support, they have made irresponsible statements and sowed seeds of discord among the communities, and behaving in ways unbecoming of those appointed to public office.

Blatant racism such as this has upset Malaysians at home and abroad. Many took to social media to express their disappointment at the current state of affairs. While some have blamed the media for sensationalising racial and religious issues; a portion of the responsibility should also fall on the shoulders of Malaysians for failing to take a united stand and voicing the strongest possible condemnation to these acts of blatant racism.

Moderate Malaysians are clearly, by far, the majority. Yet the shrill voices of the extremists are constantly heard simply because they have a sense of purpose, are better organised, well-resourced and have access to powers not available to moderate Malaysians. Therefore moderate Malaysians should band together to ensure Malaysia remains a viable moderate nation state.

The responsibility lies with moderate Malaysians to bring Malaysia back to the “middle” by organising themselves, and spreading the message that Malaysia belongs to all Malaysians ― those who came yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Ranting on social media alone will not be enough to improve the situation, but getting organised and taking concrete action will. The failure to nip this problem in the bud by maintaining silence, or apathy or feeling of hopelessness, have allowed those with extreme views to permeate throughout society; crowding out the silent moderate majority, thereby endangering the ideals of a moderate Malaysia.

Cynics might dismiss the optimism of one individual. They argue that one person cannot change the world.

There are many examples of the power of one. The civil rights movement in the United States (US) is illustrative. One woman’s act of disobedience against injustice proved to be crucial in catalysing actions that eventually led to the ending of institutionalised racial discrimination in the US. Rosa Parks, an African American woman, was arrested for refusing to give up her seat to a white person, as required under the existing law then. This incident led to the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the first mass action in the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.

When the boycott began to show its effectiveness, the White Citizens’ Council retaliated with some resorting to violence. They even firebombed Martin Luther King Jr’s house. After the attack, Martin Luther King Jr spoke to the 300 angry African Americans gathered outside. Instead of anger and hate, he was calm and implored the crowd to continue with their peaceful struggle. He said, “If you have weapons, take them home; if you do not have them, please do not seek to get them. We cannot solve this problem through retaliatory violence. We must meet violence with nonviolence.”

History would show that the US civil rights movement contributed significantly towards the reduction of institutionalised racism in the United States, though racism remains a serious problem. It laid the foundations for important reforms and inspired many other movements that fought for other just causes. President Barack Obama has paid tribute to Rosa Parks on many occasions. Indeed there would be no Barack Obama without Rosa Parks.

One should never dismiss any action by any individual as insignificant and futile. Rosa Parks was just one person, but what she did, made significant difference. There are many Rosa Parks in Malaysia. Like her, there are countless unsung heroes that have already done many things that have made a difference, and many more waiting to come forward. It is through these small actions that eventually leads to a critical mass, and snowball to major success in the future such as a moderate Malaysia.

The road ahead will not be easy for Malaysia and moderate Malaysians. For whatever flames of hatred that is fanned to damage the social fabric of the nation, moderate Malaysians should reciprocate by dousing it with calls for calmness and rationality. The first step could be as simple as sitting down and having a ‘teh tarik and roti canai’ with anyone living or working close to you ― your neighbour, colleagues ― of a different background, of a different view, of a different persuasion. With simple friendly exchange such as this, Malaysians could discover that they have more in common than initially believed.

Despite the outward differences, the concerns are similar in many areas such as living peacefully, reducing the cost of living, improving educational quality, reducing crime, and wanting a clean and transparent government ― as countless surveys shows. This understanding will help Malaysians realise that what matters is not who they are or where they came from, but what actions they take to make things better for all Malaysians.

As a collective, moderate Malaysians have to speak up, voice concerns and continuously participate in discourses in a calm and rational manner. The problems that Malaysians are facing today are caused by perverse incentives that benefit a few but impact many through a myriad of ways such as in the interpretations of laws, policies and the implementation of the law and policies. The crackdown by the government ― using the colonial era and draconian Sedition Act on law abiding Malaysians ― last week is an example of such perverse incentives. Lawyers, politicians, students, academics and journalists were charged for merely expressing their opinion.

The Sedition Act, 1948, defines sedition in such a broad scope that it allows any party in power to abuse it for its own benefit. Perceived as selective prosecution, this Act is used to instill fear among moderate Malaysians against speaking up; and reinforces the prevailing culture of fear. In fact, there many other laws or policies that are just as flawed that infringes on the citizen’s basic rights and liberty. They were passed through in parliament because Malaysians are constantly distracted by the issues of race and religion.

To move forward, Malaysians should be courageous, as Rosa Parks was; move away from identity (racial and religious) politics and strive to aim for new politics based on higher order principles. Fifty one years is a short time span for a nation state and Malaysia still has a long way to go. In this journey, moderate Malaysians have to constantly remind themselves and each other that they are stronger when they stand together.

The higher order principles of freedom, social justice, solidarity and equality in opportunity, should be the guiding light that helps moderate Malaysians to navigate their way towards unity in these challenging times.

Perhaps it is time to steer away from this detour into the wilderness of extremism and back on to the charted course agreeable to the majority of Malaysians: that is middle Malaysia. ― New Mandala

*Raja Ahmad Iskandar Fareez is an Australian National University alumnus and a member of the Democratic Action Party (DAP).

                This entry was posted on Friday, 12 September 2014, 10:01 am and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Malaysian Dream
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Call for immediate halt to the sedition dragnet against dissent and criticism  and withdrawal of all sedition charges as Mahathir and many UMNO Ministers and leaders should be the first to be hauled to court for sedition if the current sedition blitz not afflicted by  sins of discriminatory bias and malicious/selective prosecution

On the way to Mersing, I have learnt of two latest victims in the crackdown of  the sedition dragnet against dissent and criticism, which have  put Malaysia back on the radar of unfavourable  international media attention, this time for high-handed, undemocratic  and discriminatory use of repressive colonial laws against freedom of  speech and expression.

The two latest victims are a lawyer and an Opposition political leader.

The first is Edmund Bon, currently overseas but who is being called up by the police for sedition for comments he made in a news article in The Malaysian Insider in January  on whether non-Muslims should adhere to a fatwa and the second is another lawyer but who is also the Johor PKR vice chairman Hassan Karim, whose laptop and mobile phone were seized by the police in his Pontian home this afternoon  in an ongoing sedition probe against him.

They join a lengthening list of Pakatan Rakyat Members of Parliament and State Assemblymen like Teresa Kok (DAP – Seputeh), Khalid Samad (PAS – Shah Alam), N. Surendran (PKR – Padang Serai), Tian Chua (PKR – Batu), RSN Rayer (DAP – Seri Delima, Penang), academician Azmi Sharom, journalist Susan Loone, activists Safwan Anang and Ali Abdul Jalil, preacher Wan Ji Wan Hussein and religious teacher Abu Bakar Baikalani Abu Hassan who have been hauled to court under the repressive colonial law of Sedition Act.

Two days ago, former Prime Minister Tun Mahathir called the Malays “lazy”, “unashamed of being failures” and accused them of “lacking integrity in handling money” and even suggested that they are petty thieves.

DAP and Pakatan Rakyat leaders would have been  arrested and hauled to court under the Sedition Act if they had said what Mahathir said two days ago.

In fact, without having to refer to Mahathir’s latest  diatribe against the Malays, Mahathir and many UMNO Ministers and leaders (including Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak) would have been arrested and hauled to court for sedition based on their past speeches and statements  if the current sedition blitz had not been afflicted by the sins of discriminatory bias and malicious/selective prosecution.

I need only give one example.

When I contested in Gelang Patah in the last general elections in May last year, Mahathir made the preposterous, false and vicious accusations that

• I contested in Gelang Patah to cause a confrontation between the Malays and Chinese in Johore as I wanted the Chinese in Johore “to dislike and hate the Malays”; and

• that DAP rejected the concept of Malay/Chinese/Indian power-sharing as the Chinese want to oust the political power of the Malays.

These were not only downright lies, but utterly irresponsible, reckless and malicious aimed at inciting racial ill-will and hatred among the races,  and are  many more times “seditious” compared to those made by those who are currently the victims of the sedition dragnet launched by the authorities.

I am not suggesting that Mahathir and UMNO Ministers and leaders should be arrested and hauled to court for sedition, but Malaysians are entitled to know the reason for the sedition blitz against dissent and criticism when Mahathir and UMNO Ministers and leaders had been guilty of even greater “sedition”!

It is time for rationality to return to Malaysia and I call for an  immediate halt to the sedition dragnet against dissent and criticism  and withdrawal of all sedition charges as the country’s longest-serving Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad and many UMNO Ministers and leaders should be the first to be hauled to court for sedition if the current sedition blitz is  not afflicted by the sins of  discriminatory bias and malicious/selective prosecution.

(Speech at the Mersing DAP Branch anniversary dinner on Friday, 12th September 2014)

                                                          Lim Kit Siang

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 13 September 2014, 7:14 am and is filed under
Crime
,
Law & Order
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


DAP calls for Royal Commission of Inquiry into Education to investigate not only into frequent incidence of leaks of Malaysian examination papers in recent years but also all aspects of  declining standards of primary, secondary and university education

Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin must have been the most embarrassed Education Minister at the 8th ASEAN Education Ministers Meeting in Vientiane on Thursday when news broke of leaks in this year’s UPSR examination papers, causing the Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister to allege that the leaks could have been purposely done to sabotage him personally and the Education Ministry.

Muhyiddin’s allegation of sabotage is most surprising but nobody will give it much  credence as Muhyiddin seems to be the only person in Malaysia  not to know that leaks in examination papers conducted by the Malaysian examination authority are not unusual occurrences  – just as Muhyddin seemed to be the only Malaysian not to know that English is not a compulsory pass subject for SPM when he became Education Minister five years ago.

Last November, the Education Ministry announced a special task force  to conduct immediate investigation into the leak of Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) and Ujian Penilaian Sekolah Rendah (UPSR) examination papers but nothing have been heard about these investigations.

So Muhyiddin’s talk about wanting to get to the bottom of the leaks in this year’s UPSR examination papers and to bring the culprits to justice must be taken with a pinch of salt for he has never been serious as Education Minister about leaks in examination papers except on this occasion, when he was made to look so foolish among his peers at the ASEAN conference of Education Ministers by this shameful episode.

The time has come for a full-scale investigation into the frequent occurrence of leaks of STPM, SPM and UPSR examination papers, which undermine public confidence in the integrity of the examination and education system – as these are signs of a system of corrupt governance which is getting from bad to worse.

But it is not only the frequent incidence of leaks of examination papers for the various public examinations in Malaysia which must be the subject of rigorous investigation, as the whole education system needs a comprehensive examination by independent, knowledgeable  and eminent Malaysians.

The Programme for International Student (PISA) 2009+ results ranked Malaysia in the bottom third of the 74 participating countries, comparing Malaysian 15-year-olds most unfavourably with 15-year-olds in Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong and Shanghai, as though 15-year-olds in Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong and Shanghai have had three or more years of schooling than 15-year-olds in Malaysia.

This disparity  has widened further in the PISA 2012, reaching a stage where the 15-year-old in Shanghai, Singapore and South Korea were performing in the assessments as though they had four or even five more years of schooling than 15-year-olds in Malaysia.

The Malaysia education system is also regressing while the best and most competitive of the national educational systems in the world are making phenomenal progress in the past decade-and-half.

In the 2012 PISA, only 1.3 per cent of students in Malaysia made it to the “top performers” bracket in maths, i.e. (reaching Level 5 or 6) as compared to Shanghai-China (55.4%), Singapore (40%), Taiwan (37.2%), Hong Kong (33.7%), South Korea (30.9). Between 15% and 25% of students in Belgium, Canada, Finland, Germany, Japan, Liechtenstein, Macao, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland and Switzerland are top performers in mathematics.

Even the top 5 per cent of Malaysian students perform only in line with the average Korean or Japanese pupil.

Most worrying, more than half of Malaysian students (51.8%) do not reach basic proficiency levels in Mathematics (i.e. Below Level 2).

Was somebody in the Education Ministry and system trying to sabotage Muhyiddin with such dismal educational standards and results compared with high-flying educational systems in the world?

Malaysia’s university education has long fallen out of top world-class rankings.

For this reason, I call for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into Education to investigate not  only into frequent incidence of leaks of Malaysian examination papers in recent years but also into all aspects of  declining standards of primary, secondary and university education in Malaysia.

(Speech at a DAP Bukit Pasir Branch dialogue held in Bukit Pasir, Pagoh on Saturday, Sept 13, 2014 at 10  am)

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 13 September 2014, 6:57 pm and is filed under
Education
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Lessons from South Korea

G. Sharmila

KiniBiz

Sept 9, 2014

Malaysia has its broadband strategy all wrong with some of the lowest speeds in Asean and the highest charges. Perhaps it could learn something from South Korea which has been very successful in increasing broadband penetration.

When you think of the words “high-speed broadband” and are asked to associate an Asian country with it, there’s no doubt that South Korea will be at the top of your list.

It’s hardly surprising then that in its 1Q14 State of the Internet report, Akamai Technologies highlighted that at country/region level, South Korea continued to have the highest average connection speed at 23.6 megabits per second (Mbps) and maintained a broadband adoption rate of 94% in the first quarter.

According to BuddeComm, a global independent telecommunications research firm, South Korea has the world’s highest number of broadband services per capita. Into 2014 over 38% of the population and around 95% of households were broadband subscribers.

It also pointed out that since 2006, South Korea’s policy emphasis has been on completing a Broadband convergence Network (BcN) with wireline speeds of 50-100Mbps per household and 1-2Mbps on wireless connections.

It’s not just high broadband speeds that South Korea is famous for, but also the affordability of high-speed broadband.

Myeong-Cheol Park, head of the department of business and technology management at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, points out that Koreans pay around US$20 (RM63.80) monthly for an unlimited 100Mbps broadband connection.

Compare this to Malaysia, where a basic 5Mbps UniFi package with a 60GB cap costs US$47 or RM149, or some two half times the price for speed which is one twentieth that of South Korea!!.

So how did South Korea manage to get to its enviable state of broadband adoption today? According to Park, the story began in 1993, when the Korean government prepared a blueprint for high speed information infrastructure in the country.

The following year, state-owned Korea Telecom (now KT Corporation) started providing commercial Internet services based on the ISDN technology. (ISDN, which is short for Integrated Services Digital Network, is a telecommunications standard for sending voice, video and data over telephone lines).

“KT had a monopoly in the market and prices were very high for ISDN services. The service was pay-per-use and expensive; this was a hurdle to widespread broadband adoption,” Park told KiniBiz in a recent interview.

Things started to change for the better in 1999, when a privately-owned company called Hanaro Telecom (now known as SK Broadband) started providing ADSL services. “It was not commercially proven technology, only tested in the lab, therefore it was innovative, though risky,” he explained.

However, Hanara Telecom introduced low fixed monthly usage fees for its ADSL service. “By setting the prices low, they got the numbers and were able to make profits due to economies of scale,” said Park.

The entry of Hanara Telecom in the broadband game was welcomed by the South Korean government, which posed no intervention although KT was state-owned at the time (it was privatised in 2002). In fact, the government encouraged competition. “95% of people in South Korea lived within a 4km radius, so ADSL was very good technology for them,” he said.

What was KT’s reaction to Hanara? “It decided to give up on  ISDN services and started providing ADSL services,” said Park, who added that the company later introduced VDSL (Very High Speed Digital Subscriber Line) and FTTH (Fibre-To-The-Home) technologies to compete against Hanara Telecom, which worked in the public’s favour. What this did was to spur even greater competition between the players and drive down prices of broadband.

Park also pointed out that the government also gave incentives to players to offer broadband services, apart from playing a role as an early adopter by becoming a broadband customer itself.

By 2001, South Korea had become number one in the world in high-speed networks and had amassed 20 million Internet users, said Park. By 2004, it had 30 million Internet users and in 2006, began offering FTTH services, as well as introduced the world’s first WiBro and HSDPA (High-Speed Downlink Packet Access) services. (WiBro is the South Korean service name for the IEEE 802.16 e (mobile WiMAX) international standard).

“Between 2001 and 2002, most schools and public agencies had access to broadband. The government also ran public awareness programs on broadband. For instance, South Koreans undergoing military service were given free training on how to use the Internet and free training programs were also made available to housewives.

“The government also realised the importance of liberalisation and deregulated the market. To become a Internet service provider, companies had to have their own facility network, meaning they had to build network infrastructure. This led to facilities-based competition,” he explained.

“The government gave subsidies to PC manufacturers so they could manufacture lower priced, more affordable PCs,” he added. Between 2001 and 2003, the government also introduced the cyber building certification system, under which the authorities issued a certificate to a building with high-speed telecommunications capacity. This system worked well in South Korea, as most housing comprised apartments.

“Back then, there was also demand for high broadband speeds from a technology-savvy, young population. There was also the growth of killer apps, which fueled demand for broadband speeds. Examples are popular online games, extensive use of IT in education, Internet broadcasting stations and online stock trading, which became widespread,” said Park.

“Not every house had computers either, so PC cafes filled the gaps. The dotcom boom also helped promote awareness towards broadband services. Full-blown competition erupted among service providers,” says Park of that period.

What is his advice to Malaysia when it comes to broadband policies? “When there is a monopoly, there is no incentive to lower costs, you need competitors. The market should evolve by itself and the government should provide incentives to make it work. The government also needs to assume the early adopter role where broadband usage is concerned,” he said.

“You need to reach critical mass as fast as possible, services will be delayed if you don’t reach critical mass,” he emphasised. He added that pricing policy also matters. In the case of Korea, low prices increased the customer base for service providers; the sequence of doing this is less important than the actual mass broadband adoption, he said. “You need small successes to build a big momentum,” he added.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 13 September 2014, 12:55 am and is filed under
IT
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Cabinet on Wednesday should order a halt to the “white terror” intensified in the past month using the colonial law of sedition to create a new climate of fear after the Mahathir “Dark Age” as it is totally against Najib’s promise to make Malaysia “best democracy in the world”

I welcome the courageous stand taken by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Dato Sri Idris Jala who is the first Cabinet Minister to openly speak out against the sedition charge against Universiti Malaya law lecturer Dr. Azmi Sharom.

Idris said the charge against Azmi was wrong and that the law professor should not be charged for sedition.

In a series of Twitter postings yesterday, Idris said: “Academic freedom is required in pursuit of knowledge.”

Stressing that Malaysia must continue to pursue moderation, Idris twittered: “Constructive criticism and dissent should be allowed, as long as it does not create serious fault in the social fabric of our society.”

Although admirable and commendable for daring to speak out against Azmi’s sedition charge, it is a great pity that Idris did not have the full courage of conviction that constructive criticism and dissent are lifeblood of any meaningful transformation of Malaysia to take an equally forthright and courageous stand against the sedition blitz intensified in the past month to stifle criticism and dissent which saw the malicious prosecution and persecution of some 20 Pakatan Rakat Members of Parliament, State Assemblymen, a journalist, a lawyer, an  academician and several social activists under the undemocratic and repressive colonial law of sedition.

Nonetheless, Idris stands out as the lone and courageous Minister so far to speak out against the “white terror” intensified in the past month using the colonial law of sedition to create a new climate of fear in the country after the Mahathir “Dark Age”.

What about the other Ministers? Are they all craven and cowardly who dare not speak out against the sedition dragnet against virtually all and sundry who are not on the side of the powers-that-be, to strike fear among the citizenry that they will have to pay a heavy price if they stand up for justice, fair play, multi-racialism,  human rights, democracy, rule of law and good governance?

It is these values and issues of justice, fair play, multi-racialism, human rights, democracy, rule of law and good governance which will decide whether Malaysia regresses into a backward, authoritarian and police state or moves forward to a more free,  democratic and prosperous future.

All Cabinet Ministers should therefore take a stand at the Cabinet meeting on Wednesday to order a halt to the “white terror” intensified in the past month using the sedition law to create a new climate of fear after the Mahathir “Dark Age” as it is totally against the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s promise to make Malaysia “the best democracy in the world”.

In the national interests, is Idris prepared to take the lead for the charge in Cabinet on Wednesday to end the reign of “white terror” intensified in the past month through the undemocratic, repressive and indiscriminate use of the colonial sedition law?

(Speech at the Johor Jaya DAP Pesta Tanglung in Johor Bahru on Saturday, September 13, 2014 at 9 pm)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 14 September 2014, 4:32 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Crime
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.