Sang Pulasari

Will Elections in Malaysia be Free or Fair?

2013-05-04T21:22:00.003+02:00

Ambiga Sreenevasan

On May 5, Malaysians will vote in one of the most contentious general elections in the country's history. Unfortunately, Malaysia's electoral system is plagued by irregularities and unfairness at a time when a strong, independent electoral process is most needed.

Since its inception, Bersih 2.0 - a group pushing for electoral reforms, of which I am a co-chair - has argued for eight key reforms in its campaign for clean and fair elections. Over the past four years, Bersih 2.0 has made inroads in raising public awareness on the necessity for these reforms. The resulting public pressure has forced the federal government and the election commission to take a position on these issues and to make some overtures - albeit not entirely satisfactory - towards electoral reform.

Despite government posturing, however, the only reform that has been implemented for the upcoming general election is the introduction of the use of indelible ink. However, we have expressed our concern that the plan to apply the ink before the vote is cast may result in the smudging of the ballot paper and delays in the voting process.

In view of the flawed electoral process, Bersih 2.0 has launched a project called "Pemantau" in which we are deploying Malaysian citizens to observe the elections across the country. Thus far, Bersih 2.0 has mobilised 2,000 observers in 55 parliamentary districts. The observers will monitor election violations including bribery and the misuse of government resources to benefit particular political parties.

With voting day fast approaching, there has already been a long stream of evidence of electoral irregularities and breach of election laws.

Reports of phantom voters, double registrations, unauthorised registrations and unauthorised changing of voting constituencies have haunted Malaysian elections for years. Despite widespread support for a comprehensive clean-up, the election commission has in our view failed to do so.

The latest report of the Malaysian Electoral Roll Analysis Project shows there are at least 28,593 "voters of foreign origin" on the electoral roll, most of them concentrated in Sabah and Selangor, both of which are considered to be important states in the elections.

The Selangor state government, helmed by the opposition Pakatan Rakyat coalition, has alleged that 28 percent of the 440,000 new voters in Selangor who have registered since the last elections cannot be identified. However, all attempts by the state government to have the election commissioninvestigate or even hear the complaints havefailed.

Incidents of violence

Over the last year, there have been many reported incidents of violence during political rallies, usually involving a group of people attempting to disrupt the events or to intimidate speakers and participants. The violence is largely targeted at the opposition.

On April 23, the violence reached new heights when a bomb was detonated during a Barisan Nasional political gathering in Penang, resulting in one person being injuredby flying debris. Two other incidents of bombing and the hurling of petrol bombs atBarisan Nasional campaign areas have been reported. Recently, two unknown men with their faces covered by ski masks entered the house of an opposition MP and set fire to his daughter’s car.

While the police have recently said they will crack down on any election-related violence, they must be careful that their actions match their words and that there is no disparity in how they deal with violence on either side of the political divide.

There are also many reported instances of fear being used to coerce civil servants and vulnerable or marginalised communities into voting for the ruling party. These tactics include threats that the voters may lose their jobs, pensions, scholarships and other benefits if they support the opposition.

Unsavoury smear campaigns have become a feature of the Malaysian political landscape: for instance, pornographic videos of opposition candidates are constantly surfacing and are widely shown.

Read More

PRU13: Tragedi Flashmob berdarah di Ipoh

2013-05-04T21:18:00.002+02:00

M'sian Special Branch Working with Philippine Intelligence on Intrusion

2013-04-03T10:59:00.000+02:00

(Bernama) - Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein said the Royal Malaysian Police's Special Branch was working closely with the Philippine National Intelligence Coordinating Agency (Nica) to investigate and identify the mastermind behind the recent terrorist intrusion in Sabah.

"Our police Special Branch has good relations with the agency. We have obtained intelligence on the involvement of a third party and information on the (Jamalul) Kiram group.

"The intelligence could also involve the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), Nur Misuari group, politicians or terrorists," he told reporters after opening the Pusat Giat Semberong at the Taman Sri Lambak hall here.

He said, the good relations between Kuala Lumpur and Manila were reflected in the Philippine coastguards detaining 38 people who were intercepted encroaching in the waters off Tawi-Tawi.

He said the ministry had long established a network cooperation with the regional intelligence agency to ensure stability in the region.

The bilateral intelligence collaboration was not only between Malaysia and the Philippines but also with Aseanapol and the member countries involved in it, such as Indonesia, added the minister.

On the proposed Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) to investigate the Sabah terrorist intrusion, he said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak would outline it on Monday, in conjunction with Police Day.

He said, although the government had not made any decision on the RCI, the ministry had carried out its work to identify the mastermind behind the intrusion in which 10 security force members and 63 of the terrorists were killed.

Hishammuddin also reminded the people to guard against exploitation of the terrorist intrusion by certain quarters for their political interest.

He cited the preposterous claim allegedly made by former Sabah chief minister Tan Sri Harris Salleh that the police were burning the identity cards of the Suluk community.

He denied the police had resorted to such a move and challenged Harris to prove his claim.

Meanwhile, Hishammuddin said the ministry would build seven new police stations in Pulau Bum Bum, Pulau Banggi and Pulau Gaya, and five integrated customs, immigration and quarantine complexes under the Eastern Sabah Security Command.

The ministry would also enhance its agencies, including the Marine Police, VAT69 Commando, General Task Force and Special Action Unit, he said.

Source

There’s Much at Stake in Sabah

2013-04-01T10:57:00.000+02:00

Nile Bowie

Malaysia has been in the midst of an ongoing security crisis since early February, when a group of 235 rag-tag militiamen from the neighbouring southern Philippines slipped into the eastern state of Sabah and began occupying several villages.

While engaging police in several firefights, the insurgents beheaded and mutilated several captured Malaysian security personnel, prompting Malaysian forces to deploy fighter jets in an unprecedented air assault over the area in an operation to flush out the intruders.

The gunmen call themselves the “Royal Army of the Sulu Sultanate”, representing the heirs of a long-defunct kingdom which once controlled the territory up until the late nineteenth century.

The so-called Sultan of Sulu, Jamalul Kiram III, who is believed to be directing the militant incursion from Manila, insists that Sabah is rightfully part of his kingdom and has vowed not budge on his claims even if his personnel are killed in the standoff.

Malaysians, who are preparing to vote in a pivotal general election just around the corner, have been fixated on events in Sabah as they unfold.

The Philippines are soon expecting congressional elections as well, and given the timing, local analysts are wondering how exactly did this elderly self-proclaimed Sultan obtained the resources needed to establish his own private army.

Both the Malaysian and Philippine governments have launched official investigations into allegations that figures within Malaysia’s political opposition had a hand in aiding the Sulu gunmen.

Reuters cited an anonymous Filipino military officer who claimed that Sulu rebels were “invited to Sabah by a Malaysian opposition politician”.

The blame has been laid on Malaysia’s Opposition Leader, Anwar Ibrahim, who Malaysian reports say has links to Filipino insurgent networks that have long eyed the resource-rich state of Sabah in northern eastern Borneo.

Local journalist Adrian Lai recently unearthed classified diplomatic cables from the US embassy in Manila brought to light by WikiLeaks, which document ties between Nur Misuari, former chairmen of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), and Malaysia’s Anwar.

The MNLF is a political movement that pitted itself against predominately Christian Manila by seeking political autonomy for Muslim majority provinces in the islands in the southern Philippines.

Misuari’s revenge?

In 2001, Manila accused Misuari of terrorism when he led an MNLF unit that attacked an outpost of the Philippine army, prompting him to seek refuge in Sabah on the assumption that authorities in Muslim-majority Malaysia would empathize with him and block his extradition.

Misuari was detained by Malaysian security forces in Sabah and sent back to the Philippines where he was jailed until 2008.

WikiLeaks cables claim that Misuari detested the Malaysian government for turning him over to Philippine authorities and that he was “a strong advocate for the recovery of Sabah”.

The cables claim that Misuari boasted that his militias could invade Sabah in the span of two hours. WikiLeaks has also confirmed that Misauri maintained close connections to Anwar and that the two had met on several occasions.

A separate report issued by AFP cited US diplomatic cables that implicate a Saudi Arabian ambassador to the Philippines of funding Muslim groups seeking autonomy in the southern islands.

Misuari recently criticised Philippine President Benigno Aquino for siding with Malaysia in his firm stance against the Sulu militants, warning the Aquino government of chaos if Sulu Sultan Jamalul Kiram III is apprehended.

Anwar, who has vehemently denied all accusations, has long been considered a darling of the West.

Anwar is a slippery character of sorts; he was once Malaysia’s deputy prime minister and sacked for, among other things, getting too close to the IMF.

Anwar also has friends in high places, from billionaire financier George Soros to senior neo-conservatives from the Bush administration.

In recent times, Anwar has appealed to Carl Gershman, president of the US-government funded foundation, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), requesting that he send a US observer team to Malaysia to monitor the upcoming elections.

Anwar’s ties

Anwar enraged many when he stated he would support a policy to protect the security of Israel, and while his political party has long received training and backing from the International Republican Institute (IRI) chaired by Republican Senator John McCain, there is little doubt that Anwar – a creature of Washington’s taxpayer funded “Democracy Promotion” overseas – would be the trusted ally that the White House is looking for as it refocuses its military muscle and political influence to the Asia-Pacific region.

Aquino recently conceded that events in Sabah showed signs of a conspiracy. A recent statement issued by Malaysian political-scientist Chandra Muzaffar alludes to reports of Malaysian opposition figures promising land, titles and other sinecures to the Sulu Sultanate if they emerged victorious in the upcoming elections.

Muzaffar argues that a security crisis in Sabah, regarded as a political stronghold for the Barisan Nasional government, could weaken the ruling parties hold over the state, leading to a hung parliament or a narrow victory for the BN, prompting in his words, “massive street agitation which could pave the way for a regime change, which is the goal of not only the opposition but also its foreign backers.”

When Chandra talks of “foreign backers”, he is referring to the US political establishment.

The MNLF, under its current chairmen Muslimin Sema, has issued statements declaring that it disagreed with the incursion into Sabah, but acknowledged that MNLF forces aligned to Misuari were present there.

Reports issued by Reuters also cited Malaysian officials who claimed that the Sulu terrorists had links to factions that were unhappy with the Philippines’ recent peace agreement with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), an Islamist MNLF offshoot.

The Malaysian government facilitated these peace talks, and Misuari made no secret that he publicly opposed them.

The Philippine Daily Inquirer reported that some 10,000 MNLF fighters from the southern Philippines planned to join the insurgency in Sabah in solidarity with the Royal Sulu Army.

Sulu Sultan Jamalul Kiram III has told media in the Philippines that he wants the United Nations, the United States and the United Kingdom to intervene in his claim over Sabah.

The Sultan claims that the US must intercede, as agreed upon in a 1915 agreement signed with Washington’s then-colonial government in the Philippines that mandated the US provide “full protection” to the Sulu Sultan in exchange for exercising sovereignty over the kingdom as the colonial administration.

Conspiracy theory

Let’s not forget, the strategically located state of Sabah is abundant in natural gas reserves, and its oil reserves are the third highest in the Asia-Pacific region after China and India.

Sabah’s 15 oil wells produce as many as 192,000 barrels a day, while the country has holds over 4 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. In 2010, Malaysia was the world’s third largest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG) after Qatar and Indonesia.

The Malaysian government had paid a modest annual cession payment to the Sultanate (which the Sultan argues is a “rent”) since gaining independence from Britain, and one of the motivations for the Sultan’s push to reclaim the territory is definitely profit-driven.

While the Pentagon refocuses over 60% of its naval presence to the Asia Pacific region, conflicts of this nature – which deal with obstructions to the flow of abundant energy resources to US companies – are exactly the sort that could coax the eventual involvement of US personnel if Sabah were to deteriorate into a hotbed of Sulu-terror.

The fact that individuals in the highest levels of the Malaysian and Philippine governments are suspicious of a conspiracy does much to lend credence to the possibility.

Former Malaysian prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, an ardent critic of Israel and US imperialism, warned months prior to the standoff in Sabah that the opposition’s Western backers sought to bring Anwar to power through Arab Spring-style street riots and even the use of fire power.

He cited recent examples in Egypt and Syria where NATO states backed political opposition figures and supported al-Qaeda-linked rebels to act on their behalf in overthrowing governments they were tired of.

Reports of Saudi Arabia financially supporting Philippine terrorists should also not be taken lightly, as Gulf States have moved in-step with the US and NATO as the main financiers of Salafist terrorist networks active in west Asia, north Africa and elsewhere.

Without resorting to elaborate conspiracies in the absence of hard facts, it would be entirely negligent to ignore circumstantial evidence linking Malaysian figures to this insurgency, especially considering all sources of this nature are non-Malaysian in origin.

There is no doubt that the Sultan has no legitimate legal claims over Sabah since the International Court of Justice has long recognized Malaysia’s rights and sovereignty over the territory, and the highly unusual timing of the Sulu operation being so close to elections in both countries will naturally be perceived as suspect.

Militancy and terrorism undermines the Sultan’s claims entirely and lends much credibility to suspicion that the Sultan has not acted alone.

Even if the US isn’t involved, the fact that a figure who received blatant US support has been implicated is significant.

There is much at stake in Sabah, and in the words of the Sultan, “the only thing that could end the conflict is an intervention.”

Source

Sulu Claim – A Sad, Tragic Lie

2013-03-30T10:51:00.000+01:00

Raymond Tombung

The Sabah claim will continue to be raised by the Phlippines and Sulu as it is powerful and emotive international issue which many leaders from Manila will find convenient to bleed for political mileage. And the many “sultans” in Sulu will continue to cast their hungry eyes at Sabah, considered to be “the last gold coin” and aspire, albeit hopelessly, to try and achieve the impossible.

But Malaysians, especially Sabahans, should be able to give a cogent argument on the issue of this claim and in favour of Sabah.

All Malaysians and Sabahans need is three or four historical facts, events or political realities to win the argument.

So let’s always keep clear knowledge of the following:

1. The controversy arising from the 1878 treaty between Jamalul Alam and British North Borneo Company.

It can strongly be argued that it was a “cession” and not a “lease” as claimed by Filipinos.

Note that any argument on the matter was decisively clarified and settled when on April 22, 1903, Sultan Jamalul Kiram signed a document known as “Confirmation of cession of certain islands” in which he says the 1878 treaty was a CESSION.

The “confirmation” of the 1878 treaty says specifically that “We, the Sultan of Sulu, state with truth and clearness that we have ceded to the Government of British North Borneo of our own pleasure all the islands that are near the territory of North Borneo… This is done because the names of the islands were not mentioned in the 22nd January, 1878 [treaty]… that the islands were included in the cession…”

2. The purpose of the Madrid Protocol of 1885 was to recognise the sovereignty of Spain in the Sulu Archipelago and also for Spain to relinquish all claims it might have had over North Borneo.

Article III of the protocol states that “The Spanish Government renounces… all claims of sovereignty over the territories of the continent of Borneo, which belong, or which have belonged in the past to the Sultan of Sulu [Jolo]….”

3. The signing of the Carpenter Agreement on March 22, 1915 in which Sultan Jamalul Kiram II was stripped off all temporal (worldly) power and retained only the empty title of Sultan. His claimed ownership of North Borneo was of no concern to the American colonists.

4. The Macaskie Dictum (Judgment) of 1939. This judgment doesn’t settle the argument although Macaskie said the annual payment was cession money and not rental money and that the nine plaintiff heirs were entitled to.

These payments, however, in no way had anything to do with territorial property. This is because a later translation by the Filipinos of the original 1878 treaty (written in Malayan Jawi) said the agreement was a “pajak” which they say meant “lease”.

(Today “pajak” can mean “purchase”). But even this judgment was preceded by the addition “cession” of 1903 and the Madrid Protocol of 1885.

Power of attorney questionable

5. The Sulu “sultans” cannot claim Sabah because there is no more a Sulu sultanate and there is no more any real sultan. The only legitimate royal group in Sulu are the descendants of the nine heirs who went to Macaskie in 1939.

6. Sulu (a region of the Philippines without any national sovereignty) cannot claim Sabah which is part of Malaysia – a sovereign nation.

Only a country can claim another country or a part of another country. This therefore means Sulu has no locus standi to claim Sabah. The power of attorney that was given to Macapagal by the Sulu Sultan to give Macapagal the “authority” to claim Sabah on Sulu’s behalf (now withdrawn) has very questionable validity.

Maybe this is one of the reasons why Manila had not really pursued the claim using the so-called power of attorney.

7. Manila had denied and re-recognised the sultanate a number of times, but this does not change the fact that there has been not been any sultanate to speak of since the Carpenter-Kiram Agreement of 1915.

8. By July 15, 1946, the British government had taken over North Borneo when the North Borneo Company could no longer manage it after the devastation of World War II.

The company had the right to hand over North Borneo to whoever it wanted because the country had been ceded to it in 1878 (and confirmed by the confirmation of cession in 1903 and the nullification of Sulu’s ownership of the country by the Madrid Protocol of 1885).

9. Many Brunei historians actually argue that Brunei never gave away any part of North Borneo to Sulu. And there is no document whatsoever to prove this cession.

10. After Sabah became part of Malaysia and Malaysia’s sovereignty was recognised by the United Nation and the world, that had effectively superceded and nullified any claim on Sabah.

If Sulu, by a very long shot, gets back Sabah, will it be able to pay Malaysia all the billions utilised to develop Sabah since 1963?

ICJ confirmed Sabah’s status

Sulu cannot be so arrogant and shameless to think that it can simply and freely take back a piece of land it “owned” 135 years ago after it has been developed by someone else for half a century.

11. The International Court of Justice (which is an arm of the United Nation) had recognised and confirmed Sabah as part of Malaysia when it made a verdict in 2002 that Sipadan and Ligitan islands belonged to Malaysia (and not Indonesia). This confirmation of ownership cannot be reversed in favour of Sulu (judgments of the ICJ cannot be appealed).

12. Whatever the arguments are, all the past agreements and treaties – whether they were valid, arguable or controversial – are now effectively useless historical references because they have been superseded by bigger and more important events.

Therefore the argument by Harry Roque, a law professor at University of the Philippines, who says that a legal principle known as “uti posseditis juris” “accords pre-eminence of legal title over effective possession as a basis of sovereignty” is useless and ineffective due to this superceding by bigger events in history.

Also, this pre-eminence of legal title is a double-edged sword because it can also be applied to Malaysia.

13. Prof Dr Ramlah Adam recently said: “They cannot claim [Sabah] just based on history. For example, the Siam government handed Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan and Terengganu over to the British and [today] cannot claim the states.”

Prof Emeritus Khoo Kay Kim said that if the Philippines’ argument can be accepted, then “Singapore should be returned to Johor and Penang be returned to Kedah”.

And for that matter why does Brunei not claim Sabah as well because there is a Brunei argument that it never gave Sabah to Sulu? Or why doesn’t Indonesia claim Peninsular Malaysia and southern Thailand? After all, weren’t these regions under the Srivijaya Empire in the eighth century?

14. Sabahans do not want to be part of the Philippines, as confirmed by the findings of the Cobbold Commission.

Even today Sabahans feel a lot of trepidation at the mere thought of being under the so-called Sulu sultanate. If a referendum is held to seek Sabahans’ preference between Malaysia and the Philippines, many would dare say the foregone conclusion is for most preferring to stay on in Malaysia.

No referendum

15. There is an argument that Malaysia had agreed in the Manila Accord (signed July 31, 1963) that the formation of Malaysia was subject to the Philippines’ claim over Sabah.

But whatever was agreed in the Manila Accord has been superseded by later events, for example, the formation of Malaysia which included Sabah, two months after the Manila Accord.

In the Bangkok talk of June-July 1968, Malaysia had unilaterally rejected the Manila Accord.

With the benefit of hindsight, wasn’t the Manila Accord an exercise in futility, especially by the Philippines in trying to hang on to something which couldn’t be implemented and solved till the end of time?

If the terms of the Manila Accord were adhered to, there would have been no Malaysia.

Of prime importance was the wishes of Sabahans – two-thirds of whom wanted to join Malaysia as the findings of the Cobbold Commission indicated the year before.

And noteworthy is Article 10 of the accord which says: “The Ministers reaffirmed their countries’ adherence to the principle of self-determination for the people’s of non-governing territories. In this context, Indonesia and the Philippines stated that they would welcome the formation of Malaysia provided the support of the people of the Borneo territories is ascertained by an independent and impartial authority, the Secretary-General of the United Nations or his representatives.”

There was not much time to carry out such a referendum, but wasn’t this condition (to allow Sabah to be part of Malaysia) already fulfilled by the Cobbold Commission the year before?

A virtual paradise

16. Even Sabahan Tausugs do not want to be part of the Philippines.

Ed Lingao, a renowned Filipino author and journalist had on Feb 21, 2013, reported in Minda News that he had undertaken a random survey of the Tausugs in Sabah and found out that even they do not want Sabah to become part of the Philippines.

He wrote: “Many of the Tausugs we encountered detested the idea of the Philippine government reclaiming Sabah. Refugees from war and poverty, many of these Tausugs see little benefit in a Sabah under the Philippine flag; in fact, for them, it is a worrying proposition, not unlike jumping from the clichéd frying pan into an even bigger fire.

“One Tausug we encountered outside a mall in Kota Kinabalu bristled at the idea of the Philippines staking a claim on Sabah saying ‘sisirain lang nila ang Sabah. Okay na nga ang Sabah ngayon, guguluhin lang nila,’ (They will just destroy Sabah. Sabah is doing fine right now, they will just mess it up).

“It is hard to blame them for the cynicism. After all, they took great risks and fled their own troubled country in droves for a better life, only to have that same country reach out and stake a claim on what, to them, is already a virtual paradise where one can finally live and work in peace. That, to them, may be the ultimate irony, the ultimate tragedy.”

As such, what we see today is a group of desperate people trying to live in the glory of the distant past, stepping forward with their thick skins with no regard for the truth.

Lingao described the nature of the situation on Feb 19 in an article, “Sabah as the last gold coin”.

In it he notes: “Sabah became their clutch when their own Sulu was sinking, so to speak, from the heavy weight of bloodshed that spiralled into poverty.

“Sabah became the vision of the last gold coin that could win back the possibility of rising again, getting back the worth of a name: the venerable House of Kiram.”

How very sad and tragic indeed. And now more blood is being spilled in the name of a great overstated lie!

Source

Insecurity in Eastern Sabah Raises Questions!

2013-03-28T21:00:00.000+01:00

Joe Fernandez

Hoteliers in Sabah are grumbling increasingly loudly that tourists are canceling too many bookings in the wake of the Lahad Datu Standoff and the on-going mopping up operations by security forces. They worry that things may become a whole lot worse for the hospitality industry in the state before turning for the better, if at all, in the near future.

The state has some 25,000 hotel rooms to help the hospitality industry rake in some RM5.2 billion last year from nearly three million visitors. The forecast revenue for 2015, according to Sabah Tourism Board chairman Tengku Zainal Adlin, is RM15 billion on the high side. That amounts to a quarter of the RM60 billion per annum that Malaysia presently collects from tourism receipts.

Clearly, the travel industry is high income lifeblood for the Sabah economy which already suffers the drain of most of its resources and revenues to Putrajaya. Palm oil and the oil and gas sectors are other bright spots. Timber is a sunset industry.

Foreign missions in Malaysia, erring on the side of caution, have reportedly either extended previous Travel Advisories or issued new ones urging caution if travelling to eastern Sabah.

However, travellers may not make any distinction between the Sabah east and west coasts. They may not make any distinction either between Sabah and the rest of Borneo.

They fear being the target of kidnappings.

Visiting Peninsular Malaysians uneasy in Kota Kinabalu

The Abu Sayyaf, a breakaway from the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), has engaged in kidnappings along the east coast in the past. The victims were only freed after Malaysia, and also foreign Governments, met the ransom demands of the kidnappers.

Kidnapping is the method used by Abu Sayyaf to force the Malaysian Government, its sponsor, to pay up when its funding for operations was delayed. It’s sheer blackmail!

The state and federal governments are fighting back with a joint RM500,000 Recovery Fund to revitalize the travel sector in the wake of Lahad Datu. This sum amounts to peanuts if kidnappings for ransom resume along the east coast.

In Kota Kinabalu, no one will get the impression that one is in imminent danger of any kind. Life, limb and properties are safe.

Still, most visiting Peninsular Malaysians have long expressed their fears when visiting the Sabah capital, warily noting the presence of illegal immigrants all around them. Their perennial question: “How can you people allow this (illegal immigration) to go on?”

Government must stick together in security, sovereignty, integrity

It can be said candidly that the security situation in Sabah, except for the continuing influx of illegal immigrants, has always been under control. The confidence of the authorities can be gauged from the fact that there was no reason to declare any special security zone or command until the decision was made in the wake of Lahad Datu to set up the Eastern Sabah Security Command (Esscom). Illegal immigrants were not considered by Putrajaya as a security threat, a point which will be disputed by Sabahans.

One reason for the otherwise excellent security in Sabah was the very fact that the nearest trouble spots were all in the southern Philippines, quite some distance away from the Sabah mainland. Also, the known involvement of Malaysia directly as a facilitator in the peace process in southern Philippines, and indirectly as the prime backer of the rebel forces, “kept Sabah safe”.

Putrajaya has to rethink its foreign policy and security initiatives with particular reference to the Manila Government if the troubles in the southern Philippines are not to swamp and sweep away Sabah in troubles sweeping both sides of the Sulu Sea.

It was naïve on the part of Putrajaya to defy the United Nations Charter and engage in acts as alleged, whether overtly or covertly, to compromise the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a fellow member state of the United Nations. How the Manila Government deals with its Muslim citizens in the country’s south is no concern of Malaysia. Governments must stick together even if they are allegedly mistreating their own citizens.

MNLF cannot be Manila’s sole partner for peace in southern Philippines

Putrajaya must not also belabour under the delusion that interfering in southern Philippines is the way to prevent the so-called Sabah claim being raised or to prevent the secession of Sabah from the Malaysian Federation. Nur Misuari, the leader of the MNLF, has already made it clear in recent days that Malaysia is a stumbling block to lasting peace in the southern Philippines.

The heirs of the defunct Sulu Sultanate don’t have a leg to stand on in Sabah.

Neither does Malaysia, points out Nur Misuari.

For the immediate future, the security threat in Sabah is the resumption of kidnappings along the east coast by the Abu Sayyaf who are likely to act in concert with the so-called Royal Sulu Army (RSA). Only the MNLF can restraint both these groups although its troops were also involved, privately Nur Misuari claims, in the Lahad Datu Standoff.

In return, Nur Misuari would want Malaysia for starters out of the southern Philippines. He also wants Malaysia out of Sabah and Sarawak but that’s another matter and one for the people of the territories concerned to decide. Misuari’s claim that Sarawak used to belong to his great great grandfather and that he wants it back does not hold water. Here, Malaysia will have to rely on the Manila Government to restrain Nur Misuari.

However, there’s no way that Manila can restrain Nur Misuari if Malaysia continues to root for the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), another MNLF breakaway, as the Philippines Government’s sole partner for peace in southern Philippines. Disproportionate flow to Putrajaya concern of Sabahans

Matters have been compounded by Manila declaring in recent days that it will pursue the so-called Sabah claim. It’s known that a Power of Attorney, the sole instrument by which a previous Sultan of Sulu transferred his “sovereignty” over Sabah to the Philippines, has since expired.

The decision by Jamalul Kiram III, the so-called Sultan of Sulu, to send his rag-tag forces into Sabah in recent weeks apparently followed failed negotiations with Putrajaya to squeeze more money from Malaysia for Sabah. At present the descendents of the nine heirs jointly share a measly RM5,300 per annum from the Malaysian Government in accordance with a 1939 High Court of Borneo declaration.

Nur Misuari may not be engaged in the struggle in the southern Philippines and eastern Sabah for money, unlike Abu Sayyaf and the heirs of the defunct Sulu Sultanate, although he has admitted being trained, armed and financed in the past by Malaysia. His covetous reference to the fabulous wealth, resources and revenue of Sabah must not be taken too seriously. The issue of the disproportionate flow to Putrajaya is one for Sabahans to resolve.

However, the money factor involving foreigners must also be removed to ensure long term peace, stability and security in Sabah.

The oil and gas platforms out at sea, the plantations, and timber camps, besides the tourist traffic, all need to be protected from any even low-key guerrilla warfare which may be waged in eastern Sabah by the terrorists to exact more money from Malaysia “for Sabah”.

Source

Will Other Communities Also Start Making Similar Demands?

2013-03-26T21:00:00.000+01:00

P. Waytha Moorthy

This is the 13th day of my Hunger Viratham. The visitors are streaming in and it is becoming more difficult to stay focused on my writing. It has somewhat slowed down my writing. Still, there is no let up in my resolve to achieve our goals of obtaining binding endorsement and commitment to implement Hindraf’s proposals and I continue with my Hunger Viratham.

More people are beginning to ask just where the BN and the PR political leaders are. Do they not care?

Well, I will let them answer the people.

For today I will discuss the question of the costs of implementation of Hindraf’s five-year blueprint proposals.

The politicians in power go to great length to propose, promote and implement mega project like the MRT, the High Speed Rail Link between Kuala Lumpur and Singapore and the Undersea Tunnel linking Penang to the mainland. These projects can cost when done, from RM10 billion to RM80 billion.

The politicians will tell you that these are infrastructure projects that improve quality of life and which anyway has a multiplier effect on the economy. But what they will not tell you is how this also plentifully fills the pockets of the elites. In these projects, there is abundant opportunity for rentier commissions, for bribes, for project super profit, for operational super profits, for high interests on low risk loans.

All these significant financial benefits just flow in the large part to the elite. They say it creates wealth for the country. That is great, watch the GDP numbers.

On the other hand spending on making the lives of the people at the bottom end of society becomes only a passing priority for the political elite. The nation at large may benefit, but if the benefit is to be shared more equitably with the people, it becomes sacrilege – distribution of wealth cannot be a driver of policy. Creation of wealth can be the only driver of policy. This is conventional wisdom with the elite.

If it cannot be justified on the basis of returns on investment or on what is considered a pressing need by the elite then the investment becomes a low priority project or a no priority project.

4.5 Billion Ringgits, the annual budgetary need for five years for Hindraf’s blueprint proposals is spread out on several key socio-economic projects which we say addresses a pressing need of our society. We say there are significant returns in these investments for the nation as a whole. But it meets with significant resistance from the elite because it does not meet the resource allocation criteria of the elite.

The real issue is that the benefits from the projects are spread over too many people and becomes too thin. That does not serve the interest of the elite – they do not stand to gain from such allocations. So it cannot be a good investment or allocation. Unfortunately for the nation, it is the elite who decide this. They have total control over national policy. So they try every argument in the book to put such projects on the backburner. And they succeed most of the time.

Look at it another way. The annual budget of the government is about RM250 billion. RM4.5 billion is only 1.8 % of that. That still leaves RM245.5 billion for everything else, while a critical problem of our society gets resolved.

In the last 47 years 1,155 billions have been spent on socio- economic development. If the Indian poor had gotten even 10 percent, that would be 115 billion ringgits. We surely would not be having the problem we have today had that expenditure been made. But it was not made. We have a problem today as a result and we need to solve it.

If that takes 20 percent of the allocation that should have been made, can that be considered excessive? It all depends on how you want to look at it. To kill off the request, the elite do not look at it this way. They just play up the size of the absolute number without looking at it in all these other related ways.

economy-ringgitIn the final analysis, allocation of the national resource all comes down to national priorities. Today these priorities are determined by the elite. So, the system will continue to behave the way it does unless the decision makers change. The true representatives of the people or the people themselves have to become the decision makers for the national resource to be allocated more in the interest of the people.

The five-year blueprint is a bottom up document and an attempt to make the people the decision makers for the allocation of the resources needed to open up new life opportunities by the members of a segment of society. This is a first of its kind. Others will soon follow suit, if this attempt is successful.

This is also a major worry of the elite and an oft repeated argument that if we do this for one minority or marginalized community, then the others will also start making similar demands. How can we deal with that?

Simple, allocate resources truly on the basis of need – do not just say it, do it. But that will not happen. The elite will say it, but they will not do it. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with al such segments making such demands. We just have to plan the demands in and allocate the resources appropriately... The people are the true owners of the resource of the nation. They have every right to make these demands.

RM4.5 billion for the resolution of the socio-economic woes of the impoverished Indian community cannot be excessive. It is an important allocation and has significant positive implications for our society. All those who block it or argue against it are doing it because of faulty and self-serving economic logic. It is not as if they are right and we are wrong. They are wrong and they are deceitful.

Source

Is Malaysia’s Electoral System Ready for GE13

2013-03-24T21:00:00.000+01:00

Dr. Wolfgang Sachsenröder

With a possible, some say probable, watershed and regime change for Malaysia’s increasingly competitive political system in the pipeline, it is useful to look into the election system and its mechanisms. The media, fascinated with personality clashes, campaign highlights and the outcome of elections, don’t look too often into details of the electoral law. And most voters don’t care much whether the ruling governments tweak the rules in their own favour, most often by changing the boundaries of precincts more or less unnoticed – the old, widespread, and popular gerrymandering. Malaysia is not alone here, but the discrepancies in the electoral size of constituencies in favour of Malay and against Chinese areas have been “adjusted” frequently and helped the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) to safeguard its dominance over the last decades.

One of the special features in Malaysia’s multi-ethnic society is the still predominantly race-based party system. UMNO, the long term dominant ruling party was founded in 1946 as a reaction against the granting of citizenship to Chinese and Indian immigrants upon independence. The defensive attitude of the Malay (then shaky) majority, understandably insisting on political dominance in their own homeland, led to the formation of other ethnic-based political parties. UMNO, in a successful move to broaden its support base since 1974, managed to co-opt the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA), the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC), the Malaysian People’s Movement Party (GERAKAN) and a number of parties in Sabah and Sarawak into the National Front (Barisan Nasional / BN) coalition (now altogether 13 parties), which enjoyed a huge majority in Parliament until 2008.

Irregularities in most general elections until now have been reported quite regularly. The long list reaches from vote buying, stuffing of ballot boxes, bussing of voters to other constituencies and multiple voting, “phantom voters”, “imported voters”, “missing voters”, manipulated voters lists, to granting citizenship to illegal immigrants (mainly from Indonesia and the Philippines). The latter is now one of the major arguments to attack UMNO and Prime Minister Najib Razak for this citizenship for votes trick. Najib, who has promised his followers to win back the coalition’s two-thirds majority, seems to struggle for political survival now, if rumours and polls are a reliable indicator.

The Barisan Nasional has been only nominally multi-racial but cemented in reality the Malay dominance and privileges (with quite a number of affirmative action measures), which nearly guaranteed so called “safe deposit” constituencies especially in rural areas. Pretending that the Malay political dominance was under threat has always rallied Malay voters behind the ruling coalition. And to make things even more difficult, the competition of the Islamic Party PAS often forced UMNO to demonstrate its religious credentials. With the resentment against this concept among non-Malay minorities (at least about 30%) growing with the frustration about strings of prominent corruption-scandals, it was a logical strategic move for opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim to form a multi-racial party, the Peoples’ Justice Party or Parti Keadilan Rakyat in 2003. Anwar, after being sacked from UMNO and his post as Deputy Prime Minister in 1998, accused under dubious circumstances of corruption and sodomy and imprisoned, is back on the political scene since 2008 and the probable Prime Minister if his opposition “Peoples’ Pact” (Pakatan Rakyat / PR) wins the upcoming election. The Pakatan Rakyat is not without internal problems given the diversity of its members, namely the Malay Islamic rival of UMNO, Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS) and the Chinese Democratic Action Party (DAP). However, given the erosion of the Barisan Nasional component parties Gerakan (officially multi-racial but predominantly Chinese and the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA), Pakatan Rakyat seems to be a very strong challenger to the ruling coalition.

Inherited from the British colonial master, Malaysia has adopted a clear-cut first-past-the-post majoritarian election system which has helped to keep UMNO and its BN component parties in power so far. The Barisan-coalition contesting the elections practically as one single party gave few choices to the voters and made it more than difficult for opposition parties to make inroads… until 2008 when more voters were fed up with arrogance of power and all too visible corruption. The majority of the BN in 2008 was clear, with 140 seats against 82 for the opposition, which is four times their previous share. But in relative vote shares it was as narrow as 50.27% against 46.75%. And nota bene: in the first-past-the-post electoral system relatively small changes in voter preferences can change the outcome dramatically.

One of the other flaws of the election system in a comparative view is the strong position of the Prime Minister who, as the British model, does not only have the right and discretion to dissolve parliament and call for elections when the time looks promising, but who also “hosts” the Election Commission in the Prime Minister’s Department. Its independence, therefore, cannot be assumed, its members being appointed by the king after consultation with the conference of rulers (sultans) and certainly co-ordinated with the government. Among the reforms initiated under PM Najib, who seems to be fighting with his back to the wall, is the introduction of indelible ink for the upcoming election. The move reacts to the very vocal opposition and civil society criticisms of major election irregularities in the past and may further reduce the chances of the Barisan National to secure victory, not to speak of regaining the two-thirds majority. Since former PM Mahathir Mohamad emasculated the Malaysian judiciary in the late 1980s, the executive decides at the end about admission and regulation of political parties. With the reduced role of judiciary and Election Commission in ensuring free and fair elections and the government’s control of press and TV, the playing field is anything but even for the opposition. But with the widespread use of social media and the amount of frustration about political corruption and mismanagement, the Pakatan Rakyat seems to have a realistic chance to end more than half a century of UMNO rule in the country.

When will the election (GE 2013) be held? Rumours, guesses, and expectations that PM Najib would call them are filling the media for much more than a year already. But the PM hesitates and distributes goodies. Mega infrastructure projects, cash hand-outs for the poor and salary increases for army and civil service among others are topped up by promises, the latter being as well made by the opposition, of course. If the PM does not act, the parliament will be dissolved automatically on 28 April and the GE 2013 has to be organised by June 2013 the latest.

Being rated by the Freedom House 2013 report as “partly free” with 4 each on a scale of 1 (best) to 7 for civil liberties and political rights and a not free press, there is room for improvement in Malaysia. Useful reforms would encompass independence for the election commission, a review of all election related laws and regulations that prevent a level playing field, transparency of the administration of voters lists and supervision of the voting and counting procedures. On-going training for electoral observers by civil society organisations highlights the mistrust among many voters.

Source

The NEP: The Good and the Bad - Revisited

2013-03-24T10:41:00.003+01:00

Anas Zubedy

What is the NEP?

In a simple definition, the New Economic Policy is Malaysia’s socioeconomic affirmative action plan. It was implemented in 1971 in the aftermath of the 1969 racial riots, and the period set for the implementation of NEP was 1971-1990.

The overriding objective of the NEP was stated as national Unity. The goal of the NEP was two pronged – one, eradicate poverty; and two, restructure society to eliminate the identification of race with economic function through rapid expansion of the economy over time. However, it was clearly stated that this restructuring of the racial composition of employment and ownership of wealth was to be done without denying opportunities to others. The strategy was to accelerate economic growth, but at the same time, redirect the benefits more to the disadvantaged.

What is the background of the NEP?

The NEP has historical basis. Even from the colonial days before Merdeka, the Malays had been given certain privileges by the British, especially quotas for public scholarship and civil service employment.

The period of British rule left behind some remnant effects on our society and economy. The economic system and the geographical location of where we lived and worked were divided along racial lines. The Malays were largely concentrated in the traditional agricultural sector where per capita income was the lowest and poverty was the highest. The Chinese were concentrated in mining, manufacturing and construction where per capita income was recorded as much higher. The Indians were largely labourers in estates and mining.

The NEP was announced in June 1970 in the aftermath of the racial riots in 1969. Whatever is said about the immediate causes of the riots, the root cause for the unrest was socioeconomical imbalance. It was clear that the problem of poverty and the economic differences along racial lines were detrimental to social stability and national Unity and had to be addressed immediately. The NEP was formulated as a concerted effort to reduce poverty and restructure the economy.

What was the poverty level and distribution of economic wealth at that point?

At that point of time in 1970, the recorded number of
households living in poverty was 49.3%. The top 5% richest households were obtaining 30% of the total income. Of those living below the poverty line, 64.8% were from the Bumiputera population, 39.2% of the Indians and 26.0% of the Chinese.

In terms of wealth distribution, it is recorded that the Bumiputera had 2.4% of equity capital, Indians held 1.1%, the Chinese accounted for 27.2%, those categorised as Others had 6.0% and foreigners held 63.3%.

What was the target of the NEP?

The target of the NEP was to reduce overall poverty to 16.7% by 1990. In terms of restructuring the economy, the target was to increase Bumiputera share of corporate capital from 2.4% to 30%, the share of the Chinese, Indians and others to increase from 34.3% to 40%, while that of foreigners would be reduced from 63.3% to 30% -- a 30-40-30 ratio of distribution
among Bumiputera, other Malaysians and foreigners.

Why was the NEP so important?

Affirmative action plans like the NEP are important because the disadvantaged in society must be helped. When one segment of the society is disadvantaged, to have an equal playing field in our economic system will not be fair. To use a simple analogy, it is like playing golf – a beginner must be given a handicap or he/she will stand no chance - it will be an unfair game skewed towards the experienced player. Socio-economically, nobody should be left behind. This is imperative because history has shown that once there is a segment of society left behind economically, there are greater chances of social unrest.

It is important for every society to have affirmative action plans, but it must be planned very carefully. Ours was called the New Economic Policy (1971-1990). The NEP was successful in many ways.

What were the good things that came from the NEP?

There have been many. I will outline seven here:

1) The NEP managed to reduce poverty.

According to official data, percentage of households living below poverty line across all ethnic groups has been reduced from 49.3% in 1970 to 15% in 1990, and in 2009 overall poverty had been reduced to 3.8%.

2) The NEP managed to restructure the economy.

Post-NEP, the wealth ownership of the Bumiputera had increased from 2.4% to 19.3%, the share of the Chinese, Indians and other Malaysians was 46.8%, surpassing the target; while the share of foreign ownership was reduced to 33.9%. By 2008, Bumiputera share had increased slightly to 21.9%, non-Bumiputera share was reduced to 36.7% and the share of foreigners, 41.4%. While recorded numbers vary from one report to another, it generally shows that the NEP has achieved a much more equitable and sustainable distribution compared to the 2.4 - 34.3 - 63.3% ratio pre-NEP.

At the same time, after the NEP in 1990, the number of Bumiputera employed in the industrial sector like mining, manufacturing, construction and utilities also had arose significantly. Bumiputera representation also increased in professional and technical categories and at the administrative and managerial levels.

3) We have managed to create a large segment of middle class Bumiputeras.

Today, the Bumiputera make up a significant percentage of management and professionals. The NEP has played a huge part to make this happen.

4) We recovered from social unrest caused by poverty and economic imbalances

The NEP has been instrumental in regulating a peaceful tenure in society.

5) It has played a big part in national Unity.

With increased movement of different ethnic groups into various sectors during the NEP, businesses are no longer exclusive to the membership of certain ethnic groups as they were prone to before. It has allowed Malaysians of all races to enter all areas of professions and intermingle both economically and socially. In fact it is the workplace that is our actual 1Malaysia, the platform for us to work together in Unity.

6)In fact, there is now more intermingling even within race groups.

Prior to the NEP, businesses not only employed people from their own ethnic group, they also limited employment to those within their clan. The Hokkiens would employ mainly only the Hokkiens, the Cantonese employed the Cantonese; the Gujeratis employed the Gujeratis. Signs of intra-race delineation can still be seen through the Hokkien, Cantonese or other foundations that were established historically and exist until today. We tend to see the NEP from an inter-racial angle, but before NEP, intra-race disparity was also an issue.

7)The most important positive outcome of the NEP is that communities were saved from poverty.

The real mean income of the bottom 40% of those in Peninsular Malaysia increased from $76 in 1970 to $421 in 1990. Figures from Sabah showed an increase from $68 to $390 and in Sarawak, mean income rose from $74 to $436.Those who suffer from hardcore poverty, who get less than half of the income on the poverty line, was reduced to 4% of total households in 1990. In 2008 the recorded percentage of hardcore poor was 1.8%.

That millions of families were alleviated from the clutches of poverty – this is something that we should all be proud of; be deeply grateful for and celebrate.

What were the failures of the NEP?

One of the biggest failures of the NEP is that it failed to help many non-Bumiputeras who deserved to benefit from affirmative action. The Indian poor, especially from the rural estate communities, are one of the main groups that are still in poverty until today. The data of results from the NEP showed that the share of wealth of non-Bumiputeras increased to 46.8% in 1990; however of this 46.8%, 44.9% of the share belonged to the Chinese, only 1% to the Indians and 0.7% to Others.

We need to urgently address the poverty problems of the Indian poor community. We cannot let there be a segment still living in poverty in our society. The HINDRAF movement and the 2007 HINDRAF rally are signs of discontent and unrest that is caused by economic imbalance. With an affirmative action plan such as NEP, no community should have been left out.

At the same time, there has been some abuse of the NEP. There are some undeserving individuals who have enough capacity to fend for themselves but have been given a free ride on the NEP. I see this as the reason why many Malaysians are not happy with the NEP.

How did this abuse happen?

Firstly, we did not make things crystal clear from the very beginning. At the design stage of a public policy, we must state what we want and what we do not want. This must be clear. If our goal is to eradicate poverty, we must also state clearly that it is only for the poor and must not cover the rich. Failing to do so, it will be subject to abuse.

Secondly, we also need to define clearly that an affirmative action policy like the NEP cannot be made a permanent crutch. As the situation among the people gets better, we need to gradually withdraw aid, phase by phase. In this way, we help the poor out of poverty but do not create a society that is dependent on assistance.

Thirdly, it was a mistake to plan the NEP only for a twenty year timeframe. It is too ambitious to implement such a huge social engineering project in such limited time. We cannot reverse five hundred years of colonisation within a few decades. I will explain this later.

Why were some segments of Malaysians neglected?

One of the main groups which were neglected were the Indians from the estate communities. This happened because the data for the Indian poor were not carefully and accurately captured. The statistics from the richer Indians and the poor ones were grouped together, creating a distorted average.

I am fortunate because from my experiences growing up among them in Penang, I know that the Indians are not one homogenous community. I have Indian friends who
are very, very rich and I know many around my neighbourhood who were very, very poor. The data used for the NEP failed to consider the very poor Indians in rural areas, estates and the urban poor. So because we did not capture that, a big segment of those who are poor and deserving of aid, especially the poor Indians, were neglected (read more in Chapter 5).

What were some other shortcomings of the NEP?

Two other serious shortcomings.

Firstly, our children are too young to understand the socioeconomic big picture of why we needed to come up with something like the NEP. As they go through school, they may feel that there are two different groups of people defined by ethnic background. We need to really deal with this issue.

Secondly, the public sector needs to be restructured. The civil service did not go through the same rigorous restructuring. We need to ensure that our public sector is better represented by all the ethnic groups in this country. For example, in our national schools, students should be able to look at their teachers and see good people teaching them from various races. Our civil services should have people from all races who are able to connect to and empathise with the general population of Malaysians. Our civil service should be seen as reflective of the colourful Malaysian people.

Earlier, you mentioned twenty years is too short a time. Why?

Yes, a twenty year plan is too short a timeframe for a major social engineering plan. When we set such a big goal to implement so many changes, a longer process is required. When we force the process into such a short timeframe, people tend to cut corners. Achieving the numbers became the goal; not really making sure there is real social change. We forced those who are not ready and load money onto people who may not know how to make the best use of it; or to put it another way, we simply made millionaires out of thin air. This is one of the main root problems with the NEP. We were in too much of a hurry to increase the share of wealth for the Bumiputera, rather than increase the knowledge, skills, culture and the ability to fend for one’s self.

The good and bad considered, did the NEP achieve its purpose?

There are many good benefits stemming from the NEP. On a micro level, we targeted the majority of rakyat, the Bumiputera, which made up 65% of our population. So it is not an elitist program just for helping a small group of people who are already rich. The NEP targeted aid for a large representation of Malaysians both from the Peninsular and Sabah and Sarawak - the impact is very wide ranging.

The country as a whole benefited because we made sure that millions of people got out of poverty. The NEP is one of the reasons why millions of people can now fend for themselves and millions of people had a chance to get education. Our per capita income has grown manifold, seven to eight times since 1970 and the NEP has been instrumental in bringing us to where we are today. One of the biggest benefits is that it has helped regulate peace and harmony in our society.

Should affirmative action plans continue?

Affirmative action plans are important for every society, but we need to learn from our experience and take corrective measures. Whatever problems that arose with the NEP needs to be corrected. We need to do careful research to identify the segments of poor Malaysians who need to be helped, regardless of race. We must plan it carefully to make sure that anyone in need must not be left behind.

What is the status of NEP now, after the end of its term in 1990?

While the official term for NEP ended in 1990, its underlying principle has been continued in subsequent plans – the National Development Policy, National Vision Policy, and National Mission. Now there is the Tenth Malaysia Plan, 2011-2015. However, with the NEP, from 1970 to 1990 we had a clear vision, focus and a target for development that was defined in certain terms – to redistribute the share of wealth to 30-40-30 and to restructure society to eliminate identification of race with economic function. It was crystal clear and very precise – the nation was in agreement and heading in one direction.

After the NEP, however, we have been uncertain about where we are heading. We now have a nation in transition. One segment of society thinks that affirmative action should stop; the other side says it should be continued. One side has data which says we have achieved the target; the other has data which says that we have not yet achieved the target. We need to iron out these issues with maturity, reasonably and based on facts. We need to get to work, start setting a new target to move forward in development.

How should we look at the NEP?

Let’s view it in a balance. There are good points and bad points about it. It has contributed constructively to build up our country, and it has also brought some negative outcomes. Whatever we feel about it, the NEP happened and now we need to reflect on where we are as a society in reality. Let’s look at all the information and data objectively and identify what are the good points to take from the NEP and what lessons we can learn from it. When we see our past and present in a balanced, truthful perspective, it will help us to formulate a plan to move forward.

How should we move forward?

Moving forward, there is a need for us to clarify what affirmative action plans we have now for the poor and disadvantaged. We need to study and define current problems, set our targets clearly and formulate a plan to achieve these targets. We need to make it clear to the nation what goals we are agreeing on and what strategies we are carrying out to achieve it.

Secondly, as we look ahead we need to deal with the emerging issues of urbanisation and the urban poor. While we made progress in uplifting the rural poor, now we need to also start giving due consideration to the urban poor. We need to study more about the impacts of urbanisation and the emerging challenges that come with an increasing urban poor population. We need to have structures and processes to deal with the situation, look into issues like housing - if too many people are packed into small areas, it will have negative social impacts. We need to create ways to aid the urban poor and buffer them from negative effects; or else urban social problems will continue to rise and bring in other implications. The configuration of what needs to be done will be different. In urban communities it is no longer one ethnic group but a multi-ethnic group - we have Malays, Chinese, Indians, Kadazans, Ibans, etc. and so many others.

In your opinion, what is the single greatest impact of the NEP and how has it affected Malaysians as a whole?

To a large extent, the NEP is a defining factor in making our country what it is today. We are all products of NEP, whether we have benefited from it or not.

The real concern about the NEP today is that many Malaysians use the NEP as a simple justification for various issues, and because of that we have lost self-confidence. It is not uncommon, for example, to hear parents say that their children are not doing well because of the NEP; this is especially true among non-beneficiaries of it. At the same time, many Bumiputeras believe falsely that without the NEP they cannot stand on their own, and in this way they too have lost self-confidence.

The real problem now is that when we blame the NEP for why we do not do well, we lose the most essential values. We lose the value of working hard and fighting through problems, and the value of self-determination in spite of difficult circumstances, which are necessary frameworks for success. This is ironic because it is these principles that our forefathers held on to and it is their hard work despite much more difficult and oppressive circumstances that allowed them to achieve success. Yet today, many simply place the blame on policies and we’re teaching our children to do the same. In this way, the NEP has created generations that are more extrinsic, who rely on outside factors rather than being self-dependent.Another offshoot of justifying situations externally like this is it also causes us to lose our ability to be content with what we have. For example, we have many Malaysians who have achieved success and are already living in abundance, for example, yet feel unhappy because they fault the NEP as a reason why they could not get more.

We need to be aware of this, and to spend time reflecting on where we are now and where we are heading next. If we have yet to do so, we must accept what has happened in the past. To accept it does not mean we have to agree with it, but we recognise where our society is as a result of it and find a way to move forward. The NEP happened; whether or not we benefited from it, some have been impacted positively and some negatively. Let’s accept that, take what we can from it and move forward. Let’s stop using race-based policies or any other policy as a blame point for where we are or where we are not; let’s regain our self-confidence to determine our own actions and our own success. This is what is more important.

What should Malaysians do to understand affirmative action plans like the NEP better?

We need to start reading more. Read balanced, informative books on the NEP, not those written by politicians with political agenda or writers aligned with partisan politics. It is better to read books written by serious academicians. When we look at the real numbers, we will see the real reasons and bigger picture behind the NEP. For example, many people would be surprised to learn that in 1970, the Bumiputeras had only 2.4% of the nation’s wealth.

Secondly, on the personal side, those who can afford it might want to implement your own affirmative action plans. Perhaps you can help your family members, your brother, your cousin, your colleague, your neighbour. Sponsor the education of those who need it, perhaps for the children of your neighbour or someone working in your office, maybe the cleaner or your maid. That is affirmative action at the ground level. When you do that, you, your family and your children will really understand how affirmative action plans work and why they are so important.

Source

The problem with Malay unity

2013-03-13T20:30:00.000+01:00

Jacqueline Ann Surin

ONE of the exhortations to Malay Malaysian voters as the general election looms is to vote the party that will ensure “Malay unity”. Politicians and at least one member of royalty have called on Malay voters to put Malay unity above all else when they go to the polls.

And because Malay Malaysians are also constitutionally meant to be Muslims, there has been unsurprisingly another aspect of this public service announcement. Vote the party that will ensure Muslim unity and the cohesion of the ummah. And to Umno and PAS, the two parties that represent Malays and Muslims respectively: consider a merger so that Malay-Muslim unity can be secured.

But does Malay unity exist to begin with? Does Muslim solidarity? Was either ever present historically or currently in Malaysia? And when politicians, academics and royalty start to promote Malay and Muslim unity, are they peddling an ideal for the nation or a dangerous myth for the masses?

What unity?

The presumption behind Malay and Muslim unity is that either or both groups are monolithic entities. Further, that every member of the group shares the same historical roots, cultural identity, political and economic aspirations, and religious beliefs. After all, if either or both groups didn’t have enough of a cohesive identity and shared sense of ideals, then talking about uniting would be like asking water and oil to combine into one.

To begin with, are the Malays really culturally and historically similar to each other? The series of Found in Malaysia interviews tell us that many of the foremost Malay Malaysian personalities have different lineages. In brief, the Malays we interviewed had the following ancestries: Orang Asli, Javanese, Thai, Chinese, Japanese, Australian, Bugis, Arab and European. And because the notion of the “Malay” is a political construct that was initiated by the British, and continues to be a construct perpetuated by the current powers that be, the definition of Malay can shift from state to state.

What about political unity? Did the Malays in Umno unite when Tunku Abdul Rahman expelled Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad from Umno? Or how about when Dr Mahathir, then a Datuk Seri, expelled Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim from the party and from government?

And then there’s the notion of Muslim unity. What kind of Muslim are the politicians and other talking heads speaking about when they espouse “Muslim unity”? Again, the notion assumes that the Muslim world is one single block without variations in beliefs and identity. And yet we know this to be patently untrue.

The fact is, there are at least five major schools of thought in Islam – Ja’fari, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i and Hanbali – and a number of other minority schools of thought such as Zaydi and Isma’ili. Religious practices also differ between Sunni and Shia Muslims. The official and legal brand of Islam in Malaysia is the Sunni Islam of the Shafi’i school of thought. But that doesn’t mean that other interpretations of Islam like that practised by the Ahmadiyah don’t exist, even if they are banned.

One other evidence that Islam’s adherents are not a singular block of unvarying believers is the fact that laws about Islam across the Muslim world differ, whether it’s about apostasy, family law, hudud or the use of “Allah” by non-Muslims.

What does this all mean? It means that when politicians and royalty like Raja Nazrin Shah speak about Malay or Muslim unity, they’re perpetuating a myth. There is diversity and disparity not just in Malays’ and Muslims’ political views, but throughout the Malay and the Muslim world. And this isn’t true just today. It’s historically true as well – just look at the different kinds of political leanings Malay Malaysians had in the past.

Why unite?

That’s not to say that some Malays and some Muslims cannot unite in the true sense of the word. They can when there is a solid cause which draws people together because of a shared ideal. But when unity is called for solely on the basis of one’s racial or religious identity as a Malay or Muslim, the basis for that unity is founded on shifting sands. Since there are so many kinds of Malays and quite a few types of Muslims, what kind of Malay or what kind of Islam are the adherents of unity advocating for?

My uneasiness with calls to vote a particular way or to merge parties for the sake of Malay or Muslim unity stems from the underlying, and often unstated, purpose of such encouragement. What are Malays and Muslims supposed to be uniting for and/or against?

Implicit in the call for unity is the need to armour up against non-Malays and non-Muslims. If the Malays don’t unite, the argument goes, non-Malay Malaysians will politically and economically overwhelm the Malays, no matter that the majority of our population are Malays and that Malays hold power in nearly all arms of government. And if Muslims don’t unite, the threat from non-Muslims, Christians in particular, will strengthen to Islam’s detriment.

And so, the rallying cry for Malay or Muslim unity can actually be heard as a clarion call for pitting Malaysians against one another. Hence, advocating for Malay or Muslim unity is really a call for disunity and distrust in Malaysia, where Malays and Muslims should only think about their own interest at the expense of other citizens.

Even more troubling for me is that the way to go is apparently to vote Umno or to merge with Umno. Yes, vote in, or merge, with the party that wants “ketuanan Melayu”, has not closed the gap between rich and poor Malays, is rife with money politics, and is trying to deny non-Muslims their right to worship using “Allah”. And yes, PAS needs to merge with the party that kicked it out of the Barisan Nasional in 1977 and whose politicians have been persecuted by the Umno-led government through the years.

How can any advice that is based on a myth, promotes disunity in multiracial and multireligious Malaysia, and advances the interest of a corrupt and authoritarian party be good? Of course, it’s left to be seen just who will take up such misdirected counsel. On my part, I would rather vote for a politician or a party that argues truth based on facts, has the interest of all Malaysians at heart, and that promotes equality, fairness, justice, prudence, transparency and accountability.

It’s true that because I’m not Malay and not Muslim, it’s not me that the politicians and some members of royalty are beseeching to. But honestly, one doesn’t have to be a non-Malay or a non-Muslim to know and want what’s best for our incredible nation.

Source

Najib: GE13 Date Only After Transformation Success

2013-03-11T21:00:00.000+01:00

(Bernama) - Prime Minister Najib Razak said the 13th general election (GE13) has not been announced yet because the government wants the national transformation policy to be truly proven successful and that the people fully benefit from it.

He said creative ideas, detailed planning and effective implementation were crucial in the government efforts to champion the cause of the people and bring development to the country.

“That is why we wait until we are exhausted to hold the general election, we wait because I want to prove that the national transformation policy can truly succeed,” he said when launching the Seremban Sentral 1Malaysia People’s Housing (PR1MA) project, Seremban today.

Also present were the prime minister’s wife, Rosmah Mansor, Negeri Sembilan Menteri Besar Mohamad Hassan, Information Communication and Culture Minister Rais Yatim and PR1MA chairman Jamaludin Jarjis.

Thus, the prime minister reminded the people not to change the ruling government in the 13th general election (GE13) claiming only the Barisan Nasional (BN) government can fulfill the aspirations of the people.

“We should be proud because the nation has achieved much success. If Ulu Temiang is to have its name changed to Seremban Utara, but the government should not be changed,” he said to loud applause from the audience.

Najib said today the people were fully convinced that the BN government not only knew how to talk but also implement (the pledges) for the people as stated in the 1Malaysia concept which was ‘People First’.

“Yesterday, I was in Terengganu, I rode the trishaw and asked the pedaller how the present government was, and he said he would support the BN because PAS was ridiculous, only knows how to talk but does not know how to implement,” he said.

The prime minister said the government would continue to do what was best for the people so that they would enjoy prosperity and the country would continue to progress and remain in peace.

Goodies for Seremban

On the Seremban Sentral PR1MA project, Najib said 5,000 affordable housing units would be built in the KTM Seremban area on a piece of land measuring about 73 acres (about 30 hectares) which was expected to be ready in two-and-a-half years’ time.

“Seremban will be modernised soon. Just imagine Seremban Sentral becoming like the Sentral in Kuala Lumpur,” he said, adding that 6,000 affordable housing units would be built under the PR1MA project in Ulu Temiang or Seremban Utara.

He said the project would be open for application to those earning between RM2,500 and RM7,500 per month and aged 21 and above.
“Our policy must be inclusive in nature, regardless of income. About 20,000 people will benefit from this project,” the Prime Minister said.

The project also offered a lower price which was 20 per cent less than the market price besides having access to transportation facilities such as the train, buses, shopping centres, commercial offices, health and educational facilities.

Source

Pakatan Unveils Election Manifesto

2013-03-09T21:00:00.000+01:00

(The Star) - The final Pakatan Rakyat convention before the 13th general election kicked off here Monday with the unveiling of the pact's election manifesto.

The manifesto, delivered by PKR's Rafizi Ramli, PAS' Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad and DAP's M. Kulasegaran, covered a broad range of topics.

Some of Pakatan's promises include increasing minimum household income to RM4,000 in its first term in power, removing one million foreigners from the workforce over five years and stopping the Lynas rare earth plant in Gebeng.

Pakatan leaders also promised to lower fuel prices and electricity tariffs, cancel the Automated Enforcement System (AES) and recognise the Unified Examination Certificate (UEC).

The manifesto also promised the construction of a Pan Borneo highway linking Kuching and Kota Kinabalu.

Those attending included PKR advisor Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang, DAP advisor Lim Kit Siang and DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng.

Source

Battle for Selangor: Najib leads BN's charge

2013-03-09T09:00:00.000+01:00

(The Star) - The Barisan Nasional's charge to recapture Selangor has received a major boost with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak personally heading its election machinery in the state.

The decision for Najib, who is Selangor Umno chief, to be the state's Barisan election director was made during a meeting he chaired on Saturday.

Selangor Barisan secretary Datuk Mohamad Idris Abu Bakar said the meeting also discussed strategies and Barisan's preparedness in wresting Selangor from Pakatan Rakyat. He said the meeting decided that a mock election should be conducted to test the readiness of election workers.

“It will involve all parties as our election machinery officers would become the backbone behind our strategy to disseminate our policies and information to the grassroots,” he said in a statement yesterday.

Mohamed Idris said the state Barisan leadership welcomed the decision to have the Prime Minister and Barisan chairman as its election director and state Barisan coordinator Datuk Seri Mohd Zin Mohamed as his deputy.

He said Barisan was optimistic in winning more seats and taking back Selangor.

“Our preparation is at the most optimum level,” he added.

Mohd Zin said he was ready to support Najib in the quest to recapture Selangor.

It was reported that the Election Commission had estimated that Selangor recorded the biggest jump in the number of new voters - rising 29.06% from 1,565,494 in 2008 to 2,020,500 as of the third quarter of last year.

At another event, Najib said Selangor should not be ruled by a different party than the one ruling Federal Government.

He said there were too many problems as it was because the state was ruled by the Opposition while the Federal Government was led by Barisan.

“But if the people give us the full mandate, Selangor will be more advanced and grow together with our country,” he said.

Source

Malaysian Government's Debt to Approach RM1 Trillion by 2020

2013-03-05T21:00:00.000+01:00

Pak Sako

This is the second part of a three-part CPI series on Malaysian debt. The first part, entitled, 'Investigate Malaysia's debts now' , surveyed the overall debt situation.

This part examines the trend in government debt. The upcoming part will concern Malaysia's total debt.

Statistics reveal that in the last 15 years, the Malaysian government's debt increased at an unprecedented rate.

The graph below shows the statistics for the government's combined domestic and foreign debts from 1991 till the present. Forecasts are provided up to the year 2017.

The figure shows the government's borrowings from the savings of domestic citizens and from foreign creditors.

Here we ignore private debt, even though it adds to the government's debt burden, because a portion of private debt is publicly guaranteed. We also ignore other unrevealed debts.

What the statistics are saying

During the 1990s, the reported debt level was mostly flat. It declined slightly towards the end of the decade. At the close of 1991 it was RM99 billion, and by the end of 1996 it was close to 91 billion.

After 1997, the government's debt began to steadily climb until 2007. In those 10 years, the debt level rose from RM91billion to RM274 billion. This is an increase of RM183 billion, or an annual average addition of debt of RM18.3 billion.

From 2008 onwards, the borrowings escalated exponentially.

In 2008 alone, an extra RM43 billion of debt was amassed. From RM274 billion at the start of that year, the debt level rose to about RM502 billion by the end of 2012 — an increase of RM228 billion in five years. The average increase in debt in this period was RM45.6 billion per year.

The IMF forecast the debt level for the years 2013 to 2017. The annual increase in debt is predicted to be higher, at a yearly RM55.4 billion. The projected debt level for 2017 is RM779 billion.

This assumes that there is still plenty of domestic funds available to carry the borrowing up to that level (the lion's share of government debt, is after all, domestic debt).

If not, debt would have to be secured from external sources.

The assumption is also that the government will continue to borrow. This is likely to be true. As we have seen, the trend suggests that the government's appetite for debt has been growing, not abating.

The annual increases in debt are substantial sums: a single year's borrowing can dwarf a decade's worth of inward foreign direct investment.

There has been no sign of the debt accumulation reducing or levelling out since the East Asian economic crisis of 1997.

Large government deficits were first incurred in the aftermath of this crisis. Then-prime minister Mahathir Mohamad justified this as part of government spending in commercial enterprises to stimulate the economy.

In reality, the loan proceeds were allegedly used for questionable purposes, such as to fund large-scale projects awarded to crony capitalists and to bail out their failing companies.

The federal government's borrowing shifted into higher gear from 2008, the year the Barisan National coalition lost its two-thirds parliamentary majority.

The deficit expenditures have been justified as a short-term tool. But they have continued for almost a decade and a half; they have become a permanent feature of the government’s financial policy.

The government's financial imprudence is therefore a primary cause of the country's indebtedness.

What this means for the average citizen

It is pertinent to ask whether at this rate Malaysia will attain in 2020 the so-called high-income status envisioned by the New Economic Model.

In the graph, we can see that the government's debt could come close to RM1 trillion by that year.

The actual debt level might, of course, fall well short of that.

Even so, the strain of the debt load on the people is likely to be significant.

Consider the amount of interest payable every year for the current debt of RM502 billion, or for RM779 billion in 2017. Information on this needs to be disclosed and put into the public realm.

Undertaking debt on this scale is unsustainable for a country of our size and economic potential. The World Bank has said that the Malaysian economy is likely caught in a 'middle-income trap'. Economic growth in the years ahead is projected to be slower. Other contributing factors include Malaysia's wide income and wealth disparities.

When we are compelled to push our land and labour resources to new limits to produce economic growth in the attempt to surmount large debts, there will be damaging social and environmental consequences. We will have to rapidly liquidate our oil and other resources at the expense of the wellbeing of future generations.

The average citizen could be taxed more.

To free up cash to service debt, there could be cost-cutting in the provision of public services, such as healthcare. This might already be happening; recently there were shortages of medicines and blood tests in the public hospitals and health clinics. Workers might also face longer working hours for the same or lower income.

A more devious method may also have to be deployed to deal with domestic debt.

This is when the borrowing government increases money supply by printing money to devalue the debt. The lending citizens lose out. Inflation speeds up and the currency will weaken.

In summary, a 'new normal' of a lower standard of living is probable, given:

(i) the increasing scale of government debt and the repayments required for these, and

(ii) the country's comparatively limited earning potential, bearing in mind the 'false' economic growth being attained by irresponsibly depleting natural resources, polluting the land and squeezing greater 'productivity' out of the workforce.

Tackling debt ought to be a major subject of political discourse in Malaysia.

Source

Investigate Malaysia's Debts Now

2013-03-03T21:00:00.000+01:00

Pak Sako

Former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad claimed last week that Malaysia's current debt level is “healthy” compared with Greece's.

But the debt-to-GDP percentage Mahathir relied on tells next to nothing about the full extent of Malaysia's debts; the nature of these debts; or what can happen next.

The real devil lies in the details, namely:

(i) the trend in the debt level.

How has it changed in the recent past? Is there momentum in a certain direction? The federal government's debt had doubled in just four years from 2007 and 2012. Will it stop growing, or will the trend and absolute totals continue their upward rise?

In the last decade, our finance ministers have repeatedly pledged to reduce the budget deficits. This has not happened. Instead, deficits have ballooned and the federal government's debt has mounted.

(ii) the causes of debt.

For what are the borrowings and for whom? Are these borrowings for worthwhile investments that benefit the public? Are these liabilities being used to cover government operating costs or to prop up failing crony companies or the stock market? Is the use of costly loans for projects with low or no rates of return justified?

Almost a trillion ringgit was recently whisked out of the country in the form of illegal outflows. This is capital flight. It is conclusive evidence that our economy is 'leaking out' wealth.

Capital flight explains what the crony private sector and other rent-seekers are doing with their ill-gotten gains: they are squirreling these away in offshore accounts in Swiss banks and tax havens such as the Cayman Islands.

It is no wonder that private-sector investment in Malaysia is dismal. To make up for foregone domestic investment and job creation, environmental standards and taxes are lowered to lure foreign investors such as Lynas.

(iii) the types of debt, both known and “hidden”.

How much of the debt is borrowed from the savings of citizens (internal debt)? How much is borrowed from foreign lenders (external debt)? How much of these debts is government debt, and how much is private?

ringgit-debtA big chunk of Malaysia's debt, RM467.4 billion as of September 2012, is internal debt (Bank Negara Malaysia, Quarterly Bulletin, Third Quarter 2012).

This is the portion of debt that is popularly spoken about — the debt-to-GDP percentage of 53% involves almost entirely this debt.

This is money borrowed domestically from the savings of citizens. It is money belonging to individuals taken from the Employee Provident Fund (EPF), Tabung Haji, pension funds and other social security organisations and institutions (see 'Debt growing but manageable, says MOF', The Malaysian Insider, 28 September 2012).

At what rates of return are Malaysians being compensated for this borrowing? Will they recover their savings at all? Will they be fraudulently 'compensated' with funds coming from the liquidation of oil and forest assets; in other words, from the public's own pockets? Or will a Ponzi scheme be devised to borrow more to honour commitments that come due?

Wholly separate from internal public debt is private external debt — money borrowed from foreign lenders. This is a portion of debt that is hardly spoken about.

The government's external debt is RM17.3 billion as of last September, according to Bank Negara. But this is the tip of the iceberg.

We should also be very interested in the private sector's external debt.

Because when private companies borrow from foreign lenders, the government is obliged to pay off these debts if the companies fail to do so. Simply put, citizens might have to pick up the tab. That is what happened in the debt crises in the West.

That is why this category of external debt is called 'publicly guaranteed debts'.

Beyond these, there is the 'non-guaranteed' debt obligation of the private sector. These affect the overall creditworthiness of the nation and also cannot be ignored.

Bank Negara says Malaysia's total external debt was RM257.8 billion at the end of September 2012.

How much of this is publicly guaranteed debt held by private corporations?

It is alleged that one Malaysian tycoon and his group of companies owe RM34 billion ('Syed Mokhtar's debts raising fear of future bailout, says Tony Pua, The Malaysian Insider, 27 September 2012). How much is publicly-guaranteed? What about other Malaysian corporations?

More disturbing are the claims that the Malaysian government has large hidden debts.

These are “contingent liabilities” and “off-balance sheet” borrowings, which are said to have amounted to RM117 billion in 2011 (see ''Hidden debt'' edges M'sia beyond 55pct limit', Malaysiakini, 27 September 2012).

There is also little knowledge about annual interest payments and the due dates of debts.

Any meaningful public discussion of Malaysia's debt situation must consider all of the above.

Neither the Ministry of Finance nor Bank Negara give a full picture of all of the above.

Mahathir Mohamad said nothing about any of the above.

He told Malaysians not to worry about debt because our foreign reserves are strong.

But foreign reserves or public wealth are not for settling the illegitimate debts accumulated by corrupt regimes. They are not to be used as collateral to pile on new debts or service existing ones.

The size of the foreign reserves gives false comfort. During the 1997 East Asian crisis the government devalued the total stock of ringgit using a currency peg. Foreign reserves took the hit and shrunk.

Mahathir Mohamad's comments lull Malaysians into a false sense of security. These comments should however serve as a wake-up call. Malaysians should demand for clarification about Malaysia's total debt and its consequences. The Ministry of Finance and Bank Negara should respond.

Source

Adakah Lagi Tempat Melayu Bergantung?

2013-03-01T09:00:00.000+01:00

A Kadir Jasin

SEORANG usahawan Melayu yang pada satu ketika dulu amat berjaya dan tersohor dengan mainan pasaran sahamnya yang sangat licik tetapi sudah lebih sedekad terpelanting daripada perniagaan arus perdana di Malaysia kerana politik, bertanya saya kepada siapakah orang Melayu boleh bergantung.

Bukan alang kepalang punya soalan itu. Orang putih kata, a million-dollar question (soalan sejuta dolar). Saya kata, soalan yang tidak ada jawapan. Lagi hebat, dia bertanya soalan itu (melalui sistem pesanan ringkas/SMS) dari di Milan, Itali yang berupa ibu kota fesyen dunia.

Untuk sama-sama memahami dan memikirkan jawapan kepada soalan berkenaan, izinkan saya mengemukakan beberapa fakta, andaian dan keluhan sebagai asas perbahasan:

1. Di saat-saat kedudukan orang Melayu semakin terdesak dan terancam, kepemimpinan Melayu di kedua-dua belah sempadan politik dilemparkan pelbagai dakwaan, tuduhan dan insinuasi yang sangat dahsyat. Ada tuduhan sudah terbukti. Ada tuduhan sekadar sensasi. Ada tuduhan disangkal sepenuh hati. Ada yang pucat kesing, murung berdiam diri. Apabila tuduhan tidak dibalas, tentu ada yang percaya ia berasas.

2. Persepsi yang semakin negatif di kalangan orang Melayu sendiri terhadap jati diri, integriti dan moral pemimpin politik Melayu.

3. Yang malu, rugi dan dicaci adalah orang Melayu. Dan Melayu bukanlah ramai sangat di Malaysia ini. Menurut Bancian 2010, penduduk Malaysia seramai 27,484,596 orang. Daripada jumlah itu, Melayu 50.1%, Cina 22.5%, Bumiputera bukan Melayu 11.8%, India 6.7%, kaum-kaum lain 0.7% dan orang asing 2.25 juta atau 8.2%.

4. Jadi hanya separuh penduduk Malaysia orang Melayu dan orang Melayu pula, secara purata, adalah lebih daif daripada orang Cina dan India di segi ekonomi. Orang Melayu dan Bumiputera adalah warga ekonomi kelas tiga.

5. Orang Melayu semakin lemah di segi politik kerana berpecah tiga antara Umno, Pas dan PKR. Hanya Umno boleh dianggap parti yang berorientasikan Melayu. Itu pun azam Melayunya semakin luntur. Pas mengaku parti Islam dan PKR parti pelbagai kaum.

6. Kepemimpinan Melayu, sama ada dalam Umno, Pas atau PKR tidak lagi komited 100% mempertahan dan memperluaskan kuasa politik dan ekonomi Melayu/Bumiputera kerana berlumba-lumba memikat hati pengundi Cina dan India.

7. Sikap orang Melayu yang semakin lemah dan negatif terhadap jati diri bangsa, penerokaan ilmu, komitmen kepada kerjaya, mencari kejayaan dan mengumpul harta. Orang Melayu tidak malu lagi menjadi peminta bantuan dan penerima subsidi. Mereka semakin tidak berdaya berdikari, sesat dan hilang arah tujuan.

8. Mungkin benarlah kata Hang Tuah, takkan Melayu hilang di dunia. Tetapi kita tidak pernah pula mendengar Hang Tuah berkata, takkan Melayu hilang di Tanah Melayu. Hari ini, ke mana pun kita pergi di dunia, kita akan berjumpa orang Melayu yang boleh hidup senang di perantauan.

9. Saya sangat komited kepada pendirian bahawa zaman orang Melayu bergantung semata-mata kepada kepemimpinan politik Melayu sudah berlalu. Kalau orang Melayu masih berasa perlu mempertahankan bangsa mereka, mereka perlu mewujudkan suara atau kuasa ketiga di luar kerangka politik dengan berpayungkan Raja-Raja mereka.

10. Dan dalam jangka masa singkat, saya tidak nampak wujud jalan pintas yang akan membolehkan orang Melayu mengembalikan kedudukan dominan mereka sebagai bangsa induk Malaysia. Kuasa ekonomi orang Melayu tidak pernah ada. Kini kuasa politik semakin terancam. Wallahualam.

Source

Mat Sabu: Pakatan Sudah Ada Nama Calon PM

2013-02-27T09:00:00.000+01:00

(Sinar Harian) - Pemimpin kanan Pakatan Rakyat (PR) menyatakan calon perdana menteri pihaknya, jika memenangi Pilihan Raya Umum ke-13, telah dimuktamadkan, namun masih menunggu masa yang sesuai untuk diumumkan.

Timbalan Presiden Pas, Mohamad Sabu berkata, calon perdana menteri bukan satu masalah besar bagi PR tetapi nama individu terbabit akan diumumkan pada masa yang sesuai kelak.

"Kita sudah 'set', hanya tunggu masa mahu umumkannya... tapi yang pasti saya tidak tersenarai sebagai (calon) perdana menteri," katanya pada pemberita di Pusat Konvensyen Shah Alam hari ini di sini.

Source

God, as Opposed to Religion

2013-02-25T21:00:00.000+01:00

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Agnostic (noun)

1. A person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause and that the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

2. A person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

3. A person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic.

**************************************************

One or two readers posted comments today saying that my articles are boring or have become quite stale of late. That may be true. Education can sometimes be boring when you do not want to get educated or you feel you already know enough and do not need further education.

I do not think that I already know everything. I admit that there is still much I need to learn. And that was the reason why I signed up at Oxford University’s Department of Continuing Education in 2011 plus I attended a few lectures in Oxford last year. I am currently on my third module and will be submitting my essay at the end of March.

Anyway, let me bore you, yet again, with another stale article. This article is not about God or about religion but I have titled it ‘God, as opposed to religion’ and I am going to make many references to God and religion.

Most simple-minded people -- and that would probably be more than half the readers of Malaysia Today -- think that the world is divided into those who believe in God (theists) and those who do not believe in God (atheists). They do not realise that there is a third group -- neither theist nor atheist -- who sit in between those two. And this group is called agnostics.

You can read the definition of agnostic at the top.

Before I go into the main thrust of my article, allow me, as usual, to digress -- in my normal cheong hei manner -- and address some of the comments posted in Malaysia Today over the last few weeks. This is merely a digression to make a short story long and is still not what I really want to talk about today.

One reader raised the issue of Prophet Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha and said that this was what is reported in the Hadith.

Now, let’s say I make certain references to the life of Jesus. And, let’s also say, Christians disagree with my view and argue that my statement contradicts Christian beliefs. Then, say, I ‘prove’ to you that I am correct while you are wrong with quotes from the Gospel. You then ask me from which Gospel I am making this reference and I quote the Gospel of Barnabas.

You then argue that the Gospel of Barnabas may contain some remnants of earlier apocryphal works but it has never been canonised although it is about the same length as the four canonical gospels put together. I then counter by saying that the ‘Gospel according to Barnabas’ is mentioned in two early Christian lists of apocryphal works: the 6th-century Latin Decretum Gelasianumas well as the 7th-century Greek List of the Sixty Books. Hence it is authentic.

Okay, so what is my point here? Simple, my point is that I am telling you what a Christian should believe. You are a Christian while I am not. Yet I am telling you what is the correct Christianity and what is wrong Christianity. Should not you, a Christian, know better what you want to believe and do not want to believe? Who am I, a non-Christian, to teach you what is correct Christianity?

I would never presume to know Christianity better than you, a practicing Christian. And I would never attempt to teach you what is correct Christianity and what is wrong Christianity. Non-Muslims, however, presume they know Islam better than Muslims themselves and then will preach what is right Islam and what is wrong Islam.

Okay, back to the issue of Prophet Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha when she was said to be just 6 years old or 9 years old or whatever. Of the many stories in Islam this appears to be the single most-favourite story that non-Muslims will raise to mock the Prophet and call him a paedophile, child rapist, pervert, criminal who would be sent to jail if he did that today, and so on.

Allow me to digress, yet again. Back in those days, and even up to ‘modern’ times, ‘political marriages’ were very common, even in the more ‘civilised’ Europe. Most political marriages would be between leaders or rulers to unite the different political factions or powers. Leaders or rulers did not marry for love. They married to strengthen their position and to gain political allies or to prevent other powers from turning enemy (once you are related by marriage you become friends).

Even in England and France the sons and daughters of Kings were married off to each other when they were still children. However, they would not be allowed to live as husband and wife until they reach the age of puberty, which could be 10 or 11. Hence they would have to live apart for a few years until then. And ‘adulthood’ would be when you reach puberty. In fact, at 13 you went to war and died for your country and at 19, if you were still single, you would be considered too old to get married. At 30 you would be an old man or woman.

Anyway, that was a mere digression. I am not trying to play the role of Muslim apologist here. I am bringing to your attention that the value system and traditions/customs in those days were different from today. Christians killed Jews in those days. Catholics killed Protestants and Protestants killed Catholics in those days.

Hell, the English Parliament even banned Christmas and ordered shops to stay open on 25th December, less than 400 years ago, because Christmas was considered a pagan festival and not the day to mark the birth of Christ. And, 1,000 years before that banning of Christmas, Prophet Muhammad was said to have entered into a political alliance with the most powerful warlord of Mekah by marrying his underage daughter.

But that is not really what I want to argue today. What I do want to argue is: where did this story come from? Is it in the Qur’an? No! It is from the Hadith. So, you argue, since it is from the Hadith, then it must be true and hence Prophet Muhammad was a paedophile.

Okay, let us rewind a bit. You are quoting from the Hadith and you are telling me that this is what my Hadith says and since I am a Muslim I must believe in this Hadith.

Now hold on a minute. Are all Christians Catholics? Aren’t there many denominations of Christianity? Hence why do you assume that all Muslims believe in the same thing? You do not even bother to ask me what denomination Muslim I am and you shove down my throat your interpretation of Islam as if there is only one denomination of Islam. Can I insist that you believe in the Gospel of Barnabas and then pass judgment on you because you have ‘deviated’ from the teachings of Barnabas?

Not all Muslims believe in the Hadith. These people are normally unfairly called the anti-Hadith group. Actually they are not anti-Hadith as much as they hold to the Qur’an as God’s true word and believe that all other ‘holy books’ other than the Qur’an are superfluous.

Then there are those who believe in some of the Hadith but not all of them. Further to that, there are those who believe in a different set of Hadith. Hence, on the issue of Hadith alone, there are so many different denominations of Muslims. So, when you quote the Hadith to a Muslim without knowing his of her position on Hadith, it is like quoting Barnabas to a Christian and assume that since he or she is a Christian then she or she must believe in Barnabas.

So far we are talking about Muslims and Christians. For sure Muslims and Christians are theists. And they believe not only in God but also in the religion of God (which means they are religionists as well). But what happens if you believe in God (or at least in some higher power that created us) but not in the religion of God? Then you would be an agnostic. You are neither Muslim nor Christian.

The arguments are normally between Muslims and Christians (even here in Malaysia Today). But you fail to see that there is a third group, a Third Force if you wish and if that can help you better understand the issue. And this third group thinks that both the Muslims and Christians are equally wrong.

Yes, there is a God. But there is no religion. God is the destination you wish to arrive at. Religion is merely one of those vehicles you use to arrive at that destination called God.

Okay, enough with all that religion bullshit. After three pages of talking cock let me get to the punch line. And the punch line is: there are two 'religions' called Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat quarrelling over whose ‘God’ is the true God, whose ‘Prophet’ is the genuine Prophet, and whose ‘Holy Book’ is the authentic Holy Book.

I then declare that I am not a religionist but an agnostic. And while I acknowledge the existence of God, I do not accept that religions came from God. I think that religions are manmade.

And then both sides of the religious divide call me a kafir, infidel, nonbeliever, unbeliever, disbeliever, doubter, heretic, apostate, heathen, pagan, and whatnot. They tell me that the only way to reach God is through their religion. And both sides claim that their religion is true while the other is false.

Nevertheless, while I still want God, I do not want corrupt religions where their followers do the opposite of what they say. Hence if you think that I am a kafir, infidel, nonbeliever, unbeliever, disbeliever, doubter, heretic, apostate, heathen, pagan, and whatnot; so be it.

Lakum dinakum waliyadin (to you be your religion and to me my religion): Qur’an, Surah Al-Kafirun, 109:6

(Now, I bet most of you will be debating religion instead of the last five paragraphs of this article, which is the point I am really driving at).

The "ALLAH" Controversy

2013-02-22T08:00:00.000+01:00

Tun Mahathir Mohamad

1. Malaysia is a multi-religious country where people can adhere to their own religion even though Islam is the official religion. For most of the time the followers of the different religions have lived in peace with each other. We do not see the kind of violence between the followers of different religions as found in Northern Ireland, Lebanon and the Indian sub-continent.

2. Malaysians respect each others’ religions and the rights of the religious practises of their followers. We avoid commenting on other people’s religion even though we may have furious debate within each religion.

3. Unfortunately now we have this controversy on the use of the name of God, Allah. Many years ago this controversy was settled through the acceptance that the Christians of Sabah and Sarawak could continue to use the word Allah in their Malay language bible and teachings but these should not be used in the rest of the country.

4. Unfortunately because some politicians want to get the support of Malaysian Christians, the demand is made that the Malay language bible be used in the whole country. Predictably the Muslims protest and the controversy is resurrected.

5. Christians and Jews know very well that in all their bibles, the Old Testament and the New Testament, and in the King James and other versions the word Allah had never appeared as the name of God. It is only after Islam and the Quran that the world became acquainted with the word Allah for God.

6. In their effort to spread Christianity in the Malay speaking world the Christian missionaries used the word Allah for reasons best known to themselves. Whatever, the word Allah for God is not derived from Jewish or Christian sources.

7. Among Christians in Malaysia, except for the natives of Sabah and Sarawak, the word Allah for God had never been used. In any case, the need does not arise as most sermons are not in Malay. Even when they were in Malay, the word Allah was to my knowledge never used.

8. Religious confrontations can lead to very serious consequences. It can lead to violence and killings even. This peaceful country will not be peaceful anymore if we have religious violence.

9. It is unfortunate that Ibrahim Ali should suggest burning the newly-printed bibles. That may be the way we rid ourselves of unwanted publications. It cannot be done for the Bible any more than it can be done for the Quran.

10. But what Ibrahim said does not reflect the views of UMNO. Unfortunately, some politicians would like to make it so in order to gain political mileage.

11. While UMNO believes that the word Allah is exclusive to Islam, it had never advocated burning the Malay language bibles which uses this word. I regard the attempt to imply Ibrahim’s support for UMNO to mean what he says is what is subscribed to by UMNO as mischievous. Ibrahim is not a member of UMNO. He may support UMNO but he is not a spokesman for UMNO.

12. We have lived together in relative peace and harmony all these years. Our country has developed fast because of this. While we can have political differences, we should not resort to our religious differences to win elections. It is a double-edged sword and those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.

13. Let this controversy be settled behind closed doors by responsible people. Let not the extremists take over and exploit religious issues.

14 It may be a denial of freedom of speech but freedom even in a liberal democracy have limits if we really want democracy to work.

15. I would like to appeal to all parties to stop trying to abuse this issue.

Source

LIBOR

2013-02-17T08:30:00.001+01:00

Tun Mahathir Mohamad

1. The world is Eurocentric. We trust Europe and Europeans almost unreservedly. The standards are set by them and we follow these standards unquestioningly.

2. Thus banking! The so-called conventional banking system was invented by the Europeans. Today the whole world accepts and practices this banking system.

3. Lately the Islamic banking (no interest) system has been introduced. But it is no match for the Western initiated “conventional” banking system.

4. But we now know that the current financial crisis affecting the West is due to the Western banking system or more precisely its abuse. That it can be abused means that it is not the perfect system it is made out to be.

5. We have heard about sub-prime lending, leveraging, derivatives, securitisation, bundling and insuring etc etc.

6. Now it is the turn of the LIBOR – the London Interbank Offer Rate – the rate of interests which banks may be guided by.

7. We thought the rates were fixed in heaven and no one should question them. But now we read that a number of European banks had fixed the rates so they can increase their profits. And this is considered to be wrong, to be price fixing.

8. The banks involved are the big ones, the ones which cannot be allowed to fail, the ones which are supposed to be honest. They were cheating.

9. The press reports that they were fined. By whom? By the United States of America. And they have paid the fines to America.

10. The question is, is it only America which suffered and lost money due to the fixing of the LIBOR by the major banks of Europe. Do these banks lend money only to America? I don’t think so. The UBS (Union Bank of Switzerland) lent money to Europeans and Asian countries as well.

11. If America lost money through the operation of the LIBOR surely other countries which borrowed money from the banks which fixed the rates must also lose money. But these other countries have not been paid by any of the banks which fixed the rates together with UBS. Why is America privileged when other countries are not-compensated? Why aren’t the other countries instituting legal action to find these banks guilty and fixing the fines that they must pay.

12. We in Malaysia, I believe are also guided in fixing interest rates by LIBOR. But I don’t think our banks participated in fixing the rates. Our banks may or may not have benefited from being guided by LIBOR. But they are not guilty. The borrowers have no claim on them.

13. Banking is a shadowy business. People do not really know what they are doing. We accept that the loans they give out help to create wealth. Certainly the amount of money in circulation is very much bigger than the money issued by the Government.

14. The banks’ rights to create and lend money are obviously necessary if the economy is to grow and wealth generated. But power corrupts and the right to create money is a very important power conferred on the banks. But banks need not be too secretive. We need to know the limits of their power. It is the unlimited power that banks exercise that lead to the sub-prime loans and the consequent financial crisis in America and Europe.

15. When banks abuse their power the public and the nations have to pay a high price. In the case of America and Europe four years have passed and we still don’t see the light at the end of the tunnel.

16. If we are to avoid a recurrence of the crisis; if Malaysia wants to remain free of a similar crisis we need to know more about the rules of banking and the limits of their privilege.

17. I am writing this as a layman. I know my knowledge about banking and finance is negligible. But I feel the need to express the opinion of the ordinary man who may have to pay a high price while banks abuse the power vested with them.

Source

Over 1,700 Malaysians Abroad Register for Postal Voting

2013-02-17T08:30:00.000+01:00

A total of 1,779 applications for postal voting have been received from Malaysians abroad so far since online registration was launched on December 21 last year.

Election Commission deputy chairman Datuk Wan Ahmad Wan Omar said the highest number of applications came from Australia with 406, followed by the United Kingdom (323), the United States (131), China (104) and Qatar (91).

“The EC’s decision to allow all Malaysians abroad to register online and through e-mail has proven to be effective as many took the opportunity to do so.

“We estimate about 100 Malaysians abroad will register with the EC each day and we hope this trend will continue and increase daily,” he said on Bernama TV’s Helo Malaysia show here tonight.

He said among the requirements for Malaysians to vote overseas were that they must already be a registered voter and have returned to Malaysia within 30 days in a five-year period before Parliament is dissolved.

Wan Ahmad said Malaysians overseas who have registered as a voter and would like to use postal voting can download the application form (Borang 1B) through the EC website, http://www.spr.gov.my.

Aren’t Malaysians Weird?

2013-02-14T08:30:00.000+01:00

Raja Petra Kamarudin

I wrote ‘Sanggang - the BA’s wake-up call’ (READ HERE) 13 years ago back in April 2000. In March 2004, I wrote ‘Crowds don’t translate to votes’ (READ HERE). Basically, these articles were about the fallacy that if there is a huge crowd at your function or event then this means these people support you.

I have been trying to tell the opposition this for more than a decade and it appears that Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak has discovered this over the weekend. The huge crowd at the Chinese New Year gathering cum PSY concert in Penang cannot be translated to a show of support for Barisan Nasional. The crowd was there for a free concert, not to support Barisan Nasional.

This is the nature of Malaysians. If there is a free meal they will be there in hordes even if they hate you. I personally saw thousands of people at Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s Hari Raya open house in 2006 -- many of them, in fact, non-Malays. And some even brought bags and plastic containers to tapau the food, the Chinese equivalent of a doggie bag.

It was actually most embarrassing and I saw that Dr Mahathir pretended he did not notice this was happening (my wife, Marina, shook her head in disgust). But how can you not notice your guests emptying the tables and pouring the food into bags and plastic containers? Were they there because they loved Dr Mahathir or were they there because they wanted to plunder the table and bring enough food home for a whole week?

And the Chinese New Year concert in Penang is yet another demonstration that Malaysians can hate you but they will come to your party as long as it is free and they need not pay anything. If fact, even if they need to pay they will do so.

And that is why it is very difficult to get Malaysians to stop patronising the gaming outlets or to stop buying fast food, etc. (even though gambling and fast food are bad for you). They will scream about all sorts of things and then they will give their business to businesses owned by Barisan Nasional cronies and financiers. As much as we tell them that by making these people rich they are also making Barisan Nasional rich these people refuse to listen.

And this is one thing that is most puzzling about Malaysians. They say one thing but they do the opposite of what they say. They scream about corruption and about why we need change and then they will suap a policeman to avoid paying a fine for a traffic offence. They will scream about how bad the government is and why Malaysia needs change and then they will absorb all the corrupted Barisan Nasional politicians into the opposition Pakatan Rakyat.

Probably this is the way Malaysians have been brought up by their parents. For example, if I hated Najib I would never attend his Chinese New Year open house even if the food is free and Elton John was going to sing at that open house. I would vote with my feet. I would boycott the event on point of principle. I would never show support by attending his open house and then say that I hate him and am not there because of him.

The funny thing is, these people who hate Najib and yet attend his Chinese New Year open house are the same people who accuse others of having no principles. Don’t you find that hilarious? Apparently they do not understand what the word ‘principles’ means.

And we are entrusting the future of the country in the hands of these people and are hoping that they will make the right choices and do the right things. I think we need at least 30 years or more before we can reach the stage where Malaysians can walk the talk and practice what they preach.

There were some comments posted today by those who do not like what I write that said I have lost their respect. Honestly, do you think I am so concerned about the respect of people who do not respect themselves by attending a Chinese New Year party of someone they hate?

Do you know that I happened to be in Canberra, Australia, at the same time that Najib was in town and I was invited to the official lunch in honour of Malaysia’s Prime Minister? I politely declined the invitation and explained to Senator Nick Xenophon that if I attended that lunch it would mean I support Najib since the lunch was in his honour. You should have seen the smiles on the faces of the SABM Australia lads who agreed that by attending the lunch this would mean I am ‘endorsing’ Najib.

(I met the Senator to ask him to support Bersih, which he did. He actually went to Kuala Lumpur during the Bersih march to show support and the Malaysian government was pissed big-time).

But then that is me and I look at things differently compared to most Malaysians who can hate you and then come to your party. If everyone thought like me then there would have been a Chinese New Year party with no crowd and Najib would really have been embarrassed. Now Umno can always say that that video recording (of the crowd screaming ‘no!’) was doctored like the ones of Anwar Ibrahim and Azmin Ali (don’t we always scream that videos are doctored?).

Source

10 Reasons Why We Must Vote in GE13

2013-02-12T21:00:00.000+01:00

Thomas Fann

Without doubt, we are into the final lap of what must be the most hotly contested general election in our nation’s 56 years of history and one that many would consider to be a pivotal moment.

To many, the match is between the incumbent ruling coalition, the Barisan Nasional(BN) and the opposition coalition of Pakatan Rakyat(PR). To some the choice is between Najib and Anwar whilst to others it is between maintaining status quo or change.

But I want to put it to you that this election is not about BN or PR. Why? For usually in any contest, the winner is the one with the better skills, strategy, funds and luck even. But in an election, the winner or loser is decided not by the contending parties but by the audience or in this case the voters.

For in a democracy, we, the people more literally, have the power to decide who wins or loses, who to serve us as our government and who to serve us as the opposition for the next 5 years. This election is really about us, the voters, being able to exercise our democratic right to vote in a free and fair election.

More than ever before, if we are registered voters, we must vote in the upcoming 13th General Election. If you are still undecided or unconvinced if you should vote, let me offer you 10 reasons why you MUST vote in this election.

IT IS OUR RIGHT – Under Article 119 of the Federal Constitution, if we are a Malaysian citizen above the age of 21 and have not been convicted of any crime or are of unsound mind, we have the right to one vote in the constituency where we reside. But currently if you want to exercise that right, you must be registered as a voter with the Election Commission.

IT IS OUR DUTY AS A CITIZEN – Going beyond our right, it is also our duty as a responsible citizen to vote. Choosing not to vote is like a family member who chooses not to take out the trash in the house but then complained about the stench, or who chose not to participate in the decision-making process of repainting the family house but gripes about the colour chosen.We lose our right to complain about the state of affairs in this country when we choose not to vote when we can. Hazen Pingree who was Detroit’s mayor in the late 19th century said, “Voter apathy was, and will remain the greatest threat to democracy.”

IT IS STRENGTHENING OUR DEMOCRACY – We are not a true democracy until the majority of eligible voters vote. Some would say that Malaysia has a healthy and vibrant democracy as in the last general election we had a 75 percent voters turnout.But because we have a electoral system where you have to first register as a voter before you can vote, the actual number of eligible voters casting their votes is only around 53 percent, if you include eligible voters who did not register and those who registered but did not vote. If you take voters turnout against the total population of 28 million in 2008, it is only 28 percent of citizens whose votes decided who governs all of us.

We can definitely improve on this number by making sure we register ourselves and then turn up to vote on polling day. Power to the Rakyat!

IT IS WHERE EVERYONE IS TRULY EQUAL – It doesn’t matter if you are the Prime Minister or a labourer, rich or poor, young or old, male or female, as long as you are a Malaysian above 21 with no criminal record and are of sound mind, you have one vote each. That is the beauty of democracy, everyone is truly equal at the ballot box.In this way, in a functioning democracy, this system ensures that the rights of the masses are protected and the rich and powerful cannot exploit the system to their advantage. If we don’t realise this fact and allow the rich and powerful to buy our votes or to bully us into voting for them, then we don’t have a democracy.

Read More

Perkasa Belia Langkah Tepat Perkukuh Negara

2013-02-03T21:00:00.000+01:00

Amidi Abdul Manan

Kepemimpinan belia adalah kepemimpinan negara pada masa depan. Citra negara pada masa akan datang, terpapar pada generasi belia hari ini. Mempersiapkan kepemimpinan belia bermakna mempersiapkan kepemimpinan negara.

Pemimpin, aktivis dan penggerak pertubuhan belia akan berkumpul di Hotel Summit, Subang USJ pada Jumaat hingga Ahad ini bagi menghadiri Mesyuarat Perhimpunan Agung Tahunan, Majlis Belia Malaysia ke-61. Mesyuarat kali ini akan menyaksikan perwakilan memilih barisan kepemimpinan belia bagi tempoh dua tahun akan datang.

Tempoh itu amat rencam apabila kita semakin menghampiri garisan penamat bagi menghambat status negara maju pada 2020. Ditambah dengan suasana politik yang tidak menentu menjelang Pilihan Raya Umum Ke-13.

Bersedia hadapi cabaran

Berdasarkan suasana yang sedemikian, maka 2013 ini adalah tahun pemilihan kepemimpinan pada pelbagai peringkat. Dimulakan pada peringkat belia yang mengisyaratkan kepemimpinan belia harus bersedia berhadapan dengan segala cabaran, yang perlu diredah bersama kekuatan hikmah, bagi memastikan fokus dan pacuan ke arah gerbang negara maju tidak terganggu.

Kepemimpinan belia perlu bersifat transformatif. Ia perlu mampu mengubah dan berubah.

Namun ia perlu terikat dengan nilai yang mulia dan mempunyai makna yang signifikan terhadap pembaikan ummah. Berubah bukan kerana kita adalah generasi baru tetapi berubah kerana misi yang kita dukung, nilai yang kita perjuangkan dan keperluan perubahan. Seorang pemimpin perlu mampu berinteraksi dengan persekitaran bagi mengumpul maklum balas, kecenderungan serta kemahuan generasi bagi memetakan hala tuju perjuangan. Kecekapan analisis persekitaran dipamerkan oleh pemimpin besar dunia seperti Winston Churchill, Mahatma Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln dan Hassan al-Banna yang membaca persekitaran dan berjaya mengubah cabaran dan halangan kepada kesempatan.
Apabila diteliti semangat transformatif manusia lewat al-Quran, kita akan dapati perubahan total dan tulen perlu berlaku pada segenap peringkat, makro dan mikro, bagi menjamin kelangsungan misi perjuangan. Maka perubahan mestilah bermula dengan individu pemimpin itu sendiri. Pemimpin belia mesti memahami misi perjuangan dengan jelas.

Kefahaman ini memerlukan pembudayaan ilmu yang mengakar dalam setiap batang tubuh pemimpin belia. Perubahan bukan sebuah lakonan. Ia mesti ‘real’ datang daripada hati dan pemikiran.

Setelah itu, setiap pemimpin belia perlu bersiap dengan kekuatan untuk berinteraksi dengan berkesan. Idea perlu disampaikan, mesej perlu terjelma dengan betul dan hasrat perlu digarap agar impian kepada perubahan dapat dikongsi bersama.

Oleh itu paduan ‘pemimpin-pemikir’ seharusnya menjadi adunan kepada pemimpin belia. Pemimpin yang mampu memberikan pengarahan dan strategi yang diyakini berkesan oleh pengikut dan pemikir yang mampu mencanai idea serta menganggapi persoalan dengan berkesan.

Selain itu, seorang pemimpin perlu mempunyai sikap yang betul. Tidak mementingkan diri, mengutamakan perjuangan dan hidup dalam suasana pengorbanan yang tinggi. Belia di Malaysia ini khususnya memerlukan pemimpin yang mengendong segala impian dengan penuh rasa tanggungjawab.

Contohi Saidina Umar

Sesungguhnya amanah kepemimpinan ini amat berat untuk dipikul. Ia terpamer dalam reaksi Saidina Umar ra yang menyatakan memadai hanya seorang keluarga Umar yang merasai kepedihan api neraka, apabila anaknya, Abdullah, dicalonkan sebagai penggantinya.

Amat malang bagi generasi belia di Malaysia nanti jika mempunyai pemimpin yang menjadikan platform MBM ini, semata-mata sebagai batu loncatan, untuk bergelar ‘Yang Berhormat’ dan seterusnya mendapat kedudukan yang lebih baik di persada politik negara. Jangan biarkan wadah belia ini menjadi tunggangan pihak tertentu yang berkepentingan cangkat demi survival politik peribadi.

Source

Don’t Sell Food to Malays, Restaurant told

2013-02-02T21:00:00.000+01:00

B Nantha Kumar, FMT

A restaurant owner in Malacca has claimed that the state Islamic Religious Department (JAIM) has instructed him not to sell food to “Malay” customers.

P Segar, 52, who operates a restaurant in Jasin, wanted the Prime Minister’s Department to look into the matter.

Relating his ordeal to FMT, the businessman said on Jan 14, a group of six Jasin Town Council (MPJ) officers accompanied by three JAIM personnel and two Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Ministry officers visited his restaurant.

“While MPJ enforcement officers inspected my business licence and checked on the cleanliness of the restaurant, the rest were sitting outside where we had placed chairs and tables.

“Soon after the MPJ officers were satisfied that we had fulfilled all the necessary requirements, the JAIM officers came to the cashier’s counter and ordered me not to sell food to Malays,” he added.

The officer, Segar alleged, who refused to introduce himself, had also instructed to him to sell only drinks and sweets to Malay customers in future.

“When I asked him why, he just kept mum. Then one of the Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs officers intervened and told me that the restaurant did not display a proper price list.

“I was shocked by the answer. That’s the weirdest answer I have ever heard from a civil servant. So if I don’t display a proper price list, I can sell my food to Indians and Chinese but not Malays… I can accept it if they say my food is not ‘halal’ therefore it should not be served to Muslims.

“But this is just out of this world. What is the connection between my price list display and selling food to people of a particular race,” Segar said.

Source