Unstructured Ramblings of a Malaysian Ghost

The hypocritical Cina-pek mentality

2011-09-03T13:20:00.002+08:00

Something a little different, after a long, long pause. Again, others wrote far better, on what I was musing. What's the subject? The Cina-pek mentality that reeks of hypocrisy, how wealthy Chinese businessmen have been and are hijacking Chinese education, doing everything for the sake of their 'face' instead of the good of the public and students, and the lack of vision to propel Chinese education forward.

Why the sudden change of subject? Because it is close to my heart, because I am in the midst of such hypocritical nonsense.

Han Chiang College, Tan Sri Tan Kok Ping, Datuk Cheah See Kian and the rest of the board, I hope you can read this and take it to heart.

********

(from Oriental Daily News, 3-9-11)

就只剩一個醜字－－華校校名不能亂改 - 陳良

李光前是家喻戶曉的歷史人物，他是大企業家，也是大慈善家，贊助華教不遺餘力，這裡就講幾則他與華校的故事。

早年新加坡有一所光華學校，1953年時由福建會館開辦。當時二戰剛結束不久，民生凋敝，經濟拮据，想要辦學並不容易，當李光前知道此事後，便給予財力上的全力支持，學校才得以順利開辦。福建會館為了表示感謝，把該校命名為「光前學校」。當時李光前不在新加坡，等他回來知道後，堅決要求把校名改掉，會館不肯，他便派人拆掉「前」字，會館只好將這所學校易名為「光華學校」。

李光前慷慨資助過的學校不計其數，1949年馬來亞大學成立時，他便捐助了25萬。1953年南洋大學倡創後，李光前宣佈他認捐的款數，將依照首五年各界捐給南大總數的10％而定（最後結款時共捐一百多萬）。

多年之後，他又再捐建南大文物館、電腦中心，並且把珍藏的無價書畫都捐獻出來，以充實南大文物館。南大為了感謝他的功獻，決定把即將建成的大禮堂命名為「光前禮堂」，卻不為李光前所接受。南大只好無奈地依照慣例，以李光前的父親的名字「國專」來命名。

沽名釣譽，阿諛奉承

這就是當年李光前的風範。我們再拉回來看今天的華社，2007年霹靂州的哈古樂華小遷校到雪州蒲種時，因為建校經費全由IOI集團負責，當時便不斷有人「勸進」，要將校名改為「深靜小學」，該集團主席李深靜欲拒還迎；後來出現反對的輿論，此名終沒改成。

再來便是幾天前的新聞了。梳邦再也的子文華小因為常年接受謝富年的捐助，該校董事會為了表示感恩，建議將校名改作「謝富年華小」，後來因謝富年本身建議用其父親名字，遂改為「拿督謝華華小」。此事得到教育部的批準，還由副教長魏家祥親自宣佈。

這就是今天大馬華商的面貌了。比較前後兩代華商的風範，真令人唏噓感慨，兩者何止有雲泥之別！

今天華社到底成什麼風氣了？沒有理念也罷了，缺乏思想也算了，卻連基本的看法都沒有。在上者多為沽名釣譽，在下者盡好阿諛奉承，大家相互吹捧，私據名器，試問為後人留下風範的能有幾人？

每一所華校都有厚重的歷史，短則四五十年，長則超過一世紀，一磚一瓦都是前人辛苦捐助起來的，一步一痕都由無數的教師默默支撐過來。但他們有多少人被記錄下來了？有多少人還被我們惦記著？今天只要能拿出幾百萬來，便能輕易地騎劫走這些社會公有資產的名譽？此例一開，偽善之風必起。大馬彩的十四位富豪可能會排排坐輪流挑選一間華小來改名，學校公器恐怕要淪為有錢人競標虛名的場所了。

俗不可耐，叫人鄙視

講到慷慨解囊，今天有誰能比得上先輩們的氣魄？張弼士、鬍子春、張郁才等等等的實業家到底捐助過甚至創辦過多少間華校，到今天學者都無法列出一份清單來。一百年前陸佑就贊助香港大學一百多萬元，六十年前陳六使即席就擲出五百萬元捐助南洋大學，換成今天的幣值是什麼數字？更別說陳嘉庚、李光前各捐助過上億元的教育經費了，這些豈是今天的小鼻子小眼晴所敢想像的？然而香港大學也只設一個陸佑堂吧了，陳六使卻連一個置放銅像的地方也沒有啊！今天又有誰會比陸佑和陳六使來得更偉大？

依照今天華社腦殘的感恩思維，南洋大學就應該改為陳六使大學、香港大學就應該改為陸佑大學、廈門大學就應該改為陳嘉庚大學。還有，尊孔也應該改為陸佑中學、韓江中學應該改為林連登中學、南華中學應改為顏清文中學、興華中學應該改為林玉靜中學、吉隆坡中華就應該改為李成楓中學、檳城中華應該改成張弼士華小…… 哦，太多太多了，請問本地有哪一所華校的財力不需要由少數幾個人來長期資助的？

富豪們總愛附庸風雅，好顯示自己的文化修養，這本無可厚非；群小最喜歡趨炎附勢，好表現自己的護主心切，這也是人之常情。但附庸或附勢也要有道呀，否則便是俗不可耐，叫人鄙視。拿出千百萬來做教育公益已經是莫大功德了，不但為子孫積了陰德，也贏得社會地位和美名，就拜託不要再打校名的心眼了。不然就去學學林國榮，自創一間專屬自己的學校，令伯的大名就可以大敕敕地永久高掛在校門入口處，即可光宗耀祖，也不怕人講話，這才叫有種。

大丈夫行不更名，坐不改姓，這本是華人最看重的觀念。一個連辦教育都以富為尚的社會，這個社會沒得救；一個見利忘義而隨意改名的民族，這個民族沒希望。一個能夠允許用捐錢來易名的華裔副教長，這個副部長就必須向歷史和華社謝罪。

當局拚命要抹除華社的歷史記憶，捷運加產業的模式都已經兵臨茨廠街了。但沒想到我們自己更喜歡消除歷史，把名字越改越庸俗，最後統統改到一無所有，就只剩下一個醜字！

2011-04-16T11:29:00.000+08:00

Man... am I getting angry at what is going on with RPK. Just read the news below, and my reply (with slight editing) to that article.

********

MCLM sees itself a father figure to Opposition parties
By Melissa Chi
April 15, 2011 (The Malaysian Insider)

KUALA LUMPUR, April 15 — Fledgling group Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) justified its criticisms of Opposition parties and its leaders, saying today it was only hoping to see them improve and did not wish to discredit them.

MCLM president Haris Ibrahim stressed they wanted to see Opposition parties improve in the future when commenting on the outrage over the organisation chairman Raja Petra Kamarudin’s criticism of opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim that was broadcast by the pro-government TV3 television station.

“We do this almost like how a father would chastise a child whom he loves because you see something wrong and you set it right.

“If you go through this entire video clip, you will not find once where Raja Petra says Anwar has lost complete credibility. He was critical over efforts by the Opposition to form a shadow Cabinet, as he has said several times before in his blog,” Haris told reporters at the organisation’s headquarters here.

The MCLM was formed last October in London.

Haris said although he has been critical of the Opposition as well, he flew to Kuching on Wednesday to lend a hand to Opposition parties in their bid to bring about change in Sarawak.

“We criticise the Opposition because we hope to see improvements. We no longer criticise BN because we take the view BN is beyond change and beyond redemption. Until we kick BN out, this country is going to continue to languish in the state of disrepair that it is in now.

“So what the mainstream media, what TV3 has done here is to distort a message Raja Petra had sent out. A message he has been writing for a long, long time. The Opposition needs to improve. They have spun it and as you can see from The Star, Anwar has lost his credibility,” he said.

In an article published earlier today, the English daily said that Raja Petra had claimed Anwar lost his credibility as Opposition leader when he failed to fulfil the promise that the Opposition pact would form a government on September 16, 2008.

“Raja Petra, who said Anwar was once his close friend, added that he too was deceived by the PKR adviser’s false promises when he (Raja Petra) was detained under the Internal Security Act,” according to the article.

He also mentioned that after the interview, in March, Raja Petra had invited Nurul Izzah Anwar, Anwar’s daughter and PKR vice-president, on a tour of Australia to bring about issues such as the injustice in Anwar’s sodomy trial and a potentially fraudulent Sarawak elections, dispelling any suggestions that Raja Petra thinks Anwar has lost his credibility.

In addition, Haris said that MCLM agrees with Anwar’s comment on reports that Datuk Seri Najib Razak was thankful that the “truth had been revealed” about allegations linking both him and his wife to the Altantuya murder case.

The Malaysian Insider reported earlier today from Kuching that Anwar insisted that the recent revelations made by Raja Petra do not vindicate Datuk Seri Najib Razak of his involvement in the Altantuya Shaaribuu murder.

“Let me say today, unequivocally, MCLM aligns itself with the statement by Datuk Seri Anwar. You are far from cleared in the matter of the death of Altantunya. You still carry the baggage of her death,” he said.

The prime minister had also said that he considered the controversial matter “closed”, and that it is only “an issue in the realm of the court of public opinion”.

“The public has lost faith in our judiciary. Razak Baginda was acquitted. Prosecuters said they would appeal. They had 14 days to appeal, but on the last day, he then announced they had done a U-turn, no appeal. The two who have been convicted, many members of the public think they are scapegoats.

“The truth is this, it may be closed in the prime minister’s mind, but it is not closed in the court of public opinion and that is the most important, most relevant court. So, until these issues are resolved, until these burning questions are answered, it is not closed for many of us. The decisions in the courts in the murder trial leave us anything but satisfied that justice has been done,” Haris said.

He also pointed out that there have been discoveries and claims, including a text message supposedly between the prime minister and senior lawyer, Datuk Seri Mohd Shafee Abdullah, and another between the prime minister and Razak Baginda, that were not investigated by the police.

“Till today, this has not been investigated. So, Datuk Seri Najib, if you think what our chairman Raja Petra had said lets you off this hook, sorry, right thinking members of civil society will not forget this case until justice is brought to bare,” Haris said.

“I’d like to emphasise here that MCLM and the leadership of MCLM, which includes our chairman Raja Petra Kamarudin and myself as the president, we are clear in the cause that we are pursuing which is the liberty of this nation, the liberty of its people, and a just governance, transparent and accountable to the rakyat. That is the politics of MCLM today, that is the politics of its leadership from 2007, it has not changed,” the MCLM president said.

(My reply on this news. Read the rest of the replies in there. Boy am I glad that so many see the charade of RPK, MCLM, Zaid Ibrahim and the rest)

I hope Haris and all other RPK people reads this: you guys played
right into BN's hand! By criticising the opposition, by granting
interviews to mainstream media, which you mighty bloggers should know
their kind of modus-operandi, you guys are just lending a hand to BN
in destroying what you guys are fighting for: democracy!

Don't you guys get it?? You guys are destroying yourselves with such
talks! And I thought you guys are media savvy, smart, wise, have the
sense to look at the big picture, and say things accordingly. But no.
You guys just vent your outburst whenever you want, and willingly let
others manipulate you into it! You may not want to admit it, but hey,
results don't lie, and RPK's interview is manipulated. What have you
to say on that?

Hey, I am no Anwar and PR apologist either. I did not like how Lim
Guan Eng handled the Kampung Buah Pala issue (I am from Penang). I did
not like the PRK party election process. I do not like the policies of
PAS in Kedah and Kelantan. But still, I believe in them, because they
are so far much better than Barisan Nasional, and represents a
credible alternative government (just look at Penang, so much better
after PR came into power; just look at Perak, so much done in 11
months by PR; even Selangor is doing well despite of all the infighting).

But what are you guys doing? By setting up MCLM, you guys are just the
spoiler, with all the talks of fielding candidates in the upcoming
election. What are you trying to do? Aren't you guys destroying what
you are, and in my view, claim to be fighting for? Do you know that
your actions and your words are delaying the change that is desperately
needed in this country: kicking out BN??? By your actions, you think you are
presenting yourself as a credible alternative? No! You guys are just
shifty sands with no foundation, arguing for the sake of arguing!

Haris, you said this: 'We criticise the Opposition because we hope to
see improvements. We no longer criticise BN because we take the view
BN is beyond change and beyond redemption. Until we kick BN out, this
country is going to continue to languish in the state of disrepair
that it is in now.' If this is what you claim to do, then do it
without sabotaging the big picture, without sabotaging (knowingly or
unknowingly) by your actions and words!

Man.. I respected you guys, as champions of democracy, freedom of
speech, freedom of information, exposing injustice of the ruling
government. But no. You guys just have to screw up in the name of
freedom to speak whatever you want to speak, at the wrong time!

As a rakyat, as an academic, I am sorely disappointed in you guys!

What kind of a man RPK is?

2011-04-15T22:05:00.000+08:00

I was giving more thought over what RPK did, and this occurred to me:

(this is a reply I had in Facebook over the issue, with a bit of editing)

RPK has no sense of what is important, no sense of the big picture. He doesn't like Anwar, so he shoots him, said he incapable to lead, while exonerating Najib and Rosmah from Altantuya conspiracy. Claims that he is his own man, but do not realise that whatever he says can be manipulated for other people's advantage. Just take a look at this Altantuya fiasco: Najib is now using RPK's words to clear his own name. Why? Is RPK so stupid that he doesn't know his words can be manipulated?

I think he is that stupid.

Everything he says against Anwar is a blow against Pakatan Rakyat, trying hard to take over Putrajaya. He claims that he is doing it because it is freedom of speech, for a healthy democratic society, but did he realise that his salvo against Anwar is damaging democracy and strengthening BN's rule?

No. I don't think he realises that.

So... what kind of a guy is he? A master strategist, like some of the bloggers and readers say he is? Or a guy that talks without using his mental faculty?

Go figure.

So... RPK said these things to get even?

2011-04-15T17:58:00.001+08:00

Man... I take back my words. New development on RPK, and really, apa pun boleh berlaku dalam Bolehland.

He claimed that he's no sellout with his latest revelation, but read on, and a big chunk of his interview with The Malaysian Insider is on firing salvo at Anwar Ibrahim. So... what is he trying to do? Bury Anwar?

He is either threatened, he sold himself to BN, or he wants to square off and get even, or even bury Anwar.

You make the decision.

**********

RPK: I’m no sellout
By Shannon Teoh
April 15, 2011 (The Malaysian Insider)

KUALA LUMPUR, April 15 — Controversial blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin insisted today he is still behind the opposition cause and denied that he has sold out after giving an interview to TV3.

He caused a stir two days ago when he said on the national television station that he never accused Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and his wife of being behind the gruesome 2006 murder of Mongolian woman Altantuya Shariibuu.

The editor of the Malaysia Today news portal explained his actions in an email interview with The Malaysian Insider. The full text is reproduced below.

TMI: You were recently in Australia, meaning you have a passport to travel. Where are you now and where are you based? Will you be coming back to Malaysia soon?

RPK: I am currently in Bali. And no, I will not be going back to Malaysia, at least not until the government changes. If Barisan Nasional remains the government then I shall have to be buried in Brookwood beside my mother when I die.

Why do you ask whether I am coming back to Malaysia? Because of my TV3 interview? If I do a TV3 interview and then return to Malaysia (which would mean I can’t if I did not do that interview) would that not be too obvious that the interview was a sell-out?

Stupid move don’t you think?

TMI: Why did you give the interview to TV3? You have attacked the press, especially mainstream, in Malaysia before. Why trust them? Are there no other avenues?

RPK: Do I need to trust them to give an interview?

I don’t trust you or Malaysian Insider either. I think you are tools for Khairy Jamaluddin and Kalimullah Hassan. Yet you send me this interview and yet I respond.

You came to me. I did not go to you. TV3 also came to me. I did not go to them.

(Note: The Malaysian Insider is not owned by or connected in any way to either Khairy Jamaluddin or Datuk Seri Kalimullah Hassan.)

TMI: Now PKR are calling you a turncoat for what they say is an attempt to discredit Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. Is this true, or are they overreacting?

RPK: Anyone who whacks Najib, (Datin Seri) Rosmah (Mansor), (Tun Dr) Mahathir (Mohamad), (Tan Sri) Muhyiddin (Yassin), Khairy (Jamaluddin), (Datuk) Mukhriz (Mahathir) and so on is a patriot, Godsend, loyal Malaysian, and reincarnation of Gandhi and Mother Teresa both in one, as far as the opposition is concerned.

Anyone who even mildly criticises the opposition or its leaders is a traitor, a turncoat, has been bought, has sold out, is doing it for money, and much more.

This is typical opposition mentality.

They accuse the government of not allowing freedom of speech. They mean, of course, freedom to criticise the government. But when you criticise the opposition that is not freedom of speech. You are a Judas.

Show me one thing I said in my TV3 interview that I have not said before. Is there anything new I have said in the TV3 interview or am I merely repeating myself?

People say: I merely write in Malaysia Today. How many people actually read Malaysia Today? How many Malaysians access the internet? Very few! Television, however, reaches 97 per cent of the population, they say.

But when I finally get on television they get upset. Why? Do you think TV3 is going to air my interview if I whack Najib and condemn the government? They give me airtime because I criticise Anwar.

You mean I have never criticised Anwar before? Anwar even criticised me in his talk in Sydney, Australia. You can see the video on Youtube. So we have been criticising each other for a long time.

In 2004, I resigned from Suara Keadilan in a huff during the PKR Ipoh convention due to a conflict and concentrated full time on Malaysia Today. So the “feud”, if you want to call it that, is seven years old, not something new.

The only difference between then and now is that, then, my criticism was confined to the Internet. Now it is on national television. That is the only difference. And that is the real issue here.

If I had said what I said on Australian radio and television (which I have) then people would not get upset. But when I say the same on TV3 they get upset. This is because TV3 is owned by Umno. But if TV3 happened to be owned by Anwar Ibrahim they would not mind. It is because it is owned by Umno that they are upset.

The trouble is they associate the opposition with Anwar. I am Rome and Rome is me! We need to change that. Anwar is Anwar and the opposition is the opposition. Anwar is not indispensable. We can’t put the entire future of the opposition just on Anwar.

What happens if Anwar is sent to jail? And there are reasons to believe he will. Does the opposition close down? We must be able to look beyond Anwar. This is not about Anwar. It is about the cause, the fight for change. Sometimes we may need to criticise Anwar to save the opposition.

And have I not said this many times before? So what am I saying now that I have never said before? I am just repeating myself here. Only this time it has gotten onto national television.

Incidentally, what I am saying is what many are also saying. The only difference is: they whisper behind Anwar’s back and praise him to his face. I tell it to his face. That is the only difference.

When Anwar was in jail from 1998 to 2004, how many of these Anwar “diehards” came to Anwar’s house every Thursday night. I used to go to his house on Thursday nights and the “crowd” was only about 100 or so.

Today, many people are Anwar diehards. Let’s see when the government again sends Anwar to jail whether these same people will be in Anwar’s house every Thursday night or whether the “crowd” will dwindle, yet again, to a mere 100.

Nurul Izzah (Anwar) and I went before the Australian Foreign Affairs Committee last month to brief the Parliamentarians about what the government is doing to Anwar and to ask for the help from the Australian government. One month before that I did this TV3 interview (although it just came out).

So, on the one hand I ask foreign governments to help Anwar. On the other hand I also criticise Anwar. Anwar and the cause are two separate issues. I may support one but I may criticise the other because they are two different issues.

TMI: Some have interpreted this as you saying DS Najib and his wife are not involved in the murder of Altantuya. Is this what you’re saying? Or are you still convinced they are involved?

RPK: Have you read my statutory declaration, which is the focus of my first interview? Did I allege they are involved in the murder or did I say that Lt-Kol Azmi Zainal Abidin made that allegation and, therefore, this has to be investigated? What I signed in that June 2008 SD is what I am still saying today.

TMI: People are speculating, as Malaysians do, that you gave this interview for reasons such as money or a deal to allow you to return to Malaysia without being charged or arrested. Your response?

RPK: Malaysians always and only think about money. So they try to read into everything you say or do as being about money. If I praise Anwar and the opposition, it is not about money. It is about the struggle, the cause, ideals, and so on.

Why don’t they also say that you were paid by Anwar to support the opposition? Only when you criticise the opposition and/or Anwar is it about money.

When a person is a thief, he imagines everyone else also as thieves. So when people only think about money, they always think that what you are doing must be about money. It can’t be for other reasons.

Explosive revelation of RPK

2011-04-15T12:38:00.003+08:00

Wow... RPK sure knows how to stir up a storm, and confuse the entire situation, especially with his latest 'revelation'.

It was difficult to sift through the many blog posts written on his recent explosive revelation that he did not accuse Najib and Rosmah over the murder of Altantuya. But here are the excerpts of these blog posts, and reports, with the danger of over-simplification and misquotation:

'KUALA LUMPUR, April 14 — Controversial blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin revealed today a conspiracy that linked Datuk Seri Najib Razak to the Altantuya murder was so that Umno veteran Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah could become prime minister. His claim came a day after an interview with him appeared on the pro-government TV3 channel where he denied accusing Najib’s wife of being at the scene where Mongolian model Altantuya Shaaribuu was killed. “The whole objective of this exercise was to block Najib Tun Razak from taking over as prime minister. If (Tun) Abdullah Ahmad Badawi can be forced to resign, and if Najib can be blocked from taking over, then Tengku Razaleigh could become the next prime minister,” he wrote in the Malaysia Today news portal which he edits.' (The Malaysian Insider, 14/4/11)

Summary: RPK claimed he did not accuse Najib and Rosmah over the murder of Altantuya; it was an elaborate plot to install Ku Li as PM. Can you actually believe that??

'KUALA LUMPUR, April 14 — Raja Petra Kamarudin has defended his interview aired with TV3, saying that it will renew focus on allegations surrounding the Altantuya Shariibuu murder. He also explained that he was repeating his reports, and that his June 18, 2008 sworn statement was actually against a military intelligence officer and not Datuk Seri Najib Razak and his wife Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor.' (The Malaysian Insider, 14/4/11)

Summary: same old story

'I believe we all need to keep a clear mind, not to overreact but to adopt a very objective view and remember what is important, what is real and what were the weaknesses...

Perception faulted RPK based on this TV3 interview. We do not know 100% why he did it but the transcript HERE explains why and even then, we may not know the real reason as he is a master strategist with an unwritten plan unknown to us. On his part, at least he now knows who are the doubting Thomases...

I would say RPK is a man who walks the talk. I am sure all of us know that all this while. So how can that evaporate overnight just over an interview?...

Many lament that the interview may impact the Sarawak elections negatively. I beg to differ as the state elections there is a different ball game altogether. Voters have already made up their minds and BN is so confident of winning so what's the big deal? Besides, people are concerned about localised issues and not on RPK...

We all understand that the PM and his wife have to be innocent because he is the Prime Minister of our country but why hasn't the PM sued all who made allegations against him? Read what he said HERE. Even Deepak is suing RPK as reported HERE. (from http://masterwordsmith-unplugged.blogspot.com/2011/04/o-ye-folks-of-little-faith.html)'

Summary: this masterwordsmith is a RPK and Najib apologist (I think)

'It is clear that major questions and swirling doubts over the handling of the case are still unresolved. Until these are satisfactorily answered through a just court and an honourable police force, which can only be brought into existence through a complete change of political leadership, it is naïve to hope for the return of justice to the Altantuya family and the nation. And until such time, Premier Najib Razak cannot expect to be free from the haunt of Altantuya’s murder.' (by Kim Quek, The Unending Haunt of Altantuya)'

Summary: Najib and Rosmah is still implicated in Altantuya's murder

That's basically the gist of it. What do I think of all these? Two scenarios:

RPK lied all along
RPK lied, because he was threatened: himself or his family

Puzzlement: why did RPK consented to an interview with TV3, knowing well it will spin into something horrible? He claimed that 'sometimes we need a storm to get people’s attention. Maybe now the police will do what I have been asking them to do these last three years: that is, investigate my statutory declaration and ascertain the truth behind what Lt Kol Azmi Zainal Abidin alleged.' But why the manipulative TV3?

Conclusion: I am inclined to think that RPK lied, unless new evidence suggest otherwise.

I'll leave behind RPK's explanation and Kim Quek's reasoning for the readers to make up their minds

p/s: I did not include RPK's salvo against PKR and Anwar Ibrahim, as I think it has little to do with what he said (unless again, there may be a link... who know... this is Bolehland... apa pun boleh berlaku)

********

The Unending Haunt of Altantuya

By Kim Quek

Raja Petra Kamarudin’s interview by TV3 last night is undoubtedly a piece of political propaganda aimed at cleansing Prime Minister Najib Razak’s taint with the Altantuya murder case ahead of the Sarawak elections two days from now.

Raja Petra’s interview was centered on an affidavit he signed on 18the June 2008, in which he claimed he was reliably informed by his informer that Najib’s wife Rosmah Mansor was at the scene of the crime, witnessing the blasting of Altantuya’s body. Raja Petra now claims that he no longer believes what he believed then.

Let us be very clear on this issue at the very outset. The veracity or otherwise of that affidavit as well as whatever belief or disbelief Raja Petra may have over the Altantuya case does not add or subtract one bit to the dark clouds that have persisted to hound Najib over this murder case.

FAILURE OF INSTITUTIONS
Such negative perceptions of Najib do not arise from so-and-so says this or that. Rather, they have accumulated over Najib’s own failure to conduct himself appropriately as well as the overtly protective shield provided by our law-enforcing institutions to keep Najib out of bound to due legal process – to the point of dereliction of duty, bordering on criminal collusion. It is these flagrant institutional failures as well Najib’s clumsily evasive conduct that has deepened public suspicion of his involvement.

These instances are too many to enumerate, but we will mention a few to refresh public memory.

Starting with the police, there is no reason whatsoever why the police should have left Najib and his aide-de-camp Musa Safri out of its loop of investigation, when all the three accused were closely linked to Najib and it was Musa who instructed the first two accused to tackle Altantuya.

Police failure was even more glaring when it failed to act on private investigator P. Subramaniam’s all three affidavits and video interview by three senior lawyers. The information provided by Bala in these documents not only incriminated Najib (in first affidavit), but also accused Rosmah and Najib’s brother Nazim of forcing Bala and his family to flee the country with bribe and threats (recorded in video interview and submitted via the third affidavit). The third affidavit was in reply to Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s (MACC) written questions, and submitted in July 2010. There has been no response from MACC, despite written reminders by Bala’s lawyer.

What possible reason is there for the police and MACC to remain silent over these serious accusations, backed by factual details, against the Prime Minister and his family? If Najib and family is innocent, wouldn’t these law enforcing bodies have sprung to action in the first instance to clear the PM and family of such horrible stigma?

BIZARRE IRREGULARITIES
The scenario in the court is even more bizarre. Revealing and critical evidence exposed in court was quickly smothered, instead of being pursued in the cause of truth and justice. The extra-ordinary part is that the attempt to bury these new evidences was not engendered by one or two parties but by all the three parties acting in concert – prosecutor, defence and judge.

These evidences included the erasure of immigration record of Altantuya and her Mongolian companions, and an alleged photograph of Najib, Altantuya and the third accused having a meal in a restaurant. The former evidence would have yielded important lead to some high power involvement in the case, while the latter would have nailed Najib (if proven) who had repeatedly sworn that he had never known nor met Altantuya.

This grotesque phenomenon of confluence of interest of all the judicial players to suppress new evidence can have only one explanation - Najib must be kept out of this case.

That justice might not have been fully served through the sentencing of the first two accused to death should be obvious, when the court never bothered to probe into the motive of executing the girl – and in such cruel fashion. It is not difficult to fathom why motive of murder was never mentioned in court. The simple answer is: there is none.

The two convicted killers, who were bodyguards to Najib, and trained to execute order rigidly without question, had no motive on their own to kill someone they had never met. And since the third accused, who was accused of instigating the killing, was set free due to lack of evidence, then the remaining question must be: who ordered the killing? Is it conceivable that the bodyguards had killed without order and without motive? Isn’t it logical to deduce that the mastermind and real culprit may still be lurching somewhere beyond the realm of the court?

It is clear that major questions and swirling doubts over the handling of the case are still unresolved. Until these are satisfactorily answered through a just court and an honourable police force, which can only be brought into existence through a complete change of political leadership, it is naïve to hope for the return of justice to the Altantuya family and the nation. And until such time, Premier Najib Razak cannot expect to be free from the haunt of Altantuya’s murder.

********

Now that the shit has hit the fan

Sometimes we need a storm to get people’s attention. Maybe now the police will do what I have been asking them to do these last three years: that is, investigate my statutory declaration and ascertain the truth behind what Lt Kol Azmi Zainal Abidin alleged.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin
The Umno websites and blogs call me a liar. They say I have signed a statutory declaration falsely accusing Rosmah Mansor and the husband and wife Lt Kols (Aziz Buyong and Norhayati Hassan) as being at the scene of the Altantuya murder the night she was murdered and blown up with C4.

The Malaysian government says the same thing and they arrested me and charged me for criminal defamation.

The mainstream media says the same thing: that I alleged Rosmah Mansor and Lt Kols Aziz Buyong and Norhayati Hassan were at the scene of the Altantuya murder the night she was murdered.

The online media also says the same thing; even sites like Malayskini, The Malaysian Insider and so on.

For three years I have written article after article explaining the statutory declaration that I signed in June 2008. I have made video recordings on the same matter, which are in Youtube, plus I spoke at ceramahs about this issue all over the place.

But until today my explanation has been ignored. They still insist that the story is: I alleged that Rosmah and the two Lt Kols were at the scene of Altantuya’s murder the night she was murdered.

When I was charged in court I told the judge that I refuse to respond to the charges because the charges are both defective and mala fide. The court replied it would then regard this as a not guilt plea. I raised my voice and told the judge that I did not enter a plea of not guilty. What I said was that I refuse to respond to the charges because they are defective and mala fide.

The judge ignored me and recorded a plea of not guilty and demanded that I face trial.

Not contented with that, they further detained me without trial under the Internal Security Act. During my ten-day interrogation, the senior Special Branch officer, Datuk Zambri, asked me about the statutory declaration that I signed.

I told him the whole story and even named names. I named names because these people had said that if anything happens to me I have their permission to mention their names. In fact, if I were to be put on trial, they were prepared to come forward to testify, they said.

And that was what I told the Special Branch. However, after I had told them this, my 60-day detention was cut short and the next day, the tenth day of my detention, I was whisked off to Kamunting under a two-year detention order. It was as if they wanted to bury my story by burying me in Kamunting.

I have, in fact, written about this matter before so it is not a new story. Some readers have even commented that I appear to be repeating myself and it is getting very tiring to read the same old story. Nevertheless, how many times I may repeat myself they still do not seem to understand what I say. They still insist that I alleged that Rosmah Mansor and the husband and wife Lt Kols were at the scene of the Alatantuya murder the night she was murdered and blown up with C4.

When TV3 asked me if I would consent to an interview and that the interview would focus on my statutory declaration, I agreed. I have only once before appeared on national TV. This was the live Blog program on TV1. This time, however, it would be recorded.

I realise the danger of recorded interviews as opposed to live shows like the TV1 Blog program. But I know I can handle even the toughest interviews. After all, what I would be saying is going to be the truth anyway. So why worry? Certainly they are going to spin it but then that is a risk I would have to take.

Undoubtedly, a storm is going to be created. I knew that. But maybe I need that storm so that the story of my statutory declaration can be brought back to focus and corrected. Somehow, the statutory declaration I signed and what I actually said in that statutory declaration has been lost. And it has been lost because the focus is on my so-called allegation rather than what I actually said in the statutory declaration.

Most seem to not understand that I did not make any allegation against Rosmah or the two Lt Kols. That was not what my statutory declaration said. I made an allegation against a third Lt Kol. And this third Lt Kol is Lt Kol Azmi Zainal Abidin, the number two in the special branch of the military intelligence.

I told TV3 that what I am about to say is not something new. I have written and spoken about this many times before. I have even made my statement to the police during my ISA detention. And this statement was recorded by the police.

But this statement was never made public. What I told the police has been hidden from public view. What I said has been ignored totally. Instead, the story of my allegation against Rosmah and the husband and wife Lt Kols is what is repeated again and again by all and sundry.

I really don’t know how much of my more than one hour interview is going to be aired on TV -- probably less than 10% of it. Nevertheless, now that a storm has been created, it allows me to bring back the focus to the story behind that statutory declaration.

Nik Azmi Nik Daud -- or Bul to the MCKK Old Boys (short for Bulat) -- phoned me one day in June 2008 and asked to meet. We met for tea at La Bordega in Telawi, Bangsar. I brought my wife along and Bul brought someone whom he never introduced to me and who sat the entire time as quiet as a church mouse without once opening his mouth even to yawn, cough or sneeze.

Bul then related that Lt Kol Azmi Zainal Abidin, the number two in the special branch of the military intelligence, has a confidential report that proves that Rosmah, Lt Kol Aziz Buyong, and his wife, Lt Kol Norhayati Hassan, were present at the scene of Altantuya’s murder at the time she was murdered. Bul told me to expose this.

I told him to let me think about it first. My wife, however, disagreed. She felt that the story is too far fetched and that Bul is not a reliable source. We can only do that if they show us the confidential report.

Bul assured me that the report is available but can only be revealed once the police launch an investigation. So I must expose this to provoke the police to launch an investigation.

I decided to do nothing.

A few days later, Bul called me a second time and asked to meet again. This time we met for Sunday lunch at the Selangor Club in Dataran Merdeka.

Bul asked me whether I was going to expose the story and I told him I would not. I told Bul I would surely be arrested and charged if I do what he suggests. He assured me that if that happens, and he wants that to happen for the plan to succeed (which means I am the bait), then the military intelligence report would surface.

My wife was against it. She thought it was a very risky exercise. Can we be assured that the confidential report would surface if the shit hits the fan? Bul swore that they would cover me. “We will make sure you do not go to jail,” Bul said.

I relented and said I would do it. My wife gave me a disgusted look.

“When will you do it?” Bul asked.

I would write the article that same night I told him.

“No, no article,” Bul said. “The police will just ignore your article. Sign a statutory declaration. The police can’t ignore a statutory declaration. They would have to take action.”

I hesitated. An article is one thing but a statutory declaration is very dangerous. This is playing hardball.

I then called up John Pang, who, just like Bul, worked for Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah and I told him what Bul had asked me to do. I told John that I have my reservations about Bul but if Tengku Razaleigh confirms this story then I am inclined to believe it.

John came back and confirmed that Tengku Razaleigh knows Lt Kol Azmi very well -- in fact, he often goes to Tengku Razaleigh’s office -- and that Tengku Razaleigh also knows about the story of this confidential military intelligence report concerning Rosmah and the two Lt Kols being at the scene of the crime.

I was still not sure, though. So I called up Din Merican and asked him to check with Anwar Ibrahim about the background of this Lt Kol Azmi. Din called back and said that Anwar knows him very well -- he also often goes to see Anwar -- and that he is very reliable.

With that assurance I signed the statutory declaration and the rest, as they say, is now history. And the statutory declaration was signed in the Kuala Lumpur High Court.

However, what I said in my statutory declaration is that I had been informed about the matter. I did not say for sure that I know the trio were at the scene of the crime. I said that I had been informed about it by this person and in my declaration I urged the authorities to investigate the matter to ascertain the truth of the matter.

In other words, it could be true or it may not. But only one person can confirm this. And this person would be the source of the information.

The police, however, went for me, not for the source of the information. Even after I revealed the name of the source they still did not want to do anything. It was as if I was the source rather than the reporter.

Under the law, if you know or have reason to suspect that a crime has been committed, then it is your duty to make a report. I made more than a report. I made a statutory declaration.

When all hell broke loose I contacted Bul and met up with him. I asked him for a copy of the confidential military intelligence report. Bul said that they no longer have it. The entire file has been shredded, Bul said.

Surely they have a back up copy, I said.

Sorry, no back up copy. The report no longer exists. In fact, the entire file no longer exists.

The whole objective of this exercise was to block Najib Tun Razak from taking over as Prime Minister. If Abdullah Ahmad Badawi can be forced to resign, and if Najib can be blocked from taking over, then Tengku Razaleigh could become the next prime minister.

Earlier, a meeting was held in Tengku Razaleigh’s office. About 30 people attended the meeting cum buka puasa. A few Umno bloggers such as Big Dog and so on were there. PKR people like Adlan Benan Omar and Rafizi Ramli also came. And many others whom you will know if I mention their names also attended (I will leave it to them whether they want to surface, but they know who I am talking about).

The purpose of this meeting was to explore how it can be engineered so that Tengku Razaleigh can take over as prime minister. Bul, of course, was the ‘main speaker’ with all the ideas on how this can be achieved.

Today, Bul declares that he is a strong Najib supporter and that he has always supported Najib from way back. Suddenly he is no longer the man who was scheming on how to block Najib from taking over so that his boss, Tengku Razaleigh, can be the new prime minister.

Bul, who promised me that he will make sure I will never go to jail and that the military intelligence report would surface the instant the police come for me, today, tells me that the report no longer exists.

The question is, did the report even exist in the first place? And Din Merican, who spoke to Anwar and who assured me that Lt Kol Azmi is very reliable and John Pang, who spoke to Tengku Razaleigh on the same matter and gave that same assurance, have washed their hands of this whole matter.

I can understand Din leaving PKR to go back to the other side. He did tell everyone he is disillusioned with the party and he is not the first or the last. John Pang, however, is now with CIMB Jakarta and we all know who owns CIMB.

Suddenly, everyone who was part of the conspiracy to block Najib from taking over is a strong Najib supporter from way back in time.

Yes, TV3 gave me that opportunity to tell the story I have always told but no one appears to be listening. Suddenly everyone is listening, thanks to TV3.

Sometimes we need a storm to get people’s attention. Maybe now the police will do what I have been asking them to do these last three years: that is, investigate my statutory declaration and ascertain the truth behind what Lt Kol Azmi Zainal Abidin alleged.

Now you know what my TV3 interview was all about.

2011-04-01T14:35:00.002+08:00

Once again, an articulate genius said what I wanted to say in such finesse. I wholeheartedly agree with him: This country is sick, beyond sick, and close to damnation.

********

Now every crook can fight corruption

by Tunku Aziz

The Malaysian Insider

1st April 2011

April 01, 2011 — In late 2006 as I was completing my term of office as a Special Advisor to the Secretary-General of the United Nations in New York, I received an unexpected invitation to deliver a speech at an anti-corruption conference in Jerusalem, Israel. It was an important gathering of academics, senior government officials and NGO luminaries.

The president of Israel, Moshe Katsav, the guest of honour, made a stirring speech about the evils of corruption, enjoining us all to fight it in our society.

Even as he was extolling the virtues of integrity in personal and public life, the police were crawling all over the presidential mansion rummaging through documents as part of an investigation into multiple allegations of rape and sexual harassment by several members of his female staff, over an extended period of time going back to when he was the tourism minister. He was finally sentenced to seven years in prison last week by a Tel Aviv District Court.

I mention all this for two reasons. The first is that I have never known any president, prime minister, chief minister or even a garden variety politician, however corrupt he is known to be, opposing measures to fight corruption. Many are so sincere and convincing that you think a new corruption-free dawn is about to break.

In our case, we have political leaders swearing blind that corruption is evil. They, by any standard, even if you want to be charitable, cannot in all honesty be described as morally upright where corruption is concerned.

The same applies to corrupt civil servants: They would dearly love you to believe that they are all valiant corruption fighters.

So, it seems logical to ask why do we rate so poorly in the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index, year in and year out?

Corruption is not just about money changing hands. That is common bribery. Corruption is about abusing entrusted power for private gain.

The latest to join the serried ranks of the country’s star-studded corruption fighters’ gallery is Daim Zainuddin, who, in my humble view, is the last person to lecture us about probity and rectitude.

Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, with his oversized baggage of religious credentials and other feel-good paraphernalia, had me fooled completely and the experience was all the more unpalatably galling because I genuinely like him as a person.

Whether he likes me or not, I dare not say. His intentions were I am sure very good, but then as we all know, the road to hell and moral damnation is paved with good intentions.

One lesson we should never ever forget is that politicians as a breed are pathological liars. There are naturally one or two who are reliable and decent.

But seriously, you would probably be better off trusting a cat with a plate of fried fish. Opposition politicians are no exception to this universal truth. So keep an eagle eye on them too, including me, just to be on the safe side.

They cannot abuse power because for now they have no power to abuse. Many will find the temptation irresistible. Name me one honest politician; I will name you 10 wayward Yang Berhormat, together with a clutch of even more crooked Yang Amat Berhormat.

Now, as for the second reason: My highlighting of the sentencing of Moshe Katsav of Israel is to draw comparison between the justice system of Israel and our own Mahathir-defaced system.

I cannot, figuratively speaking, for the life of me ever hope to see, not in a million years, a similar demonstration of the application one law for all enacted in our Palace of Justice. While we are not yet a failed state, our judiciary has, by general acclaim, failed to justify its existence.

What a stark contrast between a working democracy that is Israel and a thoroughly corrupt country that is Malaysia today.

Najib Razak’s tantalising array of transformation plans are doomed to failure if he continues to show arrogance and disdain for public opinion by putting disreputable, unsavoury and corruption-tainted Umno politicians to head Felda, Felcra and other institutional milch cows.

Let me remind Najib, the self-proclaimed listening ear of the people’s needs, that in the ultimate analysis, actions speak louder than words.

Malaysia cannot achieve wholesome, ethical developed nation status by 2020 or 2099 if Barisan Nasional politics remains stuck in the same groove of careless indifference to basic values and value systems that Malaysia desperate lacks and needs.

Knuckle down to basics and the rest will fall in place. At present the transformation plans sound like so much noise and nothing more because it is inconceivable that they will ever be carried out in a prudent and accountable and sustainable way for the benefit of the long-suffering people of Malaysia.

Discerning Malaysians are not blind to the fact that all the public money being so generously doled out on a daily basis in Sarawak and Selangor is nothing less than advance vote buying.

Money cannot buy the nation’s burning desire for change and change there will be. Try another tack, and save the country from bankruptcy.

Oh yes. The kings can do no wrong.

2011-02-07T16:46:00.001+08:00

Please, please tell me: which part of this blogpost is seditious???

Can't even criticise the royal institution? Can't even point out the mistakes of the monarchs? What.. the Sultans are deities that can do no wrong?????? How can we respect the Sultans like this?

Rational analysis becomes seditious. What has come to this country? Blood.

********

Pandangan saya berasaskan Undang Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Negeri Selangor 1959

Merujuk kepada kenyataan yang dibuat kepada media oleh Setiausaha Sulit kepada DYMM Sultan Selangor, Dato’ Mohamad Munir Bani berkenaan pelantikan Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Selangor (seperti laporan Berita Harian, 29 Disember 2010, m/s 2).

Saya sebagai Ahli Dewan Negeri yang terlibat secara langsung dalam sebarang bentuk pindaan undang undang digamit untuk menyatakan bahawa, apa yang berlaku dan bagaimana isu tersebut dimainkan di media seolah-olah ada agenda jahat untuk melaga-lagakan Kerajaan Negeri dengan pihak Istana Selangor. Sebagai rakyat DYMM Sultan Selangor yang setia, saya memperakui bahawa kuasa eksekutif boleh dijalankan oleh DYMM Sultan Selangor atau Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan (MMKN) atau mana-mana ahli MMKN yang diberi kuasa oleh MMKN sebagaimana dinyatakan dalam Fasal 50, Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Selangor 1959.

Di bawah Fasal 55 (1), Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Selangor 1959, baginda DYMM Sultan Selangor hendaklah menjalankan fungsi baginda mengikut nasihat MMKN atau mana-mana ahli MMKN yang bertindak di bawah kuasa am MMKN, kecuali diperuntukkan selainnya oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan atau Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Selangor 1959. Ini adalah selaras dengan kedudukan baginda sebagai Raja Berperlembagaan.

Kuasa budi bicara baginda adalah sepertimana yang dinyatakan dalam Fasal 55 (2) (a) – (g) Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Selangor 1959, dan mana-mana lain peruntukan yang memberikan kuasa budi bicara kepada baginda oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan atau Undang-undang Tubuh Kerajaan Selangor 1959.

Setelah menyemak Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Selangor 1959, saya dapati pelantikan Setiausaha Kerajaan Selangor sebagaimana yang diperuntukkan oleh Fasal 52 (1), hendaklah dibuat oleh Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan yang berkenaan. Fasal tersebut tidak menyatakan perlunya untuk mendapat perkenan DYMM Sultan Selangor.

Tetapi berdasarkan laporan Berita Harian tersebut, Setiausaha Sulit kepada DYMM Sultan Selangor telah menyatakan pelantikan Setiausaha Kerajaan Selangor perlu disembahmaklum dan mendapat perkenan baginda oleh kerana baginda adalah kuasa eksekutif di Negeri Selangor (sebagaimana yang dinyatakan dalam Fasal 50).

Ini jelas sekali bahawa kuasa Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan berkenaan yang dinyatakan dalam Fasal 52 (1) telah dibaca sekali dengan Fasal 50 yang memberikan kuasa eksekutif kepada baginda.

Persoalannya, mengapa Setiausaha Sulit kepada DYMM Sultan Selangor tersebut tidak membaca Fasal 50 dan 52 (1) tersebut bersekali dengan Fasal 55 (1) yang mengkehendaki baginda DYMM Sultan Selangor bertindak mengikut nasihat MMKN dalam menjalankan mana-mana fungsi baginda?

Perlembagaan atau Undang-Undang Tubuh hendaklah bukan sahaja dibaca secara tersurat (literal) tetapi juga hendaklah mengikut konvensyen (adat dan adab perlembagaan). Konvensyen adalah sesuatu yang tidak bertulis tetapi menjadi amalan dan ianya dianggap “daging yang membaluti kerangka perlembagaan” (the flesh that covers the bare bones of the constitution).

Ia adalah satu kiasan yang mengibaratkan perlembagaan sebagai satu rangka bernyawa yang hanya lengkap dan berfungsi dengan sempurna sekiranya ianya dibaluti oleh tubuh. Bolehkah satu benda bernyawa berfungsi dengan rangka sahaja tanpa daging tubuhnya?

Oleh itu, saya selaku salah seorang Ahli Dewan Negeri Selangor menegaskan bahawa:

(a) Setiausaha Sulit kepada DYMM Sultan Selangor dan/atau mantan Ketua Pembangkang Dewan Negeri Selangor bukanlah pihak berkuasa (authority) yang selayaknya menafsir Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Selangor mengikut tafsiran sendiri;

(b) baginda DYMM Sultan Selangor selaku Raja Berperlembagaan hendaklah mendapat nasihat dan bertindak mengikut nasihat MMKN dalam menjalankan fungsi baginda seperti yang dinyatakan dalam peruntukan Fasal 55 (1) dan (1A), Undang-undang Tubuh Kerajaan Selangor 1959;

(c) pelantikan Setiausaha Kerajaan Selangor oleh Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan yang berkenaan hendaklah bukan sahaja menyembahmaklum dan mendapat perkenan baginda DYMM Sultan Selangor tetapi juga mengambilkira bahawa baginda adalah Raja Berperlembagaan yang hendaklah bertindak mengikut nasihat MMKN yang lazimnya diwakili oleh YAB Dato’ Menteri Besar Selangor; dan

(d) pelantikan Setiausaha Kerajaan Selangor bukanlah termasuk dalam kuasa budi bicara baginda DYMM Sultan Selangor yang dinyatakan oleh Fasal 55 (2) yang membolehkan baginda bertindak tanpa merujuk dahulu kepada dan mendapat nasihat dari MMKN yang sekian lamanya diwakili oleh YAB Dato’ Menteri Besar Selangor.

Sekiranya perkara ini telah dijalankan mengikut peruntukan dan konvensyen (adat dan adab) perlembagaan dengan melibatkan DYMM Sultan Selangor selaku Ketua Negeri, YAB Dato’ Menteri Besar Selangor selaku Ketua Kerajaan Negeri dan Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan yang berkenaan selaku pihak yang dipertanggungjawabkan membuat pelantikan, saya percaya maka sudah tentu tidak timbul isu berkenaan pelantikan Setiausaha Kerajaan Selangor yang baru.

Demi menjaga keharmonian dan keberlangsungan pentadbiran Negeri Selangor yang tercinta ini, harapan saya janganlah mana-mana institusi yang sewajarnya, dibelakangi dalam perkara berkaitan pelantikan jawatan utama Kerajaan Negeri Selangor. Apakah boleh pula sekiranya jawatan Ketua Setiausaha Negara dilantik oleh SPB Yang di-Pertuan Agong tanpa merujuk dahulu kepada YAB Perdana Menteri?

Jika ada pihak yang hanya melihat peruntukan perlembagaan atau undang-undang tubuh secara tersurat sahaja tanpa mengambilkira konvensyen, pastinya SPB Yang di-Pertuan Agong boleh mengisytihar darurat tanpa perlu mendapat nasihat dari Jemaah Menteri yang diketuai oleh YAB Perdana Menteri. Ini peruntukan yang tersurat dalam Perkara 150, Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Namun hakikatnya, dan mahkamah juga telah menyatakan bahawa, mengikut konvensyen, SPB Yang di-Pertuan Agong tidak boleh mengisytihar darurat tanpa dinasihati oleh YAB Perdana Menteri yang mewakili Jemaah Menteri.

Mengapa diperingkat persekutuan SPB Yang di-Pertuan Agong perlu bertindak mengikut nasihat YAB Perdana Menteri dalam perkara yang secara tersurat tidak pula menyebut baginda perlu mendapat nasihat YAB Perdana Menteri tetapi di Negeri Selangor, seolah-olah DYMM Sultan Selangor boleh bertindak tanpa mendapat nasihat YAB Dato’ Menteri Besar hanya dengan alasan bahawa peruntukan undang-undang tubuh tidak menyatakan secara jelas baginda perlu merujuk kepada YAB Dato’ Menteri Besar? Adakah SPB Yang di-Pertuan Agong sahaja Raja Berperlembagaan di dalam Negara ini?

Ini adalah jelas satu tindakan yang berpilih dan tidak sama-rata. Gambaran yang terpampang kepada rakyat adalah dua layanan yang berbeza; satu untuk Pakatan Rakyat dan satu untuk Barisan Nasional.

Saya mengajak semua pihak untuk mengingati episod memalukan di Negeri Perak, berkenaan tindakan menggantung ADUN Bebas pro-BN oleh Speaker Perak telah dicabar di mahkamah, tetapi dalam kes penggantungan ahli parlimen dari Pakatan Rakyat seperti Dato’ Sri Anwar Ibrahim, menteri berhujah bahawa kuasa Speaker Dewan Rakyat tidak boleh dicabar di mahkamah.

Begitu juga dalam pelantikan Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri yang lain. Mengikut amalan dan konvensyen, ianya akan dirujuk dan dibincangkan antara Ketua Negeri dan Ketua Kerajaan. Tetapi, apabila Negeri Selangor yang diperintah Pakatan Rakyat, amalan dan konvensyen ini tidak dibuat. Saya yakin dan percaya rakyat Selangor mahu YAB Dato’ Menteri Besarnya dihormati oleh semua pihak termasuk pihak istana. Rakyat akan menolak sebarang tindakan “beraja di mata, bersultan di hati” oleh mana-mana pihak yang bertindak sewenang-wenangnya, tidak kira sama ada oleh raja yang berjiwa rakyat atau rakyat yang berjiwa raja.

Janganlah kerana hendak menegakkan benang yang basah, institusi negeri yang dihormati rakyat dijadikan perkakas oleh mana-mana pihak berkepentingan. Saya meneliti juga kenyataan Setiausaha Sulit tersebut yang menyatakan baginda DYMM Sultan Selangor seorang sultan yang tegas dan tidak berganjak dari keputusan yang telah dibuat. Bagaimana sekiranya keputusan yang dibuat atau cara keputusan itu dibuat adalah salah? Adakah baginda masih tidak akan berganjak? Harapan saya supaya ketegasan tidak dikelirukan dengan ego.

Dalam sejarah telah terbukti, apabila rakyat bangkit menentang Raja, biarpun beribu tahun kebangkitan itu berlangsung akhirnya kebenaran akan menghenyak ketidakadilan. Rakyat akan menang dalam peperangan menentang ketidakadilan! Didoakan agar ia tidak berlaku di Selangor.

Shuhaimi Bin Haji Shafiei

ADUN Sri Muda

30hb Disember 2010

We are still in deep shit, and we will be in deeper shit

2011-01-08T16:02:00.001+08:00

Yet another example where the writer wrote exactly what I wished to write, in absolute eloquence, the cancer that struck this country.

No doubt the rest of the world is not getting any better (in fact, it is the reverse), but it just seems that they are out-pacing us in their reforms, and are progressing far better.

I doubt we can become what is outlined in Vision 2020, and I think we will be stuck, for a long, long time.

********

The biggest loser Malaysia
January 07, 2011 (The Malaysian Insider)

JAN 7 — When I read the news of the “open verdict” on the Teoh Beng Hock inquest, I felt nothing.

Nothing of the anger, nausea and outrage that I felt in the days after his mysterious drop from the heights of the building that houses the nation’s premier anti-corruption agency.

Neither was I filled with the bilious feelings of contempt that I had when reading suggestions that Beng Hock might have “strangled himself.”

I felt nothing because I have come to expect little of the country’s institutions.

I have long thought of these institutions as a necessary illusion for living comfortably in our very own authoritarian state.

You see, Malaysia has produced a simulacrum of modernity and democracy, sometimes profoundly convincing and, at times like these, utterly fake.

Yesterday, the national slip billowed in the wind.

Behind the glossy image and multi-million dollar public relations campaigns lie the real power-brokers whose venal agenda we have all been recruited to uphold, mostly unwittingly, sometimes gladly (because we too are venal beings).

And so I was not surprised that the inquest ended inconclusively after what must have been an exhausting year for the Teoh family, Beng Hock’s friends, the lawyers and that sad creature called the Malaysian “public.”

“Sad” because this public is constantly being led by the nose by our betters, known during the Cold War as psychological warfare experts and, currently, as spin doctors.

They serve their political masters best not only by mobilising overt support for the status quo but often more effectively by sowing anxiety among their political constituents. People in the grip of a moral panic rarely think critically.

The public is not blameless, of course. It often dares not ask difficult questions perhaps because it fears the answers it is likely to receive.

Perhaps because it has forgotten how to ask difficult questions. Our national curriculum seems to consist of a diet of stodgy patriotism and incontrovertible factoids.

Of course some segments of the public do rally around those individuals who do display the capacity for critical thinking and have the social courage to articulate it.

I bet though, there are many more critical minds out there who, except for the considerations of personal comfort, would get out of their plush homes and nudge the nation towards genuine reform.

Instead we are left with an empty shell of a collective self. We are a zombie of a nation.

But fear not, we join those other unfortunate nations who consist of the living dead. We can console ourselves that we are not unique in our condition.

As for the Teoh Beng Hock inquest, we, as a nation, went through the motions.

And we always go through the motions because to not go through the motions can lead to dangerous conclusions.

What becomes of a public that can no longer rely on its mediating institutions to arbitrate conflicts and deliver justice, which is the promise modern governance, is it not?

Not a few nations have fallen off this precipice.

But that’s such a melodramatic metaphor; counter-intuitive even. After all we control in part one of the world’s most important waterways. No chance for us to become a failed nation, I’m afraid.

We need a better metaphor.

I am reminded of a recent posting on Facebook by one of my former students describing his university. “It’s like a faulty vending machine. You keep putting in money but nothing comes out,” he wrote. Clever boy.

Yes, this government is a vast and faulty vending machine that has been serving up sugar water bottled as a tonic.

A tonic for alleviating the symptoms of inequality (gas) and promoting national unity (hard stool).

The tonic has had many takers and as any snake-oil — or minyak lintah — salesman will gleefully tell you, there’s a sucker born every day.

Only thing left is to kick this big placebo-pumping monstrosity, which as we all know (following the metaphor, that is) leads to nothing but a lot of noise and a sore foot.

So what is there to do? Tweak the machine?

As far as I can see there is no reform agenda worth speaking about, only the endless churning of acronyms, large numbers and platitudes.

Perhaps if the government stopped out-sourcing their brains they could begin to repair the damage done to the bureaucracy, which is essential to a successful implementation of any reform programme.

But that’s not what happened. And how could it? They have nothing to gain by reforming the government, which was cast in their image all those decades ago anyway.

So it’s left to the party political opposition to give the desperate public hope for change. But many questions remain to be asked of them too.

Ultimately, and in the death of Teoh Beng Hock, we recognise our utter helplessness in the face of the really existing Malaysian state.

A young man is dead and, in all likelihood, no one will ever be held accountable.

The tragedy is followed by a farce and all that is left is for us to admit that the time for national self-loathing is upon us. Let us bow our heads in shame.

We are the biggest losers, Malaysia.

* Sharaad Kuttan is a regular guest on the popular culture radio talk show, A Bit of Culture, on BFM 89.9 on Sundays at 5pm. It’s also available on podcast.

* The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist.

Some sense against intolerance

2011-01-05T16:03:00.002+08:00

It is fortunate (or unfortunate to me, as it is a testament of my inadequacy) that such writers save me the trouble of rebutting a myopic, bigotted, narrow-minded, prejudiced, bias, intolerant and rude scholar such as the good Dr Ridhuan Tee.

********

But Dr Ridhuan, I beg to differ — Art Harun
January 05, 2011 (The Malaysian Insider)

JAN 5 — Salam, Doctor; allow me to begin by wishing you a happy new Gregorian year. May this new (Gregorian) year bring with it God’s goodness for all of us.

I am writing in response to your article, “Politik murahan yang memualkan” .

I have disagreed with you before and I must say, this time, with respect, I disagree with you even more.

First of all, let me say that I do not know for sure whether the prime minister’s minders did in fact ask the Archbishop to remove all crucifixes and prohibit the Christians from singing hymns at the function attended by the prime minister. There are reports which say that that happened. And there are also reports which say that it did not happen.

Whatever it is, assuming that it did take place, one thing is for sure. The instruction or request did not come from the prime minister.

I am really disappointed that you viewed the prime minister’s visit to the function as a lowly act of besmirching his feet with dirt. This is what you said:

“Kesediaan dan kesudian PM yang sanggup ‘mencemar duli’ pergi ke ‘rumah ibadat’ tersebut sepatut diberikan penghargaan dan pujian, bukannya dilacurpolitikkan.” (emphasis is mine).

The expression “mencemar duli”, loosely translated, means to dirty one’s feet or soles. That expression is normally used to express gratitude to our Rulers for having graced any of our function with their Highness’ presence. It is expressed thus:

“Patik menjunjung kasih Tuanku kerana sudi mencemar duli Tuanku ke upacara ini.”

By using that expression to describe the prime minister’s visit to the function at hand, you are implying that it was actually beneath the prime minister to attend such a function and that the prime minister was actually going out of his way to lower himself to attend the said function.

Doctor, with all due respect, that was unbecoming of you as an ulamak.

We live a multi-ethnic-faith society. It was none other than the prime minister himself who is advocating the concept of 1 Malaysia. That concept, as I understand it, would among others, entail the acceptance by all of us, regardless of breed, creed and faith that we should, as the people of Malaysia, live in harmony, understanding and respect for each other.

The prime minister is the prime minister of Malaysia. He is not the prime minister of the Muslims or Malays only. As president of Umno, he may be the leader of the Malays who are members or Umno. As president of the Barisan Nasional, he is the leader of everybody who is a member of the component parties of the BN. But as the prime minister of Malaysia, he acts for all of us Malaysians.

In that capacity, he has to attend to the interests of all of us, regardless of our faith and race. If he attends a Hari Raya celebration, he must also attend a Deepavali and Chinese New Year celebration. The same goes with the Christmas celebration. He just has to attend it because he is the prime minister of Malaysia.

It is not beneath him to do so. By attending a Christmas function, he is not “mencemar” his “duli” or dirtying his feet or sole. He is performing his social duty as a prime minister.

Your argument that Muslims are prohibited from attending religious celebrations of other faith than Islam is simplistic at its core. To my mind Islam is all about one’s closeness to God and His will. What problem would God have against anybody who attends a non-Muslim celebration if his faith in God and His way is unshakable?

Are you saying that by attending the function that night, the prime minister’s faith in God would in any way diminish? I think we should all give the prime minister a little bit more credit here.

In fact, the latest pronouncement on this issue was made by Dr Ghaith Muhammad al-Sheikh al-Mubarak, a member of the Council of Senior Ulamak of Saudi Arabia. He opined on December 23, 2010 that Muslims can take part in religious festivals of other faiths if the purpose of their attendance is to attract non-Muslims to Islam.

According to local daily the Saudi Gazette, he said “by attending festivals of other faiths Muslims could help to ‘pacify their souls’ and when a Muslim rejects an invitation to attend such a festival it could alienate non-Muslims and divert them from the right path.”

And so Doctor, it would appear now that it all boils down to one’s intention. Was the prime minister intending to be a Christian by attending that function or was he making a move for unity that night?

While I was studying at King’s College, my law library was housed in an old church. Are you saying that I should not have gone to the library because it was in a church, Doctor? Are you saying that before entering the library I should have requested the librarian or College authority to respect me by removing all crucifixes adorning the walls?

You cite the example of Caliph Omar not wanting to pray in a Church as an example. This is what you said:

“Sudah tentu kita masih ingat kisah Khalifah Islam kedua, Saidina Omar Al-Khattab yang pernah melawat gereja. Ketika tiba waktu sembahyang, paderi tersebut menawarkan Omar untuk solat di gereja. Namun, Saidina Omar menolak dan memilih untuk tidak solat di dalam gereja kerana ditakuti boleh menimbulkan fitnah. Mungkin orang Kristian akan beranggapan Omar mahu menukarkan gereja menjadi masjid. Semua ini dilakukan atas kebijaksanaan seseorang pemimpin.”

With respect, Doctor, that is not the true historical account of the incident. Caliph Omar declined to pray in the Church of Holy Sepulchre not because he feared unwarranted aspersions or he did not want the Christians to think that he (Omar) would want to turn the church into a mosque. That was a twisted view.

For the record, Caliph Omar captured Jerusalem after a brief and bloodless siege, from the Byzantines in February 638. Caliph Omar Ibn al-Khattab accepted the city’s surrender from Patriarch Sophronius in person.

Omar was shown the great Church of the Holy Sepulchre and offered a place to pray in it, but he refused. He declined out of absolute respect for the Christians and their church, and not out of fear as you stated.

He declined because he thought that if he did so, a precedent would be set and that future generations of Muslims might say that Omar prayed there and then they might convert this Church into a Mosque. It was out of that concern and respect that he refused to pray there.

He then proceeded to pray at the steps outside the Church. By doing so he averted the possibility of the Church being turned into a mosque. Such was his great respect for Christians, Christianity and churches.

Fair enough, Omar’s fears almost came to reality when in 1193 Saladin’s son Aphdal Ali built a mosque near the site of that incident although the location is not exact, for the entrance to the Church was on the east in Omar’s time and the present entrance was only inaugurated in the 11th century.

You made a big issue on the apparent Christmas celebration in Malaysia, which according to you is way out of proportion considering Christians constitute only about 10 per cent of our population. Are they to blame if shops and shopping complexes and, in fact, the whole commercial world in the whole universe, view Christmas and its celebration as a commercial activity rather than a pure religious event?

The thing about Christmas “celebration” which is way out of proportion in our country and any other country in the world is this. It is not about religion at all. It the capitalism god at work. You should realise that dear, Doctor.

As a Muslim, I am in fact thankful that our Hari Raya is not celebrated in such a big way as Christmas. At least Hari Raya is preserved as a pure religious event where Muslims would go to the mosque and visit each other and undertake charitable work.

Even then, our Hari Raya has, nowadays, morphed into a cultural and social event. Notice for example, dear Doctor, how we have open houses which really in effect not “open” anymore nowadays?

Caliph Omar, for example, refused to build a huge mosque after capturing Jerusalem. He opted to build a modest mosque on the Temple Mount instead. Clearly, size and quantity was not important to him. What matters is his faith I suppose.

Complaining on the number of churches and how big Christmas celebration is in our country is, to me — and I say this with the greatest of respect to you — childish. It is reflective of the inferiority complex which we Muslims are imbued with nowadays.

It makes us want to retire into our cocoon, sulking and whining at how big and prettier other people are and how we should resent them and how unfair this whole new world is. If the Prophet were to behave like that in his early days in Mecca, I wonder whether Islam would be a great way of life it is now.

The great way of life that we know as Islam is not about public holidays or the size of our mosques. If you are going to compare the number of public holidays we have, are you going to equate football with our religion just because we had a public holiday after winning the Suzuki Cup recently, just as we have a public holiday for Hari Raya every year?

We have more and bigger office complexes than mosques. Don’t you feel these office complexes are more important than mosques and thus our people place office complexes on a higher plane than mosques?

The Prophet (peace be upon him) was well known for his respect to other religions, especially to the kitabiyyah (the people of the book, namely, the Jews and Christians). In a letter from him to Negus, the king of Abyssinia, he wrote:

From Muhammad, God’s Messenger, to the Negus Asham, the King of Abyssinia;

Peace be upon you! On this occasion, I praise God, the Sovereign, the Holy One free from all defects, the Giver of security, the Watcher over His creatures, and I bear witness that Jesus is a spirit from God, and a word from Him, whom He bestowed upon Mary, who was chaste, pure and virgin. I call you to God, One with no partner. (Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaya 3.104).

The Prophet (peace be upon him) was not only respectful to a Christian King but he in fact acknowledged Jesus and Mary in his letter. Such was the message of one-ness which the Prophet (peace be upon him) was advocating.

It is known that in Islam, we are allowed to marry the ahlil-kitab (people of the book) without them having to convert to Islam. I would ask, if this is so, would our Christian spouse be required to remove her crucifix before we sleep with her every night? How would she pray in our house in that event?

The contemporary approach towards achieving the globalisation of Islam is one of inclusiveness, dear Doctor. As such, it comes as no surprise, for instance, for Sheikh Ahmed Hassoun, the Mufti of Syria to declare that Islam commands its followers to protect Judaism early last year.

While the world is fast moving into an era of inter-faith acceptance and embrace inter-religious accord, it is disheartening to see Malaysia regressing into medieval insecurity and superiority complex. It is this complex which causes the likes of the Mufti of Johor to issue a fatwa saying Islam forbids Muslims from dressing up as Santa forgetting that Santa is not a religious icon but rather a commercial icon which has been elevated to a cultural one (which is similar to the act giving away “duit raya” on Hari Raya in Malaysia).

You make known your concern of the visit by the prime minister being politicised and reminded of an incident where a former leader was undermine by a picture before. That was of course referring to the picture of Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah who was pictured wearing a Kadazan headgear with a crucifix symbol in 1990.

How sad. That picture was misused as a character assassination by none other than the government controlled mainstream newspapers in an election to defeat the Tengku.

If that happens to the prime minister just because he attends the Christmas function recently, don’t you think, Doctor, that it is your duty as an ulamak to educate the Muslim public, as part of your dakwah, to ignore such irresponsible and gutter politics? By condoning the alleged action in requesting the removal of the crucifix, I am afraid to say that you are in fact indirectly promoting that kind of silly politicisation of theocratic phobias.

As Muslims, we make noises when people of other faiths perceivably treat our religion with disrespect. If non-Muslims could be asked to wear tudung before entering the mosque to observe the sanctity of our mosque, why can’t we Muslims, reciprocate and accord the same respect to other faiths by at least allowing them to bear their objects of faith?

Islam, from the very beginning — and I mean to say from day one — was inextricably connected to Christianity in more ways than we care to admit. On the very day the Prophet (peace be upon him) was revealed the first verse Iqra’, he did not know what had happened to him. He ran back home in fear, trembling in shock. Do you remember who told him that he had been appointed God’s messenger?

It was none other than Khadija’s (the Prophet’s wife) cousin, Warqa bin Naufal, a Christian with knowledge of biblical lore, who told Muhammad (peace be upon him) that he had been revealed a divine message, just like Moses before him. Such was the close association between Islam and Christian on the very first day of its existence.

Why can’t we Muslims acknowledge that and stop being in fear and disbelieve our ability to be true to our faith?

Why can’t we work towards inclusiveness, towards unity, towards acceptance and towards one-ness.

Or does God really want us to remind ourselves of how different we are from the rest of the world all the time?

Salam. — art-harun.blogspot.com

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified.

Return Penang to Kedah? Not again...

2010-12-15T11:51:00.001+08:00

The idea of returning Penang to the Kedah Sultanate has been around for a long time, as Penang was 'rented' out by the Kedah Sultanate in 1786 at a cost of $10,000 per annum. Now, a group of local historians are banging on that idea again, claiming the history of Penang is distorted with British colonialism, and that there is the need to correct such distortion with the right perspective: within the context of the Kedah Sultanate, where the true history of Penang rest upon

Yet, at least in the article below, there is no historical facts/narrative about the history of Penang before Captain Francis Light 'rented' Penang over from Kedah. So... what is the true history of Penang?

Some rebuttal of several arguments raised by the writer of the article, before you judge on the validity of them:

'Umumnya komen-komen yang diutarakan dalam siber bagi mencantas cadangan itu jelas memperlihatkan kedangkalan sejarah dan persejarahan di kalangan rakyat Malaysia. Pemikiran dan sikap mereka dalam hal ini bersifat kebudak-budakkan sehingga ada mengatakan bahawa jika kita hendakkan yang asal, mengapa tidak kembalikan Tanah Melayu kepada orang asalnya, Orang Asli.

Beberapa lagi komen menjurus kepada mencabar kedaulatan Malaysia — dari segi mengembalikan negeri-negeri seperti Kedah, Kelantan dan Terengganu kepada Siam, Thailand dan Sabah kepada Filipina.'

What is so childish about suggesting returning Malaysia to the Orang Asli, returning Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu to Thailand, and Sabah to Philippines? Those are historical perspectives and interpretations too, supported with facts and reasoning. To argue the point, the idea of returning Penang to Kedah is equally childish, and I may add that it is ideologically loaded to beef up the idea of Ketuanan Melayu, no? I can make assertions too, which they will claim is childish. But ain't the reasoning to return Penang to Kedah childish too? Hmm...

Sejarah Pulau Pinang, sudah tentu mereka 100 peratus bersetuju, hanya bermula dari kolonial Inggeris, Francis Light. Bukannya dari kesultanan Melayu Kedah. Mereka juga percaya Raffleslah yang membuka Singapura. Bukan kesultanan Melayu.
...
Kata Murad, selama ini rakyat Malaysia hanya menganggap sejarah kewujudan Pulau Pinang berlaku pada 1786 iaitu apabila British mula sampai ke negeri itu. “Namun sebenarnya sejarah Pulau Pinang dan orang Melayu telah terpendam. Jika Kedah mengambil semula Pulau Pinang, ia sama sekali akan mengubah sejarah negeri itu,” jelas beliau.
...
Maka wujudlah nama-nama seperti Light, Scott dan Leith yang dikaitkan dengan sejarah Pulau Pinang dan seterusnya Malaysia. Maka pelbagai buku dan bahan tentang sejarah Pulau Pinang mengandaikan bahawa Pulau Pinang hanya mempunyai sejarah selepas mendaratnya Francis Light di Tanjung Penaga pada 11 Ogos 1786, dan seterusnya perjanjian pada tahun yang sama dan pada tahun 1800.

They claim that the real history of Penang and its Malay people were buried. They claim that it is incorrect to state that Penang and Singapore were 'opened' by Light and Raffles, but rather, they were already part of the then Kedah and Johor Sultanate.

My question: what then is the real history of Penang and its Malay people? What then is the real history of Singapore? So far, with my limited knowledge, and what the writer wrote in the article below, there is nothing mention of what is that real history. On the other hand, the history of Light and Raffles were recorded clearly, and thus to accord them the honour of opening up Penang and Singapore was not unreasonable. May I suggest then that the puzzle is missing, and that so far, the call to return Penang to Kedah is based on a historical document that perhaps has little or no legal binding, and not on concrete historical facts?

What am I trying to say? These 'scholars' are arguing the point with little basis, other than a piece of historical agreement which has little implications today. In addition, they belittle other perspectives, while their perspective is equally 'childish'. Thirdly, knowingly or unknowingly, they are trying to assert that the Peninsula Malaysia is a purely 'Malay' land, trying to lend credence to Malay Supremacy. Do these learned scholars realise that they are opening up a Pandora box that will have implications on Malaysia, Thailand, even Indonesia, Philippines and China? Man... everyone can start claiming for this and that, simply because they have 'historical basis'. Will this not be chaotic? Look at China, its face-ego-saving-campaign of wanting to reclaim Taiwan as its own, and the violence in Tibet and Xinjiang in the name of protecting its sovereignty and interest: what came out of such endeavours, but more problems?

I can only shake head at the absurdity of these supposedly learned scholars.

p/s: this article is written with many inputs from Aaron Ngui.

**********

Kembalikan Pulau Pinang kepada Sultan Kedah — Zaini Hassan
(The Malaysian Insider, 15/12/10)

15 Dis — Saya dan profesor kajian alam Melayu, A. Murad Merican mempunyai kepercayaan yang sama. Pulau Pinang harus dikembalikan kepada kerajaan Kesultanan Kedah. Bukanlah kerana saya orang Kedah dan Murad orang Pulau Pinang, maka kami bersetuju dengan cadangan itu.

Tapi ia adalah berdasarkan fakta sejarah.

Asal cadangan itu datangnya dari Pengerusi Persatuan Sejarah Malaysia Cawangan Kedah (PSMCK), Datuk Wan Shamsuddin Mohd. Yusof melalui kenyataannya kepada Bernama 1 Disember lalu.

Berita itu bertajuk: Kedah dicadang tuntut semula Pulau Pinang:

“PSMCK mencadangkan supaya Pulau Pinang dikembalikan kepada Kedah kerana negeri tersebut pada asalnya kepunyaan Kedah.”

Pengerusi PSMCK, Datuk Wan Shamsudin Mohd. Yusof berkata, cadangan itu ditimbulkan kerana Pulau Pinang adalah hak milik Kedah sebelum berlakunya perjanjian antara Sultan Kedah dan British pada 1786.

“Setelah negara kita merdeka pada 1957, Pulau Pinang yang dijajah sepatutnya dikembalikan kepada Kedah sepertimana Dinding dan Pangkor dikembalikan kepada Perak. Tetapi Pulau Pinang tidak dikembalikan kepada Kedah dan terus dijadikan sebuah negeri yang berasingan,” ujarnya kepada pemberita.

Dalam perjanjian yang dibuat antara Sultan Kedah ketika itu, Sultan Dhiauddin Mukarram Shah dan Leftenan Gabenor Pulau Pinang, Sir George Leith Baronet pada tahun 1800, Pulau Pinang dipajak untuk menampung keperluan ekonomi pada masa itu.

Pada ketika itu, Pulau Pinang dipajak dengan harga 6,000 manakala Seberang Prai dipajak dengan harga 4,000 dan pihak British membayar wang tersebut kepada Sultan Kedah dengan menggunakan mata wang Sepanyol.

Menurut Wan Shamsudin, Pulau Pinang dan Seberang Perai disifatkan masih hak milik Kedah kerana duit pajakan masih dibayar oleh Kerajaan Pusat dengan nilai RM10,000 setiap tahun kepada kerajaan negeri Kedah pada masa ini.

“Pembayaran pajakan masih wujud sehingga kini dan ini bererti, keadaan tersebut masih wujud dan tidak salah untuk Kedah membuat tuntutan,” jelasnya.

Tambahnya, pihaknya akan mengadakan satu seminar dengan pakar-pakar sejarah untuk mengumpulkan fakta-fakta dan bukti yang berkaitan dengan sejarah Pulau Pinang yang dahulunya di bawah naungan Kesultanan Kedah.

“Kami juga akan menyerahkan bukti dan fakta tersebut kepada pihak-pihak yang bertanggungjawab dan terserah kepada mereka untuk menuntut semula Pulau Pinang atau tidak,”katanya.

Tanpa menjelaskan siapa pihak yang bertanggungjawab itu, Wan Samsudin berkata, tugas PSMCK ialah untuk menyuarakan kembali perkara itu memandangkan ramai pihak mula terlupa tentang sejarah sebenar negeri Pulau Pinang.

“Sama ada pihak tersebut mahu menuntut semula Pulau Pinang atau tidak itu terserah kepada mereka.

“Kami suarakan perkara ini kerana tidak mahu sejarah negeri Kedah dan Pulau Pinang terus dilupakan,” katanya.

Namun bukan semua orang menyenangi dengan cadangan itu. Ada yang mengatakan jika itulah pandangannya maka Tanah Melayu harus dikembalikan kepada Orang Asli?

DAP sudah tentu tidak mahu menyerahkan Pulau Pinang kepada Kedah. Mereka juga sudah tentu tidak bersetuju dengan pandangan dan cadangan itu. Pulau Pinang bagi DAP ialah kubu terkuatnya (sekarang).

Sejarah Pulau Pinang, sudah tentu mereka 100 peratus bersetuju, hanya bermula dari kolonial Inggeris, Francis Light. Bukannya dari kesultanan Melayu Kedah. Mereka juga percaya Raffleslah yang membuka Singapura. Bukan kesultanan Melayu.

Namun, cadangan Wan Shamsuddin itu mesti dipertimbangkan dengan wajar dan serius. Patik — Ahli Mahkota Kedah ini — berharap Duli Yang Maha Mulia Tuanku Al-Sultan dapat meneliti perkara ini sedalam-dalamnya.

Umumnya komen-komen yang diutarakan dalam siber bagi mencantas cadangan itu jelas memperlihatkan kedangkalan sejarah dan persejarahan di kalangan rakyat Malaysia. Pemikiran dan sikap mereka dalam hal ini bersifat kebudak-budakkan sehingga ada mengatakan bahawa jika kita hendakkan yang asal, mengapa tidak kembalikan Tanah Melayu kepada orang asalnya, Orang Asli.

Beberapa lagi komen menjurus kepada mencabar kedaulatan Malaysia — dari segi mengembalikan negeri-negeri seperti Kedah, Kelantan dan Terengganu kepada Siam, Thailand dan Sabah kepada Filipina.

Wan Shamsudin telah membangkitkan satu isu penting dalam sejarah dan persejarahan negara, bukan hanya kaitan Kedah dan Pulau Pinang. Ini adalah kerana sekian lama, sejarah dan persejarahan Malaysia, sama ada sengaja atau tidak, wujud dalam keadaan pelbagai kelompongan.

Saranan Wan Shamsuddin perlu disokong lalu diteliti dan dihalusi implikasinya dari segi sejarah dan persejarahan pasca kolonial. Kita bukan menolak kedatangan Inggeris dan kuasa barat ke Alam Melayu. Apa yang penting ialah usaha berterusan memberi tafsiran dan konteks yang lebih wajar kepada alam dan geopolitik kesultanan Kedah.

Murad juga dalam kenyataan akhbarnya menyebut, perjanjian memajak Pulau Pinang antara Sultan Kedah dan British pada 1786 dan 1800 tidak pernah menyebut bahawa ia tidak boleh dimansuhkan atau akan tamat pada tempoh tertentu.

Oleh itu, katanya tidak mustahil jika Pulau Pinang dikembalikan kepada Kedah jika ia dituntut sekarang. “Pulau Pinang boleh dijadikan satu daerah atau wilayah khas dalam Kedah jika ia dikembalikan kepadanya.”

Kata Murad, selama ini rakyat Malaysia hanya menganggap sejarah kewujudan Pulau Pinang berlaku pada 1786 iaitu apabila British mula sampai ke negeri itu. “Namun sebenarnya sejarah Pulau Pinang dan orang Melayu telah terpendam. Jika Kedah mengambil semula Pulau Pinang, ia sama sekali akan mengubah sejarah negeri itu,” jelas beliau.

Bagi menjelaskan lagi senario sejarah ini, saya menyarankan Persatuan Sejarah Malaysia dapat mengadakan seminar seperti cadangan Wan Shamsuddin itu seberapa segera. Pulau Pinang harus dikembalikan kepada hak kesultanan dan tamadunnya yang asal.

Kerajaan Pusat juga harus mengikuti perkembangan ini dengan teliti.

Bagi mendapatkan ruang bicara mengenai cadangan dan pandangan ini, Prof. Murad yang juga Ketua Kluster Penyelidikan Kajian Oksiden di Alam Melayu, Universiti Teknologi Petronas memberi analisis impirikal ringkasnya mengenai hal ini. Katanya cadangan itu membuka perbincangan yang penting bukan hanya dari segi kedaulatan kesultanan Kedah (yang tertua di dunia dan Malaysia), tetapi juga usaha berterusan mengeluarkan sejarah dan persejarahan Malaysia dari kepompong kolonial Inggeris.

Ikuti tulisan beliau:

Dari sudut Perlembagaan Persekutuan, cadangan Datuk Wan Shamsuddin itu tidak bercanggah dengan undang-undang negara. Mengubah sempadan sesebuah negeri diperuntukan dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan dalam Bahagian 1, Artikel 2, tertakluk kepada persetujuan Dewan Undangan Negeri terbabit dan Majlis Raja-Raja Melayu.

Kita juga seharusnya tidak mengenakan sekatan pemikiran dan pergerakan untuk meluruskan masa lalu demi generasi masa depan. Kita maklum bahawa apabila Inggeris dan Belanda bertapak di Kepulauan Melayu, mereka melakarkan sempadan geopolitik. Ini membawa maksud mencampur tangan dalam hal ehwal masyarakat dan kerajaan Melayu.

Apa yang berlaku pada hakikatnya ialah pihak Inggeris telah campur tangan dalam hal-ehwal kesultanan Kedah. Dan campur tangan ini bermula lebih awal daripada Perjanjian Pangkor 1874.

Maka wujudlah nama-nama seperti Light, Scott dan Leith yang dikaitkan dengan sejarah Pulau Pinang dan seterusnya Malaysia. Maka pelbagai buku dan bahan tentang sejarah Pulau Pinang mengandaikan bahawa Pulau Pinang hanya mempunyai sejarah selepas mendaratnya Francis Light di Tanjung Penaga pada 11 Ogos 1786, dan seterusnya perjanjian pada tahun yang sama dan pada tahun 1800.

Akibat dari perjanjian-perjanjian tersebut, alam Melayu mula dikotak-katikkan “khususnya jajahan Kesultanan Kedah, kerajaan Melayu yang tertua di Malaysia dan kerajaan beraja yang tertua di dunia.

Jika kesedaran umum bahawa “segala-galanya” bermula dari Melaka, maka kita memesongkan sejarah. Ini tidak semestinya kita mengetepikan Melaka yang merupakan asas kepada institusi dan sistem kerajaan di Malaysia kini.

Namun demikian, kesedaran ruang dan masa yang lebih awal dari itu amat kritikal sekali dalam penulisan sejarah negara dan perlu diketengahkan pada tahap akademik dan popular.

Dan apabila kita baca penulisan tentang sejarah Pulau Pinang, Kedah hanya dirujuk dalam konteks Sultan Kedah membuat perjanjian dengan Francis Light. Lebih dari itu, Kedah hilang dalam persejarahan Pulau Pinang.

Begitu juga dengan pelbagai penulisan tentang sejarah Kedah. Apa yang saya perhatikan ialah persejarahan Kedah setakat ini tidak memberi penekanan kepada Pulau Pinang sebagai sebahagian daripada Kesultanan Kedah. Persejarahan Kedah juga menjadi mangsa kepada perspektif kolonial, yakni, menerima sebagai hakikat bahawa sejarah Pulau Pinang asing dan berbeza dengan sejarah Kedah.

Persejarahan Kedah memandang sepi penempatan Melayu Pulau Pinang dan warisan Kedah di pulau itu kecuali salah satu kertas kerja Datuk Wan Shamsudin beberapa tahun lalu yang ada menyebut penempatan Melayu sebelum kedatangan Inggeris.

Malah akibat daripada perjanjian dalam tahun-tahun tersebut, perhubungan Kedah dengan wilayah-wilayah di Sumatera pun tidak ditonjolkan seolah-olah tidak ada kesepaduan tradisi, bahasa, agama dan budaya di antara Kedah dan wilayah-wilayah tersebut.

Beberapa tahun lalu dalam syarahan saya pada PSMCK di Alor Setar, saya menganjurkan bahawa sejarah dan persejarahan Pulau Pinang mesti lari dari sudut kolonial lalu mencadangkan bahawa ia dilihat dari perspektif negeri dan Kesultanan Kedah.

Cadangan Datuk Wan mempunyai implikasi kepada sejarah negara. Tidak ada sebab mengapa kita tidak boleh luruskan persejarahan. Tidak ada sebab mengapa kita tidak boleh mengubah geografi alam kita sendiri demi menerokai satu ruang lapisan sejarah yang telah disisih.

Asal usul negara bangsa Malaysia perlu dihalusi dan dibincangkan secara terbuka. Kenyataan-kenyataan yang tidak menggambarkan hakikat hendaklah ditangani sewajarnya demi masa depan.

Sebagai contoh, sebuah buku yang diterbitkan pada tahun 2007 dengan tajuk Malaysian Chinese and Nation-Building: Before Merdeka and Fifty Years After (Penerbit: Centre for Malaysian Chinese Studies, Kuala Lumpur) telah menyatakan bahawa Malaysia sebagai sebuah negara bangsa bermula dengan pembukaan (founding) Pulau Pinang pada tahun 1786.

Bab satu buku itu yang bertajuk “State and Nation: An Overview and Malaysian Perspective,”menyatakan bahawa dari situ, perkembangan seterusnya telah menjurus kepada pembentukan satu politik.

Dalam perbincangan pembentukan Malaysia, buku itu menekankan kepada warisan undang-undang dan pentadbiran British sebagai asas kesamaan wilayah-wilayah di Malaysia (ms.10).

Wacana-wacana sebeginilah yang memesongkan sejarah dan persejarahan Malaysia. Apakah ia mengandaikan bahawa Malaysia tidak ada sejarah sebelum 1786? — Utusan Malaysia

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified.

You buat apa dalam mahkamah? Minum teh tarik??

2010-11-08T22:30:00.001+08:00

"We don't answer question of law without facts. We do not answer hypothetical questions," said Zaki.

This is the answer given by the Federal Court, the supposed supreme authority on the law of the land.

I am no lohyar, but this is my question: if the Federal Court is not supposed to answer question of the law, then what are you supposed to do there? Minum teh tarik??

How do you expect the lower court to try a case with a questionable law? Blindly charge into it without knowledge?

Just goes to show how lousy our court is, not even capable (or willing) to answer a question of the law.

Bloody lazy judges.

********

Daphne Iking 'enticement' case sent back for trial
(The Star, 9/11/10)

PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court here Monday sent the "enticement case" involving celebrity TV presenter Daphne Iking back to the magistrate's court for trial.

A three-men panel led by Chief Justice Tun Zaki Azmi made the order after striking out a referral application to the Federal Court for determination of constitutional questions, with liberty of parties to refile the application after the completion of the trial.

Zaki said the magistrate has to decide on the facts of the matter before parties can apply to refer to the Federal Court for determination of constitutional questions.

"We don't answer question of law without facts. We do not answer hypothetical questions," said Zaki, who sat in the panel with Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Arifin Zakaria and Federal Court judge Datuk Seri Md Raus Sharif.

He then directed the case be set for early trial at the Kuala Lumpur magistrate's court on Nov 29.

On Aug 25 last year, the High Court referred the case to the Federal Court after finding that there were merits to the application by Darren Choy Khin Ming, the man accused of enticing Iking, for constitutional issues to be determined by the Federal Court.

Among the questions was the constitutional validity of Section 498 of the Penal Code in which the case was based upon.

Iking's former husband, Ryan Chong Yiing Yih, 32, had initiated a private summons against Choy, 45, under Section 498 of the Penal Code for enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman.

Choy was charged with enticing Iking, 31, knowing that she was a married woman, with the intention of having sexual intercourse.

He allegedly committed the offence at a condominium unit in Taman Tun Dr Ismail between July 2007 and September last year.

If found guilty, he can be jailed up to two years, fined or both.

Iking married Chong on Jan 27, 2007 in Bali, Indonesia. The couple have a daughter.

Counsel Datuk Jagjit Singh and Akberdin Abdul Kader represented Choy while lawyer Wong Kian Kheong represented Chong. - Bernama

I wonder who is overreacting

2010-09-30T08:37:00.000+08:00

Facebook is a real menace, as all of my comments since the last entry 'migrated' there.

Still, the blog is still here, and so I should keep writing here as well, even though it may just be a one-sentence entry while the rest may just be news articles related to that post.

And the entry today is a classic one sentence entry: I wonder who is overreacting: Perkasa, or the rest of Malaysia.

********

Perkasa claims overreaction to BTN man’s racist words
By Shazwan Mustafa Kamal
September 29, 2010 (The Malaysian Insider)

GOMBAK, Sept 29 – Malay rights group Perkasa defended today the racist remarks made by a National Civics Bureau (BTN) official recently, claiming that the issue was being blown out of proportion.

Perkasa president Datuk Ibrahim Ali said that unfair assumptions were being leveled against BTN deputy director Hamim Husain before investigations had even taken place.

“Things are being blown out of proportion, little things are being made into a big issue. We do not know whether the allegations against this person is true or not,” Ibrahim (picture) told reporters today.

Hamim had on Monday, during a closed door Puteri Umno function, referred to the Chinese and Indian community as “Si Mata Sepet” and “Si Botol” respectively when asking Puteri Umno members to approach the non-Malays for votes.

“The ‘si mata sepet’ that has never gone to a mosque or surau only has one vote. The ‘si botol’ that only knows how to go up to Batu Caves up and down only has one vote,” Hamim told the closed-door gathering, as reported in The Malaysian Insider.

The Cabinet, disappointed with Hamim’s remarks, has instructed the Chief Secretary to investigate the BTN official.

“We do not know whether the allegations are correct. If we do not know the facts, we cannot point fingers,” said Ibrahim.

The outspoken Pasir Mas MP argued that no action had been taken against rapper Wee Meng Chee for producing a “racist” video clip.

“Namewee makes a video clip which is so controversial, yet no action is taken against him yet,” said Ibrahim.

The DAP and MCA had yesterday demanded that Hamim be immediately punished.

DAP has pushed for an immediate dissolvement of the BTN courses while MCA wants it to be overhauled.

The BTN, a state agency charged with running courses on patriotism for civil servants and undergraduates, came under fire last year for promoting racism.

The Najib administration had promised a revamp of BTN’s courses following a widespread public outcry.

Perkasa demands ISA action against Christian ‘preacher’
By Shazwan Mustafa Kamal
September 29, 2010 (The Malaysian Insider)
GOMBAK, Sept 29 – Perkasa demanded today that the Internal Security Act (ISA) be used against a man who had allegedly insulted Islam in a series of videos on YouTube.

Perkasa president Datuk Ibrahim Ali allayed concerns that ordinary citizens would take matters into their own hands if no immediate action were taken against the preacher.

Benjamin Stephens, believed to be a Christian preacher had uploaded recordings of himself preaching in a Sarawak church – believed to have been taken on March 25, 2006 – on the popular video-sharing website, where it is accessible to millions around the world.

“Use the ISA against those who have consistently been insulting Islam. Prevention is always better than finding a cure.

“This is a serious issue. Perkasa regrets the actions of the preacher has been irresponsible in insulting Islam,” Ibrahim (picture) told reporters today.

The outspoken politician claimed that the government had been “too slow” in taking action against Benjamin, saying that the normal investigation process took up “too much time”.

“You have to be quick in cases like this. The normal prosecution process just takes too much time. Perkasa is of the opinion that if the government is not firm in dealing with this issue, it will only get worse.

“People will support the government (using ISA) if the intentions are for peace,” added Ibrahim.

The Council of Churches Malaysia (CCM) earlier today applauded Putrajaya’s probe into the matter.

“The so-called preacher had acted as an individual representing his own views and not the official views of the churches in Malaysia,” it said in a media statement today, drawing a thick line between its member churches and man portrayed in the videos.

Information, Communications and Culture Minister, Datuk Seri Utama Rais Yatim had quickly ordered the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) to thoroughly check the videos after they were highlighted two days ago by upset Muslim groups, and prepare a report for action against the man.

2010-05-30T06:29:00.000+08:00

It's been a long time since I updated this. And it will be a long time more before I can return to this. So this blog is 'unavailable' for the moment, until I settle down and return to write nonsense for the world to read.

Someone here said that it will be a wonder if this site has any readers at all. I agree with him. Still, to those who read this blog, in support, out of spite, or read for the sake of reading it, I thank you.

Let's wait and see before heaping adulation over NEM

2010-03-31T11:16:00.006+08:00

Only the big picture, with no details. Thus the New Economic Model (NEM) was revealed yesterday.

Read that DAP's Liu Chin Tong was impressed. Coming from an opposition MP, it shows that the NEM is something to be reckon with.

But with the likes of the Malay Consultative Council (MPM) and Perkasa in the picture, and the details of NEM months away, I fear it will end in a limp rather than timely and radical measures, with the 'spirit' of NEP carries on to placate the likes of MPM and Perkasa.

Of course, there is the matter of implementation, which is never Malaysia's strong point, but that's another matter for another day.

So, let's not be so optimistic yet over the announcement. Wait for the details, and we shall judge it on its own merit.

**********

Tough questions posed at launch of NEM
By Lee Wei Lian
(The Malaysian Insider, 31/3/10)

KUALA LUMPUR, March 30 — A swirl of excitement, confusion and scepticism surrounded the launch of the New Economic Model (NEM) today, which was described by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak as the “backbone” of his administration’s long-term policy.

During a long and impassioned 18-page speech introducing the NEM at the Invest Malaysia conference today which was delivered in a fast and furious manner, Najib’s announcements of the initiative to make Malaysia a high-income nation were punctuated by applause though the atmosphere was also quite sombre due to the context of the speech which detailed the challenging position Malaysia finds itself in.

Some — such as RAM chief economist Dr Yeah Kim Leng — gave the NEM a thumbs up and even DAP MP Liew Chin Tong, who was at the conference, said he does not want to write off what was announced today as it was a good statement from the prime minister and it was also a step in the right direction.

The stock market, however, failed to rise significantly after the announcement and ended almost flat for the day while some at the conference, including at least one banking executive, expressed private reservations over the NEM, saying that they were not excited by it.

This could be due to the nature of what has been disclosed thus far. While not many would object to the overall goals and objectives of the NEM — to make Malaysia a high-income nation — there was many questions over the details, which will not be revealed until months later — June at the earliest — and also over the extent of constraints the NEM will face.

Najib himself sounded a battle cry during his speech, saying that rent seeking and patronage which tarnished affirmative action will “no longer be tolerated” and committed himself to see through economic reforms.

“I pledge this: we will work tirelessly to develop and implement the economic reforms that our nation needs to grow, our businesses need to succeed and, above all, for our people to prosper,” he said. “Some people are questioning the need for urgency to break the habits of the past. Do not be fooled. We need a new way of doing things. We must act now to position Malaysia for the future. We need to have a sustained and consistent big push if the reforms set out today are to gain momentum and help us achieve our goals.”

Despite the public assurances of his commitment, many members of the media were still unconvinced partly due to recent postponements of the implementation of fuel subsidy withdrawal and goods and services tax (GST), partly due to speculation that Najib would only move to implement reforms after he has secured a fresh mandate from a general election and partly from fatigue from unkept promises by previous administrations.

The prime minister did not meet the press at the conference but several National Economic Advisory Council members, who drafted the NEM, engaged the media in Q&A sessions where the main topic of conversation was whether there was sufficient political will to see through reforms.

“The measures proposed are hailed but realistically, does the prime minister have the strength or the will to implement it after seeing how the GST and move to cut subsidies was put off?” asked one reporter during the Q&A session.

“The way I hear the prime minister and Idris Jala (who is in charge of the government transformation programme), there is as strong a political will as anywhere in the world,” replied council member Danny Quah, a professor at the London School of Economics.

“The recommendations are still at the discussion stage but by the tone and language used by the prime minister during his speech, he quite likes the NEAC’s bold recommendations,” said council chairman Tan Sri Amirsham A. Aziz in reply to a similar question.

The line of questioning continued until Amirsham asked a reporter, apparently out of exasperation, if she heard the prime minister’s speech earlier.

Many questions were also asked on whether the public was willing to change — read: the rent seekers and those hooked on subsidies — to which council member Datuk Hamzah Kassim, CEO of Innovation Associates, replied: “The most challenging part is social transformation. People must feel that they are on a burning platform.”

As for questions on whether the public consultation process would result in the NEM being watered down, Quah replied: “We live in a democratic society. There is political realism, and the consultation process I view it positively. It (the NEM) is an overall strategy with an end goal but respecting the wishes of citizens.”

There was also some criticism that there was “nothing new” in the NEM but Quah said the council was not aiming for “new and novel” but wanted to do something “good” by proposing strategies to increase the nation’s productivity and at the same time not de-emphasising capital accumulation.

Another council member, Datuk Seri Panglima Andrew Sheng, Adjunct Professor, Economic and Administrative Faculty, University of Malaya, referred to table C on page 15 of the report which detailed the differences in approaches recommended in the NEM such as the old approach of growth through capital accumulation versus the new approach of growth through productivity.

Amirsham also appeared careful when discussing the issue of declaring outright if race-based policies are in or out, a key line of questioning by some reporters, but did confirm there is no proposal for race-based equity targets.

It appears that the NEAC would like to see lower value government tenders reserved for Bumiputera entrepreneurs to encourage business participation from that community but the proposal is for the contracts to be awarded in a fair and transparent manner. Amirsham however stressed that it was all the government’s decision.

The NEAC chairman also shared a personal anecdote on what he meant when he said he was pushing for productivity-led growth. He said that when he had joined his wife who was studying for her master’s degree in the US, he had observed the garbage trucks being manned by only one person.

“I thought to myself, in Malaysia, there would be one driver, one to pick up the rubbish and two or three people hanging on the back,” he said. “If we can reduce the number of workers by multi-skilling them, we can pay them higher wages and also save cost for the country.”

The council members also said that the 191-page NEM report was open for “constructive public feedback” and after the two-month feedback period, a final report will be prepared by June which will then be incorporated into the 10th Malaysia Plan and the 2011 Budget.

The highlights of the report are that it aims to double Malaysian incomes to at least US$15,000 (RM51,000) by 2020 while reforming affirmative action to make it more market-friendly and also restructure the economy to make it innovation- and productivity-driven.

It also emphasised the themes of inclusiveness and sustainability and listed some of the expected benefits such as a higher purchasing power for the people, safe living and working environments, and sound management and preservation of natural resources.

“In this regard, this is a defining moment for Malaysia,” said Najib in the closing of his speech at the conference. “As we emerge from a global recession, will we have the courage and vision to pursue an ambitious agenda for change that can seem daunting but is essential for our nation’s future? Our answer is to create high-wage jobs, give our children the best educational opportunities, and attract the high-quality investment that is the driving theme of this important gathering.

“But this is more than the economic goals of our nation. This is about the life chances open to future generations. This is about raising the sights of low-income families to help them out of poverty. This is the very fabric of our society where we each have opportunities and responsibilities. It’s about placing Malaysia at the forefront of a high-income economy so that we can stand shoulder to shoulder with other developed nations. I am confident — with your support — we will choose the right path, move forward, not back, and build a fairer, stronger and dynamic Malaysia for many decades to come.”

He lied, just like others

2010-03-10T16:13:00.002+08:00

Barely a day has passed, and a complete about turn from a supposedly professional lawyer cum politician.

Is this the kind of character we want to represent the Rakyat? Of course not.

Sadly, many still go after such flip-flopping characters, justifying that he has his reasons to do so, and that lying and political games do not matter as long as they are 'justified'.

Of course, he can always argue that the press 'misquoted' him, as this author is also mistaken by his supposedly lack of honesty and sincerity.

He can play the semantic/semiotic game as much as he wants to, but the bottom line will not change.

He LIED.

**********

Zul Noordin quits as Anwar's lawyer in qazaf case
UPDATED
By G. Manimaran
(The Malaysian Insider, 10/3/10)

KUALA LUMPUR, March 9 - Sacked PKR lawmaker Zulkifli Noordin today told the Syariah High Court that he will not represent Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim tomorrow in his qazaf application, escalating his spat with his former party and client.

Zulkifli decision came days after he was sacked from the party last Saturday for indiscipline, prompting him to denounce the PKR leadership with snide remarks against party president Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail and challenging her to contest his Kulim-Bandar Baharu seat.

In letter to the Federal Territory Syariah High Court Registrar. Zulkifli said he did not want to represent Anwar due to the latest developments.

“I would like to announce that with this I withdraw and will stop acting as the Syarie lawyer for Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim effective immediately,” he said, adding he would not attend tomorrow’s hearing.

A copy of the letter was sent to the legal firm of Kamar Ainiah, Raziff & Zashidi, Zainul Rijal & Associates and Anwar apart from being uploaded to Zulkifli’s website.

When contacted later, Zulkifli told The Malaysian Insider that he personally decided to withdraw as Anwar’s lawyer due to the latest developments with his sacking.

“This is my professional decision... I made the decision, there was no pressure from anyone including Anwar. In fact Anwar himself has not contacted me,” said the Independent MP.

He disclosed the decision was made after the Kamar Ainiah, Raziff & Zashidi law firm called him about 4pm to inform him that he was still the lead counsel.

Kamar Aniah Kamaruzaman from that firm is the other lawyer in the case.

“After discussing the matter with my friends, I decided to withdraw. If I remain representing Anwar, I feel that I am compromising my principles.

“So its better that I withdraw from the case,” he added.

Earlier today, Zulkifli said he will be in court in his capacity as the lawyer Anwar officially appointed.

“On record, I am Anwar’s lawyer … and I will be in court tomorrow. Whether I am asked to withdraw or otherwise I still need to be there,” said Zulkifli.

“If I am asked to withdraw I have to declare this officially to the court. So I will be there,” he said, adding that he does not consider his current problems to be of a personal nature.

It is understood that this will be the first time in a month that Zulkifli will meet Anwar and Wan Azizah face to face.

“This is not a personal matter, and I continue to be in contact with [Anwar], Wan Azizah and his family,” he said.

Zulkifli has informed Anwar that he will conduct himself as a professional in the qazaf suit which Anwar filed against his former personal assistant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

Zulkifli has been Anwar’s lawyer since his first sodomy trial in 1998 and also stood on the party ticket to win the Kulim-Bandar Baharu seat in Election 2008.

The de facto PKR leader’s qazaf or false accusation application against his sodomy accuser Saiful will resume after the Islamic Affairs Minister objected to the application.

Anwar’s Syarie lawyer Kamar Aniah had argued on Feb 17 that they did not have time to file the affidavit because the defence had filed the preliminary objections before Chinese New Year last week.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom, Federal Territory (FT) Syariah chief prosecutor Shamsuddin Hussain and FT Religious Department director Datuk Che Mat Che Ali filed the preliminary objections to strike out Anwar’s “qazaf” application against his former aide on Feb 9.

The parties also want Zulkifli to be excluded as his counsel because the Kulim Bandar Baharu MP may be called as a witness during the trial.

Anwar had filed an application for the court to order Shamsuddin, as the chief syarie prosecutor in the Federal Territory, to charge his former aide for making false accusations about committing intercourse with him.

Kamar questioned why the respondents had filed the preliminary objections and have not replied to the main application.

The court then ordered all parties to file in all the relevant affidavits before March 10.

Zul Noordin still Anwar’s counsel for qazaf case
By G. Manimaran
(The Malaysian Insider, 9/3/10)

KUALA LUMPUR, March 9 — Sacked PKR MP Zulkifli Noordin claims that he will continue to represent Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim despite his sacking from the party on Saturday and the war of words he has had with party president Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail.

Zulkifli said he is the lead counsel in Anwar’s qazaf case which will be mentioned in Syariah High Court in Kuala Lumpur tomorrow.

He said he will be in court in his capacity as the lawyer Anwar officially appointed.

“On record, I am Anwar’s lawyer … and I will be in court tomorrow. Whether I am asked to withdraw or otherwise I still need to be there,” said Zulkifli.

“If I am asked to withdraw I have to declare this officially to the court. So I will be there,” he said, adding that he does not consider his current problems to be of a personal nature.

It is understood that this will be the first time in a month that Zulkifli will meet Anwar and Wan Azizah face to face.

“This is not a personal matter, and I continue to be in contact with [Anwar], Wan Azizah and his family,” he said.

Zulkifli has informed Anwar that he will conduct himself as a professional in the qazaf suit which Anwar filed against his former personal assistant Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

Zulkifli was involved, in the early stages, as a member of Anwar’s legal team after the latter was sacked from his government post and Umno in September 1998.

The Syariah High Court has set the mention of the qazaf case for tomorrow.

Anwar’s other counsel is Kamar Aniah Kamaruzaman.

Syariah judge Mohd Shukor Sabuddin will also be hearing initial objections by the defence team headed by Zainal Rijal Abu Bakar.

The objections concern the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court to hear the case, application procedures and Zulkifli’s qualification to represent Anwar.

On Jan 7, Anwar, who is also MP for Permatang Pauh, filed an application with the Syariah High Court for prosecutors to continue with the qazaf charge against Saiful.

In the notice of demand, Anwar named Federal Territory lead prosecutor Shamsuddin Hussain, director of Federal Territory’s Islamic Department Datuk Che Mat Che Ali, and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom as respondents.

Anwar sought the court to order Shamsuddin to use his powers to proceed with the qazaf charge and to prevent Che Mat and Jamil from stopping Shamsuddin from doing so.

As for the attacks on Wan Azizah, Zulkifli explained that he had informed the PKR president last night through an intermediary that he will release a statement on the demand for him to vacate his Kulim-Bandar Baharu seat.

Zulkifli defended his actions, saying his statement was in response to Wan Azizah’s which appeared to be a personal attack.

“Because Wan Azizah’s statement was personal in character, accusing me of lacking principles … so I could not keep quiet.

“All the same, even before releasing the statement, I had already conveyed a message to Wan Azizah, through someone, that I would be releasing a statement in response to her’s.

“If nothing else, Wan Azizah should have contacted me and spoken to me personally and not have attacked me personally in such a public manner.”

In his statement last night, Zulkifli advised Wan Azizah not to indulge in attacks and instead step down as party president for her failures as a leader.

“I would advise Wan Azizah to relinquish her position as president for failing to defend the objectives of PKR which purports to defend Islam, the special position of the community and Islamic institutions as enshrined in the Constitution,” said Zulkifli.

Zulkifli also challenged Wan Azizah to a one-on-one fight for the seat of Kulim-Bandar Baharu, if she had the courage.

He said she ought to know better than to challenge him.

“When Wan Azizah chose to criticise me, she forced me to respond to her but it is my hope that she will desist from continuing her attacks,” he added.

They will forever be disabled, crippled by their supremacist view of themselves

2010-03-09T15:46:00.006+08:00

No offence to Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, but I am seeing a repeat of his younger self in the likes of the Malay Consultative Council (MPM) and Perkasa, the self-proclaimed defender of Malays.

As the New Economic Model (NEM) is nearing its announcement, the MPM steps up its pressure on the UMNO-led government, as it perceives that the present government has been weakened by the last general election, and therefore not doing a good job of solidifying Malay rule on this land.

Their demands: NEM should be modelled after the New Economic Policy, which first saw affirmative action (or institutionalised racism, depending on how you see it) put into practice. It should embody and protect Malay Special Rights, as guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, simply because the Malay race is the majority of this land, and therefore has the right over it. As long as Malay right are taken care off, the government can do whatever it wants in the name of improving national competitiveness and growing the economy.

And oh ya, they want a bank for the bumiputeras as well that requires RM2 billion for the venture. God knows who are going to foot the bill. Was not there a Bank Bumiputera in the past? Oh ya. It bankrupted itself with scandals after scandals.

What is their defence over affirmative action? The previous NEP proved that it worked, as NEP did not hinder, but spur economic growth.

A simplistic premise, no? One only needs to think a little deeper, and one will find that economic growth under NEP is not through the increase in overall national competitiveness, but by direct governmental intervention in economic policies and development, through the sprouting up of government-linked corporations, and a system of political patronage to induce growth.

The result? Lack of transparency and open competition, corruption, cronyism, and others aside, the unseen but most prevalent consequence is the unbalanced distribution of wealth, especially within the Malay class structure. There is a large group of Malay urban poor, along with rural Malay living with meager income, while there exists a small Malay middle class and a tiny circle of Malay upper class. (happy to have readers supporting or refuting this point with statistics).

How then do MPM and Perkasa explain this discrepancy? By conveniently blaming the Chinese, with a conspiracy theory that the Chinese are going to take over the country in the next general election if the Malays are disunited and resting on their laurels.

“The Chinese people feel that the next general election is the best opportunity for them to gain power in this country.

“This is why Chinese NGOs, such as Ziong Dong and Associated Chinese Chambers of Commerce, are using this chance to make demands of the government. If their demands are not met, then they will vote Pakatan Rakyat who are willing to give everything to the Chinese,” he elaborated in his presentation.

Zubir added that the Malays have “sacrificed” for the country by allowing “the immigrants” to live in Malaysia.

“It must be reminded that the Malay people have sacrificed tremendously since independence with a quid pro quo policy... the Malay race have compromised by allowing foreigners into the country. The Malays endured hundreds of years of colonization and the result is the migration of foreigners into the country. We were forced to accept this policy,” he said.

So, as the Chinese NGOs are plotting to take over the countries by threatening the government with their demands, MPM and Perkasa are just returning the favour.

Touché

Yes. Indeed they have 'sacrificed' and 'suffered' much when 'immigrants' entered Malaysia, and their position have been 'compromised' since independence.

I wonder what have they sacrificed, when their own people in the government chose to benefit their cronies instead of their own race. In this regard, the Malays have indeed suffered much, not in the hands of the Chinese, but in the hands of their own leaders, no?

I have never seen a person with broken legs that can miraculously walk on both legs by only taking medication after medication given by the doctors. Instead, one needs to put in a lot of sweat and tears in physiotherapy, first on rails, then with crutches and other aids, before one can walk properly.

Sadly, the state of affairs for local Malays is such that they still blindly believe in the drugs of affirmative action instead of taking that painful first step of walking on its own feet. Do they seriously believe that the Chinese got their wealth just by waving a magic wand on a pot of dirt? They too have to sweat, work and take risk just like any other, in honesty, sometimes through dubious means. That is the spirit of entrepreneurship, twisted though it may be.

But do the majority of the Malays possess that spirit of risk-taking? I very much doubt it, save a handful of true Malay entrepreneurs who believe in excellence and independence rather than leeching on the government for handouts.

The Malays need to examine their weaknesses and work on them, instead of inflating their graciousness at the 'pendatang' and demanding for the next course of affirmative action like a petulant child. The non-Bumis grew and excelled despite the injustice and unfairness of government policies. Have they grown with advantage on their side?

Unfortunately no.

**********

DPM: New Economic Model is for everyone
Muhyiddin says the NEM is for everyone
By Asrul Hadi Abdulah Sani
(The Malaysian Insider, March 8)

SUNGAI BULOH, March 8 — Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin today assured Malaysians that the proposed New Economic Model (NEM) is for all, regardless of race, background and religion.

The deputy prime minister stressed that the government will not only consider the interest of the Malays but other communities as well.

The Malaysian Insider reported today that the government has decided to incorporate the proposed NEM into the 10th Malaysia Plan (10MP) in June, as fine-tuning and tweaks will go beyond its initial end of March launch.

It was learnt the delay came after feedback from various quarters prompted the government to rework its ideas and proposals that will turn Malaysia into a high-income nation based on innovation and creativity.

Among those with reservations about the NEM are the Malay Consultative Council (MPM) which yesterday demanded it be based on the 1970s-era New Economic Policy (NEP), and should comply with Article 153 of the Federal Constitution that protect Malay and the special position of Bumiputeras.

Muhyiddin said Malaysians, including the MPM, will be provided with the opportunity to contribute the NEM.

“I want to assure every Malaysians, not just Malays but every Malaysians who have a vested interest in the New Economic Model that the prime minister is very well aware. Every Malaysians but not just Malay Consultative Council wants to have a say and I think they will be given an opportunity to look into what has been proposed by the National Economic Advisory Council,” he told reporters after launching 1 Community 1 Corporation programme at Kg Paya Jaras Hilir here.

The National Economic Advisory Council (NEAC) chaired by Tan Sri Amirsham Abdul Aziz is formulating the NEM and has briefed the Cabinet twice on its progress.

“Every Malaysian will have the opportunity to look into what the council proposed and what sort of input that they want to give to the prime minister and the government. So actually as a regard to the Malay interest or the Chinese interest, all are being taken care of but obviously we have to go into details on how those plan could be developed,” he added.

Muhyiddin also said that the NEM will be within the “spirit of the constitution.”

“At the same time, whatever decision that the government has to make will be constitutional and within the spirit of the constitution. We understand that very well so I don’t think any race need to be worry about.

“So there will be enough time for them to given the opportunity to have a look at what the proposed new economic model is all about. They can have a discussion among themselves to give input to the government,” he said.

The deputy prime minister also took great pains to say everyone will be consulted.

“I must assure you that all will be consulted. You have the various types of NGOs, not just the Malay Consultative Council. The Chinese and Indians have their own types of NGOs, all the social and economic NGOS have their own ideas but we will take note of them. We will assure that they will be given a fair chance but of course the final decision will rest on the government,” he explained.

The government had previously indicated the NEM could have been launched either late 2009 or early 2010. It was understood that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak was due to launch the NEM at the annual Invest Malaysia conference to be held after Bank Negara Malaysia unveils its annual report and economic indicators.

Muhyiddin refused to neither confirm nor deny if the launch of NEM has been delayed till June.

“Well, I think the prime minister will give sufficient time for various groups to submit their views on this. So do I hope the announcement will come from the prime minister himself,” he said.

The NEAC briefed the Cabinet for the second time on March 1, days after engaging with several quarters on various issues related to the NEM.

Sources said the Cabinet had “concerns of political implications” for some measures but Second Finance Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah has said the political risks would not stop the NEM which stressed on removing costly subsidies and improving competitiveness.

It is understood that eliminating policies that still adhere to the spirit of the NEP — even though the NEP no longer exists and was replaced by the National Development Policy in 1990 — has been received with “trepidation by the Cabinet.”

Fully aware that this radical shift away from the patronage system so many Bumiputra businessmen are familiar with, the policy makers took pains to pave the way for the NEM’s success by engaging with various pressure groups.

Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir yesterday maintained that the NEM would not neglect the Malay community and would have the spirit of the NEP.

MPM has also been campaigning that NEM should not sideline the Malays and remain in line with Article 153 which has 10 parts, with the first part making it incumbent for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak.

Perkasa, a member of MPM, is worried that the NEM will increase the monopoly of the country’s economy by the Chinese community.

Its director of economic bureau, Dr Zubir Harun, has said that Perkasa is worried that the NEM will have a Chinese agenda and warned that the Chinese community will use the next general election to take over the country.

Chinese will take over in the next election, warns Perkasa
By Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani
(The Malaysian Insider, 8/3/10)

KUALA LUMPUR, March 8 — Malay nationalist group Perkasa warns that the Chinese community will use the next general election to take over the country.

Perkasa feels that the last general election weakened the Malays and empowered the Chinese community.

Dr Zubir Harun, director of Perkasa’ economic bureau, who was at the Malay Consultative Council’s (MPM) round-table discussion, said during his presentation that a divided Malay community will empower the other races.

According to delegates at the discussion and documents received by The Malaysian Insider, Perkasa wants the New Economic Policy (NEP) to be the “spirit” of the New Economic Model (NEM).

“Perkasa believes that disunity among the Malays has weakened Umno, causing the non-Malays to be more vocal in their demands. They say that the Chinese are also blackmailing the government to give in to their demands by threatening to vote for Pakatan Rakyat,” said one of the delegates.

Zubir also said that Perkasa is worried that the New Economic Model will have a Chinese agenda.

“The Chinese people feel that the next general election is the best opportunity for them to gain power in this country.

“This is why Chinese NGOs, such as Ziong Dong and Associated Chinese Chambers of Commerce, are using this chance to make demands of the government. If their demands are not met, then they will vote Pakatan Rakyat who are willing to give everything to the Chinese,” he elaborated in his presentation.

Zubir added that the Malays have “sacrificed” for the country by allowing “the immigrants” to live in Malaysia.

“It must be reminded that the Malay people have sacrificed tremendously since independence with a quid pro quo policy... the Malay race have compromised by allowing foreigners into the country. The Malays endured hundreds of years of colonization and the result is the migration of foreigners into the country. We were forced to accept this policy,” he said.

Zubir also slammed non-Malays and liberal Malays for wanting to rewrite the country’s Constitution and social contract.

Perkasa believes that the NEP is still relevant because it will help the Malay community to counter a market which is dominated by the Chinese.

The Malaysian Insider reported today that the government has decided to incorporate the proposed New Economic Model (NEM) into the 10th Malaysia Plan (10MP) in June, as fine-tuning and tweaks will go beyond its initial end-March launch.

It was learnt the delay came after feedback from various quarters prompted the government to rework its ideas and proposals that will turn Malaysia into a high-income nation based on innovation and creativity.

Among those with reservations about the NEM are the MPM which yesterday demanded it be based on the 1970s-era New Economic Policy (NEP) and should comply with Article 153 of the Federal Constitution that protect Malay and Bumiputera’s special position.

MPM wants New Economic Model to protect Malay interests
By Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani
(The Malaysian Insider, 7/3/10)

KUALA LUMPUR, March 7 — The Malay Consultative Council (MPM) has declared that the New Economic Model (NEM) proposed by the Najib administration must protect Malay interests as prescribed by Article 153 of the Federal Constitution.

MPM spokesman Datuk Ibrahim Ali (picture) explained today that the NEM must be in line with Article 153 which has 10 parts, with the first part making it incumbent for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak.

“I hope the Prime Minister will not rush in announcing the New Economic Model, and postpone it so that it would not create any controversy especially regarding the interests of the Malay race and Bumiputeras,” the Perkasa chief said after a roundtable discussion organised by the MPM.

“The decision reached was that in the new economic model must be in the framework of Article 153 of the Constitution. The policies that do not practise affirmative action will only bring hardship to the majority, and that is the Malay race and Bumiputeras.

“This is because in a democratic system, the majority is the national agenda. It is not only the agenda of the Malay race and Bumiputeras but in a country the majority has a problem that needs to be solved then it becomes the national agenda,” he added.

Ibrahim said the government must make development of the Malay economy as one of the National Key Results Areas (NKRA).

“The government can formulate any policies in terms of competitiveness and globalisation but we must be in the framework in the constitution. We stray away from this is crime. The policy of affirmative action to protect the Malay community must be continued in the New Economic Model so the wealth is distributed equitably,” said the independent Pasir Mas MP.

Ibrahim added that equitable distribution of wealth was important for social harmony.

“The New Economic Model must concentrate on wealth distribution because if there is no wealth distribution then the country is not safe from political stability in the future. The government has the right to perform social intervention to ensure that there is national unity and economic equitability. This is important so that the country’s economy is free from monopoly and exploitation which may cause a fracture between the different races,” he said.

He said the NEP will not stall the country’s economy but instead spur its growth.

“We are against the notion that ethnic-based policies hinder foreign direct investment. This is not true because our economic growth sustained when NEP was in place. Not only did we have sustained economic growth but we also had a high foreign direct investment during that time. We reject this school of thought. We are of the opinion that there is less foreign direct investment now because of the dip in the international market and the perception of corruption in the country,” he added.

The MPM, an umbrella organisation for nearly 80 Malay groups, also slammed Tan Sri Francis Yeoh’s proposal for a brutal economy.

“They talk about brutal competition but many of them receive subsidy and monopoly from the government,” he said.

The YTL Group managing director had said that there is a need for a brutal economy for the country’s business environment to prosper and Malaysia could no longer have a “little brother” mentality where businesses are protected by the government.

MPM proposes a bank for Bumiputeras
By Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani and G. Manimaran
(The Malaysian Insider, 7/3/10)

KUALA LUMPUR, March 7 — The Malay Consultative Council (MPM) plans to set up a bank to help the Malay community regain its footing in the country’s economy, saying RM2 billion would be needed for the venture.

A MPM leader told The Malaysian Insider that the bank was necessary as the Malays have fallen behind in the economic ladder. The proposal was made at the inaugural MPM roundtable discussion held at the Matrade headquarters here.

“The main issues facing the Bumiputeras are that they feel that they are increasingly being left behind in the national development process. They are worried about the decline in their relative economic status. The Bumiputeras are currently behind the Chinese and Indians,” said the leader, who declined to be named.

The source said the Malay community will be economically and politically overpowered by the other races.

“With the decline in their political power and the rise in the economic and political power of others, they are scared that their situation will become like Singapore. The Bumiputeras are worried that there will be a complete economic and political takeover,” the leader said.

The MPM believes the core issue is the economic stagnation facing the community.

“The core issue facing us is the lack of economic progress after 50 years of independence in relation to the other communities.

“According to current trends, we forecast that the economic situation for the Bumiputeras will remain the same unless we take the necessary steps to correct the imbalance. If not, the Bumiputeras’ economic and political power will diminish,” said the leader.

MPM agreed that government procurement must be strengthened to assist the Malays and government projects should be offered in smaller units to encourage the involvement of Bumiputera companies.

The source stressed that the “Bumiputera problem” should be the national agenda.

“In a democracy, the problem of the majority is a national problem and not a Bumiputera problem solely. Today, people think Bumiputera problem is no longer a problem for the nation and only for the Bumi to solve it. It is still a government and national problem.

“After independence, non-Malays especially the Chinese gained more than the Bumiputeras from the NEP. In terms of capital and equity, the Chinese replaced foreign capital. The current political stability is a result of the NEP,” said the leader.

The leader argued that the New Economic Policy is not racist but nationalist.

“Economic growth was one of the highest in the world on a sustainability basis for 20 years. Our growth was tremendous because of the policy. NEP is not meant only for the Malays. Foreign direct investment was also at its peak during the NEP period,” the leader said.

The government once set up Bank Bumiputra but after the last bailout, it was acquired by Commerce-Asset Holdings Berhad group and absorbed into the CIMB Bank.

NEM launch delayed for fine-tuning
(The Malaysian Insider, 8/3/10)

KUALA LUMPUR, March 8 — The Najib administration has decided to incorporate the proposed New Economic Model (NEM) into the 10th Malaysia Plan (10MP) in June, as fine-tuning and tweaks will go beyond its initial end-March launch.

The Malaysian Insider learnt the delay came after feedback from various quarters prompted the government to rework its ideas and proposals that will turn Malaysia into a high-income nation based on innovation and creativity.

Among those with reservations about the NEM are a Malay rights umbrella group, the Malay Consultative Council (MPM), which yesterday demanded it be based on the 1970s-era New Economic Policy (NEP) and should comply with Article 153 of the Federal Constitution that protect Malay and Bumiputera’s special position.

“There will be no big launch of the NEM by the PM,” said an official familiar with the NEM.

The government had previously indicated the NEM could have been launched either late 2009 or early 2010.

It was understood that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak was due to launch the NEM at the annual Invest Malaysia conference to be held after Bank Negara Malaysia unveils its annual report and economic indicators.

The change in plans mean that the National Economic Advisory Council (NEAC) chaired by Tan Sri Amirsham Abdul Aziz will now hand over its report containing their recommendations to the prime minister.

“The PM will study the proposals, add more flesh to some, toss out others and then introduce the NEM as part of 10MP,” the official told The Malaysian Insider.

The NEAC briefed the Cabinet for the second time on March 1, days after engaging with several quarters on various issues related to the NEM.

Sources said the Cabinet had “concerns of political implications” for some measures but Second Finance Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah has said the political risks would not stop the NEM which stressed on removing costly subsidies and improving competitiveness.

It is understood that eliminating policies that still adhere to the spirit of the New Economic Policy (NEP) — even though the NEP no longer exists and was replaced by the National Development Policy in 1990 — has been received with “trepidation by the Cabinet.”

The NEAC had also focused on the need to look for suitable growth engines compared to the last three economic policies implemented since the 1970s.

Those who are familiar with the draft say it will encourage competitiveness among the many businessmen who receive contracts from the government.

“Those who are good will get more contracts and they will rise to the next level,” said one official who has seen the draft.

Fully aware that this radical shift away from the patronage system so many Bumiputra businessmen are familiar with, the policy makers took pains to pave the way for the NEM’s success by engaging with various pressure groups.

The on-going briefing of the NEM to various stakeholders is absolutely key to ensure a buy-in by various parties once it is unveiled. Even former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has been briefed and it is understood that his feedback was positive.

The Najib Administration hopes to reset the economy with the NEM that will also focus on innovation and creativity particularly in face of competition from new tiger economies in the region.

It is also expected to be Najib’s main thrust for the next general election where he faces an opposition that denied his ruling Barisan Nasional its customary two-thirds parliamentary majority and took away four states.

But the MPM which met yesterday insisted that thee NEM should not sideline the Malays and remain in line with Article 153 which has 10 parts, with the first part making it incumbent for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak.

“I hope the Prime Minister will not rush in announcing the New Economic Model, and postpone it so that it would not create any controversy especially regarding the interests of the Malay race and Bumiputeras,” MPM spokesman Datuk Ibrahim Ali said after the group’s roundtable discussion about the issue.

“The decision reached was that in the new economic model must be in the framework of Article 153 of the Constitution. The policies that do not practise affirmative action will only bring hardship to the majority, and that is the Malay race and Bumiputeras.

“This is because in a democratic system, the majority is the national agenda. It is not only the agenda of the Malay race and Bumiputeras but in a country the majority has a problem that needs to be solved then it becomes the national agenda,” the Perkasa chief added.

The Independent Pasir Mas MP also said the government must make development of the Malay economy as one of the National Key Results Areas (NKRA).

It is understood the MPM is looking to form a bank for Bumiputeras with a seed fund of RM2 billion as it felt the Malays have fallen behind in the economic ladder.

The government once set up Bank Bumiputra but after the last bailout, it was acquired by Commerce-Asset Holdings Berhad group and absorbed into the CIMB Bank.

New economic model will have spirit of NEP, says Mukhriz
By Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani
(The Malaysian Insider, 7/3/10)

KUALA LUMPUR, March 7 — Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir (picture) maintained that the New Economic Model (NEM) would not neglect the Malay community and would have the spirit of the New Economic Policy (NEP).

The Deputy International Trade Minister allayed fears that the NEM would sideline Malays as widely feared, stressing it would be like the NEP which was never racist but its policies benefited everyone.

“I cannot categorically say that the New Economic Model will not take into account the spirit of the NEP. So I would say that there is no basis to that fear that the New Economic Model will push aside totally NEP-type of considerations,” he told reporters after attending a roundtable discussion organised by the Malay Consultative Council (MPM).

He also elaborated on the NEP which has been criticised as favouring the Malays and Bumiputeras over other races in the country.

“If you look at seven main factors in the NEP, only one touches on Bumiputera special privileges in terms of income, assets and employment. But all of the other economic factors such as economic growth, that will benefit everyone. In terms of eradicating poverty, that will benefit everyone.

“We don’t say that eradicate poverty among the Malays only, it is for all. All the other factors within the NEP, it would be incorrect to say that it only benefits the Malays. If you recall between 1970s and 1990s, when the NEP was at its most active phase, it was the non-Bumiputeras that benefited the most,” he pointed out when addressing the MPM.

The MPM was formed by 86 Malay groups to push the government to maintain affirmative action in the NEM for the country’s dominant race.

The MPM wants the Umno-led Barisan Nasional government to maintain a “guided” NEP that protects the Malays and Bumiputeras, saying the community was worried about moves to abolish subsidies and other forms of aid.

Mukhriz said that MPM maybe be misunderstood because it stood for the rights of the Malay community.

“I think it is important that MPM should not be seen as a chauvinist pressure group. On the contrary it should be seen as a nationalist organisation that looks at national issues because we know and everyone should understand this when a majority of the population is left behind, surely this is not good for everyone.

“And it (NEP) is basically in congruence with UN charters, Human Rights Charter. What we have done so far has been acknowledged as a correct policy by the UNDP, World Bank, WTO and IMF,” he said.

He noted that MPM only demanded what rightfully belongs to the Malays.

“I believe that MPM whilst putting forward Bumiputera interests, we should never at any time interpret that as being at the expense of the others. I have said this before that we do not adhere to the Robin Hood-type of approach whereby we steal from the rich to distribute to the poor.

“Ours is an approach in how we can grow the economic pie and the growth segment is the one that is equitably distributed to the people,” he said.

The Malaysian Insider had reported that the elimination of policies that reflect the race-based New Economic Policy was received with “trepidation” by the Cabinet.

The emphasis on economic competitiveness may not sit well with some political constituents of the ruling Barisan Nasional government who support the continuation of race-based economic policies and political patronage.

The Jerlun MP said the government must have an active role in ensuring equitable distribution of wealth.

“While we have an open economy, the government must have an interventionist stand to correct the market. This is because the situation may get worse if we just leave it to market forces. We must ensure social justice is given attention while there is economic growth.

“We don’t want the gap between the rich and the poor to increase. The interventionist method is currently practised by all developed countries including the United States, Europe and Japan. We must not be apologetic and defensive and I think it is not fair if there are certain parties that propose that we practise a brutal economy,” he said.

YTL Group managing director Tan Sri Francis Yeoh had said that there is a need for a brutal economy for the country’s business environment to prosper and Malaysia could no longer have a “little brother” mentality where businesses are protected by the government.

Mukriz however disagreed and said that such a policy will not benefit society.

“I think that will not benefit any parties. What are we going to do with the people facing hardship in the villages with a brutal economic policy? I am not saying that we want a welfare state but the interest of the people must be taken into consideration,” he said.

'There is no need to say sorry', says a Muslim.

2010-03-08T15:42:00.006+08:00

A fictional scenario: a group of non-Muslims, upon hearing that a secret division of JAKIM is covertly and forcibly converting non-Muslims into Islam, decided to infiltrate an undisclosed mosque, where the said division is operating.

They went into the mosque, performed the rites of Islam, and reported the incident in a magazine. Very soon, many Muslims all over Malaysia, including the government, were crying blood, demanding apologies, threatening to bring the law to bear.

Very normal, no? Typical of Malaysian politics.

But here, we have an eminent scholar, who is supposedly a pious Muslim, has the gall to suggest that Al-Islam need not have apologised to the Catholic Church, simply because the Church was in the wrong first to proselytise Muslims , and therefore it is alright to commit the act of desecrating a religious ceremony.

Maybe I misquoted him, misinterpreted him. I have, as a matter of fact, for what I suggested was implied in what the good scholar wrote. Or have I?

Terbaru, pihak gereja katholik mahukan majalah Al-Islam meminta maaf secara terbuka di atas, artikel berjudul “Masuk Gereja Cari Gadis Bertudung Murtad” melalui tinjauan mereka di dalam gereja. Saya tidak nampak keperluan untuk meminta maaf terhadap mereka yang ada niat tersembunyi kepada kita yang terlalu bertoleransi. Kenapa kita mesti tunduk kepada ugutan mereka? Cukuplah dengan kita gagal untuk mempertahankan penggunaan kalimah Allah. Pihak gereja janganlah bertindak seperti kaduk naik junjung. Mereka ini tidak ubah seperti kumpulan ultra kiasu yang mana asyik mahu menang sahaja.

I shake my head in disbelief, to see a Muslim, and all the more, a good scholar, advocating that there is no need for an apology when something wrong was committed, that two wrongs can make a right.

Of course, the good scholar will justify that the Christian community, the ultra-kiasu, the non-Bumiputeras of this land, has done much harm to the Bumiputeras, the Malays, the Muslims, and so the non-Bumis deserve what has been done.

On the contrary, Al-Islam had the balls to issue a public apology (whether sincerely or otherwise, it is not the point), and the Catholic church accepted it in magnanimity.

Who's the better man? The gall or the ball?

(The rest of his article was devoted to an ethnocentric view of Malay leadership, which this author is tired to rebut. Unfortunately, that old and worn out rhetoric is still popular with a sizable population who are disabled by the Constitution and the NEP.)

**********

Menghargai dan membalas toleransi pribumi
(By Dr Ridhuan Tee Abdullah, 8/3/10)

Sekali lagi isu bukan Melayu boleh menjadi Perdana Menteri (PM) dibangkitkan oleh beberapa sarjana Melayu Islam. Kesempatan dan peluang ini disebar luaskan oleh laman-laman web ultra kiasu dan mereka anti Islam. Saya tidak pasti apakah muslihat serta maksud tersurat dan tersirat di sebalik membangkitkan perkara ini. Kalaupun benar bukan Melayu boleh menjadi PM, tidak perlu dibangkitkan kerana ia sukar menjadi realiti, apatah lagi ia menyentuh sensitiviti bangsa pribumi ini. Lagipun pada saya, orang kanan selepas Melayu adalah bumiputera Sabah dan Sarawak, bukannya orang lain. Kalaupun mereka layak, tidak seharusnya mereka menerima jawatan PM. Ini kerana masih ramai majoriti orang Islam yang layak dan lebih berhak di buminya sendiri. Jangan pula bandingkan dengan Thailand, kerana bukan Siam di sana lebih Siam dari Siam. Saya tidak bertujuan untuk membela Melayu, tetapi saya cuba memahami psiki bangsa Melayu berbanding bangsa lain, setelah memahami psiki bangsa saya sendiri. Tidakkah itu lebih baik kerana kita semua berada dalam komuniti majoriti masyarakat Melayu?

Sebagai bukan Melayu, saya amat bersyukur berada di bumi bertuah ini. Walaupun saya lahir selepas merdeka, tidak dapat melihat bagaimana kontrak sosial dipersetujui, namun saya amat bersyukur kerana nenek moyang saya diterima menjadi warganegara di bumi ini. Nenek moyang saya diterima secara pukal tanpa sebarang syarat. Nenek moyang saya tidak dikenakan syarat sehingga boleh mengubah dan mengganggu-gugat cara hidup dan jati diri mereka. Mereka seperti seadanya sebagaimana asal, tanpa ada ubah suai walaupun sedikit. Mereka bebas berbahasa sendiri, hidup dalam kelompok sendiri, bersekolah sendiri, malah dapat mengaut kekayaan tanpa sekatan dan halangan, sehingga kekayaan melimpah ruah. Sejarah sebegini tidak pernah berlaku di dunia negara lain. Di negara lain, bukan sahaja mereka ditolak, malah akan dikenakan syarat-syarat yang ketat sebelum diterima menjadi warganegara. Paling ketara mereka akan diasimilasikan. Beruntung sungguh kita di sini. Inilah nikmat yang mesti disyukuri bukan dikufuri.

Tidak perlu saya kemukakan bukti, jeling-jelinglah negara-negara jiran seperti Thailand, Burma, Indonesia dan Filipina. Bilangan mereka yang diterima hanya di sekitar tiga – sepuluh peratus, selebihnya ditolak. Berbanding negara kita, bukan pribumi melebihi 40 peratus. Pada masa sama, kekayaan yang dikuasai dan diperolehi melebihi 70 peratus sehingga menimbul keresahan kepada pribumi. Inilah bentuk toleransi yang tidak ada tolok bandingnya yang perlu disampaikan kepada generasi akan datang. Menurut Amy Chua, seorang Profesor Cina berasal dari Filipina yang telah berhijrah ke Amerika Syarikat, toleransi bukan bermakna persamaan atau penghormatan, tetapi toleransi adalah memberikan peluang kepada orang yang berlainan cara hidup, bekerja, berpartisipasi dan berjaya dalam masyarakat tanpa melihat latar belakang etnik atau agama. Walaupun Amy Chua ini telah berhijrah ke Amerika, pendapat beliau agak berpijak di bumi nyata, tidak ultra kiasu. Kita perlu ramai orang seperti ini. Toleransi bukan sama rata atau sama rasa. Apa yang berlaku dahulu dan kini di negara kita bertepatan dengan apa yang dikatakan oleh Amy Chua. Orang Islam tidak pernah menghalang bukan Islam untuk hidup lebih berjaya dalam apa jua sektor pekerjaan dan berpartisipasi. Apatah lagi untuk campurtangan dalam hal-ehwal agama mereka, kecuali jika agama kita dicabar.

Selaku warga yang memahami sejarah, saya dapat merasakan betapa bertuahnya kita pada hari ini. Jika ditakdirkan, tidak berlaku penerimaan pribumi, apakah saya masih hidup hari ini? Sepanjang pembacaan saya, mereka yang telah keluar berhijrah, tidak akan diterima kembali, kecuali mempunyai bakat dan kebolehan yang luar biasa ataupun mungkin mereka yang belot dengan menjual rahsia kedaulatan negara atau menjual harta negara seperti membawa wang keluar negara atau menjual pasir ke negara jiran.

Justeru, adalah tidak menghairankan jika orang seperti Tan Siew Sin dan Sambanthan pernah mengeluarkan ucapan di sekitar tahun-tahun 1950an, yang amat menghargai toleransi yang telah ditunjukkan oleh pribumi. Mereka benar-benar merasa bersyukur kerana diberi peluang dan diterima seadanya. Sejarah ini mesti difahami oleh setiap rakyat Malaysia tanpa ketinggalan. Jika tidak, mereka akan menjadi ultra kiasu. Menuntut sesuatu yang tidak seharusnya dituntut. Mengungkit sesuatu yang tidak perlu diungkit.

Ramai yang tertanya-tanya kenapa tidak ramai pribumi yang berjaya atau menguasai kekayaan di bumi sendiri? Fenomena pribumi tidak berjaya di bumi sendiri bukan fenomena baru. Ia berlaku di mana-mana, terutama di negara Asia Tenggara dan juga dunia lain yang sudi menerima kedatangan mereka yang berhijrah. Kenyataan ini diakui oleh semua sarjana, kejayaan dan harta yang dimiliki oleh mereka yang berhijrah menenggelamkan kekayaan pribumi di bumi mereka sendiri, sehingga menimbulkan keresahan atau iri hati pribumi kepada mereka. Namun, ramai sarjana tidak mengatakan punca-punca yang menyebabkan ia berlaku sedemikian rupa. Saya mempunyai jawapan mengenai perkara yang masih belum dijawab oleh sarjana-sarjana ini termasuk Amy Chua.

Pada saya, pribumi merasa selamat dan selesa di bumi mereka sendiri. Mereka bersangka baik terhadap rakan mereka yang datang berhijrah. Mereka tidak dengki dengan kekayaan yang dimiliki walaupun hidup terpisah dalam kelompok sendiri mengikut cara hidup yang agak ekstrim. Pribumi sudah bahagia dengan kehidupan ala kadar atau cukup makan, walaupun sikap ini tidak sepatutnya berlaku. Inilah sifat pribumi yang saya kenali. Tidak tamak, bersyukur dengan apa yang ada. Jika kayapun, sekadar boleh hidup mewah bukannya untuk membina empayar. Sikap rendah diri, lembut, sopan santun menguasai diri. Itulah Melayu menurut sajak-sajak Lim Swee Tin, Usman Awang dan Muhammad Haji Salleh yang saya teliti.

Kefahaman dan latar belakang inilah menjadikan saya amat terharu dengan majlis perasmian pelancaran buku terbaru professor tersohor Syed Naguib Al-attas oleh Raja Nazrin Shah baru-baru ini. Penghormatan Raja Nazrin terhadap ilmuan amat tinggi di luar jangkauan saya dengan sifat baginda sebagai anak raja. Teks ucapannya yang begitu menyanjung tinggi ilmuan begitu mengkagumkan dan baginda hampir sebak membacanya. Ini tidak termasuk aksi penghormatan baginda terhadap ilmuan Syed Naguib ketika berada di pentas. Syed Naguib dipimpin dan diminta duduk ketika bangun untuk memberikan penghormatan kepada baginda. Inilah sifat orang Melayu yang amat saya puji. Tidak bongkak, tetapi amat merendah diri, tanpa melihat darjat keturunan. Tetapi janganlah pula diambil kesempatan oleh orang lain pula.

Hari ini kita lihat seolah-olah kita mengambil kesempatan. Sikap pribumi yang sedemikian diambil peluang untuk menangguh di air yang keruh. Benar, mereka tidak berapa pentingkan kekayaan kerana kekayaan tidak boleh dibawa ke mati. Hanya iman dan takwa nilaian Allah SWT. Tetapi janganlah pula kita mengambil kesempatan dengan merosakkan mereka melalui rasuah, wanita, riba, wang dan sogokan lain terbentang di depan mata.

Janganlah kita ikuti atau meniru perangai Yahudi. Kenapa Yahudi begitu berjaya dan dapat membina empayar walaupun bukan di bumi sendiri? Jawapannya mudah, Yahudi mengambil kesempatan di atas kelemahan atau sikap tolak ansur orang lain, terutama orang Islam. Ketika merempat, Yahudi berbuat baik dengan umat Islam di Palestin. Namun, sedikit demi sedikit mereka khianat, untuk menguasai pribumi dan kekayaan buminya. Antaranya ialah dengan memberikan pinjaman melalui sistem riba dan merasuah mereka. Bila pinjaman tidak berbayar, ditambah dengan faedah yang tinggi, maka tanah sebagai galang gantinya. Tanah milik pribumi diambil seinci demi seinci. Lama-kelamaman, kini hampir seluruh bumi pribumi Palestin terlepas ke tangan Yahudi. Bangsa yang dahulunya sehelai sepinggang, berjaya menjadikan pribumi berdagang atau merempat di bumi sendiri.

Perkara yang sama berlaku di Singapura. Singapura perlu membesar untuk membina kekuatan. Cara paling mudah untuk membesar ialah dengan membeli pasir daripada negara kita berbanding dengan Indonesia yang terlalu jauh dan kosnya amat tinggi. Bagi memenuhi keperluan itu, mereka akan mencari orang Melayu melalui pengantara sekutu ultra kiasunya, di pejabat tanah yang mudah dirasuah dan mereka yang mudah belot, untuk mendapatkan dan membeli pasir. Hasrat mereka sudah tercapai. Negara ini bukan sahaja sudah membesar berkali ganda, malah hari ini mereka mahu negara ini terus membesar berganda-ganda. Tidak hairan nanti akan bercantum dengan Pulau Batu Putih yang telah terlepas ke negara ultra kiasu ini. Masihkah kita mahu duduk diam melihat maruah dan kedaulatan negara tergadai dan dipersenda? Rela menjual kedaulatan negara semata-mata untuk mendapatkan kekayaan yang sedikit. Manakala orang tengahnya mendapat kekayaan melimpah ruah. Semakin membesar Singapura, semakin kuat ancamannya terhadap negara kita. Tidak hairan suatu hari nanti mereka akan menguasai kita, jika kita terus leka dan lena dengan tipu daya mereka yang licik ini. Apatah tanah-tanah berharga di negara kita sudah terlepas ke tangan mereka, termasuk sebuah pulau lagi yang masih tinggal kepada sekutu mereka. Masihkah kita mahu berdiam diri?

Terbaru, pihak gereja katholik mahukan majalah Al-Islam meminta maaf secara terbuka di atas, artikel berjudul “Masuk Gereja Cari Gadis Bertudung Murtad” melalui tinjauan mereka di dalam gereja. Saya tidak nampak keperluan untuk meminta maaf terhadap mereka yang ada niat tersembunyi kepada kita yang terlalu bertoleransi. Kenapa kita mesti tunduk kepada ugutan mereka? Cukuplah dengan kita gagal untuk mempertahankan penggunaan kalimah Allah. Pihak gereja janganlah bertindak seperti kaduk naik junjung. Mereka ini tidak ubah seperti kumpulan ultra kiasu yang mana asyik mahu menang sahaja.

Apakah tindakan mereka melarikan dan memurtadkan orang Melayu seperti Azlina Jailani dan orang Islam yang lain itu tidak salah? Tidakkah mereka sedar bahawa orang Melayu tidak boleh dimurtadkan mengikut perlembagaan perkara 11 dan 160 (2) yang berbunyi “Melayu adalah seseorang yang menganut Islam, lazim bercakap Melayu dan menurut adat Melayu”. Pernah pihak gereja meminta maaf terhadap orang Melayu yang telah dimurtadkan yang amat nyata bertentangan dengan perlembagaan? Kenapa toleransi ini tidak dihargai?

Justeru, saya meminta mereka supaya menghargai toleransi ini. Janganlah mengambil kesempatan ketika orang lain lemah. Saya cukup bimbang jika kita terlalu mendesak, kesabaran Melayu akan tergugat. Bila kesabaran telah hilang, saya bimbang bangsa yang saya kenali ini akan hilang pertimbangan. Hargai mereka. Kita tidak akan menyerang jika tidak diserang, tetapi kita tidak menyerang tanpa tentangan.

Dr. Mohd Ridhuan Tee Abdullah, Pensyarah Kanan, Universiti Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia merangkap Setiausaha Agung Dewan Perdagangan Islam Malaysia. Penulisan ini adalah pendapat peribadi penulis.

(By the way, he has insulted the Bumiputeras of Sabah and Sarawak. Observe a comment from The Malaysian Insider on his article:

written by mickgoviind, March 08, 2010
"Lagipun pada saya, orang kanan selepas Melayu adalah bumiputera Sabah dan Sarawak, bukannya orang lain."

bos, kami dari sabah dan sarawak ini bukan orang kanan la...kami sama taraf dengan orang dari semanajung. kami sama sama sign agreement bentuk negara malaysia.)

Who's right, and who's wrong? You judge.

2010-03-05T09:03:00.005+08:00

I have my biasness, and you too. But read the below carefully, and ask yourself who is putting a great spin on an issue.

Lesson? There is no such thing as neutrality of news.

**********

Mana keadilan dan janji pentadbiran telus pimpinan DAP
(Utusan Malaysia, 4/3/10)

CAKAP tak serupa bikin! Itulah ungkapan paling tepat bagi menggambarkan kerajaan negeri pimpinan Lim Guan Eng di Pulau Pinang.

Dalam pada menggembar-gemburkan prinsip cekap, bertanggungjawab dan telus (CAT) sebagai model pentadbirannya, satu demi satu tindakan yang diambil tidak sepadan langsung dengan slogan yang diuar-uarkan itu.

Terbaru, Perbadanan Pembangunan Pulau Pinang (PDC) yang dipengerusikan sendiri oleh Guan Eng memberi kuasa kepadanya untuk menamatkan kontrak syarikat di bawah agensi itu pada bila-bila masa tanpa sebarang alasan.

Memang mengejutkan dan tak pernah dibuat dek orang! Rata-rata itulah reaksi pihak berkaitan khususnya para kontraktor terhadap klausa baru dalam borang tender projek PDC itu.

Dengan kuasa pemutus mutlak di tangan Ketua Menteri kini, ia bermakna syarikat yang ditamatkan kontrak secara tiba-tiba, tiada hak untuk mempersoalkan tindakan itu termasuk bertanyakan alasan penamatan kontrak mereka.

Jadi, di manakah keadilan dan ketelusannya?

Jika akauntabiliti dan ketelusan yang menjadi prinsip pentadbiran Guan Eng, kita tertanya-tanya juga apakah muslihat di sebalik tindakan memperkenalkan klausa baru itu?

Mungkinkah, ia kesinambungan daripada tindakan meroboh gerai peniaga Melayu dan bukan Melayu yang tidak pro pakatan pembangkang?

Apakah selepas ini akan menyusul kes-kes penamatan kontrak kontraktor Melayu dan bukan Melayu yang tidak pro kerajaan negeri itu? Jadi kontraktor mana pula yang akan mengambil alih projek berkenaan?

Dengan perkembangan yang berlaku itu, tidak hairanlah apabila Persatuan Kontraktor Melayu Malaysia cawangan Pulau Pinang gusar akan potensi berlakunya rasuah dan amalan kronisme ekoran pengenalan klausa baru itu.

Apa yang jelas, syarat baru itu seperti kata Perdana Menteri, adalah salah guna kuasa!

Setiap kontrak merupakan perjanjian yang mengikat dua pihak atau lebih.

Tidak ada mana-mana perjanjian di dalam dunia ini yang membenarkan sebelah pihak bertindak sesuka hati.

Jika ada yang berbuat demikian, sudah pasti ia akan dicap sebagai perbuatan menindas pihak yang satu lagi. Tentu sahaja kerajaan negeri Pulau Pinang tidak mahu dicap sebagai penindas!

Bayangkan kesannya kepada ekonomi dan pelaburan negeri.

Dalam pada itu, menyerahkan 'kuasa veto' kepada hanya seorang pemimpin untuk membuat keputusan, tidak ada bezanya dengan pemerintahan diktator.

Walaupun Ketua Menteri itu menjenamakan dirinya dalam blog beliau sebagai 'seorang yang dedikasi, jujur dalam perjuangan' malah pernah menjadikan Khalifah Umar Abdul Aziz sebagai idola, yang pastinya beliau tetap manusia, bukannya malaikat.

Tidak tahulah jika Guan Eng menganggap dirinya maksum, tidak mungkin melakukan kesilapan dan akan sentiasa betul!

Dalam keadaan itu pun, apakah jaminan Guan Eng yang orang sekelilingnya akan 'sesuci' beliau?

Guan Eng says PDC termination clause meant to protect state
By Adib Zalkapli
(The Malaysian Insider, 4/3/10)

KUALA LUMPUR, March 4 — Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng said today his power to terminate contracts awarded by the Penang Development Corporation (PDC) was aimed at shielding the state from financially damaging liabilities.

He hit out at the prime minister for misunderstanding what he said was an administrative procedure that would not lead to any abuse of power.

“The prime minister has been misled as this is purely an administrative matter. He should have been better briefed by his officers,” Lim (picture) told The Malaysian Insider.

Yesterday, Datuk Seri Najib Razak said Lim’s power as the PDC chairman to terminate contracts without giving any reason could lead to an abuse of power.

Lim clarified that an award can only be terminated before the signing of a contract, which usually takes place between three and six months after a contract is awarded.

He said that termination could only happen if the PDC discovers any element of corruption or manipulation.

“It is only for the interim period. Once a contract is signed this clause lapses,” said Lim.

He said he had not revoked any contract awarded and no contractor had complained about the new provision.

The issue was first raised by Umno Youth information chief Datuk Seri Reezal Merican Naina Merican, who reportedly said that the PDC’s termination-for-convenience clause was a psychological threat to contractors.

Reezal claimed that the clause was inconsistent with Treasury tender procedures.

In defending the state’s practice, Lim cited the Tang Hak Ju land case where the Penang government was made liable to pay RM40 million in damages, pointing out that adding the clause could have protected the state from making such huge payments in the event that any contract was terminated.

“We don’t mind paying for cost incurred, but the profit expectation can be very substantial,” said Lim.

In the Tang Hack Ju case, the state government was ordered to pay some RM28 million for loss of profit although the initial expense was only RM658,271.

The case involved a 10.6-acre quarry site concession which had been given to an individual by the previous Barisan Nasional (BN) administration. The deal was later cancelled.

Mana keadilan? You call this justice???

2010-03-04T16:47:00.008+08:00

If a non-Muslim says anything that can be construed, or misunderstood as an insult to Islam, many will cry for the blood of the perpetrators in defence of their Allah and Prophet. Just look at how some Muslims treat the furore over the name of Allah, and the global Islamic outrage over the Danish comic strip that purportedly insulted Prophet Muhammad, and one sees a disturbing pattern. No?

But if two Muslims took the Holy Communion in blatant disrespect and ignorance, their actions can be justified in the name of protecting Muslims from apostasy and conversion. Worse, they now escape the punishment of the law, simply because the Attorney General's office chose to close the case, thereby closing the episode.

*shake head... hats off to Malaysian justice. Or rather, Malay justice.

**********

Charging Al-Islam reporters ‘not in interest of justice’, says A-G
(Bernama, 4/3/10)

KUALA LUMPUR, March 4 — Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail (picture) has decided not to press charges against the two reporters who wrote an article about the church and Islam in a magazine.

He said taking stern action would not be in the interest of justice, peace and harmony at this particular time. “I have previously decided similarly in other cases where the circumstances were quite similar involving other religions, under those circumstances taking serious action would not be in the interest of justice at that particular time,” he said in a statement here today.

He said a police report was lodged in respect of an article published in Majalah Al-Islam entitled “Tinjauan Al-Islam Dalam Gereja:Mencari Kesahihan Remaja Melayu Murtad” in its May 2009 issue.

“The police commenced investigation and submitted the investigation papers to my Chambers,” he said.

Abdul Gani said the investigation revealed that the two reporters went into the Church of St Anthony at Puduraya to verify allegations that Muslims were converted into Christianity and the use of the word “Allah”.

“Their observations showed that such allegations were not true. In the church, they were given the white bread by the pastor which they subsequently brought back to their office.

“It was further disclosed that they did not know the significance of the white bread. No disturbance was caused in the church. In fact, no one in the church was aware that they were Malays,” he said.

Abdul Gani said the actions of the two reporters might have hurt the feelings of the people but he was satisfied that they did not intend to offend anyone and it was an act of sheer ignorance. — Bernama

Catholic Church demands apology from Al-Islam
By Debra Chong
(The Malaysian Insider, 4/3/10)

KUALA LUMPUR, March 4 — The Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur, Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam, today said the Catholic Church would not pursue legal action against Al-Islam magazine and its reporters who had desecrated a ritual sacred to the Catholic community if it was offered a public apology.

Speaking at a press conference on behalf of the church and the Catholic community at large, Pakiam said it would be enough for the magazine editor and the two reporters to apologise publicly for their acts.

“Forgiveness is a main part of our ‘club’,” the head of the KL archdiocese quipped, referring to the Catholic church’s central belief.

“We strive daily in our prayers for forgiveness,” he added.

He pointed out that it would not be the first time the church had dropped the pressure to take a publication to court, referring to a Tamil newspaper that had published an advertisement a few years back mocking a popular image of Jesus Christ holding a can of beer in one hand.

“As soon as the editor apologised, I told them, ‘Yes. I accept the apology. The matter is closed,” Pakiam said.

Pakiam had earlier at today’s press conference slammed the Attorney-General for deciding against prosecuting the Islamic magazine and its two reporters who had published a report of their exploits while undercover at a Catholic church in Ipoh last year.

Two Catholics had filed a police report against the magazine last July, claiming its reporters had desecrated church grounds when they pretended to be Christians and took part in the Holy Communion, a ceremony sacred to Catholics.

The police had investigated the reporters under section 298A (1) of the Penal Code for causing disharmony, disunity or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will, or prejudicing harmony or unity on religious grounds.

The punishment carries a jail sentence of between two and five years.

But the A-G last week disclosed that it would not press charges against the magazine which had published the incident in its May 2009 issue.

The district police headquarters at Dang Wangi here had subsequently informed the complainant, KS Sudhagaran Stanley, in a letter that the deputy public prosecutor had decided to take “No Further Action”.

“It appears that the DPP’s instruction of no further action implies and conveys the message that no crime has been committed, despite an admission by the journalists of desecrating the Holy Communion,” Pakiam said.

The man of the cloth noted that the authorities had failed to understand the magnitude of the wrong done to the Catholic community.

Pakiam described the acts by the magazine’s writers as not only disrespectful but “shows contempt for our belief and a hatred for the church when our belief is violated”.

However, he told reporters he was not in support of Sudhagaran Stanley’s idea for a public demonstration and discouraged other supporters from the Catholic Church from joining in because “it is not an effective way to bring about the resolution to the issue”.

“If those in authority fail in their duty to take action against the perpetrators, then others will feel less compelled to act within the constraints of law and basic civilised norms of decency, if this or like incidents are repeated.

“The lack of positive action would appear to legitimise the actions of the journalists,” he added, lamenting that Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein had failed to respond to a memorandum sent by the Catholic Lawyers’ Society protesting the outrage and received at his office by Deputy Home Minister Datuk Abu Seman.

Pakiam denied the inaction was related to the church’s suit on the “Allah” issue, which it finally won in the High Court on New Year’s Eve 2009.

In very strong language, Pakiam challenged the home minister to do his duty, but stopped short of saying the church would file another suit to review the A-G’s decision.

Pakiam appeared less than eager to push the legal path for justice. Instead, he said, he was “advocating greater understanding and foremost respect from all concerned”.

“We live in a multicultural, multi-religious community. There is a need to be respectful of each other’s beliefs, failing which we will lose sight of our own humanity and dignity, the very best of the 1 Malaysia concept,” Pakiam said.

It will do BN no good: BN direct membership plan will be its downfall

2010-03-03T14:35:00.003+08:00

Following the exodus of MPs from Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), it is a bit of a surprise to read of MCA representatives thinking of quitting the party as well, though in the world of politics, nothing is implausible.

It is the manner of their quitting and subsequent positioning that is of concern: they opt to quit and join Barisan Nasional as direct members under BN's direct membership plan, thereby registering their protest to the current MCA leadership dilemma.

A clever device, I must say. If it is executed flawlessly, it will definitely deal a blow to the tattered and weakened MCA. However, one must ask: what is the impact of direct membership of BN on the coalition?

Most analysts believe that it is a political strategy to co-opt supposedly BN-friendly NGOs and possibly MPs into its fold, thereby strengthening its political legitimacy, while projecting an image of inclusiveness and openness. They also believe that the inclusion of NGOs and others will not change the underlying power structure of BN, as the defacto leader is still UMNO, the dominant party within BN. In addition, direct membership will weaken traditional BN component parties such as MCA, MIC and Gerakan, as they may be perceived as liabilities of the coalition, and therefore sidelined.

I see this a little differently. The enlargement exercise, similar to the formation of BN in the 1970s after the May 13th incident, will reach a point that will render BN unwieldy and cumbersome, harming it than doing it good. An enlarged political coalition with so many political players will inevitably lead to leaders of various component parties jostling for position, internal bickering and ideological clashes. Though UMNO may be able to exercise its hegemony, it will find it increasingly difficult, as not every member will be satisfied. Consequently, more time will be wasted in inter-party management, while dissidence will set in, leading to disputes, power struggles, behind-the-door negotiations, even mass exodus, as played out by Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) last year.

I wager, that this direct membership plan will drag BN down instead of strengthen it with simmering internal feuds. Should it become reality, the next major overhaul of BN will definitely be its restructuring and the inevitable slimming. By then, BN will surely suffer much greater than what PKR currently experiences.

Does not every right-minded Malaysian want that?

**********

MPs' gambit: 8 MCA reps may quit
(NST, 3/3/10)

KUALA LUMPUR: Health Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai and four deputy ministers are among eight MCA parliamentarians reportedly considering leaving the party once they can apply for direct membership into Barisan Nasional.

Deputy Youth and Sports Minister Datuk Wee Jeck Seng, contacted soon after a sources-based NST Online report named him as one of the eight, said in a rather cryptic manner: “Anything is possible in politics. I am not saying yes or no. This could be one of the actions taken.”

Jeck Seng is member of parliament for Tanjung Piai.

Alor Star MP and Deputy Finance Minister Datuk Chor Chee Heung was coy, stating that the issue regarding BN direct membership had not been finalised.

“So, I really respect people with their power of imagination,” said Chor with a laugh. He first entered Parliament in 1986.

The eight, the sources said, saw this as the best means of protest against the MCA leadership but, at the same time, they had no intention of harming BN.

“They feel their position in MCA has become so untenable that they do not want to remain in the party.

However, they are very much aware that if they act rashly, BN will suffer,”
a source said.

“They believe strongly in BN’s concept of power sharing and its aspirations.
Yet, they can’t remain in MCA whose leadership they feel has failed to check the slide and had contributed further to it by not listening to the demands of members.”

Individuals, political groups and non-governmental organisations would be eligible to join the proposed BN direct membership plan.

The rest named in the NST Online report were Ayer Hitam MP and Deputy Education Minister Datuk Dr Wee Ka Siong (he is also the MCA Youth chief); Kluang MP and Deputy Higher Education Minister Dr Hou Kok Chung; Tanjong Malim MP and former MCA secretary-general Datuk Ong Ka Chuan; Tebrau MP Teng Boon Soon and Gelang Patah MP Tan Ah Eng.

They claimed that former MCA president Tan Sri Ong Ka Ting, the Kulai MP, was also with them although Ka Ting had not explicitly stated that he would follow suit in quitting and then apply for BN direct membership.

There are altogether 15 MCA MPs.

Asked if there was any possibility of them not pursuing their plans, a source said: “The only recourse is for the party leadership to revert back to the party’s status quo after the party elections of 2008 and reinstate those who were sacked from the central committee and other positions after the Oct 10 extraordinary general meeting last year.

"Otherwise, the party must hold fresh elections so that the top leaders rejected during the EGM can regain the mandate of party members.

"As it is right now, the party leadership has rejected a resolution calling for fresh elections to be tabled at the next annual general meeting on March 7."

Sources also said that when Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak responded to calls to help resolve the MCA crisis, certain party leaders used it to rally support for their side by accusing Umno of interfering in MCA's affairs.

"In the first place, it was MCA leaders who felt Najib could act as mediator in our crisis. Furthermore, Najib has the right to intervene because he is BN chairman," a source said.

MCA president Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat refused to comment.

His deputy, Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek, said while direct membership into BN was a good idea, it should not be used as a "political dustbin".

He said BN should be selective in admitting new partners in its quest to be more inclusive.

"(When it comes) to membership from those within BN component parties, there should be a proper mechanism such as obtaining prior consent from the respective parties before admitting a member.

"This is to prevent people who may want to use the direct membership to confront their own party and be divisive."

In a hint of possible howls of derision from segments of the party, others were less guarded.

An MCA leader, who did not want to be named, described the move as a wayang kulit (shadow play) by Liow and his team.

"The specifications regarding direct BN membership have not even been discussed and they have jumped the gun by planning the move.

"If they really have guts, they would have quit much earlier rather than submit undated resignation letters."

Central committee member Datuk Ti Lian Ker said it is just a publicity stunt to undermine the party. He said this was by the same group of renegades placing personal interest above party interests.

As their government posts were dependent on the party, Ti said they needed the party more than the party needed them.

As such, they would never leave the party as long as they still had their ministerial and MP posts, he felt.

"I challenge them to come out in the open and state their interest, instead of hiding behind sources and creating stories.

"They have no intention whatsoever of carrying out this threat. It is only a desperate attempt to seek the prime minister's interference and protect their personal interests."

Some MCA grassroots members also took a dim view of the threat. Indera Mahkota division MCA Youth chief David Choi said the move was tantamount to blackmailing the party.

"I don't agree with this at all. This actually shows us their 'true faces' and what they really want."

He said if Liow's team was really concerned about the party's well-being, they should unite with the current leadership and work together to strengthen the party and woo back support from the Chinese community.

Central delegate and former MCA secretary-general Tan Sri Dr Ting Chew Peh said while the party could not stop anyone from leaving, Liow and his comrades might risk disappointing members with their move.

"To say that the only recourse to stop them is having fresh elections is a lame excuse.

"There are proper channels and procedures to follow through in the party."

Fruitless rebranding

2010-03-02T09:24:00.003+08:00

It is always amusing, to read of the need of rebranding and projecting a positive image of a political party. Ever since the astounding defeat of Barisan Nasional in the general election two years ago, 'rebranding' has become the new vocabulary of the various Barisan Nasional component parties, with the objective to win back the hearts of the rakyat, that BN is the right choice instead of the tattered and ineffective Pakatan Rakyat.

And like local businesses who have no inkling on what branding is all about, these component parties formulate empty strategies and embark on fruitless exercises, without first looking at their strength and weaknesses, without looking at who they are in the first place.

In the case of Gerakan, its supposed strength in its multi-racial and moderate outlook is drown in the sea of ethnocentrism and nepotism within Barisan Nasional, rendering it impotent, as is the likes of MIC, MCA and the rest of the BN family who has to bow to the wishes of UMNO, the defacto boss of the coalition, and consequently, the nation.

What is the point of rebranding, when the party itself dare not project its image? What is the point of putting resources into it, when the core of the problem is its presence within a power structure that is akin to a servant-master relationship? What is the point of embarking on rebranding exercises to win the hearts of the people, when the Rakyat associates it with the corrupt as it continues to be in the company of corruption and power abuse?

It takes more than a few slogans, intermittent barking in the press against the Pakatan Rakyat, political rallies and other propaganda apparatuses to rebrand a party.

**********

Gerakan needs to shed poor image
By Lee Su San
(The Sun, 28/2/10)

GEORGE TOWN (Feb 28, 2010): Gerakan has to get rid of its poor image in order to regain its credibility, said state Gerakan chairman Datuk Dr Teng Hock Nan.

Urging the party coordinators to serve the people well, he said the party needed to restore its good image so that it can become the party of choice for Malaysians.

“We also need to remain united so that the people know that Barisan National is the people’s party. We need to continuously improve in order to win back the people’s heart and minds,” he said at the opening ceremony of Gerakan’s Datuk Keramat service centre here yesterday.

Teng said the coordinators would have to co-operate with local communities to continue and serve the people in the state.

He said party veterans will provide guidance and support to the coordinators so that they will serve the people sincerely.

The service centre, which located at 57, Lengkok P.Ramlee, is open Monday to Friday, between 8pm and 10pm. -- theSun

Just give lah!

2010-02-21T14:55:00.004+08:00

Without doubt, I believe that Kelantan is entitled to oil royalty as much as Terrenganu, Sabah and Sarawak. No amount of twisting and advertising will distort the truth, though dupe the people it will.

Why compassionate fund to Kelantan? Why not to Sabah, which is also an impoverish state? What is the reasoning behind a 'compassionate fund', when the policy itself is insulting and reeks of political upmanship disguised as a Barisan Nasional federal policy?

And why using advertising as the medium to explain the issue to the public? It is the most ineffective method to explain such a complicated issue, unless the government hires an ad-agency to do its dirty work. Even then, the information within the ad will be selective, subjected to manipulation to suit the intended message to be displayed. How will the people know the truth, when the very act of advertising is a lie in itself?

Just give them what they are entitled to, stop cheating the people and waste the Rakyat's money on 'advertisements' to explain the issue to the public. If the advertisement across the Malay dailies cost RM500,000, imagine how many poor families will benefit from it, how many poor children will have the opportunity to further their secondary and tertiary education. You call UMNO the champion of the Malays, when they flush money in advertising down the toilet instead of the benefit of the race it claims to champion?

My foot!

**********

Tok Pa
(20/2/10, Zaid Ibrahim)

Semasa saya dalam Kabinet dulu, Mustapa Mohamad adalah antara tiga atau empat orang Menteri yang saya hormati kerana kerajinan dan kecekapan pemikiran mereka. Lagi pun semasa saya menjadi timbalan beliau dalam Badan Perhubungan UMNO Kelantan dulu, saya tahu secara lebih dekat sikap dan sifatnya. Jadi saya amat duka cita melihat beliau yang sudah begitu terpesong dalam soal wang tuntutan negeri Kelantan mengenai hasil minyak. Seolah-olah dia tahu perkara sebenar tetapi bersungguh-sungguh benar mempertahankan dasar Kerajaan Pusat dalam hal ini.

Pertama, Mustapa kata Kelantan tidak berhak kepada royalti minyak dan cuma layak menerima “cash payment” atau bayaran tunai sebanyak 5%. Itu memang betul kerana perjanjian 1975 di antara PETRONAS dan Kelantan( dan negeri lain) menggunakan perkataan “cash payment”. Kerajaan Kelantan pun tak ada masalah dalam hal itu. Panggillah apa yang kamu suka, royalti atau “cash payment”, tapi bayarlah. Yang dikatakan wang ehsan itu pula, ia sesuatu yang lain kerana ehsan bererti kita beri atas sebab kasihan atau sebab politik.

Kedua, Mustapa kata perjanjian 1975 itu tak sah kerana sebab-sebab tertentu. Tidak pula jelas mengapa ia tidak sah. Kalau tak sah, mengapa Sabah dan Sarawak terus dibayar kerana mereka juga menandatangani perjanjian yang sama. Mengapa Terengganu dibayar semasa Barisan Nasional memerintah selama 19 tahun? Itu juga hasil perjanjian yang sama. Tok Pa kena jawab kepada rakyat soalan ini. Jangan buta-tuli ikut skrip saja.

Ketiga, Mustapa kata kawasan yang diiktiraf sebagai “territorial waters” atau kawasan perairan hanyalah 3 batu dari pantai. Apa alasan Tok Pa? Dia gunakan Akta Darurat 1969 yang sudah tidak boleh dipakai lagi. Yang wajib digunakan ialah undang-undang maritim antarabangsa yang dipersetujui oleh Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu dan yang telah diterima oleh Malaysia, iaitu 12 batu.

Dia kata lagi, negeri-negeri tidak berhak kepada hasil gas dan minyak dalam kawasan “Exclusive Economic Zone” (EEZ), iaitu 200 batu dari pantai, hanya Persekutuan Malaysia saja yang berhak kepada hasil dalam EEZ. Itu pun tak betul juga.

Hasil minyak dan gas ini selalunya didapati tak kurang dari 12 batu dari pantai. Kalaulah ini batasan kepada hak negeri, maka tak ada negeri dalam Malaysia yang berhak kepada hasil minyak. Sebahagian besar hasil yang ada sekarang ada dalam EEZ. Tidak ada undang-undang dalam dunia ini yang mengatakan hak kepada hasil minyak dari EEZ itu tidak boleh dituntut oleh sesebuah negeri. Hak negeri bergantung kepada perjanjian negeri-negeri dengan Kerajaan Persekutuan. Misalnya, hak negeri Texas dan California kepada hasil minyak dalam EEZ bergantung kepada perjanjian negeri-negeri itu dengan Persekutuan Amerika Syarikat. Samalah juga dengan kita di Malaysia.

Adalah salah bagi UMNO memesong rakyat dengan mengatakan hanya Persekutuan Malaysia saja yang berhak kepada minyak dalam EEZ dan negeri-negeri tidak ada hak. Hasil yang dibayar kepada Sabah dan Sarawak juga meiputi kawasan lebih dari 12 batu dari pantai. Mengapa terus bayar jika kata tak berhak?

Sebenarnya negeri-negeri di Malaysia telah pun dengan ikhlas dan penuh kepercayaan kapada Tun Razak menyerahkan hak mereka, sama ada dalam kawasan perairan atau dalam EEZ kepada PETRONAS dalam tahun 1975 melalui “The Vesting Deed”. Sebagai balasan, PETRONAS bersetuju membayar wang tunai 2 kali setahun 5% dari hasil tersebut.
Pokoknya apa yang dipersetujui ialah, bagi setiap hasil bernilai RM100 yang PETRONAS dapat, maka RM5 perlu dibayar kepada negeri yang terlibat. Tak kiralah hasil itu datang dari telaga minyak 20 batu atau 200 batu dari persisiran pantai. Perjanjian 1975 itu tidak menyebut jarak kawasan. Itulah niat dan tujuan masa itu. Konsep seperti EEZ atau jarak kawasan perairan belum pun timbul pad masa itu kerana undang-undang antarabangsa hanya mula dipersetujui pada tahun 1982. Sebab itu perjanjian ringkas tahun 1975 menggunakan perkataan “offshore” atau persisiran pantai.

Makna dan niatnya ialah apa-apa yang PETRONAS dapat, ia kena bagi 5% kepada negeri. Tak disebut EEZ, tak sebut berapa batu, tak sebut kawasan perairan dan sebagai. Maka kerana itulah negeriu-negeri seperti Kelantan, Terengganu, Sabah dan Sarawak dengan penuh ikhlas telah “surrender” atau menyerah hak mereka segala-galanya kepada PETRONAS. Mereka yakin Kerajaan Pusat akan bertindak adil dan saksama dengan penuh jujur dan suci hati.

Hari ini sudah jadi lain cerita. UMNO mencari helah itu dan ini untuk tidak mahu bayar kepada negeri Kelantan. Kalaulah BN yang memerintah Kelantan, sudah tentu mereka akan mencari hujah lain. Tapi itu tak semestinya dibayar terus. Kita sudah tahu permainan politik ini. Politik macam inilah yang mengecewakan rakyat.

Saya harap Tok Pa renung seketika persoalan isu bayaran minyak ini. Usahlah mempertahankan penipuan ini. Pertahankan prinsip kerana kebenaran. Kalau Menteri lain tak mahu faham saya harap Pa boleh faham. Semua iklan untok cuba meyakinkan rakyat sebaliknya dalam hal ini akan gagal. Rakyat sudah faham , UMNO belum.

Federal Government to explain Kelantan oil royalty issue in advertisements
(The Star, 21/2/10)

KOTA BARU: The Federal Government will take out advertisements in the mainstream Malay newspapers to explain to the people the facts about the Kelantan oil royalty issue, International Trade and Industry Minister Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed said.

“The people will understand it clearly when the newspapers carry the advertisement on Sunday (today), and I believe the facts will convince everyone,” he said after a talk on the oil royalty issue here on Friday night.

The event, organised by the Kelantan Council of Non-Governmental Organisations, was attended by more than 5,000 people. Also present were Deputy Finance Minister Datuk Dr Awang Adek Hussin and Pasir Mas MP Datuk Ibrahim Ali.

Mustapa, who is Kelantan Umno liaison committee chairman, said a series of talks at several venues in the state organised by NGOs had enabled the Kelantan people to better understand the issue.

He said the explanatory talks would continue until the people, even those living in the interior, understood that what the Kelantan PAS government was demanding was contrary to the law.

Mustapa maintained that the Kelantan government was only entitled to compassionate payments and not oil royalty, because the state’s right to offshore oil and gas was up to three nautical miles from the coast.

Meanwhile, Ibrahim said he was waiting for the Kelantan government to take the oil royalty issue to court.

He had said he would give the state government one month from Jan 26 to do so or he would take the matter to court.

Ibrahim had said he wanted to show that the state government was afraid of the move because it would not be able to debate the issue in public during the general election as the matter would then be sub judice. — Bernama

GST revenue for the good of the Rakyat? Don't be silly and naive.

2010-02-12T09:52:00.008+08:00

Like it or not, GST will be upon us, where goods and services will be slapped with an initial 4% taxation rate. To placate the public, the BN government exempted 40 basic goods and services from GST, while promised that the additional tax revenue will be channeled back to the people through socio-economic development.

Really?

It does not take a blind man to see that the additional revenue from GST WILL NOT go back to the people through socioeconomic development, but rather into the pockets of the selected few, whoever they are.

How so?

Just take a look at our national budget from 2006-2010, and judge it for yourself:

(Figures in billions, taken from various sources)
2006 Operating Expenditure: RM101.3 / Development: RM35.5, 25.9% of total
2007 Operating Expenditure: RM 112.9 / Development: RM46.5, 29.1% of total
2008 Operating Expenditure: RM 128.8 / Development: RM48.1, 27.2% of total
2009 Operating Expenditure: RM 154.2 / Development: RM 53.7, 25.8% of total
2010 Operating Expenditure: RM 138.8 / Development: RM53.2, 27.7% of total

It does not take a math genius to see the disproportionate rise in operating expenditure against development allocation, even though the percentage of development expenditure was more or less in line with past budgets. In the past five years, government expenditure ballooned by about RM40-50 billion, while development allocation only rose by about RM20 billion. Where did all the operating expenditure went to? Buying laptops that cost RM10,000 each? Feeding the bulging bellies of its 1.2 million civil servants?

Unless and until the government increases its percentage in development expenditure while slashes its operating expenditure, I really do not see how the supposed increase in government revenue will benefit the Rakyat, when it is the Rakyat who is going to foot the bill for all the leakages within the government delivery system while getting little, if nothing in return.

Just imagine: If there is an additional RM10-15 billion is transferred to development expenditure, many more schools can be built, many more poor families can be elevated from their current status, many more government hospitals can be built for those who cannot afford private health care.

But it is highly unlikely, not when there are so many cronies to feed.

p.s: can someone please tell this thick head, of the logic behind a taxation measure that can save businesses up to RM4 billion and exporters up to RM1.4 billion, while increases the government's coffers?

**********

GST-free 40
By Rupa Damodaran
(NST, 12/2/10)

KUALA LUMPUR: Basic foodstuffs like rice and fresh vegetables and part of utilities such as water and electricity will be exempted from the proposed goods and services tax (GST).

They are part of some 40 basic goods and services that will be free from GST, Second Finance Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Husni Mohamad Hanadzlah said when opening a one-day national conference on the GST in Kuala Lumpur yesterday.

It is understood that sugar, poultry, eggs, public transport and health services, among others, will also be exempted from GST. The exemption on these items will help consumers, especially those in the lower-income group, in line with earlier statements by the government that the GST would not burden this particular group.

The government plans to introduce GST at four per cent next year.
It is a multi-stage and broadbased consumption tax on goods and services. It will replace the current sales tax and service tax.

The Goods and Services Tax Bill was tabled for first reading in Parliament last December. The second reading has been scheduled for next month.

More than 140 countries have implemented GST, also known as valued-added tax in some nations. Countries with populations with less purchasing power like

Venezuela, Kazakhstan, Brazil, South Africa, Thailand, Sri Lanka and Sudan, already have the tax regime in place.

Businesses are expected to save RM4 billion with the GST, while exporters stand to save up to RM1.4 billion.

“The possibility of revenue loss through the understatement of taxable value at an earlier stage in the production and distribution chain would be overcome with the implementation of GST,” Husni said.

“With higher tax compliance, the government can generate additional revenue which will go back to the rakyat through socioeconomic development.”

The government is keen to hear public views so that fine-tuning can be made to ensure successful implementation of the GST.

The Federal Court has opened a floodgate of confusion and possible chaos

2010-02-10T16:10:00.004+08:00

*I am no lohyar, so the treatment below is highly amateurish and possibly highly flawed.

The Federal Court has decided: Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir is the 'rightful' Mentri Besar of Perak.

How did the Court reached its unanimous decision?

The ruling's main premise is that the Mentri Besar's command of confidence of the majority of the legislative assembly can be determined by extraneous means other than through a vote of no confidence.

Since it can be determined extraneously, and that it was clearly shown that the Barisan Nasional commanded the majority of the House, and since the Sultan refused to dissolve the Assembly, therefore Nizar must resign.

My question: how to legally determine the command of confidence extraneously?

I have not read the Perak State Constitution, so I do not know. But base on the ruling, it shows that there are no explicit clauses to legally determine whether a Mentri Besar has lost the confidence of the Legislative Assembly.

What is then the effect of this judgment?

I venture to suggest that the Sultan of Perak has the power to do as he pleases, to appoint or remove a Mentri Besar at his whim, since there is no mechanism provided in the State Constitution to determine the loss of confidence.

In other words: absolute monarchy, as Nizar Jamaluddin and Zaid Ibrahim put it.

What is the wide implication of this judgment on the ordinary Rakyat? Not much. Not immediately at least, until the political party/alliance the Rakyat voted (provided that you vote, if not then this judgment has little to do with you) into government is summarily dismissed by the royalty base on a vague and ambiguous law.

To stretch it even further, it opens the royalty to be 'persuaded' by the losing side to reject the mandate of the people.

Too far fetched? I don't think so.

However, there is one oddity in the judgment, which was highlighted by a retired judge. As I am no lohyar, so can someone tell me what this really means?

“It is always open to the appellant (Nizar) to bring a vote of no-confidence against the respondent in the legislative assembly or make a representation to the Sultan of Perak at any time if he thinks that the respondent (Dr Zambry) does not enjoy the support of the majority of the members of the LA (Legislative Assembly),” he (Justice Ariffin) said.

**********

5-0 for BN’s Zambry
By M.MAGESWARI, MAZWIN NIK ANIS and YUEN MEIKENG
newsdesk@thestar.com.my
(The Star, 10/2/10)

PUTRAJAYA: Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir is the rightful Perak Mentri Besar, the Federal Court ruled in a unanimous decision.

The five-man Bench found yesterday that the Court of Appeal was justified in reversing the High Court’s May 11 judgement which declared Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin as Mentri Besar.

The apex court, in a landmark decision, ruled that the question of confidence in the Mentri Besar can be determined by a means other than a vote of no-confidence in the state assembly.

The court also ruled that if the Mentri Besar refused to tender the state executive council’s resignation after he had lost the confidence of the assembly, he and the exco were deemed to have vacated their offices.

The five judges were Court of Appeal president Justice Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, Chief Judge of Malaya Justice Arifin Zakaria, Federal Court judges Justices Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, Mohd Ghazali Mohd Yusoff and Abdull Hamid Embong.

Justice Arifin, who read out the decision for about an hour, said the Sultan of Perak, in the matter of dissolution of the state assembly, did not act on advice of the exco. It was within his absolute discretion to do so, he said.

“As such, evidence of loss of confidence in the Mentri Besar may be gathered from other extraneous sources provided.

“Such sources, we think, should include the admission by the Mentri Besar himself and/or representatives made by members of the legislative assembly that the Mentri Besar no longer enjoys the support of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly,” he said.

He said the Court of Appeal had held in this case that there was such an admission by Nizar when he sought dissolution of the state assembly.

Furthermore, what was beyond dispute was the demonstration of support by the 31 members of the assembly for Barisan Nasional.

Justice Arifin held that Nizar had made a request to the Sultan of Perak to dissolve the assembly under Article 16(6) of the Perak Constitution, and not under Article 36(2).

Article 16(6) states that if the Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the legislative assembly members then, unless at his request the Ruler dissolves the legislative assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the exco.

Article 36(2) is a general provision for which a request for dissolution can be made when the five-year term of the assembly is drawing to an end.

He said when the Sultan of Perak refused to dissolve the assembly and directed Nizar to resign, it became incumbent for him to tender the resignation of the exco, which included the Mentri Besar.

“We, therefore, agree with the respondent (Dr Zambry) that the refusal on the part of the appellant (Nizar) to resign after having been directed to do by the Sultan of Perak clearly went against the express provisions of Article 16(6).

“It cannot be the intention of the framers of the State Constitution that in the circumstances, it is open to the appellant whether to resign or to stay on as Mentri Besar.

“The word ‘shall’, in our opinion, ought to be given a mandatory effect, otherwise, it would lead to political uncertainty in the state,” he said.

Nevertheless, Justice Arifin said it was not the end of the road for Nizar.

“It is always open to the appellant (Nizar) to bring a vote of no-confidence against the respondent in the legislative assembly or make a representation to the Sultan of Perak at any time if he thinks that the respondent (Dr Zambry) does not enjoy the support of the majority of the members of the LA,” he said.

The conflict over who is the rightful Mentri Besar started last year after three Pakatan Rakyat assemblymen quit their parties to become Barisan-friendly independents, causing the then state government to collapse.

China, the petulant child who wants everything

2010-02-05T09:52:00.011+08:00

We have such a fascination with China, the self-styled Middle Kingdom of the world, over its fast-paced economic growth, its enormous population, its glistering coastal cities, its culture and history.

China may be synonymous with a miraculous economic growth, but a cursory look at international relations, and one will see a passive China in the United Nation, an aggressive China that expands its foreign relations with natural-resource-rich-nation-states where it can exploit upon, a nation with a wide gap between the rich and the poor, a country that treats its people unjustly, a state that is constantly at trade disputes with first world nations, and its incessant assertion of its sovereignty over Taiwan, Xinjiang and Tibet.

Granted, the media is bias in its portrayal of China, whether it be positive or negative, but one cannot overlook the many stinging statements issued by Beijing, to anyone who dares to step on its toe by 'meddling' in its 'internal affairs'.

The latest war of words is targeted against the United States, its on-off-imaginary arch enemy, on its usual complaints of the Americans selling weapons to Taiwan, which is declared as an 'intrinsic part of China', and Obama's plan to receive the Dalai Lama, the 'separatist' leader of Tibet. The reason? US cannot sell weapons to a province which is a part of China, and should not accord a state welcome to a separatist leader who threatens the sovereignty of China. The result: China retaliates, of which one of them is to sanction American companies that take part in arms deal with Taiwan.

I am not an expert in the intricate details of sovereignty claim, nor the complex history behind Tibet, Taiwan and Xinjiang, but a brief view of Chinese history suggests that its largely historical claims on these three regions are indeed disputable. The following historical description, at the risk of oversimplification, presents the argument that China had weak claims over these regions.

Of Taiwan, the earliest record of Sino settlement was during the era of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. In later times, during the Tang, Song and even Ming dynasty, Taiwan was not made a part of mainland China. During the 15th century, parts of Taiwan became a Dutch colony and later briefly occupied by Spain, with contesting claims by the Japanese. Only until the Qing dynasty, Taiwan was annexed and became a full Qing province due to its strategic importance. Later, Taiwan was ceded to Japan when Qing lost the First Sino-Japanese War, of which Japanese rule lasted until the end of World War II. It was after this time that its history became complicated, as Kuomintang retreated to Taiwan after loosing the Chinese civil war to the Chinese Communist Party, ruling the island ever since, with each side staking claims over the other.

For Tibet and Xinjiang, again at the risk of oversimplification, only the Tang dynasty had its borders stretched to Xinjiang, and the Yuan dynasty over to parts of Tibet. During the times between the Tang to the Ming dynasty, the two regions existed as different entities, with Xinjiang ruled under various tribal empires, and Tibet under a sort-of Buddhist Theocracy. Again, it was the Qing dynasty who successfully occupied the two regions, though its hold over them fluctuated, depending on the strength of the Qing state.

It was at this time that a convoluted succession of events took place. For Xinjiang, the Qing took a long time to established its presence after years of struggle with the local Dzungars, which was later exterminated. Its rule was not popular, as the Qing did not treat well the Hui and Uyghurs, resulting in their insurrection, which saw Qing loosing and regaining the region. Into the 20th century, the region saw two attempts to form a republic, which failed after the People's Liberation Army (PLA) marched into the territory and claimed it under Communist China.

For Tibet, The Qing dynasty only had limited control over it when the Qing government appointed Ambans to Tibet, ruling it indirectly. It was only in the early 20th century that China first claim sovereignty over the region, which did not materialise as China entered a period of civil war, which gave Tibet a de facto independence. Only in 1950 that the PLA entered the region and claimed it as its own.

From this cursory view, it is clear that China has little basis to claim these three regions, as firstly, the historical basis to these claims are rather weak and secondly, the Xinjiang and Tibet region were essentially conquered, but not ruled directly under any of China's dynasties as provinces. Therefore, it is in fact the twisting of historical incidents that cement Chinese claims over these regions. Going by this logic, China has more legitimate claims over Vietnam, and thus should reclaim it too, as it was under its direct rule for over 1000 years before Vietnam became independent some time in AD1000.

This may be an amateurish treatment to a complex problems, but after peeling away the many layers of supposed support of sovereignty claims, China is left with a flimsy premise to lay hold on these regions. Xinjiang and Tibet is currently controlled not by the rule of law, but virtually by the presence of China's PLA who maintains a tight grip on the regions. As for Taiwan, China has not invaded it (nor it will) only because it will spark international outrage.

One cannot help but wonder the constant barking of China over its sovereignty reflects its insecurity, selfishness, or pride. Either way, China's behaviour is becoming a real nuisance as it flexes its influence like a spoiled child who wants everything.

A tirade against animal rights

2010-02-04T14:38:00.009+08:00

I am always amused, which inevitably turns into exasperation, when people goes out of the way to campaign for animal rights, specifically, for dogs and cats.

Remember the incident back in June 2009, of 400-odd stray dogs that were dumped at Pulau Selat Kering off Pulau Ketam? The issue created such a ruckus in Malaysia amongst animal lovers, to the point that voluntary rescue missions of near colossal proportion were organised to save those helpless canine from total oblivion.

And now, we see the most populous nation in the world is mulling legislation to ban the consumption of dog and cat meat. As expected, animal rights activist and pet lovers praised the move, while others scorned at it, that it threatened to destroy centuries of culinary tradition, and that the legislation is an affront to human rights, when countless Chinese are suffering under inhumane conditions.

Put aside the argument for safeguarding culinary tradition: what is the basis for animal rights? What makes them equal to human beings?

Is it because they possess intellectual capabilities, emotions, and behavioural traits that mimic human beings? Granted that they have, but can they relate with us and reciprocate on the same level?

Or is it because we have foolishly invested our emotions into them, calling them 'our friends', thereby labelling any attempts to end their lives as inhuman?

Take a look at this: 'And just like humans have their stated rights, so should animals – they should have freedom from hunger and thirst, freedom from fear, freedom from pain and injury, freedom to live and freedom to express natural behaviour.' (10/5/09, The Star)

Is this a joke, that animal rights are on equal footing with human rights?

Speaking of animal rights, do we notice that, just like human beings of differing class, not all animals are treated the same under animal rights? We seem to accord animal rights more to dogs and cats, while we cull chicken, duck, cow, goat and other animals without a second thought for food. We are so ready to devote our attention to our beloved pets, but will not hesitate to smack on mosquitoes, flies and other 'pests'. We worry so much over the abandoned stray dogs on a forsaken island, while oblivious to the countless endangered species around the world. Yeah. The same old adage applies: everyone (or animal) is equal, but some are more equal than others, no?

It pains the heart to see precious resources being poured into animal rights campaigns and legislation, with activists championing their cause, while our fellow humans suffer in poverty, starvation, genocide, poor working conditions, disease, political persecution and other forms of injustice. Too far away for us to sympathise? What about child abuse, rape, the vagrants and and street walkers, the plight of the orang asli, immigrant squatters, and many other issues closer to home? By championing animal rights, they are effectively saying that a dog that wags its tail is more important that a human in suffering, and thus should be given priority over a withering frame who think, talk and feel like us.

How sickening we are and have become.

**********

Chinese legal experts call for ban on eating cats and dogs
Widespread and ancient practice of eating dog meat increasingly distasteful for China's growing affluent, pet-loving middle class
By Jonathan Watts
(26/1/10, guardian.co.uk)

Caged cats after being rescued by China Small Animal Protection Association from a market in in Beijing where cats are traded for meat and fur. Photograph: AP

Chinese legal experts are proposing a ban on eating dogs and cats in a contentious move to end a culinary tradition dating back thousands of years.

The recommendation will be submitted to higher authorities in April as part of a draft bill to tackle animal abuse.

In ancient times, dog meat was considered a medicinal tonic. Today, it is commonly available throughout the country, but particularly in the north where dog stew is popular for its supposed warming qualities.

In recent years, however, such traditions are increasingly criticised by an affluent, pet-loving, urban middle class. Online petitions against dog and cat consumption have attracted tens of thousands of signatures. Videos showing the maltreatment of farmed dogs have spurred protests at markets where the animals are bought and sold.

But the drafters of the new proposal want far more drastic measures, which would oblige law enforcement authorities to close down thousands of dog restaurants and butchers which supply the meat.

According to the draft, illegal sale or consumption of pets would incur a maximum penalty of 15 days in prison for individuals or a 500,000 yuan fine for businesses. Public security bureaus would be obliged to respond to hotline calls from the public about violations.

"We are proposing that all dog and cat eating should be banned because it is causing many social problems," said Chang Jiwen, a law professor at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences who heads the drafting team.

He said recent murders and thefts related to the dog meat trade showed that it had become a source of tension, while the economic impact of a ban would be small because an increasingly affluent population was less dependent on dog and cat meat.

The proposal reflects changing public opinion and international input. Drafters at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences have been consulting for more than a year with Britain's Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the US-based International Fund for Animal Welfare.

But the plan for a dog meat ban has stirred up fierce debate between animal welfare groups and defenders of traditional values.

"I support this proposal. Whether you judge this as a question of food security or emotions, there is absolutely no necessity in China for people to eat dogs and cats," said Zeng Li, the founder of the Lucky Cats shelter in Beijing. "We need something more than moral pressure. Beijing's dog restaurants get their meat mainly from vagrant and stolen dogs. In the suburbs, dogs are hung and slaughtered in front of buyers."

Online critics said it was hypocritical to protect only dogs and cats, and that the government should focus on human welfare before protecting animals.

"This is absurd. Why only dogs and cats? How about pigs, cows and sheep," wrote a poster going by the name Mummy on the Xhinua news agency website.

"I hope the experts went to see what laid-off workers and people in rural areas have to eat. They should pay more concern to problems that people really care about," said another contributor under the name Starfish.

Even before the pet meat ban, the draft bill had already provoked controversy. Initial plans for a comprehensive animal welfare law had to be dropped in the face of criticism that human living conditions ought to be the priority at this stage in China's development.

The focus has now been narrowed to prevention of animal abuse, which is defined as inflicting unnecessary pain and brutality. Even so, it is far from certain that the draft will be adopted by the government or the National People's Congress.

Cat and dog meat could soon be off the menu in China as first animal abuse law edges closer
By Mail Foreign Service
Last updated at 6:09 PM on 27th January 2010

Dog and cat meat could soon be banned from restaurants in China, ending thousands of years of tradition, following protests from animal rights campaigners.

The Chinese government is now on the verge of introducing its first law against animal abuse and permanently removing both animals from the menu.

The first draft of the law, aiming to protect animals from being hurt and killed in a cruel manner, will be raised for legislation in April.

In particular, the draft suggests people caught eating dog or cat meat be jailed for up to 15 days and fined 5,000 yuan (£450), while businesses would be fined between 100,000 to 500,000 yuan (£9,000 to £45,000).

Pet lovers' associations have sprung up in Chinese cities over recent years, with one liberation group last year ramming a truck full of caged cats to rescue them from being shipped to southern restaurants.

While many Chinese enjoy rich dog meat, especially during cold winters, some object to the practice in some regions of beating dogs to death to release the blood into the meat.

The China National Native Produce & Animal By-Products Import and Export Corporation backed the initiative, which it believes will improve overseas perceptions of Chinese exports.

Others insisted a ban on dog and cat meat was unrealistic.

'Banning such custom by law is inappropriate and unable to work,' said Xu Huiqiang, chief of wild animal protection in Jiangsu province, where a dog meat recipe has been listed as a piece of cultural heritage.

An official of Leping, a city that has a traditional catering industry based on dog meat, said that the local economy and people's lives would be terribly hurt by such a law.

'Cooking them alive must be punished but which meat to eat should be people's own choice,' said a commentary on Xinhua Daily in Nanjing. 'Some people in China still can't afford meat. We should not blindly copy Western values.'

But one online protester named 'Yuxiang999' posted on Xinhuanet.com: 'Eating cats and dogs is a shameless barbarian thing. Anyone with humanity would not kill these loyal friends of ours.'

Colourful semantics around Anwar Ibrahim's sodomy trial

2010-02-04T09:05:00.008+08:00

Anwar Ibrahim's sodomy trial got off an explosive start, with star witness Mohd Zaiful Bukhari Azlan taking the stand and went through with the court how he was solicited to be sodomised.

Aside from the prosecutors' claim that they secured semen sample that belonged to Anwar from Zaiful's anus, it was how the media portrayed Zaiful's testimony that picked my interest. Observe some of the more interesting headlines and phrases used to describe Zaiful's testimony:

'Anwar hit on me in condo' (The Star)
'指控安華「霸王硬上弓」' (Oriental Daily News)
'Tak rela diliwat lagi' (Utusan Malaysia)
'曾拒絕肛交,“安華責問為甚麼” (Guang Ming Daily)
'Anwar marah, Saiful takut'/Anwar ajakan ada hubungan seks luar tabii (Berita Harian)

Sounds like a well-written salacious novel, no? How sensational, how colourfully described. Each phrase depict a different scenario of the same incident, adding perspectives to pique the curiosities of the masses, arouse the voyeuristic tendencies and giving the idle minds plenty of room for imagination, no?

It goes to show how debase we humans can be, justifying our voyeurism over the supposedly show trial, pointing fingers at others instead of looking at the filth in us, no?

p.s: I wonder what other euphemism will be cooked up by the media to replace the word 'sodomy'. Back-end probing? I surrender this fun yet odious task to the press to figure out.

Petty politics, or something more devilish?

2010-02-03T13:45:00.007+08:00

I was indeed perplexed, when Zahrain Mohd Hashim, PKR MP for Bayan Baru, lashed out at Lim Guan Eng, labelling him a dictator, chauvinist and communist-minded. What had warranted such outburst from a Member of Parliament?

While not discounting the possibility of cracks between PKR and DAP (perhaps deep-seated), new information released by the state government indeed shed light into this feud. The reason: Zahrain's company was denied the management rights of Bukit Jambul Country Club. No more, no less.

So what is there to hoo hah about?

Seems like a case of petty politics. Then again, there is rarely anything simple in that murky world. Combine with the defiance of Zukifli Noordin (PKR MP-Kulim), and another sudden tirade of Tan Tee Beng (PKR MP-Nibong Tebal), and we have three musketeers who are out to cause trouble in the nascent but still fragile Pakatan Rakyat. Adding up to the various PKR grouses in Selangor, something is indeed brewing, and I am inclined to believe that it is sinister in nature.

Is the Barisan Nasional plotting to weaken Pakatan Rakyat's leadership, sowing discontent amongst its ranks, disrupting their efforts to clean up and rebuild state administrations, or is this a case of house cleaning for Pakatan Rakyat?

I don't like the timing of these sudden outbursts. It looks as if a momentum has been built for the past months, waiting for the opportune moment (I suspect it is Anwar's sodomy trial) to strike a fatal blow to PR. Plausible, no?

I don't like this. I don't like this at all.

**********

Penang govt declassifies minutes of country club

By CHRISTINA CHIN

sgchris@thestar.com.my

(The Star, 3/2/10)

GEORGE TOWN: The state government has declassified confidential minutes of the outsourcing of management and operations of the Bukit Jambul Country Club (BJCC) which is linked to Bayan Baru MP Datuk Seri Zahrain Mohd Hashim.

This followed an allegation by state DAP chairman Chow Kon Yeow on Saturday that Zahrain was “politically frustrated” as Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng had refused to endorse the PKR lawmaker’s decision to award tender for the privatised management of the BJCC to a RM2 company.

Chow’s accusation came about after Zahrain criticised Lim, calling him a “dictator, a chauvinist and communist-minded”.

Lim, who is Penang Develop ment Corpora tion (PDC) board chairman, yesterday released the chronological summary of events beginning with the Island Golf Properties Bhd (IGP) meeting to study the outsourcing of the BJCC last year.

The BJCC is run by IGP, a PDC-owned subsidiary company. Zahrain has been the chairman and director of IGP since July 9, 2008.

According to a statement from the Chief Minister’s office, Lim was against allowing a RM2 private company to win the tender for running the BJCC since it involves expenditure of tens of millions of ringgit.

“The RM2 company had no track record of running a golf club and was established on Sept 29, 2008, clearly with the sole purpose of bidding for the tender,” the statement said.

It said Lim insisted that a fresh tender be held in line with the principles of competency, accoun ta bility and transparency.

The fresh tender exercise was carried out and received seven proposals.

The tender award is being finalised and will be decided during a PDC meeting on Feb 9.

The summary, among others, stated that on Dec 3, an open tender was advertised in The Star newspaper for the outsourcing exercise.

On Dec 10, the date the tender closed, only one company had responded. That company was established on Sept 29, 2008, with an authorised capital of RM100,000 and an initial paid-up capital of RM2.

The IGP board agreed in principle last month that the management of the BJCC would be outsourced to the RM2 company subject to the approval of the PDC board.

Last year, the PDC agreed with the IGP board’s proposal for outsourcing the operation of the BJCC but rejected its recommendation that the RM2 company be selected.

Instead, the PDC board agreed with Lim’s recommendation that fresh tenders be called.

In an immediate response to Chow’s statement on Saturday, Zahrain said he had no interest in and had nothing to gain from the project.

Nibong Tebal MP wants Penang CM replaced
(The Edge, 3/2/10)

KUALA LUMPUR: Disgruntled Nibong Tebal member of parliament today called on the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) leadership to replace Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng.

"Lim Guan Eng should be replaced by PR or he will be replaced by the people," said Tan Tee Beng at a press conference today.

"If not for Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, there would have been no March 8 tsunami. Don’t treat us like a dog in Penang," he added.

Tan alleged that Lim was not fit to be chief minister as he was arrogant and did not even listen to his own party grassroots.

The Penang-based MP said other MPs did not speak up because they were cowed by Lim’s arrogance.

Tan stressed that he has only attacked the policies and he was consistent in pointing out the problems in Penang.

He had alleged on Monday that PKR legislators, like an opposition party in Penang, has no state allocations for their constituencies.

In Selangor, all PR MPs get RM100,000 allocation for their constituency and RM50,000 for office expenses from the state government.

However, despite his dissatisfaction, Tan said he was not ready to leave PKR yet.

"The struggle is not over yet. Anyway, there have been no offers from any party," said Tan.

"But if I’m sacked by the party then I may have to go elsewhere," he added.

"I’m not going independent or jumping ship for now."

Tan said he has resorted to going to the press with his grouses as the party channels had failed.

"We used to have joint and political bureau meetings but nothing comes out of the meetings. The last was in August. Since then, there has been no meetings and the unhappiness goes right down to the division chiefs."

The former Gerakan member also called for PKR Deputy President Dr Syed Husin Ali's suspension.

Syed Husin, who became a senator in December, told news website Malaysiakini.com on Tuesday that Tan could leave if he wants to.

"His position is questionable as Parti Rakyat still legally exists after the merger with Parti Keadilan," said Tan.

"How can Syed Husin be the PKR deputy president if his party still exists?" he reasoned.

Tan said Syed Husin’s position should be made clear before the veteran politician makes comments on him.

Tan also dismissed suggestions that his tirade was crafted to divert attention from Anwar’s sodomy trial.

Tambun pomeloes to stay, thanks to the current political climate

2010-02-01T13:46:00.004+08:00

It is heart-warming to read that finally, after years of being sidelined, the pomelo farmers in Tambun can now grow pomeloes legally, with the approval of land titles by the Perak state government.

As a boy, I read of how these farmers were marginalised by the state government, even when Tambum pomeloes were already a household name in Malaysia to the point of being promoted as a tourism product. They were threatened with eviction as the government had 'other plans' for the land. The opposition, even MCA (if memory serves), were tirelessly fighting for the rights of these pomelo farmers to no avail.

And now, thanks to the 308 political tsunami, the current Barisan Nasional Perak state government has no choice but to up the ante in political showmanship against the opposition in order to win over the hearts of the Rakyat.

Well, as someone who was born and raised (for a while) in Ipoh, let see how far Barisan Nasional can keep this up. For now, I am going to stock up a few nice and juicy Tambun pomelo for the coming Chinese New Year.

**********

Tambun pomelo growers finally get their land titles
(The Star, 1/2/10)

IPOH: After decades of uncertainty and countless eviction notices, pomelo growers in Tambun here will finally get the rights to the land which they and their forefathers have toiled on for the past 80 years.

Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir said the state government had approved land titles to 62 growers as part of initial efforts to solve their long-standing problems.

“The growers get to keep their original plots, each ranging between 40 sq metres and 1.79ha, for 99 years at a premium of RM1,000 per hectare on condition that they continue to grow pomelos.

“And at the requests of Tambun MP Datuk Seri Ahmad Husni Hanadzlah and state executive councillor Datuk Dr Mah Hang Soon, the state will not impose any penalty on the growers for farming on state land without permission.

“We will waive the penalty, which is normally twice the amount of land premium imposed, as we know that these growers have genuinely farmed on the land for decades and are not mere trespassers,” Dr Zambry said.

The 46.5ha land that was granted to the group of growers yesterday had initially belonged to the state but was later alienated to a developer.

Dr Zambry said the landowner had agreed in principle to return the orchard land to the state government for an alternative piece of land elsewhere.

For decades, the fate of the growers, who have made the Tambun pomelo a household name and known the world over, had hung in the balance as they received notice after notice to vacate the land to make way for a commercial project.

Tambun Pomelo Growers Association chairman Chow Sun, 74, said the farmers had fought hard to obtain ownership to the land which their forefathers had cleared and set up the pomelo farms some 80 years ago.

He said four generations had worked hard on the land and at present, about 200 to 300 people were involved in the activity on 809ha of land in the area.

“I am very satisfied with today’s results after all that we’ve been through in the last 25 years, trying to get our land titles.

“Nevertheless, we will continue to fight for the rest who have yet to get their titles,” he promised.

Ahmad Husni, who is also Second Finance Minister, said there were plans to engage a consultant to create a masterplan to upgrade the area into a world-class tourist destination.

Kelantan oil royalty: who's lying, and who's not?

2010-02-01T11:16:00.005+08:00

The dispute between the PAS-led Kelantan state government and the Barisan-led Federal Government over oil royalties has been dragging for some time. Frankly, I am quite clueless of the payment arrangements and the legitimacy of Kelantan's rights to oil royalties.

Until now.

The Barisan Nasional Federal Government, on Jan this year, paid a sum of RM20 million as 'compensation fund' for the oil production within the shores of Kelantan. However, the payment came with a BIG caveat: 'fearing that the compassionate funds would be misused' by the Kelantan state government, the money is instead managed by a special committee.

Aside from PAS' opposition, the most vocal protest, however, came from UMNO veteran Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah. He states that Kelantan indeed has oil royalties right, not only for oil mined within its shore, but also outside of Kelantan, as is found in the Petroleum Development Act 1974. Furthermore, the Kelantan Prince further claimed that 5% of the total profit should be paid to the Kelantan state government, as found in a second agreement between Petronas and Kelantan.

So far, aside from the Petroleum Act, and the first agreement between Petronas and Kelantan state government, I have yet to find out the details of the second agreement. So the question: who is right, and who is lying?

Putting aside the purported claim to oil royalties, it is highly unfair of the Federal Government to administer funding to the Kelantan state government through a 'special committee, just like it is unfair to administer the funds for heritage development to Penang through Khazanah. If that is the case, why not just annex Kelantan and Penang to be the next Federal territory?

Secondly, if the federal government is so compassionate, why only allocate the fund base on oil mined within its shores, while neglecting to pay oil mined off shore? Aren't they contradicting with the Petroleum Development Act 1974, where it is stipulated that the state government is entitled to cash payment for oil mined on shore and off shore?

Thirdly, why 'compassionate' fund in the first place? Because Kelantan is so impoverished, so pitiful, that it requires the compassionate hand of the federal government? Ain't the federal government suppose to administer the country fairly, irrespective of which political party is ruling the state government? No wonder the Kelantan Prince issued a stinging reply to such acts of compassion.

Remember how the Federal Government refused oil royalties payment to the PAS-led Terengganu state government? It reeked of political revenge to the people of Terengganu. The only reason that the Federal Government is now paying 'compassionate fund' to Kelantan after all these years under PAS rule is to dupe its people into supporting Barisan Nasional.

If the claims of Tengku Razaleigh is true, then the federal government must uphold the agreement and pay oil royalties to Kelantan according to the sum agreed, instead of manipulating the issue into a political one and cheating the people of their money in the process.

**********

Kelantan to get RM20mil as compassionate fund
(The Star, 27/1/10)

KOTA BARU: The federal government has decided to give Kelantan RM20mil as compassionate fund, due under an oil and gas production arrangement, in March, said International Trade and Industry Minister Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed.

He said the decision was made after discussions with Petronas recently.

“It involves revenue from oil and gas production in the South Earth Platform, Block PM301, close to Kelantan waters.

“The RM20mil is 5% of the total revenue from the block since May 2008,” he told reporters after opening a forum on the compassionate fund, here Tuesday night. Over 5,000 people attended the forum.

Mustapa, who is also chairman of the Kelantan Umno Liaison Committee, said the Kelantan government’s claim for RM11bil in oil royalty was extreme as the oil production was not that high.

“We wish to clarify that oil production at Block PM302, revenue from which is also being claimed, is jointly shared with Thailand under the Malaysia-Thailand joint development area since 1979.

“The revenue shared is only RM800mil and it cannot be shared with Kelantan because the oil production is in an overlapping area between the two countries,” he said.

He added that the federal government could not hand over the RM20mil to be administered by the state government for fear the compassionate fund would be misused.

He said the money would be utilised to benefit the people of Kelantan in terms of education, eradication of poverty and other needs deemed necessary by a special committee.

“We are disappointed that (Mentri Besar Datuk) Nik (Abdul) Aziz (Nik Mat) has rejected our invitation for him to join the committee,” he said.

Mustapa said Umno had to explain the oil royalty issue so that the people knew that it was raised by the Kelantan government to divert attention away from the Kelantan Mentri Besar Incorporated issue and the Bazaar Tok Guru issue.

“The issue was raised purely for the sake of politics and we know that it will be used as a weapon in the next general election,” he added.

Tomorrow, the state government and a non-governmental organisation on the oil royalty claim are scheduled to organise a gathering at the Sultan Muhammad IV Stadium.

It is expected to be attended also by Nik Aziz and former Petronas chairman Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah.

Mustapa challenged Kelantan to bring its oil royalty claim to court if it felt it was in the right, but said the state government was afraid to do so because it knew it was not in the right.

Meanwhile, Pasir Mas MP Datuk Ibrahim Ali said he was prepared to bring the matter to court, just to prove that PAS was afraid to do so because the matter was raised purely for the sake of politics.

“I give the PAS-led Kelantan government one month from today to bring the matter to court or I will do it myself,” he told reporters after the forum, at which he was a panel member.

Ibrahim, who is president of Pertubuhan Pribumi Perkasa Negara (Perkasa), said PAS was afraid to bring the issue to court because the party would not be able to discuss the oil royalty issue in public once the matter is in the courts due to subjudice contempt.

He said he was disappointed that the oil royalty issue had been used as a subject for Friday sermons in the state, adding that it was being used as political capital by the state government to garner the sympathy of the people. -- Bernama

I applaud the Government’s compassion — Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah
(The Malaysian Insider, 31/1/10)

JAN 31 — The Government, we are told, is being generous to the people of Kelantan by offering them a “compassionate payment.” I have been accused of being unhelpful by standing before prayer groups of 60-80,000 in sports stadiums to confuse them with notions of their sovereign rights.

Some members of my party have expressed dismay at my action. There will be learned discussions on whether I have breached party discipline.

Let me be helpful then. Setting aside for the moment the discussion of oil “royalty” payments let me be fully supportive of the Government’s initiative to dispense compassionate payments.

The public must be duly impressed that the Government is offering Kelantan money despite maintaining that Kelantan has no legal claim to its offshore oil. Clearly this money is being offered on the grounds of pity alone, and not on the basis of any rights the subjects of the state might imagine they have.

I applaud the Government’s compassion, and I call for the wang ihsan, or compassionate payments, to be made to Malaysians in all the states, not just Kelantan and Terengganu.

I am sure the Federal Govt does not want to be seen to be playing favourites with the people of these two states, especially those of Kelantan, who voted against BN anyway.

Surely the people of the other states are equally deserving of compassion. Out of concern for for all Malaysians, wang ihsan should also be paid out to Perlis, Kedah, Sabah, Sarawak, Melaka and all the other states. Perlis and Kedah, like Kelantan, are deficit financing states. In these difficult times, people all over the country are in need of help and state coffers are empty. We can work out some kind of population and means adjusted formula for handing out this largesse. The Federal Government would be seen to be caring, fair and mindful of the principle of federalism. It might even become more popular.

After this little matter is cleared up I trust those more excitable federal leaders will not be confused when I return to the entirely separate subject of the states’ sovereign rights to their petroleum resources, and consequently the oil payments owed, with compound interest, to the two impoverished states from which they have been illegally withheld.

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified.

At least Anwar Ibrahim is doing the Rakyat a big favour

2010-01-27T16:47:00.004+08:00

What a nice spin over Najib's article in Wall Street Journal, no? People can accuse of those supporting Anwar Ibrahim as his spin doctors; so can I, vice-versa. Indeed, what Syed Nadzri has written is a typical apologetic piece for the Barisan Nasional government, no?

"Reforms have been undertaken, such as liberalising ownership requirements in key sectors of the economy, encouraging foreign direct investments, creating 1Malaysia clinics to provide access to healthcare and extending educational opportunities to all Malaysians," he wrote.

"These reforms have sometimes been politically difficult. But they are important because the long-term health of Malaysia's society and economy can only be built on what unites us rather than what divides us. We will not waver from the pursuit of 1Malaysia."

Tell me: How can the setting up of 1Malaysia clinics be 'politically difficult', when it involves only mediocre medical officers while sidelining trained doctors? How can the liberalising measures be politically difficult, when such measures do not even dent a single bit on Bumiputera interests?

Prime Minister Najib can spin all he wants about 1Malaysia, just like 'Old Anwar' can spin all he wants on his 'conspiracy theory', but at this rate of inertia, 1Malaysia is nothing more than hot air, a slogan to be chanted only during Najib's premiership, nothing more.

At least 'Old Anwar', whether for personal gain or for the good of this country, speaks true of the ills of Malaysia, no? His 'conspiracy theories', as ridiculed upon by Syed, are really just plain-speak of the Rakyat at mamak stalls and kopitiams, no? The Barisan Nasional government has shrouded almost everything in secrecy that the Rakyat has to resort to conjuring up 'imaginative scenarios' to explain every single crap that comes out of this country, of which some, if not most of these 'scenarios', turn out to be very close to the truth. And so Anwar is in fact doing the Rakyat a big favour, risking his arrest and punishment, by saying what the Rakyat dare not utter in public for fear of the repercussions of repressive laws.

Like I replied to NST: 'if the government wants Anwar to shut up, then buck up: don't give him, or Lim Kit Siang, or any of the opposition ilks, the chance to exploit the situation. The reason their arguments and rhetoric gain traction is because this country IS corrupt and unfair to its Rakyat. Govern the country well, and Old Anwar's conspiracy theories will disappear in the air, no?'

**********

SYED NADZRI: A study in creative dissonance
(NST, 27/1/10)

CONTRASTING articles by Datuk Seri Najib Razak and Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim appeared on the same page yesterday, in the opinion section of The Wall Street Journal Asia.

They both centred on the controversial "Allah" issue, but that was where the similarity ended. In approach, tenor and presumably intention, their articles went in practically opposite directions from the start -- the prime minister taking a conciliatory, disarming style, as against the opposition leader's fault-finding digressions.

The contrast was apparent from their first lines, which told the whole story.

Najib: "In contrast to the impression left by some international reporting, in the hours and days after the recent vandalism of churches and other places of worship in Malaysia, the true spirit of our nation shone through."

Anwar: "Malaysia has once again resurfaced in international headlines for the wrong reasons."

The significance of the articles appearing in the same newspaper is enormous: The Wall Street Journal Asia is seen as a leader in global business news for Asia and read by "an influential pan-Asian audience of corporate and government decision-makers".

Its reach and impact, is huge. Every word counts.

That's where Najib's earnestness, in wanting to see through the whole "Allah" episode with minimal damage to the social fabric and delicate make-up of Malaysia comes out strongly.

"Across religions and races, Malaysians have spoken with a unified voice in condemning the despicable acts of a few," Najib wrote, "and citizens have joined as one to assert that vandalism was never an acceptable way to express diverse views or resolve differences.

"Muslim groups volunteered to safeguard churches in their towns. Muslim social activists have written petitions to oppose these senseless acts of vandalism. Muslim civic groups are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Christians, Hindus and Buddhists to ensure that all people can freely worship as they wish."

Christian and civic leaders had called for calm and interfaith dialogue, he added, as they were fully aware that those who perpetrated these acts did not represent the Muslim majority in Malaysia.

A rah-rah piece, yes, but what else could anyone expect? He is the prime minister, after all. But this prime minister has good reason and is on solid ground to say so.

Najib is plainly putting things in proper perspective, particularly for those in influential positions in the region, like WSJ readers, to right the false impressions that might have arisen since the Dec 31 High Court ruling permitting the use of the word "Allah" to refer to God in the Herald, a Catholic weekly newspaper.

"The government will reach out to all parts of Malaysian society in the coming days to foster open dialogue and work to resolve sensitive issues," Najib wrote.

He also said the country must resolve to maintain a fair and open society with opportunities for all Malaysians to flourish.

"Reforms have been undertaken, such as liberalising ownership requirements in key sectors of the economy, encouraging foreign direct investments, creating 1Malaysia clinics to provide access to healthcare and extending educational opportunities to all Malaysians," he wrote.

"These reforms have sometimes been politically difficult. But they are important because the long-term health of Malaysia's society and economy can only be built on what unites us rather than what divides us. We will not waver from the pursuit of 1Malaysia."

Soothing.

But not necessarily so with the tone of Anwar's piece: "The recent arson attacks exemplify what's wrong with the way Malaysia regards its non-Muslim citizens," he wrote.

"Since (the Dec 31 High Court ruling), an already tense situation boiled over, largely due to incitement by a few reckless politicians, the mainstream media and a handful of non-governmental organisations linked by membership and leadership to the Umno."

Anwar does what he always does best -- what he thrives on, other than rabble-rousing -- throwing his conspiracy theories into the issue, claiming that the government is using scare tactics and incendiary propaganda techniques to exploit public sentiment and garner support through useful diversions from embarrassing scandals.

He describes this as "old politics". But perhaps this is the "old Anwar" we know so well: the one who always paints a picture of a disconsolate Malaysia and then pushes himself forward as the saviour.

Top 20 Malaysian Schools? It's an affront to the ideals of education!

2010-01-25T20:43:00.008+08:00

Well, well, well. The top 20 schools in Malaysia has finally been unveiled. What can we glean from the list?

8 of the 10 fully residential schools are located in the urban centres of Klang Valley, Seremban, Melaka and Johor Bahru; three of the four day schools are located in urban centres (Penang, Petaling Jaya, Kuala Lumpur); four of the six primary schools are also located in urban centres (Kuala Lumpur, Johor Bahru). The rest, while they may not be located in urban centres, are still within populous towns.

In other words, they are all urban schools.

One more thing: Not a single school from Sabah and Sarawak.

Another thing: Not a single Chinese or Tamil schools in the list.

A racist slant to the comment? Aye, you bet. This entry is indeed racist, because the result is racially bias. No? If that is not the case, why are they not a single Chinese or Tamil school in the list? Of course, the obvious answer is that they are not as good, no?

Consider the selection criteria below, if you think as such:
i) outstanding academic achievements,
ii) created distinctive personalities,
iii) won national and international awards,
iv) formed relationships with institutions of higher learning,
v) a strong bond with communities as well as a solid network with local and international schools,
vi) benchmark for other institutions inside and outside the country.

May I ask: How can a Chinese or Tamil school network with other international institution, when these schools are not even fully funded by the government? How can one win awards at the national, much less international level, when these schools have problems paying utility bills, much less to sponsor their pupils for competitions?

Steering away from a racial slant, the criteria is still problematic: How can a rural school produce outstanding students, when they do not have enough teachers and funding, when students do not even have the money for tuition and extra classes? Don't even expect rural schools to win awards or to network with other schools, because co-curricular activities, like it or not, cost a bomb.

Thus, to say that 'irrespective of whether they are urban or rural schools, they stand an equal chance to be accorded SBT status' is a gross misrepresentation. While needless money is poured into these SBTs, others have to suffer, especially those schools which have to operated in deplorable conditions that should have been solved.

Is this fair? I cringe at such partiality.

**********

Licence to excel
By Marc Lourdes
(NST, 26/1/10)

PUTRAJAYA: Twenty schools were yesterday accorded the status of high performance schools.

These schools, 14 secondary and six primary, were chosen based on outstanding performance in academic matters, co-curriculum and niche areas.

Ten of the 14 secondary schools are fully residential schools and the rest day schools.

Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, who is also education minister, said these schools would be guided and monitored closely to ensure they continued to attain higher levels of performance.

Each school will be allocated a budget of RM1 million annually. They are given free rein as to how to spend the money, which will be given in a lump-sum payment early in the school year.

They also have autonomy to innovate and improve the quality of their students. Principals, for example, will be able to exercise their discretion in giving places for up to 20 per cent of their school’s student body.

They will also be free to allow bright students to skip a grade. Besides, the schools will have flexibility in organising and managing their curriculum.

“Let’s say the school excels in Bahasa Melayu. They can cut down on the number of minutes spent on that subject and use that for English instead,” said Muhyiddin.

Their special status will also allow them to hire staff based on performance, and not seniority and pay or reward them based on performance.

Principals will be able to transfer out non-performing teachers and assign staff roles based on academic and non-academic functions.

Muhyiddin said the move behind giving “status” to these schools was to raise the quality of Malaysian schools to international level, create outstanding students and narrow the gap between the various schools in the country’s education system.

He added that schools that had been picked would have to maintain their standards and performance.

They had attained outstanding academic achievements, created distinctive personalities, won national and international awards, formed relationships with institutions of higher learning, had a strong bond with communities as well as a solid network with local and international schools, and were a benchmark for other institutions inside and outside the country.

SK Bandar Baru Uda 2 in Johor Baru, for example, was chosen on the strength of its Ujian Pencapaian Sekolah Rendah results, which showed consistent improvement over the last seven years.

Last year, 102 students scored straight As.

SMK (P) St George in Penang was recognised primarily for its prowess in music and entrepreneurship. The school is well known for its gamelan band, orchestra and brass band.

Its cooperative is a source of pride, having boosted yearly income from an average of RM5,000 to RM107,000 over the past few years through initiatives like planting and selling chillies and conducting guided tours of Penang.

The school donated some of the money it earned to worthy causes like the National Cancer Council.

Muhyiddin said the ministry planned to raise the number of high-performance schools to 30 next year and 50 in 2012.

He said the schools also had a role to play in raising the standards of other institutions.

These include teachers from high performance schools coaching and mentoring their counterparts from other schools, holding student exchange programmes, sharing resources and knowledge as well as having briefings, workshops and demonstrations, among others.

Muhyiddin said the selected schools were not “elite” institutions that benefited
only a small number of students.

“Every school has an opportunity to compete on an even playing field to be recognised as a high-performance school. Schools that achieve a standard of excellence and fulfill the criteria will be recognised as high-performance schools and receive the same facilities and rewards.”

Malaysia's Top 20 schools named
(NST, 25/1/10)

PUTRAJAYA: Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin today announced that 20 schools - 14 secondary and six primary - had been accorded the status of high performance schools (SBTs).

Muhyiddin, who is also Education Minister, said of the 14 secondary schools, 10 were fully residential schools and the rest day schools.

"These schools were chosen from among schools that showed outstanding performance in the field of academia, co-curriculum and niche areas.

"The schools will be guided and monitored closely to ensure they continue to attain even higher levels of performance," he told reporters at his office here today.

The 10 fully residential schools are Sekolah Tun Fatimah (Johor Bahru), Sekolah Dato' Abdul Razak (Seremban), Malay College Kuala Kangsar, Sekolah Seri Puteri (Cyberjaya), Sekolah Menengah Sultan Abdul Halim (Jitra), Kolej Tunku Kurshiah (Seremban), Kolej Islam Sultan Alam Shah (Klang), Sekolah Menengah Sains (SMS) Tuanku Syed Putra (Perlis), Sekolah Sultan Alam Shah (Putrajaya) and SMS Muzaffar Syah (Melaka).

The four day schools are Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan (SMK) (P) Sri Aman(Petaling Jaya), SMK Aminuddin Baki (Kuala Lumpur), SMK Sultanah Asma (Alor Setar) and SMK (P) St. George (Penang).

The six primary schools are Sekolah Kebangsaan (SK) Seri Bintang Utara (KL),SK Taman Tun Dr Ismail 1 (KL), SK Bukit Damansara (KL), SK Zainab (2) (Kota Bharu), SK Convent Kota (Taiping), SK Bandar Baru Uda 2 (Johor Bahru).

At the same time, Muhyiddin stressed that SBTs were not elite schools which benefited only a limited number of students.

Instead, he said each school in the country had the same opportunity and a level playing field to be recognised as SBTs.

"Any school that meets the targets of excellence and criteria set (by the Education Ministry) will be recognised as a SBTs and get the same privileges," he said.

Muhyiddin said the ministry targeted to have 30 SBTs by next year and 50 in 2012.

He said the rationale in having SBTs was to raise the quality of the best schools in the country to be world class, produce outstanding students and narrow the gap between schools within the system.

He said SBTs would be given additional autonomy to pursue innovation in school management and raise the productivity of students.

As for curriculum, he said, it would be flexible in terms of teaching and learning as well as syllabi for compulsory and elective subjects, conforming to public examinations and use of the national language as the medium of instruction or multiple languages.

Beside these, Muhyiddin said the schools concerned were also given leeway in fixing the minimum periods for subjects, extending schooling hours and allowing students to complete their studies a year earlier, just like the express promotion system that was introduced previously.

In terms of budget ownership, he said a lump sum grant would be channelled to the schools at the beginning of each year and that they would have the full flexibility to spend as needed and were exempted from the ministry's centralised procurement system.

"Every school has its own budget, but with this status, they will be given additional funds and they can use the money as needed," he said, adding that the grant might be less than RM1 million but had not been fixed yet as this depended on the size of the SBT.

He also said management of staff at these schools would be based on meritocracy and not seniority, besides flexibility given for the paying of overtime and performance incentives.

"There will also be flexibility to re-assign under performing staff and delegation of functions based on academic and non-academic reasons," he said.

Muhyiddin said the SBTs would be appraised yearly based on their annual reports with the appropriate performance indicators and inspections by the ministry's officers in accordance to the revised Malaysian Education Quality Standard.

In relation to this, he said the SBTs would have to fullfil six criterias - attain academic excellence, produce outstanding students, win awards at the national and international level, community work and networking with other schools and higher learning institutions, both locally and internationally.

One of the roles the SBTs would have to play was having their teachers to act as mentors to teachers in other schools through the "immersion" programme involving principals, headmasters and teachers, he said.

Towards maintaing their status as SBTs, he said their strategic plans, management structure, academic and co-curriculum programmes should serve as benchmarks for other schools, locally and abroad.

Muhyiddin said that schools in rural areas could also be selected as SBTs if they fullfilled the criterias set.

"I know not all the 10,000 schools (in the country) can reach this status, but irrespective of whether they are urban or rural schools, they stand an equal chance to be accorded SBT status.

"But if the (rural) schools are constrained because they do not have the same facilities as their urban counterparts, we will speed up action to narrow the gap," he said. -- BERNAMA

CHOK SUAT LING: Goggle-eyed over choice of schools
(NST, 28/1/10)

THE first 20 high-performance schools have been named. There are primary, secondary and fully-residential schools among them, spread across several states. (What a proud achievement for my alma mater, SK Convent Kota, Taiping!)
But questions have been percolating in the afterglow of the initial triumph. What does such an achievement entail? What does "high-performance school" mean?

We know the official answers: these top schools get special privileges, and more autonomy and money.

But how are they different from the other types of schools announced by ministers past?

There were cluster schools and premier schools, and Vision schools and smart schools before them. And most recently, there have been "hot" schools.

Parents are understandably goggle-eyed over the variety of schools we have in the country. And these are just the public schools.

What are the implications of their children being in a particular type of school?

Does enrolment in a "hot" school necessarily mean a student will end up a Mat Rempit, triad taiko, pirate DVD seller, or worse?

Here, as a public service, is a guide to the various types of government schools we now have in our education system:

- High-Performance Schools: These are outstanding schools that will be given special annual allocations and increased autonomy in staffing, enrolment and curriculum.

- Cluster Schools: These are outstanding schools that are given special annual allocations and increased autonomy in staffing, enrolment and curriculum. (Sounds familiar?) Sixty schools were designated cluster schools two months ago, bringing the total to 120. Some cluster schools are also high-performance schools.

- Smart Schools: Simply put, these are schools equipped with Internet access and computer labs, the better to introduce students to information and communications technology as "a culture in education". Eleven years after being introduced, smart schools are still grappling with the essence of being smart. Some smart schools are cluster as well as high-performance schools.

Confused yet? There's more. We also have:

- Premier Schools: These are schools more than a century old. They excel in academics and co-curricular activities and have produced many national leaders, corporate figures, professionals, sportsman and scholars.

In 2008, four such premier schools -- SMK Victoria and SMK Convent Bukit Nanas in Kuala Lumpur, SMK St Thomas in Kuching and SM All Saints in Kota Kinabalu -- were honoured with special sets of stamps and first-day covers by Pos Malaysia Berhad. Curiously, none of them made the cut as high-performance schools.

- Vision Schools: These involved putting a national school and one or two other vernacular schools together at the same site to share common facilities such as the school canteen and sports grounds. It was hoped that the proximity of students of other races would encourage greater interaction among them and foster national unity.

This encountered strenuous resistance from Chinese schools. There are now eight Vision Schools nationwide, but only three -- Subang Jaya, Lurah Bilut in Pahang and Teluk Sengat in Johor -- comprise national, Chinese and Tamil schools.

- Controlled Schools: Top schools where the number and quality of students enrolled are "controlled".

That's not the end of it. There are also:

- Central Schools: Schools with boarding facilities to accommodate students from villages in the interior of Sabah and Sarawak; and,

- Sports Schools: Incubators for potential sports champions. Talented students are groomed in these schools with proper guidance from experts.

And, of course, there are the "hot" schools -- those the police have an eye on because of indiscipline, crime and social problems among students. Needless to say, parents will not be scrambling to enrol their children in such schools.

Placing schools in specific categories will definitely raise their profile and perhaps, in time, help them attract students of all races.

The Education Ministry wants to memperkasakan sekolah kebang-saan (making national schools the school of choice), after all.

Some cluster schools are already getting a deluge of applications from non-Malay students, so much so they have waiting lists as long as that of a famous golfer's conquests.

Parents whose children's schools are in none of these categories should not despair, however.

A nondescript school in the backwoods is as capable of spurring its students on to unimagined heights of excellence.

All any school really needs is a capable headmaster, teachers of quality, and an active parent-teacher association.

sling@nst.com.my

At least they are trying

2010-01-25T13:39:00.003+08:00

(I wrote this as a response to an NST column. Have a feeling that it will never get pass the gatekeepers in NST, and so the response is reproduced below)

Aside from the political realities postulated (below) that brought about 'Middle Malaysia', the rest of the writer's views are sadly myopic, presenting a simplistic argument for the politics within Barisan Nasional.

I venture to suggest that the writer fail to address why the different races engage in racial politics. As a Chinese, we engage in racial politics because we are still labelled as 'pendatang' to the ruling elites, as though we are still second-class citizens. The ruling elites may deny as much as they like, and sweat-coat policies such as NEP as much as they like, but such policies are nothing more than institutionalised racism. Malaysia may not be an apartheid state, but we are close to it, with such shouts as Ketuanan Melayu and the demarcation between Bumiputera and non-bumiputera. It is against such a background that the Indians and the Chinese engage in racial politics, worse still within the boundaries of Barisan Nasional, where one inadvertently always get what it wants at the expense of others.

At least DAP, PKR and PAS, conveniently 'married' they may be, are trying, while BN still stands on ceremony and rests on its laurels

**********

SHAMSUL AKMAR
Middling value in 'Middle Malaysia'
(NST, 25/1/10)

DAP'S new remedy for the nation -- Middle Malaysia, sounds quite ancient and feudal -- very much like the Zhou Dynasty's Middle Kingdom.
Even if the Middle Kingdom is attached to that which is Egyptian, it is still very feudal, a period when rulers were divine and a law unto themselves. But for most Malaysians, surely Middle Malaysia will echo that of the Chinese Middle Kingdom and not that of the Egyptian.

As it is, it has already been pointed out in the blogosphere that DAP's departure from Malaysian Malaysia to Middle Malaysia is an attempt to beguile the Malays who had rejected the former as a subtle chauvinist agenda.

Whether such arguments will gain currency is anybody's guess but the coining of the new slogan by DAP has attracted debate.

It is ironic because DAP stalwarts, its national publicity secretary, Tony Pua, for example, in promoting the Middle Malaysia idea in his blog, described it as "apt in times like this, as we swim in various parochial and fringe controversies like Allah and ketuanan Melayu", are now themselves accused of promoting "a chauvinistic fringe concept".

Pua, when explaining Middle Malaysia, said: "It is time to position DAP and our partners Pas and PKR as taking the middle ground where the overwhelming majority of Malaysians stand, while leaving our political enemies to take the extremist position."

It sounds very reasonable albeit rhetorical.

But the more interesting aspect about Middle Malaysia is that DAP concedes that it will not be able to achieve it on its own and that it needs the all-round support of Pas and PKR.

This is unlike its Malaysian Malaysia concept which was promoted as a DAP exclusive. With the promotion of Middle Malaysia, Malaysian Malaysia may soon be a slogan of the past.

The first question now is whether this Middle Malaysia will be embraced wholeheartedly by DAP's partners.

The next is whether Middle Malaysia is the formula to break Barisan Nasional's domination.

While PKR may just adopt anything which can undermine or diminish Umno and BN, the same cannot be said about Pas.

Pas has, since the taste of the 2008 general election bounty, shown its preparedness to compromise on issues which used to be its raison d'etre such as the Islamic state and hudud, but on several occasions struggled to keep abreast of its secular and liberal partners.

Even in the Herald issue, Pas leaders have been unable to commit themselves to whether they agree on the use of the word "Allah" by those of other faiths.

There are those within their midst like MP for Shah Alam Khalid Samad who has shown his eagerness to be aligned with DAP and PKR in much of their political stance, justifying his action with Quranic verses and Prophetic traditions.

For that matter, even in PKR, the MP for Kulim Bandar Baru has on several occasions shown that he was opposed to the pursuits of DAP and his party.

Before the DAP can "sell" its Middle Malaysia to the rest of Malaysians, their partners would have to get their act together and remove their leaders who are still stuck in various parochial and fringe political principles.

Another question begging for an answer is if DAP can convince PKR in embracing Middle Malaysia -- would not the separate entities become redundant, if not overlapping?

As it is, most of DAP's pronouncements are either echoed by PKR or similarly trumpeted. If Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM) could see this and decide to embrace PKR, surely, sooner or later, either PKR or DAP must come to such a conclusion.

The only difference between the two parties now is that DAP has more non-Malays while PKR has more Malays and if they both decide to blur the racial identities, they should be able to exist as one and helm the Middle Malaysia together and not separately.

But it is doubtful that Pas can ever be with the others unless DAP and PKR accept its leadership and subscribe to some of its ideological principles.

Then, it can be wondered aloud if Pas will be accused of subscribing to parochial and fringe interests.

On the part of the BN, it will never be able to be one as it was formed as a coalition of separate entities intending to pursue separate interests.

That has been its strength and its bane depending on the ebb and flow of domestic politics.

If the respective races they represent are comfortable, even if not necessarily pleased, with the distribution and equation, then the coalition is in good stead.

That has been the formula since the days of the Alliance and the succeeding BN.

The acceptance of BN over the years is actually quite a feat given the fact that it is not ideology-driven unless its pragmatism is considered one.

Otherwise, it is a political bargaining by party elites and adjustments are made where and when necessary.

While detractors are accusing BN of being too immersed in race politics, the BN components have existed because each race wanted them to represent its interests.

BN is actually a reflection of what the Malaysian races are all about -- the want for race-based privileges be they in economy, or in education.

If the Malay/Bumiputeras want their privileges in scholarships and other economic ventures, the non-Bumiputeras want their race-based education to be protected and defended.

For as long as the different races in the country feel that their needs and interests are best pursued by the politicians and political parties representing their race, the BN concept remains the most viable though not necessarily ideal.

Their detractors, though styling themselves as multiracial are never far away from pursuing these racial interests in their political quests.

The only difference is that the BN admits it is a congregation of race-based parties while their opponents proclaim themselves to be the epitome of multiracial virtues.

And how dare anyone equate Middle Malaysia with the Middle Kingdom.

Good idea + bad implementation = bad policy

2010-01-22T09:16:00.005+08:00

The move is laudable. It is a good move. But Malaysian history dictates that we always foul things up at the implementation level, and I wager that this will be no different from other flip-flops in the nation's education policies.

'What can go wrong'? One may ask. Well, there is always the possibility that this 'new deal' will turn into a twisted form of competition, between schools, between headmasters, teachers, and support staff. For example: a headmaster, wanting a higher degree of 'ganjaran' (incentive), will begin to push the teachers harder towards an impossible goal, be it in academic, sports, co-curricular activities and etc, saddling them with extra work in the process. In turn, the teachers will push students harder with any means to milk performance out of them. This will be followed by high achievers and their wannabes stressing themselves up in their efforts to please their teachers while striving to achieve more, while leaving behind mediocre students who are either not cut for such competition, or cannot be bothered to join the bandwagon.

The above may be a crude analysis of it, but the idea of an incentive scheme without a proper framework of reward already open it for abuse, with headmasters and teachers trying to get a piece of the pie by any means necessary, all at the expense of the ideals of education.

The result: only the elite students will be taken care off, because they produce the results that make their teachers and headmasters eligible for the incentive, while sacrificing the nurture of supposedly mediocre students whose potentials cannot be quantified by the current education system.

Worse, schools, headmasters and teachers will start to major in minor things, pouring in time and resources on school projects and miscellaneous co-curricular activities that benefit only their pockets and good name while yielding little benefits to the students, wasting their time and depriving them of learning vital skills such as critical-creative thinking, information processing and summary, and the appreciation of arts.

Is this what we want for our children? Being saddled with endless and near-useless co-curricular activities, stressed up with the pressure to perform academically, just to fill up the pockets of unscrupulous teachers and headmasters?

*curious that this article is not found in in today's edition of The Star Online, but was found as an update in yesterday's edition.

**********

A ‘new deal’ for teachers, school staff
By STEPHEN THEN
stephenthen@thestar.com.my
(The Star, 21/1/10)

MIRI: The Education Ministry has announced a “new deal” for those in the teaching profession.

Teachers, headmasters, principals and staff of schools that have excelled in academic, extracurricular and sporting activities will be given additional “ganjaran” (incentives) such as better annual increments, promotions and other financial and material benefits as a reward for their extra effort.

Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, announcing this here Thursday, said the Government would implement this new merit-based pay structure for those in the teaching profession starting next year.

“This new deal for those in the teaching profession will take effect next year based on the achievements of their schools this year.

“From next year onwards, those schools that have excelled in academic, extracurricular and sports achievements will see their staff rewarded by extra ‘ganjaran’.

“We (his ministry) have found that there are schools that have achieved much better results compared with others because of the extra hard work and dedication of their headmasters and teaching staff.

“We feel that these high-achievers must be given extra rewards. I will announce more details concerning these extra rewards in due time,” he said when declaring open the new RM17mil SK Kampung Bakam in the outskirts of Miri City.

Muhyiddin said the new deal is meant to reward those in the teaching profession who had put in extra effort to ensure that their students perform better.

He said that this merit-based reward system will spur more teachers to put in extra effort.

“We want schools to be more responsible for the level of achievements of their students. We do not want to see schools leaving everything to the Education Ministry.

“Those schools that put in greater effort for their students must be given the rewards that their staff deserve,” he said.

Muhyiddin said the new deal will also spur rural schools to greater heights as it will encourage teaching staff to be more dedicated.

ENOUGH!

2010-01-21T23:02:00.006+08:00

When will we be satisfied? When will they be satisfied? When this country lies in ruin? When every single infidel dies a religiously-justified death? When corpses pile across the streets reeking the stench of death? When reason is exchanged at gun point? Are all these worth it in defence of who has the right to use the name of God?

No. We want no more of such nonsense. Enough is enough, coz we've had enough. Nothing but mistrust, hatred and possible chaos will be gained from further attacks like this. No point in exacting revenge. No point in speculating who is behind such nonsense, whether it is from hooligans or extremists, whether it is politically-motivated or part of a grand conspiracy, because nothing matters more than peace and goodwill in this situation, because rationality, instead of anarchy, must prevail.

**********

Two surau in Muar damaged in arson attempt
By HAMDAN RAJA ABDULLAH
(The Star, 22/1/10)

MUAR: Two surau (Muslim prayer centres) in two villages located about one kilometre apart here were partially damaged in an arson attempt early on Thursday.

The first - Surau Sillaturahim at Jalan Ismail had its curtain and parts of the wall burnt while the second - Surau Parit Beting at Jalan Salleh had its sidedoor burnt and a window broken.

The incidet at Surau Sillaturahim was believed to have occurred about 2am Thursday. The one at Surau Parit Beting was only discovered about 11am Thursday when children went there to attend Quran classes.

Johor deputy police chief SAC I Datuk Jalaluddin Abdul Rahman urged the public not to exploit the two cases.

“We will hold dialogues with the district officer, village heads and other parties soon.

"This is the first time surau have come under attack in the state and the two incidents are regrettable,” he added here.

SAC I Jalaluddin also urged those with information on the two arson attempts to call the Johor police at 07-2212999 or the Muar police at 06-9526001.

We need a critical view on global warming, not blind faith to scientific orthodoxy

2010-01-20T14:27:00.007+08:00

We all make mistakes, but to see mistakes from the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is frankly unacceptable.

Climate Gate scandal aside, of which I believe there is some truths to it, this latest exaggeration over the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers in 2035 really cast serious doubt over IPCC's credibility and authority on the climate change debate. It certainly lend credence to the scandal, where some IPCC scientists purportedly withheld, deleted and manipulated data to boost the case of global warming.

Of course, IPCC can issue an apology over the mistake, and brush it aside as insignificant over the scientific consensus achieved on the subject of global warming. Then again, the very idea of a 'scientific consensus' over the contentious subject speaks only of the arrogance of IPCC and the community of orthodox climate change scientists. In that effect, they are no different from the supporters of Darwinism, who brandish an unproven theory as science and pushing it to be taught as the gospel truth in schools and universities.

Academic arguments aside, the more pressing issue at stake here is how world governments are committing resources to combat environmental degradation by basing on a contentious scientific consensus, at the expense of more pressing problems that require their urgent attention. Is this how we want to utilise our resources on projects that may have little long term benefits at the expense of those who desperately need those resources? Is it right, to build a better world for our next generation, while a big chunk of our current generation suffers in poverty, disease and hunger?

This author is not proposing that we reject the seriousness of environmental issues, simply because they are real threats to our survival. What this writer suggest is merely a critical and rationale look at the climate change debate. We must be critical and not blindly take what is shoved at our eyes by the media as the gospel truth.

**********

U.N. panel "regrets" exaggeration of Himalayan thaw
(The Star, 21/1/10, from Reuters)

OSLO (Reuters) - The U.N. panel of climate scientists expressed regret on Wednesday for exaggerating how quickly Himalayan glaciers are melting in a report that wrongly projected that they could all vanish by 2035.

Leaders of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "regret the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance", they said in a statement on the flaw in a paragraph of a 938-page scientific report.

They noted that the projection of a thaw by 2035 did not make it to the final summary for policymakers in its latest report in 2007. The summary projected a faster thaw in the coming years for glaciers from the Andes to the Alps.

India and some climate researchers have criticised the IPCC in recent days for over-stating the shrinking of Himalayan glaciers, whose seasonal thaw helps to supply water to nations including China and India.

A disappearance of the glaciers would badly disrupt flows in Asia that are vital for irrigation. The IPCC leaders said they were strongly committed to ensuring a high standard for the reports.

The offending paragraph says: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."

On Monday, Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said that "glaciers are receding, but the report that glaciers will vanish by 2035 is not based on an iota of scientific evidence".

The IPCC statement said that the 2035 projection was based on "poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession" and that proper checks were not made.

The IPCC's core finding in 2007 was that it was more than 90 percent sure that mankind is the main cause of global warming, mainly by using fossil fuels.

For Reuters latest environment blogs, click on: http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/

Copyright © 2008 Reuters

From The Sunday Times
January 17, 2010
World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown
Jonathan Leake and Chris Hastings
(Times Online)

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: "If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments."

The IPCC's reliance on Hasnain's 1999 interview has been highlighted by Fred Pearce, the journalist who carried out the original interview for the New Scientist. Pearce said he rang Hasnain in India in 1999 after spotting his claims in an Indian magazine. Pearce said: "Hasnain told me then that he was bringing a report containing those numbers to Britain. The report had not been peer reviewed or formally published in a scientific journal and it had no formal status so I reported his work on that basis.

"Since then I have obtained a copy and it does not say what Hasnain said. In other words it does not mention 2035 as a date by which any Himalayan glaciers will melt. However, he did make clear that his comments related only to part of the Himalayan glaciers. not the whole massif."

The New Scientist report was apparently forgotten until 2005 when WWF cited it in a report called An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China. The report credited Hasnain's 1999 interview with the New Scientist. But it was a campaigning report rather than an academic paper so it was not subjected to any formal scientific review. Despite this it rapidly became a key source for the IPCC when Lal and his colleagues came to write the section on the Himalayas.

When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was "very high". The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90%.

The report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."

However, glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous, pointing out that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise. The maximum rate of decline in thickness seen in glaciers at the moment is 2-3 feet a year and most are far lower.

Professor Julian Dowdeswell, director of the Scott Polar Research Institute at Cambridge University, said: "Even a small glacier such as the Dokriani glacier is up to 120 metres [394ft] thick. A big one would be several hundred metres thick and tens of kilometres long. The average is 300 metres thick so to melt one even at 5 metres a year would take 60 years. That is a lot faster than anything we are seeing now so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistically high.”

Some scientists have questioned how the IPCC could have allowed such a mistake into print. Perhaps the most likely reason was lack of expertise. Lal himself admits he knows little about glaciers. "I am not an expert on glaciers.and I have not visited the region so I have to rely on credible published research. The comments in the WWF report were made by a respected Indian scientist and it was reasonable to assume he knew what he was talking about," he said.

Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as "voodoo science".

Last week the IPCC refused to comment so it has yet to explain how someone who admits to little expertise on glaciers was overseeing such a report. Perhaps its one consolation is that the blunder was spotted by climate scientists who quickly made it public.

The lead role in that process was played by Graham Cogley, a geographer from Trent University in Ontario, Canada, who had long been unhappy with the IPCC's finding.

He traced the IPCC claim back to the New Scientist and then contacted Pearce. Pearce then re-interviewed Hasnain, who confirmed that his 1999 comments had been "speculative", and published the update in the New Scientist.

Cogley said: "The reality, that the glaciers are wasting away, is bad enough. But they are not wasting away at the rate suggested by this speculative remark and the IPCC report. The problem is that nobody who studied this material bothered chasing the trail back to the original point when the claim first arose. It is ultimately a trail that leads back to a magazine article and that is not the sort of thing you want to end up in an IPCC report.”

Pearce said the IPCC's reliance on the WWF was "immensely lazy" and the organisation need to explain itself or back up its prediction with another scientific source. Hasnain could not be reached for comment.

The revelation is the latest crack to appear in the scientific concensus over climate change. It follows the so-called climate-gate scandal, where British scientists apparently tried to prevent other researchers from accessing key date. Last week another row broke out when the Met Office criticised suggestions that sea levels were likely to rise 1.9m by 2100, suggesting much lower increases were likely.

UN report that said Himalayan glaciers would melt within 25 years was all hot air
By David Derbyshire
Last updated at 9:59 AM on 18th January 2010
(Mail Online)

Claims by the world's leading climate scientists that most of the Himalayan glaciers will vanish within 25 years were last night exposed as nonsense.

The alarmist warning appeared two years ago in a highly influential report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

At the time the IPCC insisted that its report contained the latest and most detailed evidence yet of the risks of man-made climate change to the planet.
The Himalayas

Misleading: UN climate change report's claim that Himalayan glaciers would vanish within 25 years was based on 'pure speculation'

But the experts behind the warning have now admitted their claim was not based on hard science - but a news story that appeared in the magazine New Scientist in the late 1990s.

That story was itself based on a telephone conversation with an Indian scientist who has since admitted it was little more than speculation.

The revelation is a major blow to the credibility of the IPCC which was set up to provide political leaders with clear, independent advice on climate change.

It follows the 'Climategate' email row in which scientists at the University of East Anglia appeared to have manipulated data to strengthen the case for man-made climate change.
Dr Benny Peiser

Comments: Dr Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, described the IPCC review process as 'lacking transparency'

Dr Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said: 'The IPCC review process has been shown on numerous occasions to lack transparency and due diligence.

'Its work is controlled by a tightly knit group of individuals who are completely convinced that they are right. As a result, conflicting data and evidence, even if published in peer reviewed journals, are regularly ignored, while exaggerated claims, even if contentious or not peer-reviewed, are often highlighted in IPCC reports.

'Not surprisingly, the IPCC has lost a lot of credibility in recent years. It is also losing the trust of more and more governments who are no longer following its advice - as the Copenhagen summit showed.'

The flawed claim appeared in chapter ten of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which stated: 'Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.'

Rather than being based on a peer-reviewed, published scientific study, the claim was borrowed from a 2005 report by the campaigning green charity WWF.

The WWF, in turn, took the claim from a 1999 report in New Scientist. The magazine based its story on a phone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Dr Hasnain now says the comment was 'pure speculation'.

The gaffe is a major embarrassment for the IPCC.

Yesterday Prof Murari Lal, who edited the section on glaciers in the IPCC report, told a Sunday newspaper: 'If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend-that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments.'

Glacier experts are astonished it has taken so long to expose the blunder. Most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt within 25 years. The quickest melting are shrinking at a rate of two to three feet of thickness a year.

IPCC imperialism on Indian glaciers
20 Jan 2010, 0034 hrs IST, Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar, ET Bureau
(The Economic Times)

Climategate-I was the revelation that climate scientists crusading over global warming at East Anglia University had tried to censor inconvenient data and shut dissenters out of academic journals. Climategate-II is the revelation that the 2007 report of the International Panel on Climate Change, saying Himalayan glaciers might disappear by 2035, was not science at all but idle, unsubstantiated speculation.

It speaks volumes for the huge biases within IPCC that it took two years for this hoax to be exposed. Any hoax opposing the global warming thesis would be exposed in ten seconds flat. The IPCC is willing to swallow unexamined what it finds convenient, while raising a thousand technical objections to anything inconvenient. This is religious crusading, not objective science. The tactics being used to discredit and destroy heretics is reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition.

Climategate-II is also a sad example of green imperialism. Rather than accept the findings of foreign scientists alone, Jairam Ramesh, India’s environment minister, appointed a panel of Indian scientists on Himalayan melting. “My concern is that this comes from western scientists ... it is high time India makes an investment in understanding what is happening in the Himalayan ecosystem.”

The Indian panel, headed by V K Raina, looked at 150 years of data gathered by the Geological Survey of India from 25 Himalayan glaciers. It was the first comprehensive study of the region. It concluded that while Himalayan glaciers had long been retreating, there was no recent acceleration of the trend, and nothing to suggest that the glaciers would disappear. In short, the IPCC had perpetrated an alarmist hoax without scientific foundation.

Scotching IPCC claims that the Gangotri glacier was retreating at an alarming rate, the Raina Panel said this glacier, the main source of the Ganges, actually receded fastest in 1977, and “is today practically at a standstill”.

Raina said that the mistake made by western scientists “was to apply the rate of glacial loss from other parts of the world to the Himalayas... In the United States the highest glaciers in Alaska are still below the lowest level of Himalayan glaciers. Our 9,500 glaciers are located at very high altitudes. It is a completely different system.”

Justifiably, Jairam Ramesh felt vindicated. But the Raina report threatened the claim of IPCC scientists to omniscience and Nobel Prize status. Rajendra Pachauri, President of the IPCC, told The Guardian newspaper, “We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don’t know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement.” He dismissed the Raina report saying it was not “peer reviewed” and had few “scientific citations”. He even went to the extent of calling it “schoolboy science.”

Well it takes a schoolboy to reveal that the Emperor has no clothes. We now know that the IPCC claim on glaciers was a hoax. It was based on a speculative comment made in 1999 to a reporter by Syed Hasnain, a professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University. This was then repeated by several green publications, without further verification.

Goebbels once said that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will think it is the truth. The glacier fiasco is the latest example of this. Scientists are supposed to ask hard questions about spectacular new claims. Instead, the IPCC simply accepted without verification the reports of Himalayan glacial melting, and prominently highlighting this in its 2007 report.

Pachauri appointed Hasnain as a senior fellow at Teri. Together, they raised millions from international donors for research on glaciers at Teri. But when Climategate-II came to light, Pachauri declared that he had no responsibility for what Hasnain may have said! And Hasnain said, rather cheekily, that the IPCC had no business to cite his comments!

Pachauri is reported to have said in a telephonic interview, “We are looking at the issue and will be able to comment on the report after examining the facts. The science doesn’t change: Glaciers are melting across the globe and those in the Himalayas are no different. We’re not changing anything till we make an assessment.”

Clearly the true climate denier is Pachauri: he swears by glacial apocalypse even after its exposure as a hoax. When the Raina panel produced solid scientific evidence challenging the glacier melting thesis. Pachauri instantly decried it as schoolboy science and said condescendingly that it was not peer-reviewed. Yet he was happily willing to sanctify schoolboy speculation on glacial melting, and so were other members of the IPCC. All their high-faulting talk of peer-reviewed science proved to be just a tactic to keep out inconvenient views.

IPCC scientists responsible for this fiasco must resign. The 2007 IPCC report must be amended, preferably with an apology.

Various green NGOs — including one I respect, the Centre for Science and Environment — backed the IPCC against the Raina Panel. They blindly echoed western scientists with less intimate knowledge of the Himalayas than our own scientists. Stalin would have called this a case of Indian compradors acting as the lackeys of western imperialists, and on this occasion I would find it hard to disagree with him.

These green groups claim to be watchdogs for civil society, and often do a good job. But in this case they blithely allowed a hoax to go unchallenged for two years.

Glacier alarmism is not new. Greenpeace once published photos showing the rapid retreat of the Uppsala Glacier in Argentina, ascribing this to global warming. But when I visited the glacier, I was told that global warming was too gradual to account for the dramatic retreat of the glacier, and clearly powerful local causes were responsible. Of several glaciers descending from the South Andean Icefield, Uppsala was retreating, Perrito Moreno was advancing, and several others were stable. Such varying outcomes obviously reflected local geoclimatic variations, not global climate at all.

Will Greenpeace admit it? Not a chance. But if the IPCC wants to make amends for Climategate-II, perhaps it can start by apologising for glacier alarmism. That will help restore its scientific credibility.

Debate heats up over IPCC melting glaciers claim
Updated 17:21 11 January 2010 by Fred Pearce
(New Scientist)

Glaciologists are this week arguing over how a highly contentious claim about the speed at which glaciers are melting came to be included in the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In 1999 New Scientist reported a comment by the leading Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, who said in an email interview with this author that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035.

Hasnain, of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, who was then chairman of the International Commission on Snow and Ice's working group on Himalayan glaciology, has never repeated the prediction in a peer-reviewed journal. He now says the comment was "speculative".

Despite the 10-year-old New Scientist report being the only source, the claim found its way into the IPCC fourth assessment report published in 2007. Moreover the claim was extrapolated to include all glaciers in the Himalayas.

High probability

Chapter 10 of the report says: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world."

The inclusion of this statement has angered many glaciologists, who regard it as unjustified. Vijay Raina, a leading Indian glaciologist, wrote in a discussion paper published by the Indian government in November that there is no sign of "abnormal" retreat in Himalayan glaciers. India's environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, accused the IPCC of being "alarmist".

The IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, has hit back, denouncing the Indian government report as "voodoo science" lacking peer review. He adds that "we have a very clear idea of what is happening" in the Himalayas.

'Disturbing' prediction

The IPCC report sources the prediction to a document published by the environment group WWF in 2005; this document quotes the New Scientist article as its source. The WWF report describes the prediction as "disturbing", without specifically endorsing it.

Nonetheless, the IPCC report goes further, concluding without citing further evidence that the prediction is "very likely" – a term that it says means a likelihood of greater than 90 per cent.

Graham Cogley, a geographer from Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario, Canada, says the 2035 date is extremely unlikely. "At current melting rates it might take up to 10 times longer," he says.

Grey literature

However, the lead author of the IPCC chapter, Indian glaciologist Murari Lal, told New Scientist he "outright rejected" the notion that the IPCC was off the mark on Himalayan glaciers. "The IPCC authors did exactly what was expected from them," he says.

"We relied rather heavily on grey [not peer-reviewed] literature, including the WWF report," Lal says. "The error, if any, lies with Dr Hasnain's assertion and not with the IPCC authors."

But Hasnain rejects that. He blames the IPCC for misusing a remark he made to a journalist. "The magic number of 2035 has not [been] mentioned in any research papers written by me, as no peer-reviewed journal will accept speculative figures," he told New Scientist.

"It is not proper for IPCC to include references from popular magazines or newspapers," Hasnain adds

We do not want government tokenism

2010-01-19T14:07:00.006+08:00

A seeming compromise is reached. Everything should return to status quo. Everybody should be happy, no?

Of course not everyone is happy, not when the matter is blown out of proportion to such witless allegation that the non-exclusive use of Allah is a Christian conspiracy that will result in massive Muslim confusion and conversion, not when churches, mosques and other places of worship are torched and vandalised over who has the right to use the name of God.

We want solutions, no tokenism from the government, not sweeping the matter under the carpet as if nothing has ever happened. We want rational dialog, not intolerance express through violence. We want to voice out, not hush ourselves up just because the government wants to hush things up.

Thanks Nazri, but no thanks.

**********

Non-Muslims can use ‘Allah’ in three states, FTs UPDATED By Debra Chong
(The Malaysian Insider, 18/1/10)

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 18 — Minister in Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz today said that non-Muslims are allowed to use the word “Allah” in three states — Penang, Sabah and Sarawak — and the Federal Territories.

He said this is because other states have enactments on Islam which prohibit the use of the term by non-Muslims.

Nazri (picture) had last week proposed that East Malaysian Christians be allowed to use the term, though maintained that it should remain prohibited to West Malaysians.

“In my opinion, the court decision is only effective for Sabah, Sarawak and Penang, not the other states where it is the law,” the minister in charge of law and parliamentary affairs told reporters after launching a public transport awareness campaign here today.

The federal lawmaker related that he had once gone “incognito” to a church in Sarawak where the word “Allah” was used during service. He added that the Muslims there also had no problems with the word being used by Christians because they understood it was due to “custom and culture”.

“I don’t think they should pass the law in Sabah and Sarawak. I think it’s been the culture there but it’s different here,” he said, referring to the peninsula.

The controversy over the word started after a Dec 31, 2009 ruling by the High Court allowing a Catholic newspaper to use the term “Allah” to refer to the Christian God in its Bahasa Malaysia section.

The ruling sparked off Muslim anger across the country, and has seen attacks on 10 churches, a mosque, a Sikh temple, and a convent school.

Penang can use ‘Allah’ By ZULKIFLI ABD RAHMAN
(The Star, 19/1/10)

KUALA LUMPUR: The use of the word “Allah” is allowed for non-Muslims in the Federal Territories, Penang, Sabah and Sarawak as the head of state is not a Sultan, according to Minister in Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz.

He added that the other states in the country had Islamic affairs enactments which prohibited the use of the word by non-Muslims.

In the case of the Herald, Nazri said the Home Minister used the Printing Presses and Publications Act instead of the Islamic enactment to order the publication to stop using the word Allah as this case was brought up in Kuala Lumpur.

Speaking to reporters after launching the public transport awareness campaign at Hentian Puduraya here yesterday, Nazri questioned the necessity for non-Muslims to use the Arabic word “Allah” when one could use “Tuhan” (God).

He also said that any settlement or resolution to the “Allah” controversy should be resolved through the courts.

Asked whether the Government would withdraw its appeal against the High Court ruling, Nazri said: “If we want to settle this out of court, it should be (Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur) Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam’s call as he was the one who had asked for a judicial review on the action taken by the Home Ministry against the Herald.

“The Government cannot ignore the legal process. It didn’t bring the matter to the court, It was Pakiam.”

Earlier, in his speech, Nazri said one of the reasons for the poor public transportation system in the country was the failure of the public to complain about offences committed by taxi or bus drivers.

The people also took for granted that enforcement authorities would take action against errant public transport drivers.

In PUTRAJAYA, Deputy Prime Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin said the Government would adopt a wait-and-see approach on the “Allah” issue but it would use dialogues with inter-religious groups to gain a better understanding on the issue.

“We will wait for the court decision on the appeal – I do not want to (speak on the issue and seem to) pre-empt or pre-judge it.

“We are not just looking at it from a legal angle and we will find ways to work together because while we are of different religious beliefs, we are part of 1Malaysia,” he told a press conference after launching the MyID system and the Heads of Government Agencies Conference yesterday.

Churches in Sabah reject proposal
(The Star, 19/1/10)

KOTA KINABALU: The Sabah Council of Churches has rejected a proposal that the word “Allah” can only be used by Christians in Sabah and Sarawak.

Council president Rev Jerry Dusing said it felt that Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz’s suggestion was “illogical, inconsistent and untenable for Christian communities of both states, especially those residing in the peninsula”.

“The intended concession also goes against the spirit and intent of the Prime Minister’s 1Malaysia concept of forging unity and harmony among all races and religions by mutual respect and acceptance,” Rev Dusing said in a statement.

He said the proposal also impinged on the rights of the Christian community as it “dichotomises and segregates” the rights to profess and practise one’s faith on the basis of geographical location.

Colossal disparity in local primary school funding

2010-01-19T11:33:00.007+08:00

To summarise the commentary below: About RM 4.7297 billion were allocated to local primary schools during the Ninth Malaysia plan, which were broken down to the following division:

RM4.46810 billion to 199 national schools
RM104.250 million to 82 Chinese vernacular schools
RM119.910 million to 61 Tamil vernacular schools

Do a bit of division, the numbers further break down to:
RM22.45 million for each national schools
RM1.95 million for each Chinese vernacular schools
RM1.74 million for each Tamil vernacular schools.

Need I say more?

**********

(from Oriental Daily, 19/1/10)

華教處境困難重重

楊善勇

舊歲已遠，新年既臨。此時此刻，回顧往事，一早成為本邦個人和組織的潛規矩。馬來西亞華校教師會總會沒有例外，也似乎不能例外，繼續發表了所謂的〈2009年華小課題回顧〉云云，直說「過去一年來，華教的處境依然是困難重重」。

往上追溯，華教眼前不一而足的困境豈止是局限在「過去一年來」呢？參照1986年全國華團民權委員會的《貫徹華團聯合宣言第一階段九大目標》的那些理直氣壯，自能輕易感受舊案的百年不變。

至少，當年宣言中目標之五的「公平對待各源流學校及各族語文」，至今仍然未休。時任董總研究員的沈天奇年前在〈爭取華小在第九大馬計劃的發展權益〉（2005）小心翼翼計算，乃至發現原來第六至第八大馬計劃（1991－2005）期間，華小所得比率只有寥寥之數的2.44%－8.14%之間。

到了第九大馬計劃呢，人民公正黨士拉央國會議員梁自堅律師在國會提問之後，如我前在本版發表的〈第九大馬計劃華小得3%〉轉述，副首相兼教育部長慕尤丁公佈了第九大馬計劃的（局部）詳情：

冠軍：國小，44億6,810萬令吉；亞軍：華小，1億4,250萬令吉；季軍：淡小，1億1,910萬令吉，總計共有44億6810萬。按照比率，國小占94.47%，華小3.01%，淡小行情最淡，只得微不足道的2.52%。

梁律師獲得這份數據，精打細算之後，發現分佔199、82和61所的國小、華小和淡小每所學校所獲平均撥款如下：冠軍：國小，2,245萬令吉；亞軍：淡小，195萬令吉；季軍：華小，174萬令吉。

此事說來，原來還有一匹布長，耐人尋味的下文：若根據學生人數來計算，第九大馬計劃（2006－2010年）下華小應該得到20.96%，即10億2,000萬的撥款，但實際上卻只獲得1億7千萬或3.6%的撥款，少了整整8億5,000萬。

一加一減，有誰知道8億5,000萬最後到底去了哪裡？類似的問題，當然不是新鮮的頭條新聞了。《華小建校、遷校和微型華小資料集》（加影：教總；2009）記錄了林林總總的罄竹難書。

撥款不足只好掏腰包

1999年從雙溪丁宜搬到雪蘭莪首邦市的子文華小，「在耗資約580萬令吉的建校經費中，政府只是撥款100萬令吉充作建校經費，其餘的則由華社來承擔」（頁116）。

同樣是1999大選前原則上開辦，遲至2002年1月開始獲准的半津貼華小甲洞三校的處境，也不逞多讓。報告說，「在約600多萬的建校經費中，絕大部分是校方自行籌獲的」（頁31）。

整體而論，「華小平均每年自籌超過1億令吉。單是1年的募款就超越政府在過去五年第九大馬計劃下所給予華小的1億7434萬令吉撥款，大馬華人在客觀體制不公平的情形下，堅韌的辦學精神深得海內外稱羨」。

說是「深得海內外稱羨」，自1999年至2009年獲准遷校的75間華小，《華小建校、遷校和微型華小資料集》書裡說：尚有28間仍未完成，另有一間狀況屬於耐人尋味的「其它」（頁118）。

不唯如此，教總2009的報告同時並稱，「國陣政府在2008年308大選前許下增建6所華小和13所遷校的承諾，竟然只有1所遷校在新學年正式開課」。罄竹難書，毋庸贅言。

黨團領導仍須加把勁

總的來說，可見教總這些年來總結的論述所言，確有一番見地：「雖然國家領袖對華小讚揚有加，也一再強調多源流學校教育制度是國家的優勢，但情況不但沒有改善，反而是每況愈下。」

緣由畢竟如何，《透視大馬》網站引述，教育部副部長魏家祥通過《星洲日報》專訪，指出「華小的許多爭取工作（不能完成），是因為馬華最高層沒有和正副首相對話，因此，他身為副部長，不能做什麼」。

不幸的是，教總的最高層領導的素質，一如我黨，也一樣每況愈下，一年不如一年。除了每年一篇閉門造車，熟口熟練的〈n年華小課題回顧〉，我們唯一看到的轉變是，報告印刷精美，圖文並茂，說服力大大增強。

吾人仔細翻讀其中，自可感受教總的陳述技術確實大有提升，也算是意外的收穫了。可惜明年此時，恐怕還是不免繼續讀到「華教的處境依然是困難重重」的感慨萬千了。

Nothing short of a miracle to revitalise the old-geezer known as Malaysia. Not even cosmetic surgery.

2010-01-18T14:43:00.006+08:00

No doubt about our efforts to woo foreign investors, but it does look like a poor man/woman chasing after hordes of rich women/men. No?

What does this land has at this moment that is of attraction to the Fortune 500 companies? A consistent and growing strength? A muscular beauty that is a sight to behold? A slim and lean economy not weigh down by unsightly bulges? Full of inner qualities that are keenly sought after by the discerning crowd?

Or a worn-out old geezer, withered from years of wasteful labour, with festering ills lurking beneath the surface?

Of course, we can engage in cosmetic surgeries to repair our decaying frame, trying to make ourselves look good and confident in the sight of foreign investments, but scars still remain, while old wounds are reopened as we injure ourselves with fresh scandals, chauvinistic sentiments and general unfairness.

What happened to the Malaysia that was once the object of desire for foreign investment? Perhaps we are not that great in the first place, and those that we are wooing have already dump us in search of better ones next to us.

(Forgive the writer: this is his lame attempt at puns and figures of speech)

**********

Wooing Fortune 500 CEOs to invest here
(New Straits Times, 18/1/10)

IPOH: Malaysia will be inviting chief executive officers of Fortune 500 companies to be guests at international events held in the country as part of the government's effort to attract more foreign investment, said Second Finance Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Husni Mohamad Hanadzlah.

"They will also be given the opportunity to meet ministers to explore business opportunities," he said after launching a building fund for a night hawkers guild here yesterday.

Ahmad Husni said this was a new step being taken by the government to attract investment to further boost the economy.

He said the first programme that would have the CEOs as guests would be the Malaysian Formula One race at the Sepang International Racing Circuit in March.

Bringing Foreign Capital Back to KL
Najib appeals to Malaysia's business bigwigs to jump-start domestic investment: Execs
By Leslie Lopez, Senior Regional Correspondent
(18/1/10, The Straits Times)

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 18 — Last month, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak called his country’s top business tycoons for a little pep talk.

The message was simple. Jump-start domestic investment and help the government generate economic activity, said financial executives familiar with the meeting.

Najib is concerned because not only were foreign direct investment flows slowing, but key businessmen were also moving out of the economy.

Only months before the meeting, Asia’s richest businessman and Malaysia’s top corporate figure Robert Kuok sold off his long-established interests in the sugar importing and refining business. Save for his Shangri-La hotels nationwide, Kuok has little visible business interests left in Malaysia.

Meanwhile, casino operator Genting, engineering and property group YTL, and the telecommunications and multimedia holdings controlled by tycoon Ananda Krishnan have been restructuring their respective corporations in recent months.

They want to channel financial resources generated locally to finance overseas expansion plans.

Whether Najib’s cajoling of these corporate chieftains will force them to search inward for business opportunities is not clear.

But the vandalism of several churches nationwide over the use of the word ‘Allah’ by Christians will weigh heavily on their plans for future investments.

“It has all the hallmarks of a self-created problem which will trouble investors — not just foreign but domestic ones as well,” said Manu Bhaskaran of Centennial Asia Advisors in Singapore. “They would have noticed that the majority ethnic group in Malaysia appears insecure and how and why this insecurity has been bred.”

Malaysia stands at a crossroads in its economic development.

The country’s export-led economic model is sputtering because of weak global demand, while higher labour costs are forcing companies to consider other investment locations. Meanwhile, state-led infrastructure development that has kept the construction sector humming has dried up.

The boom in commodities is fading and exposing the government’s overdependence on its revenue from petroleum to fund the country’s bloated civil service and development programmes.

Najib has declared that he will unveil an economic blueprint next month that will detail the government’s plans to create a new economic model, which can help chart Malaysia’s transformation to a high-income economy.

But private economists said he faces several challenges and chief among them will be tackling structural gaps such as the shortage of skilled labour, a weak education system and a state-dominated economy that leaves little room for private sector competition.

Furthermore, the government’s reluctance to dismantle barriers that fuel a vast political patronage system has bred inefficiencies. These include the awarding of contracts on a negotiated basis rather than competitive bidding.

“The (new economic) model needs to be holistic and should go beyond economics and trade. Malaysia needs more openness,” Dr Mohamed Ariff, head of the Malaysian Institute of Economic Research (Mier), told a regional conference in Singapore recently.

Official figures show that approved investment for the first nine months of last year totalled RM19.1 billion, of which RM12.2 billion was foreign direct investment.

That is a far cry from the RM62.8 billion of approved investments in the previous year, with just over RM46 billion in the form of foreign capital.

Mier estimates that the economy contracted by up to 3.3 per cent last year. The independent think-tank believes the economy will grow by as much as 3.7 per cent this year.

But private economists said the rebound will be clouded by several factors, such as a swelling fiscal deficit and abnormal capital outflow. According to government officials, close to RM117 billion flowed out in 2008 and a further RM54 billion in the first half of last year.

Najib’s immediate challenge is to recreate an environment that will encourage investment. As a percentage of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), private investment currently hovers at around 11 per cent, from about 36 per cent during the mid-1990s.

Private economists like Bhaskaran of Centennial believe that Malaysia needs to get private investment to around 20 per cent of GDP quickly. To meet that target, Najib will need to implement a “thoroughgoing reform to reverse the degradation of institutions” such as the civil service, judiciary, police and the country’s universities, said Bhaskaran. — The Straits Times

An isolated case that could have blown out of proportion

2010-01-14T15:41:00.003+08:00

Not found in the English press is this is horrid story of an attempted conversion to Islam towards a Chinese girl, and I find it shocking.

But first, the gist of the story: a Chinese girl in Kedah, after being lost for a few days, was found in an Islamic counselling centre ready to convert into Islam. It was indicated in the article that she had a relationship with a 26-year-old Malay friend, and it was suspected that she was 'influenced' by unholy means to convert. After psychological counselling, the girl renounced her decision to convert by making a statutory declaration in front of an oath commissioner together with her lawyer.

I hope that this is just an isolated incident, not unlike the recent spat of arson attacks on churches, sikh temples, even mosques. Moreover, I hope too that the various state Islamic departments will take all necessary precautions to prevent any false conversion into Islam.

**********

巫裔男友拐走　林曉薇皈依回教
(Oriental Daily News, 11/1/10)

（雙溪大年10日訊）失蹤多天的華裔少女林曉薇，原來是被巫裔男友送入雙溪拉也路的非巫裔回教徒輔導中心，並向家人表達皈依回教的決定。

林曉薇（20歲）今日在輔導中心被雙親發現時，已穿上該中心的學員制服，經過查證下證實林曉薇心已決定皈依回教。

不過，林曉薇如今獲准跟家人回家3天，以認真考慮這項決定，而根據瞭解，她還未填寫進入回教的表格。

父親林氏（43歲）受詢時說，當他獲悉女兒決定皈依回教後非常痛心，但無奈這是女兒的決定，他會盡量勸告，如果女兒還是堅決，也不會阻止。

「我們兩夫婦辛苦將女兒養大，過去20年來，都是竭盡父母的責任來教育她，我知道女兒在4個月前開始與一名巫裔男子交往，但因當時工作太忙碌也未去深入瞭解，現在都已太遲。」

獲准帶女兒回家

林氏是在接獲女兒出現在該中心的消息後，即刻前往會見女兒，並在該中心逗留約2個小時後，最後獲准帶女兒返家為期3天，惟曉薇過後必須回去報到。

「我們會在這3天內，盡量開導曉薇，如果她的意願還是這麼堅決，我也作好了最後的打算讓她皈依回教，並成全她與巫裔男友結為夫妻。」

他說，世上怎會沒有疼愛子女的雙親，看到女兒無故失蹤，他心急如焚，但在獲悉女兒的決定後，更讓他痛心疾首。

「曉薇既然已作出本身的選擇，我還能怎樣呢？因為成全她我還能繼續擁有這名女兒，往後還有很多的時間可以相聚。」

林氏也希望女兒能夠回心轉意，但一切都必須看她的選擇，他也感謝各造人士，在女兒失蹤期間給予多方面的協助，女兒失蹤問題已解決，現在是要如何去採取下一步的行動了。

3天後返中心報到

此外，該中心負責人受詢時證實曉薇已皈依回教，因此她必須在3天後重返該中心報到。

林曉薇於1月3日離開工作場所後與家人失聯，最終在亞羅士打國會議員拿督曹智雄的特別助理羅永忠安排下，向媒體講述女兒的失蹤經過。

後來，週四（7日）下午被吉中區義務消防隊和志工隊成員發現，載著林曉薇的車子出現在美農一帶，義務消拯隊和志工隊成員就開始馬不停蹄展開追蹤行動。

拒絕改教　林曉薇宣誓當佛教徒
(Oriental Daily News, 14/1/10)

（亞羅士打13日訊）失蹤期間信奉回教少女林曉薇今日宣誓仍是虔誠佛教徒，戲劇性拒絕改信回教！

據知，由於父母懷疑女兒遭人施以巫術控制思維，經過一番開解及接受精神治療後，林曉薇今日以行動証明自己還是虔誠佛教徒，並在宣誓官面前宣誓。

林曉薇是於本月3日失蹤，較後被發現人在雙溪大年回教輔導中心，今日在父母及亞羅士打國會議員曹智雄的特別助理羅永忠陪同下，在吉打佛學院向媒體証實，仍堅持本身的宗教信仰。

她說，目前精神和狀態都很好，也很清醒，與家人返家後這3天，一直在接受精神上的治療。「在回到家人身邊接受治療前，感覺好像被人控制，神智迷糊和不清醒，不知道自己在做什麼。」

考慮繼續深造

她說，離開家人一個星期重見家人後感覺很開心，同時她也暫時不會回去工作，因為她考慮繼續深造。她和父母非常感謝各界熱心人士，在這期間給予的協助。

林曉薇是於本月3日早上9時由母親載送到工作地點上班，於11時與一名26歲巫裔男子一起離開工作地點後與家人失去聯絡，該男子沒有正業，曾與林曉薇同事一段極短的時日，家住吉北古邦羅丹，但極少返家，曾結過婚後離異，育有一名孩子，林曉薇與他相識約2個月。

1月10日，父母在眾人協助下才發現林曉薇準備信奉回教，而她一身回教婦女的裝扮，更是令人大吃一驚。在家人與中心負責人協調後，曉薇獲准跟隨父母回家3天，以便冷靜思考，週三正是她返家後的第三天。

希望和平解決

羅永忠表示，林曉薇已向宣誓官宣誓，內容包括她本身還是一名佛教徒、2010年1月10日當天及之前所發生的事都不是自願進行的，及承認所提供的個人資料如姓名、地址、簽名以及所講的都是事實。

他說，這項宣誓是由律師安排，在一位宣誓官面前根據1960年宣誓法令宣誓。他將會把這份宣誓書先傳真給回教輔導中心，過後會再補寄上宣誓書，他可能也會通過互聯網上載林曉薇作出決定的錄影片，給中心作出交代。會通過正確的管道處理，因為大家的本意都是希望這件事情能夠和平解決。

「林曉薇於1月10日被帶返家後，翌日被安排到政府診療所進行健康檢驗，檢驗報告顯示林曉薇當天的狀態迷糊不清，眼睛一直看地上，很少與人眼神交流，必須進行心理檢驗。」

「在這3天以來，安排她進行精神治療和休養，精神較之前有很大轉變。」

林曉薇的父親表示，如果事件得以圓滿解決，他不打算追究回教輔導中心收留曉薇及知情不報。

羅永忠希望，往後若要收留入教者或進行入教儀式應該通過正統方式，事先查明欲入教者的背景，及先照會他們的父母及家人。

'All schools treated alike'... Yeah right.

2010-01-14T14:59:00.006+08:00

Aside from the decades-old discrimination in funding between government-operated and government-assisted schools, NOT all schools are treated alike, evident from some schools sporting modern and lavish facilities, while many others have to operate in dingy structures, with some do not not even have proper water and electricity in the interiors of Sabah, Sarawak, even in the Peninsula.

45 years since Sabah and Sarawak joined Malaysia, and the Barisan Nasional federal government had 45 years to improve the schools over there, but the problem still persists. Why? Because 'not many teachers (are) willing to serve in interior areas, especially in those two states'?

Convenient. Very convenient to pass the blame to teachers.

IF the lack of teachers is the sole factor to the problem, then pray tell: Why?

Our teachers are paid dirt compare to those in Japan, which are paid even more than a mechanical engineer or a software programmer. Worse, teachers are saddled with loads of menial administrative tasks, stripping them the valuable time to prepare lessons, interact with and nurture their students. In addition, they have to helm co-curricular activities and strive for excellence ostensibly in the name of the school, but really are bowing to the demands of school principals who are out to gain a name only for themselves, along with promotions and opportunities to milk money out of the deals they make with businesses of educational supplies.

With this kind of work environment, coupled with the high stress of dealing with children and teenagers, who wants to teach in the interiors? Who wants to walk or ride a long boat for hours just to reach school? Teachers, noble as they are (along with many devious and mentally-crazed ones), are humans too: they need fair remuneration for the work they put in, and financial compensation for the sacrifices they make to teach in the interiors.

But is the government doing anything about this? No. if not only little. And so the problem continues, with the next Education Minister singing the same old tune just like his/her predecessors.

**********

All schools treated alike, says Muhyiddin
(NST, 14/1/10)

LONDON: The government does not practise discrimination in the field of education as it treats all schools alike in Malaysia, said Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.
He said although the government made announcements on high-performing and best schools, it was done so that they could be models for others to emulate.

He said this during a dialogue with Malaysian student leaders at the Malaysian High Commission here yesterday.

Muhyiddin was responding to dissatisfaction expressed by one student that there was a disparity in the government's treatment of schools, especially involving those in the interiors of Sabah and Sarawak.

According to Muhyiddin, there was no let up on the government's part to implement various improvement programmes for schools in the two states.

"The problem the government faces is that there are not many teachers willing to serve in interior areas, especially in those two states," he said.

Also present were Muhyiddin's wife, Puan Sri Noorainee Abdul Rahman, Deputy Higher Education Minister Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah and Malaysia's High Commissioner to the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, Datuk Abd Aziz Mohamed. -- Bernama

(from Oriental Daily News, 14/1/10)

慕尤丁：政府公平對待所有學校

（倫敦13日訊）副首相兼教育部長丹斯里慕尤丁強調，政府公平對待國內所有的學校，沒有任何學校受到歧視。

他說，雖然政府會公開列出那些表現傑出的學校名字，但所有學校得到的待遇都是一樣的。

他表示，政府列出這些名校的名字，是希望其他學校也能力爭上遊，以達到同樣的成就。

他在訪問英國期間，與大馬留英學生進行對話時回應學生的提問。一名學生指出，沙巴與砂拉越的學校，受到政府不公平的待遇，並對這種現象感到不滿。

改進東馬學校

慕尤丁在回應有關問題時說，政府會持續採取各種措施，改進沙砂兩州學校的水平。

「政府現在所面對的問題是，願意到內陸地區服務的老師並不多，他們尤其不願被派往沙巴及砂拉越。」

這項對話會，其他的出席者包括慕尤丁夫人潘斯里諾來妮阿者拉曼、高教部副部長拿督賽夫丁阿都拉、大馬駐英國與北愛爾蘭最高專員拿督阿都阿茲。