I believed Najib Razak has crafted out a very perfect plan just before he took over the premiership. From the bottom of his heart he knew that umno has to change or it will not survive the 13 GE thus out came his 1Malaysia, ETP, NKRA etc when he officially became the 6th Prime Minister.
He started on the right footing and with his appointment of international consulting firms , like APCO, things were looking very good for him. If my guess was right, he must have had scheduled to hold snap poll within a year i.e any month in 2010 is good but he failed to do so or he would have won very comfortably.
He was at his peek during the 2010 umno general assembly with his hot and fiery speech calling to defend PutraJaya even if its "crushed bodies and lost lives". Indeed he is so Gung-ho that a sure big win is at hand and calling the rakyat not to take the risks with Pakatan Rakyat.
Yes, Najib's wish is to win big, anything less than a two third majority is unacceptable but with Pakatan Rakyat gaining more ground at the Sarawak state election things started to fall apart. With his moves toward liberalising the economy and aggressiveness for reform, there are strong resistance from within Umno, including his Deputy, as well as Malay rights group Perkasa.
He has to keep changing the date for GE 13 within himself for he is clueless as what to do. The resistance from within is too much for him to handle and he has no other way but make a retreat back to the old umno's way, like the famous saying "if you cannot beat them join them".
If you read and study carefully the speeches and his inaction over the many issues, you can see clearly that he is giving up the fight and discretely helping Pakatan Rakyat to capture PutraJaya. He knows very well that if umno does not want to change, he has no way of winning the two third majority back and if he cannot win it back he is a gonna himself.
Points to note:
His frequent trip overseas are more towards making friends (just in case) with his glamouring speeches that contradicted what transpired back home.
He has lost controlled over Utusan and Perkasa, unable to rein them in for their many misleading reports and speeches that are causing unhappiness among the rakyat.
He has to make a 'surprise announcement' on the abolishing of the ISA (which I truly believe that he is sincere) but was pressured to hold back till another two new laws are put in place.
Even though his statement 'don't be afraid to take risks' was made in a business conference, it is clear that he is also targeting the general public and in a way retracting his earlier call 'don't take risks with Pakatan Rakyat'
He could not be bothered whether its Umno, Perkasa or NGOs and mat rempits that are causing havoc in Penang knowing very well that their actions are detrimental to Umno/BN chances of recapturing Penang.
He tried very hard to win over the Non Malays (especially the Chinese) but failed miserably.
He has to look the other way over the NFC scandal and let other leaders including the MACC and PDRM rough it over to come out with a beautiful outcome 'there is nothing wrong or any crime being committed'
He is giving out hard cash to the rakyat not because he wanted their votes but to ensure whatever little money is left does not go into someone else pockets instead. With no money, Umno will be fighting against each other or work against the party.
He has to look stupid for the rakyat to see how he claimed that Umno is not racist when Umno youth and his Deputy were firing racist fireball at Umno General Assembly.
Najib may not be agreeable with the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011 but he is too weak now to fight for his planned reform and transformation. He has to play along and let the rakyat see that there is totally no hope that Umno will change.
These led me to the conclusion that Najib Razak is allowing Umno to do and say things that will make the rakyat angry and to rise against Umno. Another thing inside his mind is that there is practically no capable leader in the present Umno hierarchy that can make a good and honest PM.
So who else can govern better than Umno...your guess is as good as mine.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
The 13th GE: It’s an open field
By Sakmongkol AK47 | TMI
Rahim Tamby Chik (RTC) says there are attempts by the opposition parties to invite Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah to become PM. This will happen, Rahim says, if there is a hung Parliament. Such a situation is untenable, says Rahim, because it will create political instability. So Umno must work hard to get a two-thirds majority.
Those were the observations and musings by RTC on the political possibilities after the GE13. What is intriguing was his warning that a hung Parliament will create instability. I hope we will not be in such a situation. Malaysians would prefer a clear-cut victory one way or the other.
I am not going to respond to his nervous prognosis, being more interested on how such a scenario can possibly happen and what are the implications if it does. I don’t think we are going to have a hung Parliament. It will be clear-cut either way. I am also bemused at his attempt to involve Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah in such a scenario. To qualify as a participant in any future negotiations should a hung Parliament comes into being, TRH must be head of a political party. Right now, TRH is in Umno and doesn’t head a party nor is he a leader of any faction in Umno. Could Rahim’s advice be another attempt to isolate TRH from Umno?
TRH is far too principled to agree being appointed as leader of government on a personal-to-holder basis. He will be a figurehead. Oh, because Tengku has never disowned the ambitions to become PM comes the answer from Umno people. So my answer is: why should he not have that ambition? He was cheated to becoming one before. He has all the credentials to become one.
Here is an interesting piece of information. When certain Umno people wanted to kick out Abdullah Ahmad Badawi , they approached Tengku Razaleigh for a solution. Their agenda was only one — because of Najib’s hesitation they went to see Tengku Razaleigh asking him to stand as Umno president and Muhyiddin as deputy president. This group was made up of powerful people, united at that time by their intense disapproval and loathing of Abdullah. My point is this: at that time, they didn’t think it was inappropriate for Tengku Razaleigh to become Umno president and if he had won, he would have gone on to become PM. Tengku’s ambition wasn’t an issue. His age wasn’t an issue. The fundamental objective was to remove Pak Lah.
Why should the opposition parties invite Tengku Razaleigh to become PM if they could win the elections on their own? PAS has Hadi, the DAP has Lim Guan Eng and PKR has Anwar Ibrahim? This assessment presupposes that between the three, neither one accepts the leader of each party as a future PM. It also assumes further, that Tengku Razaleigh commands a number of elected MPs to give him standing in future negotiations. Where will he get the MPs? Rahim says 20-30 people are being lined up to stand as MPs who are aligned to Tengku Razaleigh. Where are these people? In Umno? Within the opposition camp?
So now, let us build up a case why a hung Parliament cannot happen. Just for the moment, let’s not talk about how Umno and BN can lose. Let’s talk about HOW the opposition — the DAP, PAS, PKR — can WIN. Let’s begin by asking: will PR lose its current 82 seats? Possible, but very unlikely. The seats which they lost when some people jumped ship will become theirs again. We won’t see the likes of Zahrain and his types in Parliament again.
DAP
The DAP now has 28 seats in Parliament. The DAP has gained substantial ground with Chinese voters. Chinese voters identify more with the DAP. By and large the Chinese do not require the intervention and involvement of the government to improve their wellbeing. They got to where they are now largely by their own efforts and independence. They want to preserve and reinforce that independent streak. How best for them to do that? By staking their future in a party that best represents the independence streak. They don’t want a sissy party perceived as easily compromised, intimidated or even bought over to represent them. The DAP is their preferred choice.
I mean that is the reason driving Hishammuddin pondering a move from Sembrong to Kota Tinggi. To the Chinese in Sembrong, and this doesn’t please me in saying, Hishammuddin is irrelevant to them. He knows if he stays in Sembrong, he can kiss his seat goodbye. They want to kick the ass of the man with the monkey grin.
The Chinese are less dependent on the government and by government, I mean the BN. They need champions for other requirements and that they find in the DAP. So the DAP will more or less pummel the MCA to the ground. They will take most of the 15 seats the MCA won in the 2008 elections. At the very best, the MCA can retain three seats. The worst-case scenario is the MCA wins nothing. The DAP will increase its seats by another 12 in Semenanjung. It gobbles up most of the seats now held by the MCA.
Why will the DAP win over the MCA? Because the Chinese believe the MCA has sold them out. Not necessarily by kowtowing to big brother Umno over many issues, but by retreating from representing the indomitable spirit of the Chinese. The MCA has lost its mandate. That’s how the DAP is winning the Chinese over — where the MCA failed.
On a more simplistic reasoning, the Chinese who have traditionally supported the MCA are asking: how is it almost all our Chinese MCA leaders are being persecuted and prosecuted by the courts once they leave office? How is it Umno leaders who did or are alleged to have done the same things are not? They know Malay leaders stole and swindled more.
What about the DAP in Sarawak? Generally speaking, the urban seats will be taken up by the DAP. That will be another eight or nine seats for the DAP. The seats held currently by SUPP will end up in the DAP’s hands. The DAP will get around 20 seats more than they got in 2008. This time around, the DAP will be in Parliament with probably 46-48 seats.
The newer and younger DAP leadership is taking on Malaysian politics with more finesse and it doesn’t now intimidate modern-thinking Malays as the older generation of DAP leaders once did. And it has shed its umbilical connections with the PAP. So now, if there are attempts for example to link the DAP as a stool or Trojan horse to Singapore’s PAP, such attempts will be laughed at.
PAS
It’s difficult to dislodge PAS from where they are now. Has any elected PAS rep jumped ship? This means PAS has been careful to select leaders on the basis of each having convictions and intense belief. It will likely do the same thing for the 13GE.
How can PAS win? It’s difficult for its opponent to dislodge PAS in its traditional role as champions of Islam and serving as the emotional anchor for conservative Malays. It will retain the many seats it now has in Kelantan. It will gain more seats in Terengganu which is expected to go back to PAS this time around. Some of the seats in Kedah, for example, currently held by the MCA and Umno will be won by PAS. The seat now occupied by the MCA’s Chor will be lost to PAS. PAS can win because it’s organised and is motivated by convictions. This is what sets it apart from Umno.
They are not out for personal glory and gratification. They have got a number of secular liberals in the party who can attract younger Malay voters. They will attract the serious thinkers among the younger Malay crowd who are not included in the tweeting about football or about Elton John variety.
PAS currently has 23 seats in Parliament. It will secure a large number in Terengganu, maybe one seat in Pahang, three in Kedah. My guess is they will increase their seats by another 7-8. PAS will enter the next Parliament with around 30-31 seats.
PKR
What about PKR? I thought PKR is the weak link in PR. Let’s not forget it won 31 seats in the 2008 elections. Those who jumped ship were either ex-Umno members (that tells us much about the quality and resolve of Umno members) and those who were selected on the basis of urgency and expedience. The “fluid” candidates will be removed this time around, and it is likely that PKR will select candidates with a firmer constitution. PKR will secure a number of seats in Sarawak, taking away seats from SPDP and PRS. Baru Bian will spearhead PKR’s drive in Sarawak. I am thinking that PKR will still enter Parliament with around 33-35 seats.
Let’s take the worst-case scenario. DAP= 46, PAS= 30, PKR= 33. The opposition has 109 seats. They are short of three seats to secure a majority.
We haven’t included Sabah in our discussion. With the disenchantment towards Musa Aman, it’s unlikely that Sabah Umno can retain all its seats it currently has. Unless of course they pay the voters in their constituencies. The non-Umno parties in Sabah are increasingly less enamoured with Musa Aman and they can’t defend their positions by sticking around with Mr Vacuum Cleaner. The opposition will probably gain around six seats outright.
To me Sabah is the powder keg. It’s likely to blow in the face of BN. the non-Malay indigenous people of Sabah are likely to pressure their parties to abandon BN. They have had numerous Umno leaders leading them in the past, all they got was continued marginalisation. They don’t see development in their areas. They don’t see electricity and roads and clean water after years of BN rule. It’s therefore possible for us to see 8-10 seats migrating to PR’s camp. We can say that around 14-16 seats from Sabah alone are PR inclined.
My own personal observations about the coming 13th GE is as follows: PR 118-125 seats, Umno-N= 98-104 seats.
There won’t be a hung Parliament.
Rahim Tamby Chik (RTC) says there are attempts by the opposition parties to invite Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah to become PM. This will happen, Rahim says, if there is a hung Parliament. Such a situation is untenable, says Rahim, because it will create political instability. So Umno must work hard to get a two-thirds majority.
Those were the observations and musings by RTC on the political possibilities after the GE13. What is intriguing was his warning that a hung Parliament will create instability. I hope we will not be in such a situation. Malaysians would prefer a clear-cut victory one way or the other.
I am not going to respond to his nervous prognosis, being more interested on how such a scenario can possibly happen and what are the implications if it does. I don’t think we are going to have a hung Parliament. It will be clear-cut either way. I am also bemused at his attempt to involve Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah in such a scenario. To qualify as a participant in any future negotiations should a hung Parliament comes into being, TRH must be head of a political party. Right now, TRH is in Umno and doesn’t head a party nor is he a leader of any faction in Umno. Could Rahim’s advice be another attempt to isolate TRH from Umno?
TRH is far too principled to agree being appointed as leader of government on a personal-to-holder basis. He will be a figurehead. Oh, because Tengku has never disowned the ambitions to become PM comes the answer from Umno people. So my answer is: why should he not have that ambition? He was cheated to becoming one before. He has all the credentials to become one.
Here is an interesting piece of information. When certain Umno people wanted to kick out Abdullah Ahmad Badawi , they approached Tengku Razaleigh for a solution. Their agenda was only one — because of Najib’s hesitation they went to see Tengku Razaleigh asking him to stand as Umno president and Muhyiddin as deputy president. This group was made up of powerful people, united at that time by their intense disapproval and loathing of Abdullah. My point is this: at that time, they didn’t think it was inappropriate for Tengku Razaleigh to become Umno president and if he had won, he would have gone on to become PM. Tengku’s ambition wasn’t an issue. His age wasn’t an issue. The fundamental objective was to remove Pak Lah.
Why should the opposition parties invite Tengku Razaleigh to become PM if they could win the elections on their own? PAS has Hadi, the DAP has Lim Guan Eng and PKR has Anwar Ibrahim? This assessment presupposes that between the three, neither one accepts the leader of each party as a future PM. It also assumes further, that Tengku Razaleigh commands a number of elected MPs to give him standing in future negotiations. Where will he get the MPs? Rahim says 20-30 people are being lined up to stand as MPs who are aligned to Tengku Razaleigh. Where are these people? In Umno? Within the opposition camp?
So now, let us build up a case why a hung Parliament cannot happen. Just for the moment, let’s not talk about how Umno and BN can lose. Let’s talk about HOW the opposition — the DAP, PAS, PKR — can WIN. Let’s begin by asking: will PR lose its current 82 seats? Possible, but very unlikely. The seats which they lost when some people jumped ship will become theirs again. We won’t see the likes of Zahrain and his types in Parliament again.
DAP
The DAP now has 28 seats in Parliament. The DAP has gained substantial ground with Chinese voters. Chinese voters identify more with the DAP. By and large the Chinese do not require the intervention and involvement of the government to improve their wellbeing. They got to where they are now largely by their own efforts and independence. They want to preserve and reinforce that independent streak. How best for them to do that? By staking their future in a party that best represents the independence streak. They don’t want a sissy party perceived as easily compromised, intimidated or even bought over to represent them. The DAP is their preferred choice.
I mean that is the reason driving Hishammuddin pondering a move from Sembrong to Kota Tinggi. To the Chinese in Sembrong, and this doesn’t please me in saying, Hishammuddin is irrelevant to them. He knows if he stays in Sembrong, he can kiss his seat goodbye. They want to kick the ass of the man with the monkey grin.
The Chinese are less dependent on the government and by government, I mean the BN. They need champions for other requirements and that they find in the DAP. So the DAP will more or less pummel the MCA to the ground. They will take most of the 15 seats the MCA won in the 2008 elections. At the very best, the MCA can retain three seats. The worst-case scenario is the MCA wins nothing. The DAP will increase its seats by another 12 in Semenanjung. It gobbles up most of the seats now held by the MCA.
Why will the DAP win over the MCA? Because the Chinese believe the MCA has sold them out. Not necessarily by kowtowing to big brother Umno over many issues, but by retreating from representing the indomitable spirit of the Chinese. The MCA has lost its mandate. That’s how the DAP is winning the Chinese over — where the MCA failed.
On a more simplistic reasoning, the Chinese who have traditionally supported the MCA are asking: how is it almost all our Chinese MCA leaders are being persecuted and prosecuted by the courts once they leave office? How is it Umno leaders who did or are alleged to have done the same things are not? They know Malay leaders stole and swindled more.
What about the DAP in Sarawak? Generally speaking, the urban seats will be taken up by the DAP. That will be another eight or nine seats for the DAP. The seats held currently by SUPP will end up in the DAP’s hands. The DAP will get around 20 seats more than they got in 2008. This time around, the DAP will be in Parliament with probably 46-48 seats.
The newer and younger DAP leadership is taking on Malaysian politics with more finesse and it doesn’t now intimidate modern-thinking Malays as the older generation of DAP leaders once did. And it has shed its umbilical connections with the PAP. So now, if there are attempts for example to link the DAP as a stool or Trojan horse to Singapore’s PAP, such attempts will be laughed at.
PAS
It’s difficult to dislodge PAS from where they are now. Has any elected PAS rep jumped ship? This means PAS has been careful to select leaders on the basis of each having convictions and intense belief. It will likely do the same thing for the 13GE.
How can PAS win? It’s difficult for its opponent to dislodge PAS in its traditional role as champions of Islam and serving as the emotional anchor for conservative Malays. It will retain the many seats it now has in Kelantan. It will gain more seats in Terengganu which is expected to go back to PAS this time around. Some of the seats in Kedah, for example, currently held by the MCA and Umno will be won by PAS. The seat now occupied by the MCA’s Chor will be lost to PAS. PAS can win because it’s organised and is motivated by convictions. This is what sets it apart from Umno.
They are not out for personal glory and gratification. They have got a number of secular liberals in the party who can attract younger Malay voters. They will attract the serious thinkers among the younger Malay crowd who are not included in the tweeting about football or about Elton John variety.
PAS currently has 23 seats in Parliament. It will secure a large number in Terengganu, maybe one seat in Pahang, three in Kedah. My guess is they will increase their seats by another 7-8. PAS will enter the next Parliament with around 30-31 seats.
PKR
What about PKR? I thought PKR is the weak link in PR. Let’s not forget it won 31 seats in the 2008 elections. Those who jumped ship were either ex-Umno members (that tells us much about the quality and resolve of Umno members) and those who were selected on the basis of urgency and expedience. The “fluid” candidates will be removed this time around, and it is likely that PKR will select candidates with a firmer constitution. PKR will secure a number of seats in Sarawak, taking away seats from SPDP and PRS. Baru Bian will spearhead PKR’s drive in Sarawak. I am thinking that PKR will still enter Parliament with around 33-35 seats.
Let’s take the worst-case scenario. DAP= 46, PAS= 30, PKR= 33. The opposition has 109 seats. They are short of three seats to secure a majority.
We haven’t included Sabah in our discussion. With the disenchantment towards Musa Aman, it’s unlikely that Sabah Umno can retain all its seats it currently has. Unless of course they pay the voters in their constituencies. The non-Umno parties in Sabah are increasingly less enamoured with Musa Aman and they can’t defend their positions by sticking around with Mr Vacuum Cleaner. The opposition will probably gain around six seats outright.
To me Sabah is the powder keg. It’s likely to blow in the face of BN. the non-Malay indigenous people of Sabah are likely to pressure their parties to abandon BN. They have had numerous Umno leaders leading them in the past, all they got was continued marginalisation. They don’t see development in their areas. They don’t see electricity and roads and clean water after years of BN rule. It’s therefore possible for us to see 8-10 seats migrating to PR’s camp. We can say that around 14-16 seats from Sabah alone are PR inclined.
My own personal observations about the coming 13th GE is as follows: PR 118-125 seats, Umno-N= 98-104 seats.
There won’t be a hung Parliament.
Are we stupid enough to fall for the same scam?
By Kee Thuan Chye | MK
I can’t help but wonder if the government really thinks that Malaysians are stupid. So stupid that we can be hoodwinked into believing that the changes they propose to our laws amount to actual reform.
Two months ago, when Prime Minister Najib Razak announced that newspapers would no longer have to renew their publishing licences annually, he might have expected us to go ga-ga and applaud and say that the media would now be freer.
But if we had done that, we would indeed have been stupid. Because we would not have realised that there is really no change.
Even if the newspapers need not renew their licences every year, the fact remains that the home minister still retains the power to suspend or close down any newspaper at any time – if he feels it is too free in expressing its views, or for whatever reasons.
So, whether there is renewal or not, it does not matter. As long as the home minister is still as powerful as before, your newspaper can still get into trouble with him. What’s more, his decision cannot be challenged in court.
Ah! If you now say that stinks like a scam, that the government is actually trying to deceive us, you would be right. But if you still think, like the mainstream media does, that there is actual reform in that licence renewal waiver, then the government would be right in thinking that Malaysians are stupid. Or, at least, some Malaysians.
You may be surprised that there are indeed such stupid Malaysians.
They are the ones who continue to support the ruling party and defend its policies, including its numerous flip-flops. They are the ones who will vote for that party at the next general election and say it is better to go with the devil they know than the devil they don’t know.
They are the ones who don’t know they are being fooled. They might even be people who know they are being fooled, but still choose to go with the devil who is fooling them. Needless to say, the ones who know they are being fooled and still continue to support the party are even more stupid.
Disturbing restrictions
And they will continue to be stupid if they believe that the Peaceful Assembly Bill, which the government tabled two days ago, is a step forward, guarantees more freedom, and will lead to Malaysia being “the best democracy” as promised by Najib.
Their stupidity will not allow them to see that it’s another attempt to hoodwink Malaysians. They will say it’s good because it allows Malaysians to gather in public without having any need to apply for a police permit.
Yes, on the surface, it looks good that a police permit is no longer required. But now consider the other conditions. The most disturbing one is this – although you don’t need a police, permit, your assembly cannot proceed if there is objection by the police.
What? Isn’t that like getting a police permit?
Let me repeat. You don’t need a permit but if the police object, your assembly can’t go on. So, what does that mean? Your assembly is still dependent on police approval, isn’t it? So what’s new?
If you straight away say, “That police permit waiver is a scam!”, then you’re not stupid. Because there is no change. And you can see it for what it is.
In fact, it has now become worse. You have to give the police advance notice of your assembly 30 days before it is due to be held. Thirty days! That’s a long time to plan.
And what happens if you want to stage a spontaneous assembly? What if the government does something cruel and unfair and unlawful and citizens feel compelled to take to the streets to protest against it immediately?
Well, that will be considered illegal. And if you don’t provide the 30-day notice, you can be fined up to RM10,000!
Youth discriminated
And did I mention the words “streets” and “protest”?
Well, according to the new bill, no street protests will be allowed.
What? Then what’s the point of an assembly? Only for socialising? For merely hanging about in public? No placards? No cheering? No chanting?
The new bill is obviously designed to protect the government, not to give more democratic space to the citizens. It is designed to prevent people from protesting against the government.
In fact, the new bill transgresses the rights of freedom guaranteed in the federal constitution.
One, if you are below the age of 21, you cannot organise an assembly. Is that fair? Are those below that age not citizens who should enjoy equal rights? Is this democracy? Is this “the best democracy”?
Two, if you are below the age of 15, you cannot take part in an assembly except cultural and religious ones, like funeral processions, or events approved by the home minister. Again, discrimination. Again, power to the home minister.
Three, areas at which public gatherings cannot be held have now been specified. Has this ever been done before?
Bill gives cops more power
And if you were to look at the list of prohibited areas, which include petrol stations, hospitals, mosques, fire stations, kindergartens, schools, etc, you would see that the democratic space – also in physical terms – has become even smaller. Especially since there must also be a buffer zone of 50 metres around each of these areas that public gatherings cannot traverse.
Most districts, especially in city centres, have a few of such areas in close proximity to one another. As such, the interstices between the buffers would be too small to accommodate a mass of people.
How then would a public assembly be able to fill these little spaces? This condition is clearly aimed at discouraging assemblies in city centres.
Four, the police have even more power now. They can decide to arrest any assembly participants they deem a problem, and those arrested can be fined up to RM20,000. Is that providing more freedom or more deterrence? And who is to say the police decisions may not be arbitrary?
So, my fellow Malaysians, are we going to be stupid? Are we going to accept this bill that discriminates against some of us, throttles our freedom and disregards the constitution?
Are we going to be fools and be thankful to the government and say the bill is providing reform and taking Malaysia forward, and should therefore be passed into law? Are we going to be twice bitten by the same scam and not be aware of it?
Well, there’s no fine imposed yet for taking to the streets. And there’s still leeway to do it without giving 30 days’ advance notice. Once the law is passed, however, it will be too late.
KEE THUAN CHYE is the author of ‘March 8: The Day Malaysia Woke Up’, which just won 3rd prize in the Popular Readers’ Choice Awards. It has also been translated into Chinese.
I can’t help but wonder if the government really thinks that Malaysians are stupid. So stupid that we can be hoodwinked into believing that the changes they propose to our laws amount to actual reform.
Two months ago, when Prime Minister Najib Razak announced that newspapers would no longer have to renew their publishing licences annually, he might have expected us to go ga-ga and applaud and say that the media would now be freer.
But if we had done that, we would indeed have been stupid. Because we would not have realised that there is really no change.
Even if the newspapers need not renew their licences every year, the fact remains that the home minister still retains the power to suspend or close down any newspaper at any time – if he feels it is too free in expressing its views, or for whatever reasons.
So, whether there is renewal or not, it does not matter. As long as the home minister is still as powerful as before, your newspaper can still get into trouble with him. What’s more, his decision cannot be challenged in court.
Ah! If you now say that stinks like a scam, that the government is actually trying to deceive us, you would be right. But if you still think, like the mainstream media does, that there is actual reform in that licence renewal waiver, then the government would be right in thinking that Malaysians are stupid. Or, at least, some Malaysians.
You may be surprised that there are indeed such stupid Malaysians.
They are the ones who continue to support the ruling party and defend its policies, including its numerous flip-flops. They are the ones who will vote for that party at the next general election and say it is better to go with the devil they know than the devil they don’t know.
They are the ones who don’t know they are being fooled. They might even be people who know they are being fooled, but still choose to go with the devil who is fooling them. Needless to say, the ones who know they are being fooled and still continue to support the party are even more stupid.
Disturbing restrictions
And they will continue to be stupid if they believe that the Peaceful Assembly Bill, which the government tabled two days ago, is a step forward, guarantees more freedom, and will lead to Malaysia being “the best democracy” as promised by Najib.
Their stupidity will not allow them to see that it’s another attempt to hoodwink Malaysians. They will say it’s good because it allows Malaysians to gather in public without having any need to apply for a police permit.
Yes, on the surface, it looks good that a police permit is no longer required. But now consider the other conditions. The most disturbing one is this – although you don’t need a police, permit, your assembly cannot proceed if there is objection by the police.
What? Isn’t that like getting a police permit?
Let me repeat. You don’t need a permit but if the police object, your assembly can’t go on. So, what does that mean? Your assembly is still dependent on police approval, isn’t it? So what’s new?
If you straight away say, “That police permit waiver is a scam!”, then you’re not stupid. Because there is no change. And you can see it for what it is.
In fact, it has now become worse. You have to give the police advance notice of your assembly 30 days before it is due to be held. Thirty days! That’s a long time to plan.
And what happens if you want to stage a spontaneous assembly? What if the government does something cruel and unfair and unlawful and citizens feel compelled to take to the streets to protest against it immediately?
Well, that will be considered illegal. And if you don’t provide the 30-day notice, you can be fined up to RM10,000!
Youth discriminated
And did I mention the words “streets” and “protest”?
Well, according to the new bill, no street protests will be allowed.
What? Then what’s the point of an assembly? Only for socialising? For merely hanging about in public? No placards? No cheering? No chanting?
The new bill is obviously designed to protect the government, not to give more democratic space to the citizens. It is designed to prevent people from protesting against the government.
In fact, the new bill transgresses the rights of freedom guaranteed in the federal constitution.
One, if you are below the age of 21, you cannot organise an assembly. Is that fair? Are those below that age not citizens who should enjoy equal rights? Is this democracy? Is this “the best democracy”?
Two, if you are below the age of 15, you cannot take part in an assembly except cultural and religious ones, like funeral processions, or events approved by the home minister. Again, discrimination. Again, power to the home minister.
Three, areas at which public gatherings cannot be held have now been specified. Has this ever been done before?
Bill gives cops more power
And if you were to look at the list of prohibited areas, which include petrol stations, hospitals, mosques, fire stations, kindergartens, schools, etc, you would see that the democratic space – also in physical terms – has become even smaller. Especially since there must also be a buffer zone of 50 metres around each of these areas that public gatherings cannot traverse.
Most districts, especially in city centres, have a few of such areas in close proximity to one another. As such, the interstices between the buffers would be too small to accommodate a mass of people.
How then would a public assembly be able to fill these little spaces? This condition is clearly aimed at discouraging assemblies in city centres.
Four, the police have even more power now. They can decide to arrest any assembly participants they deem a problem, and those arrested can be fined up to RM20,000. Is that providing more freedom or more deterrence? And who is to say the police decisions may not be arbitrary?
So, my fellow Malaysians, are we going to be stupid? Are we going to accept this bill that discriminates against some of us, throttles our freedom and disregards the constitution?
Are we going to be fools and be thankful to the government and say the bill is providing reform and taking Malaysia forward, and should therefore be passed into law? Are we going to be twice bitten by the same scam and not be aware of it?
Well, there’s no fine imposed yet for taking to the streets. And there’s still leeway to do it without giving 30 days’ advance notice. Once the law is passed, however, it will be too late.
KEE THUAN CHYE is the author of ‘March 8: The Day Malaysia Woke Up’, which just won 3rd prize in the Popular Readers’ Choice Awards. It has also been translated into Chinese.
Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011: Unconstitutional and anti-democratic
By Tommy Thomas | TMI
Why is it always the case that the Malaysian government, in the guise of improving the freedoms of its citizen, enacts laws that actually erode liberties?
Since 1960 when the Emergency was revoked, only to be immediately replaced by the dreaded Internal Security Act, 1960 (“ISA”), successive governments have taken state action to the detriment of its people. The Peaceful Assembly Bill, 2011, which had its first reading in the Federal Parliament yesterday, is another example of such retrograde law making.
I cannot believe that after 54 years of Merdeka in the 11th year of the 21st century, the Executive has the audacity to present a Bill, which, in its own Explanatory Statement, describes it as “one of the efforts initiated by the government to undertake the transformation of the existing legal framework in relation to the constitutional rights of citizens to assemble”.
Fundamental liberties are enshrined in Part II of the Federal Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Article 10(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution provides that “all citizens have the right to assemble peacefully and without arms”.
Freedom to assemble is not absolute; thus, the Federal Parliament may enact laws that have the effect of restricting such freedom in the interest of “security” or “public order”. Case law has established that such Parliamentary restriction must be “reasonable” by objective standards.
Thus, Parliament cannot suffocate the enjoyment of such liberties. Freedom of assembly is invariably exercised together with other fundamental liberties like personal liberty (Article 5 (1)); freedom of movement (Article 9(2)); freedom of expression (Article 10(1)(a); freedom of association (Article 10(1)(c); freedom of religion (Article 11) and so forth.
In perhaps the most important constitutional case in our history, a five-member Federal Court in 1992 in the Nordin Salleh case, held that any state action that would render illusory or meaningless the exercise of any fundamental liberty is unconstitutional. Hence, the Court looks at the effect or consequence of state action.
It is against this background of constitutionalism, that the Peaceful Assembly Bill, 2011 must be scrutinised.
My first reservation is philosophical. The Bill introduces the concept of “interests, rights and freedoms of other persons”, with the police having to weigh such interests, rights and freedoms with that of the persons who wish to assemble.
Hence, the inherent clash between Executive and citizen which characterises the eternal struggle for civil liberty has been extended to include the rights of other people — a classic extension of one of the oldest doctrines in politics : divide and rule.
In my opinion, a law that is intended to promote the exercise by citizen A and his friends of their right to assemble should not in any way be dependent on the right of citizen X and his friends to object or veto the former’s right to assemble.
The fundamental freedoms under Part II of our Constitution do not contemplate such clashes between different groups of citizens which would inevitable develop into a contest between majority and minority, with the minority always being the casualty.
Accordingly, all references to “the interests, rights and freedoms of other persons” in the Bill are, in my opinion, without any constitutional basis. The same point can be made about the use of new expressions like “counter assembly” and “simultaneous assemblies”.
Hence, the Parliamentary draftsman is deliberately giving power to the police to impose stringent restrictions and conditions under Paragraph 15 of the Bill that would have the effect of completely nullifying any freedom to assemble.
The Bill introduces a new type of assembly that I believe is unprecedented under our law, viz “street protest”, which is defined in Paragraph 3 to mean: “an open air assembly which begins with a meeting at a specified place and consists of walking in a mass march or rally for the purpose of objecting to or advancing a particular cause or causes”.
Paragraph 4(1) of the Bill imposes an outright ban on street protests. The current position is that if the police issue a license under Section 27 (2) of the Police Act, 1967, a “street protest” is permitted. Hence, the new provision in this “reforming” Bill make it worse by totally banning such types of assemblies.
This would be unconstitutional. Does this mean that, under this Bill, only assemblies that are not “street protest” are permitted? Yes.
What then are the features of such a permitted or sanitised form of “assembly”?
Part IV contains 11 separate provisions that specify the requirements before the police would approve the holding of such an assembly.
To start off, written notice of at least 30 days must be given to the police. Hence, spontaneous gatherings are not permitted. The First Schedule to the Bill contains 12 categories of “prohibited places”, 50 meters from where assemblies cannot be held.
The Bill is so extensive in its reach, indeed, of Orwellian proportions, that daily innocent activities like funerals, weddings, family gatherings and meetings of associations have to be expressly excluded! The best way to test the efficacy of the Bill is to ask whether the assemblies organised by Bersih (1) or Hindraf before the General Election of 2008 would be permitted under the Bill.
The answer is clearly in the negative because they would be deemed “street protest”, and hence banned. Likewise, the lawyers march to Putrajaya in 2007 to protest against the VK Lingam tape. Finally, Bersih (2) in July 2011 would also not be permitted.
And, yet, this Bill is presented by the government as a piece of reforming law to enhance political space! Try as one may, one cannot find any redeeming features in the Bill. On the contrary, the provisions are offensive, and will certainly not pass muster.
How in the name of “security” and “public order” this Bill can be enacted by Parliament is absolutely baffling. Are our leaders so out of touch? Can they ever tell the truth?
Are they aware of “Occupy Wall Street” as a global protest movement? What about the Arab Spring? Even sleepy, dull Singapore has had some kind of political awakening this year.
But let me conclude with our own example from history. Some 65 years ago, just a year after the Second World War had ended, and the British colonial power had returned to Malaya, they had the temerity to introduce the Malayan Union plan in 1946.
“Street protests” as defined in Paragraph 3 of the Peaceful Assembly Bill, 2011, became the order of the day. Indeed, Umno was founded by Onn Jaafar to lead the protests against Malayan Union.
The supremely ironic question is, if Hishammuddin Hussein had been in charge of such matters in 1946, would Umno have been founded, and his grandfather allowed to demonstrate and protest?
I call on all freedom-loving Malaysians to immediately contact their Members of Parliament to vote against this terrible Bill. Indeed, the government should withdraw it.
I would expect the Malaysian Bar to lead the opposition to this poorly designed law that is not only an insult to our constitutional rights, but also to our intelligence.
Tommy Thomas is a senior lawyer of the Malaysian Bar.
Why is it always the case that the Malaysian government, in the guise of improving the freedoms of its citizen, enacts laws that actually erode liberties?
Since 1960 when the Emergency was revoked, only to be immediately replaced by the dreaded Internal Security Act, 1960 (“ISA”), successive governments have taken state action to the detriment of its people. The Peaceful Assembly Bill, 2011, which had its first reading in the Federal Parliament yesterday, is another example of such retrograde law making.
I cannot believe that after 54 years of Merdeka in the 11th year of the 21st century, the Executive has the audacity to present a Bill, which, in its own Explanatory Statement, describes it as “one of the efforts initiated by the government to undertake the transformation of the existing legal framework in relation to the constitutional rights of citizens to assemble”.
Fundamental liberties are enshrined in Part II of the Federal Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Article 10(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution provides that “all citizens have the right to assemble peacefully and without arms”.
Freedom to assemble is not absolute; thus, the Federal Parliament may enact laws that have the effect of restricting such freedom in the interest of “security” or “public order”. Case law has established that such Parliamentary restriction must be “reasonable” by objective standards.
Thus, Parliament cannot suffocate the enjoyment of such liberties. Freedom of assembly is invariably exercised together with other fundamental liberties like personal liberty (Article 5 (1)); freedom of movement (Article 9(2)); freedom of expression (Article 10(1)(a); freedom of association (Article 10(1)(c); freedom of religion (Article 11) and so forth.
In perhaps the most important constitutional case in our history, a five-member Federal Court in 1992 in the Nordin Salleh case, held that any state action that would render illusory or meaningless the exercise of any fundamental liberty is unconstitutional. Hence, the Court looks at the effect or consequence of state action.
It is against this background of constitutionalism, that the Peaceful Assembly Bill, 2011 must be scrutinised.
My first reservation is philosophical. The Bill introduces the concept of “interests, rights and freedoms of other persons”, with the police having to weigh such interests, rights and freedoms with that of the persons who wish to assemble.
Hence, the inherent clash between Executive and citizen which characterises the eternal struggle for civil liberty has been extended to include the rights of other people — a classic extension of one of the oldest doctrines in politics : divide and rule.
In my opinion, a law that is intended to promote the exercise by citizen A and his friends of their right to assemble should not in any way be dependent on the right of citizen X and his friends to object or veto the former’s right to assemble.
The fundamental freedoms under Part II of our Constitution do not contemplate such clashes between different groups of citizens which would inevitable develop into a contest between majority and minority, with the minority always being the casualty.
Accordingly, all references to “the interests, rights and freedoms of other persons” in the Bill are, in my opinion, without any constitutional basis. The same point can be made about the use of new expressions like “counter assembly” and “simultaneous assemblies”.
Hence, the Parliamentary draftsman is deliberately giving power to the police to impose stringent restrictions and conditions under Paragraph 15 of the Bill that would have the effect of completely nullifying any freedom to assemble.
The Bill introduces a new type of assembly that I believe is unprecedented under our law, viz “street protest”, which is defined in Paragraph 3 to mean: “an open air assembly which begins with a meeting at a specified place and consists of walking in a mass march or rally for the purpose of objecting to or advancing a particular cause or causes”.
Paragraph 4(1) of the Bill imposes an outright ban on street protests. The current position is that if the police issue a license under Section 27 (2) of the Police Act, 1967, a “street protest” is permitted. Hence, the new provision in this “reforming” Bill make it worse by totally banning such types of assemblies.
This would be unconstitutional. Does this mean that, under this Bill, only assemblies that are not “street protest” are permitted? Yes.
What then are the features of such a permitted or sanitised form of “assembly”?
Part IV contains 11 separate provisions that specify the requirements before the police would approve the holding of such an assembly.
To start off, written notice of at least 30 days must be given to the police. Hence, spontaneous gatherings are not permitted. The First Schedule to the Bill contains 12 categories of “prohibited places”, 50 meters from where assemblies cannot be held.
The Bill is so extensive in its reach, indeed, of Orwellian proportions, that daily innocent activities like funerals, weddings, family gatherings and meetings of associations have to be expressly excluded! The best way to test the efficacy of the Bill is to ask whether the assemblies organised by Bersih (1) or Hindraf before the General Election of 2008 would be permitted under the Bill.
The answer is clearly in the negative because they would be deemed “street protest”, and hence banned. Likewise, the lawyers march to Putrajaya in 2007 to protest against the VK Lingam tape. Finally, Bersih (2) in July 2011 would also not be permitted.
And, yet, this Bill is presented by the government as a piece of reforming law to enhance political space! Try as one may, one cannot find any redeeming features in the Bill. On the contrary, the provisions are offensive, and will certainly not pass muster.
How in the name of “security” and “public order” this Bill can be enacted by Parliament is absolutely baffling. Are our leaders so out of touch? Can they ever tell the truth?
Are they aware of “Occupy Wall Street” as a global protest movement? What about the Arab Spring? Even sleepy, dull Singapore has had some kind of political awakening this year.
But let me conclude with our own example from history. Some 65 years ago, just a year after the Second World War had ended, and the British colonial power had returned to Malaya, they had the temerity to introduce the Malayan Union plan in 1946.
“Street protests” as defined in Paragraph 3 of the Peaceful Assembly Bill, 2011, became the order of the day. Indeed, Umno was founded by Onn Jaafar to lead the protests against Malayan Union.
The supremely ironic question is, if Hishammuddin Hussein had been in charge of such matters in 1946, would Umno have been founded, and his grandfather allowed to demonstrate and protest?
I call on all freedom-loving Malaysians to immediately contact their Members of Parliament to vote against this terrible Bill. Indeed, the government should withdraw it.
I would expect the Malaysian Bar to lead the opposition to this poorly designed law that is not only an insult to our constitutional rights, but also to our intelligence.
Tommy Thomas is a senior lawyer of the Malaysian Bar.
Let the people judge
by Lucius Goon | TMI
There is a new mantra in Putrajaya: when they are caught in a tricky or difficult situation, they say “Let the People Decide”.
There is a reason why Muhyiddin Yassin and Hishammuddin Hussein have suddenly become lovers of the public opinion. It is because they hope to end whatever debate is going on, to recoup their position and then hope that Malaysians forget about the particularly embarrassing event.
Muhyiddin caught at the centre of National Feedlot Corporation (let us not be mistaken: he is a central figure in this scandal because he approved the project), says that the public upon reading Shahrizat Jalil husband’s porous defence will not swallow the lies of the Opposition.
The DPM just wants to end the debate on an issue which can embroil himself.
Now Hishammuddin Hussein, the man who denied the will of the people for free elections, is also keen for the people to judge the government’s actions in using the ISA to arrest 13 alleged terrorists.
So since we are all being supporters of public opinion, why don’t Malaysians also judge:
1) Why the rich and political elite in Malaysia are getting richer but not from productive industries but from inflated contracts, sudden market activity and sweet deals.
The talk of the town has been how Harvest Court Industries shares soared 27 times from a low of eight sen to 2.14 before Bursa Malaysia made it a designated stock.
Of some interest perhaps is news that the 28-year-old son of Najib Razak, Nazifuddin Najib, bought a 2.2 per cent stake in Harvest at RM1.50. Wow, a 28-year-old genius with cash to throw.
Maybe the people should judge how the political elite seem to have the most brilliant offspring. I mean the top executives of NFC are Shahrizat’s young children.
2) Why don’t Malaysians also judge why defence spending is not subject to scrutiny by Parliament.
According to a report by Transparency International, Bangladesh, Liberia, Papua New Guinea is more transparent in defence spending than Malaysia.
Maybe that is why the patrol boats and aircraft and submarines we buy are so many times higher than what other countries pay.
Zahid Hamidi is on a spending spree and not many people know how much he is paying or what he is buying.
3) Why don’t Malaysians also judge why the son-in-law of the DPM is involved in the lucrative biometric scanning project for foreign labour?
This is an interesting question to ponder because isn’t Muhyiddin head of some cabinet committee which overlooks foreign workers.
4) Malaysians should also judge how the political elite are able to send their sons and daughter’s to expensive boarding schools in the UK and Australia on their government salaries.
5) Malaysians should also judge how it is that young Umno politicians seem to have well-tailored clothes, luxury cars and entourage of hangers on but no regular employment.
What exactly does Khairy Jamaluddin do for a living?
I agree wholeheartedly with Muhyiddin and Hishammuddin that Malaysians should exercise their powers of judgement but don’t depend on the mainstream media.
Read the online media and devour rumours because in Malaysia, the unofficial stuff is often true.
There is a new mantra in Putrajaya: when they are caught in a tricky or difficult situation, they say “Let the People Decide”.
There is a reason why Muhyiddin Yassin and Hishammuddin Hussein have suddenly become lovers of the public opinion. It is because they hope to end whatever debate is going on, to recoup their position and then hope that Malaysians forget about the particularly embarrassing event.
Muhyiddin caught at the centre of National Feedlot Corporation (let us not be mistaken: he is a central figure in this scandal because he approved the project), says that the public upon reading Shahrizat Jalil husband’s porous defence will not swallow the lies of the Opposition.
The DPM just wants to end the debate on an issue which can embroil himself.
Now Hishammuddin Hussein, the man who denied the will of the people for free elections, is also keen for the people to judge the government’s actions in using the ISA to arrest 13 alleged terrorists.
So since we are all being supporters of public opinion, why don’t Malaysians also judge:
1) Why the rich and political elite in Malaysia are getting richer but not from productive industries but from inflated contracts, sudden market activity and sweet deals.
The talk of the town has been how Harvest Court Industries shares soared 27 times from a low of eight sen to 2.14 before Bursa Malaysia made it a designated stock.
Of some interest perhaps is news that the 28-year-old son of Najib Razak, Nazifuddin Najib, bought a 2.2 per cent stake in Harvest at RM1.50. Wow, a 28-year-old genius with cash to throw.
Maybe the people should judge how the political elite seem to have the most brilliant offspring. I mean the top executives of NFC are Shahrizat’s young children.
2) Why don’t Malaysians also judge why defence spending is not subject to scrutiny by Parliament.
According to a report by Transparency International, Bangladesh, Liberia, Papua New Guinea is more transparent in defence spending than Malaysia.
Maybe that is why the patrol boats and aircraft and submarines we buy are so many times higher than what other countries pay.
Zahid Hamidi is on a spending spree and not many people know how much he is paying or what he is buying.
3) Why don’t Malaysians also judge why the son-in-law of the DPM is involved in the lucrative biometric scanning project for foreign labour?
This is an interesting question to ponder because isn’t Muhyiddin head of some cabinet committee which overlooks foreign workers.
4) Malaysians should also judge how the political elite are able to send their sons and daughter’s to expensive boarding schools in the UK and Australia on their government salaries.
5) Malaysians should also judge how it is that young Umno politicians seem to have well-tailored clothes, luxury cars and entourage of hangers on but no regular employment.
What exactly does Khairy Jamaluddin do for a living?
I agree wholeheartedly with Muhyiddin and Hishammuddin that Malaysians should exercise their powers of judgement but don’t depend on the mainstream media.
Read the online media and devour rumours because in Malaysia, the unofficial stuff is often true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
