By TAY TIAN YAN
Sin Chew Daily
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has threatened to use the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA) and the police has arrested Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) leaders. It seems like the authorities have made up their minds to repress until the end. Would it work? Is there a better solution?
Dr Toh Kin Woon from the Gerakan Party, which is a component of the ruling National Front coalition, has expressed his views clearly in an article entitled “I do not agree with the country’s leaders.” He said the country’s leaders have criticised the mass protest but no one has actually tried to understand the Indians' discontent and disappointment that made them take to the streets in the first place.
Similarly, the “Walk for Justice” by Malaysian Bar Council and the “BERSIH March (the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections)” were disrupted by the government and police.
If the government does not face to the issues of poverty, justice and fair elections and look for solutions, this will only fuel public disaffection. The problems will not go away no matter how hard the government tries to supress them.
The greatest threat to a nation's peace and stability is the failure of the government to properly handle public resentment. People saluted Dr Toh for his forthright voice even though he is part of the National Front coalition.
Dr Toh does not care much about his own career and he would not keep quiet if it is time for him to speak up. Are the younger generation leaders who are trying to seek reform from within the system laughing behind him for not understanding of time?
Probably, they would rather close their eyes, cover their ears and pretend that nothing has happened.
However, they can't play save when the problems involve them.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
01/12: Will Malaysia crackdown on its dissidents?
01/12: They call him Patrick Badawi
Bizman back in the news with controversial project
Leslie Lau
TODAYonline
THEY call him "Patrick Badawi", and it is not meant to be a compliment.
Since the somewhat vicious political skirmishes erupted more than one year ago between Malaysia's former and current prime ministers, prominent businessman Patrick Lim has been among those caught in the crossfire.
For his close ties to Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, the acerbic Dr Mahathir Mohamad dubbed him "Patrick Badawi".
And the moniker has stuck, at least among critics of Mr Abdullah's administration.
Mr Lim, 42, is back in the news again thanks to a controversial project in the Prime Minister's home state, the Penang Global City Centre, which is likely to be Malaysia's biggest private property project. Critics say the project, to be developed on a 104-ha site now occupied by the Penang Turf Club, will create traffic and property oversupply problems.
Mr Lim has rarely responded to insinuations that he is a crony of Mr Abdullah.
Mr Lim's star has certainly risen since Mr Abdullah came to power in 2003. But he is just one of the businessmen considered influential in Mr Abdullah's administration and is part of the "changing of the guard" in the Malaysian corporate scene.
He is a sharp-dresser and enjoys the trappings of the good life. His personal friends include the glamorous and powerful, such as former Bond girl Michelle Yeoh and her fiance, Ferrari director Jean Todt.
The fact that Mr Lim is considered a friend of the Prime Minister's family is the subject of criticism mixed with envy.
He is known to be close to Mr Kamaluddin, Mr Abdullah's only son, and other members of the Prime Minister's close circle of advisers.
The Internet is rife with allegations against Mr Lim, most of which are unfounded or at least unproven.
In a recent interview with financial newspaper The Edge, Mr Lim gave a rare response to being called "Patrick Badawi".
"People give me names and all that. I don't know. I also go racing with Mokhzani (the son of former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad) but nobody calls me 'Patrick Mahathir'."
Of course, his surname belies his ancestry, which is a mix of Chinese, Ceylonese, Irish, Scottish and German.
The insults notwithstanding, Mr Lim has pointed out that his vision is to turn his company, Equine Capital, into Malaysia's version of Ayala Corporation in the Philippines or even Singapore Land.
Mr Lim first hit the Malaysian corporate scene in the 1990s when - with the help of some financial backing from his wealthy father-in-law - his company started Equine Park, a housing development for the well-heeled amid the rolling hills near the Federal administrative capital of Putrajaya.
The Equine Park development is also the setting for an equestrian complex and riding club which was built with Britain's Princess Anne's former husband, Captain Mark Philips, as consultant.
Horses have been a big part of Mr Lim's ancestry. His father is the late Dr George Lim, one of Malaysia's most famous veterinary surgeons and a horse-racing official. Mr Lim actually grew up in a house next to the Perak Turf Club in Ipoh.
Besides Equine Park, his company has developed two other adjoining townships on its 303-ha land bank.
Mr Lim's real rise to prominence on the corporate scene, however, began only a few years ago when he was selected by Mr Abdullah to develop Pulau Duyong near Kuala Terengganu and organise the Monsoon Cup, a premier yacht race which has put the sleepy east coast state on the world map.
In a short time, the Monsoon Cup has become a major warm-up for teams planning an assault on the America's Cup.
Using the Monsoon Cup as a platform, Mr Lim persuaded Ferrari's Mr Todt to buy property on Pulau Duyong. Formula 1 legend Michael Schumacher is also said to have shown interest after a visit to Terengganu to watch a yacht race.
With a mega-project under his belt, and a VVIP friend by his side, Mr Lim's star is likely to continue its rise.
The writer has worked in regional and international newspapers and TV stations and has reported on Malaysia for more than 15 years.
01/12: What it means for Samy Vellu
Christie Loh
TODAYonline
FLAMBOYANT Malaysian politician S Samy Vellu is like a man used to walking over beds of burning coals.
Through cheating allegations in a telecom stock controversy and embarrassing gaffes in infrastructure projects, this Works Minister has survived 28 years so far to be the country's longest serving ethnic Indian in Cabinet.
But will the latest trial, coming ahead of elections widely tipped to take place next year, end his grip on power?
When some 10,000 Indian Malaysians marched angrily through the heart of Kuala Lumpur last Sunday, braving tear gas and nausea-inducing water cannons, their protest against decades of marginalisation was also seen as a slap in the face for their long-time community leader, Mr Samy Vellu.
As president of the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) since 1979, the 71-year-old has been the rare Indian voice in the 14-party governing coalition Barisan Nasional.
But while he has promised repeatedly to improve the lot of the minority race dominated by plantation workers and squatters, some feel the man in the sharp suits and shiny Mercedes Benz has not delivered.
Look at the equity of the nation's two million ethnic Indians, said political analyst P Ramasamy, who is also international secretary of Malaysian opposition Democratic Action Party. They make up 8 per cent of the population, yet their share of the economy is just 1.5 per cent today and little changed from the 1 per cent in the 1970s, no thanks to the policies favouring the indigenous Malays, known as bumiputeras, since 1971.
In contrast, Malays have 19.4 per cent of corporate wealth and the ethnic Chinese, 38.5 per cent. It is the same story when it comes to education, wealth and job prospects, although a few Indians do famously excel in areas such as medicine and law.
Beyond economic stress, Professor Ramasamy said a series of religious incidents have "traumatised" the Hindus: High-profile tussles with Muslims over burial rites for some converts and the insensitive way in which the authorities tore down and relocated hundreds of Hindu and Chinese temples, said to be illegally built, to make way for new buildings.
"Samy Vellu's presence, or non-presence, doesn't make any impact on the Indian community. MIC is just a joke for us," said Prof Ramasamy.
The community's discontent has been seething for years, but it needed an avenue and the "right" timing before spilling onto the streets.
"It is only with the advent of a civil society movement that has concentrated the cause of the ethnic minority that this sort of subterranean sentiment, which has already been building over the years, gets an outlet," Associate Professor Joseph Liow, of the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, told Weekend Xtra.
The "outlet" is the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf), a non-government organisation formed in 2005 and rapidly gaining prominence for voicing the community's frustrations. It moved in while MIC leaders were caught up in internal politics, and mobilised Indians nationwide last weekend - not just the working class, but professionals such as doctors and lawyers, too.
The fact that the Hindraf march went ahead despite Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's appeals to the people not to join in suggests the Prime Minister and Mr Samy Vellu "both have lost control and influence over the more vocal elements of the minority Indian community", said Associate Professor Hussin Mutalib, political scientist at National University of Singapore.
He added: "These are indeed trying times for the leadership of PM Abdullah and Samy Vellu as leader of the MIC."
Still, the MIC boss is determined to hang on. In a Reuters report this week, Mr Samy Vellu said he would hand over the party reins only at "an appropriate time". He also wrote off the protesters as mere "troublemakers" and said: "We are confident of winning the next elections handsomely."
His confidence may not be misplaced.
For one, Mr Samy Vellu has few competitors. Within the party, where he is into his 10th term as president, he has ensured there are no alternative powers, said Assoc Prof Liow.
There is a similar drought externally. MIC is the only Indian-based party, besides the one-week-old independent Malaysian Indian United Party led by businessman K S Nallakaruppan.
The multi-racial People's Progressive Party, half of whose membership is ethnic Indian, could try stepping in to help fellow Barisan ally, MIC. But Assoc Prof Liow feels PPP is preoccupied with internal battles.
"I don't think there is someone who really stands out in the community who is already in politics," he said.
The community's political star has somehow always been Mr Samy Vellu, the poor boy made good. The son of a rubber tapper, he went from doing odd jobs to becoming a certified architect. Similarly, he advanced politically through the MIC ranks over 20 years to become chief of the third largest party in Barisan, where the power-sharing structure landed him a senior ministerial post.
This long-time Member of Parliament for Perak's Sungai Siput constituency has a "strong network on the ground", said Assoc Prof Liow.
Numerous shoddy public works, such as burst water pipes in the Immigration Office and a major mudslide along a part of the North-South Expressway, may have hurt Mr Samy Vellu's name and led to calls for his head, but they have never resulted in his resignation or sacking.
Could the upcoming polls, which must take place by May 2009, seal his fate?
As Mr Abdullah has instructed the MIC to form a special team to study the Indian community's socio-economic woes, Mr Samy Vellu may still be able to recover lost fans.
NUS' Assoc Prof Hussin is less optimistic: "Although Indians constitute a small percentage of the electoral votes, in border-line cases, their frustrations at the Barisan coalition may impair its performance."
If MIC truly does not fare well, it will be "a sign of weakness on the part of Samy Vellu", said Assoc Prof Liow. Following that, challengers are likely to emerge amid "a push from the bottom" to relook the party leadership.
At MIC's 51st annual general meeting a decade ago, Mr Samy Vellu delivered his usual presidential speech about taking Indian Malaysians forward, saying "we will never get to the future if we wait for someone else to blaze the trail".
Ten years on, his fellow men have heeded his call to seize the day. But will he still have their ear or have they walked away for good?
Friday, November 30, 2007
30/11: Anti-govt groups planning three more protests next month
They have been encouraged by the success of two recent major rallies
By Chow Kum Hor, Malaysia Correspondent
The Straits Times
BUOYED by the success of two recent major rallies in Kuala Lumpur, anti-government groups and the Bar Council will hold three more protest gatherings next month.
They include a plan to demonstrate against the government's decision on Wednesday to raise toll charges for seven highways nationwide by up to 50 per cent.
In the past, protests against toll increases drew thousands of people.
The other two protests are expected to attract smaller crowds. This includes a march in the city by the Bar Council on Dec 9 to celebrate Human Rights Day.
This will be followed by a demonstration outside Parliament in Kuala Lumpur two days later to protest against a proposed constitutional amendment to raise the retirement age of Election Commission members by one year to 66.
The amendment is to allow Election Commission chairman Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman, 65, to continue in his current post. Opposition parties have derided Tan Sri Abdul Rashid's track record, accusing him of being subservient to the Barisan Nasional during polls.
The Dec 11 protest is organised by Bersih, a coalition of opposition parties and non-governmental organisations advocating free and fair elections.
'We expect a few thousand to show up. It won't be like the gathering on Nov 10,' Bersih representative Faisal Mustaffa told The Straits Times.
During the Nov 10 rally, 10,000 protesters took part in a a 2km march to the National Palace to ask the Malaysian King to press the government for electoral reforms.
It was the biggest rally the country had seen in a decade.
Mr Faisal said Bersih will, for the first time, take part in the Bar Council's annual march, 'as having free and fair elections is part of human rights'. He expected a turnout of only 'a few hundred' in the low-key event to be held on a Sunday morning.
The demonstration against the toll increases is organised by a handful of non-governmental organisations and opposition parties which call themselves Protest. Details on the venue and date have yet to be fixed.
'After looking at what happened in the last two rallies, we expect many to show up at the protests against the toll hikes,' said Mr Tian Chua, a top leader of Parti Keadilan Rakyat, which is part of Protest.
Early this year, Protest drew thousands of demonstrators near highways where toll charges had been raised.
The Bersih rally and a gathering by more than 5,000 Indians in Kuala Lumpur last Sunday came as a surprise as mass street protests are rare in Malaysia.
In both gatherings, police fired tear gas and water cannon against protesters as the assemblies were illegal.
A police permit is required for a gathering of five or more people.
30/11: Hisham: Hindraf don't represent Indians
By KAREN CHAPMAN
The Star
People have been urged not to blame the Indian community for the illegal gathering organised by the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) last Sunday.
Umno Youth chief Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein, who is the Education Minister, said Hindraf did not represent many Indians.
“Our enemies are not the Indians, so everyone must remain rational,” he said after chairing his ministry's post-Cabinet meeting here yesterday.
The majority of Indians love the country and want stability, he added.
He urged Hindraf not to play with fire.
“Who in their right mind would accuse us of demolishing a temple every three weeks or say there is ethnic cleansing.”
Meanwhile, in Sungai Petani, Deputy Home Affairs Minister Datuk Johari Baharom said the Government planned to seek compensation from Hindraf and those involved in the recent illegal gathering for damage to public property.
In CAIRO, Information Minister Datuk Seri Zainuddin Maidin said several groups of students who met him expressed their anger over Hindraf leaders’ move to ask Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II to intervene in Malaysia’s internal affairs.
He said they were angry that Hindraf had ignored the Yang di- Pertuan Agong in highlighting the problems faced by the Indian community in Malaysia.
30/11: Bar to decide if permit is needed
The Star
The Bar Council will decide Saturday if a police permit is needed for some events of the Festival of Rights, including its annual Human Rights Day march, that will be held on Dec 9.
Bar Council chairman S. Ambiga said: “We are re-looking the programme and there may be some changes.”
This year’s theme for the festival is As I Believe: Freedom of Expression Through Art, Music, Culture and Conscience.
Since it is a festival, it does not mean that a police permit is not needed, said Ambiga.
The Coalition for Free and Fair Elections (Bersih), which plans to gather outside Parliament House on Dec 11 to protest against the impending constitutional amendment that will raise the retirement age of Election Commission members from 65 to 66, said it did not discuss the issue of getting a police permit because it just wanted to hand over a protest note to the Parliament Speaker.
As for the toll hike protest to be organised by DAP, the party’s national deputy chairman Dr Tan Seng Giaw said they had not worked out the details.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
REPORT ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN MALAYSIA
REPORT ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN MALAYSIA
(Prepared by Prof Johan Saravanamuttu)
OVERVIEW
Human Rights Practice -- Regression rather than Progression
Malaysia's human rights practice, by way of national laws and legal instruments, has steadily slid downhill since independence in 1957. This is due to several major political developments since independence and particularly because of the actions of the government led by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad since 1981. The only positive actions on the part of the state in recent years has been the endorsement of several international human rights conventions and the setting up of a national commission on human rights. These developments are summarized below.
The actions on the part of the state in weakening human rights practice in the country can be stated as follows:
- The steady erosion of constitutional provisions for human rights and fundamental liberties such as the right to life and liberty of the person, protection against slavery forced labor, equality before the law, freedom of movement, speech, expression, assembly and association, including the right to strike and take industrial action (Articles 5, 6, 8, 9, 10(1)(a) (b) (c), freedom of religion, right to education and property (Articles 11, 12, 13). The most cynical developments occurred in the Mahathir period when the principle of judicial review (Article 121) was virtually debunked after the sacking of the Lord President and two Supreme Court judges in 1988 (See box).
- Elimination of the right to seek the writ of habeas corpus, whereby preventive detention cannot be challenged in court, since the 1988/89 amendments to the Internal Security Act (1960).
- The increasing centralization of the powers of government in the hands of the executive branch and the steady debunking of the principle of the separation of powers of the legislature and judiciary as provided for in the 1957 Constitution. This was accomplished along with the steady removal of checks and balances in the system via various constitutional procedures and amendments aimed at reducing local state power, abolition of elected local governments and eroding of the symbolic as well as the legal role of the Rulers. (Lee, 1995)
Table 1: Legal Restrictions on Human Liberties and Freedom
Constitutional Provision | Right of Freedom | Legislative Restriction |
Article 5 | Liberty of the person | Internal Security Act, 1960: Restricted Residence Enactment (CAP. 39); Sec. 117, Criminal Procedure Code (CAP. 6) |
Article 6 | Protection against slavery and forced labor | Essential (Self-Reliance) Regulations, 1975; National Service Ordinance |
Article 9 | Protection against banishment; freedom of movement | ISA 1960; Banishment Act, 1948; Immigration acts, 1959 and 1963 |
Article 10(1)(a) | Freedom of speech and expression | Sedition Act, 1948 (and Amendments, 1971); Official Secrets Act, 1972 (and Amendments, 1986); Printing Presses and Publishing Act, 1948 (Amendment 1988); Control of Imported Publications Act, 1959 |
Article 10(1)(b) | Freedom of peaceful assembly | Public Order (Preservation) Ordinance, 1958; Police Act, 1967 (and Amendments, 1988) |
Article 10(1)(c) | Freedom of association | Trade Unions Act, 1959 (and 1980 and 1989 Amendments); Societies Act, 1966 (and 1981 Amendments); University and University Colleges Act, 1971 (and 1975 Amendments) - discipline of Student Rules and Discipline of Staff Rules |
Article 10(1)(c) | Freedom of association and right to industrial action, including strike | Essential (Prohibition of Strikes and Prescribed Industrial Actions) Regulations, 1965; Industrial Relations Act, 1967, Amendment, 1971 and 1975 |
Article 121 | Principle of judicial review | Amendments to Article 121, 1988; Amendments to ISA, 1988; Amendments to ISA, 1989 |
Source: ARENA, 1992: 23
National laws and legal instruments pertaining to human rights are as follows:
|
- National laws and national legal instruments: constitutional guarantees cited above and legal restrictions on them include the following: Banishment Act (1948), Immigration Acts (1959, 1963), Sedition Act (1948, 1971), Internal Security Act (1960, 1988, 1989), Public Order (Preservation) Ordinance (1958), Police Act (1967, 1988), Official Secrets Act (1972, 1986), Essential (Security Cases) Amendments Regulations (1975), Trade Unions Act (1959, 1980, 1989), Societies Act (1966, 1981) University and University Colleges Act (1971, 1975), Essential (Strikes and Industrial Actions) Regulations (1967, 1971, 1975), Amendments to Article 121 (1988) Thus, over the years, the existing provisions for human rights have been progressively whittled down by a battery of acts and amendments (See Table 1).
- Ratification of international human rights instruments: Among the major international instruments for human rights, Malaysia has only ratified two major ones as follows: International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights - ICCPR (no) International Covenant for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights -ICESCR (no) Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women - CEDAW (yes), Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination - CERD (no) Convention on the Rights of the Child - CHILD (yes), Convention against Torture and other Cruel Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment - CAT (no). This record compares rather poorly with other Southeast Asian states, which admittedly are all generally laggard in acceding to human rights covenants and conventions.
- The setting up of a National Commission of Human Rights through an act passed by parliament, 1999: While the government has gone ahead with the setting of the human rights commission, this move has occurred amidst the demands of 34 NGOs for public consultation on the draft bill and assurance of the transparency, independence and the proper implementation of its mandate. (See pp. 29-31 below).
On the positive side of developments, there has been important progress made on human rights practice by the non-state sector of Malaysia. A significant event was the coming together of some 50 NGOs in 1993, representing human rights organizations, trade unions, consumer associations, women's groups, environmental organizations, academic bodies and organizations of people with disabilities, to endorse a Malaysian Human Rights Charter (See Appendix 2). Below are some of the most important milestones relating to the progress of human rights practice based on initiatives in the non-state sector:
- ALIRAN, a "reform movement dedicated to justice, freedom and solidarity" is formed in Penang in 1977.
- Malaysian Bar Council establishes a Human Rights Committee, 1970s.
- Democratic Action Party Convention on Human Rights is opened by Malaysia's first Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, 1985.
- SUARAM, first national-level human rights organization is formed in 1989.
- HAKAM, Malaysian national human rights organization is formed in 1991.
- Adoption of "The Malaysian Human Rights Charter" by some 50 NGOS in 1993.
- BUDI, the first national-level election watch organization is formed in 1999.
- HAKAM, SUARAM and ERA Consumer and Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism, sponsors a Forum on the National Human Rights Commission, 3-4 July 1999.
We may conclude this overview by referring to SUARAM's 1999 report on human rights practice in Malaysia: According to the human rights organization, to date, Malaysia has yet to ratify arguably the three most significant human rights instruments on civil and political rights pertaining to civil and political rights (ICCPR), economic, social and cultural rights (ICESCR), racial discrimination (CERD) and torture, cruel and inhuman treatment (CAT). The government has instead lamely advanced the so-called "Asian values" position on human rights by arguing that it considers many of the current declarations, covenants and convention on human rights to be of Western origin.
|
On the positive side the Malaysian government is currently party to six instruments, five of which it has ratified, some with reservations as follows:
- Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery . Adopted in Geneva on September 7, 1956, ratified on November 18, 1957.
- Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide . Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 1948, ratified on December 20, 1994.
- Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (with reservations). Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 18, 1979, ratified on July 5, 1995.
- Convention on the Rights of the Child (with several reservations, in particular to Article 13 which provides the right to freedom of expression). Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on November 20, 1989, ratified on February 17, 1995.
- Convention on the Nationality of Married Women (with reservations). Adopted at New York on February 1957, ratified on February 1959.
(Rachagan and Tikamdas, 1999 and Report of UN Special Rapporteur, 1998).
Malaysia's reservations with respect to CEDAW revolved around the practice of Syariah law as practiced in the country, for example with respect to the division of inherited property and the appointment of clerics as Syariah court judges. It withdrew some earlier objection on January 28, 1998. Reservations on CHILD pertain to conformity with national laws and policies of the government.
Ratification of these conventions marks an explicit acceptance by Malaysia that it does share with the global community common standards and values on human rights regardless of cultural and geographical origins. Furthermore, following upon the 1993 Vienna Conference on Human Rights, Malaysia advanced the principle of the indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights thereby also purportedly supported the Vienna declaration that:
"All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis."
On the negative side, the Malaysian government has shown little evidence of honoring this principle of indivisibility. It continues the use emergency laws in non-emergency conditions, the practice of detention without trial, perpetrating deaths and abuses in custody, condoning police violence and abuse; it implements the death penalty, continues to violate the basic freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly, condoning an unfair and unfree electoral process, and government policies and actions continue to reinforce an extreme form of dominance of the executive over the legislature and the judiciary.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
29/11: How so few determine the fate of so many
Raja Petra Kamarudin
BERSIH has asked for free, fair and transparent elections. This is fundamental in a democratic parliamentary system. But Malaysia practices the ‘first past the post’ electoral system. In other words, it is seats and not votes that count.
Yes, Malaysia has free, fair and transparent elections. It is free because you do not have to pay any money to vote. In fact, you can even receive money if you agree to vote for the ruling party. It is therefore more than free. It is profitable as well. And if your area faces a by-election, you will further receive tens of millions in development as the many by-elections thus far have proven.
Malaysian elections have never been transparent. But now the Elections Commission has introduced transparent ballot boxes. So, as far as the government is concerned, Malaysian elections are now transparent as well and there is no longer any reason for anyone to complain about Malaysian elections not being transparent enough. Of course, the people in government are not able to differentiate between a transparent system and transparent ballot boxes. It is like Samy Vellu walking into his office stark naked and declaring to all and sundry that he runs his ministry in a very transparent manner and nothing is hidden from public view.
And Malaysian elections are also fair. Barisan Nasional can garner 45% of the votes and still form the government. It can garner 55% of the votes and still rule with a two-thirds majority. It can garner 60% of the votes and still obtain 92% of the seats in Parliament. And this is what happened since 1969 until 2004. It can garner 70% of the votes and deny the opposition any seats in the spirit of pembangkang sifar or zero opposition. And this is what the ruling party hopes will happen come the next general election -- and they are working towards that even as you read this.
And this is fair because this is a Malay country so we must make sure the Malays continue to retain political domination while the Chinese can retain economic domination and the Indians can retain… hmm… we have a problems with the Indians. What are we going to allow them to dominate? Okay, we can allow them to dominate the record for having the longest-serving party president. There, that should now make the Indians happy as well. Have we left out anyone -- natives of Sabah and Sarawak maybe? Well, we can always allow the minority Melanau Malays to rule the majority Sarawakian natives and the minority Malay Pakistanis to rule the majority Sabahan natives and cook up a story later about what they are dominating.
What many Malaysians do not realise is that ‘Malay’ seats come as low as 5,000 voters while ‘non-Malay’ seats are as high as 100,000 voters or more. This means even if 100,000 non-Malays vote for the opposition it will still be only one seat for the opposition while the same 100,000 ruling party voters will allow the ruling party four or five seats. That is why the ruling party needs only 45% of the votes to stay in power and 55% of the votes to rule with a two-thirds majority. This is called gerrymandering.
This is what Wikipedia has to say about gerrymandering:
Gerrymandering is a form of redistricting in which electoral district or constituency boundaries are manipulated for an electoral advantage. The word ‘gerrymander’ is named after the Governor of Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry (July 17, 1744 – November 23, 1814), and is a portmanteau of his name with the word ‘salamander’, which was used to describe the appearance of a tortuous electoral district pressed through the Massachusetts legislature in 1812 -- and signed into law by Gerry in order to disadvantage their electoral opponents in the upcoming senatorial election.
‘Gerrymander’ is used both as a verb meaning ‘to divide into political units to give special advantages to one group’ as well as a noun describing the resulting electoral geography. Elbridge Gerry’s actual name is pronounced with an initial ‘g’ (a hard G), but the ‘jerry’ pronunciation is now the normal pronunciation.
Gerrymandering may be used to advantage or disadvantage particular constituents, such as members of a racial, linguistic, religious or class group, often in favour of ruling incumbents or a specific political party. Although all electoral systems that use multiple districts as a basis for determining representation are susceptible to gerrymandering to various degrees, governments using single winner voting systems are the most vulnerable. Most notably, gerrymandering is particularly effective in non-proportional systems that tend towards fewer parties, such as first past the post.
Now read what Dr Azmi Sharom, an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Malaya, has to say about this matter in The Star today.
The ballot box and protests
BRAVE NEW WORLD
By AZMI SHAROM
The Star, 29 November 2007
For democracy to have any sort of meaning, it must be part of our lives every day
Kuala Lumpur has been a busy place of late. Roads closed, people marching around, sometimes in colour-coordinated outfits. It all made our capital that much more hectic and more colourful than usual.
Politicians too have been more hectic and colourful than usual.
The common thread of comments from members of the ruling party is that all these protesters are merely tools of the opposition and, besides, we are a democracy and you can always let your feelings be known at the ballot box. Why take to the streets? It is not our way.
Allow me to deal with these two points: the ballot box and the idea that protesting is not “our way”.
Let’s look at the ballot box first. Every four or five years, it rises up from its resting place and it is supposedly all the democracy we need.
This is a bit of a silly idea because democracy is not like some mythical beast that slumbers for years and then rears its head every now and then to be fed.
Democracy, if it is to have any sort of meaning, must be part of our lives every day.
If one were to think that the ballot box is the be-all and end-all of democracy, then one is playing a zero-sum game.
It’s all or nothing, either you are with us or against us.
This is an oversimplification of George Bush proportions.
It is not just opposition people who engage with the Government. Ordinary people and civil society want to have a say, too.
Furthermore, there are people who support or even like most of what the ruling party does but disagree with some of its decisions. Surely, they have the right to voice their concerns?
That right of dissent is a vital component in a democracy, as it helps to ensure that governments are aware that their responsibility and culpability to citizens is something that exists all the time.
The question is how that dissent should be expressed.
Yes, the ballot box is one way but it is pretty much an all-or-nothing method of dissent.
One example of its downside is the slow registration process.
I know of young people who have registered to vote for months and yet their names still do not appear in the register.
Just how difficult is it to place someone on the electoral roll?
In this age of computers and MyKad, it should be a matter of hours or at the most days. Not months.
Furthermore, I can’t see the logic of having some large parliamentary seats with many voters and some tiny ones with very few.
The division of constituencies is such that in the last general election, on average the ruling party needed 16,000 votes to get a seat while the opposition parties needed 180,000 votes for each of their seats.
Another method of dissent is through the press. An argument against a dissenting press is that a totally free press is dangerous and the people are not ready for it.
Well, no one is saying that the press has to be totally free. Everybody is bound by laws.
The issue in question is the extent of repression that those laws exert.
As long as the Printing Presses and Publications Act exists, we can say that our press, despite good intentions, is on a short leash.
How much coverage can you give to dissenting voices when the object of those voices’ anger could whip away your licence to publish at any time?
What other methods are available then to show dissent? Handing in politely worded documents to the powers-that-be is all well and good, but sometimes an issue is so big that people want to express themselves.
They want to come together in a show of solidarity and to make as big an impact as possible.
For example, when US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice turned up, there were people in the streets.
Maybe what is really meant is that opposing the government on the streets is not “our way”.
But then didn’t Umno organise demonstrations against the Malayan Union? That was opposing the government, wasn’t it?
Oh yes, that was in a different situation. There were no ballot boxes and the press was controlled by the British.
A democracy needs dissent. It needs a free press; it needs people to express themselves.
Anything less is disrespecting our inalienable and fundamental freedoms.
Dr Azmi Sharom is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Malaya
29/11: Raja Nazrin's keynote address at the National Economic Outlook Conference 2008/2009
AT THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC OUTLOOK CONFERENCE 2008/2009
DATE: 28 NOVEMBER 2007 (WEDNESDAY), TIME: 10.00 AM
VENUE: HOTEL HILTON KL
“Fifty Years of Development: Lessons Learnt”
Ladies and Gentlemen:
1. I am delighted to be here this morning to speak at this National Outlook Conference, an event that is one of the high points in the nation’s economic calendar. The Malaysian Institute of Economic Research has served the nation well for over twenty years with its independent research, and it is only fitting that we recognise its many contributions. Independent research institutes have a very important role to play in modern societies. Their analyses and conclusions may not always receive universal agreement but divergent viewpoints can be useful in provoking healthy debate about issues of national importance They force us to think more deeply, more clearly and more creatively. They help us avoid the dangers of “groupthink”.
2. It is in this spirit that I turn to the subject at hand. Today, I want to exercise speaker’s licence and focus my address on issues of development and nationhood. I do this for the obvious reason that whether we can achieve our development goals hangs critically on whether we can remain one united and cohesive nation. The latter is a mantra that is constantly repeated but quite often construed and implemented in narrow and self-serving ways. I am of the view that we urgently need to re-evaluate our existing stereotypes and notions about development. I will draw attention to some concepts from the recent development literature that I believe are very relevant to us, with the hope that these can take root in discussions among scholars and policy-makers.
3. Let me start with the present state of development and then proceed to deconstruct it into its component parts. Malaysia today runs with the pack of middle income countries. With a 2006 GDP per capita measured in purchasing power terms of almost US$11,000, the country has a figure that is higher than Mexico and Turkey, two countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. At independence in 1957, Malaya was comparable with Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Ghana, Morocco and Senegal in terms of per capita income. Fifty years on, the country’s per capita income had increased six fold, to reach a level that is double that of Sri Lanka, three times that of the Philippines and Morocco and six times that of Ghana and Senegal. More importantly, there have been marked improvements in life expectancy, infant mortality, literacy, access to education, health services and in the incidence of poverty. The country has surpassed most of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals and, while there remains a great deal to be done, the UNDP accords the country a High Development Index.
4. All of this point to Malaysia being a development success story, and, not just from the viewpoint of our own policymakers but also from the international community. The standard reasons for this are an open economy, liberal foreign investment policies, high savings and investment rates, prudent macroeconomic management, pro-private sector policies, and high public investments in education, infrastructure and rural development. These days it also seems relevant to point out an often taken-for-granted fact: Malaysia has always had a civilian government and no military presence in domestic politics or the economy. If nothing else, this alone should be a strong selling point for the country. Overarching all of these reasons is the fact that development has taken centre place on the national agenda for the greater part of the last half-century and produced undeniable results. The relative lack of civil conflict has enabled the focus on development to take place, while development has, in turn, had a generally calming effect on the various social groups.
5. The question as to why some countries grow rapidly while others grow slowly or not at all constitutes one of the most important in all of economics. It is a question that has kept economists busy for decades, and, I expect, will continue to do so for some time yet. It is now a cliché to talk about the growth performance of the East Asian economies during the post-Second World War period, first that of Japan then those of the newly-industrialising tiger economies, namely South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. These countries had grown at an average of 6% per annum in per capita terms over a sustained period. To put things in perspective, compare this with the growth records of the leading economies during the Industrial Revolution in the late eighteenth and nineteenth century (around 1-1.5%) or the growth records of the advanced capitalist economies during the first three decades of the post-Second World War period (around 3%). These East Asian countries underwent the fastest economic transformation in human history, to be surpassed only by developments in China and India in recent years. The spectacular economic performance of these countries naturally generated a lot of interest in the so-called East Asian model of development, and in particular on the extent to which this model could be replicated in other countries.
6. In two very important respects, Malaysia is a more suitable model for other developing countries than the East Asian tiger economies. This is because Malaysia shares features with many countries in Asia, Africa and, to a lesser extent, Latin America that makes it an ideal case study.
7. First, Malaysia is a resource-rich country, in contrast to the East Asian tiger economies that are resource-poor. It might seem intuitive to some that Malaysia’s success was a forgone conclusion given its rich resource base. But other countries have large resource endowments as well and they have not enjoyed the same result. Many resource-rich developing countries have found natural resources to be a curse rather than a blessing. They have experienced little more than short-lived resource booms, their economies expanding rapidly while resources last, but contracting once these have been exhausted. Some have succumbed to Dutch disease, with its attendant ills of accelerating inflation, declining export of manufactures and rising unemployment. Many have squandered their resource riches on wasteful expenditures. Malaysia remains one of the few that have managed to transform its rich natural resource base into sustainable development. Resource rents were productively invested in primary and manufactured exports, in improving infrastructure and in strengthening the human capital base. Within a span of 50 years, the economy underwent significant structural transformation, from one that was heavily dependent on primary commodity exports to one that is more broad-based. Gaining a better understanding of how this was achieved is not only of academic interest to scholars but should be of relevance to policy-makers in other countries.
8. Second, Malaysia shares with many countries in the developing world in having a multi-ethnic, multi-religious population. This is in contrast to the East Asian societies that are largely homogenous. Governing a country that is multi-ethnic and multi-religious is very different from governing one that is homogeneous, particularly in a society like Malaysia’s where ethnic groups differ sharply in occupational pattern, income level, geographic location, culture, language and appearance. This makes promoting national unity of utmost importance for continued political stability and economic progress. The Malaysian experience is a classic illustration that development in multi-ethnic societies consists of more than just unleashing market forces. It demands economic growth that is broadly shared among all citizens, as well as the necessary institutional environment to help bring that about. In such a situation, the state has an important role to play in ensuring an equitable distribution of wealth and income between people, between groups of people and between regions. In countries where it has worked well, the result has been a developmental state that has promoted industrial transformation and stimulated economic development. When it has not worked well, state intervention has verged on the predatory, extracting resources and providing nothing much of value in return.
9. History seems to have had a very pervasive hold over some countries by trapping them in an endless cycle of recrimination and violence. Certainly, colonialism, foreign invasion and occupation have had an extremely negative impact on development in much of the Third World. It would take a brave soul to argue otherwise. I cannot, however, come to terms with – and, indeed, I am not convinced at all about – the idea of historical inevitability. As bad as it may have been, colonialism has not held back economic progress in all cases. We forget that both Korea and Taiwan were also colonised, but they still managed to make significant economic leaps. In Malaysia, the colonial legacy left the country with some very strong positives, including the legal system, an efficient civil administration and the English language.
10. If development is not a random occurrence but the result of direct human intervention, it becomes of critical importance to find out why some countries have been able to pursue sound economic policies with greater success than others. Since humans are involved, culture would seem to be a natural candidate. Culture has many definitions but can be seen as the shared values, norms, meanings and behaviours that characterise a society. It can affect development through its impact on organisations and production, on attitudes towards consumption and work, on the ability to create and manage institutions, and on creating bonds of trust through social networks. I will expand on the last of these shortly. But exactly how important culture is to the development process is a question with many answers. Much depends on how it is thought to function. Some subscribe to the functionalist or consensus school. Others prefer Marxist conflict-driven interpretations of culture. Yet others adopt a post-modern view of culture that sees society as the product of open, negotiable and changeable social interactions.
11. The problem with culture is that some elements of it change over time, while others can remain firmly entrenched. In many respects, there can be no economic change without there being at least some degree of cultural change. Take as an example the multinational companies that located themselves in Malaysia’s free trade zones in the mid-1970s and began the process of industrial transformation. These depended on large numbers of young Malay females many of whom were from rural villages and thus traditional social structures. This required breaking strong social values that favoured marriage and household work and disapproved of the unsupervised movement of females to and from the workplace. That this occurred to a significant extent – at its height, females accounted for 75% of electronics, and over 90% of textile, employment – meant a measure of social adaptability and dynamism. This, in turn, allowed rural families to enjoy lessened dependency, higher productivity and additional source of incomes.
12. Many middle-income countries are now focused on human capital development, entrepreneurship and scientific and technological innovation, and Malaysia is no different. The question, however, is whether these can be standalone propositions. Can entrepreneurs, scientists and technologists be nurtured without an enabling political, social, economic and cultural environment? Can they flourish in the presence of perverse incentives and disincentives? The answer is obvious: they cannot. They cannot be removed from how society functions, from the societal norms and values at play, and from how state and private institutions counteract or reinforce these norms and values. Human capital development without the right environment is futility in itself. There are countries today whose citizens are highly educated and whose scientists and engineers are at the leading edge in their fields but who want nothing more than to leave their countries. Countries must change in line with the aspirations of their citizens or they risk losing their best and brightest.
13. It is time that we reunite these disparate parts into our development story. Until we merge the economic discourse of development with the socio-political setting in which societies are embedded, we will tend to underestimate what needs to be done and overestimate our capacity to do it. We will develop selective memory, remembering only results but not causes, only gains but not costs. The inability to reduce the development process to a neat set of propositions or equations will no doubt put some off. Academic journals might be reluctant to publish cross-disciplinary studies. But unless we are prepared to step outside of the boundaries of traditional academic disciplines, it is unlikely that that we will be able to conceive a clear and undistorted picture of development’s prerequisites.
14. In earliest development thinking, physical capital was seen to be the catalyst for development. The Harrod-Domar model, for example, saw growth as simply the function of savings (which was equal to investment), multiplied by the productivity of capital. There has therefore been a central preoccupation with securing the financial resources to develop. Notwithstanding the fact that it was introduced as early as Adam Smith, human capital then became the centrepiece of development. Practice though may differ from principle and some countries loudly and proudly trumpet their human capital policies but still exhibit strong physical investment-bias. With the far-reaching work of sociologists such as James Coleman, Robert Putnam and others, there has been another quantum leap in our understanding of the software of development, and that element is social capital.
15. Social capital refers to the organisations, networks and institutions that allow citizens of different backgrounds to act collectively in the national interest. As Putnam nicely puts it, “Just as a screwdriver (that is, physical capital) or a college education (that is, human capital) can increase productivity (both individual and collective), so too social contacts affect the productivity of individuals and groups". It fosters trust and cooperation and is essential to all kinds of economic transactions, especially long-term investments and efforts to raise human capital and productivity. Researchers have found other significant positive externalities, such as lower crime rates, improved child welfare, better public health, and lower rates of corruption and abuse of power. Thus, the economic benefits of social capital, and, conversely, the costs of social division, can thus be much higher than anyone expects or believes.
16. Social capital manifests itself in four ways. First, it can take the form of organisations such as associations, clubs and community groups. These promote collective action and esprit d’corps based on common goals and objectives. Much care is needed to ensure that social institutions do not, wittingly or unwittingly, promote social exclusion and discrimination rather than social cohesion. The unwavering aim should be to establish organisations that transcend ethnic, religious and cultural boundaries, promote social contacts and create conditions for reciprocity and trust.
17. Second, social capital is represented by the vertical and horizontal networks of relationships among and within citizens of different ethnic, religious and territorial groups. These networks are supposed to lead to bonding and bridging but they may again defeat the purpose if they are not inclusive in nature and are instead used to pursue narrow sectarian interests. The emphasis must therefore be on increasing opportunities for bonding and bridging in residential neighbourhoods, classrooms and the workplaces, all with the understanding that more cultural mix is better.
18. Third, social capital is embodied in official institutions such as political parties, the legislature, judiciary and civil service. Douglass North, Dani Rodrik and William Easterly have all argued that institutions determine the capacity of countries to pursue their collective interests. They are responsible for formulating and implementing policies and laws that affect all groups and these can either promote or penalise good socio-economic behaviour.
19. Fourth, social capital takes the form of synergism or co-operation between state institutions and non-governmental networks. There can probably be no higher expression of trust and confidence than governments working alongside community groups to reach target groups in the population.
20. Physical capital, human capital and social capital constitute the three prerequisites of development. At the end of the day, the difference between a fully functional state and a fully dysfunctional one may lie in nothing more than the quantity and quality of its social capital. How else do we account for economies that, in their early stages, had little physical infrastructure and not even skilled labour to speak of but which have demonstrated great economic dynamism? What would account for landlocked and/or otherwise isolated economies with widespread poverty but able to make the transition to high productivity and incomes? Good fortune? Maybe. I believe that shaping the right socio-economic environment is a very important task and that this does not lie entirely, or perhaps even mainly, in the economic domain.
21. We, in Malaysia, must seek to refine our development thinking. The development community should make social capital an integral part of its discourse. Interestingly, there are studies that show that social capital and institutional quality are related. A recent study by Easterly, Ritzen and Woolcock demonstrates that it is social cohesion that determines how effective institutions are and this, in turn, impacts the formulation and implementation of development policies. Together, social capital and institutional quality may determine our development headroom or how high we will be able to climb.
22. Malaysia has accomplished a great deal over the past 50 years. The next 50 years will be equally, if not more, challenging. Policies that have served us well in the past are unlikely to work in the future. Malaysia today finds itself squeezed between the low-cost economies of China and Vietnam and the high-technology economies of Japan and South Korea. Malaysia’s comparative advantage in the export of manufactured labour-intensive products is fast eroding. Nothing less than the most competitive, innovative and flexible responses are required. To keep internationally competitive, the country needs to take a big step up the technological ladder by moving into high-technology and knowledge-intensive industries. It is well understood that Malaysia’s past growth was driven mainly by large increases in the use of labour and capital inputs. Future growth will have to come from productivity gains and technological breakthroughs. This in turn requires the country to vastly improve its human capital base by investing heavily in training and education, and promoting research and development. Economic policies must be aimed at nothing less than performance. Economic management must be driven by nothing less than competence. In this environment, the lack of social capital and cohesion will be ever costlier to nations.
23. Throughout history it has been crises that have most often driven change. I believe this will not be the case for Malaysia. I believe that in facing future challenges we will demonstrate both pragmatism and fairness.
29/11: Oil-for-food scammer, 83, jailed
NEW YORK: Elderly Texas oilman Oscar Wyatt Jr has been sentenced to a year in prison for his role in corrupting the UN oil-for-food program, through which he landed contracts by giving Iraqi officials illegal payments.
Wyatt, 83, cried as he addressed the court yesterday, saying he "would never do anything to hurt my country".
Moments later, US District judge Denny Chin imposed a sentence below the 18 months to two years in prison to which Wyatt had agreed when he pleaded guilty to conspiracy last month.
Wyatt also agreed to forfeit $US11million ($12.5million).
"It's very, very difficult for me to express anything but appreciation to the judge for his fairness," Mr Wyatt said after his sentencing.
The judge's reasons for leniency included Wyatt's age, military service in World War II and the many heartfelt letters sent to the court on his behalf, including notes from members of Congress, police chiefs, mayors, even actor Farrah Fawcett.
But Justice Chin noted: "There's little doubt in my mind that he broke the law."
Before pleading guilty on the 12th day of his trial and conceding he approved a $US200,000 illegal payment to an Iraqi bank account in December 2001, Wyatt had insisted he never paid an illegal surcharge to the Iraqi government to win oil contracts.
The judge said evidence showed Wyatt had paid at least $8million to Iraqi officials to get an unfair share of contracts connected to the UN oil-for-food program, which ran from 1996 to 2003.
The program allowed the Iraqi government to sell oil to buy food and medicine for its suffering citizens.
But authorities said the program was corrupted when Iraqi officials began demanding illegal surcharges in return for contracts to buy Iraqi oil.
The 2005 UN Volcker inquiry found AWB, the former Australian Wheat Board, paid $300million to Saddam Hussein - the single biggest source of kickbacks to the Iraqi government - in exchange for wheat contracts.
The Australian Cole inquiry that followed found 11 former AWB executives may have broken the law, but no charges have been laid. - AP
29/11: Lingam's brother lodges police report
The Sun
FURTHER READING: Seapark Police Station Report No: 8602 / 07
The brother of lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam lodged a police report today detailing a litany of events, from threats and blackmail to coercions, he went through in 1998 when the Anti Corruption Agency (ACA) was investigating the prominent lawyer.
V. Thirunama Karasu, accompanied by his lawyer Wee Choo Keong, who is Malaysian Democratic Party secretary-general, made a five-page report in the Brickfields police station against his brother.
He said he was forced to give false statements and feigned insanity in order to nullify his earlier statements to ACA investigating officers.
Wee said the outcome of the ACA investigations against Lingam should not be accepted as it was a decision made by then (now deceased) Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah who was also implicated.
"I cannot believe how the late A-G could give instructions to close the case or otherwise. There should have been an independant person or a body to decide on the fate of the probe. The current A-G Tan Sri Gani Patail should look into all this when examining this case," said Wee.
He said Thirunama had mentioned the close ties Lingam and Mohtar shared in his report, claiming that Lingam made regular late-night visits to Mohtar's house.
Wee also said he had written to University Malaya Medical Centre and the Kuala Lumpur Hospital to explain how Thirunama's medical records ended up with Lingam.
Last week, Lingam handed to reporters in Putrajaya copies of a medical report from a pyschiatrist from a private clinic alleging that Thirunama was a mental patient.
"We will also complain to the Malaysian Medical Association (MMA) on this breach of patient-doctor confidentiality," he said.
Thirunama said in his report that his visits to several psychiatrists were due to coercion. He also mentioned details of how he was held for days in a room in Armada Hotel where three lawyers, two of them Datuks, interrogated him day and night demanding details of his statement to the ACA.
"I was threatened with harm when I refused. I was also held by the ACA for five days in a police lock-up after I told them I had given them a false statement when in fact it was true."
29/11: Keep out, Nazri tells Tamil Nadu
The Star
Stay out of the controversy involving the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) – that’s the stern message for Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi.
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, who rebuked Karunanidhi for interfering, said what happened here had “nothing to do with Tamil Nadu.”
”Do not meddle in our affairs. This is Malaysia, not Tamil Nadu ... lay off,” he told reporters at the Parliament lobby yesterday, when asked about wire reports that Karunanidhi had written to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh urging him to take immediate and appropriate action to end the “sufferings and bad treatment” of Tamils in Malaysia.
Nazri said he would not apologise for calling those who participated in the Hindraf rally on Sunday “penyangak” (thugs), stressing that the demonstrators had violated the law as no permit was issued.
He explained that it was illogical to assume that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi would not accept their memorandum.
“I cannot accept the action of 20,000 people who want to be involved in a simple action of submitting a memorandum. They can send one person or even 10. The question is – are they really sincere in highlighting their grievances, or are they trying to create chaos?
“It’s a mistake to make an apology to them. It’s not the Indian community that’s involved. Don’t be samseng (gangster),” he said, adding that the issue was discussed at yesterday’s Cabinet meeting.
Nazri said police would probe a petition to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, which stated that a genocide would occur here with the Indian community being forced into violence like in Sri Lanka if their “cause” was ignored.
“The Attorney-General’s Chambers will study who sent the petition and charge the writer for sedition. The Hindraf memorandum is also a matter of concern because its contents are seditious,” he added.
“I’m sure these matters will also create animosity between the Indians, the Malays and the Government. We will take action. These people must be responsible for their actions.”
Nazri also reiterated Abdullah’s warning that the Internal Security Act would be used if the situation warranted it.
“Don’t challenge the Government. They can try and hold a rally again and see what will happen,” he added.
“The authorities were accused of excessive action. Look at France, whose police used tear gas and even rubber bullets when a demonstration occurred there.”
Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has expressed support for most of the demands made by Hindraf.
He told reporters yesterday that he turned up at the Klang Sessions Court on Saturday to give moral support to lawyers P. Uthayakumar, Waythamoorthy and V.S. Ganapathi Rao.
Anwar said he had advised Hindraf not to use Article 153 of the Federal Constitution to pursue their demands as it involved the rights and privileges of the Malays and other indigenous local folk.
In a separate press conference, Opposition leader Lim Kit Siang urged Nazri to apologise unconditionally for labelling the demonstrators “penyangak.”
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
28/11: Twisting and turning
Raja Petra Kamarudin
The Works Minister has just announced that the new National Palace a.k.a. Istana Negara will not cost RM1 billion after all. It will just cost about RM600 million or thereabouts. That’s ‘fair’. RM600 million is the same amount Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi gave the 191 Umno Divisions one day before last year’s Umno Annual General Assembly. But while the new Istana Negara will probably still be standing for the next 100 years, the RM600 million handed to the 191 Umno Divisions disappeared in just two months and was never seen again. Christmas is again around the corner. Will Abdullah be again handing out RM600 million Christmas presents to his Umno supporters? Hey, that is like building an Istana Negara every year. Malaysia’s Agongs get one once every 100 years and even then they have to share it amongst the nine Monarchs.
The idea for this new palace was mooted by the government before the present Agong took office. And it would probably be ready for occupation after the present Agong leaves office. This is something that the government has not clarified. The Agong did not ask for the palace to be built and neither will he be able to live in it. Whose idea is it, therefore, that this new lavish palace be built? It was certainly not the Agong’s. And do we know the history of the present Istana Negara?
This was what Shanti Gunaratnam wrote in the New Straits Times in an article called ‘The palace that Chan built’.
Istana Negara was once home to an immigrant Chinese millionaire, writes SHANTI GUNARATNAM
ISTANA Negara is a popular tourist attraction and every day, visitors stop to admire the building with its lush, manicured gardens while others take the opportunity to have their pictures taken with the guards on duty there.
Many newlyweds too stop at Istana Negara, where investiture ceremonies take place and where the royal regalia are kept, to have their wedding pictures taken in front of the main gate.
It was once the home of a Chinese immigrant who made his money in tin mines and other businesses. Chan Wing built the huge house to accommodate his large family, including his 26 wives, whom he brought to Kuala Lumpur from Hong Kong in the 1920s.
According to the book, From Poor Migrant to Millionaire Chan Wing 1873-1947, written by Chan King Nui, the eighth daughter of Chan Wing, the house (now Istana Negara) was the scene of big celebrations including Chinese New Year.
During World War II, the Chan family fled to India and only returned after the war. Often referred to as “the house on the hill”, Istana Negara was acquired by the British Army for the Royal Airforce (R.A.F.) after the war.
Later, the house was bought by the Selangor Government for the use of the Sultan before it was acquired by the Federal Government in 1954. Extensive renovations were then undertaken on the property.
After Independence, the house became the official residence of Malaysia’s first King and all the royal regalia are kept at the house.
Yes, the Istana Negara will be almost 100 years old by the time the new palace will be ready for occupation. And the Istana Negara used to be the home of an immigrant Chinese tycoon before the government acquired it. The Agong is in fact occupying a third-hand palace -- and even back in the late 1950s when I used to run around the many hallways and rooms to play hide-and-seek it was already quite an old building. And it is a palace that has been home to 13 Agongs thus far.
Anyway, the issue is not whether the present palace is too old or dilapidated and whether it is therefore time for Malaysia’s Agongs to be given a new palace. It is also not about whether the palace will cost RM1 billion or RM600 million, or a mere RM100 million. The issue is that it is the government’s and not the present Agong’s idea to build this palace. His Majesty was not the Agong yet when they mooted the idea for this new palace. And His Majesty will no longer be the Agong when the palace will be ready for occupation.
The fact that the government remained silent on this matter has created this false impression that it is the Agong who wants to spend RM1 billion (which has now been confirmed as RM600 million and not RM1 billion) of the rakyat’s money to satisfy his craving for an opulent new abode. Why did they not clear the air and tell the nation that the present Agong did not ask for it? Why allow this myth to continue? What do they need the Agong to do? Do they want the Agong to issue a public statement that he does not wish for a new palace and that it is not his idea that the government build one? Do they want the Agong to make a public declaration that he will never live in the palace even if they rush and build it before he retires and when the next Agong will take over? If the Agong were to do this, then His Majesty would be accused of intentionally embarrassing the government and of attempting to trigger another crisis between the Executive and the Monarchy. ‘Damned if you do, damned if you don’t’, or, as the Malays would say, ‘telan mati emak, ludah mati bapak’.
Malaysians are very quick to jump to conclusions. They hear something and they make assumptions based on what they hear. Sure, TV3, RTM, NST, Berita Harian, Utusan Malaysia, etc., all lie, swear Malaysians. They will boycott the government-controlled mainstream print and electronic media. They will not buy newspapers anymore. They will not watch the prime-time news on TV. Lies, lies, and more lies. But when they read or hear these lies they immediately believe them and react without researching the facts.
Aren’t Malaysians stupid? Now you know why Barisan Nasional will rule this country forever. And I am quite happy with that. When it comes to Malaysians, who says you can’t fool all the people all the time? Malaysians are so stupid they deserve Barisan Nasional. And I vote in favour of Barisan Nasional ruling this country until Malaysians acquire some maturity and common sense. Malaysians talk about media transparency and truthful reporting and all such ‘western’ notions’. But at the same time they are the ones easily fooled by media spinning.
I remember more than 20 years ago when the Gerakan President, foaming at the mouth and splashing spit onto all those within ten feet of him, accused the Sultan of Pahang of raping the Pahang forests. Yes, that’s right, that Chinaman Minister whacked the Sultan of Pahang good and proper while the Malays gleefully clapped and cheered as their Sultan, the so-called Raja-raja Melayu, got ‘stripped naked’ in public.
That Chinaman Minister revealed how another Chinaman, ‘Tengku’ Wong, had been given hundreds of millions of Ringgit worth of timber concessions. You should have seen all those Melayu cheer on that Menteri Cina. ‘Tengku’ Wong is none other than the Sultan of Pahang’s business partner, said the Minister. And in support of the attack on the Rulers, Umno Selangor tabled a Resolution at the AGM asking the government to expose those who Umno labelled as ‘Kapitan China’.
Now, that is not true one bit. Actually, ‘Tengku’ Wong was the Pahang Menteri Besar’s business partner, not the Sultan of Pahang’s. And that particular Pahang Menteri Besar has now been given a ‘Tun’, Malaysia’s equivalent to ‘Sir’, and is now the Governor of Melaka. And in the meantime, while that Cinakui Minister and the scumbag ex-Menteri Besar of Pahang cum Governor of Melaka laugh all the way to the bank, the Sultan of Pahang has to suffer a black mark in his reputation.
While Pahang had its ‘Tengku’ Wong, Terengganu had its ‘Tengku’ Yong. (And of course Johor has its ‘Tengku’ Goh, as previously revealed in this column). ‘Tengku’ Yong was (or maybe still is) the business partner of Datuk Yusoff, the late Sultan of Terengganu’s private secretary, Datuk Azhar, the then Terengganu State Secretary, and Wan Mokhtar Ahmad, the Terengganu Menteri Besar until 1999 who is now Malaysia’s Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Wan Mokhtar had been quietly awarding a company called Seri Terukun hundreds of millions worth of government contracts. The contracts were all negotiated without tender and the contract prices were twice the JKR estimates. This was further to the timber concessions that ran into hundreds of millions more. Going by the value of today’s purchasing power we are talking about billions.
In the late 1980s, a few of us made an appointment to meet the Terengganu Menteri Besar to complain about the monopoly Seri Terukun was getting. Furthermore, if they had tendered out the projects, not only would more companies have benefited rather than just one company, but all the projects could have been implemented at half the cost.
We must remember that Wan Mokhtar is an ulamak, a religious scholar, and Muslims have been taught to respect and trust ulamak. Ulamaks are, after all, special friends of God. And this special friend of God told us that he had no choice in the matter. He had received a surat kuning (yellow letter) from the palace with instructions to award all these contracts to Seri Terukun.
Realising that we would get nowhere in the state, I decided to meet Shahidan Kassim who was then the Chairman of the Parliament Back Benchers’ Club (BBC) to ask him to take up the matter. Shahidan agreed and brought it to the attention of Deputy Prime Minister Ghafar Baba who called a press conference and told the nation that the government is going to investigate the abuse of power by the Terengganu palace. The issue was on the front pages of all the newspapers.
Wan Mokhtar panicked. He thought once he told us he had received a surat kuning from the Terengganu palace we would drop the issue and not pursue it any further. After all, who would dare challenge the Rulers? But we did dare and if the state would not challenge the palace then we would take this national and get the Federal Government to take on the Rulers. But what was really on our minds is not so much that the Rulers should be challenged but that Wan Mokhtar was lying and we were going to call his bluff.
Unfortunately, Wan Mokhtar is not a poker player and we managed to call his bluff. He instructed the State Secretary to call a press conference and issue a statement that he never had a meeting with us or told us that he had received a surat kuning from the palace. These are all lies and the work of the opposition just to embarrass the government, explained Wan Mokhtar in a meeting he held with more than 1,000 Terengganu contractors. And he glared at me sitting in the front row when he emphasised ‘opposition lies’. He probably detected that satisfied smirk on my face and this made him mad as hell.
From that day on I never trusted ‘government’ ulamaks. Hey, they are more like ular dalam semak (snake in the grass). Wan Mokhtar told us during an official meeting that he had received a surat kuning from the istana. Now he denies saying that.
The Sultans of Terengganu and Pahang were smeared to kingdom come. The Menteris Besar of these two states were scamming their states and were using ‘Kapitan China’ as their front men while telling the public that these Chinamen were the Sultans’ business partners. Then they showed video clips of the Sultan of Kedah’s and Sultan of Selangor’s so-called ‘palaces by the sea’ on Penang Island. Again, bloody lies, but all those who saw the shots on TV believed these government lies. And Umno Selangor officially declared war on the Sultans by tabling a Resolution asking that the ‘Kapitan China’ be exposed as lackeys of the Rulers.
Today, the Rulers are suffering a very serious image problem. Sure, granted, the Rulers are not saints. Some have misbehaved, especially in the past. But much lies and untruths have been spun by the government-owned mainstream media. And they get the Chinese and Indians to whack the Rulers while the Umno Malays
28/11: ISA may be used against protesters, says Abdullah
MALAYSIA'S Prime Minister yesterday hinted that the Internal Security Act (ISA), which allows for years of detention without trial, could be used against street protesters.
'The ISA is a preventive measure to spare the nation from untoward incidents that can harm the prevailing peace and harmony and create all sorts of adverse things,' Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi said.
'The ISA will be there. When it is appropriate to use it, it will be used,' he told reporters on his return from an overseas trip.
Thousands of Malaysian Indians staged the minority community's biggest anti-government protest at the weekend to complain of racial discrimination. The protest was organised by an NGO, the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf).
Two weeks earlier, another crowd of about 10,000 rallied in the capital to demand electoral reform.
The rallies were the biggest street demonstrations in a decade.
Asked to comment on political talk that the government should use the ISA against such demonstrations, Datuk Seri Abdullah, who is also Internal Security Minister, said: 'I am surprised there are people who wanted the ISA to be used. I thought they do not want the ISA.'
The ISA, started by the British in colonial times, is a controversial law because it allows the government to detain people for years without having to produce them for trials in court.
Rights groups and the opposition say they are often used to silence government critics. But the government say the detention laws are necessary to battle terrorism and other grave threats to the nation.
The government last used the ISA against five men in September when it nabbed them for allegedly spreading rumours via SMS of a race riot ahead of independence day celebrations on Aug 31.
Over the years, the government has jailed suspected members of the Jemaah Islamiah terror group, opposition leaders and even leaders of deviant Islamic teachings.
Police said yesterday that eight men who claimed to be members of Hindraf assaulted two restaurants workers after refusing to pay for their food.
'The men then took out machetes and an iron rod and assaulted two of the workers. They also damaged furniture in the restaurant before fleeing in two cars...which we later found were using false registration numbers,' said police chief Sulaiman Junaidi of the Brickfields district.
Meanwhile, Umno vice- president Muhyiddin Yassin said claims by Hindraf that Indians were marginalised and lived in abject poverty were baseless and inaccurate.
REUTERS, BERNAMA
28/11: Indian demonstrators just troublemakers: Samy Vellu
Sunday's rally by thousands of people, who defied water cannon and tear gas to protest against racial discrimination, could pose a headache for the government ahead of early elections. Indians are traditionally seen as a vote-bank for the ruling coalition.
In an interview with Reuters, Datuk Seri Samy, the head of the main Indian party and Malaysia's longest-serving minister, branded protesters as 'troublemakers'.
The number of protesters was estimated at between 5,000 and 10,000.
'We have fought worse battles than this during elections,' the ebullient 71-year-old leader said.
'We don't worry about this. We are confident of winning the next elections handsomely,' said Datuk Seri Samy, the Works Minister and an architect by training.
'They (the protesters) are fighting to create problems. They are troublemakers,' added the politician, dressed in a smart black suit and red tie.
His Mercedes Benz was parked in the driveway.
He has been leader of the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) and a Cabinet minister since 1979. The MIC is a junior partner in Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi's ruling Barisan Nasional coalition.
His friends regard him as the 'champion of Indians', but foes say he stands in the way of solving the socio-economic problems facing Malaysia's two million Indians.
The community, which forms 7 per cent of Malaysia's 27 million people, is in a parlous state, said a Hindu rights group which organised the rally.
It said that Indians lacked educational and business opportunities, and that government policies in favour of Malays had marginalised them.
The community's economic clout is a scant 1.5 per cent of national wealth, and even that is in the hands of a few top businessmen.
Many blame the MIC and Datuk Seri Samy for not solving their woes.
Sunday's protest, which also attracted Indian doctors, lawyers and other professionals, could be an eye-opener for BN.
A senior Umno leader said BN should study the grievances and try to overcome them.
Datuk Seri Samy took the criticism in his stride. 'I am a man on the job. There's always unfinished business,' he said.
But he gave no hint of when he would step down.
'I have been around for 29 years. At an appropriate time I will hand over.'
28/11: Hindraf denies affiliation to any political party
The Star
The Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) has denied that it has any political motives or ambitions in its fight for the rights of the Indians in the country.
Its secretary V. K. Regu said its sole objective was to express the grassroots’ grievances and unhappiness over the current status of the Indians in Malaysia.
“We are not aligned or affiliated to any political party but welcome any support for our efforts, regardless of whether it is from the ruling party or the Opposition,” he told a press conference yesterday.
Regu said Hindraf also urged all parties, including the Government, not to turn the mass gathering on Sunday into a racial issue and provoke the public further as Hindraf harboured no ill feeling towards the other races.
“The races in Malaysia are like a family and like a member of this family who is not getting enough food, we are asking for more. It should not break the family,” he said.
He also said that it was wrongfully claimed that the gathering on Sunday was a Hindraf-organised rally as it never sent out any form of invitation for a gathering and even the SMS messages calling for a mass gathering did not originate from the movement.
He said the publicity actually came from statements by the police and the Government against Hindraf’s decision to hand over the memorandum.
Regu said Hindraf also wanted to make it clear that it resorted to handing over the memorandum to the British High Commission after getting no response from all the avenues it explored here to highlight the plight of the Indians, including the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
He said it was a peaceful gathering that turned ugly when police provoked those gathered by firing tear gas and chemical-laced water at the crowd.
He claimed thugs were also planted at Batu Caves to disrupt the gathering there.
“I also ask the local media to be more responsible and mature in its coverage of the events on Sunday by also reporting how many visitors got injured and not just how many cops were hurt,” he said.
He said Hindraf also urged the parties involved to stop unwarranted accusations of the mass gathering and instead look seriously at finding solutions to the plight of Indians without attaching racial connotations to it.
On why the memorandum was eventually not handed over, he said police already had a court injunction barring them from going to the high commission, and they viewed this as a trap to arrest Hindraf’s leaders.
28/11: PM: I am open to criticism
The Star
CAIRO: The Prime Minister is open to criticism but it must be reasonable and not made emotionally or without justification.
“I do accept reasonable criticism. It is not a problem for me. But one cannot criticise based on assumptions and wrong information. That is not fair,” he said when asked to comment on a survey done by a local research centre and a daily newspaper recently.
According to the survey, Abdullah’s leadership has boosted public confidence and trust in Barisan Nasional.
“I am humbled by this. I will continue to do the best that I can for the country and the people.
“For those who support me and want to join my struggle, I say thank you. For those who criticise me, I also say thank you,” he said.
Abdullah, speaking to the Malaysian media at the end of his two-day visit here yesterday, also dispelled speculation that he would not be going abroad in the coming months, so as to prepare for the general election.
He said he had been informed that there were three or four trips coming up but did not elaborate on them nor whether he would be going.
When pressed further if the trips would be made before the Chinese New Year, which falls on Feb 7 next year, the Prime Minister said:
“Obviously, I will have to be around for Chinese New Year to celebrate the festivities with the Chinese community.”
The Prime Minister, who celebrated his 68th birthday on Monday, said he had no birthday wish but for good health for him, his family and all Malaysians.
27/11: 136 Hindraf supporters to face charges
The 136 Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) supporters arrested during Sunday's demonstration will face charges which include illegal assembly, sedition, causing a nuisance and contempt of court.
Federal CID director Datuk Christopher Wan Soo Kee said yesterday investigations would be completed in a day or two.
He said at the federal police headquarters in Bukit Aman that the investigation papers would be sent to the attorney-general who would decide on the charges.
Wan said copies of a magistrate's court order prohibiting the public from attending the rally were distributed in the city and warnings were issued to the public not to join the assembly.
He said the suspects, aged between 19 and 60, had been remanded for two days.
Asked why Hindraf's P. Uthayakumar and M. Manoharan were not arrested at the scene, he said the two were nowhere to be seen during the rally.
They only emerged about 1pm to address protesters, following which they dispersed, he added.
Wan said police were investigating the Police Watch Malaysia website alleging police brutality during the rally.
The website claimed that a 20-year-old man named Jaya was killed in Lebuh Ampang.
"It posted a picture of a man standing and wearing a T-shirt. It did not show his head or face."
He said the caption stated the man was dead, without giving any information on the time and place where the alleged incident occurred.
"If the allegation is false and the intention is to tarnish the good name of the force, action will be taken against those responsible for the website."
27/11: Hindraf 'made empty promises'
Deputy Internal Security Minister Datuk Mohd Johari Baharum said the Hindu Rights Action Force leaders had made empty promises to thousands of Indians to take part in Sunday's illegal rally.
"The Hindraf leaders had not only defied orders but also caused trouble to the public and the government," he said at parliament house.
Johari said he believed the Hindraf leaders had their own agenda, which had nothing to do with helping the Indian community.
He said just a handful of representatives could have quietly handed over the memorandum to the British High Commission, without having to gather such a large crowd.
"Even if they wanted to hand over a memorandum, why hand it over to the British government, they could have given it to our prime minister.
"The issue now borders on racism and the opposition is having field day over it," he said.
Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said the discharge of the three leaders of Hindraf by the court showed that the judiciary was independent,
He said the courts had to follow procedures and be satisfied that there was fairness.
"Even if we feel it is wrong (discharging the trio) we accept the court's decision. But we have to follow procedure. Everything must be done in accordance with the law," he said.
