Josh Hong Nov 7, 08 3:18pm
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step –
MCPXConfucius
When Rosa Park, a black lady in Alabama, refused to give up her seat to make way for a white passenger in Dec 1955, little did she know her simple disobedience would spark seismic change in American society.
Park’s courageous and principled stand prompted Martin Luther King Jr into action, as he launched and led the Montgomery Bus Boycott.
It all culminated in King’s world-famous ‘I Have a Dream’ speech in 1963.
The most revered son of the 'Civil Rights Movement' did not live long enough to taste the fruit of his righteous effort. Brutally assassinated in 1968, his death has not been in vain.
As Barack Obama delivered his victory speech, on the TV screen Jesse Jackson, Oprah Winfrey and even Condoleezza Rice – a Republican - were all in tears.
Human life is indeed imbued with paradoxes and potentialities. When King led hundreds of thousands of Americans to march for jobs and freedom in 1963, it was also the year when George Wallace, then Governor of Alabama, declared:
"In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."
And the segregationist policy was only ended in its entirety in 1968, the year when the United States showed off its technological advancement over the Soviet Union by sending three men to orbit the moon.
The 1960s were the decade of great political awakening for the Americans, who clearly understood the country would not move forward as a united nation so long as racism remained officially sanctioned.
It might be able to make even greater progress in science and technology, but its humanistic values of freedom and democracy would only ring hollow if Blacks were not given the opportunity to fully realise their potentials.
Time and time again, the Americans have demonstrated their ability to reflect and opt for a different course. Obama’s victory is also a strong verdict on the outgoing President Bush and his administration.
Absence of ketuanan Putih
While Malaysians of various ethnic origins laud Obama’s ascension to presidency, one must not overlook the fact that the US, despite its dark record of racism and slavery in the past, is still an immigrant country that is multiracial in nature.
The so-called founding fathers may be white, but there is no longer any official ideology – be it by the Republicans or the Democrats – that approves of white supremacy.
A crucial factor behind Obama’s win lies in the absence of a Ketuanan Putih (White Supremacy).
Which is not the case with Malaysia, where the racist idea of Ketuanan Melayu – the raison d’etre of Umno - is still alive and kicking.
Just recently, Zaid Ibrahim, a successful Malay lawyer and a top philanthropist in the country, was severely chastised by Umno bigots for his valour to state that the racist ideology had failed to uplift the Malay community.
Having turned its gun against BN component parties for raising the 'sensitive' issue, Umno is now ready to combat any maverick in its rank who dares to question.
Although the nation was shocked at BN’s losses in the general elections early this year, Malaysians were willing to give the untested coalition of PAS, DAP and PKR a chance to administer several states.
Eight months on, the euphoria has evaporated, thanks to the bickering within the uneasy Pakatan Rakyat.
In Kedah, the PAS government remains firm on its newly introduced policy of having a 50% bumiputra quota in housing schemes. Compelling developers to provide affordable houses in any development is, in my understanding, a welcome measure that encourages distributive justice.
However, implementing it through a colour lens will only result in more wastage and incur additional costs. I need not go further in articulating this as examples are abound all over Malaysia.
Why not conduct a detailed survey on the poverty level in Kedah and formulate housing policy accordingly? It will certainly benefit the real low-income group - the majority of whom are Malays – without actually penalising both the developers and the needy non-Malays.
Even if Azizan Abdul Razak, the Mentri Besar, intends to help other disadvantaged groups in Kedah, such rhetoric only generates more ethnic mistrust.
To make things worse, PAS’ national leaders have come up with statements that resemble those of Umno.
PAS Selangor’s objection
Hadi Awang, PAS president, has said that he would play no part in a federal government led by the Pakatan should Malay members of parliament be in the minority.
It would seem that, while the party is holding Islam as its forte, its Malayness is increasingly visible.
Meanwhile, Dr Hassan Ali, PAS Selangor chief and a former vice-president, made clear his objection to Low Siew Mui’s appointment as the acting general manager of Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Selangor (PKNS) for fear that she would not be able to represent the Muslim civil servants.
Mind boggling, to say the least. Going by Dr. Hassan’s logic, I, a Chinese Christian residing in Petaling Jaya, would have every right to protest against Khalid Ibrahim as Selangor Mentri Besar merely on account of his Islamic faith!
I did not because I trusted Khalid more than Khir Toyo, the man who had vowed to eliminate the opposition in the state assembly.
But it is even more disappointing when Khalid himself caved in to PAS by assuring that the successor to the PKNS post would be a Malay.
If a non-Malay, be it Chinese, Indian or others, is not qualified to head a state agency because of skin colour, how much faith can one have in the allegedly multiracial approach of the Pakatan?
Not to be outdone by the rest, Salahuddin Ayub, PAS Youth Chief, totally disregarded the consensus of the Pakatan when he said adamantly that the 30% Malay equity must be maintained and defended "even if the target has been reached".
In other words, special quotas and stipulations have come to symbolise the "sacrosanct" status of the Malays in Malaysia, and they – as the embodiment of Ketuanan Melayu - must be carried out at all costs even if their existence is no longer viable or justifiable.
It is time to tell the Pakatan leaders, especially those of PAS and PKR, in their face that the honeymoon is over and hunting against Umno on a race-based platform will only send the country into greater disarray, especially in the wake of the impending economic crisis.
Our own Obama
Be so as it may, it is not a must for Malaysians to elect a non-Malay leader. For me, whether or not Malaysia would one day produce our own Obama is not an issue, but the country must be led by leaders who are clean, upright, forward-looking and capable, best suited to handle the challenges ahead.
Not someone like Najib Abdul Razak who is too tainted to be entrusted with the nation’s future.
On the other hand, non-Malays must adopt an inclusive language to articulate their political aspirations, much as Obama has done to win the support of white voters.
After all, the Malays still perceive themselves to be economically weak, not unlike the Blacks in the US. It is vitally important for all Malaysians to debate and discuss the issue of poverty and distribution of wealth without racial bias.
Jesse Jackson, too, contested for Democratic presidential candidacy in 1988. He failed because of his Get-Our-Own-Back stance that alienated the whites and unnerved other ethnic minorities. His message was too vengeful to be comfortable with much of the party’s rank and file.
On the contrary, Obama emphasised very little on race, but highlighted hope and reconciliation, making his post-racial, post-segregationist image more in tune with the desires of much of the American electorate today.
In Malaysia, many have given up on Umno to effect change. Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi sounded generous when he said what happened in the US could happen in Malaysia too if it was the people’s choice.
But he knows full well with the idea of Ketuanan Melayu intact, any progress made by a non-Malay politically would be interpreted as a threat to the nation. It is he and his cohorts who see the American Dream as a Malaysian Nightmare.
So many have placed their trust in those like Anwar Ibrahim, Zulkefly Ahmad, Husam Musa, Khalid Ibrahim, Kamaruddin Jaafar and even Nik Aziz Nik Mat, the tok guru of PAS, for hopes and inspirations.
However, if these Malay-led parties only turn out to be no different from Umno, without a third choice, the people will no doubt court the devil that they know come next election.
That would put paid to a Malaysian vision.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
Zaid has pulse on race relations
by Kim Quek Nov 6, 08 12:44pm
In one of the most important political speeches delivered in recent years, former de facto law minister Zaid Ibrahim took on race relations in Malaysia and the evolution of racial politics that has bedeviled the nation for the past few decades.
Delivering a speech titled 'Malaysia - a lost democracy?' at the Law Asia 2008 conference in Kuala Lumpur on Oct 31, Zaid recounted how "a shining example of a working democracy" founded half a century ago on the principles of democracy and egalitarianism has degenerated into an authoritarian racist state, characterised by incessant racial and religious dissension and economic malaise.
At independence in 1957, Malaya was a model of parliamentary democracy, governed under a written constitution "that accorded full respect and dignity for each and every Malayan".
If at all there was a social contract, which should mean the pre-independence consensus reached among the founding fathers representing the various communities, it must be one "that guaranteed equality and the rule of law", as subsequently reflected in the federal constitution.
The racial riots in 1969 changed the balance of political power and Umno, through the enlarged coalition of Barisan Nasional (BN),eventually assumed absolute control.
With its coalition partners unable to put up any resistance, Umno became increasingly racist and the master affirmative action plan known as the New Economic Policy (NEP), which was intended to eliminate poverty and redress economic imbalance, became synonymous with Malay privileges.
By the 1980s, Umno's supremacist ideology became entrenched and found expression in ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy) and it was then that the term 'social contract' started to be flashed around to justify its racist conduct.
In parallel with the growth of racism was the steep rise in authoritarianism through amendments to the constitution and tightening a host of repressive laws.
The rule of law became so subverted that democracy in Malaysia became history.
Zaid said: "the ketuanan Melayu model has failed... because it has resulted in waste of crucial resources, energy and time and has distracted from the real issues confronting the country".
To cope with globalisation, Zaid calls for Malays to discard ketuanan Melayu and re-embrace democracy and rule of law to spur an economic renaissance of reviving innovation and creativity through co-operationand competition.
Predictably, Umno's reaction to Zaid's speech was a chorus of abusive language from its leaders, ranging from "traitor to his race" to"apologise and repent, or get out of rumpun Melayu (the Malay stock)".
And characteristically, none of these vocal critics engaged Zaid on any substance of his wide-ranging speech that also touched on religion, judiciary and the economy.
This was reflective of Umno's traditional role as 'big bully' who is good at telling people to shutup but unable to articulate why.
Umno has not only told Zaid to shut up, but his speech has also beenl argely blacked out by the local press, which is another manifestation of how tightly the press is controlled to shield the incumbent power from unfavourable exposure.
Umno does not have the slightest intention to carry out any reform that may alter the status quo of entrenched racism and corruption.
This is evident not only from its angry rejection of Zaid's speech,but also from the thumping support given to ultras in the nominations for leadership posts ahead of party elections.
BN component parties, which have cherished false hope of political survival through a reformed Umno, would be well advised to take note of this development.
Racial equality Umno's rejection aside, the speech must be studied by all Malaysians, for it touches the bottom line of race relations.
At the heart of the issue is racial equality.
This may be a non-issue in most countries, where racial equality is taken for granted, but not in Malaysia.
Due to historical factors, and due to the intertwining of race and religion, and economic disparity among the races, racial equality is a sensitive subject in Malaysia.
Suffice to say that all races have recognised the need for some kind of affirmative action in favour of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak, as they have been conspicuously lagging in education andeconomics.
The problem lies mainly in the fact that Umno/BN have became too powerful and have ruled without any checks and balances.
This has bred unbridled racism and corruption in Umno.
The NEP, in addition to being used to uplift educational and economic level of Malays, was hijacked to enrich party leaders and cronies, who used it abundantly as master key to open up all kinds of channels to state wealth.
As Umno's hegemony grew, and through mass indoctrination, many came to regard NEP privileges as birthrights of Malays, though this belief is fallacious.
The line between constitutional rights and the privileges derived from a political agenda such as the NEP has thus become blurred.
It has deteriorated to the point that even a cabinet minister(Amirsham Aziz) was unable to answer a question from Lim Kit Siang(right) in Parliament on Oct 29 as to whether NEP could be equated with Article 153 of the constitution, which provides for the special position of Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak. (The answer is'no'.)
One may thus ask: is there racial equality under our constitution? Theanswer is yes, as this is clearly and unambiguously guaranteed underArticle 8 and other articles.
The existence of Article 153 does not detract from this guarantee.
The racial privileges granted under Article 153 are limited to the provision of quotas.
And these quotas, which fall in the fields of public service,education and commerce are meant as protective measures, and are to be applied to the extent deemed necessary and reasonable by the Agong.
One must also understand that Article 153 mandates the Agong to safeguard not only the special position of Malays and natives of Sabahand Sarawak, but also the legitimate interests of other communities.
It will be seen from a study of the constitution that many racial privileges and racial discriminations couched under the umbrella ofthe NEP.
Particularly those accorded to party leaders and cronies are extra-constitutional.
What should change?
Should Malays worry when NEP is removed as suggested by PakatanRakyat?
Certainly not, affirmative action programmes will continue to be implemented, except that these will be needs-based instead of race-based.
This should engender more equitable distribution, promote justice, enhance national unity and eliminate abuses.
The anticipated result should see ordinary Malays enjoying more benefits as the money would otherwise have been leaked through massivec orruption and cronyism.
Umno's recalcitrant leaders who are hell-bent on clinging to this racial supremacist ideology for political survival should realise that such thinking has become extinct since South Africa abandoned its apartheid policy two decades ago.
It has no place in a globalisedworld.
It is an affront to universal values, besides conflicting with fundamental values of all religions including Islam.
Finally, it is detrimental to common Malays whose interests these leaders profess to champion. Continued racial hegemony will require increased repression which, in turn, will cause more political unrest and further economic retardation.
In such a downward spiral, no community will be spared.________________________________KIM QUEK is a retired accountant and a member of PKR. He is author of'Where to, Malaysia?'.
In one of the most important political speeches delivered in recent years, former de facto law minister Zaid Ibrahim took on race relations in Malaysia and the evolution of racial politics that has bedeviled the nation for the past few decades.
Delivering a speech titled 'Malaysia - a lost democracy?' at the Law Asia 2008 conference in Kuala Lumpur on Oct 31, Zaid recounted how "a shining example of a working democracy" founded half a century ago on the principles of democracy and egalitarianism has degenerated into an authoritarian racist state, characterised by incessant racial and religious dissension and economic malaise.
At independence in 1957, Malaya was a model of parliamentary democracy, governed under a written constitution "that accorded full respect and dignity for each and every Malayan".
If at all there was a social contract, which should mean the pre-independence consensus reached among the founding fathers representing the various communities, it must be one "that guaranteed equality and the rule of law", as subsequently reflected in the federal constitution.
The racial riots in 1969 changed the balance of political power and Umno, through the enlarged coalition of Barisan Nasional (BN),eventually assumed absolute control.
With its coalition partners unable to put up any resistance, Umno became increasingly racist and the master affirmative action plan known as the New Economic Policy (NEP), which was intended to eliminate poverty and redress economic imbalance, became synonymous with Malay privileges.
By the 1980s, Umno's supremacist ideology became entrenched and found expression in ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy) and it was then that the term 'social contract' started to be flashed around to justify its racist conduct.
In parallel with the growth of racism was the steep rise in authoritarianism through amendments to the constitution and tightening a host of repressive laws.
The rule of law became so subverted that democracy in Malaysia became history.
Zaid said: "the ketuanan Melayu model has failed... because it has resulted in waste of crucial resources, energy and time and has distracted from the real issues confronting the country".
To cope with globalisation, Zaid calls for Malays to discard ketuanan Melayu and re-embrace democracy and rule of law to spur an economic renaissance of reviving innovation and creativity through co-operationand competition.
Predictably, Umno's reaction to Zaid's speech was a chorus of abusive language from its leaders, ranging from "traitor to his race" to"apologise and repent, or get out of rumpun Melayu (the Malay stock)".
And characteristically, none of these vocal critics engaged Zaid on any substance of his wide-ranging speech that also touched on religion, judiciary and the economy.
This was reflective of Umno's traditional role as 'big bully' who is good at telling people to shutup but unable to articulate why.
Umno has not only told Zaid to shut up, but his speech has also beenl argely blacked out by the local press, which is another manifestation of how tightly the press is controlled to shield the incumbent power from unfavourable exposure.
Umno does not have the slightest intention to carry out any reform that may alter the status quo of entrenched racism and corruption.
This is evident not only from its angry rejection of Zaid's speech,but also from the thumping support given to ultras in the nominations for leadership posts ahead of party elections.
BN component parties, which have cherished false hope of political survival through a reformed Umno, would be well advised to take note of this development.
Racial equality Umno's rejection aside, the speech must be studied by all Malaysians, for it touches the bottom line of race relations.
At the heart of the issue is racial equality.
This may be a non-issue in most countries, where racial equality is taken for granted, but not in Malaysia.
Due to historical factors, and due to the intertwining of race and religion, and economic disparity among the races, racial equality is a sensitive subject in Malaysia.
Suffice to say that all races have recognised the need for some kind of affirmative action in favour of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak, as they have been conspicuously lagging in education andeconomics.
The problem lies mainly in the fact that Umno/BN have became too powerful and have ruled without any checks and balances.
This has bred unbridled racism and corruption in Umno.
The NEP, in addition to being used to uplift educational and economic level of Malays, was hijacked to enrich party leaders and cronies, who used it abundantly as master key to open up all kinds of channels to state wealth.
As Umno's hegemony grew, and through mass indoctrination, many came to regard NEP privileges as birthrights of Malays, though this belief is fallacious.
The line between constitutional rights and the privileges derived from a political agenda such as the NEP has thus become blurred.
It has deteriorated to the point that even a cabinet minister(Amirsham Aziz) was unable to answer a question from Lim Kit Siang(right) in Parliament on Oct 29 as to whether NEP could be equated with Article 153 of the constitution, which provides for the special position of Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak. (The answer is'no'.)
One may thus ask: is there racial equality under our constitution? Theanswer is yes, as this is clearly and unambiguously guaranteed underArticle 8 and other articles.
The existence of Article 153 does not detract from this guarantee.
The racial privileges granted under Article 153 are limited to the provision of quotas.
And these quotas, which fall in the fields of public service,education and commerce are meant as protective measures, and are to be applied to the extent deemed necessary and reasonable by the Agong.
One must also understand that Article 153 mandates the Agong to safeguard not only the special position of Malays and natives of Sabahand Sarawak, but also the legitimate interests of other communities.
It will be seen from a study of the constitution that many racial privileges and racial discriminations couched under the umbrella ofthe NEP.
Particularly those accorded to party leaders and cronies are extra-constitutional.
What should change?
Should Malays worry when NEP is removed as suggested by PakatanRakyat?
Certainly not, affirmative action programmes will continue to be implemented, except that these will be needs-based instead of race-based.
This should engender more equitable distribution, promote justice, enhance national unity and eliminate abuses.
The anticipated result should see ordinary Malays enjoying more benefits as the money would otherwise have been leaked through massivec orruption and cronyism.
Umno's recalcitrant leaders who are hell-bent on clinging to this racial supremacist ideology for political survival should realise that such thinking has become extinct since South Africa abandoned its apartheid policy two decades ago.
It has no place in a globalisedworld.
It is an affront to universal values, besides conflicting with fundamental values of all religions including Islam.
Finally, it is detrimental to common Malays whose interests these leaders profess to champion. Continued racial hegemony will require increased repression which, in turn, will cause more political unrest and further economic retardation.
In such a downward spiral, no community will be spared.________________________________KIM QUEK is a retired accountant and a member of PKR. He is author of'Where to, Malaysia?'.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
President-elect Obama's acceptance speech
Remarks of President-Elect Barack Obama-as prepared for deliveryElection NightTuesday, November 4th, 2008Chicago, Illinois
If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.
It’s the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen; by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the very first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different; that their voice could be that difference.
It’s the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled - Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America.
It’s the answer that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful of what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.
It’s been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.
I just received a very gracious call from Senator McCain. He fought long and hard in this campaign, and he’s fought even longer and harder for the country he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine, and we are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader. I congratulate him and Governor Palin for all they have achieved, and I look forward to working with them to renew this nation’s promise in the months ahead.
I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart and spoke for the men and women he grew up with on the streets of Scranton and rode with on that train home to Delaware, the Vice President-elect of the United States, Joe Biden.
I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last sixteen years, the rock of our family and the love of my life, our nation’s next First Lady, Michelle Obama. Sasha and Malia, I love you both so much, and you have earned the new puppy that’s coming with us to the White House. And while she’s no longer with us, I know my grandmother is watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them tonight, and know that my debt to them is beyond measure.
To my campaign manager David Plouffe, my chief strategist David Axelrod, and the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics - you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what you’ve sacrificed to get it done.
But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to - it belongs to you.
I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn’t start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington - it began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston.
It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give five dollars and ten dollars and twenty dollars to this cause. It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation’s apathy; who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep; from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on the doors of perfect strangers; from the millions of Americans who volunteered, and organized, and proved that more than two centuries later, a government of the people, by the people and for the people has not perished from this Earth. This is your victory.
I know you didn’t do this just to win an election and I know you didn’t do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime - two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us. There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after their children fall asleep and wonder how they’ll make the mortgage, or pay their doctor’s bills, or save enough for college. There is new energy to harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats to meet and alliances to repair.
The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you - we as a people will get there.
There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won’t agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government can’t solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it’s been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years - block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.
What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek - it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you.
So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it’s that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers - in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people.
Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House - a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, “We are not enemies, but friends…though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.” And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn - I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too.
And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world - our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear this world down - we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security - we support you. And to all those who have wondered if America’s beacon still burns as bright - tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.
For that is the true genius of America - that America can change. Our union can be perfected. And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.
This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that’s on my mind tonight is about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She’s a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing - Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.
She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn’t vote for two reasons - because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.
And tonight, I think about all that she’s seen throughout her century in America - the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can’t, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.
At a time when women’s voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can.
When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs and a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can.
When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can.
She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that “We Shall Overcome.” Yes we can.
A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination. And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change. Yes we can.
America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves - if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?
This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time - to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth - that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people:
Yes We Can. Thank you, God bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.
If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.
It’s the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen; by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the very first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different; that their voice could be that difference.
It’s the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled - Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America.
It’s the answer that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful of what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.
It’s been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.
I just received a very gracious call from Senator McCain. He fought long and hard in this campaign, and he’s fought even longer and harder for the country he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine, and we are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader. I congratulate him and Governor Palin for all they have achieved, and I look forward to working with them to renew this nation’s promise in the months ahead.
I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart and spoke for the men and women he grew up with on the streets of Scranton and rode with on that train home to Delaware, the Vice President-elect of the United States, Joe Biden.
I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last sixteen years, the rock of our family and the love of my life, our nation’s next First Lady, Michelle Obama. Sasha and Malia, I love you both so much, and you have earned the new puppy that’s coming with us to the White House. And while she’s no longer with us, I know my grandmother is watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them tonight, and know that my debt to them is beyond measure.
To my campaign manager David Plouffe, my chief strategist David Axelrod, and the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics - you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what you’ve sacrificed to get it done.
But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to - it belongs to you.
I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn’t start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington - it began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston.
It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give five dollars and ten dollars and twenty dollars to this cause. It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation’s apathy; who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep; from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on the doors of perfect strangers; from the millions of Americans who volunteered, and organized, and proved that more than two centuries later, a government of the people, by the people and for the people has not perished from this Earth. This is your victory.
I know you didn’t do this just to win an election and I know you didn’t do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime - two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us. There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after their children fall asleep and wonder how they’ll make the mortgage, or pay their doctor’s bills, or save enough for college. There is new energy to harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats to meet and alliances to repair.
The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you - we as a people will get there.
There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won’t agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government can’t solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it’s been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years - block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.
What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek - it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you.
So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it’s that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers - in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people.
Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House - a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, “We are not enemies, but friends…though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.” And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn - I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too.
And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world - our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear this world down - we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security - we support you. And to all those who have wondered if America’s beacon still burns as bright - tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.
For that is the true genius of America - that America can change. Our union can be perfected. And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.
This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that’s on my mind tonight is about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She’s a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing - Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.
She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn’t vote for two reasons - because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.
And tonight, I think about all that she’s seen throughout her century in America - the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can’t, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.
At a time when women’s voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can.
When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs and a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can.
When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can.
She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that “We Shall Overcome.” Yes we can.
A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination. And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change. Yes we can.
America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves - if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?
This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time - to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth - that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people:
Yes We Can. Thank you, God bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Current Global Economic Impact on Malaysia
SPEECH BY
TUN DR MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD
AT THE MAFAA DIALOGUE
AT THE SHERATON HOTEL SUBANG, PETALING JAYA
ON WEDNESDAY, 20 AUGUST 2008
—————————
“Current Global Economic Impact on Malaysia”
1. Malaysia is a trading nation. It had been one for 1800 years. It is hard to believe this but this is what I read in a paper written by an American academic who was attached to one of the Malaysian Government Universities.
2. In the beginning it was only about collecting jungle produce like gums and aromatic wood to exchange for lacquer ware, ceramic and paper etc from China. Since then we have made tremendous progress in trading. Now we produce and export, apart from raw rubber and palm oil, also microchips and electronic manufactured goods.
3. A trading nation is very sensitive to what is happening to its trading partners. Obviously when partners do well, we can expect to export more and do well ourselves. And the reverse is also true. When partners suffer from economic disease, we tend to catch the disease as well.
4. That is why you may remember we promoted the slogan “prosper thy neighbour”. When neighbours are prosperous we can expect to sell more to them and vice versa. Apart from that in these days of easy travel and porous borders we can expect a fallout from neighbours with problems in the form of illegal immigrants.
5. Today we have become a world trade centre, exporting and importing from almost 200 different countries. The economic health of these countries are important to us. And certainly the economic health of the world is extremely important to our own economic health.
6. What is the economic situation in the world today? There is turmoil and unprecedented increases in the prices of practically everything.
7. We have seen some inflation before but never on the scale we are seeing now.
8. Oil for example went up by almost 400%. Other raw materials like steel, copper, aluminium have also gone up sky high. So have food grains and edible oils.
9. The increases in prices of these basic raw materials have inflated the prices of everything else.
10. Oil is crucial to transportation, whether by land, sea or air. The sharp increase in oil price must push up the cost of everything that is transported by any means anywhere. We have as yet not found alternative fuels and improvements in fuel efficiency have not reduced consumption significantly.
11. World consumption of fuel oil goes up everyday. Although new reserves are being found and produced, production has not been able to keep up with consumption. Demand pull has increased the price a little but the ridiculous increase of 400% is more due to speculation and manipulation. On any day more oil is traded than is produced or available in storage. These activities are what cause the increase in oil price, the apparent shortages and again the greater increase in price.
12. The increase in other raw material price is due to increased demand by two economic giants, especially China. Together with India and several other Newly Industrialising countries of Asia, all developing rapidly and involved in massive construction and industries the demand for raw material like steel, copper, aluminium, rubber, edible oils, food grains has caused shortages and unprecedented increases in price. The shortage of food grains was caused by seasonal decreases in production. But this is going to happen again and again.
13. The war in Iraq is another important factor. Every United States President has promised to reduce the deficit in the U.S. budget but at the end of their terms the deficits have increased. But President Bush is going to leave to his successor the biggest budget deficit in the U.S. history. But worse than that he will leave behind a much-devalued U. S. dollar.
14. It is due to his reckless spending on tax cuts of 1.3 trillion for the rich. The war in Iraq has already cost the U.S. 3 trillion dollars according to (former World Bank Chief Economist) Joseph Stiglitz and will continue to cost more.
15. Other countries would have gone bankrupt with the twin deficits the United States suffers from. Although the United States has not, still the faith in the U.S.D. as a trading currency and as reserves has all but disappeared. The dollar is but a shadow of its former self. Once countries reject the U.S.D. as trading currency and as reserves the greenback would become quite worthless. Unfortunately the countries, including Malaysia, which hold dollar reserves will lose also. That is why countries like China, Saudi Arabia, Japan and little Singapore keep on trying to shore up the US Dollar.
16. Of course it is not just Bush who is making the US Dollar useless. It is the playing around with money by institutions and funds in the US. Loans and mortgages are sold like commodities. The amounts involved are huge. Cash has almost been outlawed as plastics of all kinds are used as money in daily transactions.
17. Banks distribute credit cards without caring whether the holders would have money to pay or not. They claim to know the average losses and therefore despite failures to meet credit card debts they would still make profits.
18. But when millions of credit cards are used worldwide the bad debts must be quite considerable. People are living on the never never as never before. But one day all these shuffling of figures in bank books must blow up.
19. Apparently that is what has happened to sub prime lending for housing. Banks and institutional funds are falling like nine-pins. The Great United States which use to tell us not to bail out bankrupt companies now put up as much as 200 billion dollars to bail out the banks and now the mortgage companies with fancy names like Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae.
20. With all these things happening to the financial sector of the United States the Dollar cannot possibly stay strong. When it weakens a lot of countries which hold reserves in US Dollar must suffer. And Malaysia too must feel it as despite very early warnings we still like a chunk of our reserves to be in US Dollar.
21. Inflation takes place all the time in every country. Certainly Malaysia is not an exception. The factors influencing inflation are internal as well as external. And as a trading nation with total trade of more than 100 billion a year, Malaysia cannot possible escape the current world wide inflation, an inflation which affects every one of our trading partners.
22. Nevertheless we would be more fortunate than most of our neighbours. This is due to the unusual rise in the prices of the commodities we export. We also export manufactured goods but the imported contents of these are high and they have all increased in price. Still the trade balance will remain much in our favour for some time.
23. What are the raw materials we export? Although we are a small producer of oil, our population is not big. After consuming about two thirds we can still export a tidy sum. Together with our foreign oil operations our revenue from oil actually exceeds our total revenue from income and corporate tax. For a country with a small oil production we have done rather well and hopefully will continue doing well for some time.
24. All the taxes and dividends from Petronas would go to the Government Consolidated funds and much of it would be used to subsidise pump prices for oil. The Government has withdrawn much of this subsidy but I think even at the higher pump price there would be some subsidy element.
25. Oil price may go down but never to the old level. So Malaysians will have to put up with high oil price.
26. Gas is subsidised by Petronas. Now gas has to be imported by Petronas at world prices. To sell it at low prices fixed by the Government for the IPPs (Independent Power Producers) would mean Petronas would have to subsidise it. Other oil companies would not want to do it. Perhaps you may have noticed that Natural Gas for motor vehicles is only sold by Petronas.
27. Over time consumption of oil and gas will exceed local supply. There will be no excess to export and to earn the money to subsidise oil and gas prices. Government revenues from other sources would not be enough to subsidise oil prices. So we will have to face this prospect of high oil prices, even if world prices go below US100 Dollar per barrel.
28. With increases in oil prices other goods and services will increase in price also. And of course the increases in raw material prices world wide will increase the cost of these at home. Construction material and construction cost must all go up.
29. Generally the impact of Current Global Economy on Malaysia would be to raise the cost of living – i.e. it will cause inflation. Now the rate of inflation is said to be 7%. This is misleading. For most ordinary people it must seem much more. Just the increase in oil price is 40%. And the increase in other food products are much higher.
30. Malaysians will be facing unprecedented inflation rate. The result must be demands for increases in wages and salaries. This must add to cost and will contribute to increases in prices of local products as well as exported goods.
31. But then the increases in oil and raw material costs must affect other countries too. Our competitors would not be free from high inflation. So the competitive advantage of the low labour cost countries would not increase much as their costs would also have to go up.
32. But oil is not the only raw material we export. We also export palm oil and rubber together with some tin, pepper and cocoa. All these have increased in price and will therefore increase our export earnings. In fact the present increase in the value of our trade and the surplus are mainly due to the increases in oil, palm oil and rubber prices.
33. The raw material price increases are far more beneficial to us than the increase in the price of manufactured goods. This is because much of the manufactured goods have imported contents which have all increased in price. The profit margin may not increase percentage-wise. Besides although the figure for exports of manufactured good may be quite high, we would earn little for they are mostly tax-free.
34. Still manufacturing will remain important because of the employment of large numbers of people. Unfortunately more foreigners would be likely to be employed and their remittance would be very substantial. The outflow of cash would be quite substantial.
35. Although the cost of travelling would go up, there will continue to be more tourists coming to Malaysia. This is because our main source of tourists are China and other Asian countries. These countries are likely to grow higher than world average and more people would be wage earners in new industries. They would want to travel.
36. Initially the people in newly industrialising countries would go to places closer to their countries. We are close to all these countries and so we would benefit from the economic growth of these countries. Our tourist industry does not depend on Europe or America. So the reduction in the numbers of European and American tourists will not affect us.
37. Although palm oil and rubber production can go on producing forever, but Malaysia is short of land. More and more of our estates would be developed in foreign land. This will contribute to our economy.
38. Malaysia’s growth will slow down as much because of global regression as by local factors. What is certain however is that we will have a high cost environment domestically and internationally? All countries will have to learn to deal with this new global and domestic environment.
39. For a time we would be less negatively affected than most other developing countries. But eventually we will have to face the fact of a world in economic turmoil, a high cost world and a shifting of the centers of growth from the West to the East.
40. When finally the world learns to live in this environment Malaysia will find everything has changed. The old comfortable way of growing the economy will be gone. Whether Malaysia will emerge better off or worse would depend upon our understanding of the changes and the adjustment we will make. We will see our trade and our growth becoming more influenced by the countries of Asia, in particular China and India. The increasing wealth of the Gulf States will also change the direction of our trade and the sources of foreign investments.
41. Investments from the oil-rich states would be largely in property development. If we succeed in training our workforce we may continue to attract high-tech industries.
42. Of course the impact on Malaysia of current global economic changes would depend much on how we adjust to them and how we manage them.
TUN DR MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD
AT THE MAFAA DIALOGUE
AT THE SHERATON HOTEL SUBANG, PETALING JAYA
ON WEDNESDAY, 20 AUGUST 2008
—————————
“Current Global Economic Impact on Malaysia”
1. Malaysia is a trading nation. It had been one for 1800 years. It is hard to believe this but this is what I read in a paper written by an American academic who was attached to one of the Malaysian Government Universities.
2. In the beginning it was only about collecting jungle produce like gums and aromatic wood to exchange for lacquer ware, ceramic and paper etc from China. Since then we have made tremendous progress in trading. Now we produce and export, apart from raw rubber and palm oil, also microchips and electronic manufactured goods.
3. A trading nation is very sensitive to what is happening to its trading partners. Obviously when partners do well, we can expect to export more and do well ourselves. And the reverse is also true. When partners suffer from economic disease, we tend to catch the disease as well.
4. That is why you may remember we promoted the slogan “prosper thy neighbour”. When neighbours are prosperous we can expect to sell more to them and vice versa. Apart from that in these days of easy travel and porous borders we can expect a fallout from neighbours with problems in the form of illegal immigrants.
5. Today we have become a world trade centre, exporting and importing from almost 200 different countries. The economic health of these countries are important to us. And certainly the economic health of the world is extremely important to our own economic health.
6. What is the economic situation in the world today? There is turmoil and unprecedented increases in the prices of practically everything.
7. We have seen some inflation before but never on the scale we are seeing now.
8. Oil for example went up by almost 400%. Other raw materials like steel, copper, aluminium have also gone up sky high. So have food grains and edible oils.
9. The increases in prices of these basic raw materials have inflated the prices of everything else.
10. Oil is crucial to transportation, whether by land, sea or air. The sharp increase in oil price must push up the cost of everything that is transported by any means anywhere. We have as yet not found alternative fuels and improvements in fuel efficiency have not reduced consumption significantly.
11. World consumption of fuel oil goes up everyday. Although new reserves are being found and produced, production has not been able to keep up with consumption. Demand pull has increased the price a little but the ridiculous increase of 400% is more due to speculation and manipulation. On any day more oil is traded than is produced or available in storage. These activities are what cause the increase in oil price, the apparent shortages and again the greater increase in price.
12. The increase in other raw material price is due to increased demand by two economic giants, especially China. Together with India and several other Newly Industrialising countries of Asia, all developing rapidly and involved in massive construction and industries the demand for raw material like steel, copper, aluminium, rubber, edible oils, food grains has caused shortages and unprecedented increases in price. The shortage of food grains was caused by seasonal decreases in production. But this is going to happen again and again.
13. The war in Iraq is another important factor. Every United States President has promised to reduce the deficit in the U.S. budget but at the end of their terms the deficits have increased. But President Bush is going to leave to his successor the biggest budget deficit in the U.S. history. But worse than that he will leave behind a much-devalued U. S. dollar.
14. It is due to his reckless spending on tax cuts of 1.3 trillion for the rich. The war in Iraq has already cost the U.S. 3 trillion dollars according to (former World Bank Chief Economist) Joseph Stiglitz and will continue to cost more.
15. Other countries would have gone bankrupt with the twin deficits the United States suffers from. Although the United States has not, still the faith in the U.S.D. as a trading currency and as reserves has all but disappeared. The dollar is but a shadow of its former self. Once countries reject the U.S.D. as trading currency and as reserves the greenback would become quite worthless. Unfortunately the countries, including Malaysia, which hold dollar reserves will lose also. That is why countries like China, Saudi Arabia, Japan and little Singapore keep on trying to shore up the US Dollar.
16. Of course it is not just Bush who is making the US Dollar useless. It is the playing around with money by institutions and funds in the US. Loans and mortgages are sold like commodities. The amounts involved are huge. Cash has almost been outlawed as plastics of all kinds are used as money in daily transactions.
17. Banks distribute credit cards without caring whether the holders would have money to pay or not. They claim to know the average losses and therefore despite failures to meet credit card debts they would still make profits.
18. But when millions of credit cards are used worldwide the bad debts must be quite considerable. People are living on the never never as never before. But one day all these shuffling of figures in bank books must blow up.
19. Apparently that is what has happened to sub prime lending for housing. Banks and institutional funds are falling like nine-pins. The Great United States which use to tell us not to bail out bankrupt companies now put up as much as 200 billion dollars to bail out the banks and now the mortgage companies with fancy names like Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae.
20. With all these things happening to the financial sector of the United States the Dollar cannot possibly stay strong. When it weakens a lot of countries which hold reserves in US Dollar must suffer. And Malaysia too must feel it as despite very early warnings we still like a chunk of our reserves to be in US Dollar.
21. Inflation takes place all the time in every country. Certainly Malaysia is not an exception. The factors influencing inflation are internal as well as external. And as a trading nation with total trade of more than 100 billion a year, Malaysia cannot possible escape the current world wide inflation, an inflation which affects every one of our trading partners.
22. Nevertheless we would be more fortunate than most of our neighbours. This is due to the unusual rise in the prices of the commodities we export. We also export manufactured goods but the imported contents of these are high and they have all increased in price. Still the trade balance will remain much in our favour for some time.
23. What are the raw materials we export? Although we are a small producer of oil, our population is not big. After consuming about two thirds we can still export a tidy sum. Together with our foreign oil operations our revenue from oil actually exceeds our total revenue from income and corporate tax. For a country with a small oil production we have done rather well and hopefully will continue doing well for some time.
24. All the taxes and dividends from Petronas would go to the Government Consolidated funds and much of it would be used to subsidise pump prices for oil. The Government has withdrawn much of this subsidy but I think even at the higher pump price there would be some subsidy element.
25. Oil price may go down but never to the old level. So Malaysians will have to put up with high oil price.
26. Gas is subsidised by Petronas. Now gas has to be imported by Petronas at world prices. To sell it at low prices fixed by the Government for the IPPs (Independent Power Producers) would mean Petronas would have to subsidise it. Other oil companies would not want to do it. Perhaps you may have noticed that Natural Gas for motor vehicles is only sold by Petronas.
27. Over time consumption of oil and gas will exceed local supply. There will be no excess to export and to earn the money to subsidise oil and gas prices. Government revenues from other sources would not be enough to subsidise oil prices. So we will have to face this prospect of high oil prices, even if world prices go below US100 Dollar per barrel.
28. With increases in oil prices other goods and services will increase in price also. And of course the increases in raw material prices world wide will increase the cost of these at home. Construction material and construction cost must all go up.
29. Generally the impact of Current Global Economy on Malaysia would be to raise the cost of living – i.e. it will cause inflation. Now the rate of inflation is said to be 7%. This is misleading. For most ordinary people it must seem much more. Just the increase in oil price is 40%. And the increase in other food products are much higher.
30. Malaysians will be facing unprecedented inflation rate. The result must be demands for increases in wages and salaries. This must add to cost and will contribute to increases in prices of local products as well as exported goods.
31. But then the increases in oil and raw material costs must affect other countries too. Our competitors would not be free from high inflation. So the competitive advantage of the low labour cost countries would not increase much as their costs would also have to go up.
32. But oil is not the only raw material we export. We also export palm oil and rubber together with some tin, pepper and cocoa. All these have increased in price and will therefore increase our export earnings. In fact the present increase in the value of our trade and the surplus are mainly due to the increases in oil, palm oil and rubber prices.
33. The raw material price increases are far more beneficial to us than the increase in the price of manufactured goods. This is because much of the manufactured goods have imported contents which have all increased in price. The profit margin may not increase percentage-wise. Besides although the figure for exports of manufactured good may be quite high, we would earn little for they are mostly tax-free.
34. Still manufacturing will remain important because of the employment of large numbers of people. Unfortunately more foreigners would be likely to be employed and their remittance would be very substantial. The outflow of cash would be quite substantial.
35. Although the cost of travelling would go up, there will continue to be more tourists coming to Malaysia. This is because our main source of tourists are China and other Asian countries. These countries are likely to grow higher than world average and more people would be wage earners in new industries. They would want to travel.
36. Initially the people in newly industrialising countries would go to places closer to their countries. We are close to all these countries and so we would benefit from the economic growth of these countries. Our tourist industry does not depend on Europe or America. So the reduction in the numbers of European and American tourists will not affect us.
37. Although palm oil and rubber production can go on producing forever, but Malaysia is short of land. More and more of our estates would be developed in foreign land. This will contribute to our economy.
38. Malaysia’s growth will slow down as much because of global regression as by local factors. What is certain however is that we will have a high cost environment domestically and internationally? All countries will have to learn to deal with this new global and domestic environment.
39. For a time we would be less negatively affected than most other developing countries. But eventually we will have to face the fact of a world in economic turmoil, a high cost world and a shifting of the centers of growth from the West to the East.
40. When finally the world learns to live in this environment Malaysia will find everything has changed. The old comfortable way of growing the economy will be gone. Whether Malaysia will emerge better off or worse would depend upon our understanding of the changes and the adjustment we will make. We will see our trade and our growth becoming more influenced by the countries of Asia, in particular China and India. The increasing wealth of the Gulf States will also change the direction of our trade and the sources of foreign investments.
41. Investments from the oil-rich states would be largely in property development. If we succeed in training our workforce we may continue to attract high-tech industries.
42. Of course the impact on Malaysia of current global economic changes would depend much on how we adjust to them and how we manage them.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
PM moots idea of direct membership
The Star Paper today reports:
Sunday October 12, 2008
PM moots idea of direct membership
The Prime Minister has mooted setting up a “new group” in Barisan Nasional to enable supporters to enrol as direct members instead of having to join its component parties. Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said this multi-racial membership would not only make Barisan more inclusive but could be a good beginning for its reform.
My commentws: It is a good idea! For a start to start moving toward a multiracial party. Hopefully, they will set a time frame to dissolve all the rest of the component parties including Umno. Even if it takes 5 0r 10 years.
If not it will become a ploy! This is because the aim of becoming a multiracial party is not being pursued. What do you get at the end? You get all the rest of the racial based parties like Umno, MAC and MIC running with other component parties, how are the individuals who come in to BN compete in a party alone?
Sunday October 12, 2008
PM moots idea of direct membership
The Prime Minister has mooted setting up a “new group” in Barisan Nasional to enable supporters to enrol as direct members instead of having to join its component parties. Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said this multi-racial membership would not only make Barisan more inclusive but could be a good beginning for its reform.
My commentws: It is a good idea! For a start to start moving toward a multiracial party. Hopefully, they will set a time frame to dissolve all the rest of the component parties including Umno. Even if it takes 5 0r 10 years.
If not it will become a ploy! This is because the aim of becoming a multiracial party is not being pursued. What do you get at the end? You get all the rest of the racial based parties like Umno, MAC and MIC running with other component parties, how are the individuals who come in to BN compete in a party alone?
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Wise Decision And A Class Act
by M. Bakri Musa
Prime Minister Abdullah’s decision to resign is wise. That decision is good for him, his party, and most of all, for our nation. I am certain it was not easy for him to reach that decision but in the end he did it, “guided by my conscience” and placing “the interests of the nation above all else.”
I applaud him, especially considering the intense last minute pleas by his many well-meaning supporters. It was a decision that was not expected by many, yours truly included. This is one instance where I am only too happy to acknowledge my misjudgment of the man.
Abdullah’s plaintive admission, “I know I’ve not been doing well; it’s time for someone else to take over,” must come only after the most difficult introspection. To admit to one’s limitations is never easy, especially for a leader, as there are always supplicants and subordinates who are only too willing to filter the harsh reality. Some leaders never get it at all. Saddam Hussein went to the gallows still believing that he was Allah’s gift to the Arabs.
I applaud Abdullah’s wise decision for another important reason. I never underestimate the potential multiplier effect of a single good decision. Properly seized upon, it will lead to many other positive consequences. Already judging from his resignation statement, Abdullah is now all the more committed to reforming the anti-corruption agency and the process of judicial appointments, among others.
Freed of the burden of his political future, and fully aware that these last few months could well determine his legacy, Abdullah will hopefully be more focused.Dignified Statement
Abdullah ready set a standard of sorts in the dignified manner in which he announced his stepping down. He made sure that his cabinet colleagues and fellow leaders in the Barisan Nasional coalition hear of his decision first, in private, and directly from him.
When he made his statement, it was a formal affair, surrounded by his cabinet colleagues and fellow UMNO leaders. He also read from a prepared text; this was not the occasion to ad lib. His tone was proper; his body language and emotions displayed appropriate. He did not blame anyone, nor did he express regret. There was no hint of personal disappointment or a sense of being betrayed. Abdullah gave proper due to the serious occasion.
As well he should. The country has been good to him; he had the privilege of serving the highest office in the land, granted only to a lucky few.
The content of his announcement may have surprised many, but not its timing. There was no unexpected statement that would shock the audience and move them to public hysteria. Nor was there uncontrolled sobbing of his supporters, as the embarrassing public spectacle that accompanied Mahathir’s first announcement of his retirement.
When there are no public tears, then the question whether those displays of emotions are genuine does not arise. As we now know from subsequent events, those earlier hysterical displays of affection as shown by the likes of Rafidah Aziz during Mahathir’s announcement of his retirement were a fraud. Those histrionics were more for public consumption rather than genuine expressions from the heart.
In his resignation statement, Abdullah wisely avoided anointing his successor. He expressed only the hope that Najib would take over, and reemphasized that point in case it was missed. This was not a lukewarm endorsement for Najib or an attempt at getting even with him, rather Abdullah’s correct reading of our constitution.
The leadership of our land has to be earned. It is not your private heirloom to be passed on to a member of the next generation who strikes your fancy. Abdullah is correct in reminding everyone that Najib first has to win UMNO’s presidency.
Abdullah showed great wisdom, besides not being presumptuous, in not even hinting who Najib should pick as his deputy should he win UMNO’s presidency.
Abdullah’s Five Goals
To his credit Abdullah articulated five goals he wished to accomplish in the remaining few months of his tenure. I would be satisfied if he could accomplish two, or at most three. Apart from strengthening the Anti-Corruption Agency and setting up the Judicial Appointment Commission, Malaysians would be satisfied if he were to establish an effective social safety net.
Those three objectives are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, they are closely related. If we have a judicial system that has the respect and confidence of the people, that would go a long way towards reducing corruption. And by eradicating corruption, then we would have enough resources to devote to helping the needy. We have currently wonderful programs for the poor, at least they are on paper, but because of endemic corruption and abusive political patronage, those programs suffer through considerable leakages.
There is one major reform, supported by many in UMNO, that Abdullah could initiate. That is, remove the current onerous burden placed on challengers to senior party leaders. Instead, relax the rules such that anyone with the minimal number of nominations by individuals, not divisions, could compete. When no candidate could secure a majority vote, then have a run-off election between the top two vote getters.
Abdullah’s calls for a convention of his Barisan coalition parties “to improve inter-racial and inter-religious relations.” I respectfully suggest a more modest and readily achievable goal: focus on improving UMNO. Leave the coalition alone. A clean, strong and effective UMNO will mean an equally clean, strong and effective Barisan.
Such a simple and easily implemented reform initiative would effectively dent the corrosive powers of the party’s warlords that have created the cesspool of money politics. By removing this onerous nominating barrier, the divisional meetings currently underway this month would become mute, at least as far as nominating candidates are concerned. Perhaps then those meetings could become more meaningful with members using these opportunities to discuss substantive policy matters instead of trying to create camps around personalities. That would also elevate the deliberative levels of those meetings to the benefit of the members and UMNO.
Only by opening up the nominating process and encouraging as wide a field of candidates as possible, could UMNO attract and produce its own Barack Obama. All Malaysians, not just UMNO members, would then benefit.
Those four objectives, three for the nation and one for UMNO, are well within Abdullah’s reach. Focus on them, and Abdullah would be able to redeem his leadership. That would be a legacy worth striving for.
Prime Minister Abdullah’s decision to resign is wise. That decision is good for him, his party, and most of all, for our nation. I am certain it was not easy for him to reach that decision but in the end he did it, “guided by my conscience” and placing “the interests of the nation above all else.”
I applaud him, especially considering the intense last minute pleas by his many well-meaning supporters. It was a decision that was not expected by many, yours truly included. This is one instance where I am only too happy to acknowledge my misjudgment of the man.
Abdullah’s plaintive admission, “I know I’ve not been doing well; it’s time for someone else to take over,” must come only after the most difficult introspection. To admit to one’s limitations is never easy, especially for a leader, as there are always supplicants and subordinates who are only too willing to filter the harsh reality. Some leaders never get it at all. Saddam Hussein went to the gallows still believing that he was Allah’s gift to the Arabs.
I applaud Abdullah’s wise decision for another important reason. I never underestimate the potential multiplier effect of a single good decision. Properly seized upon, it will lead to many other positive consequences. Already judging from his resignation statement, Abdullah is now all the more committed to reforming the anti-corruption agency and the process of judicial appointments, among others.
Freed of the burden of his political future, and fully aware that these last few months could well determine his legacy, Abdullah will hopefully be more focused.Dignified Statement
Abdullah ready set a standard of sorts in the dignified manner in which he announced his stepping down. He made sure that his cabinet colleagues and fellow leaders in the Barisan Nasional coalition hear of his decision first, in private, and directly from him.
When he made his statement, it was a formal affair, surrounded by his cabinet colleagues and fellow UMNO leaders. He also read from a prepared text; this was not the occasion to ad lib. His tone was proper; his body language and emotions displayed appropriate. He did not blame anyone, nor did he express regret. There was no hint of personal disappointment or a sense of being betrayed. Abdullah gave proper due to the serious occasion.
As well he should. The country has been good to him; he had the privilege of serving the highest office in the land, granted only to a lucky few.
The content of his announcement may have surprised many, but not its timing. There was no unexpected statement that would shock the audience and move them to public hysteria. Nor was there uncontrolled sobbing of his supporters, as the embarrassing public spectacle that accompanied Mahathir’s first announcement of his retirement.
When there are no public tears, then the question whether those displays of emotions are genuine does not arise. As we now know from subsequent events, those earlier hysterical displays of affection as shown by the likes of Rafidah Aziz during Mahathir’s announcement of his retirement were a fraud. Those histrionics were more for public consumption rather than genuine expressions from the heart.
In his resignation statement, Abdullah wisely avoided anointing his successor. He expressed only the hope that Najib would take over, and reemphasized that point in case it was missed. This was not a lukewarm endorsement for Najib or an attempt at getting even with him, rather Abdullah’s correct reading of our constitution.
The leadership of our land has to be earned. It is not your private heirloom to be passed on to a member of the next generation who strikes your fancy. Abdullah is correct in reminding everyone that Najib first has to win UMNO’s presidency.
Abdullah showed great wisdom, besides not being presumptuous, in not even hinting who Najib should pick as his deputy should he win UMNO’s presidency.
Abdullah’s Five Goals
To his credit Abdullah articulated five goals he wished to accomplish in the remaining few months of his tenure. I would be satisfied if he could accomplish two, or at most three. Apart from strengthening the Anti-Corruption Agency and setting up the Judicial Appointment Commission, Malaysians would be satisfied if he were to establish an effective social safety net.
Those three objectives are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, they are closely related. If we have a judicial system that has the respect and confidence of the people, that would go a long way towards reducing corruption. And by eradicating corruption, then we would have enough resources to devote to helping the needy. We have currently wonderful programs for the poor, at least they are on paper, but because of endemic corruption and abusive political patronage, those programs suffer through considerable leakages.
There is one major reform, supported by many in UMNO, that Abdullah could initiate. That is, remove the current onerous burden placed on challengers to senior party leaders. Instead, relax the rules such that anyone with the minimal number of nominations by individuals, not divisions, could compete. When no candidate could secure a majority vote, then have a run-off election between the top two vote getters.
Abdullah’s calls for a convention of his Barisan coalition parties “to improve inter-racial and inter-religious relations.” I respectfully suggest a more modest and readily achievable goal: focus on improving UMNO. Leave the coalition alone. A clean, strong and effective UMNO will mean an equally clean, strong and effective Barisan.
Such a simple and easily implemented reform initiative would effectively dent the corrosive powers of the party’s warlords that have created the cesspool of money politics. By removing this onerous nominating barrier, the divisional meetings currently underway this month would become mute, at least as far as nominating candidates are concerned. Perhaps then those meetings could become more meaningful with members using these opportunities to discuss substantive policy matters instead of trying to create camps around personalities. That would also elevate the deliberative levels of those meetings to the benefit of the members and UMNO.
Only by opening up the nominating process and encouraging as wide a field of candidates as possible, could UMNO attract and produce its own Barack Obama. All Malaysians, not just UMNO members, would then benefit.
Those four objectives, three for the nation and one for UMNO, are well within Abdullah’s reach. Focus on them, and Abdullah would be able to redeem his leadership. That would be a legacy worth striving for.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
PM to end guessing game
Today the Sun paper reports on the front page that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi will announce today or tomorrow whether he will defend his position as Umno president or make way for his deputy Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak at the party polls in March.What caught my eye on the report was: Abdullah said for now, he wanted to focus on the reforms that he had promised the rakyat, "I know the law minister (referring to Datuk Zaid Ibrahim who resigned) is not around anymore to undertake this, but that does not mean that it must stop...it (judicial reform) is not his idea, it was mine in the 2004 (BN) manifesto and what I promised I must deliver."I really hope, I think it is the hope of all people wanting to see the judicial reform made as soon as possible. It is better late(imagine it was his manifesto in 2004,not done yet) than never! If he succeed in the reform, he will leave a legacy for correcting the wrongs left by Mahathir. Better still, I hope he wll abolish the draconian ISA and release all detainees arrested under ISA. If they have done anything wrong they should be charged in court.According to what he just said, it will be logical, for him to contest the Umno president post. Let's wait and see.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Abolish ISA once and for all by Zaid
Zaid Ibrahim writes open letter to PM
Sep 30, 08 1:53pm
In our proclamation of independence, our first prime minister gave voice to the lofty aspirations and dreams of the people of Malaya: that Malaya was founded on the principles of liberty and justice, and the promise that collectively we would always strive to improve the welfare and happiness of its people.
MCPX
Many years have passed since that momentous occasion and those aspirations and dreams remain true and are as relevant to us today as they were then. This was made possible by a strong grasp of fundamentals in the early period of this nation.The federal constitution and the laws made pursuant to it were well founded; they embodied the key elements of a democracy built on the rule of law. The Malaysian judiciary once commanded great respect from Malaysians and was hailed as a beacon for other nations.
Our earlier prime ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein Onn were truly leaders of integrity, patriots in their own right and most importantly, men of humility. They believed in and built this nation on the principles and values enunciated in our constitution. Even when they had to enact the Internal Security Act (ISA) 1960, they were very cautious and apologetic about it. Tunku stated clearly that the Act was passed to deal with the communist threat.“My cabinet colleagues and I gave a solemn promise to Parliament and the nation that the immense powers given to the government under the ISA would never be used to stifle legitimate opposition and silent lawful dissent”, was what the Tunku said.
Our third prime minister, Tun Hussein Onn, reinforced this position by saying that the ISA was not intended to repress lawful political opposition and democratic activity on the part of the citizenry. Gov’t has failed the peopleThe events of the last three weeks have compelled me to review the way in which the ISA has been used. This exercise has sadly led me to the conclusion that the government has time and time again failed the people of this country in repeatedly reneging on that solemn promise made by Tunku Abdul Rahman.
This has been made possible because the government and the law have mistakenly allowed the minister of home affairs to detain anyone for whatever reason he thinks fit. This subjective discretion has been abused to further certain political interests. History is the great teacher and speaks volumes in this regard. Even a cursory examination of the manner in which the ISA has been used almost from its inception would reveal the extent to which its intended purpose has been subjugated to the politics of the day. Regrettably, Tunku Abdul Rahman himself reneged on his promise. In 1965, his administration detained Burhanuddin Helmi, the truly towering Malay intellectual, a nationalist who happened to be a PAS leader. He was kept in detention until his death in 1969. Helmi was a political opponent and could by no stretch of the imagination be considered to have been involved in the armed rebellion or communism that the ISA was designed to deal with.This detention was an aberration, a regrettable moment where politics had been permitted to trump the rule of law. It unfortunately appears to have set a precedent and many detentions of persons viewed as having been threatening to the incumbent administration followed through the years.
Even our literary giant, ‘sasterawan negara’ the late Tan Sri A Samad Ismail was subjected to the ISA in 1976. How could he have been a threat to national security? I need not remind you of the terrible impact of the 1987 Operasi Lalang. Its spectre haunts the government as much as it does the peace-loving people of this nation, casting a gloom over all of us. There were and still are many unanswered questions about those dark hours when more than a hundred persons were detained for purportedly being threats to national security. Why they were detained has never been made clear to Malaysians.Similarly, no explanation has been forthcoming as to why they were never charged in court. Those detainees included amongst their numbers senior opposition members of parliament who are still active in Parliament today.
The only thing that is certain about that period was that Umno was facing a leadership crisis. Isn’t it coincidental that the recent spate of ISA arrests has occurred when Umno is again having a leadership crisis? ‘Militant’ Ezam back in Umno In 2001, Keadilan ‘reformasi’ activists were detained in an exercise that the Federal Court declared was in bad faith and unlawful. The continued detention of those that were not released earlier in the Kamunting detention facility was made possible only by the fact that the ISA had been questionably amended in 1988 to preclude judicial review of the minister’s order to detain.Malaysians were told that these detainees had been attempting to overthrow the government via militant means and violent demonstrations. Seven years have gone and yet no evidence in support of this assertion has been presented. Compounding the confusion even further, one of these so-called militants, Ezam Mohamad Noor, recently rejoined Umno to great fanfare, as a prized catch it would seem. At around the same time, members of PAS were also detained for purportedly being militant and allegedly having links to international terrorist networks. Those detained included Nik Adli, the son of Tuan Guru Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, the menteri besar of Kelantan. Malaysians were made a promise by the government that evidence of the alleged terrorist activities and links of these detainees would be disclosed. To date no such evidence has been produced. The same formula was used in late 2007 when the Hindraf 5 were detained. Malaysians were told once again that these individuals were involved in efforts to overthrow the government and had links with the militant Liberation Tiger of Tamil Eelam of Sri Lanka. To date no concrete evidence have been presented to support this assertion.It would seem therefore that the five were detained for their involvement in efforts that led to a mobilisation of Indian Malaysians to express, through peaceful means; their frustration against the way in which their community had been allowed to be marginalised. This cause has since been recognised as a legitimate one. The Hindraf demonstration is nothing extraordinary as such assemblies are universally recognised as being a legitimate means of expression. In the same vein, the grounds advanced in support of the most recent detentions of Tan Hoon Cheng, Teresa Kok and Raja Petra Kamarudin leave much to be desired. The explanation that Tan Hoon Cheng was detained for her own safety was farcical. The suggestion that Teresa Kok had been inciting religious sentiments was unfounded as was evinced by her subsequent release. As for Raja Petra Kamarudin, the prominent critic of the government, a perusal of his writings would show that he might have been insulting of the government and certain individuals within it.
However, being critical and insulting could not in any way amount to a threat to national security. If his writings are viewed as being insulting of Islam, Muslims or the Holy Prophet (pbuh), he should instead be charged under the Penal Code and not under the ISA.In any event, he had already been charged for sedition and criminal defamation in respect of some of his statements. He had claimed trial, indicating as such his readiness and ability to defend himself. Justice would best be served by allowing him his day in court more so where, in the minds of the public, the government is in a position of conflict for having been the target of his strident criticism. Law used against dissidents The instances cited above strongly suggest that the government is undemocratic. It is this perspective that has over the last 25 plus years led to the government seemingly arbitrarily detaining political opponents, civil society and consumer advocates, writers, businessmen, students, journalists whose crime, if it could be called that, was to have been critical of the government.How it is these individuals can be perceived as being threats to national security is beyond my comprehension. The self-evident reality is that legitimate dissent was and is quashed through the heavy-handed use of the ISA. There are those who support and advocate this carte-blanche reading of the ISA. They will seek to persuade you that the interests of the country demand that such power be retained, that Malaysians owe their peace and stability to laws such as the ISA. This overlooks the simple truth that Malaysians of all races cherish peace. We lived together harmoniously for the last 400 years, not because of these laws but in spite of them.I believe the people of this country are mature and intelligent enough to distinguish actions that constitute a ‘real’ threat to the country from those that threaten political interests. Malaysians have come know that the ISA is used against political opponents and, it would seem, when the leadership is under challenge either from within the ruling party or from external elements. Malaysians today want to see a government that is committed to the court process to determine guilt or innocence even for alleged acts of incitement of racial or religious sentiment. They are less willing to believe, as they once did, that a single individual, namely the minister of home affairs; knows best about matters of national security.
They value freedom and the protection of civil liberties and this is true of people of other nations too. I attempted to push for reform Mr Prime Minister, the results of the last general election are clear indication that the people of Malaysia are demanding a reinstatement of the rule of law. I was appointed as your, albeit short-lived, minister in charge of legal affairs and judicial reform.
In that capacity, I came to understand more keenly how many of us want reform, not for the sake of it, but for the extent to which our institutions have been undermined by events and the impact this has had on society. With your blessing, I attempted to push for reform. High on my list of priorities was a reinstatement of the inherent right of judicial review that could be enabled through a reversion of the key constitutional provision to its form prior to the controversial amendment in 1988.
I need not remind you that that constitutional amendment was prompted by the same series of events that led not only to Operasi Lalang but the sacking of the then Lord President and two supreme court justices.Chief amongst my concerns was the way in which the jurisdiction and the power of the courts to grant remedy against unconstitutional and arbitrary action of the executive had been removed by Parliament and the extent to which this had permitted an erosion of the civil liberties of Malaysians.
It was this constitutional amendment that paved the way for the ouster provision in the ISA that virtually immunises the minister from judicial review, a provision which exemplifies the injustice the constitutional amendment of 1988 has lent itself. I also sought to introduce means by which steps could be taken to assist the judiciary to regain the reputation for independence and competence it once had. Unfortunately, this was viewed as undesirable by some since an independent judiciary would mean that the executive would be less ‘influential’. I attempted to do these things and more because of the realisation that Malaysia’s democratic traditions and the rule of law are under siege. Anyway, there is nothing wrong with giving everyone an independent judiciary and the opportunity to a fair trial.
This is consistent with the universal norms of human rights as it is with the tenets of Islam, the religion of the federation. Unchecked power to detain at the whim of one man is oppressiveness at its highest. Even in Israel, a nation that is perpetually at war the power to detain is not vested in one man and detention orders require endorsement from a judge. If there are national security considerations, then these can be approached without jettisoning the safeguards intended to protect individual citizens from being penalised wrongfully. In other jurisdictions involved in armed conflicts, trials are held in camera to allow for judicial scrutiny of evidence considered too sensitive for public disclosure so as to satisfy the ends of justice.
If this can be done in these jurisdictions, why not here where the last armed struggle we saw, the very one that precipitated the need for the ISA, came to an end in the 1980s?ISA was never intended to be permanentAny doubts as to the continued relevance of the ISA in its present form should have been put to rest by the recommendation by the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) that the ISA be repealed and an anti-terror legislation suited to the times enacted in its place. Containing as it did a sunset clause in its original times, the ISA was never intended to be a permanent feature on the Malaysian legal landscape. Through its continued use in the manner described above and in the face of public sentiment, it is only natural that the ISA has become in the mind of the people an instrument of oppression and the government is one that lends itself to oppressiveness.
Its continued use does not bode well for a society that is struggling to find its place in the global arena. It does not bode well for the democracy that is so vital for us to develop sustainably. Mr Prime Minister, I remember very clearly what you once said; that if one has the opportunity to do what is good and right for the country, then he must take on the task. I respect you deeply for that and if I were confident that I would have been able to do some good for Malaysia, I would have remained on your team.
Sir, you are still the prime minister and you still have the opportunity to leave your footprint in Malaysian history. I urge you to do so by repealing the ISA once and for all. Let us attempt to fulfil that solemn promise made by our beloved first prime minister to the people of this country. Yours sincerely Zaid Ibrahim
Sep 30, 08 1:53pm
In our proclamation of independence, our first prime minister gave voice to the lofty aspirations and dreams of the people of Malaya: that Malaya was founded on the principles of liberty and justice, and the promise that collectively we would always strive to improve the welfare and happiness of its people.
MCPX
Many years have passed since that momentous occasion and those aspirations and dreams remain true and are as relevant to us today as they were then. This was made possible by a strong grasp of fundamentals in the early period of this nation.The federal constitution and the laws made pursuant to it were well founded; they embodied the key elements of a democracy built on the rule of law. The Malaysian judiciary once commanded great respect from Malaysians and was hailed as a beacon for other nations.
Our earlier prime ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein Onn were truly leaders of integrity, patriots in their own right and most importantly, men of humility. They believed in and built this nation on the principles and values enunciated in our constitution. Even when they had to enact the Internal Security Act (ISA) 1960, they were very cautious and apologetic about it. Tunku stated clearly that the Act was passed to deal with the communist threat.“My cabinet colleagues and I gave a solemn promise to Parliament and the nation that the immense powers given to the government under the ISA would never be used to stifle legitimate opposition and silent lawful dissent”, was what the Tunku said.
Our third prime minister, Tun Hussein Onn, reinforced this position by saying that the ISA was not intended to repress lawful political opposition and democratic activity on the part of the citizenry. Gov’t has failed the peopleThe events of the last three weeks have compelled me to review the way in which the ISA has been used. This exercise has sadly led me to the conclusion that the government has time and time again failed the people of this country in repeatedly reneging on that solemn promise made by Tunku Abdul Rahman.
This has been made possible because the government and the law have mistakenly allowed the minister of home affairs to detain anyone for whatever reason he thinks fit. This subjective discretion has been abused to further certain political interests. History is the great teacher and speaks volumes in this regard. Even a cursory examination of the manner in which the ISA has been used almost from its inception would reveal the extent to which its intended purpose has been subjugated to the politics of the day. Regrettably, Tunku Abdul Rahman himself reneged on his promise. In 1965, his administration detained Burhanuddin Helmi, the truly towering Malay intellectual, a nationalist who happened to be a PAS leader. He was kept in detention until his death in 1969. Helmi was a political opponent and could by no stretch of the imagination be considered to have been involved in the armed rebellion or communism that the ISA was designed to deal with.This detention was an aberration, a regrettable moment where politics had been permitted to trump the rule of law. It unfortunately appears to have set a precedent and many detentions of persons viewed as having been threatening to the incumbent administration followed through the years.
Even our literary giant, ‘sasterawan negara’ the late Tan Sri A Samad Ismail was subjected to the ISA in 1976. How could he have been a threat to national security? I need not remind you of the terrible impact of the 1987 Operasi Lalang. Its spectre haunts the government as much as it does the peace-loving people of this nation, casting a gloom over all of us. There were and still are many unanswered questions about those dark hours when more than a hundred persons were detained for purportedly being threats to national security. Why they were detained has never been made clear to Malaysians.Similarly, no explanation has been forthcoming as to why they were never charged in court. Those detainees included amongst their numbers senior opposition members of parliament who are still active in Parliament today.
The only thing that is certain about that period was that Umno was facing a leadership crisis. Isn’t it coincidental that the recent spate of ISA arrests has occurred when Umno is again having a leadership crisis? ‘Militant’ Ezam back in Umno In 2001, Keadilan ‘reformasi’ activists were detained in an exercise that the Federal Court declared was in bad faith and unlawful. The continued detention of those that were not released earlier in the Kamunting detention facility was made possible only by the fact that the ISA had been questionably amended in 1988 to preclude judicial review of the minister’s order to detain.Malaysians were told that these detainees had been attempting to overthrow the government via militant means and violent demonstrations. Seven years have gone and yet no evidence in support of this assertion has been presented. Compounding the confusion even further, one of these so-called militants, Ezam Mohamad Noor, recently rejoined Umno to great fanfare, as a prized catch it would seem. At around the same time, members of PAS were also detained for purportedly being militant and allegedly having links to international terrorist networks. Those detained included Nik Adli, the son of Tuan Guru Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, the menteri besar of Kelantan. Malaysians were made a promise by the government that evidence of the alleged terrorist activities and links of these detainees would be disclosed. To date no such evidence has been produced. The same formula was used in late 2007 when the Hindraf 5 were detained. Malaysians were told once again that these individuals were involved in efforts to overthrow the government and had links with the militant Liberation Tiger of Tamil Eelam of Sri Lanka. To date no concrete evidence have been presented to support this assertion.It would seem therefore that the five were detained for their involvement in efforts that led to a mobilisation of Indian Malaysians to express, through peaceful means; their frustration against the way in which their community had been allowed to be marginalised. This cause has since been recognised as a legitimate one. The Hindraf demonstration is nothing extraordinary as such assemblies are universally recognised as being a legitimate means of expression. In the same vein, the grounds advanced in support of the most recent detentions of Tan Hoon Cheng, Teresa Kok and Raja Petra Kamarudin leave much to be desired. The explanation that Tan Hoon Cheng was detained for her own safety was farcical. The suggestion that Teresa Kok had been inciting religious sentiments was unfounded as was evinced by her subsequent release. As for Raja Petra Kamarudin, the prominent critic of the government, a perusal of his writings would show that he might have been insulting of the government and certain individuals within it.
However, being critical and insulting could not in any way amount to a threat to national security. If his writings are viewed as being insulting of Islam, Muslims or the Holy Prophet (pbuh), he should instead be charged under the Penal Code and not under the ISA.In any event, he had already been charged for sedition and criminal defamation in respect of some of his statements. He had claimed trial, indicating as such his readiness and ability to defend himself. Justice would best be served by allowing him his day in court more so where, in the minds of the public, the government is in a position of conflict for having been the target of his strident criticism. Law used against dissidents The instances cited above strongly suggest that the government is undemocratic. It is this perspective that has over the last 25 plus years led to the government seemingly arbitrarily detaining political opponents, civil society and consumer advocates, writers, businessmen, students, journalists whose crime, if it could be called that, was to have been critical of the government.How it is these individuals can be perceived as being threats to national security is beyond my comprehension. The self-evident reality is that legitimate dissent was and is quashed through the heavy-handed use of the ISA. There are those who support and advocate this carte-blanche reading of the ISA. They will seek to persuade you that the interests of the country demand that such power be retained, that Malaysians owe their peace and stability to laws such as the ISA. This overlooks the simple truth that Malaysians of all races cherish peace. We lived together harmoniously for the last 400 years, not because of these laws but in spite of them.I believe the people of this country are mature and intelligent enough to distinguish actions that constitute a ‘real’ threat to the country from those that threaten political interests. Malaysians have come know that the ISA is used against political opponents and, it would seem, when the leadership is under challenge either from within the ruling party or from external elements. Malaysians today want to see a government that is committed to the court process to determine guilt or innocence even for alleged acts of incitement of racial or religious sentiment. They are less willing to believe, as they once did, that a single individual, namely the minister of home affairs; knows best about matters of national security.
They value freedom and the protection of civil liberties and this is true of people of other nations too. I attempted to push for reform Mr Prime Minister, the results of the last general election are clear indication that the people of Malaysia are demanding a reinstatement of the rule of law. I was appointed as your, albeit short-lived, minister in charge of legal affairs and judicial reform.
In that capacity, I came to understand more keenly how many of us want reform, not for the sake of it, but for the extent to which our institutions have been undermined by events and the impact this has had on society. With your blessing, I attempted to push for reform. High on my list of priorities was a reinstatement of the inherent right of judicial review that could be enabled through a reversion of the key constitutional provision to its form prior to the controversial amendment in 1988.
I need not remind you that that constitutional amendment was prompted by the same series of events that led not only to Operasi Lalang but the sacking of the then Lord President and two supreme court justices.Chief amongst my concerns was the way in which the jurisdiction and the power of the courts to grant remedy against unconstitutional and arbitrary action of the executive had been removed by Parliament and the extent to which this had permitted an erosion of the civil liberties of Malaysians.
It was this constitutional amendment that paved the way for the ouster provision in the ISA that virtually immunises the minister from judicial review, a provision which exemplifies the injustice the constitutional amendment of 1988 has lent itself. I also sought to introduce means by which steps could be taken to assist the judiciary to regain the reputation for independence and competence it once had. Unfortunately, this was viewed as undesirable by some since an independent judiciary would mean that the executive would be less ‘influential’. I attempted to do these things and more because of the realisation that Malaysia’s democratic traditions and the rule of law are under siege. Anyway, there is nothing wrong with giving everyone an independent judiciary and the opportunity to a fair trial.
This is consistent with the universal norms of human rights as it is with the tenets of Islam, the religion of the federation. Unchecked power to detain at the whim of one man is oppressiveness at its highest. Even in Israel, a nation that is perpetually at war the power to detain is not vested in one man and detention orders require endorsement from a judge. If there are national security considerations, then these can be approached without jettisoning the safeguards intended to protect individual citizens from being penalised wrongfully. In other jurisdictions involved in armed conflicts, trials are held in camera to allow for judicial scrutiny of evidence considered too sensitive for public disclosure so as to satisfy the ends of justice.
If this can be done in these jurisdictions, why not here where the last armed struggle we saw, the very one that precipitated the need for the ISA, came to an end in the 1980s?ISA was never intended to be permanentAny doubts as to the continued relevance of the ISA in its present form should have been put to rest by the recommendation by the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) that the ISA be repealed and an anti-terror legislation suited to the times enacted in its place. Containing as it did a sunset clause in its original times, the ISA was never intended to be a permanent feature on the Malaysian legal landscape. Through its continued use in the manner described above and in the face of public sentiment, it is only natural that the ISA has become in the mind of the people an instrument of oppression and the government is one that lends itself to oppressiveness.
Its continued use does not bode well for a society that is struggling to find its place in the global arena. It does not bode well for the democracy that is so vital for us to develop sustainably. Mr Prime Minister, I remember very clearly what you once said; that if one has the opportunity to do what is good and right for the country, then he must take on the task. I respect you deeply for that and if I were confident that I would have been able to do some good for Malaysia, I would have remained on your team.
Sir, you are still the prime minister and you still have the opportunity to leave your footprint in Malaysian history. I urge you to do so by repealing the ISA once and for all. Let us attempt to fulfil that solemn promise made by our beloved first prime minister to the people of this country. Yours sincerely Zaid Ibrahim
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Race Relations act - will it enable Barack Obama phenomenon in Malaysia?
By YB Mr. LIm Kit Siang
Race Relations Act - will it enable Barack Obama phenomenon in Malaysia?
When the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hamid Albar announced yesterday that the Cabinet has approved the proposed Race Relations Act to strengthen ties among the different races in the country, I immediately thought of two matters.
The first is the “penumpang” controversy set off by the Bukit Bendera Umno division chairman, Datuk Ahmad Ismail as part of Umno’s most racist and inflammatory campaign in the Permatang Pauh by-election, which was decisively rejected by the voters from all racial groups uniting as a pioneering Bangsa Malaysia to give a thumping victory to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to return to Parliament in triumph after an enforced absence of a decade.
The real fall-out from the “penumpang” controversy was after the Permatang Pauh by-election, where for two weeks, Ahmad was allowed to assume “hero” status among extremists and communalists for his provocative, inflammatory, insensitive and racist reference because of the abdication and bankruptcy of the moral and political authority of the Cabinet and the Barisan Nasional leadership in failing to take immediate action to strike down such divisive and destructive outbursts.
Ahmad’s grandparents migrated to this country from India. Why should a Malaysian who is a second-generation locally born in the country be so irresponsible, provocative and racist as to question the loyalty of a Malaysian Chinese like seventh locally-born generation Tan Siok Choo, daughter to Tun Tan Siew Sin and grand-daughter to Tun Tan Cheng Lock – whose ancestors came to Malacca 237 years ago in 1771?
Even up to now, Ahmad is totally unrepentant and immune from any police prosecution for his incendiary utterance – while the Sin Chew reporter Tan Hoon Cheng who had professionally reported Ahmad’s speech was detained under the draconian Internal Security Act but saved from the full iniquity of the ISA because of instantaneous nation-wide and international outrage.
What is the use of a Race Relations Act in Malaysia if the Ahmad Ismails enjoy immunity from the law being able to get away scot-free for their inflammatory, offensive, insensitive and racist utterances without fear of having to face criminal reprisals from the police and the Attorney-General’s Chambers for their seditious utterances?
The second matter that comes immediately to mind is about political developments the other side of the globe – Barack Obama’s presidential candidature in the United States.
Only 220 years ago, the Negroes were slaves in America, totally deprived of all political, economic, social and human rights. Today, an American black is one of the two contenders for the American Presidency in November – marking a historic breakthrough in race relations in the United States.
What has Malaysia to show in race relations in similar field after 51 years of nation-building?
When we achieved Independence in 1957, the Merdeka social contract and the Malaysian Constitution is unambiguous in providing equal citizenship status for all Malaysians, as in stipulating that any Malaysian, regardless of race, religion or class, can aspire to the highest political office in the land to become the Prime Minister.
The only condition for anyone to be Prime Minister is that he commands the confidence of the majority of the Members of Parliament.
During the first premiership of Tunku Abdul Rahman from 1957 to 1969, nobody would raise an eyebrow at the assertion that any Malaysian, whether Malay, Chinese, Indian, Kadazan, Iban and regardless of whether Muslim, Chrisitian, Buddhist, Hindu or Taoist, can become Prime Minister of Malaysia.
Half a century later, under the fifth Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, anyone who makes the assertion in public place that any Malaysian, regardless of whether Malay, Chinese, Indian, Kadazan or Iban, and regardless of religion, whether Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu or Taoist, would be looked askance and even deemed to have made a most“insensitive” statement.
There would even be groups in the country who would feel justified to be “provoked” by such a straightforward statement to launch vociferous protests up and down the country.
Why is this so, despite the Vision 2020 objective of creating a Bangsa Malaysia out of the diverse races in the country, which was proclaimed 17 years ago in 1991?
Will the proposed Race Relations Act resolve these knotty problems of Malaysian nation-building, or is its purpose to further institutionalize racial segregation and discrimination which have surreptitiously crept into various aspects of Malaysian life and taken deep and subversive root?
Will the proposed Race Relations Act open the way to enable and empower a major breakthrough like the Barack Obama phenomenon to take place in Malaysia or the reverse?
[Speech at the DAP Cheras SSS (Support, Sympathy and Solidarity) Dinner for Teresa Kok at Hee Lai Ton Restaurant, Kuala Lumpur on Friday, 19th September 2008 at 9 pm
Race Relations Act - will it enable Barack Obama phenomenon in Malaysia?
When the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hamid Albar announced yesterday that the Cabinet has approved the proposed Race Relations Act to strengthen ties among the different races in the country, I immediately thought of two matters.
The first is the “penumpang” controversy set off by the Bukit Bendera Umno division chairman, Datuk Ahmad Ismail as part of Umno’s most racist and inflammatory campaign in the Permatang Pauh by-election, which was decisively rejected by the voters from all racial groups uniting as a pioneering Bangsa Malaysia to give a thumping victory to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to return to Parliament in triumph after an enforced absence of a decade.
The real fall-out from the “penumpang” controversy was after the Permatang Pauh by-election, where for two weeks, Ahmad was allowed to assume “hero” status among extremists and communalists for his provocative, inflammatory, insensitive and racist reference because of the abdication and bankruptcy of the moral and political authority of the Cabinet and the Barisan Nasional leadership in failing to take immediate action to strike down such divisive and destructive outbursts.
Ahmad’s grandparents migrated to this country from India. Why should a Malaysian who is a second-generation locally born in the country be so irresponsible, provocative and racist as to question the loyalty of a Malaysian Chinese like seventh locally-born generation Tan Siok Choo, daughter to Tun Tan Siew Sin and grand-daughter to Tun Tan Cheng Lock – whose ancestors came to Malacca 237 years ago in 1771?
Even up to now, Ahmad is totally unrepentant and immune from any police prosecution for his incendiary utterance – while the Sin Chew reporter Tan Hoon Cheng who had professionally reported Ahmad’s speech was detained under the draconian Internal Security Act but saved from the full iniquity of the ISA because of instantaneous nation-wide and international outrage.
What is the use of a Race Relations Act in Malaysia if the Ahmad Ismails enjoy immunity from the law being able to get away scot-free for their inflammatory, offensive, insensitive and racist utterances without fear of having to face criminal reprisals from the police and the Attorney-General’s Chambers for their seditious utterances?
The second matter that comes immediately to mind is about political developments the other side of the globe – Barack Obama’s presidential candidature in the United States.
Only 220 years ago, the Negroes were slaves in America, totally deprived of all political, economic, social and human rights. Today, an American black is one of the two contenders for the American Presidency in November – marking a historic breakthrough in race relations in the United States.
What has Malaysia to show in race relations in similar field after 51 years of nation-building?
When we achieved Independence in 1957, the Merdeka social contract and the Malaysian Constitution is unambiguous in providing equal citizenship status for all Malaysians, as in stipulating that any Malaysian, regardless of race, religion or class, can aspire to the highest political office in the land to become the Prime Minister.
The only condition for anyone to be Prime Minister is that he commands the confidence of the majority of the Members of Parliament.
During the first premiership of Tunku Abdul Rahman from 1957 to 1969, nobody would raise an eyebrow at the assertion that any Malaysian, whether Malay, Chinese, Indian, Kadazan, Iban and regardless of whether Muslim, Chrisitian, Buddhist, Hindu or Taoist, can become Prime Minister of Malaysia.
Half a century later, under the fifth Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, anyone who makes the assertion in public place that any Malaysian, regardless of whether Malay, Chinese, Indian, Kadazan or Iban, and regardless of religion, whether Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu or Taoist, would be looked askance and even deemed to have made a most“insensitive” statement.
There would even be groups in the country who would feel justified to be “provoked” by such a straightforward statement to launch vociferous protests up and down the country.
Why is this so, despite the Vision 2020 objective of creating a Bangsa Malaysia out of the diverse races in the country, which was proclaimed 17 years ago in 1991?
Will the proposed Race Relations Act resolve these knotty problems of Malaysian nation-building, or is its purpose to further institutionalize racial segregation and discrimination which have surreptitiously crept into various aspects of Malaysian life and taken deep and subversive root?
Will the proposed Race Relations Act open the way to enable and empower a major breakthrough like the Barack Obama phenomenon to take place in Malaysia or the reverse?
[Speech at the DAP Cheras SSS (Support, Sympathy and Solidarity) Dinner for Teresa Kok at Hee Lai Ton Restaurant, Kuala Lumpur on Friday, 19th September 2008 at 9 pm
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Anwar detained under ISA?
By YB Mr. Lim Kit Siang
Abdullah should give public assurance that Anwar will not be detained under ISA
The uncharacteristically stern and harsh allegation by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi yesterday that the Parliamentary Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is a threat to the national security and economy who wanted to “destroy the country and exploit the people’s trust and tarnish the country’s image abroad” had sparked speculation that the stage is being set for a Operation Lalang 2 crackdown and Anwar’s arrest under the Internal Security Act (ISA).
All right-thinking Malaysians must deplore in the strongest terms the veiled threat by Abdullah that Anwar would be arbitrarily and undemocratically silenced as the allegation that Anwar is a threat to national security and economy is a most ludicrous and preposterous one.
I have been twice detained under the ISA, once in 1969 and the second time in 1987, becoming the guest of His Majesty’s Government for a total of 35 months – and on both occasions, I was accused of being “a threat to national security”!
All the 16 DAP MPs and leaders detained in the 1987 Operation Lalang dragnet under the ISA were all accused of being threats to national security – but these are all baseless catch-all allegations just to justify the abuse of the ISA to silence critics and dissent.
We were threats to the political security of the Barisan Nasional leaders but it is the democratic and citizenship right of every Malaysian to challenge the political credibility, legitimacy and authority of the ruling government through the democratic process or we should not claim that Malaysia practises parliamentary democracy.
Such democratic challenges do not become threats to national security just because those in power are in fear of losing the perks of office and power.
Anwar Ibrahim can be accused of posing a grave threat to the political security of Abdullah and the other Umno and Barisan Nasional leaders with his “916 sky-change” plan, but he cannot under any stretch of imagination be accused of being a threat to national security and economy.
Abdullah should not prop up his political life by resorting to the abuse of the ISA which had been enacted to deal with subversion or organised violence.
The toppling of the Barisan Nasional national government by getting the allegiance of the majority of the 222 MPs in Parliament to support a Pakatan Rakyat federal government is neither “subversion” nor “organised violence” intended in the Preamble of the ISA enacted 48 years ago in 1960.
In fact, the toppling of the government-of-the-day is part and parcel of the democratic process if the government-of-the-day loses support of the majority of the elected MPs, resulting in a change of government.
In first-word Parliaments and developed nations, change of government resulting from the withdrawal of support by the majority of MPs is a common occurrence, which is accepted and transacted without any threat of chaos or disorder with all political leaders participating peacefully in an orderly transition of power.
Malaysia is experiencing the possible change of federal government for the first time in the nation’s 51-year history, as this has never happened in Malaysia before.
This does not mean that any change of federal power should not be conducted in a democratic, orderly and peaceful manner.
Since he became Prime Minister, Abdullah has been talking about his dream of Malaysia shedding its “First-World Infrastructure, Third-World Mentality” malaise to join the ranks of first-world developed nations.
Malaysia is presently undergoing a critical test whether the nation can become a first-world developed nation where democratic change of government at the national level is accepted as an integral part of the democratic process as in developed countries in the West.
This is why Abdullah should make a public statement that if the Barisan Nasional government loses majority support and Anwar can get the support of the majority of the 222 MPs, he will gracefully, orderly, peacefully and democratically effect a transition of power for a new federal government to come into being.
This is also why Abdullah should make a categorical public assurance that the ISA will not be used to silence and arrest Anwar whether to foil the “916 sky-change” plan to replace the Barisan Nasional government with a new Pakatan Rakyat government or on the preposterous and baseless ground of being a “threat to national security and economy”.
(Media Conference Statement at the Perak Mentri Besar’s Office, Ipoh on Thursday, 18th September 2008 at 12 noon)
Abdullah should give public assurance that Anwar will not be detained under ISA
The uncharacteristically stern and harsh allegation by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi yesterday that the Parliamentary Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is a threat to the national security and economy who wanted to “destroy the country and exploit the people’s trust and tarnish the country’s image abroad” had sparked speculation that the stage is being set for a Operation Lalang 2 crackdown and Anwar’s arrest under the Internal Security Act (ISA).
All right-thinking Malaysians must deplore in the strongest terms the veiled threat by Abdullah that Anwar would be arbitrarily and undemocratically silenced as the allegation that Anwar is a threat to national security and economy is a most ludicrous and preposterous one.
I have been twice detained under the ISA, once in 1969 and the second time in 1987, becoming the guest of His Majesty’s Government for a total of 35 months – and on both occasions, I was accused of being “a threat to national security”!
All the 16 DAP MPs and leaders detained in the 1987 Operation Lalang dragnet under the ISA were all accused of being threats to national security – but these are all baseless catch-all allegations just to justify the abuse of the ISA to silence critics and dissent.
We were threats to the political security of the Barisan Nasional leaders but it is the democratic and citizenship right of every Malaysian to challenge the political credibility, legitimacy and authority of the ruling government through the democratic process or we should not claim that Malaysia practises parliamentary democracy.
Such democratic challenges do not become threats to national security just because those in power are in fear of losing the perks of office and power.
Anwar Ibrahim can be accused of posing a grave threat to the political security of Abdullah and the other Umno and Barisan Nasional leaders with his “916 sky-change” plan, but he cannot under any stretch of imagination be accused of being a threat to national security and economy.
Abdullah should not prop up his political life by resorting to the abuse of the ISA which had been enacted to deal with subversion or organised violence.
The toppling of the Barisan Nasional national government by getting the allegiance of the majority of the 222 MPs in Parliament to support a Pakatan Rakyat federal government is neither “subversion” nor “organised violence” intended in the Preamble of the ISA enacted 48 years ago in 1960.
In fact, the toppling of the government-of-the-day is part and parcel of the democratic process if the government-of-the-day loses support of the majority of the elected MPs, resulting in a change of government.
In first-word Parliaments and developed nations, change of government resulting from the withdrawal of support by the majority of MPs is a common occurrence, which is accepted and transacted without any threat of chaos or disorder with all political leaders participating peacefully in an orderly transition of power.
Malaysia is experiencing the possible change of federal government for the first time in the nation’s 51-year history, as this has never happened in Malaysia before.
This does not mean that any change of federal power should not be conducted in a democratic, orderly and peaceful manner.
Since he became Prime Minister, Abdullah has been talking about his dream of Malaysia shedding its “First-World Infrastructure, Third-World Mentality” malaise to join the ranks of first-world developed nations.
Malaysia is presently undergoing a critical test whether the nation can become a first-world developed nation where democratic change of government at the national level is accepted as an integral part of the democratic process as in developed countries in the West.
This is why Abdullah should make a public statement that if the Barisan Nasional government loses majority support and Anwar can get the support of the majority of the 222 MPs, he will gracefully, orderly, peacefully and democratically effect a transition of power for a new federal government to come into being.
This is also why Abdullah should make a categorical public assurance that the ISA will not be used to silence and arrest Anwar whether to foil the “916 sky-change” plan to replace the Barisan Nasional government with a new Pakatan Rakyat government or on the preposterous and baseless ground of being a “threat to national security and economy”.
(Media Conference Statement at the Perak Mentri Besar’s Office, Ipoh on Thursday, 18th September 2008 at 12 noon)
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Raja Petra a 'threat to national security'
New Straits Time Saturday, September 13,2008 reported on the above title. I was very curious and puzzled how and why Petra is a threat! Datuk.Seri Syed Hamid Albar need to help us by detailing to us what and how he found Petra a THREAT. May be he can tell us which article that Petra wrote is a threat.
I can't help but keep thinking that the threat is not to the nation but to BN and in particular to Umno! If not why put him under ISA. Dr Koh Tsu Koon ( I can't agree with him more) urged the government to bring Petra to trial under existing laws rather than detain him under the ISA.
The other thing is this ISA ARRESTS are on Terasa Kok and Sin Chew journalist simultaneously which gave us the deja vu that "Is this Operasi Lalang 2?" Dr Wan Azizah said:"prelude to an impending crackdown". I can't help but think that it is the beginning of a crackdown!
Many of us are praying for PEACE, JUSTICE and God's WILL be done on Malaysia. Some have begun to light up candle every night till the NEW DAWN for Malaysia has come!
I can't help but keep thinking that the threat is not to the nation but to BN and in particular to Umno! If not why put him under ISA. Dr Koh Tsu Koon ( I can't agree with him more) urged the government to bring Petra to trial under existing laws rather than detain him under the ISA.
The other thing is this ISA ARRESTS are on Terasa Kok and Sin Chew journalist simultaneously which gave us the deja vu that "Is this Operasi Lalang 2?" Dr Wan Azizah said:"prelude to an impending crackdown". I can't help but think that it is the beginning of a crackdown!
Many of us are praying for PEACE, JUSTICE and God's WILL be done on Malaysia. Some have begun to light up candle every night till the NEW DAWN for Malaysia has come!
Friday, September 12, 2008
New government by 916?
Most likely NOT!
Anwar had declared to work toward that date.
Most of us are certain that it is a matter of time, a new government will take over. Latest by the next election.
Abdullah popularity rating had been sprialling down from record high of 91% in late 2004 to 61% before March 8, 2008 general election, plummating further to 53% in April and 42% in July.
For the past 6 months, the public confidence in the Abdullah premiership has been deteriorating because of his failure to honour his new pledges to judicial, police and anti-corruption reforms. There are many other happenings that may snowball to his eventual early demise namely: Petrol price hike triggering an inflationary spiral. Worsening of the crime situation. Ahmad Ismail "penumpang" furore. Permatang Pauh by-election. The arrest of Raja Petra Kamarudin under ISA today which appears to be the beginning of a crack down.
No wonder Umno Vice President Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin has publicly called on Abdullah to rethink his transition plan to step down by mid-2010 timeframe which is too long.
Anwar had declared to work toward that date.
Most of us are certain that it is a matter of time, a new government will take over. Latest by the next election.
Abdullah popularity rating had been sprialling down from record high of 91% in late 2004 to 61% before March 8, 2008 general election, plummating further to 53% in April and 42% in July.
For the past 6 months, the public confidence in the Abdullah premiership has been deteriorating because of his failure to honour his new pledges to judicial, police and anti-corruption reforms. There are many other happenings that may snowball to his eventual early demise namely: Petrol price hike triggering an inflationary spiral. Worsening of the crime situation. Ahmad Ismail "penumpang" furore. Permatang Pauh by-election. The arrest of Raja Petra Kamarudin under ISA today which appears to be the beginning of a crack down.
No wonder Umno Vice President Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin has publicly called on Abdullah to rethink his transition plan to step down by mid-2010 timeframe which is too long.
Untimely gift of RM160,000 watch
The Sun paper today reports:
Untimely gift
by Terence Fernandez
and R. Nadeswaran
PETALING JAYA: What can you
buy with RM160,000? An X-ray
machine for one, or fi ve low-cost
homes, breakfast for 1,000 poor
schoolchildren for two years and
feed a hardcore poor family of 10 for
almost 20 years!
However, a company owned
by the Selangor government,
Permodalan Negeri Selangor Berhad
(PNSB), deemed that it was better to
spend the sum on a watch for
its then chairman and
mentri besar Datuk
Seri Dr Mohamad Khir
Toyo.
On Jan 8, PNSB
paid RM159,250 for a
Patek Philippe watch
as “cenderamata
untuk pengerusi PNSB”
(souvenir for the
chairman of PNSB)
– Mohamad Khir at that
time.
It is understood that the watch
in white gold was presented to
the former MB before the March 8
general election.
But Mohamad Khir returned
the watch. And it was not until two
months later that a buyer was found.
“When we presented the watch
to Datuk Seri, he declined, saying he
did not need such an expensive gift,”
said PNSB chief executive offi cer
Datin Khairiyah Abu Hassan.
She said a buyer was found in
March and the watch was sold for
about the same price and the money
banked into PNSB’s account.
What is perplexing is that PNSB
deemed it fi t to spend on such
extravagance after posting losses of
RM7.5 million in its 2006 fi nancial
year. (Companies Commission of
Malaysia records show that this was
its last fi nancial returns).
But Khairiyah clarifi ed that the
company had made a profi t of RM10
million and that the watch was a sort
of emolument for Mohamad Khir’s
“contributions”.
The purchase was not tabled
for approval by PNSB’s board of
directors. However, Khairiyah
said that board approval was not
necessary for such purchases.
“We have a certain amount
for entertainment and other such
expenses which
can be decided at
management level,”
she said in a telephone
interview yesterday.
The purchase of the
timepiece from Sincere
Watch Sdn Bhd was listed as
“sundry expenses” by PNSB.
According to a Sincere sales
agent, the watch was a collectors’
item from the Perpetual Calendar
series, retailed at RM235,600.
The agent expressed surprise at
the price PNSB paid, saying that the
discount was far more than usual.
“We usually don’t give more than
a 15% discount,” she said when
theSun contacted Sincere’s outlet in
Suria KLCC.
Meanwhile, executive councillor
for health, plantation workers’
welfare, poverty eradication and
caring government Dr Xavier
Jayakumar expressed disgust over
the “gift”.
“As an offi cial entrusted to take
care of the state, where urban poor
is on the rise, I fi nd it disgusting
that one can even think of such an
expensive gift.
“Do you know how many families
we can help with that money?” asked
the Sri Andalas assemblyman.
Khairiyah said PNSB was always
careful with spending its
funds.
“We are mindful that
we are dealing with
public money but we
are also a corporation
and it is not unusual
for chairmen and
directors to receive
such benefi ts,”
she said, adding
that the purchase of
the timepiece was
considered “frugal”
compared with other
fi rms that dished out large
cash dividends and luxury
cars for its top executives.
Incorporated on Oct 15,
1990, PNSB is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Selangor state
government. With an authorised
capital of RM100 million and a
paid-up capital of RM24 million, it
was specially established to take over
the commercial projects of Selangor
State Incorporation (SSI), involving a
host of diversifi ed activities; namely
housing and property, tourism,
investment, manufacturing and
services.
According to its charter,
“PNSB strongly believes in
balancing profi tability with social
responsibility. PNSB is assertively
assisting in the evolvement of mesra
rakyat” (people-friendly) and Caring
Government Programme
Untimely gift
by Terence Fernandez
and R. Nadeswaran
PETALING JAYA: What can you
buy with RM160,000? An X-ray
machine for one, or fi ve low-cost
homes, breakfast for 1,000 poor
schoolchildren for two years and
feed a hardcore poor family of 10 for
almost 20 years!
However, a company owned
by the Selangor government,
Permodalan Negeri Selangor Berhad
(PNSB), deemed that it was better to
spend the sum on a watch for
its then chairman and
mentri besar Datuk
Seri Dr Mohamad Khir
Toyo.
On Jan 8, PNSB
paid RM159,250 for a
Patek Philippe watch
as “cenderamata
untuk pengerusi PNSB”
(souvenir for the
chairman of PNSB)
– Mohamad Khir at that
time.
It is understood that the watch
in white gold was presented to
the former MB before the March 8
general election.
But Mohamad Khir returned
the watch. And it was not until two
months later that a buyer was found.
“When we presented the watch
to Datuk Seri, he declined, saying he
did not need such an expensive gift,”
said PNSB chief executive offi cer
Datin Khairiyah Abu Hassan.
She said a buyer was found in
March and the watch was sold for
about the same price and the money
banked into PNSB’s account.
What is perplexing is that PNSB
deemed it fi t to spend on such
extravagance after posting losses of
RM7.5 million in its 2006 fi nancial
year. (Companies Commission of
Malaysia records show that this was
its last fi nancial returns).
But Khairiyah clarifi ed that the
company had made a profi t of RM10
million and that the watch was a sort
of emolument for Mohamad Khir’s
“contributions”.
The purchase was not tabled
for approval by PNSB’s board of
directors. However, Khairiyah
said that board approval was not
necessary for such purchases.
“We have a certain amount
for entertainment and other such
expenses which
can be decided at
management level,”
she said in a telephone
interview yesterday.
The purchase of the
timepiece from Sincere
Watch Sdn Bhd was listed as
“sundry expenses” by PNSB.
According to a Sincere sales
agent, the watch was a collectors’
item from the Perpetual Calendar
series, retailed at RM235,600.
The agent expressed surprise at
the price PNSB paid, saying that the
discount was far more than usual.
“We usually don’t give more than
a 15% discount,” she said when
theSun contacted Sincere’s outlet in
Suria KLCC.
Meanwhile, executive councillor
for health, plantation workers’
welfare, poverty eradication and
caring government Dr Xavier
Jayakumar expressed disgust over
the “gift”.
“As an offi cial entrusted to take
care of the state, where urban poor
is on the rise, I fi nd it disgusting
that one can even think of such an
expensive gift.
“Do you know how many families
we can help with that money?” asked
the Sri Andalas assemblyman.
Khairiyah said PNSB was always
careful with spending its
funds.
“We are mindful that
we are dealing with
public money but we
are also a corporation
and it is not unusual
for chairmen and
directors to receive
such benefi ts,”
she said, adding
that the purchase of
the timepiece was
considered “frugal”
compared with other
fi rms that dished out large
cash dividends and luxury
cars for its top executives.
Incorporated on Oct 15,
1990, PNSB is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Selangor state
government. With an authorised
capital of RM100 million and a
paid-up capital of RM24 million, it
was specially established to take over
the commercial projects of Selangor
State Incorporation (SSI), involving a
host of diversifi ed activities; namely
housing and property, tourism,
investment, manufacturing and
services.
According to its charter,
“PNSB strongly believes in
balancing profi tability with social
responsibility. PNSB is assertively
assisting in the evolvement of mesra
rakyat” (people-friendly) and Caring
Government Programme
Beginning of a crack down
Raja Petra Kamarudin has just been arrested by the police from his house in Sg. Buluh under the Internal Security act.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
The mouth--a weapon or a tool
An hypocrite with [his] mouth destroyeth his neighbour: but through knowledge shall the just be delivered.
Proverbs 11:9 KJV
There will be a time when loud-mouthed, incompetent people seem to be getting the best of you. When that happens, you only have to be patient and wait for them to self destruct. It never fails.
Richard Rybolt
- More quotations on: [Patience]
LAB comments: The mouth can be used as a weapon or a tool, hurting relationships or building them up. Sadly, it is often easier to destroy than to build, and most people have received more destructive comments than those that build up. Every person you meet today is either a demolition site or a construction opportunity, Your words will make a difference. Will they be weapons for destruction or tools for construction?
My comments: We may simply eat but not simply talk with our mouth! Our mouth can get us into deep trouble, Ahmad Ismail, the Umno chief of Bukit Bedera division had been just suspended yesterday by Umno supreme council for calling the Malaysian Chinese "pendatang or penumpang"(lodgers) who therefore cannot enjoy equal rights.
Proverbs 11:9 KJV
There will be a time when loud-mouthed, incompetent people seem to be getting the best of you. When that happens, you only have to be patient and wait for them to self destruct. It never fails.
Richard Rybolt
- More quotations on: [Patience]
LAB comments: The mouth can be used as a weapon or a tool, hurting relationships or building them up. Sadly, it is often easier to destroy than to build, and most people have received more destructive comments than those that build up. Every person you meet today is either a demolition site or a construction opportunity, Your words will make a difference. Will they be weapons for destruction or tools for construction?
My comments: We may simply eat but not simply talk with our mouth! Our mouth can get us into deep trouble, Ahmad Ismail, the Umno chief of Bukit Bedera division had been just suspended yesterday by Umno supreme council for calling the Malaysian Chinese "pendatang or penumpang"(lodgers) who therefore cannot enjoy equal rights.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
We are all "pendatang"
By YB Mr. Lim Kit Siang
Jac Tan emailed a very interesting and timely blog from Syed Iman’s kuda ranggi.
Syed Imran is an Arab-Malaysian born in Penang, Malaysia, ex-Bernama journalist (1971-1998) and former press secretary to Minister in PM’s Department.
Syed Imran provides a Bangsa Malaysia voice in the nation-wide furore which had erupted as a result of Ahmad Ismail’s irresponsible, opportunist and racist reference of Malaysian Chinese as “pendatang” and “penumpang”.
Syed Imran blogged:
“Secara peribadi, saya tidak setuju dengan apa yang didakwa dikata oleh Ahmad Ismail atas beberapa sebab.
“Bagi saya, hampir 90 peratus rakyat Malaysia, khususnya di Semenanjung, adalah pendatang dan kita semua sebenarnya menumpang hidup di bumi Allah. Kita bukan pemilik kekal tetapi hanya menumpang…
“Kita adalah kaum pendatang yang menumpang hidup di negeri ini. Golongan yang boleh diiktiraf sebagai orang asal atau anak bumi tulen adalah mereka yang kita kenali sebagai Negrito, Jakun, Semang, Jahut, Orang Laut, Orang Darat, Senoi dan suku kaum masyarakat Asli lain yang masih menjadi penghuni belantara.
“Kita semua adalah rakyat Malaysia.”
Syed Imran’s blog touching on the lineage of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir, Home Minister, Syed Hamid Albar, Ahmad Ismail himself should be compulsory read for the agent provocateurs out to sabotage the realisation of a Bangsa Malaysia - whether by constant keris-wielding or the canard of “pendatang” and “penumpang”.
Monday, September 08, 2008Antara pendatang dan penumpang
Pada mulanya saya agak keberatan nak ulas kekecohan yang berpunca ekoran daripada kenyataan ketua UMNO bahagian Bukit Bendera, Pulau Pinang bernama Ahmad bin Ismail. Sama ada benar atau tidak apa yang didakwa dikatakan olehnya mengenai rakyat Malaysia keturunan Cina bukan persoalannya kerana isu tersebut sudahpun merebak dan mengapi-apikan keadaan.
Jika tidak ditangani dengan cermat, teliti dan bijak, isu itu boleh ditangguk dalam air yang keruh oleh anasir-anasir yang ingin melihat negara ini hancur serta mengundang campur tangan kuasa asing. Dalam zaman dunia tanpa sempadan dan liputan meluas dan segera oleh media elektronik antarabangsa, apa yang berlaku di sesebuah negara itu tidak dapat disembunyi atau dinafikan.
Isu pokok yang dibangkitkan oleh Ahmad Ismail membabitkan persoalan “menumpang” iaitu rakyat Malaysia keturunan Cina adalah penumpang di negara ini. Beliau menjelaskan bahawa ia merujuk kepada zaman pra-Merdeka. Bagaimanapun, sensitiviti rakyat Malaysia keturunan Cina telah terguris.
Saya tidak mengenali secara peribadi Ahmad Ismail, tetapi kenal agak rapat dengan Allahyarham abangnya, Abdul Rahim Ismail, pemilik Syarikat Pembinaan Rahim yang pada satu ketika dahulu agak terkenal sebagai sebuah firma pembinaan Bumiputera yang unggul di Pulau Pinang. Saya tidak tahu apa dah jadi dengan syarikat itu selepas Abdul Rahim meninggal dunia.
Secara peribadi, saya tidak setuju dengan apa yang didakwa dikata oleh Ahmad Ismail atas beberapa sebab.
Bagi saya, hampir 90 peratus rakyat Malaysia, khususnya di Semenanjung, adalah pendatang dan kita semua sebenarnya menumpang hidup di bumi Allah. Kita bukan pemilik kekal tetapi hanya menumpang.
Sebagai contoh, saya sendiri adalah keturunan pendatang yang menumpang hidup di bumi bertuah ini. Datuk nenek di sebelah bapa saya berhijrah dari Makkah dan dari Brunei ke sini manakala di sebelah ibu pula dari Hadhramut, Yaman. Kami adalah pendatang dan penumpang sama seperti hampir semua penduduk negara ini khususnya di Pulau Pinang.
Bagi Ahmad Ismail, dia juga datang dari keluarga pendatang dan menumpang hidup di negara ini. Ahmad Ismail tidak boleh menafikan hakikat bahawa datuk neneknya adalah pendatang dari India untuk menerokai penghidupan yang lebih baik dan selesa di bumi bertuah ini.
Perdana Menteri Abdullah bin Ahmad juga tergolong dalam kategori yang sama. Datuknya di sebelah ibu adalah pendatang dari wilayah Guandong, China. Pendek kata, datuk Pak Lah iaitu bapa Allahyarhamah Kailan bernama Hassan Salleh atau Hah Su Chiang adalah seorang pendatang. Beliau berhijrah ke Tanah Melayu dari wilayah Guandong (Kwantung) pada pertengahan abad ke-19 dan menetap di Bayan Lepas sebagai pekebun getah, pesawah padi dan kemudian saudagar intan berlian.
Najib Tun Razak, Timbalan PM juga berasal daripada keluarga pendatang iaitu dari Sulawesi, Indonesia atau lebih senang disebut orang Bugis manakala sepupunya Hishamudin Hussein tidak terlepas daripada darah keturunan Turki.
Datuk nenek mantan PM Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad juga pendatang dari Kerala, India manakala ibu Almarhum Tunku Abul Rahman berasal dari negeri Siam (Thailand).
Kesultanan Melayu Melaka pun dibuka oleh orang pendatang dari Sumatra bernama Parameswara, seorang anak raja atau bangsawan beragama Hindu.
Dalam sejarah kesultanan Melayu, kita dapati ada yang ditubuh oleh pendatang dari Bugis dan ada pula dari Hadhramut selain dari Minangkabau.
Hampir semua orang Melayu di sini berasal dari luar Tanah Melayu tetapi diiktiraf sebagai “bangsa Melayu” oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Kita adalah “Melayu mengikut takrifan Perlembagaan” iaitu beragama Islam, mengamalkan adat resam Melayu dan bertutur dalam bahasa Melayu. Malangnya, bahasa Melayu nampaknya dimatikan oleh orang Melayu (UMNO) sendiri apabila dinamakan sebagai bahasa Malaysia.
Oleh itu, orang Arab seperti Syed Hamid Albar dan saya, orang Aceh seperti Sanusi Junid, orang India seperti Kader Sheikh Fadzir dan Nor Mohamed Yakcop, orang Bugis seperti Najib, orang Minang seperti Rais Yatim, orang Jawa seperti Mohamad Rahmat dan yang lain seperti dari Madura, Pulau Boyan, Siam, Burma, Yunnan (China) dan selatan Filipina dengan mudah boleh diiktirf sebagai “Melayu”.
Mereka diterima sebagai orang Melayu tidak kira sama ada mereka bertutur bahasa Melayu atau tidak di rumah umpamanya si Arab berbahasa Arab, si Jawa berbahasa Jawa dan si Minang berbahasa Minang atupun si Mamak berbahasa Tamil.
Bahasa-bahasa yang disebut itu bukan bahasa Melayu dan jika dilihat dari sudut Perlembagaan Persekutuan, tidak boleh diterima atau diiktiraf sebagai bangsa Melayu. Walau bagaimanapun, atas kepentingan dan faktor politik, semuanya diterima sebagai Melayu dan Bumiputera.
Oleh itu, adalah tidak adil untuk menuding jari kepada orang Cina yang juga kaum pendatang sama seperti orang Arab, India, Aceh, Minang, Batak, Mandailing, Jawa, Madura mahupun Bugis, sebagai menumpang di negeri ini. Kita tidak boleh menafikan bahawa sebilangan besar datuk nenek orang Cina telah berhijrah ke negeri ini semasa Kesultanan Melayu Melaka, bahkan kesultanan-kesultanan terdahulu di Kedah mahupun Terengganu dan Kelantan serta semasa Francis Light berjaya menipu Sultan Kedah untuk menduduki Pulau Pinang pada 1786.
Kita adalah kaum pendatang yang menumpang hidup di negeri ini. Golongan yang boleh diiktiraf sebagai orang asal atau anak bumi tulen adalah mereka yang kita kenali sebagai Negrito, Jakun, Semang, Jahut, Orang Laut, Orang Darat, Senoi dan suku kaum masyarakat Asli lain yang masih menjadi penghuni belantara.
Kita tidak harus lupa akan sumbangan dan pengorbanan semua kaum dan suku kaum untuk membangunkan Malaysia sama ada dari sudut ekonomi, kemasyarakatan, keselamatan dan yang paling penting kesepakatan dan perpaduan. Semua orang yang kena dan seharusnya membayar cukai, berbuat demikian tanpa mengira kaum atau asal keturunan, sama ada pendatang atau penumpang.
Jac Tan emailed a very interesting and timely blog from Syed Iman’s kuda ranggi.
Syed Imran is an Arab-Malaysian born in Penang, Malaysia, ex-Bernama journalist (1971-1998) and former press secretary to Minister in PM’s Department.
Syed Imran provides a Bangsa Malaysia voice in the nation-wide furore which had erupted as a result of Ahmad Ismail’s irresponsible, opportunist and racist reference of Malaysian Chinese as “pendatang” and “penumpang”.
Syed Imran blogged:
“Secara peribadi, saya tidak setuju dengan apa yang didakwa dikata oleh Ahmad Ismail atas beberapa sebab.
“Bagi saya, hampir 90 peratus rakyat Malaysia, khususnya di Semenanjung, adalah pendatang dan kita semua sebenarnya menumpang hidup di bumi Allah. Kita bukan pemilik kekal tetapi hanya menumpang…
“Kita adalah kaum pendatang yang menumpang hidup di negeri ini. Golongan yang boleh diiktiraf sebagai orang asal atau anak bumi tulen adalah mereka yang kita kenali sebagai Negrito, Jakun, Semang, Jahut, Orang Laut, Orang Darat, Senoi dan suku kaum masyarakat Asli lain yang masih menjadi penghuni belantara.
“Kita semua adalah rakyat Malaysia.”
Syed Imran’s blog touching on the lineage of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir, Home Minister, Syed Hamid Albar, Ahmad Ismail himself should be compulsory read for the agent provocateurs out to sabotage the realisation of a Bangsa Malaysia - whether by constant keris-wielding or the canard of “pendatang” and “penumpang”.
Monday, September 08, 2008Antara pendatang dan penumpang
Pada mulanya saya agak keberatan nak ulas kekecohan yang berpunca ekoran daripada kenyataan ketua UMNO bahagian Bukit Bendera, Pulau Pinang bernama Ahmad bin Ismail. Sama ada benar atau tidak apa yang didakwa dikatakan olehnya mengenai rakyat Malaysia keturunan Cina bukan persoalannya kerana isu tersebut sudahpun merebak dan mengapi-apikan keadaan.
Jika tidak ditangani dengan cermat, teliti dan bijak, isu itu boleh ditangguk dalam air yang keruh oleh anasir-anasir yang ingin melihat negara ini hancur serta mengundang campur tangan kuasa asing. Dalam zaman dunia tanpa sempadan dan liputan meluas dan segera oleh media elektronik antarabangsa, apa yang berlaku di sesebuah negara itu tidak dapat disembunyi atau dinafikan.
Isu pokok yang dibangkitkan oleh Ahmad Ismail membabitkan persoalan “menumpang” iaitu rakyat Malaysia keturunan Cina adalah penumpang di negara ini. Beliau menjelaskan bahawa ia merujuk kepada zaman pra-Merdeka. Bagaimanapun, sensitiviti rakyat Malaysia keturunan Cina telah terguris.
Saya tidak mengenali secara peribadi Ahmad Ismail, tetapi kenal agak rapat dengan Allahyarham abangnya, Abdul Rahim Ismail, pemilik Syarikat Pembinaan Rahim yang pada satu ketika dahulu agak terkenal sebagai sebuah firma pembinaan Bumiputera yang unggul di Pulau Pinang. Saya tidak tahu apa dah jadi dengan syarikat itu selepas Abdul Rahim meninggal dunia.
Secara peribadi, saya tidak setuju dengan apa yang didakwa dikata oleh Ahmad Ismail atas beberapa sebab.
Bagi saya, hampir 90 peratus rakyat Malaysia, khususnya di Semenanjung, adalah pendatang dan kita semua sebenarnya menumpang hidup di bumi Allah. Kita bukan pemilik kekal tetapi hanya menumpang.
Sebagai contoh, saya sendiri adalah keturunan pendatang yang menumpang hidup di bumi bertuah ini. Datuk nenek di sebelah bapa saya berhijrah dari Makkah dan dari Brunei ke sini manakala di sebelah ibu pula dari Hadhramut, Yaman. Kami adalah pendatang dan penumpang sama seperti hampir semua penduduk negara ini khususnya di Pulau Pinang.
Bagi Ahmad Ismail, dia juga datang dari keluarga pendatang dan menumpang hidup di negara ini. Ahmad Ismail tidak boleh menafikan hakikat bahawa datuk neneknya adalah pendatang dari India untuk menerokai penghidupan yang lebih baik dan selesa di bumi bertuah ini.
Perdana Menteri Abdullah bin Ahmad juga tergolong dalam kategori yang sama. Datuknya di sebelah ibu adalah pendatang dari wilayah Guandong, China. Pendek kata, datuk Pak Lah iaitu bapa Allahyarhamah Kailan bernama Hassan Salleh atau Hah Su Chiang adalah seorang pendatang. Beliau berhijrah ke Tanah Melayu dari wilayah Guandong (Kwantung) pada pertengahan abad ke-19 dan menetap di Bayan Lepas sebagai pekebun getah, pesawah padi dan kemudian saudagar intan berlian.
Najib Tun Razak, Timbalan PM juga berasal daripada keluarga pendatang iaitu dari Sulawesi, Indonesia atau lebih senang disebut orang Bugis manakala sepupunya Hishamudin Hussein tidak terlepas daripada darah keturunan Turki.
Datuk nenek mantan PM Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad juga pendatang dari Kerala, India manakala ibu Almarhum Tunku Abul Rahman berasal dari negeri Siam (Thailand).
Kesultanan Melayu Melaka pun dibuka oleh orang pendatang dari Sumatra bernama Parameswara, seorang anak raja atau bangsawan beragama Hindu.
Dalam sejarah kesultanan Melayu, kita dapati ada yang ditubuh oleh pendatang dari Bugis dan ada pula dari Hadhramut selain dari Minangkabau.
Hampir semua orang Melayu di sini berasal dari luar Tanah Melayu tetapi diiktiraf sebagai “bangsa Melayu” oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Kita adalah “Melayu mengikut takrifan Perlembagaan” iaitu beragama Islam, mengamalkan adat resam Melayu dan bertutur dalam bahasa Melayu. Malangnya, bahasa Melayu nampaknya dimatikan oleh orang Melayu (UMNO) sendiri apabila dinamakan sebagai bahasa Malaysia.
Oleh itu, orang Arab seperti Syed Hamid Albar dan saya, orang Aceh seperti Sanusi Junid, orang India seperti Kader Sheikh Fadzir dan Nor Mohamed Yakcop, orang Bugis seperti Najib, orang Minang seperti Rais Yatim, orang Jawa seperti Mohamad Rahmat dan yang lain seperti dari Madura, Pulau Boyan, Siam, Burma, Yunnan (China) dan selatan Filipina dengan mudah boleh diiktirf sebagai “Melayu”.
Mereka diterima sebagai orang Melayu tidak kira sama ada mereka bertutur bahasa Melayu atau tidak di rumah umpamanya si Arab berbahasa Arab, si Jawa berbahasa Jawa dan si Minang berbahasa Minang atupun si Mamak berbahasa Tamil.
Bahasa-bahasa yang disebut itu bukan bahasa Melayu dan jika dilihat dari sudut Perlembagaan Persekutuan, tidak boleh diterima atau diiktiraf sebagai bangsa Melayu. Walau bagaimanapun, atas kepentingan dan faktor politik, semuanya diterima sebagai Melayu dan Bumiputera.
Oleh itu, adalah tidak adil untuk menuding jari kepada orang Cina yang juga kaum pendatang sama seperti orang Arab, India, Aceh, Minang, Batak, Mandailing, Jawa, Madura mahupun Bugis, sebagai menumpang di negeri ini. Kita tidak boleh menafikan bahawa sebilangan besar datuk nenek orang Cina telah berhijrah ke negeri ini semasa Kesultanan Melayu Melaka, bahkan kesultanan-kesultanan terdahulu di Kedah mahupun Terengganu dan Kelantan serta semasa Francis Light berjaya menipu Sultan Kedah untuk menduduki Pulau Pinang pada 1786.
Kita adalah kaum pendatang yang menumpang hidup di negeri ini. Golongan yang boleh diiktiraf sebagai orang asal atau anak bumi tulen adalah mereka yang kita kenali sebagai Negrito, Jakun, Semang, Jahut, Orang Laut, Orang Darat, Senoi dan suku kaum masyarakat Asli lain yang masih menjadi penghuni belantara.
Kita tidak harus lupa akan sumbangan dan pengorbanan semua kaum dan suku kaum untuk membangunkan Malaysia sama ada dari sudut ekonomi, kemasyarakatan, keselamatan dan yang paling penting kesepakatan dan perpaduan. Semua orang yang kena dan seharusnya membayar cukai, berbuat demikian tanpa mengira kaum atau asal keturunan, sama ada pendatang atau penumpang.
Racist Ahmad Ismail provocation
By YB Mr. Lim Kit Siang
« We are all “pendatangs”
Racist Ahmad Ismail provocation - will 13 Penang Umno division leaders be disciplined too?
What action will the Umno Supreme Council take at its emergency meeting today to end the15-day national furore over Ahmad Ismail’s provocative, inflammatory and acist “penumpang” reference to Malaysian Chinese – a simple and straightforward issue which should have been nipped in the bud when it surfaced publicly on August 26 instead of being allowed to snowball into a “no-holds-barred” political and nation-building crisis escalating into the Bukit Bendera Umno divison chairman:
• Warning the Chinese in Malaysia not to mimic American Jews in seeking to control the country’s economy but also its political power;
• Wanting Gerakan to leave the Barisan Nasional;
• Demanding that Gerakan acting president Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon should be stripped of his post as the state Barisan chairman and the post be given to the MCA; and
• Public tearing of a picture of Tsu Koon.
What would have ensued if there had been a public tearing of the picture of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi or the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuik Seri Najib Razak by a Gerakan division leader of Chinese or Indian descent?
Armed Forces Chief Jeneral Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Zainal yesterday made a most uncustomary public intervention when he proposed at a Wanita Umno function that the Government take stern action against those who stoke racial sentiments, the country’s main security threat.
Is Abdul Aziz referring directly to Ahmad Ismail and the 13 Penang Umno Division leaders who had given full backing to the Bukit Bendera Umno division chairman in his inflammatory, irresponsible and racist acts and rants, or is the Armed Forces Chief referring to those aggrieved by Ahmad Ismail’s provocative outbursts?
Ahmad Ismail’s grandparents migrated to this country from India. Why should a Malaysian who is a second-generation locally born in the country be so irresponsible, provocative and racist as to question the loyalty of a Malaysian Chinese like seventh locally-born generation Tan Siok Choo, daughter to Tun Tan Siew Sin, causing her to declare most justly and legitimately in her Sun column, “Politically blind and tone deaf?”:
“And for some Malaysian Chinese like myself, to be called a ‘squat’ is an insult. My forefathers came to Malacca in 1771. Even in August 1957, my family had been living in Malacca for 186 years. How many other Malaysians can claim this long period of residence? “
Ahmad Ismail however belong to the “dinosaur” generation when their narrow-minded racist views meant to protect their “pot of gold” as an Umnoputra rather than to advance the welfare of all Malays is rejected by young and progressive Malaysians from all races, including young Malays, as reflected in this posting on my blog:
What happen to this country? Please stop and stop this racial issues llaaahh… Im a Malay, 22 years old and Im a University of Malaya student. In my class, Im really happy I can interact with each other as a Malaysian. Sure!!! In my class from 30 students, there are only 5 Malay and the other 25 are Chinese. Even after class, there’s not a big deal we can makan-makan and minum-minum together without realized that we are all “penumpang”, “pendatang” or wuteva the damned thing you call it. If I dont understand anything or facing any difficulties in the subject that I learn, my Chinese friends dont even hesitate to teach me and so when they ask me, I will share my knowledge also. Then again, we makan-makan again at mamak stall eating a roti canai and glass of teh tarik. EERRGGHH!!!
Do you think the current our politician leaders never experienced this warmth moment with their friends different in races during their study period on youth time??? How come? We live in Malaysia laaahh… Its healthy when you getting know each other… Come and visit their house during Hari Raya, Chinese New Year, Deepavali and so on…. Even Im a Malay, I really hate when UITM students “berarak”, “berdemo” or “berpekik-pekik” when Selangor MB suggested at least 10% quota for UITM students opened for non-bumis. AARRGGHH!!! They are stupid, really-really stupid. In UM, in our college activities, we Malay dont even have any problem to hold any occasion collaborating with Chinese or Indian. We engineered an event together until it success- for example, a choir competition, a Sultan Azlan Shah Hockey Competition, an Annual Dinner of the college. We work together. But when I read the newspaper, puuuff!!!! Seems every single of my joy losssttt, destroyed!!!! Eeeevvvveryday racial tense issues!!!! AAAARRGGHH!!! Cant we respect each other….??? Im a muslim and my religion teach us, in Holy Quran - “Nor will you worship that I which worship, to you be your religion, and to me my religion (Islamic monotheism)” - Surah Al-Kafirun : sentence 4-5…. Means that even you are from other religion - can applied also other races, there’s nothing to do with that. You are free to apply or live with your own life and religious style if you are different than a Muslim also. So, just respect other races or religions laaahh… Cant our leaders do that?? Its really makes me paaaiinnn heeelll!!!
The real personalities being tested in the Ahmad Ismail furore is not the Bukit Bendera Umno division chief but the Prime Minister and the Umno leadership – whether they are capable of and prepared to redeem themselves for their dereliction of duty to the nation and people in the past 15 days in allowing a comparatively small issue over Ahmad Ismail’s inflammatory, provocative and racist statement to blow up into a full-scale political and nation building crisis!
This is why Malaysians are waiting for the decision of the Umno Supreme Council emergency meeting to see what disciplinary actions would be meted out to firstly, Ahmad Ismail and secondly, the 13 Penang Umno division leaders who had supported and egged on Ahmad in his inflammatory, provocative and racist acts and rants.
« We are all “pendatangs”
Racist Ahmad Ismail provocation - will 13 Penang Umno division leaders be disciplined too?
What action will the Umno Supreme Council take at its emergency meeting today to end the15-day national furore over Ahmad Ismail’s provocative, inflammatory and acist “penumpang” reference to Malaysian Chinese – a simple and straightforward issue which should have been nipped in the bud when it surfaced publicly on August 26 instead of being allowed to snowball into a “no-holds-barred” political and nation-building crisis escalating into the Bukit Bendera Umno divison chairman:
• Warning the Chinese in Malaysia not to mimic American Jews in seeking to control the country’s economy but also its political power;
• Wanting Gerakan to leave the Barisan Nasional;
• Demanding that Gerakan acting president Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon should be stripped of his post as the state Barisan chairman and the post be given to the MCA; and
• Public tearing of a picture of Tsu Koon.
What would have ensued if there had been a public tearing of the picture of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi or the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuik Seri Najib Razak by a Gerakan division leader of Chinese or Indian descent?
Armed Forces Chief Jeneral Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Zainal yesterday made a most uncustomary public intervention when he proposed at a Wanita Umno function that the Government take stern action against those who stoke racial sentiments, the country’s main security threat.
Is Abdul Aziz referring directly to Ahmad Ismail and the 13 Penang Umno Division leaders who had given full backing to the Bukit Bendera Umno division chairman in his inflammatory, irresponsible and racist acts and rants, or is the Armed Forces Chief referring to those aggrieved by Ahmad Ismail’s provocative outbursts?
Ahmad Ismail’s grandparents migrated to this country from India. Why should a Malaysian who is a second-generation locally born in the country be so irresponsible, provocative and racist as to question the loyalty of a Malaysian Chinese like seventh locally-born generation Tan Siok Choo, daughter to Tun Tan Siew Sin, causing her to declare most justly and legitimately in her Sun column, “Politically blind and tone deaf?”:
“And for some Malaysian Chinese like myself, to be called a ‘squat’ is an insult. My forefathers came to Malacca in 1771. Even in August 1957, my family had been living in Malacca for 186 years. How many other Malaysians can claim this long period of residence? “
Ahmad Ismail however belong to the “dinosaur” generation when their narrow-minded racist views meant to protect their “pot of gold” as an Umnoputra rather than to advance the welfare of all Malays is rejected by young and progressive Malaysians from all races, including young Malays, as reflected in this posting on my blog:
What happen to this country? Please stop and stop this racial issues llaaahh… Im a Malay, 22 years old and Im a University of Malaya student. In my class, Im really happy I can interact with each other as a Malaysian. Sure!!! In my class from 30 students, there are only 5 Malay and the other 25 are Chinese. Even after class, there’s not a big deal we can makan-makan and minum-minum together without realized that we are all “penumpang”, “pendatang” or wuteva the damned thing you call it. If I dont understand anything or facing any difficulties in the subject that I learn, my Chinese friends dont even hesitate to teach me and so when they ask me, I will share my knowledge also. Then again, we makan-makan again at mamak stall eating a roti canai and glass of teh tarik. EERRGGHH!!!
Do you think the current our politician leaders never experienced this warmth moment with their friends different in races during their study period on youth time??? How come? We live in Malaysia laaahh… Its healthy when you getting know each other… Come and visit their house during Hari Raya, Chinese New Year, Deepavali and so on…. Even Im a Malay, I really hate when UITM students “berarak”, “berdemo” or “berpekik-pekik” when Selangor MB suggested at least 10% quota for UITM students opened for non-bumis. AARRGGHH!!! They are stupid, really-really stupid. In UM, in our college activities, we Malay dont even have any problem to hold any occasion collaborating with Chinese or Indian. We engineered an event together until it success- for example, a choir competition, a Sultan Azlan Shah Hockey Competition, an Annual Dinner of the college. We work together. But when I read the newspaper, puuuff!!!! Seems every single of my joy losssttt, destroyed!!!! Eeeevvvveryday racial tense issues!!!! AAAARRGGHH!!! Cant we respect each other….??? Im a muslim and my religion teach us, in Holy Quran - “Nor will you worship that I which worship, to you be your religion, and to me my religion (Islamic monotheism)” - Surah Al-Kafirun : sentence 4-5…. Means that even you are from other religion - can applied also other races, there’s nothing to do with that. You are free to apply or live with your own life and religious style if you are different than a Muslim also. So, just respect other races or religions laaahh… Cant our leaders do that?? Its really makes me paaaiinnn heeelll!!!
The real personalities being tested in the Ahmad Ismail furore is not the Bukit Bendera Umno division chief but the Prime Minister and the Umno leadership – whether they are capable of and prepared to redeem themselves for their dereliction of duty to the nation and people in the past 15 days in allowing a comparatively small issue over Ahmad Ismail’s inflammatory, provocative and racist statement to blow up into a full-scale political and nation building crisis!
This is why Malaysians are waiting for the decision of the Umno Supreme Council emergency meeting to see what disciplinary actions would be meted out to firstly, Ahmad Ismail and secondly, the 13 Penang Umno division leaders who had supported and egged on Ahmad in his inflammatory, provocative and racist acts and rants.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Najib's apology on behalf of Ahmad inappropriate
By YB Mr. Lim Kit Siang
reasons why Najib’s apology on behalf of Ahmad inappropriate, inadequate and unacceptable
There are at least five reasons why Umno Deputy President Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s apology on behalf of Bukit Bendera Umno division chief Datuk Ahmad Ismail for the latter’s derogatory, offensive, insensitive and racist reference of the Chinese as “squatters” and untrustworthy Malaysians is inappropriate, inadequate and unacceptable.
Firstly, why is there no public response from Ahmad Ismail himself, who have shown no sense of contrition or remorse whatsoever in the past nine days for his racist slurs of the Malaysian Chinese? Is Ahmad Ismail fully confident that he has the mainstream support of Umno leaders and members, encouraging him to show contempt for the nation-wide furore?
Secondly, how can Najib’s second-hand apology on behalf of Ahmad Ismail be acceptable when Ahmad continues to be defiant and unrepentant? Even if Ahmad Ismail tenders an apology, the question of its adequacy will arise, following the precedent set by the Cabinet in the Wee Meng Chee case over his “Negaraku” rap video-clip last year, when the Cabinet rejected Wee’s apology as inadequate.
Many police reports have been lodged against Ahmad for violating the Sedition Act. Is Najib’s apology meant to be a message to the Police and the Attorney-General that Ahmad should get off scot-free instead of having to face the full weight of the law?
Thirdly, Najib should apologise on behalf of himself and not on behalf of Ahmad as Najib had failed to take immediate or prompt action to reprimand Ahmad for the latter’s racist and seditious speech at a Permatang Pauh by-election ceramah on August 24 which was attended by Najib.
Fourthly, the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi himself should make a public apology for trying to protect and excuse Ahmad Ibrahim for the racist and seditious speech, with the totally unacceptable claim that the Bukit Bendera Umno division chief had not meant what he said and that he would “tell him not to do it again”.
The Prime Minister’s attempt to condone Ahmad’s racist speech caused outrage among right-thinking Malaysians especially as it is the latest example of a series of extremist, racist and seditious outbursts by Umno leaders, such as Umno MPs shouting “Balik Cina” in Parliament and a keris-wielding Umno Youth leader-cum-Education Minister.
Fifthly, the bona fide of Najib’s apology comes into question when this news is blacked out in the Malay mainstream newspapers owned and controlled by UMNO, in particular Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian. A check with Bernama online shows that Najib’s apology is reported in Bernama’s English news but blacked out in Bernama’s Bahasa Malaysia news.
With such media manipulation of his apology, how much is one to believe Najib when he said that Ahmad’s statement did not reflect the position and attitude of Umno or the leadership of Umno?
If Najib is fully sincere and serious about this statement of the stand of Umno and Umno leadership in dissociating from Ahmad’s speech, why is his statement only allowed to be reported in the non-Malay mainstream media but not in the Malay mainstream media?
reasons why Najib’s apology on behalf of Ahmad inappropriate, inadequate and unacceptable
There are at least five reasons why Umno Deputy President Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s apology on behalf of Bukit Bendera Umno division chief Datuk Ahmad Ismail for the latter’s derogatory, offensive, insensitive and racist reference of the Chinese as “squatters” and untrustworthy Malaysians is inappropriate, inadequate and unacceptable.
Firstly, why is there no public response from Ahmad Ismail himself, who have shown no sense of contrition or remorse whatsoever in the past nine days for his racist slurs of the Malaysian Chinese? Is Ahmad Ismail fully confident that he has the mainstream support of Umno leaders and members, encouraging him to show contempt for the nation-wide furore?
Secondly, how can Najib’s second-hand apology on behalf of Ahmad Ismail be acceptable when Ahmad continues to be defiant and unrepentant? Even if Ahmad Ismail tenders an apology, the question of its adequacy will arise, following the precedent set by the Cabinet in the Wee Meng Chee case over his “Negaraku” rap video-clip last year, when the Cabinet rejected Wee’s apology as inadequate.
Many police reports have been lodged against Ahmad for violating the Sedition Act. Is Najib’s apology meant to be a message to the Police and the Attorney-General that Ahmad should get off scot-free instead of having to face the full weight of the law?
Thirdly, Najib should apologise on behalf of himself and not on behalf of Ahmad as Najib had failed to take immediate or prompt action to reprimand Ahmad for the latter’s racist and seditious speech at a Permatang Pauh by-election ceramah on August 24 which was attended by Najib.
Fourthly, the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi himself should make a public apology for trying to protect and excuse Ahmad Ibrahim for the racist and seditious speech, with the totally unacceptable claim that the Bukit Bendera Umno division chief had not meant what he said and that he would “tell him not to do it again”.
The Prime Minister’s attempt to condone Ahmad’s racist speech caused outrage among right-thinking Malaysians especially as it is the latest example of a series of extremist, racist and seditious outbursts by Umno leaders, such as Umno MPs shouting “Balik Cina” in Parliament and a keris-wielding Umno Youth leader-cum-Education Minister.
Fifthly, the bona fide of Najib’s apology comes into question when this news is blacked out in the Malay mainstream newspapers owned and controlled by UMNO, in particular Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian. A check with Bernama online shows that Najib’s apology is reported in Bernama’s English news but blacked out in Bernama’s Bahasa Malaysia news.
With such media manipulation of his apology, how much is one to believe Najib when he said that Ahmad’s statement did not reflect the position and attitude of Umno or the leadership of Umno?
If Najib is fully sincere and serious about this statement of the stand of Umno and Umno leadership in dissociating from Ahmad’s speech, why is his statement only allowed to be reported in the non-Malay mainstream media but not in the Malay mainstream media?
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Derogatory remarks by Datuk Ahmad Ismail
Bukit Bendera Umno Chief Datuk Ahmad Ismail made derogatory remarks about the Chinese in Malaysia. He was reported to have made the offensive remarks in the Permatang Pauh by-election campaign: refering to the Chinese in Malaysia as "PENDATANG, ORANG TUMPANG"
As though what he said is not bad enough, The Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was reported to condoned him by saying that he probably did not mean what he said in the heat of the campaign, and that he will be advised not to repeat it, that is all! Of course with a boss who condone such a remarks, what do you expect? No wonder, 10 days before the Merdeka anniversary there were Umno making offensive remarks like "BALIK CINA".
I think, only these type of remarks similar to condoning Kris kissing and raising had caused BN to loose a lot of votes during the previous elections!
Today we read in the Sun paper concerning the protests made by different ones on the remarks:(Let's wait and see the outcome!)
Furore grows
over remark
by Opalyn Mok, Himanshu Bhatt
and S. Tamarai Chelvi
KUALA LUMPUR: Pressure is mounting
on the Barisan Nasional leadership and the
police to act against Umno Bukit Bendera
division chief Datuk Ahmad Ismail for the
alleged racist remarks he made last month
during the Permatang Pauh by-election
campaign.
Yesterday, the DAP joined grassroots
leaders from MCA and Gerakan in lodging
police reports, urging that investigations
be carried out under the Sedition Act,
and that Ahmad be made to withdraw his
statement and to apologise to the Chinese
community for the remark likening them to
“immigrants”.
In Port Klang, MCA
vice-president and
presidential hopeful
Datuk Ong Tee Keat said
he advocated penalty
under the Sedition Act
for members of BN
component parties who
made racially-sensitive
remarks.
He said such action
was necessary to ensure
that the remarks by the
individuals did not refl ect
the stand of the parties
they belonged to.
“If a party wants to
show that the remarks were not refl ective of
its stand but represented an opinion of the
individual (party member), it must discipline
the member so as not to give a wrong picture
to the people,” Bernama quoted the transport
minister as saying after a visit to Westport
Malaysia.
Ong was asked to comment on Gerakan’s
intention to suggest to the BN supreme
council that leaders of component parties
who uttered racially-sensitive remarks be
hauled up under the Sedition Act or other
relevant laws.
Gerakan acting president Tan Sri Dr
Koh Tsu Koon had claimed that Ahmad’s
comment had eroded the Chinese support
for the BN.
The Chinese press reported Ahmad
as saying that the Chinese are “only
immigrants” and that “as the Chinese
were only immigrants, it was impossible to
achieve equal rights among races”.
When contacted, the Penang Umno
Liaison Committee said it would
leave it to the BN leadership to deal
with the matter.
Its deputy chairman, Datuk Seri
Abdul Rashid Abdullah, said it
did not receive any offi cial letters,
references or complaints regarding
the statement.
He declined to comment
directly on the remark as he had
not received any references or
complaints and also did not know
whether the vernacular papers had
reported the comment accurately.
He said this matter became an
issue only after Datuk Seri Anwar
Ibrahim won the Permatang Pauh
by-election on Aug 26. “Ahmad had
allegedly made the statement on Aug 25 but
nothing was mentioned at that time. Now,
after BN was defeated,
As though what he said is not bad enough, The Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was reported to condoned him by saying that he probably did not mean what he said in the heat of the campaign, and that he will be advised not to repeat it, that is all! Of course with a boss who condone such a remarks, what do you expect? No wonder, 10 days before the Merdeka anniversary there were Umno making offensive remarks like "BALIK CINA".
I think, only these type of remarks similar to condoning Kris kissing and raising had caused BN to loose a lot of votes during the previous elections!
Today we read in the Sun paper concerning the protests made by different ones on the remarks:(Let's wait and see the outcome!)
Furore grows
over remark
by Opalyn Mok, Himanshu Bhatt
and S. Tamarai Chelvi
KUALA LUMPUR: Pressure is mounting
on the Barisan Nasional leadership and the
police to act against Umno Bukit Bendera
division chief Datuk Ahmad Ismail for the
alleged racist remarks he made last month
during the Permatang Pauh by-election
campaign.
Yesterday, the DAP joined grassroots
leaders from MCA and Gerakan in lodging
police reports, urging that investigations
be carried out under the Sedition Act,
and that Ahmad be made to withdraw his
statement and to apologise to the Chinese
community for the remark likening them to
“immigrants”.
In Port Klang, MCA
vice-president and
presidential hopeful
Datuk Ong Tee Keat said
he advocated penalty
under the Sedition Act
for members of BN
component parties who
made racially-sensitive
remarks.
He said such action
was necessary to ensure
that the remarks by the
individuals did not refl ect
the stand of the parties
they belonged to.
“If a party wants to
show that the remarks were not refl ective of
its stand but represented an opinion of the
individual (party member), it must discipline
the member so as not to give a wrong picture
to the people,” Bernama quoted the transport
minister as saying after a visit to Westport
Malaysia.
Ong was asked to comment on Gerakan’s
intention to suggest to the BN supreme
council that leaders of component parties
who uttered racially-sensitive remarks be
hauled up under the Sedition Act or other
relevant laws.
Gerakan acting president Tan Sri Dr
Koh Tsu Koon had claimed that Ahmad’s
comment had eroded the Chinese support
for the BN.
The Chinese press reported Ahmad
as saying that the Chinese are “only
immigrants” and that “as the Chinese
were only immigrants, it was impossible to
achieve equal rights among races”.
When contacted, the Penang Umno
Liaison Committee said it would
leave it to the BN leadership to deal
with the matter.
Its deputy chairman, Datuk Seri
Abdul Rashid Abdullah, said it
did not receive any offi cial letters,
references or complaints regarding
the statement.
He declined to comment
directly on the remark as he had
not received any references or
complaints and also did not know
whether the vernacular papers had
reported the comment accurately.
He said this matter became an
issue only after Datuk Seri Anwar
Ibrahim won the Permatang Pauh
by-election on Aug 26. “Ahmad had
allegedly made the statement on Aug 25 but
nothing was mentioned at that time. Now,
after BN was defeated,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)