Saturday September 12, 2009. The Star paper
Open up logging zones, urge groups
By STEPHEN THEN
MIRI: Concerned groups want the Sarawak Government to open up the timber concession zones and stop timber giants from having total control over these areas – home to thousands of natives.
Their call follows confirmation by the Women, Family and Community Development Ministry that Penan girls and women had been raped in these areas.
Former Catholic priest turned social activist Michael Jok said the reports of sexual abuse of the Penans should be reason enough for the state government to step in.
“There are thousands of natives living in these logging concession zones.
“At present, anybody who wants to visit these natives must get a written permit from the timber bosses.
“Without these permits, it is impossible to pass through the many security checkpoints inside the timber camps,” he told The Star yesterday.
Jok, chairman of the Sarawak Indigenous Natives Rights Association, said the barriers had made it difficult for even those sending food aid to reach the natives.
Sahabat Alam Malaysia field officer for Sarawak, Jok Jau Evong, said the security barriers were found in every timber concession zone in Sarawak.
“NGOs are often prevented from entering even if we apply for permits.
“This sort of totalitarian power is unhealthy. The Government must remove it,” he said.
Borneo Resources Institute coordinator for Sarawak, Raymond Abin, said there had been occasions where even politicians had been barred by the timber camp security from crossing into the native settlements.
My comments:
I was surprised when I heard from a pastor friend that he needed permission to travel on the logging road to visit the Penan. After reading today's article, I understand what happened! We strongly urge the government to stop this practice of the timber bosses of monopolising the road even though they are the ones who opened the road. They don't own the land nor the forest.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Penan rape victims- ways to protect them
Saturday September 12, 2009 The Star paper.
Penan ‘rape victims’ refuse to talk, say police
KUALA LUMPUR: Efforts by the police to investigate the alleged rape of Penan girls and women in rural Sarawak are being hampered as the victims refuse to talk, said CID director Comm Datuk Seri Mohd Bakri Mohd Zinin.
“The police conduct investigations within the perimeters of the law and offenders are brought to court only when there is sufficient evidence,” said the CID director in a statement.
Since 1995, the police have investigated 14 reports of alleged rape in Baram. Only four cases involved Penan women – three of them were reported last year.
In January, a task force comprising Bukit Aman and Sarawak police officers was formed to investigate the rape allegations.
The team headed by Comm Mohd Bakri conducted investigations in nine settlements.
The police had asked non-governmental organisations in Sarawak to bring witnesses when they met in January and August, but none had done so.
In Kuching, Deputy Chief Minister Tan Sri Alfred Jabu said the state government would study the report by the ministry before deciding on what action to take.
Meanwhile, Shelter Home executive director James Nayagam said the fact that the report on abused Penan women and girls took so long to complete, with the abusers still at large, showed the lack of a proper system to protect sexually abused children.
The police excuse that they could not act on the culprits due to lack of details was not acceptable, he said.
“These girls already have babies,” he said, adding that DNA tests could be done to prove who fathered the children
My comments:
I think one way to overcome the problem is to assign female social welfare officer to visit the abused Penan women as soon as report is made. If these girls already have babies, DNA tests could be done and the fathers could be quickly traced. If there are no babies, when reports are made, the victims could be easily tell who are the culprits. Any suspects who frequent the penan area could easily be rounded up for investigation. This will serve as a protection and prevention for further abuse!
Penan ‘rape victims’ refuse to talk, say police
KUALA LUMPUR: Efforts by the police to investigate the alleged rape of Penan girls and women in rural Sarawak are being hampered as the victims refuse to talk, said CID director Comm Datuk Seri Mohd Bakri Mohd Zinin.
“The police conduct investigations within the perimeters of the law and offenders are brought to court only when there is sufficient evidence,” said the CID director in a statement.
Since 1995, the police have investigated 14 reports of alleged rape in Baram. Only four cases involved Penan women – three of them were reported last year.
In January, a task force comprising Bukit Aman and Sarawak police officers was formed to investigate the rape allegations.
The team headed by Comm Mohd Bakri conducted investigations in nine settlements.
The police had asked non-governmental organisations in Sarawak to bring witnesses when they met in January and August, but none had done so.
In Kuching, Deputy Chief Minister Tan Sri Alfred Jabu said the state government would study the report by the ministry before deciding on what action to take.
Meanwhile, Shelter Home executive director James Nayagam said the fact that the report on abused Penan women and girls took so long to complete, with the abusers still at large, showed the lack of a proper system to protect sexually abused children.
The police excuse that they could not act on the culprits due to lack of details was not acceptable, he said.
“These girls already have babies,” he said, adding that DNA tests could be done to prove who fathered the children
My comments:
I think one way to overcome the problem is to assign female social welfare officer to visit the abused Penan women as soon as report is made. If these girls already have babies, DNA tests could be done and the fathers could be quickly traced. If there are no babies, when reports are made, the victims could be easily tell who are the culprits. Any suspects who frequent the penan area could easily be rounded up for investigation. This will serve as a protection and prevention for further abuse!
Friday, September 11, 2009
Do unto others...
Do unto others….
by Hussein Hamid
Over the years we have time and time again witness the public unraveling of UMNO not by its detractors but by its own. Dato’ Onn Jaafar. Tunku Abdul Rahman. Tun Hussein. Tun Mahathir. Tun Musa Hitam. Tan Sri Tengku Razaleigh. A veritable list of Malays who have made history – who are our history. I am the same age as UMNO. Sixty-Three years old this year. What does the future holds for UMNO?
In March this year the outgoing Prime Minister and President of UMNO made this comment of UMNO in his last speech as UMNO’s President.
“Longevity in power has led to complacency and a number of Umno leaders are increasingly out of touch with the ordinary people who have been the source of Umno’s strength for so long.We must rid ourselves of our arrogance and the conceit that we are the only ones who are right, that we are the only ones who know all. Distance ourselves from corruption. Let us be equal in our concern for all, be they Malays or non-Malays, party members or those who support our opponents.
Materialism has seeped into the party, making a number of party members greedy and avaricious, hence creating the negative perception that Umno is a corrupt party.
We were intoxicated by own achievements and we became complacent. We believed that we had become all powerful. We have put our own positions within the party first, instead of being concerned over Umno’s position in the eyes of our citizens and the nation”.
That in a nutshell is what UMNO has become today from some one who knows.
And yet what do we have today? UMNO is still out of touch with the reality around it. If not why would it think that the people of Permatang Pasir would accept a disbarred lawyer as its candidate? Why would it think that the ISA is still relevant in our time? Why would it use MACC as its agent for its harassment of the Opposition rather then undertake the task of ridding the country of corruption.and the list goes on.
If I can see that all this is not doing any good to UMNO, why can’t they? If I can see that this will only result in creating further rift between UMNO and the people in Malaysia – why can’t they? Is it so hard to understand that as our Political leaders they must show courage in making moral decisions that will earn them our respect? And yet when there was occasion to do so as in the Section 23 Cow-head demonstration –they drag their feet and react only after the fact. After public opinion made their disgust of Hishammuddin defense of the guilty party so clear that all the AG could do was to go after the guilty party. To do anything else would be unwise.
But for Najib and Muhyiddin that seems so hard to do. To admit mistakes made. To make decisions for all rather then for themselves. To step back from the abyss that now confront them for surely when you are at the edge the right thing to do is to step back. When can we expect to have these leader reach out to us and go forward with us rather then to constantly refer to us as being unready, immature and unable to understand that the things they do are for the common good rather then for just the Malays or UMNO alone. After having put up with fifty years of UMNO’s less then sterling performance in good governance I think we are entitled to see that UMNO will do rather then what they promise to do.
You have put away all of our leaders under ISA. Not one, not two but all of them. At every opportunity you have harass them and their families – separating them form their loved ones and intrude into their lives to demean and strip them of any dignity that they still have. Tell me Najib how will you feel if I bare for all to read your alleged infidelities. How did it feel to be linked to Altantuya – did it not cause you pain and embarrassment in facing your family – whether the accusation are true or false? Muhyiddin. How would you feel if, when push comes to shove, your personal weaknesses and faults are exposed for all to know? No these are not all part of the political scenario in Malaysia. YOU all made it part of the Political Scenario in Malaysia.
Najib Sometimes I wonder how it is possible for you to involve yourself with the sordid business of people like Saiful and the State Assemblymen from the Perak Government who left their own party to become independent. For God sake you are the Prime Minister. You must not only do the right thing for our country but also must be seen to be doing the right thing. Even the whiff of corruption and money politics should have you running quick smart in the opposite direction from where it is coming. But no – we see these people being feted and thank by you for their deeds, which are certainly viewed by the population with disgust and contempt.
Since March this year you have consistently been reacting to situation as they occur. No leadership. No reaching out to the masses with sensible and enlighten leadership. Your preoccupation in trying to eliminate the Opposition does not do you any good. Remember then the opposition garners more then 50% of the votes at the last elections. In simple terms that means that they are the elected representatives of half the population of this country. Work with them. They will not go away. There are too many of them to eliminate.
Engage in constructive dialogue with Pakatan Rakyat. Anwar has not ‘gadai hak melayu’. He is a man that has been able to remain relevant in spite of spending six years in Prison. He was able to hold the opposition together in the last election without the machinery that UMNO has – working on a shoestring budget – but relying and getting the commitment and focus from those who had had enough of the politics that UMNO offered. And UMNO offered money, position and much more – Anwar offered only the promise of things to come. The promise of hope. What he accomplished with the assist of everybody in opposition is beyond your comprehension and certainly beyond our expectation.
Now consider this Najib. What do you think he and Pakatan Rakyat can now do? They are now with a bit more experience, a bit more commitment and with the last election behind them – methinks the next election will only be a promise of better things to come for them.
I see that your way of handling the situation is to annihilate, destroy and wipe Pakatan rakyat into oblivion. Do you think this is possible with the numbers that they have? Yes you can see that Anwar and the leaders of the opposition are all within range of your fire power…but remember Najib when they are within range – so are you. Attempting to portray Anwar as a traitor to the Malays while simultaneously playing the race and religion card is surely not the thing to do now. Try constructive détente. I am sure Anwar, Kit Siang, Karpal and Tok Guru will be caught of guard if you do so.
by Hussein Hamid
Over the years we have time and time again witness the public unraveling of UMNO not by its detractors but by its own. Dato’ Onn Jaafar. Tunku Abdul Rahman. Tun Hussein. Tun Mahathir. Tun Musa Hitam. Tan Sri Tengku Razaleigh. A veritable list of Malays who have made history – who are our history. I am the same age as UMNO. Sixty-Three years old this year. What does the future holds for UMNO?
In March this year the outgoing Prime Minister and President of UMNO made this comment of UMNO in his last speech as UMNO’s President.
“Longevity in power has led to complacency and a number of Umno leaders are increasingly out of touch with the ordinary people who have been the source of Umno’s strength for so long.We must rid ourselves of our arrogance and the conceit that we are the only ones who are right, that we are the only ones who know all. Distance ourselves from corruption. Let us be equal in our concern for all, be they Malays or non-Malays, party members or those who support our opponents.
Materialism has seeped into the party, making a number of party members greedy and avaricious, hence creating the negative perception that Umno is a corrupt party.
We were intoxicated by own achievements and we became complacent. We believed that we had become all powerful. We have put our own positions within the party first, instead of being concerned over Umno’s position in the eyes of our citizens and the nation”.
That in a nutshell is what UMNO has become today from some one who knows.
And yet what do we have today? UMNO is still out of touch with the reality around it. If not why would it think that the people of Permatang Pasir would accept a disbarred lawyer as its candidate? Why would it think that the ISA is still relevant in our time? Why would it use MACC as its agent for its harassment of the Opposition rather then undertake the task of ridding the country of corruption.and the list goes on.
If I can see that all this is not doing any good to UMNO, why can’t they? If I can see that this will only result in creating further rift between UMNO and the people in Malaysia – why can’t they? Is it so hard to understand that as our Political leaders they must show courage in making moral decisions that will earn them our respect? And yet when there was occasion to do so as in the Section 23 Cow-head demonstration –they drag their feet and react only after the fact. After public opinion made their disgust of Hishammuddin defense of the guilty party so clear that all the AG could do was to go after the guilty party. To do anything else would be unwise.
But for Najib and Muhyiddin that seems so hard to do. To admit mistakes made. To make decisions for all rather then for themselves. To step back from the abyss that now confront them for surely when you are at the edge the right thing to do is to step back. When can we expect to have these leader reach out to us and go forward with us rather then to constantly refer to us as being unready, immature and unable to understand that the things they do are for the common good rather then for just the Malays or UMNO alone. After having put up with fifty years of UMNO’s less then sterling performance in good governance I think we are entitled to see that UMNO will do rather then what they promise to do.
You have put away all of our leaders under ISA. Not one, not two but all of them. At every opportunity you have harass them and their families – separating them form their loved ones and intrude into their lives to demean and strip them of any dignity that they still have. Tell me Najib how will you feel if I bare for all to read your alleged infidelities. How did it feel to be linked to Altantuya – did it not cause you pain and embarrassment in facing your family – whether the accusation are true or false? Muhyiddin. How would you feel if, when push comes to shove, your personal weaknesses and faults are exposed for all to know? No these are not all part of the political scenario in Malaysia. YOU all made it part of the Political Scenario in Malaysia.
Najib Sometimes I wonder how it is possible for you to involve yourself with the sordid business of people like Saiful and the State Assemblymen from the Perak Government who left their own party to become independent. For God sake you are the Prime Minister. You must not only do the right thing for our country but also must be seen to be doing the right thing. Even the whiff of corruption and money politics should have you running quick smart in the opposite direction from where it is coming. But no – we see these people being feted and thank by you for their deeds, which are certainly viewed by the population with disgust and contempt.
Since March this year you have consistently been reacting to situation as they occur. No leadership. No reaching out to the masses with sensible and enlighten leadership. Your preoccupation in trying to eliminate the Opposition does not do you any good. Remember then the opposition garners more then 50% of the votes at the last elections. In simple terms that means that they are the elected representatives of half the population of this country. Work with them. They will not go away. There are too many of them to eliminate.
Engage in constructive dialogue with Pakatan Rakyat. Anwar has not ‘gadai hak melayu’. He is a man that has been able to remain relevant in spite of spending six years in Prison. He was able to hold the opposition together in the last election without the machinery that UMNO has – working on a shoestring budget – but relying and getting the commitment and focus from those who had had enough of the politics that UMNO offered. And UMNO offered money, position and much more – Anwar offered only the promise of things to come. The promise of hope. What he accomplished with the assist of everybody in opposition is beyond your comprehension and certainly beyond our expectation.
Now consider this Najib. What do you think he and Pakatan Rakyat can now do? They are now with a bit more experience, a bit more commitment and with the last election behind them – methinks the next election will only be a promise of better things to come for them.
I see that your way of handling the situation is to annihilate, destroy and wipe Pakatan rakyat into oblivion. Do you think this is possible with the numbers that they have? Yes you can see that Anwar and the leaders of the opposition are all within range of your fire power…but remember Najib when they are within range – so are you. Attempting to portray Anwar as a traitor to the Malays while simultaneously playing the race and religion card is surely not the thing to do now. Try constructive détente. I am sure Anwar, Kit Siang, Karpal and Tok Guru will be caught of guard if you do so.
Monday, July 13, 2009
NEP has expired
Razaleigh – NEP has expired. Time for New Deal
Speech by Tengku Razaleigh at HELP University College, KL; July 10, 2009
Thank you for inviting me to address you. It’s a pleasure to be here, and to learn from you. You have asked me to talk about Najib’s First 100 Days, and this lecture is in a series called Straight Talk. I shall indeed speak plainly and directly.
Let me begin by disappointing you. I am not going to talk about Najib’s First 100 Days because it makes little sense to do so.
Our governments are brought to power for five year terms through general elections. The present government was constituted after March 8, 2008 and Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak’s tenure as Prime Minister resulted from a so-called “smooth transfer of power” between the previous Prime Minister and himself that took a somewhat unsmooth twelve months to carry out. During those months, Najib took on the de facto leadership role domestically while Abdullah warmed our international ties. The first 100 days of this government went by unremarked sometime in June last year.
Not only is it somewhat meaningless to talk about Najib’s First 100 days, such talk buys into a kind of political silliness that we are already too prone to. It has us imagine that the present government started work on April 2 and forget that it commenced work on March 8 last year and must be accountable for all that has been done or not done since then. It has us forget that in our system of parliamentary, constitutional democracy, governments are brought to power at general elections and must be held accountable for promises made at these elections. It leads us to forget that these promises, set out in election manifestos, are undertaken by political parties, not individuals, and are not trifles to be forgotten when there is a change of individual.
It is important that we remember these things, cultivate a more critical recollection of them, and learn to hold our leaders accountable to them, so that we are not perpetually chasing the slogan of the day, whether this be Vision 2020, Islam Hadhari or 1Malaysia. As PR Professionals, you would see my point immediately. Slogans without substance undermine trust. That substance is made up of policies that have been thought through and are followed through. That substance is concrete and provided by results we can measure.
Whether or not some of our leaders are ready for it, we are maturing as a democracy. We are beginning to evaluate our governments more by the results they deliver over time than by their rhetoric. As our increasingly well-educated and well-travelled citizens apply this standard, they force our politicians to think before they speak, and deliver before they speak again. As thinking Malaysians we should look for the policies, if any, behind the slogans. What policies are still in place and which have we abandoned? What counts as policy and who is consulted when it is made? How is a proposal formulated and specified and approved before it becomes policy, and by whom? What are the roles of party, cabinet, King and Parliament in this process? Must we know what it means before it is instituted or do we have to piece it together with guesswork? Do we even have a policy process?
The mandate Najib has taken up is the one given to Barisan Nasional under Abdullah Badawi’s leadership. BN was returned to power in the 12th General Elections on a manifesto promising Security, Peace and Prosperity. It is this manifesto against which the present administration undertook to be judged. The present government inherits projects and policies such as Islam Hadhari and Vision 2020. If these are still in place, how do they relate to each other and to 1 Malaysia? How do we evaluate the latest slogan against the fact of constitutional failure in Perak, the stench of corruption in the PKFZ project and reports of declining media freedom? What do we make of cynical political plays on racial unity against assurances that national unity is the priority?
It is not amiss to ask about continuity. We were told that the reason why we had to have a yearlong ‘transfer of power’ to replace the previous Prime Minster was so that we could have such policy continuity. The issues before the present BN government are not transformed overnight with a change of the man at the top.
Let me touch on one issue every Malaysian is concerned with: security. The present government made the right move in supporting the establishment of the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operations and Management of the Police in 2004. Responding to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, the government allocated the PDRM RM8 billion to upgrade itself under the 9th Malaysia Plan, a tripling of their allocation under the 8th Malaysia Plan.
Despite the huge extra amounts we are spending on policing, there has been no dent on our crime problem, especially in the Johor Bahru area, where it continues to make a mockery of our attempts to develop Iskandar as a destination for talent and investment. Despite spending all this money, we have just been identified as a major destination for human trafficking by the US State Department’s 2008 Human Rights Watch. We are now in the peer group of Sudan, Saudi Arabia and North Korea for human trafficking. All over the world the organized cross-border activity of human trafficking feeds on the collusion of crime syndicates and corrupt law enforcement and border security officials. Security is about more than just catching the criminals out there. It is also about the integrity of our own people and processes. It is above all about uprooting corruption and malpractice in government agencies, especially in law enforcement agencies. I wish the government were as eager to face the painful challenge of reform as to spend money. The key recommendation of the Royal Commission was the formation of an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission. That has been shelved.
Royal Commissions and their findings are not to be trifled with and applied selectively. Their findings and recommendations are conveyed in a report submitted to the King, who then transmits them to the Government. Their recommendations have the status of instructions from the King. The recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Police have not been properly implemented. The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Video clip might as well not have been conducted, because its findings have been completely ignored. Both Commissions investigated matters fundamental to law and order in this country: the capability and integrity of the police and of the judiciary. No amount of money thrown at the PDRM or on installing CCTV’s can make up for what happens to our security when our law enforcers and our judges are compromised.
Two Royal Commissions undertaken under the present government unearthed deep issues in the police and the judiciary and made recommendations with the King’s authority behind them, and they have been ignored. The public may wonder if the government is committed to peace and security if it cannot or will not address institutional rot in law enforcement and the rule of law.
The reform of the police and the judiciary has been on the present government’s To Do list for more than five years.
I want to reflect now upon where we stand today and how we might move forward. We are truly at a turning point in our history. Our political landscape is marked with unprecedented uncertainty. Nobody knows what the immediate future holds for us politically. This is something very new for Malaysians. The inevitability of a strong BN government figured into all political and economic calculations and provided a kind of stability to our expectations. Now that this is gone, and perhaps gone for good, we need a new basis for long-term confidence. No matter who wins the next General Election, it is likely to be with a slim majority. Whatever uncertainty we now face is likely to persist unless some sort of tiebreaker is found which gathers the overwhelming support of the people.
We need to trust less in personalities and more in policies, look less to politics and more to principle, less to rhetoric and more to tangible outcomes, less to the government of the day and more to enduring institutions, first among which must be the Federal Constitution.
We need an unprecedented degree of openness and honesty about what our issues are and what can be done; about who we are, and where we want to go. We need straight talk rather than slogans. We need to be looking the long horizon rather than occupying ourselves with media-generated milestones.
Those of us who think about the future of Malaysia have never been so restless. The mould of our past is broken, and there is no putting it back together again, but a new mould into which to pour our efforts is not yet cast. This is a time to think new thoughts, and to be courageous in articulating them.
Such is the case not just in politics but also in how the government manages the economy. In a previous speech I argued that for our economy to escape the “middle income trap” we need to make a developmental leap involving transformative improvements in governance and a successful reform of our political system. I said the world recession is a critical opportunity for us to re-gear and re-tool the Malaysian economy because it is a challenge to take bold, imaginative measures. We must make that leap or remain stuck as low achievers who were once promising.
We are in a foundational crisis both of our politics and of our economy. In both dimensions, the set plays of the past have taken us as far as they can, and can take us no further. Politically and economically, we have arrived at the end of the road for an old way of managing things. The next step facing us is not a step but a leap, not an addition to what we have but a shift that changes the very ground we play on.
This is not the first time in our brief history as an independent nation that we have found ourselves at an impasse and come up with a ground-setting policy, a new framework, a leap into the future. The race riots of 1969 ended the political accommodation and style of the first era of our independence. Parliament was suspended and a National Operations Council put in place under the leadership of the late Tun Razak. He formed a National Consultative Council to study what needed to be done. The NCC was a non-partisan body which included everyone. It was the NCC that drafted and recommended the New Economic Policy. This was approved and implemented by the Government.
The NEP was a twenty year programme. It had a national, and not a racial agenda to eradicate poverty and address structural inequality in the form of the identification of race with occupation. It aimed to remove a colonial era distribution of economic roles in our economy. Nowhere in its terms is any race specified, nor does it privilege one race over another. Its aim was unity.
The NEP’s redistributive measures drew on principles of social justice, not claims of racial privilege. This is an important point. The NEP was acceptable to all Malaysians because its justification was universal rather than sectarian, ethical rather than opportunistic. It appealed to Malaysians’ sense of social justice and not to any notion of racial privilege.
We were devising a time-limited policy for the day, in pursuit of a set of measurable outcomes. We were not devising a doctrine for an eternal socio-economic arrangement. Like all policies, it was formulated to solve a finite set of problems, but through an enduring concern with principles such as equity and justice. I happen to think it was the right thing for the time, and it worked in large measure.
Curiously, although the policy was formulated within the broad consensus of the NCC for a finite period, in our political consciousness it has grown into an all-encompassing and permanent framework that defines who we are. We continue to act and talk as if it is still in place. The NEP ended in 1991 when it was terminated and replaced by the New Development Policy, but eighteen years on, we are still in its hangover and speak confusingly about liberalizing it. The NEP was necessary and even visionary in 1971, but it is a crushing indictment of our lack of imagination, of the mediocrity of our leadership, that two decades after its expiry, we talk as if it is the sacrosanct centre of our socio-political arrangement, and that departures from it are big strides. The NEP is over, and we have not had the courage to tell people this. The real issue is not whether the NEP is to be continued or not, but whether we have the imagination to come up with something which better serves our values and objectives, for our own time.
Policies are limited mechanisms for solving problems. They become vehicles for abuse when they stay on past their useful life. Like political or corporate leaders who have stayed too long, policies that overrun their scope or time become entrenched in abuse, and confuse the means that they are with the ends that they were meant to serve. The NEP was formulated to serve the objective of unity. That objective is enduring, but its instrument can come up for renewal or replacement. Any organisation, let alone a country, that fails to renew a key policy over forty years in a fast-moving world is out of touch and in trouble.
There is a broad consensus in our society that while the NEP has had important successes, it has now degenerated into a vehicle for abuse and inefficiency. Neither the Malays nor the non-Malays approve of the way it now works, although there would be multiracial support for the objectives of the NEP, as originally understood. The enthusiasm with which recent reforms have been greeted in the business and international communities suggests that the NEP is viewed as an obstacle to growth. This was not what it was meant to be.
It was designed to promote a more equitable and therefore a more harmonious society. Far from obstructing growth, the stability and harmony envisaged by the NEP would were to be the basis for long term prosperity.
Over the years, however, and alongside its successes, the NEP has been systematically appropriated by a small political and business class to enrich itself and perpetuate its power. This process has corrupted our society and our politics. It has corrupted our political parties. Rent-seeking practices have choked the NEP’s original intention of seeking a more just and equitable society, and have discredited the broad nation-building enterprise which this policy was meant to serve.
Thus, while the NEP itself has expired, we live under the hangover of a policy which has been skewed from its intent. Instead of coming up with better policy tools in pursuit of the aims behind the NEP, a set of vested interests rallies to defend the mere form of the NEP and to extend its bureaucratic sway through a huge apparatus of commissions, agencies, licenses and permits while its spirit has been evacuated. In doing so they have clouded the noble aims of the NEP and racialized its originally national and universal concerns.
We must break the stranglehold of communal politics and racial policy if we want to be a place where an economy driven by ideas and skills can flourish. This is where our daunting economic and political challenges can be addressed in one stroke. We can do much better than cling to the bright ideas of forty years ago as if they were dogma, and forget our duty to come up with the bright ideas for our own time. The NEP, together with the Barisan coalition, was a workable solution for Malaysia forty years ago. But forty years ago, our population was about a third of what it is today, our economy was a fraction the size and complexity that it is now, and structured around the export of tin and rubber rather than around manufacturing, services and oil and gas. Forty years ago we were in the midst of the Cold War, and the Vietnam War raged to the north. Need I say we live in a very different world today. We need to talk to the facebook generation of young Malaysians connected to global styles and currents of thought. We face global epidemics, economic downturns and planetary climate change.
We can do much better than to cling to the outer form of an old policy. Thinking in these terms only gives us the negative policy lever of “relaxing” certain rules, when what we need is a new policy framework, with 21st century policy instruments. We have relaxed some quotas. We have left Approved Permits and our taxi licensing system intact. We have left the apparatus of the NEP, and a divisive mindset that has grown up around it, in place. Wary of well-intentioned statements with no follow-through, the business community has greeted these reforms cautiously, noting that a mountain of other reforms are needed. One banker was quoted in a recent news article as saying: “All the reforms need to go hand in hand..Why is there an exodus of talent and wealth? It is because people do not feel confident with the investment climate, security conditions and the government in Malaysia. Right now, many have lost faith in the system.”
The issues are intertwined. Our problems are systemic and rooted in the capability of the government to deliver, and the integrity of our institutions. It is clear that piecemeal “liberalization” and measure by measure reform on a politicized timetable is not going to do the job.33.What we need is a whole new policy framework, based on a comprehensive vision that addresses root problems in security, institutional integrity, education and government capability. What we need to do is address our crisis with the bold statecraft from which the NEP itself originated, not cling to a problematic framework that does little justice to our high aspirations. The challenge of leadership is to tell the truth about our situation, no matter how unpalatable, to bring people together around that solution, and to move them to act together on that solution.
If the problem is really that we face a foundational crisis, then it is not liberalization of the NEP, or even liberalization per se that we need. From the depths of the global economic slowdown it is abundantly clear that the autonomous free market is neither equitable nor even sustainable. There is no substitute for putting our heads together and coming up with wise policy. We need a Malaysian New Deal based on the same universal concerns on which the NEP was originally formulated but designed for a new era: we must continue to eradicate poverty without regard for race or religion, and ensure that markets serve the people rather than the other way around.
Building on the desire for unity based social justice that motivated the NEP in 1971, let us assist 100% of Malaysians who need help in improving their livelihoods and educating their children. We want the full participation of all stakeholders in our economy. A fair and equitable political and economic order, founded on equal citizenship as guaranteed in our Constitution, is the only possible basis for a united Malaysia and a prerequisite of the competitive, talent-driven economy we must create if we are to make our economic leap.
If we could do this, we would restore national confidence, we would bring Malaysians together in common cause to build a country that all feel a deep sense of belonging to. We would unleash the kind of investment we need, not just of foreign capital but of the loyalty, effort and commitment of all Malaysians.
I don’t know about you. I am embarrassed that after fifty years of independence we are still talking about bringing Malaysians together. I would have wished that by now, and here tonight, we could be talking about how we can conquer new challenges together.
Speech by Tengku Razaleigh at HELP University College, KL; July 10, 2009
Thank you for inviting me to address you. It’s a pleasure to be here, and to learn from you. You have asked me to talk about Najib’s First 100 Days, and this lecture is in a series called Straight Talk. I shall indeed speak plainly and directly.
Let me begin by disappointing you. I am not going to talk about Najib’s First 100 Days because it makes little sense to do so.
Our governments are brought to power for five year terms through general elections. The present government was constituted after March 8, 2008 and Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak’s tenure as Prime Minister resulted from a so-called “smooth transfer of power” between the previous Prime Minister and himself that took a somewhat unsmooth twelve months to carry out. During those months, Najib took on the de facto leadership role domestically while Abdullah warmed our international ties. The first 100 days of this government went by unremarked sometime in June last year.
Not only is it somewhat meaningless to talk about Najib’s First 100 days, such talk buys into a kind of political silliness that we are already too prone to. It has us imagine that the present government started work on April 2 and forget that it commenced work on March 8 last year and must be accountable for all that has been done or not done since then. It has us forget that in our system of parliamentary, constitutional democracy, governments are brought to power at general elections and must be held accountable for promises made at these elections. It leads us to forget that these promises, set out in election manifestos, are undertaken by political parties, not individuals, and are not trifles to be forgotten when there is a change of individual.
It is important that we remember these things, cultivate a more critical recollection of them, and learn to hold our leaders accountable to them, so that we are not perpetually chasing the slogan of the day, whether this be Vision 2020, Islam Hadhari or 1Malaysia. As PR Professionals, you would see my point immediately. Slogans without substance undermine trust. That substance is made up of policies that have been thought through and are followed through. That substance is concrete and provided by results we can measure.
Whether or not some of our leaders are ready for it, we are maturing as a democracy. We are beginning to evaluate our governments more by the results they deliver over time than by their rhetoric. As our increasingly well-educated and well-travelled citizens apply this standard, they force our politicians to think before they speak, and deliver before they speak again. As thinking Malaysians we should look for the policies, if any, behind the slogans. What policies are still in place and which have we abandoned? What counts as policy and who is consulted when it is made? How is a proposal formulated and specified and approved before it becomes policy, and by whom? What are the roles of party, cabinet, King and Parliament in this process? Must we know what it means before it is instituted or do we have to piece it together with guesswork? Do we even have a policy process?
The mandate Najib has taken up is the one given to Barisan Nasional under Abdullah Badawi’s leadership. BN was returned to power in the 12th General Elections on a manifesto promising Security, Peace and Prosperity. It is this manifesto against which the present administration undertook to be judged. The present government inherits projects and policies such as Islam Hadhari and Vision 2020. If these are still in place, how do they relate to each other and to 1 Malaysia? How do we evaluate the latest slogan against the fact of constitutional failure in Perak, the stench of corruption in the PKFZ project and reports of declining media freedom? What do we make of cynical political plays on racial unity against assurances that national unity is the priority?
It is not amiss to ask about continuity. We were told that the reason why we had to have a yearlong ‘transfer of power’ to replace the previous Prime Minster was so that we could have such policy continuity. The issues before the present BN government are not transformed overnight with a change of the man at the top.
Let me touch on one issue every Malaysian is concerned with: security. The present government made the right move in supporting the establishment of the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operations and Management of the Police in 2004. Responding to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, the government allocated the PDRM RM8 billion to upgrade itself under the 9th Malaysia Plan, a tripling of their allocation under the 8th Malaysia Plan.
Despite the huge extra amounts we are spending on policing, there has been no dent on our crime problem, especially in the Johor Bahru area, where it continues to make a mockery of our attempts to develop Iskandar as a destination for talent and investment. Despite spending all this money, we have just been identified as a major destination for human trafficking by the US State Department’s 2008 Human Rights Watch. We are now in the peer group of Sudan, Saudi Arabia and North Korea for human trafficking. All over the world the organized cross-border activity of human trafficking feeds on the collusion of crime syndicates and corrupt law enforcement and border security officials. Security is about more than just catching the criminals out there. It is also about the integrity of our own people and processes. It is above all about uprooting corruption and malpractice in government agencies, especially in law enforcement agencies. I wish the government were as eager to face the painful challenge of reform as to spend money. The key recommendation of the Royal Commission was the formation of an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission. That has been shelved.
Royal Commissions and their findings are not to be trifled with and applied selectively. Their findings and recommendations are conveyed in a report submitted to the King, who then transmits them to the Government. Their recommendations have the status of instructions from the King. The recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Police have not been properly implemented. The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Video clip might as well not have been conducted, because its findings have been completely ignored. Both Commissions investigated matters fundamental to law and order in this country: the capability and integrity of the police and of the judiciary. No amount of money thrown at the PDRM or on installing CCTV’s can make up for what happens to our security when our law enforcers and our judges are compromised.
Two Royal Commissions undertaken under the present government unearthed deep issues in the police and the judiciary and made recommendations with the King’s authority behind them, and they have been ignored. The public may wonder if the government is committed to peace and security if it cannot or will not address institutional rot in law enforcement and the rule of law.
The reform of the police and the judiciary has been on the present government’s To Do list for more than five years.
I want to reflect now upon where we stand today and how we might move forward. We are truly at a turning point in our history. Our political landscape is marked with unprecedented uncertainty. Nobody knows what the immediate future holds for us politically. This is something very new for Malaysians. The inevitability of a strong BN government figured into all political and economic calculations and provided a kind of stability to our expectations. Now that this is gone, and perhaps gone for good, we need a new basis for long-term confidence. No matter who wins the next General Election, it is likely to be with a slim majority. Whatever uncertainty we now face is likely to persist unless some sort of tiebreaker is found which gathers the overwhelming support of the people.
We need to trust less in personalities and more in policies, look less to politics and more to principle, less to rhetoric and more to tangible outcomes, less to the government of the day and more to enduring institutions, first among which must be the Federal Constitution.
We need an unprecedented degree of openness and honesty about what our issues are and what can be done; about who we are, and where we want to go. We need straight talk rather than slogans. We need to be looking the long horizon rather than occupying ourselves with media-generated milestones.
Those of us who think about the future of Malaysia have never been so restless. The mould of our past is broken, and there is no putting it back together again, but a new mould into which to pour our efforts is not yet cast. This is a time to think new thoughts, and to be courageous in articulating them.
Such is the case not just in politics but also in how the government manages the economy. In a previous speech I argued that for our economy to escape the “middle income trap” we need to make a developmental leap involving transformative improvements in governance and a successful reform of our political system. I said the world recession is a critical opportunity for us to re-gear and re-tool the Malaysian economy because it is a challenge to take bold, imaginative measures. We must make that leap or remain stuck as low achievers who were once promising.
We are in a foundational crisis both of our politics and of our economy. In both dimensions, the set plays of the past have taken us as far as they can, and can take us no further. Politically and economically, we have arrived at the end of the road for an old way of managing things. The next step facing us is not a step but a leap, not an addition to what we have but a shift that changes the very ground we play on.
This is not the first time in our brief history as an independent nation that we have found ourselves at an impasse and come up with a ground-setting policy, a new framework, a leap into the future. The race riots of 1969 ended the political accommodation and style of the first era of our independence. Parliament was suspended and a National Operations Council put in place under the leadership of the late Tun Razak. He formed a National Consultative Council to study what needed to be done. The NCC was a non-partisan body which included everyone. It was the NCC that drafted and recommended the New Economic Policy. This was approved and implemented by the Government.
The NEP was a twenty year programme. It had a national, and not a racial agenda to eradicate poverty and address structural inequality in the form of the identification of race with occupation. It aimed to remove a colonial era distribution of economic roles in our economy. Nowhere in its terms is any race specified, nor does it privilege one race over another. Its aim was unity.
The NEP’s redistributive measures drew on principles of social justice, not claims of racial privilege. This is an important point. The NEP was acceptable to all Malaysians because its justification was universal rather than sectarian, ethical rather than opportunistic. It appealed to Malaysians’ sense of social justice and not to any notion of racial privilege.
We were devising a time-limited policy for the day, in pursuit of a set of measurable outcomes. We were not devising a doctrine for an eternal socio-economic arrangement. Like all policies, it was formulated to solve a finite set of problems, but through an enduring concern with principles such as equity and justice. I happen to think it was the right thing for the time, and it worked in large measure.
Curiously, although the policy was formulated within the broad consensus of the NCC for a finite period, in our political consciousness it has grown into an all-encompassing and permanent framework that defines who we are. We continue to act and talk as if it is still in place. The NEP ended in 1991 when it was terminated and replaced by the New Development Policy, but eighteen years on, we are still in its hangover and speak confusingly about liberalizing it. The NEP was necessary and even visionary in 1971, but it is a crushing indictment of our lack of imagination, of the mediocrity of our leadership, that two decades after its expiry, we talk as if it is the sacrosanct centre of our socio-political arrangement, and that departures from it are big strides. The NEP is over, and we have not had the courage to tell people this. The real issue is not whether the NEP is to be continued or not, but whether we have the imagination to come up with something which better serves our values and objectives, for our own time.
Policies are limited mechanisms for solving problems. They become vehicles for abuse when they stay on past their useful life. Like political or corporate leaders who have stayed too long, policies that overrun their scope or time become entrenched in abuse, and confuse the means that they are with the ends that they were meant to serve. The NEP was formulated to serve the objective of unity. That objective is enduring, but its instrument can come up for renewal or replacement. Any organisation, let alone a country, that fails to renew a key policy over forty years in a fast-moving world is out of touch and in trouble.
There is a broad consensus in our society that while the NEP has had important successes, it has now degenerated into a vehicle for abuse and inefficiency. Neither the Malays nor the non-Malays approve of the way it now works, although there would be multiracial support for the objectives of the NEP, as originally understood. The enthusiasm with which recent reforms have been greeted in the business and international communities suggests that the NEP is viewed as an obstacle to growth. This was not what it was meant to be.
It was designed to promote a more equitable and therefore a more harmonious society. Far from obstructing growth, the stability and harmony envisaged by the NEP would were to be the basis for long term prosperity.
Over the years, however, and alongside its successes, the NEP has been systematically appropriated by a small political and business class to enrich itself and perpetuate its power. This process has corrupted our society and our politics. It has corrupted our political parties. Rent-seeking practices have choked the NEP’s original intention of seeking a more just and equitable society, and have discredited the broad nation-building enterprise which this policy was meant to serve.
Thus, while the NEP itself has expired, we live under the hangover of a policy which has been skewed from its intent. Instead of coming up with better policy tools in pursuit of the aims behind the NEP, a set of vested interests rallies to defend the mere form of the NEP and to extend its bureaucratic sway through a huge apparatus of commissions, agencies, licenses and permits while its spirit has been evacuated. In doing so they have clouded the noble aims of the NEP and racialized its originally national and universal concerns.
We must break the stranglehold of communal politics and racial policy if we want to be a place where an economy driven by ideas and skills can flourish. This is where our daunting economic and political challenges can be addressed in one stroke. We can do much better than cling to the bright ideas of forty years ago as if they were dogma, and forget our duty to come up with the bright ideas for our own time. The NEP, together with the Barisan coalition, was a workable solution for Malaysia forty years ago. But forty years ago, our population was about a third of what it is today, our economy was a fraction the size and complexity that it is now, and structured around the export of tin and rubber rather than around manufacturing, services and oil and gas. Forty years ago we were in the midst of the Cold War, and the Vietnam War raged to the north. Need I say we live in a very different world today. We need to talk to the facebook generation of young Malaysians connected to global styles and currents of thought. We face global epidemics, economic downturns and planetary climate change.
We can do much better than to cling to the outer form of an old policy. Thinking in these terms only gives us the negative policy lever of “relaxing” certain rules, when what we need is a new policy framework, with 21st century policy instruments. We have relaxed some quotas. We have left Approved Permits and our taxi licensing system intact. We have left the apparatus of the NEP, and a divisive mindset that has grown up around it, in place. Wary of well-intentioned statements with no follow-through, the business community has greeted these reforms cautiously, noting that a mountain of other reforms are needed. One banker was quoted in a recent news article as saying: “All the reforms need to go hand in hand..Why is there an exodus of talent and wealth? It is because people do not feel confident with the investment climate, security conditions and the government in Malaysia. Right now, many have lost faith in the system.”
The issues are intertwined. Our problems are systemic and rooted in the capability of the government to deliver, and the integrity of our institutions. It is clear that piecemeal “liberalization” and measure by measure reform on a politicized timetable is not going to do the job.33.What we need is a whole new policy framework, based on a comprehensive vision that addresses root problems in security, institutional integrity, education and government capability. What we need to do is address our crisis with the bold statecraft from which the NEP itself originated, not cling to a problematic framework that does little justice to our high aspirations. The challenge of leadership is to tell the truth about our situation, no matter how unpalatable, to bring people together around that solution, and to move them to act together on that solution.
If the problem is really that we face a foundational crisis, then it is not liberalization of the NEP, or even liberalization per se that we need. From the depths of the global economic slowdown it is abundantly clear that the autonomous free market is neither equitable nor even sustainable. There is no substitute for putting our heads together and coming up with wise policy. We need a Malaysian New Deal based on the same universal concerns on which the NEP was originally formulated but designed for a new era: we must continue to eradicate poverty without regard for race or religion, and ensure that markets serve the people rather than the other way around.
Building on the desire for unity based social justice that motivated the NEP in 1971, let us assist 100% of Malaysians who need help in improving their livelihoods and educating their children. We want the full participation of all stakeholders in our economy. A fair and equitable political and economic order, founded on equal citizenship as guaranteed in our Constitution, is the only possible basis for a united Malaysia and a prerequisite of the competitive, talent-driven economy we must create if we are to make our economic leap.
If we could do this, we would restore national confidence, we would bring Malaysians together in common cause to build a country that all feel a deep sense of belonging to. We would unleash the kind of investment we need, not just of foreign capital but of the loyalty, effort and commitment of all Malaysians.
I don’t know about you. I am embarrassed that after fifty years of independence we are still talking about bringing Malaysians together. I would have wished that by now, and here tonight, we could be talking about how we can conquer new challenges together.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
PAS-Umno unity gov't not an option
PAS-Umno unity gov't not an option
Sim Kwang Yang Jun 11, 09 4:06pm
A Chinese lady journalist wrote about her puzzlement with PAS in a column in the Chinese language the Oriental Daily.She was at the PAS Muktamar covering the proceedings, watching the gathering of PAS delegates from all corners of the country. What she saw and heard made her shake her head and sigh unhappy sighs.Here was a political party that the Chinese had shied away from for many decades. Finally, during the March 8 general election last year, the Chinese voters had overcome their psychological barrier and voted for this Islamist party en masse.During the by-election in Perak, even the most conservative Chinese villagers hung the PAS flags, to show their displeasure at the BN tactic in changing power in the silver state.Then, during the Muktamar, PAS elites showed the hegemonic sectarian side that they shared with the much vilified Umno!Before entering the meeting venue, lady reporters were told to wear some kind of head gear. They were told to sit separately from their male counterparts inside the meeting hall.Then they heard a call from a delegate to maintain the 30 percent quota for Bumiputra. Worse still, they heard the party president Hadi Awang proposing a unity government with Umno!What is the difference between PAS and Umno, she asked.At the crossroadsThe PAS Muktamar that has just ended has indeed triggered off a tsunami of commentaries. There is a kind of unsaid consensus that the party's highest decision making body is far from conclusive in determining their future direction.It remains stuck at a crossroads.The division between the Ulamas and the professionals among the PAS leadership may be arbitrary and simplistic, but it is useful.If that be the case, then neither side won in the party election.Nasharuddin Mat Isa might have won the race for the post of Deputy President, but that was because his opponents' votes had been split two ways between two other contenders.If one of his two opponents had withdrawn, the results would have been different.Then again, it is hard to put any label on Nasharuddin. As Brigit Welsh wrote in her Malaysiakini article Change for PAS or PAS for change:"More important, labels and outlooks are changing within PAS. Consider the victor in the deputy presidency race, Nasharuddin Mat Isa. Only four years ago, when he was elected in 2005, he was touted as the leader of the ‘progressives'. Today, he was labelled as the defender of the ulama, the voice of conservatism."Nasharuddin's political identity remains unclear, as it is being shaped by forces within the party and the rapidly changing political environment in Malaysia rather than driven by a fixed outlook."Indeed, the overall impression of the latest PAS Muktamar is a party in the process of evolution, stumbling along amidst the changing parameters of a new political reality in Malaysia.You still hear the old conservative voice of the past, in the form of an undebated motion calling for the ban on Sisters in Islam. Sisters in Islam is one of the most respected Islamic NGO in our country, and such a call to ban them is nothing less than barbaric!But the most contentious issue has to be the call by PAS President Hadi Awang - supported by his Deputy Nasharuddin - for continuing talk with Umno.Act of betrayalOf course PAS is free to talk to anybody in a free exchange of views on any subject. But if PAS talks to Umno on the basis of pursuing the "unity of the fellow faithful", then PAS is launched on a journey of no-return towards self-destruction.Worse still, it will lead to the disintegration of the Pakatan Rakyat coalition, and any hope of realising a two coalition system in Malaysia!The other two PR coalition partners, DAP and PKR, are understandably disturbed. When PAS top leaders hold secret talk with their common arch enemy Umno, it is an act of betrayal. There is no other name for it.The idea of PAS holding talks with Umno in secret is a bizarre one, if you know the long and bitter rivalry between these two parties over the past half century. The whole things smacks of backroom horse-trading, short term gain, and narrow sectarian agenda taking centre stage.PAS spiritual leader Datuk Nik Mat Nik Aziz has openly rubbished the idea of such clandestine talks, and so have a number of delegates at the Muktamar. The deputy president, Nasharuddin, rubbished back, saying his spiritual leader was merely voicing his personal opinion.What kind of spiritual leader has Nik Aziz been made out to be?So we return to the question posed by the lady journalist at the beginning of this article. What is the difference between PAS and Umno?Orchestrated speechesIn an Umno general assembly, all the speeches are well orchestrated beforehand. When the Umno youth chief raised his Keris, everyone cheered. Their race-speak and religion-speak has only one voice.In PAS Muktamar, we hear a plurality of voices. Though one delegate spoke in defence of the 30 percent Bumiputra quota, you also have Khalid Samad attacking the idea as an Umno mindset.Delegates spoke openly against the president's proposal for a unity government.Obviously, PAS is much more inclusive and more democratic than Umno. They seem far less ‘monologic' than Umno precisely because they allow one hundred flowers to bloom.When that state of affair exists, you have to allow the proposal for talks with Umno to surface, no matter how silly it sounds.As long as the democratic process is in motion within PAS, there will always be the internal checks and balances in the party so that no single unreasonable proposal will come to dominate the party.That is the strength of PAS over Umno in the long run.Frankly, I am sceptical that the whole of PAS would take kindly to this unity talk nonsense. PAS has been betrayed before by Umno when they were in the BN coalition.Fight to the finishTheir massive grass-root members have fought Umno tooth and nail for decades in many fierce and ruthless battles. They have called each other such dirty names that will be etched in stone in our memory. Ideologically, they are poles apart.Eventually, these PAS leaders have to be reminded that they are not so high and mighty after all. They too are held hostage to fortune, as they are beholden not only to their members but to the entire multi-racial Malaysian electorate as well.As a mainstream political party, PAS is also a useful historical instrument for all Malaysians to bring about meaningful democratic change. We do not have to fear PAS.Instead, we should care about them and follow their every move and their future political direction.When some of their leaders seem to have lost sight of our common political objective of reformation, then it is our duty to stand forth and remind them of their duty to the rakyat who have voted them in the March 8 general election last year.Any proposal for a unity government between PAS and Umno is not an option! I repeat, the proposal is a sure road map for the self-destruction of PAS, and an act of treason against the Pakatan Rakyat coalition, and a betrayal against the Malaysian populace who harbour dreams of a better more democratic Malaysia!
SIM KWANG YANG was MP for Bandar Kuching between 1982 and 1995. He can be reached at Kenyalang 578@hotmail.com
Sim Kwang Yang Jun 11, 09 4:06pm
A Chinese lady journalist wrote about her puzzlement with PAS in a column in the Chinese language the Oriental Daily.She was at the PAS Muktamar covering the proceedings, watching the gathering of PAS delegates from all corners of the country. What she saw and heard made her shake her head and sigh unhappy sighs.Here was a political party that the Chinese had shied away from for many decades. Finally, during the March 8 general election last year, the Chinese voters had overcome their psychological barrier and voted for this Islamist party en masse.During the by-election in Perak, even the most conservative Chinese villagers hung the PAS flags, to show their displeasure at the BN tactic in changing power in the silver state.Then, during the Muktamar, PAS elites showed the hegemonic sectarian side that they shared with the much vilified Umno!Before entering the meeting venue, lady reporters were told to wear some kind of head gear. They were told to sit separately from their male counterparts inside the meeting hall.Then they heard a call from a delegate to maintain the 30 percent quota for Bumiputra. Worse still, they heard the party president Hadi Awang proposing a unity government with Umno!What is the difference between PAS and Umno, she asked.At the crossroadsThe PAS Muktamar that has just ended has indeed triggered off a tsunami of commentaries. There is a kind of unsaid consensus that the party's highest decision making body is far from conclusive in determining their future direction.It remains stuck at a crossroads.The division between the Ulamas and the professionals among the PAS leadership may be arbitrary and simplistic, but it is useful.If that be the case, then neither side won in the party election.Nasharuddin Mat Isa might have won the race for the post of Deputy President, but that was because his opponents' votes had been split two ways between two other contenders.If one of his two opponents had withdrawn, the results would have been different.Then again, it is hard to put any label on Nasharuddin. As Brigit Welsh wrote in her Malaysiakini article Change for PAS or PAS for change:"More important, labels and outlooks are changing within PAS. Consider the victor in the deputy presidency race, Nasharuddin Mat Isa. Only four years ago, when he was elected in 2005, he was touted as the leader of the ‘progressives'. Today, he was labelled as the defender of the ulama, the voice of conservatism."Nasharuddin's political identity remains unclear, as it is being shaped by forces within the party and the rapidly changing political environment in Malaysia rather than driven by a fixed outlook."Indeed, the overall impression of the latest PAS Muktamar is a party in the process of evolution, stumbling along amidst the changing parameters of a new political reality in Malaysia.You still hear the old conservative voice of the past, in the form of an undebated motion calling for the ban on Sisters in Islam. Sisters in Islam is one of the most respected Islamic NGO in our country, and such a call to ban them is nothing less than barbaric!But the most contentious issue has to be the call by PAS President Hadi Awang - supported by his Deputy Nasharuddin - for continuing talk with Umno.Act of betrayalOf course PAS is free to talk to anybody in a free exchange of views on any subject. But if PAS talks to Umno on the basis of pursuing the "unity of the fellow faithful", then PAS is launched on a journey of no-return towards self-destruction.Worse still, it will lead to the disintegration of the Pakatan Rakyat coalition, and any hope of realising a two coalition system in Malaysia!The other two PR coalition partners, DAP and PKR, are understandably disturbed. When PAS top leaders hold secret talk with their common arch enemy Umno, it is an act of betrayal. There is no other name for it.The idea of PAS holding talks with Umno in secret is a bizarre one, if you know the long and bitter rivalry between these two parties over the past half century. The whole things smacks of backroom horse-trading, short term gain, and narrow sectarian agenda taking centre stage.PAS spiritual leader Datuk Nik Mat Nik Aziz has openly rubbished the idea of such clandestine talks, and so have a number of delegates at the Muktamar. The deputy president, Nasharuddin, rubbished back, saying his spiritual leader was merely voicing his personal opinion.What kind of spiritual leader has Nik Aziz been made out to be?So we return to the question posed by the lady journalist at the beginning of this article. What is the difference between PAS and Umno?Orchestrated speechesIn an Umno general assembly, all the speeches are well orchestrated beforehand. When the Umno youth chief raised his Keris, everyone cheered. Their race-speak and religion-speak has only one voice.In PAS Muktamar, we hear a plurality of voices. Though one delegate spoke in defence of the 30 percent Bumiputra quota, you also have Khalid Samad attacking the idea as an Umno mindset.Delegates spoke openly against the president's proposal for a unity government.Obviously, PAS is much more inclusive and more democratic than Umno. They seem far less ‘monologic' than Umno precisely because they allow one hundred flowers to bloom.When that state of affair exists, you have to allow the proposal for talks with Umno to surface, no matter how silly it sounds.As long as the democratic process is in motion within PAS, there will always be the internal checks and balances in the party so that no single unreasonable proposal will come to dominate the party.That is the strength of PAS over Umno in the long run.Frankly, I am sceptical that the whole of PAS would take kindly to this unity talk nonsense. PAS has been betrayed before by Umno when they were in the BN coalition.Fight to the finishTheir massive grass-root members have fought Umno tooth and nail for decades in many fierce and ruthless battles. They have called each other such dirty names that will be etched in stone in our memory. Ideologically, they are poles apart.Eventually, these PAS leaders have to be reminded that they are not so high and mighty after all. They too are held hostage to fortune, as they are beholden not only to their members but to the entire multi-racial Malaysian electorate as well.As a mainstream political party, PAS is also a useful historical instrument for all Malaysians to bring about meaningful democratic change. We do not have to fear PAS.Instead, we should care about them and follow their every move and their future political direction.When some of their leaders seem to have lost sight of our common political objective of reformation, then it is our duty to stand forth and remind them of their duty to the rakyat who have voted them in the March 8 general election last year.Any proposal for a unity government between PAS and Umno is not an option! I repeat, the proposal is a sure road map for the self-destruction of PAS, and an act of treason against the Pakatan Rakyat coalition, and a betrayal against the Malaysian populace who harbour dreams of a better more democratic Malaysia!
SIM KWANG YANG was MP for Bandar Kuching between 1982 and 1995. He can be reached at Kenyalang 578@hotmail.com
LKY at 85, The fire still burns
A frank discourse by a bumiputra of Malaysia.LEE KUAN YEW : AT 85 , THE FIRE STILL BURNS BY *AHMAD MUSTAPHA *The writer is a nephew of Dr Mahathir.
Singapore's Minister Mentor, Lee Kuan Yew, who was Singapore's founding father, has always been very direct in his comments. This was the man who outsmarted the communists in Singapore (with the innocent help of Malaya then and the willing help of the British) and who later outwitted the British and outpaced Malaysia in all spheres.
Singapore practices corrupt-free meritocracy and Malaysia affirmative action. The former attracted all the best brains and the latter chased out all the brains. The Singapore cabinet consists of dedicated and intelligent technocrats whereas Malaysia has one of the most unwieldy cabinets. Not only that, brain wise it was below par not even good for the kampong.
With that kind of composition, one that is very brainy, naturally Singapore, with no natural resources could outstrip Malaysia in every aspect of development. Malaysia, on the other hand, was too much preoccupied with its Malayness and the illusory 'Ketuanan Melayu' and was also more interested in useless mega iconic development rather than real social and economic development.
Whenever Kuan Yew utters anything that deemed to be a slight on Malaysia, voices were raised admonishing him. Malaysia would never dare to face reality. That Singapore had shown that it could survive was a slap on those who believed that Singapore would fold up once it left Malaysia. Therefore it was natural that these doomsayers would try to rationalise their utterances to be in their favour to combat on whatever Kuan Yew commented. Its political jealousy.
Singapore achieved its development status without any fanfare. But here in Malaysia, a development that was deceptive was proclaimed as having achieved development status. It was trumpeted as an achievement that befits first world status. This was self delusion. Malaysians are led to believe into a make believe world, a dream world. The leaders who themselves tend to believe in their own fabricated world did not realise the people were not taken in by this kind of illusion.
Lee Kuan Yew believed in calling a spade a spade. I was there in Singapore when the People's Action Party won the elections in 1959. He was forthright in his briefing to party members as to what was expected of them and what Singapore would face in the future. Ideologically, I did not agree with him. We in the University of Malaya Socialist Club had a different interpretation of socialist reconstruction. But he was a pragmatist and wanted to bring development and welfare to the Singaporeans. Well! He succeeded.
Malaysia was so much embroiled in racial politics and due to the fear of losing political power, all actions taken by the main party in power was never targeted towards bringing wealth to all. Wealth was distributed to the chosen few only. They were the cronies and the backers of the party leadership to perpetuate their own selfish ends.
Seeing the efficiency and the progress achieved by Singapore caused the Malaysian leadership to suffer from an inferiority complex. That Malaysia should suffer from this complex was of its own making.
In a recent interview, Kuan Yew said that Malaysia could have done better if only it treated its minority Chinese and Indian population fairly. Instead they were completely marginalised and many of the best brains left the country in drove. He added that Singapore was a standing indictment to what Malaysia could have done differently. He just hit the nail right there on the head.
Malaysia recently celebrated its 50th year of independence with a bagful of uncertainties. The racial divide has become more acute. The number of Malay graduates unemployed is on the increase. And this aspect can be very explosive. But sad to see that no positive actions have been taken to address these social ills.
Various excuses were given by Malaysian leaders why Singapore had far outstripped Malaysia in all aspects of social and economic advancement. Singapore was small, they rationalised and therefore easy to manage. Singapore was not a state but merely an island.
There was one other aspect that Malaysia practises and that is to politicise all aspects of life. All government organs and machinery were 'UMNO-ised'. This was to ensure that the party will remain in power. Thus there was this misconception by the instruments of government as to what national interest is and what UMNO vested interest is.
UMNO vested interest only benefited a few and not the whole nation. But due to the UMNO-isation of the various instruments of government, the country under the present administration had equated UMNO vested interest as being that of national interest. Thus development became an avenue of making money and not for the benefit of the people. The fight against corruption took a back seat. Transparency was put on hold. And the instruments of government took it to be of national interest to cater to the vested interest of UMNO. Enforcement of various enactments and laws was selective. Thus a 'palace' in Kelang, APs cronies and close-one-eye umno MPs could exist without proper procedure. Corruption infested all govt departments, the worse is the police and lately even in the judiciary.
Singapore did not politicise its instruments of government. If ever politicisation took place, it is guided by national interest. To be efficient and to be the best in the region was of paramount importance. Thus all the elements like corruption, lackadaisical attitude towards work and other black elements, which would retard such an aim, were eliminated. Singapore naturally had placed the right priority in it's pursuit to achieve what is best for its people. This is the major difference between these two independent countries.
Malaysia in its various attempts to cover up its failures embarked on several diversions. It wanted its citizens to be proud that the country had the tallest twin-tower in the world, although the structure was designed and built by foreigners. Its now a white-elephant wasting away. It achieved in sending a man into space at an exorbitant price. For what purpose? These are what the Malays of old would say "menang sorak" (hollow victories).
It should be realised that administering a country can be likened to managing a corporate entity. If the management is efficient and dedicated and know what they are doing, the company will prosper. The reverse will be if the management is poor and bad. The company will go bust.
There are five countries around this region. There is Malaysia , and then Indonesia . To the east there is the Philippines and then there is that small enclave called the Sultanate of Brunei . All these four countries have abundance of natural resources but none can lay claim to have used all these resources to benefit the people. Poverty was rampant and independence had not brought in any significant benefits to the people.
But tiny Singapore without any resources at all managed to bring development to its citizens. It had one of the best public MRT transport systems and airlines in the world and it is a very clean city state. Their universities, health care, ports are among the best in the world.
It is impossible to compare what Singapore has achieved to what all these four countries had so far achieved. It was actually poor management and corruption, and nothing more. Everything is done for the vested interest of the few.
Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines and the Sultanate of Brunei need good management teams. They would not be able to do this on their own steam. I would advise that they call on Kuan Yew to show them what good governance is. Why look East to Japan when it is just next door across the causeway.
Singapore's Minister Mentor, Lee Kuan Yew, who was Singapore's founding father, has always been very direct in his comments. This was the man who outsmarted the communists in Singapore (with the innocent help of Malaya then and the willing help of the British) and who later outwitted the British and outpaced Malaysia in all spheres.
Singapore practices corrupt-free meritocracy and Malaysia affirmative action. The former attracted all the best brains and the latter chased out all the brains. The Singapore cabinet consists of dedicated and intelligent technocrats whereas Malaysia has one of the most unwieldy cabinets. Not only that, brain wise it was below par not even good for the kampong.
With that kind of composition, one that is very brainy, naturally Singapore, with no natural resources could outstrip Malaysia in every aspect of development. Malaysia, on the other hand, was too much preoccupied with its Malayness and the illusory 'Ketuanan Melayu' and was also more interested in useless mega iconic development rather than real social and economic development.
Whenever Kuan Yew utters anything that deemed to be a slight on Malaysia, voices were raised admonishing him. Malaysia would never dare to face reality. That Singapore had shown that it could survive was a slap on those who believed that Singapore would fold up once it left Malaysia. Therefore it was natural that these doomsayers would try to rationalise their utterances to be in their favour to combat on whatever Kuan Yew commented. Its political jealousy.
Singapore achieved its development status without any fanfare. But here in Malaysia, a development that was deceptive was proclaimed as having achieved development status. It was trumpeted as an achievement that befits first world status. This was self delusion. Malaysians are led to believe into a make believe world, a dream world. The leaders who themselves tend to believe in their own fabricated world did not realise the people were not taken in by this kind of illusion.
Lee Kuan Yew believed in calling a spade a spade. I was there in Singapore when the People's Action Party won the elections in 1959. He was forthright in his briefing to party members as to what was expected of them and what Singapore would face in the future. Ideologically, I did not agree with him. We in the University of Malaya Socialist Club had a different interpretation of socialist reconstruction. But he was a pragmatist and wanted to bring development and welfare to the Singaporeans. Well! He succeeded.
Malaysia was so much embroiled in racial politics and due to the fear of losing political power, all actions taken by the main party in power was never targeted towards bringing wealth to all. Wealth was distributed to the chosen few only. They were the cronies and the backers of the party leadership to perpetuate their own selfish ends.
Seeing the efficiency and the progress achieved by Singapore caused the Malaysian leadership to suffer from an inferiority complex. That Malaysia should suffer from this complex was of its own making.
In a recent interview, Kuan Yew said that Malaysia could have done better if only it treated its minority Chinese and Indian population fairly. Instead they were completely marginalised and many of the best brains left the country in drove. He added that Singapore was a standing indictment to what Malaysia could have done differently. He just hit the nail right there on the head.
Malaysia recently celebrated its 50th year of independence with a bagful of uncertainties. The racial divide has become more acute. The number of Malay graduates unemployed is on the increase. And this aspect can be very explosive. But sad to see that no positive actions have been taken to address these social ills.
Various excuses were given by Malaysian leaders why Singapore had far outstripped Malaysia in all aspects of social and economic advancement. Singapore was small, they rationalised and therefore easy to manage. Singapore was not a state but merely an island.
There was one other aspect that Malaysia practises and that is to politicise all aspects of life. All government organs and machinery were 'UMNO-ised'. This was to ensure that the party will remain in power. Thus there was this misconception by the instruments of government as to what national interest is and what UMNO vested interest is.
UMNO vested interest only benefited a few and not the whole nation. But due to the UMNO-isation of the various instruments of government, the country under the present administration had equated UMNO vested interest as being that of national interest. Thus development became an avenue of making money and not for the benefit of the people. The fight against corruption took a back seat. Transparency was put on hold. And the instruments of government took it to be of national interest to cater to the vested interest of UMNO. Enforcement of various enactments and laws was selective. Thus a 'palace' in Kelang, APs cronies and close-one-eye umno MPs could exist without proper procedure. Corruption infested all govt departments, the worse is the police and lately even in the judiciary.
Singapore did not politicise its instruments of government. If ever politicisation took place, it is guided by national interest. To be efficient and to be the best in the region was of paramount importance. Thus all the elements like corruption, lackadaisical attitude towards work and other black elements, which would retard such an aim, were eliminated. Singapore naturally had placed the right priority in it's pursuit to achieve what is best for its people. This is the major difference between these two independent countries.
Malaysia in its various attempts to cover up its failures embarked on several diversions. It wanted its citizens to be proud that the country had the tallest twin-tower in the world, although the structure was designed and built by foreigners. Its now a white-elephant wasting away. It achieved in sending a man into space at an exorbitant price. For what purpose? These are what the Malays of old would say "menang sorak" (hollow victories).
It should be realised that administering a country can be likened to managing a corporate entity. If the management is efficient and dedicated and know what they are doing, the company will prosper. The reverse will be if the management is poor and bad. The company will go bust.
There are five countries around this region. There is Malaysia , and then Indonesia . To the east there is the Philippines and then there is that small enclave called the Sultanate of Brunei . All these four countries have abundance of natural resources but none can lay claim to have used all these resources to benefit the people. Poverty was rampant and independence had not brought in any significant benefits to the people.
But tiny Singapore without any resources at all managed to bring development to its citizens. It had one of the best public MRT transport systems and airlines in the world and it is a very clean city state. Their universities, health care, ports are among the best in the world.
It is impossible to compare what Singapore has achieved to what all these four countries had so far achieved. It was actually poor management and corruption, and nothing more. Everything is done for the vested interest of the few.
Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines and the Sultanate of Brunei need good management teams. They would not be able to do this on their own steam. I would advise that they call on Kuan Yew to show them what good governance is. Why look East to Japan when it is just next door across the causeway.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Black Thursday in Ipoh
From Malaysiakini
Sim Kwang Yang May 9, 09 12:07pm
When the Pakistan prime minister announced his government’s decision to go after the Talibans in the Swat Valley, he said it was to restore the “honour of the Motherland!”
MCPXHonour, in one form or another, is one of the highest and most universal virtues held dear by many cultures. We may not condone the sort of “honour killing” practised by some tribesmen in Pakistan. The ritual suicide of Japanese samurai warriors called ‘sepuku’ in defence of their personal honour may also sound extreme. But we still say, “There is honour even among thieves.” We call our elected representative ‘The Right Honourable’, or ‘Yang Berhormat’, precisely because politics ought to be an honourable profession. Unfortunately, throughout the whole world, many politicians have prostituted their honour for personal gain and power - they are worse than thieves. On May 7, honour in Malaysian politics was assassinated and buried by a bunch of people worse than thieves. The six-hour theatrical fiasco inside and outside the Perak state legislature has been variously described as “chaos”, “bedlam”, “mayhem” and “shambolic”. In my ripe old age, and with my decades of active political participation and commentary in the media, I have never seen anything close to the murder of honour in Malaysian politics like what happened in Ipoh.Not even the infamous Operation Lallang can come close to the public display of the breakdown of rule of law and parliamentary democracy. Finally, new Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak has outdone Dr Mahathir Mohamad in the usurpation of the people’s sovereign will.Election of new speaker dubiousCalling it a coup d’etat in his article on the blog Hornbill Unleashed, blogger Pak Bui has this to impart to us all: “American hawk Edward Luttwak wrote in ‘Coup d’État: a Practical Handbook’, that ‘a coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control over the remainder.’”A coup is usually initiated by the military to overthrow a legitimate government. Remember when the Fiji military armed to the teeth marching into Parliament and put the lawmakers under arrest, thereby taking power from the politicians?Military coups are a rarity in these days. In Perak, it was achieved by more subtle means, through a congruent of forces - the Barisan Nasional coalition, the civil servants and the police, all bending the semblance of law to breaking point.Looking at the picture, one can be forgiven in thinking that the Perak august house of legislature has turned into royal rumble on the World Wrestling Federation circuit!The forcible removal of the House speaker by unidentified goons is a sight that is as macabre as it is surreal. We have finally achieved the dubious distinction of overtaking Taiwan as a country with gang-like behaviour in the legislative assembly.By parliamentary conventions that are observed in most Commonwealth countries, the grounds of the legislature is a sovereign refuge from which government administration agencies like the police cannot invade unless upon invitation by the speaker. This convention has arisen from that time-honoured and almost sacrosanct doctrine of separation of powers between the three branches of government.In the legislature, the House has its own sergeant-at-arms to enforce the decisions of the speaker and the whole House. This is the way of the legislature policing itself without the interference of the police. To witness unidentified goons, speculated to be police personnel, carting away the speaker is to see the death of honour for parliamentary democracy in Malaysia. Knowing something of parliamentary practices and House standing orders, I doubt the proceedings on May 7 in the Perak legislature is in accordance with the laws and the federal constitution. The election of the new speaker is dubious. The action of deputy speaker Hee Foong Yit in summarily usurping the power of the original speaker is entirely unlawful.That much-maligned defector has once again played a critical role at the critical time. On the Internet and in private conversation, her name has been made synonymous with some of the most obscene words imaginable. It might be sexism at work, but some will argue that in this exceptional case, the vilification may be well-deserved.Thanks to her, the picture of her tearing up one-ringgit bills or pointing what appeared to be a pepper spray at a fellow assemblyperson has come to be the most defining image of the entire circus on Black Thursday in Perak.Police dragged into imbroglioThe biggest casualty of Black Thursday has to be the Royal Malaysian Police. Their demeanor in the discharge of their duty soils the image of the royal throne.I suppose one could argue that they have to take orders from their political masters. Being a federal agency, they do have to obey the demand of the federal cabinet and the new home minister. If the politicians drag them into playing a partisan role against the opposition coalition, then the fault lies in the Umno politicians, and not the police.But the enthusiasm with which the police went about arresting 120 people in the past three days or so does show a clear lack of professionalism. They arrested Wong Chin Fatt on very shaky ground. They arrested people attending peaceful candlelight vigil outside the Brickfields police station where Wong was held captive. To top absurdity upon absurdities, they arrested five lawyers who went to offer legal aid for those who were detained.In Ipoh, within and outside the 500-metre limit of the Perak state legislature, they charged at strawmen like a bull in a China shop. They arrested 10 elected representatives like common criminals, handcuffs and all.They arrested people for wearing black. They arrested people for having breakfast, and for hanging around like my 69-year-old friend Bernard Khoo. Who would they NOT be arrested next?One of the most cherished freedoms of a citizen in a free democratic country is the security and freedom of the person.It is the duty of the state within the ambit of that Social Contract (that of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau) to protect, preserve, and promote the personal liberty of its citizens. The unreasonable deprivation of that sacrosanct personal liberty, even for an hour, is a moral crime against the collective humanity of the citizens.In a civil society, all forms of violence are outlawed, leaving the military and the police personnel to monopolise the right to violent means in enforcing the laws. When the laws are unjust, and when the police are overzealous in exercising their power in depriving peaceful citizens of their personal freedom, the moral legitimacy of the state and the police will deteriorate in the hearts of the people.BN’s ‘ugly daughter-in-law’Right now, the national attention is firmly fixated on Perak. The continuing battles in various courts between the belligerent parties will make sure of that.Malaysians are generally a meek lot. Apart from the activists and the bloggers, they may not rush to the streets of Ipoh to display their displeasure. They just watch events unfold with their cold eyes, making their own judgement in the silence of their hearts, waiting for their time of reckoning to come.Again, the only honourable way of resolving this crisis in Perak is to hold a state general election, to settle the issue once for all. But that is what the puppet BN government in Perak will not do, for fear of a washout at the polls.There is an old Chinese saying, “An ugly daughter-in-law will have to meet her husband’s father one day”. (In the old days in China, when marriages were arranged by parents with the help of a match-maker, the groom’s father may not see her daughter-in-law right up to the time of the wedding day when the bride’s face would be veiled the entire time. But a face-to-face meeting is inevitable after the wedding.)The ugly illegitimate BN state government will have to face the Perak voters eventually - sooner rather than later.The ugliness of the loss of honour in Ipoh on May 7 may in fact drag down the BN coalition in the next general election. We can get an inkling of the voters’ sentiment in the Penanti by-election.
SIM KWANG YANG was MP for Bandar Kuching between 1982 and 1995. He can be reached at kenyalang578@hotmail.com.
Sim Kwang Yang May 9, 09 12:07pm
When the Pakistan prime minister announced his government’s decision to go after the Talibans in the Swat Valley, he said it was to restore the “honour of the Motherland!”
MCPXHonour, in one form or another, is one of the highest and most universal virtues held dear by many cultures. We may not condone the sort of “honour killing” practised by some tribesmen in Pakistan. The ritual suicide of Japanese samurai warriors called ‘sepuku’ in defence of their personal honour may also sound extreme. But we still say, “There is honour even among thieves.” We call our elected representative ‘The Right Honourable’, or ‘Yang Berhormat’, precisely because politics ought to be an honourable profession. Unfortunately, throughout the whole world, many politicians have prostituted their honour for personal gain and power - they are worse than thieves. On May 7, honour in Malaysian politics was assassinated and buried by a bunch of people worse than thieves. The six-hour theatrical fiasco inside and outside the Perak state legislature has been variously described as “chaos”, “bedlam”, “mayhem” and “shambolic”. In my ripe old age, and with my decades of active political participation and commentary in the media, I have never seen anything close to the murder of honour in Malaysian politics like what happened in Ipoh.Not even the infamous Operation Lallang can come close to the public display of the breakdown of rule of law and parliamentary democracy. Finally, new Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak has outdone Dr Mahathir Mohamad in the usurpation of the people’s sovereign will.Election of new speaker dubiousCalling it a coup d’etat in his article on the blog Hornbill Unleashed, blogger Pak Bui has this to impart to us all: “American hawk Edward Luttwak wrote in ‘Coup d’État: a Practical Handbook’, that ‘a coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control over the remainder.’”A coup is usually initiated by the military to overthrow a legitimate government. Remember when the Fiji military armed to the teeth marching into Parliament and put the lawmakers under arrest, thereby taking power from the politicians?Military coups are a rarity in these days. In Perak, it was achieved by more subtle means, through a congruent of forces - the Barisan Nasional coalition, the civil servants and the police, all bending the semblance of law to breaking point.Looking at the picture, one can be forgiven in thinking that the Perak august house of legislature has turned into royal rumble on the World Wrestling Federation circuit!The forcible removal of the House speaker by unidentified goons is a sight that is as macabre as it is surreal. We have finally achieved the dubious distinction of overtaking Taiwan as a country with gang-like behaviour in the legislative assembly.By parliamentary conventions that are observed in most Commonwealth countries, the grounds of the legislature is a sovereign refuge from which government administration agencies like the police cannot invade unless upon invitation by the speaker. This convention has arisen from that time-honoured and almost sacrosanct doctrine of separation of powers between the three branches of government.In the legislature, the House has its own sergeant-at-arms to enforce the decisions of the speaker and the whole House. This is the way of the legislature policing itself without the interference of the police. To witness unidentified goons, speculated to be police personnel, carting away the speaker is to see the death of honour for parliamentary democracy in Malaysia. Knowing something of parliamentary practices and House standing orders, I doubt the proceedings on May 7 in the Perak legislature is in accordance with the laws and the federal constitution. The election of the new speaker is dubious. The action of deputy speaker Hee Foong Yit in summarily usurping the power of the original speaker is entirely unlawful.That much-maligned defector has once again played a critical role at the critical time. On the Internet and in private conversation, her name has been made synonymous with some of the most obscene words imaginable. It might be sexism at work, but some will argue that in this exceptional case, the vilification may be well-deserved.Thanks to her, the picture of her tearing up one-ringgit bills or pointing what appeared to be a pepper spray at a fellow assemblyperson has come to be the most defining image of the entire circus on Black Thursday in Perak.Police dragged into imbroglioThe biggest casualty of Black Thursday has to be the Royal Malaysian Police. Their demeanor in the discharge of their duty soils the image of the royal throne.I suppose one could argue that they have to take orders from their political masters. Being a federal agency, they do have to obey the demand of the federal cabinet and the new home minister. If the politicians drag them into playing a partisan role against the opposition coalition, then the fault lies in the Umno politicians, and not the police.But the enthusiasm with which the police went about arresting 120 people in the past three days or so does show a clear lack of professionalism. They arrested Wong Chin Fatt on very shaky ground. They arrested people attending peaceful candlelight vigil outside the Brickfields police station where Wong was held captive. To top absurdity upon absurdities, they arrested five lawyers who went to offer legal aid for those who were detained.In Ipoh, within and outside the 500-metre limit of the Perak state legislature, they charged at strawmen like a bull in a China shop. They arrested 10 elected representatives like common criminals, handcuffs and all.They arrested people for wearing black. They arrested people for having breakfast, and for hanging around like my 69-year-old friend Bernard Khoo. Who would they NOT be arrested next?One of the most cherished freedoms of a citizen in a free democratic country is the security and freedom of the person.It is the duty of the state within the ambit of that Social Contract (that of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau) to protect, preserve, and promote the personal liberty of its citizens. The unreasonable deprivation of that sacrosanct personal liberty, even for an hour, is a moral crime against the collective humanity of the citizens.In a civil society, all forms of violence are outlawed, leaving the military and the police personnel to monopolise the right to violent means in enforcing the laws. When the laws are unjust, and when the police are overzealous in exercising their power in depriving peaceful citizens of their personal freedom, the moral legitimacy of the state and the police will deteriorate in the hearts of the people.BN’s ‘ugly daughter-in-law’Right now, the national attention is firmly fixated on Perak. The continuing battles in various courts between the belligerent parties will make sure of that.Malaysians are generally a meek lot. Apart from the activists and the bloggers, they may not rush to the streets of Ipoh to display their displeasure. They just watch events unfold with their cold eyes, making their own judgement in the silence of their hearts, waiting for their time of reckoning to come.Again, the only honourable way of resolving this crisis in Perak is to hold a state general election, to settle the issue once for all. But that is what the puppet BN government in Perak will not do, for fear of a washout at the polls.There is an old Chinese saying, “An ugly daughter-in-law will have to meet her husband’s father one day”. (In the old days in China, when marriages were arranged by parents with the help of a match-maker, the groom’s father may not see her daughter-in-law right up to the time of the wedding day when the bride’s face would be veiled the entire time. But a face-to-face meeting is inevitable after the wedding.)The ugly illegitimate BN state government will have to face the Perak voters eventually - sooner rather than later.The ugliness of the loss of honour in Ipoh on May 7 may in fact drag down the BN coalition in the next general election. We can get an inkling of the voters’ sentiment in the Penanti by-election.
SIM KWANG YANG was MP for Bandar Kuching between 1982 and 1995. He can be reached at kenyalang578@hotmail.com.
Testing Najib's "1 Malaysia"
From Malaysiakini
Josh Hong May 8, 09 12:02pm
Is Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak serious about his "New Deal", as shamelessly described by major Chinese-language dailies especially
MCPXSin Chew Daily? Or, has he been lying through his teeth about '1Malaysia'?The arrest of Bersih spokesperson and a promising political scientist Wong Chin Huat three days ago practically broke the myth about Najib's reform agenda. It shows that the government is not hesitant to create a climate of fear when forced into a corner despite its repeated rhetoric of change to stay relevant (read: in power).Knowing that he was burdened by allegations of corrupt practices as Defence Minister, and unable to change the public perception of his alleged involvement in the shocking death of a Mongolian national, Altantunya Shaariibu, Najib moved quickly to consolidate the media establishment in the country and endeared himself to the press in order to shift the public attention from the scandals so that more people may focus on his "reform initiatives".Compared to ex-premier Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's "work with me, not for me" sound bite and his other slogans that have largely turned into jokes, Najib's swift manner in tackling some of the most delicate issues indeed looks efficient and has won praise from the mainstream media circle.Show the real deal But the avalanche of the propagandistic news over the last few weeks was meant to create a "feel-good" factor among the populace, and to take the wind out of the opposition's sail. The prime minister's sweeping economic liberalisation parade, as expected, delighted the business community greatly. The cabinet's ruling against unilateral conversion of minors into Islam has managed to drive a wedge between Pas and DAP to some extent.But what is so new about Najib's initiatives?The opening up of the 27 sub-sectors in the services industry will only benefit the private sector, and its implementation may be plagued by bureaucratic resistance. Economy aside, Malaysia is still confronted with a host of divisive issues in ethnic relations, education, language and culture. Whether or not Najib has a clear and definite blueprint to introduce a sea of change or paradigm shift is everyone's guess. If he does not, his '1Malaysia' concept has failed miserably to articulate it.For instance, will the prime minister go as far as to declare the idea of ketuanan Melayu is outdated, so that the nation's ethnic relations can be restored on a healthy basis? To his credit, Anwar Ibrahim has came up with ketuanan Rakyat that continues to capture the public's imagination. To really win the hearts and minds of the people, Najib must do better than just sloganeering.A double handicap Decades of discontent and dispute over the New Economy Policy (NEP) have resulted in the elusion that social equality will ensue once the race-based socio-economic engineering is phased out. This is far from the truth.Looking back at the late 1980s, the neo-liberal economic measures taken by ex-premier Dr. Mahathir Mohamad did boost foreign investments and put Malaysia on the path of unprecedented economic prosperity. However, the booming stock market and the vastly increased purchasing power of the average rakyat did not obscure the intra- and inter-ethnic income disparity that is widening at an even faster rate. Such inequality has contributed significantly to the breakdown of ethnic relations in the subsequent years. Today, we only see a shrinking band of true believers in Mahathirism, who struggle to rescue their icon's name from being associated with a legacy of unbridled greed, entrenched inequality, unfettered corruption, institutional dysfunction and economic failure. As Vidhu Verma rightly points out in her book 'Malaysia: State and Civil Society in Transition', "...Mahathir has promoted a strategy for creating a bumiputera capitalist class through the privatisation of state-owned industries ... the government bureaucracy shielded close ties between business and politics during this period and protected corporate activity from public scrutiny." That Mahathir had no appetite for public scrutiny is beyond doubt; he even muzzled the press and enslaved the judges to ensure minimal interference. The subsequent Vision 2020 and the now virtually defunct ‘Bangsa Malaysia', which he jealously advocated, were nothing but a public exercise to re-package Umno's racist ideology, for they were not founded on the universal values of democracy, human rights and multiculturalism.This "vision" of Mahathir, parroted by the political and media establishment at the time, lasted for several years mostly because of the breakneck economic development and the positive sentiments that it produced, which prompted the public to rally behind the "visionary" leader.A false sense Too bad, that the 1997 economic crisis brought all the false sense of economic prosperity and social equality to an abrupt end. As Mahathir showed his racist and authoritarian nature, the country entered a new phase in which the reawakened civil society began to challenge the encroaching state. More and more people now recognise that economic development without distributive justice and institutional scrutiny is not sustainable.I am not here to demonise the prime minister but his reformist credentials are conspicuously absent. As far as his "New Deal" is concerned, it remains abstract at best. Worse, his commitment to institutional enhancement and reform is clearly lacking, as evidenced by the recent arrests of Wong and other opposition leaders and the crackdowns on dissent in Perak yesterday.Hence, it is incumbent on each and every one of us to put pressure on the new administration and test the limits of its executive powers. Any reform must eventually hurt the interests of the ruling elite to be meaningful and substantive. Mikhail Gorbachev was instrumental in the disintegration of the Soviet Union and remains a persona-non-grata in Russia. Kim Young-sam, South Korea's former president, had to bear the pain of seeing his son sent to jail over corrupt practices, and the Kuomintang party in Taiwan was made to transfer power to its rival in a peaceful manner.How far will Najib go in changing the country? He may see a possible end to the NEP as an ultimate act of his greatness, but that would merely be the beginning of a long and torturous process of reform in Malaysia. The challenge for the civil society, the media and politicians is to present a comprehensive agenda that encompasses reform in the police, the judiciary and the bureaucracy. The reforms should be based on equal opportunity and multiculturalism while promoting free speech and thought.Can the prime minister rise to the challenge? If he can ill-tolerate people wearing black shirts, things are not looking good indeed.
Josh Hong May 8, 09 12:02pm
Is Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak serious about his "New Deal", as shamelessly described by major Chinese-language dailies especially
MCPXSin Chew Daily? Or, has he been lying through his teeth about '1Malaysia'?The arrest of Bersih spokesperson and a promising political scientist Wong Chin Huat three days ago practically broke the myth about Najib's reform agenda. It shows that the government is not hesitant to create a climate of fear when forced into a corner despite its repeated rhetoric of change to stay relevant (read: in power).Knowing that he was burdened by allegations of corrupt practices as Defence Minister, and unable to change the public perception of his alleged involvement in the shocking death of a Mongolian national, Altantunya Shaariibu, Najib moved quickly to consolidate the media establishment in the country and endeared himself to the press in order to shift the public attention from the scandals so that more people may focus on his "reform initiatives".Compared to ex-premier Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's "work with me, not for me" sound bite and his other slogans that have largely turned into jokes, Najib's swift manner in tackling some of the most delicate issues indeed looks efficient and has won praise from the mainstream media circle.Show the real deal But the avalanche of the propagandistic news over the last few weeks was meant to create a "feel-good" factor among the populace, and to take the wind out of the opposition's sail. The prime minister's sweeping economic liberalisation parade, as expected, delighted the business community greatly. The cabinet's ruling against unilateral conversion of minors into Islam has managed to drive a wedge between Pas and DAP to some extent.But what is so new about Najib's initiatives?The opening up of the 27 sub-sectors in the services industry will only benefit the private sector, and its implementation may be plagued by bureaucratic resistance. Economy aside, Malaysia is still confronted with a host of divisive issues in ethnic relations, education, language and culture. Whether or not Najib has a clear and definite blueprint to introduce a sea of change or paradigm shift is everyone's guess. If he does not, his '1Malaysia' concept has failed miserably to articulate it.For instance, will the prime minister go as far as to declare the idea of ketuanan Melayu is outdated, so that the nation's ethnic relations can be restored on a healthy basis? To his credit, Anwar Ibrahim has came up with ketuanan Rakyat that continues to capture the public's imagination. To really win the hearts and minds of the people, Najib must do better than just sloganeering.A double handicap Decades of discontent and dispute over the New Economy Policy (NEP) have resulted in the elusion that social equality will ensue once the race-based socio-economic engineering is phased out. This is far from the truth.Looking back at the late 1980s, the neo-liberal economic measures taken by ex-premier Dr. Mahathir Mohamad did boost foreign investments and put Malaysia on the path of unprecedented economic prosperity. However, the booming stock market and the vastly increased purchasing power of the average rakyat did not obscure the intra- and inter-ethnic income disparity that is widening at an even faster rate. Such inequality has contributed significantly to the breakdown of ethnic relations in the subsequent years. Today, we only see a shrinking band of true believers in Mahathirism, who struggle to rescue their icon's name from being associated with a legacy of unbridled greed, entrenched inequality, unfettered corruption, institutional dysfunction and economic failure. As Vidhu Verma rightly points out in her book 'Malaysia: State and Civil Society in Transition', "...Mahathir has promoted a strategy for creating a bumiputera capitalist class through the privatisation of state-owned industries ... the government bureaucracy shielded close ties between business and politics during this period and protected corporate activity from public scrutiny." That Mahathir had no appetite for public scrutiny is beyond doubt; he even muzzled the press and enslaved the judges to ensure minimal interference. The subsequent Vision 2020 and the now virtually defunct ‘Bangsa Malaysia', which he jealously advocated, were nothing but a public exercise to re-package Umno's racist ideology, for they were not founded on the universal values of democracy, human rights and multiculturalism.This "vision" of Mahathir, parroted by the political and media establishment at the time, lasted for several years mostly because of the breakneck economic development and the positive sentiments that it produced, which prompted the public to rally behind the "visionary" leader.A false sense Too bad, that the 1997 economic crisis brought all the false sense of economic prosperity and social equality to an abrupt end. As Mahathir showed his racist and authoritarian nature, the country entered a new phase in which the reawakened civil society began to challenge the encroaching state. More and more people now recognise that economic development without distributive justice and institutional scrutiny is not sustainable.I am not here to demonise the prime minister but his reformist credentials are conspicuously absent. As far as his "New Deal" is concerned, it remains abstract at best. Worse, his commitment to institutional enhancement and reform is clearly lacking, as evidenced by the recent arrests of Wong and other opposition leaders and the crackdowns on dissent in Perak yesterday.Hence, it is incumbent on each and every one of us to put pressure on the new administration and test the limits of its executive powers. Any reform must eventually hurt the interests of the ruling elite to be meaningful and substantive. Mikhail Gorbachev was instrumental in the disintegration of the Soviet Union and remains a persona-non-grata in Russia. Kim Young-sam, South Korea's former president, had to bear the pain of seeing his son sent to jail over corrupt practices, and the Kuomintang party in Taiwan was made to transfer power to its rival in a peaceful manner.How far will Najib go in changing the country? He may see a possible end to the NEP as an ultimate act of his greatness, but that would merely be the beginning of a long and torturous process of reform in Malaysia. The challenge for the civil society, the media and politicians is to present a comprehensive agenda that encompasses reform in the police, the judiciary and the bureaucracy. The reforms should be based on equal opportunity and multiculturalism while promoting free speech and thought.Can the prime minister rise to the challenge? If he can ill-tolerate people wearing black shirts, things are not looking good indeed.
Friday, April 3, 2009
He limps out with a whimper
From Malaysiakini
Khoo Kay Peng Apr 2, 09 12:30pm
In 2006, writing about Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's mid-term review, I asked if his leadership which started with a bang may end with a whimper.
MCPX
Today, this question has been answered. Abdullah limps out with a whimper. He will be remembered as a leader who was too eager to establish his own legacy but did very little to achieve anything. Immediately after taking over the leadership, Abdullah introduced his moderate, modern and value-based of governance based on Islam Hadhari.
Several institutions such as Ikim (Institute of Islamic Understanding), RTM (Radio Televisyen Malaysia) and Jakim (Islamic Development Department) were tasked to propagate and explain the concept to the public.
Non-Muslims who were suspicious of the state sponsored Islamisation programme previously were not hostile to the more moderate form of Islam Hadhari. Unfortunately, the concept was severely criticised by some segments of his own Muslim community including Dr Mahathir Mohamad. As a result, Islam Hadhari remained merely a concept which nothing solid to show.
The fact that other non-Umno component parties in BN had used PAS' Islamic ambition against DAP in the last few elections, a number of their leaders were careful not to get entangled with Islam Hadhari. At the inception of his premiership, Abdullah had accurately read the mood of the people and their growing appetite for reforms.
In fact, he started with a bang by promising reforms in all domains. He had announced his administration’s intention to stop the indulgence in mega projects. His intention was noble. It had received the thumbs-up from a vast section of Malaysians but not from his own leaders and party members. For years, mega projects were used to grease Umno's gravy train. Several privatisation projects such as infrastructure, highways, utilities, transportation and others were awarded to political cronies. Hence, his predecessor was fuming when Abdullah announced the cancellation of the highly controversial ‘crooked bridge’ project from south Johor to Singapore.
Other leaders began to take a cue from Mahathir’s protest and criticism. Most of them wanted big projects to continue. Umno is not just a political party, it is a multi-billion ringgit enterprise.
No choice but to backtrack
Abdullah did not have much choice but to backtrack from his earlier promise to stop spending on mega projects and to focus on building a soft skills and knowledge-based economy. He started several mega corridors which cost billions to build.
A number of other big-ticket projects were continued despite growing criticism e.g. the Bakun dam, double-tracking railroad, PGCC, Monsoon Cup and others. There was a bitter lesson for Abdullah. It was not possible to stop patronage politics. The nexus between business and politics is too entrenched and deep.
Surprisingly, he was a quick learner. His son and son-in-law were accused of being the beneficiaries of patronage politics. He was a proud father who announced to the nation that his son was wealthy. Abdullah tried to dabble with socio-political reforms. He directed the establishment of two royal commissions e.g. the Royal Commission on the Police Force and the Royal Commission on Lingam Tape.
The commissioners did a commendable job. They recommended the establishment of an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission and action to be taken against those implicated in the VK Lingam scandal. Abdullah sponsored the establishment of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and the Judicial Appointment Commission (JAC). Alas, his legacy on socio-political reform is anything but tainted and wasted. The lack of action showed to us a leader who did not have the political will to walk his talk. He was not strong enough as a leader and lacked the political will to implement his vision.
He was too reluctant to stand up against his critics and foes. Abdullah wanted to be seen as a ‘Mr Nice Man’ but he did it foolishly and ended up destroying his own political legacy. He did not implement the IPCMC. The reputation of the police force is at its lowest ebb since independence. Several actions taken by the police at the directive of the Home Ministry were too controversial and unnecessary. Issues of custodial deaths and investigation procedures were not addressed.
The police force was given more resources but it is professionalism, accountability and discipline that they needed. The involvement of two special task force security officers in the Mongolian woman murder case had badly tarnished the image of security forces in the country. Since the formation of the JAC, Abdullah again displayed his lack of will to finish a reform job admirably. He appointed an ex-Umno legal officer to the highest judicial post in the country. In turn, the chief justice had extended the contract of the most controversial judicial commissioner in the country, who was involved in the Perak constitutional case. There was no action taken against any of the personalities involved in the VK Lingam saga. Not even Lingam was prosecuted. Interestingly, Abdullah was able to find something each time to neutralise something positive he had started.
Khairy, his only legacy
The biggest mistake yet was to allow Mahathir the space, opportunity and time to relentlessly attack his leadership.
If he had defended himself vigorously against Mahathir’s venomous allegations and criticisms, Abdullah would have demonstrated to both Umno and BN leaders that he was a man of his own.
Abdullah was too grateful to become a leader who can stand on his own feet. Mahathir had a field day to damage Abdullah’s legacy before it was even built.
He had succeeded to a measurable extent to shift all faults, weaknesses, abuses and excesses which started in his era onto Abdullah’s shoulders. I was asked to name Abdullah's most visible legacy. There was not any worthy transformation of the economic, political or social systems. He did not help to expand and strengthen democracy in the country despite a naive leader calling him the 'father of democracy'. During his tenure, Abdullah had clamped down on newspapers, bloggers, political opponents, partners (suspended MPs from his cabinet) and authorised the use of draconian legislation including the ISA.
His most lasting legacy is Khairy Jamaluddin. The newly-minted Umno Youth head had remained loyal and grateful to his father-in-law to the very last days.
No one had expected him to be crowned the head of Umno Youth, a coveted position wanted even by his nemesis’ son Mukhriz Mahathir. Khairy will be seen as a continuity of Abdullah's only legacy in Umno.
Khoo Kay Peng Apr 2, 09 12:30pm
In 2006, writing about Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's mid-term review, I asked if his leadership which started with a bang may end with a whimper.
MCPX
Today, this question has been answered. Abdullah limps out with a whimper. He will be remembered as a leader who was too eager to establish his own legacy but did very little to achieve anything. Immediately after taking over the leadership, Abdullah introduced his moderate, modern and value-based of governance based on Islam Hadhari.
Several institutions such as Ikim (Institute of Islamic Understanding), RTM (Radio Televisyen Malaysia) and Jakim (Islamic Development Department) were tasked to propagate and explain the concept to the public.
Non-Muslims who were suspicious of the state sponsored Islamisation programme previously were not hostile to the more moderate form of Islam Hadhari. Unfortunately, the concept was severely criticised by some segments of his own Muslim community including Dr Mahathir Mohamad. As a result, Islam Hadhari remained merely a concept which nothing solid to show.
The fact that other non-Umno component parties in BN had used PAS' Islamic ambition against DAP in the last few elections, a number of their leaders were careful not to get entangled with Islam Hadhari. At the inception of his premiership, Abdullah had accurately read the mood of the people and their growing appetite for reforms.
In fact, he started with a bang by promising reforms in all domains. He had announced his administration’s intention to stop the indulgence in mega projects. His intention was noble. It had received the thumbs-up from a vast section of Malaysians but not from his own leaders and party members. For years, mega projects were used to grease Umno's gravy train. Several privatisation projects such as infrastructure, highways, utilities, transportation and others were awarded to political cronies. Hence, his predecessor was fuming when Abdullah announced the cancellation of the highly controversial ‘crooked bridge’ project from south Johor to Singapore.
Other leaders began to take a cue from Mahathir’s protest and criticism. Most of them wanted big projects to continue. Umno is not just a political party, it is a multi-billion ringgit enterprise.
No choice but to backtrack
Abdullah did not have much choice but to backtrack from his earlier promise to stop spending on mega projects and to focus on building a soft skills and knowledge-based economy. He started several mega corridors which cost billions to build.
A number of other big-ticket projects were continued despite growing criticism e.g. the Bakun dam, double-tracking railroad, PGCC, Monsoon Cup and others. There was a bitter lesson for Abdullah. It was not possible to stop patronage politics. The nexus between business and politics is too entrenched and deep.
Surprisingly, he was a quick learner. His son and son-in-law were accused of being the beneficiaries of patronage politics. He was a proud father who announced to the nation that his son was wealthy. Abdullah tried to dabble with socio-political reforms. He directed the establishment of two royal commissions e.g. the Royal Commission on the Police Force and the Royal Commission on Lingam Tape.
The commissioners did a commendable job. They recommended the establishment of an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission and action to be taken against those implicated in the VK Lingam scandal. Abdullah sponsored the establishment of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and the Judicial Appointment Commission (JAC). Alas, his legacy on socio-political reform is anything but tainted and wasted. The lack of action showed to us a leader who did not have the political will to walk his talk. He was not strong enough as a leader and lacked the political will to implement his vision.
He was too reluctant to stand up against his critics and foes. Abdullah wanted to be seen as a ‘Mr Nice Man’ but he did it foolishly and ended up destroying his own political legacy. He did not implement the IPCMC. The reputation of the police force is at its lowest ebb since independence. Several actions taken by the police at the directive of the Home Ministry were too controversial and unnecessary. Issues of custodial deaths and investigation procedures were not addressed.
The police force was given more resources but it is professionalism, accountability and discipline that they needed. The involvement of two special task force security officers in the Mongolian woman murder case had badly tarnished the image of security forces in the country. Since the formation of the JAC, Abdullah again displayed his lack of will to finish a reform job admirably. He appointed an ex-Umno legal officer to the highest judicial post in the country. In turn, the chief justice had extended the contract of the most controversial judicial commissioner in the country, who was involved in the Perak constitutional case. There was no action taken against any of the personalities involved in the VK Lingam saga. Not even Lingam was prosecuted. Interestingly, Abdullah was able to find something each time to neutralise something positive he had started.
Khairy, his only legacy
The biggest mistake yet was to allow Mahathir the space, opportunity and time to relentlessly attack his leadership.
If he had defended himself vigorously against Mahathir’s venomous allegations and criticisms, Abdullah would have demonstrated to both Umno and BN leaders that he was a man of his own.
Abdullah was too grateful to become a leader who can stand on his own feet. Mahathir had a field day to damage Abdullah’s legacy before it was even built.
He had succeeded to a measurable extent to shift all faults, weaknesses, abuses and excesses which started in his era onto Abdullah’s shoulders. I was asked to name Abdullah's most visible legacy. There was not any worthy transformation of the economic, political or social systems. He did not help to expand and strengthen democracy in the country despite a naive leader calling him the 'father of democracy'. During his tenure, Abdullah had clamped down on newspapers, bloggers, political opponents, partners (suspended MPs from his cabinet) and authorised the use of draconian legislation including the ISA.
His most lasting legacy is Khairy Jamaluddin. The newly-minted Umno Youth head had remained loyal and grateful to his father-in-law to the very last days.
No one had expected him to be crowned the head of Umno Youth, a coveted position wanted even by his nemesis’ son Mukhriz Mahathir. Khairy will be seen as a continuity of Abdullah's only legacy in Umno.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Are we seeing a failed Malaysia?
From Malaysiakini
Azly Rahman Mar 23, 09 12:55pm
I was born in a British military hospital in Singapore and grew up in a Malay kampong in Johor Bahru. I’ve moved from one realm of cultural experience to another, living in one enclave to the next in the process of being schooled and becoming an educator.
MCPXI’ve finally ended up in a truly multi-cultural town a half-an-hour’s drive from New York City where I have lived for several years. Sometimes I wonder if all this make me a cultural construction of multi-ethnicity or a if I am still a Malay. Is the question of being Malay merely academic by now? I think I am still that. I still speak Malay fluently and write in Jawi quite beautifully, although my almost half of my life has been ‘schooled’ by American education, constantly exploring the ideas of America the pastoral – the hard core Jeffersonian ideal drawn from Humanism and the Enlightenment Period. At times too I would still plow through representative texts of ancient Malay philosophy and to situate the core ideas within newer perspectives I constantly acquire, so that as the poet WS Rendra would say, we will always “reconsider traditions”. Here in the US, I teach a course called ‘Cross-Cultural Perspectives’, trying to engage my students in the works of Edward Said (right), Clifford Geertz, Renato Rosaldo, and the like. I find myself again having to interrogate my subjectivity and objectivity as a culturally-constructed being in my attempt to play the role of Socrates in dialectical conversations with students in our exploration of the multiple meaning of culture. Each semester is a learning experience, teaching me newer ideas of what culture, race, and ethnicity mean. Yearning to come home to the kampong where I grew up, I am still waiting for a time to share new ideas that will help Malaysian students transform realities by turning them into radical thinkers and social reconstructionists with deep interest in transcultural philosophies. We need such a revolution in thinking.In August, we will engage in yet another ritual of a nation perpetually in narration: the Merdeka celebrations. Consider the proclamation from the Rukunegara:
Our Nation, Malaysia is dedicated to: Achieving a greater unity for all her people; maintaining a democratic way of life; creating a just society in which the wealth of the nation shall be equitably distributed; ensuring a liberal approach to her rich and diverse cultural tradition, and building a progressive society which shall be oriented to modern science and technology. We, the people of Malaysia, pledge our united efforts to attain these ends, guided by these principles:
Belief in God
Loyalty to King and country
Upholding the constitution
Sovereignty of the law, and
Good behaviour and morality
These words, constructed and proclaimed in 1970, after the bloody riots of May 13, 1969, contain internal contradictions if we analyse it today. Country in deep distressIf the proclamation is our benchmark of Merdeka, we must ask these questions:
How have we fostered unity when our government promotes racism thorough racialised policies and by virtue of the fact that our politics survive on the institutionalisation of racism?
How have we maintained a democratic way of life, when our educational, political, and economic institutions do not promote democracy in fear that democratic and multi-cultural voices of conscience are going to dismantle race-based ideologies?
How are we to create a just society in which the wealth of the nation is equitably distributed, when the New Economic Policy itself was designed based on the premise that only one race need to be helped and forever helped, whereas at the onset of Independence poverty existed among Malaysians of all races?
How are we to promote a liberal approach to diverse culture and tradition when our education system is run by politicians who are championing Ketuanan Melayu alone and ensure that Malay hegemony rules in all levels and all spheres of education, from pre-school to graduate levels?
How are we to build a progressive society based on science and technology when our understanding of the role of science and society do not clearly reflect our fullest understanding of the issues of scientific knowledge, industrialisation and dependency?
Are we seeing a failed Malaysia?Across the board, the country is in distress: education is in shambles, polarised, and politicised; the economy is in a constant dangerous flux; the judiciary is in deep crisis of confidence; public safety is a major concern due the declining confidence in the police; and politics remain ever divided along racial and religious lines.The ‘transition to power’ that we are seeing is an unwelcome testament to a country inching towards a quagmire.This is the Malaysian version of Dorian Gray, one that shows the image of a vibrant nation of progress and harmony, and racial tolerance and a robust economy, but is a deformed Malaysia that is merely a continuation of a feudal and colonial entity.
The colonised have become the coloniser. The state has become a totalitarian entity using the ideological state apparatuses to silence the voices of progressive change. The nationalists have nationalised the wealth of the nation for themselves and perhaps siphoned off the nation’s wealth internationally. This is the picture of a broken promise made by those who fought for Independence; the voices of the early radical and truly nationalistic Malays, Chinese, Indians, Ibans, Kadazans, Sikhs, etc. of the Merdeka movement.
It is this promise that, 50 year hence, has been broken by those who capitalise on the extreme ends of the politics of identity.How then must Malaysians celebrate the next Merdeka Day? By flying the Jalur Gemilang upside down? Or put justice in its place by engineering a multi-cultural jihad against all forms of excesses in the abuse of power? To de-toxify the nation and begin with Year Zero of our cultural revolution through the gentle enterprise called peace and multi-cultural education?Herein lies education as a solution. I believe we need a radical overhaul of everything, philosophically speaking. We have the structures in place but need to replace the human beings running the system. We have deeply racialised human beings running neutral machines. We have ethnocentric leaders running humane systems. We have allowed imperfection and evolving fascism to run our system. We have placed capitalists of culture behind our wheels of industrial progress; people who have the dinosaur brain of ketuanan this or that.We have created these monsters and unleashed them to run our educational, political, economic, and cultural systems. We have Frankenstein-ised our Merdeka.We need to re-educate ourselves by reinventing the human beings we will entrust to run our machines. We must abolish the system and create a new one.We must be aware that class in the broadest and most comprehensive sense of the word is what we are dealing with and through class and cultural analyses we can arrive at a different path to a newer Merdeka. In this coming Merdeka, 40 years after May 13 1969, the rakyat armed with wisdom of a new era must speak softly but carry a big stick. Our struggle for a renewed Merdeka has only just begun. Malaysians have no choice. We are multi-culturalists now. We must abandon race-based politics.
Azly Rahman Mar 23, 09 12:55pm
I was born in a British military hospital in Singapore and grew up in a Malay kampong in Johor Bahru. I’ve moved from one realm of cultural experience to another, living in one enclave to the next in the process of being schooled and becoming an educator.
MCPXI’ve finally ended up in a truly multi-cultural town a half-an-hour’s drive from New York City where I have lived for several years. Sometimes I wonder if all this make me a cultural construction of multi-ethnicity or a if I am still a Malay. Is the question of being Malay merely academic by now? I think I am still that. I still speak Malay fluently and write in Jawi quite beautifully, although my almost half of my life has been ‘schooled’ by American education, constantly exploring the ideas of America the pastoral – the hard core Jeffersonian ideal drawn from Humanism and the Enlightenment Period. At times too I would still plow through representative texts of ancient Malay philosophy and to situate the core ideas within newer perspectives I constantly acquire, so that as the poet WS Rendra would say, we will always “reconsider traditions”. Here in the US, I teach a course called ‘Cross-Cultural Perspectives’, trying to engage my students in the works of Edward Said (right), Clifford Geertz, Renato Rosaldo, and the like. I find myself again having to interrogate my subjectivity and objectivity as a culturally-constructed being in my attempt to play the role of Socrates in dialectical conversations with students in our exploration of the multiple meaning of culture. Each semester is a learning experience, teaching me newer ideas of what culture, race, and ethnicity mean. Yearning to come home to the kampong where I grew up, I am still waiting for a time to share new ideas that will help Malaysian students transform realities by turning them into radical thinkers and social reconstructionists with deep interest in transcultural philosophies. We need such a revolution in thinking.In August, we will engage in yet another ritual of a nation perpetually in narration: the Merdeka celebrations. Consider the proclamation from the Rukunegara:
Our Nation, Malaysia is dedicated to: Achieving a greater unity for all her people; maintaining a democratic way of life; creating a just society in which the wealth of the nation shall be equitably distributed; ensuring a liberal approach to her rich and diverse cultural tradition, and building a progressive society which shall be oriented to modern science and technology. We, the people of Malaysia, pledge our united efforts to attain these ends, guided by these principles:
Belief in God
Loyalty to King and country
Upholding the constitution
Sovereignty of the law, and
Good behaviour and morality
These words, constructed and proclaimed in 1970, after the bloody riots of May 13, 1969, contain internal contradictions if we analyse it today. Country in deep distressIf the proclamation is our benchmark of Merdeka, we must ask these questions:
How have we fostered unity when our government promotes racism thorough racialised policies and by virtue of the fact that our politics survive on the institutionalisation of racism?
How have we maintained a democratic way of life, when our educational, political, and economic institutions do not promote democracy in fear that democratic and multi-cultural voices of conscience are going to dismantle race-based ideologies?
How are we to create a just society in which the wealth of the nation is equitably distributed, when the New Economic Policy itself was designed based on the premise that only one race need to be helped and forever helped, whereas at the onset of Independence poverty existed among Malaysians of all races?
How are we to promote a liberal approach to diverse culture and tradition when our education system is run by politicians who are championing Ketuanan Melayu alone and ensure that Malay hegemony rules in all levels and all spheres of education, from pre-school to graduate levels?
How are we to build a progressive society based on science and technology when our understanding of the role of science and society do not clearly reflect our fullest understanding of the issues of scientific knowledge, industrialisation and dependency?
Are we seeing a failed Malaysia?Across the board, the country is in distress: education is in shambles, polarised, and politicised; the economy is in a constant dangerous flux; the judiciary is in deep crisis of confidence; public safety is a major concern due the declining confidence in the police; and politics remain ever divided along racial and religious lines.The ‘transition to power’ that we are seeing is an unwelcome testament to a country inching towards a quagmire.This is the Malaysian version of Dorian Gray, one that shows the image of a vibrant nation of progress and harmony, and racial tolerance and a robust economy, but is a deformed Malaysia that is merely a continuation of a feudal and colonial entity.
The colonised have become the coloniser. The state has become a totalitarian entity using the ideological state apparatuses to silence the voices of progressive change. The nationalists have nationalised the wealth of the nation for themselves and perhaps siphoned off the nation’s wealth internationally. This is the picture of a broken promise made by those who fought for Independence; the voices of the early radical and truly nationalistic Malays, Chinese, Indians, Ibans, Kadazans, Sikhs, etc. of the Merdeka movement.
It is this promise that, 50 year hence, has been broken by those who capitalise on the extreme ends of the politics of identity.How then must Malaysians celebrate the next Merdeka Day? By flying the Jalur Gemilang upside down? Or put justice in its place by engineering a multi-cultural jihad against all forms of excesses in the abuse of power? To de-toxify the nation and begin with Year Zero of our cultural revolution through the gentle enterprise called peace and multi-cultural education?Herein lies education as a solution. I believe we need a radical overhaul of everything, philosophically speaking. We have the structures in place but need to replace the human beings running the system. We have deeply racialised human beings running neutral machines. We have ethnocentric leaders running humane systems. We have allowed imperfection and evolving fascism to run our system. We have placed capitalists of culture behind our wheels of industrial progress; people who have the dinosaur brain of ketuanan this or that.We have created these monsters and unleashed them to run our educational, political, economic, and cultural systems. We have Frankenstein-ised our Merdeka.We need to re-educate ourselves by reinventing the human beings we will entrust to run our machines. We must abolish the system and create a new one.We must be aware that class in the broadest and most comprehensive sense of the word is what we are dealing with and through class and cultural analyses we can arrive at a different path to a newer Merdeka. In this coming Merdeka, 40 years after May 13 1969, the rakyat armed with wisdom of a new era must speak softly but carry a big stick. Our struggle for a renewed Merdeka has only just begun. Malaysians have no choice. We are multi-culturalists now. We must abandon race-based politics.
Zaid likely to join PKR, analysts say
From Malaysia-Today
(The Edge) Despite the fact that he has all but thrown his weight behind the Opposition, former de facto law minister Zaid Ibrahim has thus far been coy about joining any Pakatan Rakyat (PR) party.
Yesterday, he sparked a flurry of speculation about this matter when he indicated he was keen to return to active politics.
Most analysts believe it’s just a question of when but the party in question is not really in doubt. Most likely it will be PKR, they say.
And it would be for the best for Pakatan Rakyat if he does. Although all three parties, PKR, DAP and PAS are considered more or less equals in the coalition, realpolitik dictates that the leader of PR has to come from PKR for the simple reason that neither a DAP or PAS leader would be considered acceptable to the broader public.
DAP is seen as too non-Malay though it’s nominally multi-racial while PAS is seen as too Islamic, although it has progressive and modernist elements within its ranks.
PR currently has a unifying figure in the form of its leader Anwar Ibrahim but he is the only one. What PR sorely needs is a credible and acceptable No. 2 who can represent both PKR and PR at the national level. Such a person needs to be acceptable to all parties. Zaid seems to be that man.
That he resigned his Cabinet post in opposition to the ISA – the bane of many an Opposition leader as most of them have been detained under this dreaded law – gives him added credibility. That he was kicked out of Umno probably gives him even more.
Zaid never quite fit in Umno anyway. He was once accused of engaging in money politics by the Umno disciplinary board in 2005, a charge which he vehemently denied. He was subsequently issued a warning, but was very vocal with his dissatisfaction towards the investigative and sanctioning procedures. This led to a three-year suspension, although it was eventually reduced to 18 months.
His political career was dealt another blow when he was dropped from contesting in the March 8, 2008 election. It was BN’s disastrous outing in the polls that saved his political career within Umno. Shortly after the election, he was roped in by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to help bolster his credentials as a reformist PM.
As de facto law minister, Zaid tried to introduce reforms to the judiciary but faced strong opposition from some of his colleagues in the cabinet. This frustrated him to no end but the last straw was the detention of blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin, DAP MP Teresa Kok and Sin Chew journalist Tan Hoon Cheng under the ISA.
He quit his post and shortly afterwards was seen at PKR’s annual congress in November. Umno subsequently sacked him. He was also seen in Kuala Terengganu during the by-election in January. Although he sat beside famous opposition icons, he fended off suggestions that he would soon be joining the opposition.
Zaid has recently returned to the media spotlight for his plea to the King to not recognise Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak as prime minister because he was a divisive figure. This is the kind of rhetoric we are used to hearing from the Opposition but not from a former Cabinet minister from Umno.
At the launch of his book Saya Pun Melayu in Petaling Jaya yesterday, he told reporters that he will remain active in politics, but declined to say which party he would join.
Anwar, who was also present, was quick to chip in that it would be “the right party”. In a now-familiar refrain, Zaid promised to make a decision when the time is right.
Political analyst Wong Chin Huat feels that Zaid would most likely join PKR, although he felt would also make sense for Zaid to join DAP as his position on ethnicity and religion is very close to DAP’s stance.
“The Chinese in DAP will accept him; they love Malay critics of Malay supremacy and Islam,” says Wong. “It makes them feel safer.”
Though Zaid spoke openly yesterday about his great respect for PAS spiritual leader Datuk Seri Nik Aziz Nik Mat, it is almost certain he would not join the Islamic party due to its hardline stance on the hudud issue. Zaid actually once sued PAS in 2000, when he was still Umno Kota Bharu division head, for wanting to implement hudud laws.
Political analyst Ong Kian Ming says Zaid would most likely join PKR as the party has broader appeal than DAP and PAS. However, he feels that Zaid will not join the party before he is offered a top position and a Parliamentary seat so that he can become an MP (he became a minister through the Senatorship route).
Ong says Zaid’s appeal would be very similar to Anwar’s in that he is acceptable to Malays as well as non-Malays from different walks of life and backgrounds. Also unlike PAS and DAP, which are well-established parties with many old-time leaders, PKR is a relatively young party. It would not ruffle too many feathers if Zaid were to be catapulted to the upper echelons of PKR.
PR is currently preoccupied with the three by-elections in Bukit Selambau and Bukit Gantang, which it’s likely to win, and Batang Ai, where it has a fighting chance. Having already won two consecutive by-elections, PR is looking to score victory after victory to demoralize the BN.
With any luck, it might just win all three by-elections on April 7. Imagine the momentum the Opposition coalition would be able to generate if it shortly after that it wins in Bukit Lanjan (should Elizabeth Wong go through with her resignation) followed by yet another favourable by-election triggered by a PKR candidate giving up his seat for Zaid to contest in.
But first things first: They have to get him to stop being coy and join PKR for that to happen.
(The Edge) Despite the fact that he has all but thrown his weight behind the Opposition, former de facto law minister Zaid Ibrahim has thus far been coy about joining any Pakatan Rakyat (PR) party.
Yesterday, he sparked a flurry of speculation about this matter when he indicated he was keen to return to active politics.
Most analysts believe it’s just a question of when but the party in question is not really in doubt. Most likely it will be PKR, they say.
And it would be for the best for Pakatan Rakyat if he does. Although all three parties, PKR, DAP and PAS are considered more or less equals in the coalition, realpolitik dictates that the leader of PR has to come from PKR for the simple reason that neither a DAP or PAS leader would be considered acceptable to the broader public.
DAP is seen as too non-Malay though it’s nominally multi-racial while PAS is seen as too Islamic, although it has progressive and modernist elements within its ranks.
PR currently has a unifying figure in the form of its leader Anwar Ibrahim but he is the only one. What PR sorely needs is a credible and acceptable No. 2 who can represent both PKR and PR at the national level. Such a person needs to be acceptable to all parties. Zaid seems to be that man.
That he resigned his Cabinet post in opposition to the ISA – the bane of many an Opposition leader as most of them have been detained under this dreaded law – gives him added credibility. That he was kicked out of Umno probably gives him even more.
Zaid never quite fit in Umno anyway. He was once accused of engaging in money politics by the Umno disciplinary board in 2005, a charge which he vehemently denied. He was subsequently issued a warning, but was very vocal with his dissatisfaction towards the investigative and sanctioning procedures. This led to a three-year suspension, although it was eventually reduced to 18 months.
His political career was dealt another blow when he was dropped from contesting in the March 8, 2008 election. It was BN’s disastrous outing in the polls that saved his political career within Umno. Shortly after the election, he was roped in by Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to help bolster his credentials as a reformist PM.
As de facto law minister, Zaid tried to introduce reforms to the judiciary but faced strong opposition from some of his colleagues in the cabinet. This frustrated him to no end but the last straw was the detention of blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin, DAP MP Teresa Kok and Sin Chew journalist Tan Hoon Cheng under the ISA.
He quit his post and shortly afterwards was seen at PKR’s annual congress in November. Umno subsequently sacked him. He was also seen in Kuala Terengganu during the by-election in January. Although he sat beside famous opposition icons, he fended off suggestions that he would soon be joining the opposition.
Zaid has recently returned to the media spotlight for his plea to the King to not recognise Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak as prime minister because he was a divisive figure. This is the kind of rhetoric we are used to hearing from the Opposition but not from a former Cabinet minister from Umno.
At the launch of his book Saya Pun Melayu in Petaling Jaya yesterday, he told reporters that he will remain active in politics, but declined to say which party he would join.
Anwar, who was also present, was quick to chip in that it would be “the right party”. In a now-familiar refrain, Zaid promised to make a decision when the time is right.
Political analyst Wong Chin Huat feels that Zaid would most likely join PKR, although he felt would also make sense for Zaid to join DAP as his position on ethnicity and religion is very close to DAP’s stance.
“The Chinese in DAP will accept him; they love Malay critics of Malay supremacy and Islam,” says Wong. “It makes them feel safer.”
Though Zaid spoke openly yesterday about his great respect for PAS spiritual leader Datuk Seri Nik Aziz Nik Mat, it is almost certain he would not join the Islamic party due to its hardline stance on the hudud issue. Zaid actually once sued PAS in 2000, when he was still Umno Kota Bharu division head, for wanting to implement hudud laws.
Political analyst Ong Kian Ming says Zaid would most likely join PKR as the party has broader appeal than DAP and PAS. However, he feels that Zaid will not join the party before he is offered a top position and a Parliamentary seat so that he can become an MP (he became a minister through the Senatorship route).
Ong says Zaid’s appeal would be very similar to Anwar’s in that he is acceptable to Malays as well as non-Malays from different walks of life and backgrounds. Also unlike PAS and DAP, which are well-established parties with many old-time leaders, PKR is a relatively young party. It would not ruffle too many feathers if Zaid were to be catapulted to the upper echelons of PKR.
PR is currently preoccupied with the three by-elections in Bukit Selambau and Bukit Gantang, which it’s likely to win, and Batang Ai, where it has a fighting chance. Having already won two consecutive by-elections, PR is looking to score victory after victory to demoralize the BN.
With any luck, it might just win all three by-elections on April 7. Imagine the momentum the Opposition coalition would be able to generate if it shortly after that it wins in Bukit Lanjan (should Elizabeth Wong go through with her resignation) followed by yet another favourable by-election triggered by a PKR candidate giving up his seat for Zaid to contest in.
But first things first: They have to get him to stop being coy and join PKR for that to happen.
The start of the Najib crackdown?
By Mr. Lim Kit Siang
Are Malaysians seeing the start of the Najib crackdown from events of the past week?
These developments include:
16.3.09: DAP MP for Puchong Gobind Singh Deo suspended for one year in “kangaroo court” proceeding in Parliament without parliamentary pay and privileges for asking the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak whether he was involved in the murder case of Mongolian Altantuya Shariibuu.
17.3.09: DAP National Chairman and MP for Bukit Gelugor Karpal Singh charged under the Sedition Act 1948 for stating that a State Ruler can be brought to court in their official and personal capacities under the Constitution.
18.3.09: Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency (MACC) showed utter contempt for the doctrine of separation of powers and continued harassment of the Perak State Assembly Committee of Privileges chaired by Perak State Assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar for suspending usurper Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir and his illegitimate six exco members from the assembly, by subjecting the committee members to questioning for the offence of corruption in misusing their powers.
23.3.09: Unreasonable and undemocratic three-month suspension of PAS’ Harakah and PKR’s Suara Keadilan;
23.3.09: Indiscriminate police firing of tear gas and chemical-lacked water on 5,000-people ceramah at Bukit Selambau, Kedah minutes after Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim took the podium.
Since the unethical, undemocratic, illegal and constitutional power grab in Perak on 5th February 2009, personally orchestrated by Najib, the PM-in-waiting has confirmed the worst fears that his ascension as the sixth Prime Minister would see a return of Mahathirism and a Najib crackdown.
Media reports of the parliamentary debate on the Witness Protection Bill yesterday have been sanitized to remove all reference to questions about Najib’s suitability, integrity and legitimacy to become the new Prime Minister, so long as he is not prepared to take the necessary actions to clear all doubts haunting and hounding him, whether about mega defence deal commissions, the Altantuya Shariibuu murder case or the undemocratic, unethical, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak.
During the debate, I referred to the spate of adverse international media reports about Najib’s coming ascension - in London Sunday Times on Sunday, Paris Liberation last week, as well as in Thailand and Australia - questioned the seriousness and the political will in the purported reform to root out corruption (of which the Protection of Witness Bill is part of the package), the disappearance of private investigator Bala Subramaniam after two statutory declarations highly detrimental to Najib’s reputation and integrity, and the urgent need for Najib to respond frontally to the many swirling allegations dogging him by establishing a Royal Commission of Inquiry to vindicate his innocence, as he had claimed.
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz avoided all these burning issues with the stance that they were totally irrelevant to the Bill.
Who is really being protected - Najib?
Are Malaysians seeing the start of the Najib crackdown from events of the past week?
These developments include:
16.3.09: DAP MP for Puchong Gobind Singh Deo suspended for one year in “kangaroo court” proceeding in Parliament without parliamentary pay and privileges for asking the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak whether he was involved in the murder case of Mongolian Altantuya Shariibuu.
17.3.09: DAP National Chairman and MP for Bukit Gelugor Karpal Singh charged under the Sedition Act 1948 for stating that a State Ruler can be brought to court in their official and personal capacities under the Constitution.
18.3.09: Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency (MACC) showed utter contempt for the doctrine of separation of powers and continued harassment of the Perak State Assembly Committee of Privileges chaired by Perak State Assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar for suspending usurper Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir and his illegitimate six exco members from the assembly, by subjecting the committee members to questioning for the offence of corruption in misusing their powers.
23.3.09: Unreasonable and undemocratic three-month suspension of PAS’ Harakah and PKR’s Suara Keadilan;
23.3.09: Indiscriminate police firing of tear gas and chemical-lacked water on 5,000-people ceramah at Bukit Selambau, Kedah minutes after Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim took the podium.
Since the unethical, undemocratic, illegal and constitutional power grab in Perak on 5th February 2009, personally orchestrated by Najib, the PM-in-waiting has confirmed the worst fears that his ascension as the sixth Prime Minister would see a return of Mahathirism and a Najib crackdown.
Media reports of the parliamentary debate on the Witness Protection Bill yesterday have been sanitized to remove all reference to questions about Najib’s suitability, integrity and legitimacy to become the new Prime Minister, so long as he is not prepared to take the necessary actions to clear all doubts haunting and hounding him, whether about mega defence deal commissions, the Altantuya Shariibuu murder case or the undemocratic, unethical, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak.
During the debate, I referred to the spate of adverse international media reports about Najib’s coming ascension - in London Sunday Times on Sunday, Paris Liberation last week, as well as in Thailand and Australia - questioned the seriousness and the political will in the purported reform to root out corruption (of which the Protection of Witness Bill is part of the package), the disappearance of private investigator Bala Subramaniam after two statutory declarations highly detrimental to Najib’s reputation and integrity, and the urgent need for Najib to respond frontally to the many swirling allegations dogging him by establishing a Royal Commission of Inquiry to vindicate his innocence, as he had claimed.
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz avoided all these burning issues with the stance that they were totally irrelevant to the Bill.
Who is really being protected - Najib?
Monday, March 23, 2009
First things first with Najib Raszak
by M. Bakri Musa
Barring divine intervention, or an incredibly stupid move on his part, Najib Razak is set to be Malaysia’s next Prime Minister come this April. He will assume office with an approval rating even lower than that of the man he will be replacing. He also has a dark cloud hovering over him that simply refuses to fade away.
Despite that, Najib could still lead Malaysia out of its current doldrums and on to greater heights. To achieve that, he must address two critical issues, one relating to his personal integrity and the other, his leadership. For the first, he must answer the many sordid allegations swirling around him, specifically with regard to the brutal murder of the pregnant Mongolian model Altantuya. With the second, he must select a cabinet and leadership team that would “wow” the nation.
One thing is certain. This is not the time for Malaysians to resort to extra constitutional means or set dangerous precedents that could later haunt us just to deny Najib his due. Asking the King to intervene is one such dangerous precedent. Allah aside, only Parliament or UMNO Supreme Council could legitimately remove Najib. As both moves are unlikely, we might just as well focus on the potentially more productive pursuit of at least trying to ensure that his tenure will be successful. We owe that to our children. Love for country should transcend obsession with politics.
This is also not the time to demonstrate on the streets just to express our loathing for the man. That would only hasten Malaysia’s degeneration towards another Pakistan. During these perilous economic times, Malaysians would not forgive their politicians should they indulge their followers in such theatrics.
Every new leader deserves the courtesy of a grace period. There will be time enough in the next election for us to express our judgment on Najib. Meanwhile be thankful that the incompetent and neglectful leadership of Abdullah is finally coming to an end.
The Mongolian Murder Mystery
For Najib to simply deny that he is not in any way involved with the murder or attribute evil motives on his critics – his current strategy – will not cut it. His swearing of innocence over the Quran may convince some mosque attendees but it will not remove the lingering suspicion. The alleged evidences against him are just too specific and detailed. There are the purported SMS exchanges with a prominent lawyer who was initially involved in defending one of the accused, as well as the erasure of the murder victim’s record of entry into the country.
I applaud Najib in not resorting to libel suits to silence his critics. This is a particularly pernicious habit of the powerful in the region, a reflection of their ingrained “might being right” mentality. This is also the addiction of those who think they are powerful (and thus beyond criticism) simply because they have privileged access to the court system.
What Najib should do is to have a full press conference open to all, including and especially foreign correspondents, representatives of the alternative media, prominent bloggers, and his severest critics. I would include here Malaysia-Today’s Raja Petra Kamarudin.
Apart from being thoroughly prepared, Najib should bring to and distribute at that press conference all possible exculpatory documents such as his phone logs and billing records, as well as copies of Altantuya’s visitor entry record. Anything less would only deepen the suspicion. Najib needs to prevail in the court of public opinion, not the court of law.
I am making a crucial assumption here, and that is, Najib is truly innocent. If he is in any way involved in the murder, no matter how tangentially, then he does not deserve to be in Putra Jaya. He should be sent to Pudu Prison instead.
A “Wow” Cabinet and Leadership Team
Tun Mahathir’s warning to Najib that he should not pick a corrupt cabinet, while headline grabbing and stern sounding, is neither insightful nor helpful. Of course no one wants to be associated with the corrupt. Unlike Mahathir’s advice, mine is more specific and practical.
Najib should dispense entirely with the current cabinet, bar none. This includes the most likely candidate for Deputy Prime Minister, Muhyuddin Yassin. This is the team that passionately supported Mahathir when he wanted to build that crooked bridge to Singapore, and then just as enthusiastically backed Abdullah when he cancelled it! These ministers are incapable of independent thought; they serve nothing more than as their leader’s echo chamber. Get rid of them all.
The job of finding enough fresh talent to fill his new cabinet would be made considerably easier if Najib were to substantially reduce its size to about a dozen members. Get rid of the Ministries of Women Affairs, Youth, Tourism, and Information, among others. Apart from the cost savings, such a move would also streamline his administration.
Widen the search beyond UMNO and Barisan, or even outside of politics. Malaysia does not lack for talent, only that many are currently turned off by politics.
Najib may not remember this, but his father effectively used the senate appointment route to recruit new talents. That was how he brought in such outstanding individuals as Tengku Razaleigh, Ghazali Shafie and Chong Hon Nyan. Tun Razak even sought those who had previously been expelled from the party, as he did with Mahathir. Likewise, Najib must be as daring and unconventional as his father was. This is no time to stick to the old tired playbook.
A pivotal decision for Najib would be his choice for Deputy Prime Minister. Although Muhyuddin is likely to be elected the deputy UMNO leader, he would be a poor choice as Deputy Prime Minister, Mahathir’s endorsement notwithstanding. Najib should politely decline Mahathir’s recommendation and buck party tradition.
Being of the same age and experience as Najib, Muhyuddin would bring nothing extra to the team. For another, there would always be the subtle and distracting rivalry between the two, with Muhyuddin impatiently waiting his turn. We have been through that before! In part to allay our fears of this, he has already displayed the stereotypical UMNO streak of sucking up to his superior, as evidenced by his over enthusiastic embrace of Najib. He also goes to great pain impressing everyone on how well he can work with Najib. In Freudian psychology they call that “reaction formation,” a tried-and-true defense mechanism.
Muhyuddin’s fatal flaw is that he views the office of Deputy Prime Minister primarily as Najib’s chief “gofer” rather than as the nation’s second in command.
Najib should break once and for all the current unhealthy coupling of party positions with governmental appointments. Thus he should keep Muhyuddin out of government and task him to reform UMNO, a monumental undertaking in itself. He had been chairing the committee to reform the party for the past few years. Let him continue there.
Najib should instead invite (beg if necessary) Tengku Razaleigh to be his Deputy. His considerable experience and wisdom would confer upon Najib’s team instant respect and credibility. While that is important it should not be the sole reason for picking him. Rather, Najib should maximally utilize Razaleigh’s skills and talent.
The major challenge would be to make Razaleigh accept the appointment. Appealing to the man’s sense of public duty would help, indicating that this would further his publicly-stated quest for a “unity” government.
The age, experience and temperament of the two are sufficiently different that the two would unlikely get entangled in a destructive rivalry. Instead they would complement each other, recalling the successful Tunku-Tun Razak’s partnership of two generations earlier, only this time with a role reversal.
Early in his term I suggested that Prime Minister Abdullah should choose Tengku Razaleigh as a sort of Co-Prime Minister. Such successful co-leadership teams are seen in many large corporations, the most visible being Microsoft’s Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer. Had Abdullah done that, his (as well as the nation’s) fate would today be far different.
Apart from the cabinet, there are two other crucial senior governmental appointments: the chiefs of the police and the Anti Corruption Commission. Both institutions are now hopelessly corrupted and irreparably politicized; likewise their senior officers. The only way to regain the public trust is for Najib to recruit internationally, possibly from the FBI, Scotland Yard, or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Once he has reestablished trust, then he can revert to local talent.
A One-Term Mindset
To focus on these difficult tasks, Najib should develop a Reagan-like mindset of not worrying about the next election. He should act as if he would be a one-term Prime Minister. That would instill a much needed sense of urgency and discourage him from worrying about short-term political considerations. Such an attitude would also embolden him to make the necessary tough decisions.
By instituting these changes Najib would quickly assert his leadership as well as send the clear message that he is fully aware of the awesome responsibilities of his office and that he has the wherewithal to fulfill them. That would more likely make him succeed as Prime Minister, which in turn would ensure his party’s re-election.
These changes would of course trigger anger among the many powerful warlords in his party. Rest assured that as most of them are corrupt, a reinvigorated Anti Corruption Commission under professional leadership would keep them occupied.
However, first things first; Najib has to assure Malaysians that his personal integrity is beyond reproach. Frontally addressing the many ugly accusations leveled at him regarding the tragic end of that pregnant Mongolian model would be a good and essential start.
Barring divine intervention, or an incredibly stupid move on his part, Najib Razak is set to be Malaysia’s next Prime Minister come this April. He will assume office with an approval rating even lower than that of the man he will be replacing. He also has a dark cloud hovering over him that simply refuses to fade away.
Despite that, Najib could still lead Malaysia out of its current doldrums and on to greater heights. To achieve that, he must address two critical issues, one relating to his personal integrity and the other, his leadership. For the first, he must answer the many sordid allegations swirling around him, specifically with regard to the brutal murder of the pregnant Mongolian model Altantuya. With the second, he must select a cabinet and leadership team that would “wow” the nation.
One thing is certain. This is not the time for Malaysians to resort to extra constitutional means or set dangerous precedents that could later haunt us just to deny Najib his due. Asking the King to intervene is one such dangerous precedent. Allah aside, only Parliament or UMNO Supreme Council could legitimately remove Najib. As both moves are unlikely, we might just as well focus on the potentially more productive pursuit of at least trying to ensure that his tenure will be successful. We owe that to our children. Love for country should transcend obsession with politics.
This is also not the time to demonstrate on the streets just to express our loathing for the man. That would only hasten Malaysia’s degeneration towards another Pakistan. During these perilous economic times, Malaysians would not forgive their politicians should they indulge their followers in such theatrics.
Every new leader deserves the courtesy of a grace period. There will be time enough in the next election for us to express our judgment on Najib. Meanwhile be thankful that the incompetent and neglectful leadership of Abdullah is finally coming to an end.
The Mongolian Murder Mystery
For Najib to simply deny that he is not in any way involved with the murder or attribute evil motives on his critics – his current strategy – will not cut it. His swearing of innocence over the Quran may convince some mosque attendees but it will not remove the lingering suspicion. The alleged evidences against him are just too specific and detailed. There are the purported SMS exchanges with a prominent lawyer who was initially involved in defending one of the accused, as well as the erasure of the murder victim’s record of entry into the country.
I applaud Najib in not resorting to libel suits to silence his critics. This is a particularly pernicious habit of the powerful in the region, a reflection of their ingrained “might being right” mentality. This is also the addiction of those who think they are powerful (and thus beyond criticism) simply because they have privileged access to the court system.
What Najib should do is to have a full press conference open to all, including and especially foreign correspondents, representatives of the alternative media, prominent bloggers, and his severest critics. I would include here Malaysia-Today’s Raja Petra Kamarudin.
Apart from being thoroughly prepared, Najib should bring to and distribute at that press conference all possible exculpatory documents such as his phone logs and billing records, as well as copies of Altantuya’s visitor entry record. Anything less would only deepen the suspicion. Najib needs to prevail in the court of public opinion, not the court of law.
I am making a crucial assumption here, and that is, Najib is truly innocent. If he is in any way involved in the murder, no matter how tangentially, then he does not deserve to be in Putra Jaya. He should be sent to Pudu Prison instead.
A “Wow” Cabinet and Leadership Team
Tun Mahathir’s warning to Najib that he should not pick a corrupt cabinet, while headline grabbing and stern sounding, is neither insightful nor helpful. Of course no one wants to be associated with the corrupt. Unlike Mahathir’s advice, mine is more specific and practical.
Najib should dispense entirely with the current cabinet, bar none. This includes the most likely candidate for Deputy Prime Minister, Muhyuddin Yassin. This is the team that passionately supported Mahathir when he wanted to build that crooked bridge to Singapore, and then just as enthusiastically backed Abdullah when he cancelled it! These ministers are incapable of independent thought; they serve nothing more than as their leader’s echo chamber. Get rid of them all.
The job of finding enough fresh talent to fill his new cabinet would be made considerably easier if Najib were to substantially reduce its size to about a dozen members. Get rid of the Ministries of Women Affairs, Youth, Tourism, and Information, among others. Apart from the cost savings, such a move would also streamline his administration.
Widen the search beyond UMNO and Barisan, or even outside of politics. Malaysia does not lack for talent, only that many are currently turned off by politics.
Najib may not remember this, but his father effectively used the senate appointment route to recruit new talents. That was how he brought in such outstanding individuals as Tengku Razaleigh, Ghazali Shafie and Chong Hon Nyan. Tun Razak even sought those who had previously been expelled from the party, as he did with Mahathir. Likewise, Najib must be as daring and unconventional as his father was. This is no time to stick to the old tired playbook.
A pivotal decision for Najib would be his choice for Deputy Prime Minister. Although Muhyuddin is likely to be elected the deputy UMNO leader, he would be a poor choice as Deputy Prime Minister, Mahathir’s endorsement notwithstanding. Najib should politely decline Mahathir’s recommendation and buck party tradition.
Being of the same age and experience as Najib, Muhyuddin would bring nothing extra to the team. For another, there would always be the subtle and distracting rivalry between the two, with Muhyuddin impatiently waiting his turn. We have been through that before! In part to allay our fears of this, he has already displayed the stereotypical UMNO streak of sucking up to his superior, as evidenced by his over enthusiastic embrace of Najib. He also goes to great pain impressing everyone on how well he can work with Najib. In Freudian psychology they call that “reaction formation,” a tried-and-true defense mechanism.
Muhyuddin’s fatal flaw is that he views the office of Deputy Prime Minister primarily as Najib’s chief “gofer” rather than as the nation’s second in command.
Najib should break once and for all the current unhealthy coupling of party positions with governmental appointments. Thus he should keep Muhyuddin out of government and task him to reform UMNO, a monumental undertaking in itself. He had been chairing the committee to reform the party for the past few years. Let him continue there.
Najib should instead invite (beg if necessary) Tengku Razaleigh to be his Deputy. His considerable experience and wisdom would confer upon Najib’s team instant respect and credibility. While that is important it should not be the sole reason for picking him. Rather, Najib should maximally utilize Razaleigh’s skills and talent.
The major challenge would be to make Razaleigh accept the appointment. Appealing to the man’s sense of public duty would help, indicating that this would further his publicly-stated quest for a “unity” government.
The age, experience and temperament of the two are sufficiently different that the two would unlikely get entangled in a destructive rivalry. Instead they would complement each other, recalling the successful Tunku-Tun Razak’s partnership of two generations earlier, only this time with a role reversal.
Early in his term I suggested that Prime Minister Abdullah should choose Tengku Razaleigh as a sort of Co-Prime Minister. Such successful co-leadership teams are seen in many large corporations, the most visible being Microsoft’s Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer. Had Abdullah done that, his (as well as the nation’s) fate would today be far different.
Apart from the cabinet, there are two other crucial senior governmental appointments: the chiefs of the police and the Anti Corruption Commission. Both institutions are now hopelessly corrupted and irreparably politicized; likewise their senior officers. The only way to regain the public trust is for Najib to recruit internationally, possibly from the FBI, Scotland Yard, or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Once he has reestablished trust, then he can revert to local talent.
A One-Term Mindset
To focus on these difficult tasks, Najib should develop a Reagan-like mindset of not worrying about the next election. He should act as if he would be a one-term Prime Minister. That would instill a much needed sense of urgency and discourage him from worrying about short-term political considerations. Such an attitude would also embolden him to make the necessary tough decisions.
By instituting these changes Najib would quickly assert his leadership as well as send the clear message that he is fully aware of the awesome responsibilities of his office and that he has the wherewithal to fulfill them. That would more likely make him succeed as Prime Minister, which in turn would ensure his party’s re-election.
These changes would of course trigger anger among the many powerful warlords in his party. Rest assured that as most of them are corrupt, a reinvigorated Anti Corruption Commission under professional leadership would keep them occupied.
However, first things first; Najib has to assure Malaysians that his personal integrity is beyond reproach. Frontally addressing the many ugly accusations leveled at him regarding the tragic end of that pregnant Mongolian model would be a good and essential start.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
14 days is a long time in politics
11
Mar
09
14 days is a long time in politics
post info
By Anwar Ibrahim
By Raja Petra Kamarudin
The Federal Constitution merely states that the Agong shall appoint the Prime Minister from amongst a Member of the House who, in Tuanku’s opinion, commands the confidence of the majority of the Members of the House. It says nothing about the Prime Minister having to be the President of Umno or the Chairman of Barisan Nasional.
Moreover, Mr. Najib brings to the job much political baggage. In particular there is the case involving an adviser to Mr. Najib of a Mongolian woman who was shot and blown up with specialized C4 plastic explosives in Malaysia in 2006. The adviser, the woman’s former lover, was cleared of ordering her death in a protracted court case that drew harsh public criticism and left vital questions unanswered. Two members of an elite police bodyguard unit assigned to Mr. Najib, who were asked by the adviser to “do something” about the woman because she was blackmailing him, have to answer murder charges. The adviser said he had contacted the two policemen through Mr. Najib’s aide-de-camp, and one of them, a chief inspector, testified that the aide-de-camp had instructed him to help the adviser.
Before the adviser was charged, Mr. Najib sent a text message to a lawyer representing his adviser saying that the adviser “will have to face a tentative charge but all is not lost,” according to a transcript of their exchanges. One of the country’s most popular bloggers and online journalist-editors, Raja Petra Kamarudin, faces sedition and libel charges after allegedly implicating Mr. Najib and his wife in the killing. Although Mr. Najib has denied ever knowing the victim, taking the unusual step of swearing his innocence in a mosque, he has been unable to stem an avalanche of gossip, speculation and serious analysis, much of it circulated on the Internet.
Mr. Najib also has long been embroiled in allegations of corruption in the purchase of big-ticket weapon systems during his two lengthy terms as defense minister (1990-95, 1999-2008; he retained the defense portfolio after becoming deputy prime minister in 2003), when he drove an aggressive military modernization program. According to Foreign Policy in Focus, a Washington-based think tank, foreign arms manufacturers use well-connected Malaysians as lobbyists, paying them commissions of 10% to 20% to win contracts. Malaysia’s political opposition says much of the money goes to people closely associated with UMNO, including Mr. Najib’s contacts, though the police and anticorruption authorities have not investigated particular cases to the satisfaction of complainants.
For example, the 115 million euros “coordination and support services” payment for Malaysia’s purchase in 2002 of two new Scorpene and one reconditioned Agosta submarine for 1 billion euros was paid to Perimekar Sdn. Bhd. Perimekar at the time was owned by a company called K.S. Ombak Laut Sdn Bhd — later by two other companies as well — which was in turn owned by Abdul Razak Abdullah Baginda, the Najib adviser who stood trial for abetting the murder of the Mongolian woman. The Defense Ministry denied paying a commission and said Peremkear was awarded a genuine contract to support the acquisition of the submarines.
Najib’s Challenge: Clean up UMNO by Barry Wain, Far Eastern Economic Review (http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/19043/84/)
********************************
What a day to have lunch together. On a day when Najib is announcing his staggering RM60 billion stimulus package, Abdullah has lunch with Anwar.
I haven’t seen Abdullah looking so relaxed and cheerful for a long time. Click here to have a peek. (http://shamsuliskandar.wordpress.com/2009/03/10/pm-abdullah-dan-dsai-makan-tengahari-untuk-keamanan/)
According to PKR Youth chief Shamsul Iskandar in his blog, both leaders were invited by Al-Fadhil Tuan Guru Syeikh Mahmud Al-Majzubdi (better known as Tok Ayah) for the Maulud Rasul celebrations at the Madrasah Nurul Iman, Hulu Langat in Selangor.
Anwar says people are reading too much into the encounter. But hey, it’s not everyday the PM and Anwar have lunch together; so tongues are bound to wag.
Anyway, 49 per cent of over 5,000 respondents to the poll on this blog think that Abdullah will remain as PM after March while only 11 per cent of you think Najib will take over. Let’s wait and see what happens.
Anwar-Abdullah lunch fuels speculation by Anil Netto (http://anilnetto.com/malaysian-politics/anwar-abdullah-lunch-fuels-speculation/)
********************************
It is roughly two weeks to go before the coming Umno General Assembly. Two weeks is 14 days and 14 days is a long time in politics. Anwar went from becoming the successor to Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad to a sacked Umno member in only three days. And about two weeks later be found himself in jail facing a possible nine criminal charges, seven which were later dropped after they secured a conviction on the first two, which attracted a total jail sentence of 15 years.
Can Najib Tun Razak still make it as Prime Minister at the end of this month? There is no doubt he will become the Umno President, mainly because he will win uncontested and anyone can win in a walkover. But this does not mean he will also become the Prime Minister because there is no law that says the Umno President must also become the Prime Minister.
Tun Razak, Najib’s father, became Prime Minister while Tunku Abdul Rahman stayed on as the Umno President. Dr Mahathir stayed on as Prime Minister after Umno got deregistered and the MCA President, Ling Liong Sik, took over as the Barisan Nasional Chairman. For all intents and purposes, Dr Mahathir was an independent Member of Parliament and a man with no party for that brief period of time until the new Umno called Umno Baru was registered.
The Federal Constitution merely states that the Agong shall appoint the Prime Minister from amongst a Member of the House who, in Tuanku’s opinion, commands the confidence of the majority of the Members of the House. It says nothing about the Prime Minister having to be the President of Umno or the Chairman of Barisan Nasional. For that matter, Ibrahim Ali, the sole independent Member of Parliament, can become Prime Minister if at least 112 of the 222 Members of Parliament support him as Prime Minister — heaven forbid.
And do at least 112 of the 222 Members of Parliament want Najib as the next Prime Minister come end of this month? Okay, maybe SOME of the 65 Umno Members of Parliament from Peninsular Malaysia do. And maybe SOME of the 13 Umno Members of Parliament from Sabah do as well. But that makes only 78 Members of Parliament who want him as Prime Minister — assuming ALL 78 Umno Members of Parliament from Peninsular Malaysia as well as Sabah are unanimous in their support for Najib.
And this is only if we assume that ALL 78 Umno Members of Parliament are unanimous in their support for Najib. From what I have been told, at least 20 are with Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Amongst these 20 are of course Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, Khairy Jamaluddin and Abdullah Badawi himself. So there is no way Najib can get the unanimous support of all the 78 Umno Members of Parliament. At best he can get the support of only 58 Umno Members of Parliament. This means Najib is still short of 54 Members of Parliament.
But then, can Najib afford to get the support of only 112 Members of Parliament? What if one were to get a heart attack while playing badminton and dies, or his/her nude photographs or sex video suddenly appeared on the Internet and he/she is forced to resign, or something like which is so customary nowadays. Then Najib would be left with only 111 Members of Parliament against 111 who are against him. This would result in a hung Parliament and Najib would find himself as the Prime Minister with the shortest term in Malaysian history.
No, a figure of 112 is just too close to the bone. Najib would need at least 130 to 140 to be home with a comfortable margin. And that means he cannot depend solely on the Umno Members of Parliament. Umno alone can’t give him the numbers. Umno has only 78 while just 58 are with him. He also needs the 30 non-Umno Members of Parliament from Sarawak and the balance 11 from Sabah plus the 20 from MCA, MIC and Gerakan as well.
Najib is banking on full support from Umno. He can of course get full support from the 2,500 or so Umno delegates who will be attending the Umno General Assembly in about two weeks time. But not all the 2,500 Umno delegates are Members of Parliament. Only 78 are while just 58 are with him. Najib has far from secured the job of Prime Minister of Malaysia whatever the outcome of the Umno General Assembly.
Ali Rustam will win the Umno Deputy Presidency and Najib’s cousin, Hishammuddin, is going to lose the Vice President’s post, while Khir Toyo will become the Youth Leader. Najib is going to automatically become the Umno President only because no one is able to challenge him. But he is going to be isolated and surrounded by those who are not aligned to him as far as the other Umno positions are concerned.
If Najib is assured of becoming the Prime Minister then he can be guaranteed the support of the non-Umno Barisan Nasional Members of Parliament from MCA, MIC, Gerakan, Sabah and Sarawak. He will of course not get the support of the 83 Pakatan Rakyat Members of Parliament. But he has a chance of getting the support of the 61 non-Umno Barisan Nasional Members of Parliament.
This, however, will depend on whether he is assured of becoming Prime Minister. People have a habit of supporting the winner. If you are winner everyone wants to be associated with you and wants to become your friend. No one, however, wants to become associated with a loser. And unless Najib can show he is a winner and not a loser he will not be guaranteed the support of the 61 non-Umno Barisan Nasional Members of Parliament.
Abdullah Badawi has more or less resigned to the fact that by 1 April 2009 he would be sent into retirement. He has even bought an iPhone, which he intends to use to communicate with his grandkids. Does he even know how to use that very complicating iPhone? Not yet, but since he will soon be retiring he has plenty of time to learn how to use it and then spend hours chatting with his grandkids. Hell, he may even set up his own Blog and Facebook since he would not have much work come 1 April 2009.
His wife, Jeanne Danker, is also looking forward to retirement. This simple lady does not enjoy the limelight of ‘First Lady’ and will not miss life in Seri Perdana. She would rather spend her time with her husband and kids. But she abhors the thought of handing this country over to Najib. And Abdullah Badawi’s kids share Jeanne’s view. They are not opposed to Abdullah Badawi retiring. They are opposed to the idea of Najib taking over with the porky Rosmah Mansor gracing the halls of Seri Perdana as the ‘First Lady’ and ‘Queen Elizabeth’ both rolled into one.
They say there is no such thing as hell on earth. But then these people have not imagined life with Rosmah Mansor calling the shots as to how this country should be run. In fact, it would be more like run into the ground with her at the helm. And this is also the view of the Agong.
No doubt Malaysia is a Constitutional Monarchy and the Agong ‘shall act on the advice of the Prime Minister’ — and ‘shall’ has been wrongly interpreted as ‘must’. But there are certain things that the Agong does not act on the advice of the Prime Minister and instead uses his own discretion. And one of these things is with regards to the appointment of the Prime Minister who in Tuanku’s opinion commands the confidence of the majority of the Members of the House.
We have seen, of late, the Rulers exercising their discretion in the appointments of the CEOs. Perak, Selangor, Terengganu and Perlis are examples of this. The Rulers and not Umno decided on who should lead the states. The recent Perak crisis, where the state changed hands from Pakatan Rakyat to Barisan Nasional, is yet another case in point. The Rulers have the power to decide and they have not backed down from exercising this power. And the same applies with regards to the appointment of the Prime Minister.
Anwar Ibrahim’s meeting with Abdullah Badawi yesterday laid the foundation for cooperation between Pakatan Rakyat and some dissenting voices in Barisan Nasional who feel Najib should not be the next Prime Minister. With the 83 Pakatan Rakyat Members of Parliament and another 20 from Umno that makes 103 in all. So all they need is another nine to deny Najib the job of Prime Minister. And MCA has 15, MIC 3, Gerakan 2, Sarawak 30, while the non-Umno Members of Parliament from Sabah come to another 11. Getting just nine from amongst that large group of 61 is not that difficult.
Anwar Ibrahim may never become Prime Minister. But even if he does he is still the lesser of the two evils compared to Najib as far as Abdullah Badawi is concerned. And as far as Anwar is concerned, whether he becomes Prime Minister or not is not the key issue at the moment. What is would be that the Prime Minister must not be Najib. So even if all that Anwar achieves in the end would be for Abdullah Badawi to stay on, that too would be the lesser of the two evils in Anwar’s book.
Abdullah Badawi may have to keep his iPhone in the box awhile longer. He may not have the time to learn how to use it after all. Many are bent on assuring that Najib never takes over as Prime Minister. And if the new Prime Minister is not going to be Anwar, then Abdullah Badawi would have to instead stay on for some time to come. And if this happens then I will personally go to meet Abdullah Badawi to help him with his iPhone. Hell, I might even buy one myself so that I can learn how to use it before I go teach Abdullah Badawi how to use his.
Mar
09
14 days is a long time in politics
post info
By Anwar Ibrahim
By Raja Petra Kamarudin
The Federal Constitution merely states that the Agong shall appoint the Prime Minister from amongst a Member of the House who, in Tuanku’s opinion, commands the confidence of the majority of the Members of the House. It says nothing about the Prime Minister having to be the President of Umno or the Chairman of Barisan Nasional.
Moreover, Mr. Najib brings to the job much political baggage. In particular there is the case involving an adviser to Mr. Najib of a Mongolian woman who was shot and blown up with specialized C4 plastic explosives in Malaysia in 2006. The adviser, the woman’s former lover, was cleared of ordering her death in a protracted court case that drew harsh public criticism and left vital questions unanswered. Two members of an elite police bodyguard unit assigned to Mr. Najib, who were asked by the adviser to “do something” about the woman because she was blackmailing him, have to answer murder charges. The adviser said he had contacted the two policemen through Mr. Najib’s aide-de-camp, and one of them, a chief inspector, testified that the aide-de-camp had instructed him to help the adviser.
Before the adviser was charged, Mr. Najib sent a text message to a lawyer representing his adviser saying that the adviser “will have to face a tentative charge but all is not lost,” according to a transcript of their exchanges. One of the country’s most popular bloggers and online journalist-editors, Raja Petra Kamarudin, faces sedition and libel charges after allegedly implicating Mr. Najib and his wife in the killing. Although Mr. Najib has denied ever knowing the victim, taking the unusual step of swearing his innocence in a mosque, he has been unable to stem an avalanche of gossip, speculation and serious analysis, much of it circulated on the Internet.
Mr. Najib also has long been embroiled in allegations of corruption in the purchase of big-ticket weapon systems during his two lengthy terms as defense minister (1990-95, 1999-2008; he retained the defense portfolio after becoming deputy prime minister in 2003), when he drove an aggressive military modernization program. According to Foreign Policy in Focus, a Washington-based think tank, foreign arms manufacturers use well-connected Malaysians as lobbyists, paying them commissions of 10% to 20% to win contracts. Malaysia’s political opposition says much of the money goes to people closely associated with UMNO, including Mr. Najib’s contacts, though the police and anticorruption authorities have not investigated particular cases to the satisfaction of complainants.
For example, the 115 million euros “coordination and support services” payment for Malaysia’s purchase in 2002 of two new Scorpene and one reconditioned Agosta submarine for 1 billion euros was paid to Perimekar Sdn. Bhd. Perimekar at the time was owned by a company called K.S. Ombak Laut Sdn Bhd — later by two other companies as well — which was in turn owned by Abdul Razak Abdullah Baginda, the Najib adviser who stood trial for abetting the murder of the Mongolian woman. The Defense Ministry denied paying a commission and said Peremkear was awarded a genuine contract to support the acquisition of the submarines.
Najib’s Challenge: Clean up UMNO by Barry Wain, Far Eastern Economic Review (http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/19043/84/)
********************************
What a day to have lunch together. On a day when Najib is announcing his staggering RM60 billion stimulus package, Abdullah has lunch with Anwar.
I haven’t seen Abdullah looking so relaxed and cheerful for a long time. Click here to have a peek. (http://shamsuliskandar.wordpress.com/2009/03/10/pm-abdullah-dan-dsai-makan-tengahari-untuk-keamanan/)
According to PKR Youth chief Shamsul Iskandar in his blog, both leaders were invited by Al-Fadhil Tuan Guru Syeikh Mahmud Al-Majzubdi (better known as Tok Ayah) for the Maulud Rasul celebrations at the Madrasah Nurul Iman, Hulu Langat in Selangor.
Anwar says people are reading too much into the encounter. But hey, it’s not everyday the PM and Anwar have lunch together; so tongues are bound to wag.
Anyway, 49 per cent of over 5,000 respondents to the poll on this blog think that Abdullah will remain as PM after March while only 11 per cent of you think Najib will take over. Let’s wait and see what happens.
Anwar-Abdullah lunch fuels speculation by Anil Netto (http://anilnetto.com/malaysian-politics/anwar-abdullah-lunch-fuels-speculation/)
********************************
It is roughly two weeks to go before the coming Umno General Assembly. Two weeks is 14 days and 14 days is a long time in politics. Anwar went from becoming the successor to Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad to a sacked Umno member in only three days. And about two weeks later be found himself in jail facing a possible nine criminal charges, seven which were later dropped after they secured a conviction on the first two, which attracted a total jail sentence of 15 years.
Can Najib Tun Razak still make it as Prime Minister at the end of this month? There is no doubt he will become the Umno President, mainly because he will win uncontested and anyone can win in a walkover. But this does not mean he will also become the Prime Minister because there is no law that says the Umno President must also become the Prime Minister.
Tun Razak, Najib’s father, became Prime Minister while Tunku Abdul Rahman stayed on as the Umno President. Dr Mahathir stayed on as Prime Minister after Umno got deregistered and the MCA President, Ling Liong Sik, took over as the Barisan Nasional Chairman. For all intents and purposes, Dr Mahathir was an independent Member of Parliament and a man with no party for that brief period of time until the new Umno called Umno Baru was registered.
The Federal Constitution merely states that the Agong shall appoint the Prime Minister from amongst a Member of the House who, in Tuanku’s opinion, commands the confidence of the majority of the Members of the House. It says nothing about the Prime Minister having to be the President of Umno or the Chairman of Barisan Nasional. For that matter, Ibrahim Ali, the sole independent Member of Parliament, can become Prime Minister if at least 112 of the 222 Members of Parliament support him as Prime Minister — heaven forbid.
And do at least 112 of the 222 Members of Parliament want Najib as the next Prime Minister come end of this month? Okay, maybe SOME of the 65 Umno Members of Parliament from Peninsular Malaysia do. And maybe SOME of the 13 Umno Members of Parliament from Sabah do as well. But that makes only 78 Members of Parliament who want him as Prime Minister — assuming ALL 78 Umno Members of Parliament from Peninsular Malaysia as well as Sabah are unanimous in their support for Najib.
And this is only if we assume that ALL 78 Umno Members of Parliament are unanimous in their support for Najib. From what I have been told, at least 20 are with Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Amongst these 20 are of course Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, Khairy Jamaluddin and Abdullah Badawi himself. So there is no way Najib can get the unanimous support of all the 78 Umno Members of Parliament. At best he can get the support of only 58 Umno Members of Parliament. This means Najib is still short of 54 Members of Parliament.
But then, can Najib afford to get the support of only 112 Members of Parliament? What if one were to get a heart attack while playing badminton and dies, or his/her nude photographs or sex video suddenly appeared on the Internet and he/she is forced to resign, or something like which is so customary nowadays. Then Najib would be left with only 111 Members of Parliament against 111 who are against him. This would result in a hung Parliament and Najib would find himself as the Prime Minister with the shortest term in Malaysian history.
No, a figure of 112 is just too close to the bone. Najib would need at least 130 to 140 to be home with a comfortable margin. And that means he cannot depend solely on the Umno Members of Parliament. Umno alone can’t give him the numbers. Umno has only 78 while just 58 are with him. He also needs the 30 non-Umno Members of Parliament from Sarawak and the balance 11 from Sabah plus the 20 from MCA, MIC and Gerakan as well.
Najib is banking on full support from Umno. He can of course get full support from the 2,500 or so Umno delegates who will be attending the Umno General Assembly in about two weeks time. But not all the 2,500 Umno delegates are Members of Parliament. Only 78 are while just 58 are with him. Najib has far from secured the job of Prime Minister of Malaysia whatever the outcome of the Umno General Assembly.
Ali Rustam will win the Umno Deputy Presidency and Najib’s cousin, Hishammuddin, is going to lose the Vice President’s post, while Khir Toyo will become the Youth Leader. Najib is going to automatically become the Umno President only because no one is able to challenge him. But he is going to be isolated and surrounded by those who are not aligned to him as far as the other Umno positions are concerned.
If Najib is assured of becoming the Prime Minister then he can be guaranteed the support of the non-Umno Barisan Nasional Members of Parliament from MCA, MIC, Gerakan, Sabah and Sarawak. He will of course not get the support of the 83 Pakatan Rakyat Members of Parliament. But he has a chance of getting the support of the 61 non-Umno Barisan Nasional Members of Parliament.
This, however, will depend on whether he is assured of becoming Prime Minister. People have a habit of supporting the winner. If you are winner everyone wants to be associated with you and wants to become your friend. No one, however, wants to become associated with a loser. And unless Najib can show he is a winner and not a loser he will not be guaranteed the support of the 61 non-Umno Barisan Nasional Members of Parliament.
Abdullah Badawi has more or less resigned to the fact that by 1 April 2009 he would be sent into retirement. He has even bought an iPhone, which he intends to use to communicate with his grandkids. Does he even know how to use that very complicating iPhone? Not yet, but since he will soon be retiring he has plenty of time to learn how to use it and then spend hours chatting with his grandkids. Hell, he may even set up his own Blog and Facebook since he would not have much work come 1 April 2009.
His wife, Jeanne Danker, is also looking forward to retirement. This simple lady does not enjoy the limelight of ‘First Lady’ and will not miss life in Seri Perdana. She would rather spend her time with her husband and kids. But she abhors the thought of handing this country over to Najib. And Abdullah Badawi’s kids share Jeanne’s view. They are not opposed to Abdullah Badawi retiring. They are opposed to the idea of Najib taking over with the porky Rosmah Mansor gracing the halls of Seri Perdana as the ‘First Lady’ and ‘Queen Elizabeth’ both rolled into one.
They say there is no such thing as hell on earth. But then these people have not imagined life with Rosmah Mansor calling the shots as to how this country should be run. In fact, it would be more like run into the ground with her at the helm. And this is also the view of the Agong.
No doubt Malaysia is a Constitutional Monarchy and the Agong ‘shall act on the advice of the Prime Minister’ — and ‘shall’ has been wrongly interpreted as ‘must’. But there are certain things that the Agong does not act on the advice of the Prime Minister and instead uses his own discretion. And one of these things is with regards to the appointment of the Prime Minister who in Tuanku’s opinion commands the confidence of the majority of the Members of the House.
We have seen, of late, the Rulers exercising their discretion in the appointments of the CEOs. Perak, Selangor, Terengganu and Perlis are examples of this. The Rulers and not Umno decided on who should lead the states. The recent Perak crisis, where the state changed hands from Pakatan Rakyat to Barisan Nasional, is yet another case in point. The Rulers have the power to decide and they have not backed down from exercising this power. And the same applies with regards to the appointment of the Prime Minister.
Anwar Ibrahim’s meeting with Abdullah Badawi yesterday laid the foundation for cooperation between Pakatan Rakyat and some dissenting voices in Barisan Nasional who feel Najib should not be the next Prime Minister. With the 83 Pakatan Rakyat Members of Parliament and another 20 from Umno that makes 103 in all. So all they need is another nine to deny Najib the job of Prime Minister. And MCA has 15, MIC 3, Gerakan 2, Sarawak 30, while the non-Umno Members of Parliament from Sabah come to another 11. Getting just nine from amongst that large group of 61 is not that difficult.
Anwar Ibrahim may never become Prime Minister. But even if he does he is still the lesser of the two evils compared to Najib as far as Abdullah Badawi is concerned. And as far as Anwar is concerned, whether he becomes Prime Minister or not is not the key issue at the moment. What is would be that the Prime Minister must not be Najib. So even if all that Anwar achieves in the end would be for Abdullah Badawi to stay on, that too would be the lesser of the two evils in Anwar’s book.
Abdullah Badawi may have to keep his iPhone in the box awhile longer. He may not have the time to learn how to use it after all. Many are bent on assuring that Najib never takes over as Prime Minister. And if the new Prime Minister is not going to be Anwar, then Abdullah Badawi would have to instead stay on for some time to come. And if this happens then I will personally go to meet Abdullah Badawi to help him with his iPhone. Hell, I might even buy one myself so that I can learn how to use it before I go teach Abdullah Badawi how to use his.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)