May Chee Chook Ying | TMI
Civil society is under siege in Malaysia. That does not augur well for a nation, touted by the powers-that-be, to be the best democracy in the world. How on earth can anyone even begin to espouse a democratic way of life if he doesn’t even recognise the role civil society plays? Is this so-called democratic government effective or legitimate, at all?
According to a mainstream newspaper, some RM20 million was poured into 11 organisations in a plot to destabilise the government. RM20 million from genuine benefactors can destabilise the government when hundreds of billions plundered by present and past leaders have gone unchecked?
If at all the present government can be destabilised, it can only come from its own undoing! Don’t go pointing fingers at others. “Sila tepuk dada, tanya selera!”
A large part of humanity lives in darkness, even now in the 21st century. We have seen how, in Tunisia, fruit-seller Mohamed Bouazizi immolated himself to draw attention to police corruption and ill treatment. Will history show that this selfless act of sacrifice as an exercise in vain? I’m no soothsayer but I think history will show, in time, how a solitary act of selflessness and sacrifice will liberate a huge chunk of humanity. It always begins with that solitary act. Always.
When I first started working almost three decades ago, I saw a copy of Aliran on a table in the staff room. What I read both shocked and mesmerised me. The founder himself wrote with such courage and tenacity. I was instantly converted and started to subscribe to Aliran soon after.
From his writings, I learnt about inequality in society. I learnt about how each of us can play our role in bringing about a more equitable Malaysia. I read about how we should demand good governance and how we should hold the government of the day to account.
Now, when I read what “he” has to say, I die a little inside. He was one of those in civil society who could have resurrected our ailing nation to a new life. He could have taught us how to rise up to a tyranny.
Instead now, with what he has to say, he justifies their very existence; to continue to oppress the people he once loved and cared for, so much so that he fought with his every being. I feel as if we have lost a comrade and the world is a little darker now because he has gone to the “other side”.
But I have to thank him for the seed he sowed in me years ago. Thank you for teaching me how to love my neighbour and to stand up to injustice, inequality and untruths. For me, once upon a time, you were the one who could “awaken, animate and impel”. I miss the old you. I really do.
Media funded by political parties can never, ever, play the role of true journalism. So, it’s only proper not to rely on such parties. Malaysiakini and CIJ are right to seek funds from elsewhere to remain independent and to be able to aid projects that promote press freedom in the country and elsewhere.
Their efforts to remain independent and with unbiased reporting, allow the people to make their own informed decisions regarding issues close to their hearts should be lauded. Theirs should be a public forum where conversation, debate and dialogue must be encouraged to bring about a lively democracy. Not one “yang sudah mati pucuk”!
The oppression of rural and urban masses is perpetuated by preventing people from grouping together to discuss and understand their situation, including their rights. This “hidden violence” opposes unity. In my humble opinion, that is the aim and hopeful end result of this present selective persecution by our cowardly powers-that-be.
Yet, I thought I read somewhere that they have delivered and asked to be given one more term to do more. More damage? Are you out of your mind or you do you think I’m out of mine?
Did someone say we need not have a human rights watchdog? You mean you can guarantee that there won’t be any more custodial deaths? Did Kugan, Teoh Beng Hock, and more than a hundred of others die because their lives were worth a lot less than yours?
You know now why we have to continue to support the LFL? Some people are numbskulls, alright!
No one on planet Earth can doubt for a moment, the good works of SUARAM. Only morons, thieves and buyers of submarines that don’t dive! To harass and intimidate those who campaign against corruption and abuses is as good as digging your own grave. Morons, alright!
As for the young movers and shakers in LoyarBurok, to whom the future of Malaysia rightfully belongs to, like I’ve said before, no one can take away the good you do no matter how they spin! Keep up the good work, guys, and do not be intimidated by those who refuse to free their minds, bodies or souls. Those who are held captive by their office and ambitions. Those little people.
I would have left out many others who have done a lot and are still doing a lot for society, at large. Please forgive me this transgression of mine but know that there are many of us out there who can’t do without you people. We are eternally grateful to all of you who are in civil society and other organizations who do your bit to watch over us and give us hope for a better tomorrow.
Those of you who through your good work, help us to understand and advance ourselves; to grow . Those of you who deny yourself time and privilege to educate our conscience. Those of you who through your own example, guide, influence and give us a direction in life.
Be comforted in the fact that those who love the truth will recognize the truth. I’ve faith that most Malaysians do and to them, you are our towering Malaysians. Syabas to all of you!
This is an exceptional moment. We, fellow Malaysians, share the same history and like it or not, we must accept a common destiny.
For Malaysia’s true destiny to be given the chance to be played out, we must overcome our very own insecurities and not to be divided by our inherent differences.
We must not be afraid. We must, be like those above, stand our ground and remain steadfast. Demand that we be a free people, the way we are supposed to be. To give the present government another term is to delay our very own resurrection; to rise to a new life, living with integrity, dignity and in truth.
We must know our goal, walk towards it, achieve our truth and arrive at life. We will orient our own history, not stooges who repeatedly fail us.
To free is to save. Let’s free Malaysia. Let’s save our motherland. Have faith and God bless.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Umno provoking state conflict to destroy opposition
Koon Yew Yin | TMI
The latest dirty trick in Umno’s attempt to destroy the present Pakatan Rakyat government in Selangor has just been unveiled by the Pahang Mentri Besar Adnan Yaakob, after he opened the mini Maha programme at Dataran Bentong recently. This comes in the form of the threat to review its planned sale of raw water to Selangor if the Pakatan Rakyat continues to rule that state.
“We want a review and may even opt to cancel the agreement as the Selangor government appears not to be interested in proceeding with the deal,” said Adnan.
“Initially, we agreed to sell raw water to Selangor at 10 sen per cubic metre but if Pakatan retains the state in the next elections, we would need to review the price. The agreed price with Selangor earlier was at the time it was under the Barisan Nasional.”
According to the Pahang MB, “if Pakatan is taking charge, we may increase it to RM1 per cubic metre.”
To most Malaysians and me, this is the worst type of blatant political blackmail. How can a political leader with any integrity engage in such threats? How dare the mentri besar use the basic necessity of water as a political football?
It is very apparent that Umno with its Barisan Nasional cronies are scraping the bottom of the barrel in their dirty tricks to retain power in the coming elections.
It is not a surprise that present on the occasion of the Pahang Mentri Besar’s threat were Agriculture and Agro-based Industry Minister Noh Omar and Health Minister Liow Tiong Lai. The latter incidentally is also Deputy MCA president and Bentong MP. The Barisan Nasional objective is clear and it is to intimidate the rakyat of Selangor – the crown jewel among state governments – into voting against the Pakatan Rakyat.
Unfortunately for Adnan Yaakob, he has underestimated the quality and good sense of our voting public in Selangor and also all over the country. If he thinks that such fear mongering and scare tactics will work, he is living on another planet. I am confident that not only will our Selangor rakyat not be intimidated by this despicable political manoeuvre but also that it will backfire badly on the BN. The days when our voters can be bullied and hoodwinked are over as the coming elections will surely demonstrate once and for all.
To the MCA, the message that it is disgusting and unacceptable that they permit themselves to be part of this political hooliganism must be sent out loud and clear. I predict that this will be the final nail in the MCA’s coffin as they go round the country during election campaigning and are asked the question: why are you supporting the Pahang Mentri Besar when he threatens to raise the water agreement price ten times more from 10 sen to one ringgit per cubic metre just because there is a different state government in power?
Besides this unprecedented act of political blackmail aimed at the electorate, the public should also be alert to the way in which the Barisan Nasional is pitting one state against another. This strategy of fostering animosity and conflict among states has never before happened. Yes, there has been rivalry and disagreement between states. But these differences in the past have been carefully negotiated, and ethical standards of political conduct have been maintained.
Ours is a constitutional system of federalism in which state rights and autonomy are paramount and should be respected. This irresponsible and destabilizing threat by Adnan Yaakob introduces a new element of political instability. This is because federal dominance is not only pursued through the arbitrary concentration of power at the federal level but also sought through the use of state governments acting as proxies to undermine and destroy opposition held states. I hope the legal and constitutional experts in this country can take this issue up and address it without fear.
There is one other issue in relation to the water war being waged by the Barisan which needs to be put out in the public sphere for scrutiny. Adnan disclosed that in earlier negotiations with former Selangor mentri besar Khir Toyo, Pahang had agreed to lower the price from 15 sen to 10 sen per cubic metre in exchange for a share in the water treatment plant. Even at the price of 10 sen per cu m. Selangor is expected to pay Pahang RM70 million a year. If the price is increased to one ringgit per cu m. Selangor is expected to pay Pahang RM700 million a year. Imagine the consumers have to pay this amount! That is why Mentri Besar Khalid Ibraham is doing whatever he can to protect the Selangor consumers.
The proposed Langat water treatment plant has billions of ringgit of associated contracts to be given out – the project itself is estimated to cost RM8.5 billion. Who are these contracts being given out to? Who will benefit from the Pahang state government’s share? Is the Pahang share and concern with the contracts the real reason for the extraordinary action of the Pahang mentri besar in twisting the arm of the Selangor state government?
Selangor consumers should not worry: Finally Selangor consumers need to be reassured that there are other cheaper sources of water as pointed out in my earlier article. There is no urgency to develop a new source of water supply.
Mentri Besar Khalid Ibrahim is right in resisting the Langat white elephant which the Federal Government and its cronies are seeking to impose on the state.
The latest dirty trick in Umno’s attempt to destroy the present Pakatan Rakyat government in Selangor has just been unveiled by the Pahang Mentri Besar Adnan Yaakob, after he opened the mini Maha programme at Dataran Bentong recently. This comes in the form of the threat to review its planned sale of raw water to Selangor if the Pakatan Rakyat continues to rule that state.
“We want a review and may even opt to cancel the agreement as the Selangor government appears not to be interested in proceeding with the deal,” said Adnan.
“Initially, we agreed to sell raw water to Selangor at 10 sen per cubic metre but if Pakatan retains the state in the next elections, we would need to review the price. The agreed price with Selangor earlier was at the time it was under the Barisan Nasional.”
According to the Pahang MB, “if Pakatan is taking charge, we may increase it to RM1 per cubic metre.”
To most Malaysians and me, this is the worst type of blatant political blackmail. How can a political leader with any integrity engage in such threats? How dare the mentri besar use the basic necessity of water as a political football?
It is very apparent that Umno with its Barisan Nasional cronies are scraping the bottom of the barrel in their dirty tricks to retain power in the coming elections.
It is not a surprise that present on the occasion of the Pahang Mentri Besar’s threat were Agriculture and Agro-based Industry Minister Noh Omar and Health Minister Liow Tiong Lai. The latter incidentally is also Deputy MCA president and Bentong MP. The Barisan Nasional objective is clear and it is to intimidate the rakyat of Selangor – the crown jewel among state governments – into voting against the Pakatan Rakyat.
Unfortunately for Adnan Yaakob, he has underestimated the quality and good sense of our voting public in Selangor and also all over the country. If he thinks that such fear mongering and scare tactics will work, he is living on another planet. I am confident that not only will our Selangor rakyat not be intimidated by this despicable political manoeuvre but also that it will backfire badly on the BN. The days when our voters can be bullied and hoodwinked are over as the coming elections will surely demonstrate once and for all.
To the MCA, the message that it is disgusting and unacceptable that they permit themselves to be part of this political hooliganism must be sent out loud and clear. I predict that this will be the final nail in the MCA’s coffin as they go round the country during election campaigning and are asked the question: why are you supporting the Pahang Mentri Besar when he threatens to raise the water agreement price ten times more from 10 sen to one ringgit per cubic metre just because there is a different state government in power?
Besides this unprecedented act of political blackmail aimed at the electorate, the public should also be alert to the way in which the Barisan Nasional is pitting one state against another. This strategy of fostering animosity and conflict among states has never before happened. Yes, there has been rivalry and disagreement between states. But these differences in the past have been carefully negotiated, and ethical standards of political conduct have been maintained.
Ours is a constitutional system of federalism in which state rights and autonomy are paramount and should be respected. This irresponsible and destabilizing threat by Adnan Yaakob introduces a new element of political instability. This is because federal dominance is not only pursued through the arbitrary concentration of power at the federal level but also sought through the use of state governments acting as proxies to undermine and destroy opposition held states. I hope the legal and constitutional experts in this country can take this issue up and address it without fear.
There is one other issue in relation to the water war being waged by the Barisan which needs to be put out in the public sphere for scrutiny. Adnan disclosed that in earlier negotiations with former Selangor mentri besar Khir Toyo, Pahang had agreed to lower the price from 15 sen to 10 sen per cubic metre in exchange for a share in the water treatment plant. Even at the price of 10 sen per cu m. Selangor is expected to pay Pahang RM70 million a year. If the price is increased to one ringgit per cu m. Selangor is expected to pay Pahang RM700 million a year. Imagine the consumers have to pay this amount! That is why Mentri Besar Khalid Ibraham is doing whatever he can to protect the Selangor consumers.
The proposed Langat water treatment plant has billions of ringgit of associated contracts to be given out – the project itself is estimated to cost RM8.5 billion. Who are these contracts being given out to? Who will benefit from the Pahang state government’s share? Is the Pahang share and concern with the contracts the real reason for the extraordinary action of the Pahang mentri besar in twisting the arm of the Selangor state government?
Selangor consumers should not worry: Finally Selangor consumers need to be reassured that there are other cheaper sources of water as pointed out in my earlier article. There is no urgency to develop a new source of water supply.
Mentri Besar Khalid Ibrahim is right in resisting the Langat white elephant which the Federal Government and its cronies are seeking to impose on the state.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Should Pakatan Reveal Its Shadow Cabinet?
By Kee Thuan Chye | Malaysian Digest
I’m surprised that even intelligent people are questioning whether Pakatan Rakyat (PR) is ready to govern at federal level. I must admit I read this on an online news website and the full implications of what they said at a forum last Sunday may not have been comprehensively conveyed, but the gist of it is, they seem sceptical.
To me, the question of whether PR is ready to be the federal government is an unfair one. Was the Alliance ready to rule when the British handed the administration to it in the 1950s?
I believe we have to give people a chance. In many instances, when they are given that chance, they simply step up to the job. That’s what PR did when in 2008 they won, to their great surprise, the state governments of Penang, Selangor, Kedah and Perak. They had no prior experience then of doing the job but they got down to business straight away.
Some observers would say that the PR government in Perak was doing quite well, headed by Nizar Jamaluddin, until Barisan Nasional (BN) inveigled its way into the driver’s seat. The public knew practically nothing about Nizar when he was sworn in as menteri besar, but he turned out to be an effective and likeable leader for the 11 months he served. In other words, he stepped up to the job.
Meanwhile, the state governments of Penang and Selangor have shown their abilities to rule in their first time out. There is a buzz of excitement about Penang these days that had not been there for at least a couple of decades. Lim Guan Eng’s government attracted investments totalling RM10 billion in 2011.
But more than that, the Penang and Selangor state governments have won plaudits from the Auditor-General for their financial management. They have succeeded in increasing revenue and reducing public debt. As a Selangor resident, I can say that the government under Abdul Khalid Ibrahim has not done anything I would object to. In fact, among other things, I support its bid to take over the four water concessionaires in the state.
Were they ready to rule before 2008? Did either one have a shadow executive council prior to that year’s general election?
So I’m surprised that lawyer Andrew Khoo, whose views I usually hold in high regard, expressed at last Sunday’s forum his reservations about PR’s readiness to govern.
I’m sure Khoo’s concern is not a misplaced one and could be easily misinterpreted in the way the report on the forum was angled and written. I also believe that he was not writing off PR as an entity incapable of governing but was instead urging the coalition to get its act together. I base this on what he said: “To me, the great tragedy of Malaysia would be if PR won and then failed as a government.”
My only quarrel with that quote is that it is too pessimistic and drastic. And it is too broad. How does one determine such failure anyway? By the same token, is the current BN government a “failed” one? If it is, would a PR government not do better? If it isn’t, would a PR government, at the very least, not do as well?
In Khoo’s reckoning, PR’s credibility is “restricted” because it has not come up with a shadow Cabinet, i.e. a line-up of people who will helm the government if PR takes Putrajaya at the next general election.
He also says, “Although (PR) have a common policy in (their) Buku Jingga … (the) inability or reluctance of PR to form a shadow Cabinet … has meant they are unable to articulate what their policy is going to be.”
I can’t agree with that. The fact that there is already a policy is a plus point; the articulation will come if and when PR takes office. I don’t think PR needs to name its ministers first in order to articulate this policy. When Najib named his Cabinet, we didn’t know what his policies would be. As time went on, he came up with 1Malaysia and the transformation programmes. Later on, he opted for populist policies aimed mainly at winning the general election. Where do policy and personnel figure in this?
Khoo’s request for a shadow Cabinet is, however, a reasonable one. As some would argue, you need to know if a company can handle the job before you’d hire it. It is also a request that would have a strong place in a true democracy. And certainly in a democracy unfettered by racial and religious prejudices.
But in a Malaysia that is rent by the politics of race and religion and goodness-knows-what-else, the risk an Opposition coalition takes in revealing its shadow Cabinet is as high as automatically losing the general election.
To all intents and purposes, PR may already have a shadow Cabinet, or at least a rough idea of one, but given the vicious tendency of BN hawks to rip apart everything that PR does, revealing the shadow Cabinet would be exposing PR to deadly attacks that could bring deadly consequences.
Once released, the line-up would be pounced upon by the BN-controlled mainstream media and pro-BN bloggers. If the shadow Cabinet were seen to be too multi-racial or if non-Malays were given significant portfolios like Finance or Trade and Industry or even Defence (simply because they merited them), it would suffer race-baiting excoriation. The hyperboles would fly.
BN would go to town reinforcing the fiction that the Malays would truly lose power if the government were run by such a Cabinet. Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim would be called a traitor who sold out his race. PAS leaders would be accused of being puppets who gave in to the influence of the infidels. The DAP would be seen to be more dangerous than Dajjal, capable of mesmerising its coalition partners into surrendering power to it.
If, on the other hand, not enough non-Malays were represented, the non-Malay voters might become disenchanted and not vote for PR. They might say Anwar is someone who could not be trusted after all. Hindraf, or some reincarnation of it, might pop up and hold a massive rally outside PKR’s headquarters.
Either way, it’s a powderkeg. It’s a lose-lose situation. PR’s ratings would drop like a cylinder loaded with C4 explosives. It could result in PR losing the general election even before it’s called. And losing the war before you’ve fought it would be very poor strategy indeed.
In the first place, why take such an unnecessary risk? PR knows how to play the political game. For that reason, I’m sure it knows it cannot reveal its shadow Cabinet. Not now. Not when the general election is called. Not even on the day before voting – because goodness knows what bad press might emerge from there to undermine the coalition’s prospects.
All it takes is an honest mistake, like that on the eve of the 1990 general election when the mainstream media crucified Tengku Razaleigh for wearing a Kadazan headgear that bore on its front what looked like a cross. It cost his Parti Melayu Semangat 46 a lot of Malay votes – and, up to that point, a good chance for the Opposition to at least break BN’s two-thirds majority.
For now, we know Anwar Ibrahim will be prime minister if PR wins. And if that happens, he should only reveal his Cabinet after he’s been sworn in. Not a minute sooner.
And of course, to be perverse, perhaps we should ask whether he is ready to be prime minister since he’s had no experience being one, forgetting that Najib had none either, and neither did Tunku Abdul Rahman, Abdul Razak, Hussein Onn, Abdullah Badawi or even Mahathir Mohamad himself.
So why do we really need to know PR’s shadow Cabinet? Why do we demand so much of PR simply because it may be the new kid in government if it wins? Do we know what Najib’s Cabinet will be if BN wins? He’s likely to reshuffle it, but do we demand to know the likely line-up? I haven’t heard anyone asking. So why pick on PR?
Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the bestselling book No More Bullshit, Please, We’re All Malaysians, available in major bookstores.
I’m surprised that even intelligent people are questioning whether Pakatan Rakyat (PR) is ready to govern at federal level. I must admit I read this on an online news website and the full implications of what they said at a forum last Sunday may not have been comprehensively conveyed, but the gist of it is, they seem sceptical.
To me, the question of whether PR is ready to be the federal government is an unfair one. Was the Alliance ready to rule when the British handed the administration to it in the 1950s?
I believe we have to give people a chance. In many instances, when they are given that chance, they simply step up to the job. That’s what PR did when in 2008 they won, to their great surprise, the state governments of Penang, Selangor, Kedah and Perak. They had no prior experience then of doing the job but they got down to business straight away.
Some observers would say that the PR government in Perak was doing quite well, headed by Nizar Jamaluddin, until Barisan Nasional (BN) inveigled its way into the driver’s seat. The public knew practically nothing about Nizar when he was sworn in as menteri besar, but he turned out to be an effective and likeable leader for the 11 months he served. In other words, he stepped up to the job.
Meanwhile, the state governments of Penang and Selangor have shown their abilities to rule in their first time out. There is a buzz of excitement about Penang these days that had not been there for at least a couple of decades. Lim Guan Eng’s government attracted investments totalling RM10 billion in 2011.
But more than that, the Penang and Selangor state governments have won plaudits from the Auditor-General for their financial management. They have succeeded in increasing revenue and reducing public debt. As a Selangor resident, I can say that the government under Abdul Khalid Ibrahim has not done anything I would object to. In fact, among other things, I support its bid to take over the four water concessionaires in the state.
Were they ready to rule before 2008? Did either one have a shadow executive council prior to that year’s general election?
So I’m surprised that lawyer Andrew Khoo, whose views I usually hold in high regard, expressed at last Sunday’s forum his reservations about PR’s readiness to govern.
I’m sure Khoo’s concern is not a misplaced one and could be easily misinterpreted in the way the report on the forum was angled and written. I also believe that he was not writing off PR as an entity incapable of governing but was instead urging the coalition to get its act together. I base this on what he said: “To me, the great tragedy of Malaysia would be if PR won and then failed as a government.”
My only quarrel with that quote is that it is too pessimistic and drastic. And it is too broad. How does one determine such failure anyway? By the same token, is the current BN government a “failed” one? If it is, would a PR government not do better? If it isn’t, would a PR government, at the very least, not do as well?
In Khoo’s reckoning, PR’s credibility is “restricted” because it has not come up with a shadow Cabinet, i.e. a line-up of people who will helm the government if PR takes Putrajaya at the next general election.
He also says, “Although (PR) have a common policy in (their) Buku Jingga … (the) inability or reluctance of PR to form a shadow Cabinet … has meant they are unable to articulate what their policy is going to be.”
I can’t agree with that. The fact that there is already a policy is a plus point; the articulation will come if and when PR takes office. I don’t think PR needs to name its ministers first in order to articulate this policy. When Najib named his Cabinet, we didn’t know what his policies would be. As time went on, he came up with 1Malaysia and the transformation programmes. Later on, he opted for populist policies aimed mainly at winning the general election. Where do policy and personnel figure in this?
Khoo’s request for a shadow Cabinet is, however, a reasonable one. As some would argue, you need to know if a company can handle the job before you’d hire it. It is also a request that would have a strong place in a true democracy. And certainly in a democracy unfettered by racial and religious prejudices.
But in a Malaysia that is rent by the politics of race and religion and goodness-knows-what-else, the risk an Opposition coalition takes in revealing its shadow Cabinet is as high as automatically losing the general election.
To all intents and purposes, PR may already have a shadow Cabinet, or at least a rough idea of one, but given the vicious tendency of BN hawks to rip apart everything that PR does, revealing the shadow Cabinet would be exposing PR to deadly attacks that could bring deadly consequences.
Once released, the line-up would be pounced upon by the BN-controlled mainstream media and pro-BN bloggers. If the shadow Cabinet were seen to be too multi-racial or if non-Malays were given significant portfolios like Finance or Trade and Industry or even Defence (simply because they merited them), it would suffer race-baiting excoriation. The hyperboles would fly.
BN would go to town reinforcing the fiction that the Malays would truly lose power if the government were run by such a Cabinet. Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim would be called a traitor who sold out his race. PAS leaders would be accused of being puppets who gave in to the influence of the infidels. The DAP would be seen to be more dangerous than Dajjal, capable of mesmerising its coalition partners into surrendering power to it.
If, on the other hand, not enough non-Malays were represented, the non-Malay voters might become disenchanted and not vote for PR. They might say Anwar is someone who could not be trusted after all. Hindraf, or some reincarnation of it, might pop up and hold a massive rally outside PKR’s headquarters.
Either way, it’s a powderkeg. It’s a lose-lose situation. PR’s ratings would drop like a cylinder loaded with C4 explosives. It could result in PR losing the general election even before it’s called. And losing the war before you’ve fought it would be very poor strategy indeed.
In the first place, why take such an unnecessary risk? PR knows how to play the political game. For that reason, I’m sure it knows it cannot reveal its shadow Cabinet. Not now. Not when the general election is called. Not even on the day before voting – because goodness knows what bad press might emerge from there to undermine the coalition’s prospects.
All it takes is an honest mistake, like that on the eve of the 1990 general election when the mainstream media crucified Tengku Razaleigh for wearing a Kadazan headgear that bore on its front what looked like a cross. It cost his Parti Melayu Semangat 46 a lot of Malay votes – and, up to that point, a good chance for the Opposition to at least break BN’s two-thirds majority.
For now, we know Anwar Ibrahim will be prime minister if PR wins. And if that happens, he should only reveal his Cabinet after he’s been sworn in. Not a minute sooner.
And of course, to be perverse, perhaps we should ask whether he is ready to be prime minister since he’s had no experience being one, forgetting that Najib had none either, and neither did Tunku Abdul Rahman, Abdul Razak, Hussein Onn, Abdullah Badawi or even Mahathir Mohamad himself.
So why do we really need to know PR’s shadow Cabinet? Why do we demand so much of PR simply because it may be the new kid in government if it wins? Do we know what Najib’s Cabinet will be if BN wins? He’s likely to reshuffle it, but do we demand to know the likely line-up? I haven’t heard anyone asking. So why pick on PR?
Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the bestselling book No More Bullshit, Please, We’re All Malaysians, available in major bookstores.
Education blueprint: Don’t stampede us into approval
By Dr Lim Teck Ghee | CPI
I call on the Government not to stampede Malaysians into approving the education blueprint recently presented to the public. This is because there are many unresolved and critical issues which need clarification and deliberation before the blueprint can be considered a satisfactory framework for responding to the deep crisis in our education system and the many challenges that we face in economy and society.
Rushing the blueprint as the final roadmap just ahead of the coming elections not only smacks of political opportunism but it will also adversely impact our students through its untimely implementation of contentious policies in key areas.
Is a new NEP part of the blueprint?
In my opinion, the draft although containing some useful recommendations for reform, has many shortcomings, including the failure to address key problem areas arising from past politicization of the educational system. This politicization associated with the implementation of the New Economic Policy in education has led to a drastic fall in standards as well as the declining quality of human resource development and a less resilient, cohesive and competitive society. It awaits a fuller discussion and analysis in the revised report.
The question of whether there is a covert new NEP agenda in the blueprint that could emerge in its later operation is of the utmost importance. It should be dealt with openly and transparently.
At the macro level too, the blueprint is especially vague on principles, strategies and policies on religious schools; poorer performing rural schools in Sabah and Sarawak as well as the National-Type Chinese and Tamil schools. It also failed to make any mention of the establishment of an English language vernacular stream among other areas of public concern.
An answer is urgently needed to the key question whether the vernacular schools will continue to be treated as stepchildren in the national school system. It is presently not forthcoming from the draft.
A finalized blueprint needs to state unequivocally that there will be no discrimination against the vernacular schools in all policies, especially in terms of resource allocation. In the absence of a specific assurance in the blueprint, the fear that it will be business as usual is totally understandable. There may be little or no departure from the traditional ways in which these schools have been marginalized and discriminated against by policymakers and implementers.
What place for Islamic and Mara schools?
The position of Islamic religious schools and its growing number of students is a potential disruptive game changer in our secular and multi-religious society. But the Sekolah Agama have not been given the importance or close examination that they deserve. The human resource potential available from these schools needs to be integrated such that they can contribute to the larger society rather than serve the interests of those bent on imposing an Islamic agenda on the country. This more positive objective needs to be spelt out and the strategies and operational steps given substance and specifics.
There is strong evidence that that the disparities in student performance that take up so much attention in the report are the outcome of NEP policies aimed at building up a Malay professional and upper class. Thus a disproportionately large quantum of resources has been deployed towards an elite group of schools that have catered for a small minority of students, mostly coming from already privileged backgrounds.
The failure of the report to be explicit and transparent on these inequitable policies and resource allocations especially for the Mara junior science colleges will result in their continuation into the future, particularly if public discussion and scrutiny are constrained or prohibited. Yet it is of national importance that alternatives to the current Mara system are presented and critically assessed in the blueprint so that all stakeholders can weigh the pros and cons of this stream and its privileged special position in the educational system.
Manipulating history education into the blueprint
At the curriculum level, the authorities need to be open and transparent as to whether the decision to make history a compulsory subject beginning at the primary school level and the new requirement that students need to have a pass in the subject for their SPM, is or is not a part of the blueprint.
The team responsible for the blueprint must surely know that the announcement on the history subject was made at the 2010 Umno general assembly. This anomaly smacks of a politicization of the school syllabus and the suspicion that policy changes were initiated by politicians (from one party) and not by educationists. They must also be aware that this issue is of concern to many parents and educationists who have campaigned for a truthful, liberal and progressive history curriculum in place of the currently religiously and racially skewed one; and who are against any decision to make history education a political football.
This issue is a litmus test as to whether the Prime Minister will honour his promise to approach education from a national viewpoint and not from partisan lines, and also of his undertaking to depoliticize education.
It is also a potential black mark staining the reputation and integrity of the officials, educationists and other individuals associated with the preparation of the blueprint if they are seen as permitting themselves to be made use of by politicians seeking to indoctrinate our young with a racially and religiously skewed version of the history of Malaysia and the world.
Can the Ministry and the education system rise above racial politics?
Finally, more than the 11 shifts listed in the report, the following shifts are necessary in the Ministry of Education and teaching profession if we are to repair the damage inflicted on our education system and transform it so that our young people emerge with the right knowledge, skills, analytical and critical thinking and creativity to participate in a modern, multi-cultural and competitive world. These shifts are:
* Learning from the past but not to be imprisoned by past paradigms,
* Ensuring that educational rights are not made a political football because of perceived racial, social or economic disparities,
* Practicing transparency, openness, fairness and integrity of governance in all aspects of education. Positive values are necessary not only as values for students but also for the Ministry of Education officials and teachers engaged in education,
* Rising above racial, religious or political agendas. Every component of our national school system must be regarded as important in our multiracial society and must be provided fair and equal treatment.
I call on the Government not to stampede Malaysians into approving the education blueprint recently presented to the public. This is because there are many unresolved and critical issues which need clarification and deliberation before the blueprint can be considered a satisfactory framework for responding to the deep crisis in our education system and the many challenges that we face in economy and society.
Rushing the blueprint as the final roadmap just ahead of the coming elections not only smacks of political opportunism but it will also adversely impact our students through its untimely implementation of contentious policies in key areas.
Is a new NEP part of the blueprint?
In my opinion, the draft although containing some useful recommendations for reform, has many shortcomings, including the failure to address key problem areas arising from past politicization of the educational system. This politicization associated with the implementation of the New Economic Policy in education has led to a drastic fall in standards as well as the declining quality of human resource development and a less resilient, cohesive and competitive society. It awaits a fuller discussion and analysis in the revised report.
The question of whether there is a covert new NEP agenda in the blueprint that could emerge in its later operation is of the utmost importance. It should be dealt with openly and transparently.
At the macro level too, the blueprint is especially vague on principles, strategies and policies on religious schools; poorer performing rural schools in Sabah and Sarawak as well as the National-Type Chinese and Tamil schools. It also failed to make any mention of the establishment of an English language vernacular stream among other areas of public concern.
An answer is urgently needed to the key question whether the vernacular schools will continue to be treated as stepchildren in the national school system. It is presently not forthcoming from the draft.
A finalized blueprint needs to state unequivocally that there will be no discrimination against the vernacular schools in all policies, especially in terms of resource allocation. In the absence of a specific assurance in the blueprint, the fear that it will be business as usual is totally understandable. There may be little or no departure from the traditional ways in which these schools have been marginalized and discriminated against by policymakers and implementers.
What place for Islamic and Mara schools?
The position of Islamic religious schools and its growing number of students is a potential disruptive game changer in our secular and multi-religious society. But the Sekolah Agama have not been given the importance or close examination that they deserve. The human resource potential available from these schools needs to be integrated such that they can contribute to the larger society rather than serve the interests of those bent on imposing an Islamic agenda on the country. This more positive objective needs to be spelt out and the strategies and operational steps given substance and specifics.
There is strong evidence that that the disparities in student performance that take up so much attention in the report are the outcome of NEP policies aimed at building up a Malay professional and upper class. Thus a disproportionately large quantum of resources has been deployed towards an elite group of schools that have catered for a small minority of students, mostly coming from already privileged backgrounds.
The failure of the report to be explicit and transparent on these inequitable policies and resource allocations especially for the Mara junior science colleges will result in their continuation into the future, particularly if public discussion and scrutiny are constrained or prohibited. Yet it is of national importance that alternatives to the current Mara system are presented and critically assessed in the blueprint so that all stakeholders can weigh the pros and cons of this stream and its privileged special position in the educational system.
Manipulating history education into the blueprint
At the curriculum level, the authorities need to be open and transparent as to whether the decision to make history a compulsory subject beginning at the primary school level and the new requirement that students need to have a pass in the subject for their SPM, is or is not a part of the blueprint.
The team responsible for the blueprint must surely know that the announcement on the history subject was made at the 2010 Umno general assembly. This anomaly smacks of a politicization of the school syllabus and the suspicion that policy changes were initiated by politicians (from one party) and not by educationists. They must also be aware that this issue is of concern to many parents and educationists who have campaigned for a truthful, liberal and progressive history curriculum in place of the currently religiously and racially skewed one; and who are against any decision to make history education a political football.
This issue is a litmus test as to whether the Prime Minister will honour his promise to approach education from a national viewpoint and not from partisan lines, and also of his undertaking to depoliticize education.
It is also a potential black mark staining the reputation and integrity of the officials, educationists and other individuals associated with the preparation of the blueprint if they are seen as permitting themselves to be made use of by politicians seeking to indoctrinate our young with a racially and religiously skewed version of the history of Malaysia and the world.
Can the Ministry and the education system rise above racial politics?
Finally, more than the 11 shifts listed in the report, the following shifts are necessary in the Ministry of Education and teaching profession if we are to repair the damage inflicted on our education system and transform it so that our young people emerge with the right knowledge, skills, analytical and critical thinking and creativity to participate in a modern, multi-cultural and competitive world. These shifts are:
* Learning from the past but not to be imprisoned by past paradigms,
* Ensuring that educational rights are not made a political football because of perceived racial, social or economic disparities,
* Practicing transparency, openness, fairness and integrity of governance in all aspects of education. Positive values are necessary not only as values for students but also for the Ministry of Education officials and teachers engaged in education,
* Rising above racial, religious or political agendas. Every component of our national school system must be regarded as important in our multiracial society and must be provided fair and equal treatment.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
MCA President Chua Soi Lek playing destructive role of Utusan Malaysia seeking to frighten Chinese voters with lies and falsehoods in the same manner Utusan trying to scare Malay voters
By Lim Kit Siang
The MCA President Datuk Seri Dr. Chua Soi Lek is playing the destructive role of Utusan Malaysia seeking to frighten Chinese voters with lies and falsehoods in the same manner Utusan has been trying in the past three years to scare Malay voters with its daily staple of lies and falsehoods.
The role of Utusan Malaysia, the official organ of UMNO, is to violate all ethics of journalism to systematically and unconscionably concoct and dispense lies and falsehoods about the DAP and the Pakatan Rakyat to stampede the Malay voters to vote solidly for UMNO.
For instance, Utusan Malaysia had been publishing downright lies and falsehoods about the DAP, spreading the completely baseless allegation that the DAP is anti-Malay, anti-Islam and anti-Malay Rulers, that the DAP wants to create a Christian Malaysia to replace Islam as the official religion, appoint a Christian Prime Minister, establish a Republic and abolish the system of Malay monarchy.
In the past months, it has become obvious that the MCA President is playing the irresponsible and divisive role of Utusan Malaysia by seeking to frighten the Chinese voters to stampede them to vote for MCA through what MCA strategists believe is the MCA trump card – the issue of Islamic state and hudud implementation.
DAP’s stand on Malaysia as a secular state has always been constant and consistent.
We hold firm to our fundamental principle that an Islamic state and hudud laws are inappropriate and unsuitable for Malaysia as a plural society.
We do not hide our fundamental principle and beliefs, whether from PAS or any other political party or the Malaysian people. We know PAS’ stand on Islamic State and hukum hudud, just as PAS knows our different stand on these two issues.
Although DAP, PAS and PKR have our differences, the Pakatan Rakyat leadership has repeatedly reaffirmed our unswerving commitment to common policy agreements reached by the three component parties, whether before or after the 13th General Election, in the PR Common Policy Framework of December 19, 2009, Buku Jingga of 20th December 2010 or other Joint PR Leadership statements and documents.
The PR Leadership has also repeatedly reaffirmed the principle that there must be consensus among the three PR component parties before there could be any change in any agreed PR policy.
The PR Leadership has also repeatedly emphasized that the implementation of hudud is not part of the PR Common Policy Framework.
This means that if Pakatan Rakyat wins the 13th General Election and forms the Federal Government in Putrajaya, for the next five years from 2012/2013 to 2017/8, the implementation of hudud will not be part of the Pakatan Rakyat Federal Government policy or programme unless all the three PR parties can reach a consensus on it.
This position is very clear, simple and straightforward but the MCA President is doing his utmost in his politics of desperation, fear and irresponsibility to try to cause panic and fear so as to stampede the Chinese voters to vote for MCA in the 13th General Election.
One of Chua’s favourite gambits is to cite the PAS Deputy President Mohamad Sabu claiming that Mohamad Sabu had announced that PAS will amend the Federal Constitution to implement hudud if Pakatan Rakyat comes into power – totally ignoring Mohamad Sabu’s denial of ever having made such a statement and the Pakatan Rakyat Leadership Council’s policy pronouncement that the implementation of hudud is not part of Pakatan Rakyat policies, a policy position which binds all Pakatan Rakyat parties for the next four to five years until the 14th General Elections.
Another favourite Chua gambit is to shout from the rooftops that hudud implementation is a certainty if Pakatan Rakyat wins in the 13th general election, claiming that “judging from the 222 MPs, of whom most were Muslims, PAS could easily obtain the two-thirds majority to implement its version of hudud”.
Chua had gone on public record in saying: “So, this is a political reality that all non-Muslims must face. This is not a threat. It is something that all of us most think about carefully.”
This is a downright lie and utter rubbish. It shows that in his politics of desperation, Chua Soi Lek has utter contempt for figures, facts and the truth.
Firstly, the number of Muslim MPs, as it stands, still falls short of the two-thirds majority required to amend the constitution.
After the 2008 GE, for Peninsular Malaysia, there were 107 Muslim MPs, i.e. 65 MPs from BN and 42 MPs – a far cry from the two-thirds majority of 148 MPs required to amend the constitution.
Even when Sabah and Sarawak are included (and Sabah and Sarawak must be considered separately, as Malaysia’s position as a secular state is specifically underlined in Sabah’s 20-Point Agreement and Sarawak’s 18-Point Agreement in the formation of Malaysia in 1963), the total number of Muslim MPs still fall short of two-thirds majority.
Including Sabah and Sarawak, the 2008 GE elected 130 Muslim MPs out of 222 or 59%, 18 MPs short of a two-thirds majority – with 88 Muslim MPs from BN and 42 Muslim MPs are from PR. (Table 1 below)
Table 1: Muslim and Non-Muslim MPs by BN / PR and by Region / State post GE2008
Region / State || BN || PR
Muslim Non-Muslim Muslim Non-Muslim
P.Malaysia 65 20 42 38
Sabah 9 21 - 1
Sarawak 14 11 - 1
Total 88 52 42 40
It would be simplistic to assume that the Muslim MPs from BN in East Malaysia would blindly support a motion to declare Malaysia as an Islamic state especially since some of these MPs, such as those from PBB in Sarawak, are from parties with non-Muslim members and representatives among their midst.
If we consider only the Muslim MPs in Peninsular Malaysia, they only constitute 107 MPs, less than 50% of the total number of MPs in Malaysia, far short of the two-thirds of 66.7% required for any constitutional amendment.
Table 2: Muslim and Non-Muslim Majority seats by Region / State
Region / State | Muslim Majority | Non-Muslim Majority | Total
P.Malaysia 113 52 165
Sabah 15 11 26
Sarawak 8 23 31
Total 136 86 222
Even if we take the number of Muslim majority versus Non-Muslim majority seats, there are only 136 Muslim majority seats in the whole country (61%), still 12 short of a two thirds majority of 148.
Again, the rationale of Sabah and Sarawak Muslim MPs not necessarily supporting such a motion still holds.
From Table 1 and 2, even in the most extreme circumstances where ALL of the MPs in Muslim majority seats vote to support an Islamic state motion, it would still not be sufficient to reach a two-thirds majority.
These two tables debunk the lie that the MCA President is spreading all over the country, that it is virtually a certainty that there would be two-thirds parliamentary majority of Muslim MPs to support a constitutional amendment to implement hudud when Pakatan Rakyat comes into power in Putrajaya in the 13th General Election.
I would advise the MCA President to cease and desist and halt all his politics of fear, desperation and irresponsibility. Let him act responsibly for a change and show greater respect for figures, facts and the truth.
(Speech at the DAP Pasir Pinji 919 UBAH nite in Ipoh on Wednesday, 19th September 2012 at 9pm)
The MCA President Datuk Seri Dr. Chua Soi Lek is playing the destructive role of Utusan Malaysia seeking to frighten Chinese voters with lies and falsehoods in the same manner Utusan has been trying in the past three years to scare Malay voters with its daily staple of lies and falsehoods.
The role of Utusan Malaysia, the official organ of UMNO, is to violate all ethics of journalism to systematically and unconscionably concoct and dispense lies and falsehoods about the DAP and the Pakatan Rakyat to stampede the Malay voters to vote solidly for UMNO.
For instance, Utusan Malaysia had been publishing downright lies and falsehoods about the DAP, spreading the completely baseless allegation that the DAP is anti-Malay, anti-Islam and anti-Malay Rulers, that the DAP wants to create a Christian Malaysia to replace Islam as the official religion, appoint a Christian Prime Minister, establish a Republic and abolish the system of Malay monarchy.
In the past months, it has become obvious that the MCA President is playing the irresponsible and divisive role of Utusan Malaysia by seeking to frighten the Chinese voters to stampede them to vote for MCA through what MCA strategists believe is the MCA trump card – the issue of Islamic state and hudud implementation.
DAP’s stand on Malaysia as a secular state has always been constant and consistent.
We hold firm to our fundamental principle that an Islamic state and hudud laws are inappropriate and unsuitable for Malaysia as a plural society.
We do not hide our fundamental principle and beliefs, whether from PAS or any other political party or the Malaysian people. We know PAS’ stand on Islamic State and hukum hudud, just as PAS knows our different stand on these two issues.
Although DAP, PAS and PKR have our differences, the Pakatan Rakyat leadership has repeatedly reaffirmed our unswerving commitment to common policy agreements reached by the three component parties, whether before or after the 13th General Election, in the PR Common Policy Framework of December 19, 2009, Buku Jingga of 20th December 2010 or other Joint PR Leadership statements and documents.
The PR Leadership has also repeatedly reaffirmed the principle that there must be consensus among the three PR component parties before there could be any change in any agreed PR policy.
The PR Leadership has also repeatedly emphasized that the implementation of hudud is not part of the PR Common Policy Framework.
This means that if Pakatan Rakyat wins the 13th General Election and forms the Federal Government in Putrajaya, for the next five years from 2012/2013 to 2017/8, the implementation of hudud will not be part of the Pakatan Rakyat Federal Government policy or programme unless all the three PR parties can reach a consensus on it.
This position is very clear, simple and straightforward but the MCA President is doing his utmost in his politics of desperation, fear and irresponsibility to try to cause panic and fear so as to stampede the Chinese voters to vote for MCA in the 13th General Election.
One of Chua’s favourite gambits is to cite the PAS Deputy President Mohamad Sabu claiming that Mohamad Sabu had announced that PAS will amend the Federal Constitution to implement hudud if Pakatan Rakyat comes into power – totally ignoring Mohamad Sabu’s denial of ever having made such a statement and the Pakatan Rakyat Leadership Council’s policy pronouncement that the implementation of hudud is not part of Pakatan Rakyat policies, a policy position which binds all Pakatan Rakyat parties for the next four to five years until the 14th General Elections.
Another favourite Chua gambit is to shout from the rooftops that hudud implementation is a certainty if Pakatan Rakyat wins in the 13th general election, claiming that “judging from the 222 MPs, of whom most were Muslims, PAS could easily obtain the two-thirds majority to implement its version of hudud”.
Chua had gone on public record in saying: “So, this is a political reality that all non-Muslims must face. This is not a threat. It is something that all of us most think about carefully.”
This is a downright lie and utter rubbish. It shows that in his politics of desperation, Chua Soi Lek has utter contempt for figures, facts and the truth.
Firstly, the number of Muslim MPs, as it stands, still falls short of the two-thirds majority required to amend the constitution.
After the 2008 GE, for Peninsular Malaysia, there were 107 Muslim MPs, i.e. 65 MPs from BN and 42 MPs – a far cry from the two-thirds majority of 148 MPs required to amend the constitution.
Even when Sabah and Sarawak are included (and Sabah and Sarawak must be considered separately, as Malaysia’s position as a secular state is specifically underlined in Sabah’s 20-Point Agreement and Sarawak’s 18-Point Agreement in the formation of Malaysia in 1963), the total number of Muslim MPs still fall short of two-thirds majority.
Including Sabah and Sarawak, the 2008 GE elected 130 Muslim MPs out of 222 or 59%, 18 MPs short of a two-thirds majority – with 88 Muslim MPs from BN and 42 Muslim MPs are from PR. (Table 1 below)
Table 1: Muslim and Non-Muslim MPs by BN / PR and by Region / State post GE2008
Region / State || BN || PR
Muslim Non-Muslim Muslim Non-Muslim
P.Malaysia 65 20 42 38
Sabah 9 21 - 1
Sarawak 14 11 - 1
Total 88 52 42 40
It would be simplistic to assume that the Muslim MPs from BN in East Malaysia would blindly support a motion to declare Malaysia as an Islamic state especially since some of these MPs, such as those from PBB in Sarawak, are from parties with non-Muslim members and representatives among their midst.
If we consider only the Muslim MPs in Peninsular Malaysia, they only constitute 107 MPs, less than 50% of the total number of MPs in Malaysia, far short of the two-thirds of 66.7% required for any constitutional amendment.
Table 2: Muslim and Non-Muslim Majority seats by Region / State
Region / State | Muslim Majority | Non-Muslim Majority | Total
P.Malaysia 113 52 165
Sabah 15 11 26
Sarawak 8 23 31
Total 136 86 222
Even if we take the number of Muslim majority versus Non-Muslim majority seats, there are only 136 Muslim majority seats in the whole country (61%), still 12 short of a two thirds majority of 148.
Again, the rationale of Sabah and Sarawak Muslim MPs not necessarily supporting such a motion still holds.
From Table 1 and 2, even in the most extreme circumstances where ALL of the MPs in Muslim majority seats vote to support an Islamic state motion, it would still not be sufficient to reach a two-thirds majority.
These two tables debunk the lie that the MCA President is spreading all over the country, that it is virtually a certainty that there would be two-thirds parliamentary majority of Muslim MPs to support a constitutional amendment to implement hudud when Pakatan Rakyat comes into power in Putrajaya in the 13th General Election.
I would advise the MCA President to cease and desist and halt all his politics of fear, desperation and irresponsibility. Let him act responsibly for a change and show greater respect for figures, facts and the truth.
(Speech at the DAP Pasir Pinji 919 UBAH nite in Ipoh on Wednesday, 19th September 2012 at 9pm)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
