Single-school system a good idea but are there enough guarantees?

Tongues are set to wag again over the latest call for a single-school system with UMNO hardliners accusing vernacular schools as breeding grounds for racism. In all honesty, a single-school system is not a bad idea but are there enough guarantees to ensure it remains truly 'Malaysian'?

I personally believe that a single-school system is the right track to long term nation building. However, I disagree with UMNO to say, the least, that vernacular schools are breeding grounds for racism. UMNO hardliners can just be as racist too but didn't most of their leaders study abroad? Is it then fair to say that foreign education is the cause for their race-based segregationist views? Therefore, it is unreasonable to label vernacular schools as the root for the deteriorating racial relations in this country. How about looking at certain discriminative government policies for a start, UMNO?

Speaking of a single-school system, I believe there is no place more suitable than a truly Malaysian school that is able to provide a conducive environment for students to interact with Malaysians of other ethnic groups. Vernacular schools are usually dominated by a single race and it would prove a challenge for students to learn what it means to be Malaysian if they are placed in a mono-cultural setting. Therefore, it is imperative that the values of a tolerance and mutual respect for other ethnic groups be cultivated among Malaysians at a tender age.

So, are there solid guarantees that a single-school system will not turn into a breeding ground for racial discrimination instead? The Malaysian education system is already infamous for racial quotas and ethnic-based scholarships and it is a known fact that meritocracy mean very little here. In fact, under a single-school system, the chances of discrimination exists even greater than in vernacular schools. Can the government guarantee that students of all ethnic backgrounds be treated equally? I doubt so. To run a truly Malaysian school system and then racial quotas in university placements, for example, at the same time is double standard. What more can we expect then in a single-school system? Forgive my pessimism.

Secondly, is the government ready to acknowledge the importance of other ethnic mother tongues like Mandarin, Tamil, Iban and etc. ? No doubt that the Malay language is the national language but the government must also be humble enough to admit that the other main ethnic languages are just as important. Malaysia is a multi cultural nation and diversity is what we boast about to the world. So I urge we walk our talk. Vernacular school advocates fear that these ethnic languages will be neglected under a single-school system. Therefore, is the government willing to commit the same amount of resources to promote these ethnic languages alongside the Malay language?

Are there also enough guarantees to ensure that a single-school system will remain truly secular? Sad to say and with all due respect to Islam, we have seen how religion has slowly infused itself into education (religious school not included). Considering the multi-cultural aspect of our society, I expect a single-school system to remain secular and free from religious bigotry. How many times have we seen values of a certain religion being imposed on others who do not follow that religion? Just too many times.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak's 1Malaysia brand, though highly commercialized these days, promotes racial unity and racial acceptance. If that call is a call for us to accept diversity, then a single-school system should also appear likewise. A truly Malaysian school system should promote cultural acceptance among students of various backgrounds. In the past, MPs like Ibrahim Ali of Pasir Mas claim that in order for nation building to succeed, immigrants a.k.a non-Malays must adopt the local Malay culture. Can Najib's administration prevent that such ridiculous views from creeping into the system and also promise that students are ultimately taught to embrace and celebrate our differences?

The single-school system is one way we can all help to build a better, united society - beginning with our children. Political willpower and these government 'guarantees' are all it takes for the idea to succeed. But of course, only the Malaysian people can bring the whole vision of Bangsa Malaysia into fruition.

Click here to read more...

M'sians reject tainted leaders? Bagan Pinang voters appear to think otherwise

Malaysians have made their stand. Results of a new Merdeka Center for Opinion Research poll suggested that the majority of Malaysians reject political leaders who have been tainted by money politics or sex scandals. The poll was a timely gesture as to discover how the majority of Malaysians would react to the numerous scandals and money politics that rocked the nation of late.

The Merdeka Center discovered that a total of 87% of respondents in the poll conducted in Peninsular Malaysia from 29 Sept to 4 Oct did not want leaders who have been involved in money politics to stand for elections. This was evident in the defeat of UMNO's Rohaizat Othman in the Permatang Pasir by-election who was found guilty of swindling a client by the Bar Council.

However, the results of the Merdeka Center poll was not reflected in the results of the Bagan Pinang by-election on October 11. Tan Sri Mohd Isa Abdul Samad won a landslide victory despite being found guilty of money politics by his party.[Refer to my previous post]

The poll also found that 75% of respondents did not want leaders who were tainted by sex scandals, taking Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek who was involved in a sex tape scandal as an example. At the same time, only 25.2% of respondents said Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat should lead the MCA following the disgraceful handling of the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ).

And recently, members of the MCA decided to oust Ong from the party president post in a vote of no confidence. This would mean Ong has to resign as Transport Minister and also party chief, potentially throwing the entire MCA into disarray with the leadership void. However, any decision for Ong, who is currently on a 'leave' to step down, is yet to be made.

Moving on to the MIC, 59% of respondents felt the party is no longer relevant to the Indian community. Only 15% viewed the largest Indian Malaysian party in the Barisan Nasional coalition positively.

In September, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak also saw his popularity fell to 56% from 65% (in June). However, 47% of the people expressed that they were still not convinced of the Pakatan Rakyat as a worthy rival to the Barisan Nasional at the federal level.

Such polls may not be the Malaysian people's true reflection of sentiments. The voting ballots would prove a more effective way for the people to voice their approvals and objection. But from what that has been gathered so far, it is apparent that the Barisan Nasional remains the only entity that is still capable of leading the federal government. The Pakatan Rakyat is simply still too inexperience to do so for now.

Click here to read more...

Those guilty of money politics not fit to run for office

The decision to field Tan Sri Mohd Isa Abdul Samad (image) to run for the Bagan Pinang state seat sends all sorts of wrong signals. Credibility is of the utmost importance for politicians who runs for office. But what does it mean for the Malaysian people when a candidate, who was found guilty for money politics, is allowed to contest in an election?

To echo former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's statement, character of a candidate (running for election) is important. But apparently Dr Mahathir's words has fallen on deaf ears. Isa was suspended for three years from June 24, 2005, for indulging in money politics in the 2004 UMNO elections. He was originally suspended for six years or two terms but it was reduced after he appealed [source].

Teluk Kemang UMNO Youth head Mohd Faizal Ramli also revealed that his division had conducted a survey and found that the constituents, including the non-Malays, have accepted Isa. Whether the findings were rigged or made-up, his statement paints a bleak image for Malaysian politics where blind loyalty towards individuals and party is seen more important than national interests.

According to Faizal, Isa was the perfect choice for the the candidacy as he proven his loyalty to the party and had set a good example for his fellow party members. I find this truly disturbing. A political party is merely a tool for individuals who share the same ideology to achieve whatever political ambitions they may have. Loyalty to the party above justice, accountability and service to the nation is corrupted loyalty.

Dr Mahathir had initially advised against nominating Isa as Barisan Nasional's candidate for the by-election. He said that Isa had been found guilty in money politics and picking him might give the impression that UMNO was not serious about fighting the corrupt practice. For his two cents worth, I cannot agree more. The lack of thorough consideration and the giving in to misguided grassroot demands by the party leadership sow doubts over Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak's seriousness in reforming UMNO which has recently lost much ground among the urban Malay community.

Najib believes people should look beyond Isa's past sins and consider his ability to resolve the problems voters face as his prerequisite for an able public representative [source]. But is Najib implying that money politics is nothing much but a petty crime? In my opinion, money politics is the greatest abuse and breach of public trust - an opinion which falls back to Dr. Mahathir's statement that character for a politician is more important. So what if Isa is loyal to UMNO. The fact stands that he indulged in money politics and thus his credibility has fallen into question.

Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein also went on to suggest that there is a difference between good guilt and bad guilt - if we were to go by with his comment on the issue. He admits, “He (Isa) is different from certain individuals who, when found guilty by the party, they are willing to curse the party that has served them. Tan Sri Isa is different. He is patient and strong, and his loyalty to the party is one matter which was considered by the top leadership.”

But justice and redemption are not made by simply being "loyal" to the party. Money politics is a serious form of corruption and a blatant breach of public trust. The issue here is not whether Isa would indulge in money politics again but when one's credibility can be questioned like this, then he is not fit to represent the people. Come October 11 and Malaysians would really love to see if voters in Bagan Pinang are mature enough to understand what credibility and character mean for their representative in government. As for me, I want one who is clean from any wrongdoing - especially from money politics.

Click here to read more...

When monarchies should remain politically neutral...

The Royal Institution in Malaysia not only functions as a symbol of sovereignty of the Malay Rulers but is also a system to maintain check and balance within the national political fold. Malaysians expect their monarchs to remain above politics but what happens when they appear otherwise?

Constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which a monarch acts as head of state whose powers are defined by the parameters of a written or unwritten constitution. In Malaysia, nine hereditary Sultans preside over their respective states who, in general understanding, should maintain their neutrality in politics.

However, on September 25 the Sultan of Pahang, Sultan Ahmad Shah called on his subjects to continue supporting the Barisan Nasional. His Majesty's reason? The Sultan believes that by supporting the ruling coalition, it would ensure short and long term development for the state which in turn, would benefit the people of Pahang [source].

Last year, the Perlis state monarch made his political preferences known by going against the recommendation of Barisan Nasional for Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim to be in line for the Chief Minister post. Raja Perlis Syed Sirajuddin Putra Jamalullail decided to appoint Bintong assemblyman Datuk Dr Md Isa Sabu as Chief Minister instead and His Majesty's actions drew huge protests from the Barisan Nasional camp.

Shahidan, obviously disappointed with the Raja's decision, was quoted saying,"This is Barisan Nasional's pride. If there is no respect for Barisan Nasional and Umno, who else will respect them? Barisan Nasional has won the election therefore the appointment by the coalition party should not be questioned...This is a clear indication that the party, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi (then Prime Minister) and even the people's decision have been disregarded." [source]

His public disapproval of the Perlis monarch's intervention in the political process, of course, did not receive as much flak as what the Pakatan Rakyat had to endure during the Perak Constitutional crisis in May 2009. Both Pakatan Rakyat leaders and supporters were heavily criticized by Barisan Nasional for being "disrespectful" towards the Sultan of Perak for disapproving certain actions taken or rather not taken by the Sultan during the course of the crisis. And yet, the people who cried foul the loudest did just the same for the Raja of Perlis less than a year ago. Speak of hypocrisy!

If disagreeing with a Sultan's actions or comments is deemed treachery then the same judgement can be passed on the 74% of Perak voters of a Merdeka Centre poll who felt the Sultan could have helped to pave way for fresh state elections rather than endorsing the Barisan Nasional smash and grab of state administrative powers.

UMNO youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin and his supporters have even dared to suggest banishment for people who "defy" the monarchy!

The whole issue of disrespecting the royalty has been politicized ever since the Perak crisis and it has been the main attack for the Barisan Nasional on the Pakatan Rakyat among the Malay community who traditionally hold their monarchs in high regard. But surely, this time I believe the Sultan of Pahang's comments will be duly accepted by the Barisan Nasional fold.

Perhaps, political neutrality is best portrayed by King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand who, in 2006, refused to intervene in the nation's political crisis between the Thaksin Shinawatra government and the Opposition. The King said the courts should resolve the matter and told senior judges to assume their responsibilities or resign. His Majesty also said the constitution does not permit him to appoint a new government, and to do so would be undemocratic - thus displaying a certain amount of political impartiality in this case [source].

The dignity of the Malay Rulers is valued by their political neutrality as Malaysians hope to rely on their state monarchs as a form of check and balance against governance powers bestowed on commoners through elections. But it remains interesting to see how the people of Pahang would react to their Sultan's call for support for a particular political party - or will they "defy" their ruler and vote their way to "treachery"?
Click here to read more...

Move towards religious acceptance, not tolerance

The recent controversy surrounding the cow head protest of Section 23, Shah Alam has sparked a furore of public dissatisfaction. The Selangor state government has done all it can to satisfy both the protesters and Hindu residents but to no avail. But just when the dust begins to settle, is it possible that 'Muslim sensitivity' has been hijacked as an excuse for downright racism?

On August 28, a protest was held in front of the Selangor state secretariat against the relocation of the Sri Maha Mariaman Temple into their residential area of Section 23, Shah Alam. The protest became a subject of criticism when the group displayed a bloodied cow head to mock the state government without knowing or rather being ignorant to the fact that cows are considered sacred in the Hindu religion. [Read more on the incident]

The Selangor state government recently held a dialogue between the residents of Section 23 to cohesively draft a solution to the ongoing problem. The forum, of course, turned rowdy when residents began to physically confront each other. Some residents even threw racial insults towards government leaders who were present at the meet and rejected alternative proposals brought forward by the Shah Alam City Hall.

The residents argued that the relocation of the temple directly affects Muslim sensitivities. But when asked what these "sensitivities" were, the objectors failed to provide any clear answers. Some cited "traffic congestion" as one of the reason why the relocation of the Sri Maha Mariaman Temple was rejected. "Traffic congestion" has nothing to do with religious sensitivity of any kind.

Interviews made by The Malaysian Insider recently revealed that several residents of Section felt their religion had been 'sidetracked' and 'betrayed' by their Muslim leaders. How so? Because the new site for the Hindu temple is just 150 meters from a surau and in a Muslim-majority housing area. The Sri Maha Mariaman Temple had to be relocated from its original site because it was also too close to another surau.

A resident was even quoted saying she was against the relocation of the temple because it was too near to a playground and children will not go there to play if the temple is built. Why? Are Hindus pedophiles?

On September 4, Yayasan Dakwah Islamiah Malaysia (YDIM), an Islamic missionary organization did no one any favour to help calm the issue when they argued that the high number of Hindu temples in country was the cause of the problem. According to its president Datuk Mohd. Nakhaie Ahmad, there are too many Hindu temples in the country and that has made the Malay community uneasy.

Nakhaie also said that despite 60% of the population in Sentul, Kuala Lumpur being Muslim, there are only 13 mosques in the area as to 72 Hindu temples.
Former Selangor Chief Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mohd Khir Toyo suggested recently that his idea of having a religious enclave - where Hindu temples would be segregated into one area - would solve the problem and foster greater religious tolerance. I would ask Khir Toyo, would he do the same to the mosques in a non-Muslim majority area? History has shown us what segregation can do to nationhood; be it religious or ethnic.

In my opinion, why should the Hindus relocated their temple in the first place? They have done nothing wrong but to be in close proximity to another house of worship. Why should the Hindus of Section 23 compromise on their rights to freedom of worship just to satisfy and fulfill the demands of another group of people. The protesters may not realize that when they preach of religious tolerance, they are effectively looking at themselves in the mirror.

It is clear that Muslim sensitivities have been exploited to justify a ludicrous cause and an excuse for blatant racism against other Malaysians of a different faith. The objectors of the temple relocation are clueless as to how the relocated temple would infringe Islam and Muslims.

We, non-Muslim Malaysians kindly asks these people to consider the fact that there are also instances where mosques and suraus are built in a non-Muslim majority area and yet, the residents have no qualms about it. We ask our fellow brethren to understand this side of the coin. In a multi-religious country like ours, it is all about give-and-takes and not demand-and-whine when things don't go our way.

Perhaps, it is time that Malaysians move towards religious acceptance rather than religious tolerance. What is so obnoxious about another religion other than our own that we need to put up with?

We have to accept other religions as they are and not belittling others to suit our own interpretation of what faith and religion should be. Accepting another religion which is not our own does not mean we betrayed our own nor we are new converts to the former.

Be it waking up to the daily Azan call or enduring the traffic jams during the annual Thaipussam walks in Batu Caves, we should all embrace our differences and celebrate our diversity. Saying one building is too close to another or segregating temples into a enclaves are not the solution to problem. Are we not hypocrites when we teach our children that Malaysia is founded in the spirit of brotherhood and mutual respect?

Click here to read more...

1Malaysia is still 1Dream too far away

On August 28, a group of residents from Section 23, Shah Alam and several others from Malay NGOs protested against the relocation of a Hindu temple to their area by carrying a severed bloodied cow head to the State Secretariat building. And as we all know, the cow is considered sacred in the Hindu religion and the protesters have certainly crossed the line.

Malaysiakini reported that about 50 residential committee members were involved in Friday's protest after the Muslim Friday prayers. The protesters brought banners criticizing the Selangor State government, Chief Minister Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim, State Welfare Exco Rodziah Ismail, State Health Exco Dr A Xavier Jayakumar and Shah Alam PAS MP Khalid Samad [source].

Section 23 Resident's Association chairman, Mahyuddin Manaf said that the group is against the relocation of the Sri Maha Mariaman Temple 300 meters to their area because 80% of residents there are Muslims.

It was understood that the Sri Maha Mariaman Temple had to be relocated 300 meters from its original site because it was too close to a surau. But that apparently was not enough for the protesters who claim that Hindus in Section 23 are only the minority and the relocation of their temple is unjustified.

The Sri Maha Mariaman Temple was first built for Hindu residents of Section 19, 20 and 23 Shah Alam - not just Section 23 alone.

However, Mahyuddin Manaf denied that he had knowledge of any prior intentions by the protesters to carry the cow head to the State Secretariat and also expressed his 'shock' over the incident. He went on the say that perhaps, the cow head was not intended to insult Hindus as the animal represents stupidity in the Malay culture.

Even if they truly meant to mock the state government, Mahyuddin Manaf and his people are clearly ignorant enough to not know that the cow is a sacred animal in the Hindu religion. What do the protesters intend to achieve by carrying a bloodied cow head around?

The Friday protest is an exposé of the ugly side of society where religious bigotry and the lack of mutual respect for other communities seem lacking. Banners were also seen labelling Rodziah Ismail and Khalid Samad as "traitors of the Malay race". Such bigots have shown they cannot differentiate race and religion.

What further disturbs me is the very reason the protesters used to justify their demonstration. They believe that the Hindu Temple should not be relocated to their area because the Hindu residents of Section 23 only make up a small minority.

But just what do they mean by that? Are minorities not entitled to the same rights as of those in the majority? I would like to remind the protesters of Article 11(3b) of the Federal Constitution which states that "Every religious group has the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes."

Even if there are only 10 Hindus in Section 23, they too have equal rights to have their own place of worship as the Muslims do. Nothing is questioned when mosques and suraus are built in non-Muslim majority areas. So how is this case any different?

It is already enough for non-Muslims to follow building guidelines set by the National Fatwa Council for Islamic Affairs, which I believe are both narrow minded and unconstitutional, to dictate how to build places of worship. You may refer to my post on the issue of religious freedom in Malaysia [click here].

It is imperative that citizens of this country learn to have mutual respect and acceptance of different religions other than their own. Khalid Samad and Rodziah Ismail have performed well in their duties as politicians for all Malaysian despite being Muslim themselves. I commend them for that. It is people like Mahyuddin Manaf and his band of protesters that paint a bad image for other Muslims in the country.

The protesters from Section 23 of this dogmatist cause warned Khalid Samad and Rodziah Ismail "not to play with fire". But in fact, the very people who are playing with fire are those who stoke racial and religious hostility among Malaysians.

Home minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein has issued a warning to those who create racial tension. Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has demanded action to be taken on the protesters. The police have also said that the August 28 protest will be investigated under the Sedition Act. But talk is cheap. We will need to wait and see if the authorities would really walk their talk in the spirit of 1Malaysia.

Click here to read more...

Condemn religious bigotry, not Islam

On August 24, independent news portal Malaysiakini reported that PAS Youth is calling for a ban on MLTR's (Michael Learns To Rock) concert this September - citing it as an insult towards Muslims in the country because it is held during the fasting month of Ramadhan

Firstly, I would like to clarify that this is not an attack on Islam. I have enough respect for my Muslim friends to honour their faith. What I am trying to convey here is my personal rejection towards religious bigotry of any kind - be it Christian, Buddhist, Taoist or etcetera. So I urge my fellow Malaysians not to attack the religion but the religious bigotry of PAS Youth.

The Danish band is scheduled to hold a concert in Genting Highlands on September 5 to promote their newest album, Eternity. With hit songs like Paint My Love and That's Why You Go, the biggest proportion of MLTR's global fandom is actually found in Malaysia.

On August 24, PAS Youth leader Nasrudin Hassan commented that the concert would be a "massive insult" to Muslims in the country who are currently fasting for Ramadhan. He also criticized the present government for giving Star Planet Sdn Bhd the green light to organise the event.[source].

To make things even more compelling, Nasruddin Hassan said he is not hesitant to rally Muslim youths around the country to hold mass protests against the concert. He is also calling for other Muslim NGOs in the country to make a stand against the issue, hoping to cleanse Malaysia from immorality and sin perpetrated by the UMNO/BN government.

"The concert is sure to bring about complacency and immorality among Muslims," Nasruddin Hassan was quoted saying. [Malaysiakini, 24/8/09]

My question is: Why not also ban the sale of cigarettes during the month of Ramadhan? I'm sure tar and nicotine can do more harm than a Danish ballad rock concert can!

If PAS Youth feels that the concert is not suitable for Muslims, then the most reasonable and practical thing to do is to advise Muslims to simply not attend the event. They should be considerate that there are also other Malaysians who do not observe the Ramadhan and would love to see their favourite band live. Has PAS Youth forgotten that Malaysia is not 100% Muslim?

Religious bigotry in Malaysia is not new. Recently, the issue of the sale of alcohol in Muslim-majority areas in Shah Alam has been heavily politicised by PAS Selangor and UMNO. The state administration's local government, research and development portfolio - currently held by executive council (exco) member Ronnie Liu was accused of "interfering in the matters of Islam" by PAS Selangor.

Liu recently intervened in a seizure of beer cans by the Shah Alam City Council from a shop in the city. Muslims in the country are already legally not allowed to purchase alcoholic beverages but PAS Selangor is demanding for a ban on the sale of alcohol in every Muslim-majority area. PAS Selangor believes that by doing so, Muslim youths would be protected from indulging in alcohol.

But it did not occur to them that if one really wants to get his/her fix, one can always drive somewhere else or quietly do it in their own room. PAS Selangor is also ignorant to the fact that many non-Muslim retail owners depend heavily on the sale of alcoholic beverages. Placing beer cans in shops is not an act of forcing nor encouraging Muslim youths to drink!

It is a fact that religious bigotry will always be a thorn in the flesh of progress and civil maturity and will also continue to plague our multi-cultural society. Thus, we as Malaysians must understand that while we may condemn the narrow-mindedness of certain religious bigots in the country, let us all also be sure not to condemn the religion.


Click here to read more...

Kerajaan BN or Kerajaan Malaysia?

The Barisan Nasional coalition has been in power for over 50 years. However, the political monopoly has created confusion among ordinary Malaysians and politicians alike of the difference between "party" and "government". This has open doors for abuse and propaganda by the powers that be which I believe every Malaysian should therefore be aware of. It is the very reason why a government should be impartial and not party-orientated when it comes to governance.

So what is the difference between party and government? Apart from the spelling, of course, a party is an entity of politicians who share the same ideology and is intended to run for election to govern. Government, on the other hand, is the administrative body of the nation and it should not discriminate any group of people based on their political beliefs, no matter how different they may be from the elected party.

The problem lies in the misconception or rather, the ignorance by certain quarters in acknowledging the difference between party and government. I believe, some politicians and local executive councillors are guilty for their failure to distinguish such things in public..

I am speaking from my personal experience and observation. And I believe, if we look hard enough (a challenge to whoever may be reading this), the proof of my point can be seen almost everywhere and anywhere. Below is a picture of a signboard which is quite ubiquitous. It is self-explanatory:

The signboard proudly exclaims, Projek Kerajaan Barisan Nasional (A Barisan Nasional government project). Is "Barisan Nasional" the name of our country? Or is the school building a 'gift' from the Barisan Nasional? No party should ever claim credit for a project that benefits the community if it is funded by taxpayers' money. Is this not political propaganda even when it is not election season?

Such signboards only mock every taxpaying Malaysian. Are supporters of the Barisan Nasional the only ones who deserve such perks and social benefits? Or are these signboards a cheap reminder to non-Barisan Nasional supporters that they are at the mercy of the ruling coalition? No. The government is obliged to serve every citizen regardless of their political affiliation.

They are also accusations of the federal government (led by Barisan Nasional) withholding crucial funds for states currently under the rule of Opposition parties. Taking Penang state for instance, in August 2008 Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng disclosed that the federal government is holding back RM1.1 billion worth of allocated funds for the urgent expansion of the Mengkuang Dam in Permatang Pauh. Penang’s growing population was bound to face critical water shortage in the next four years. Lim noted that the allocation has not been fulfilled even though it was originally confirmed in the 8th Malaysia Plan. The project was later to be financed fully by a loan from the federal government under the 9th Malaysia Plan. The people of Penang chose the Opposition as the state government but they are nonetheless Malaysians. Thus, it is the duty of the federal goverment is to serve the people of Penang no matter what.

And on August 17 2009, PKR Pahang Legal advisor Ahmad Nizam Hamid reported that Deputy Prime Minister and UMNO party vice president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin had used a Nuri helicopter owned by the Royal Malaysian Air Force in Sabah while conducting party activities. The news about the abuse of government property for party affairs only came to light when the helicopter had to make an emergency landing in Tuaran. Just what right does Muhyiddin have to utilise the RMAF helicopter for UMNO matters?

Is the political psyche of Malaysians too accustomed to the Barisan Nasional 50 year dominance that such misconceptions of party and government have gone unnoticed? Political parties may debate and bicker over ideologies but a government should remain what it is and all politics are put aside for the sake of nationhood. Therefore, the Malaysian context that relates party with government and government with party is flawed. Because ultimately, the people of Malaysia come first, not party nor propaganda.


Click here to read more...