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...

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...

Does Malaysia still need the ISA ?

The Internal Security Act (ISA) has never failed to provoke its fair share of controversies. The government says we need it; the foreign media says its unethical but ultimately, the majority of Malaysians want the policy scrapped for good.

The preventive detention law was first drafted by the government to counter the communist insurgents during the Emergency Years. And yes, the law has been instrumental in putting a dent in the Jemaah Islamiyah terror movement many years ago. But the question is: Do we really need the ISA?

Both former Law Minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim and Human Resources Minister Datuk Dr. S. Subramaniam have in the past expressed their discontent with the abuse of the ISA by the powers that be. Zaid Ibrahim, a lawyer by profession have said that Malaysia has adequate laws to prosecute an individual deemed a threat to national security and there is simply no need to invoke the controversial law.

In an article published by the Malaysian Insider, Pasir Mas independent MP Ibrahim Ali has called for the support and the continuity of the ISA. He reckons a multiracial country like Malaysia needs the ISA in order to maintain peace and order in society. To support his argument, he suggests that it would be 'easier' to arrest a terrorist suspect who is plotting to bomb a public area under the ISA, rather than using conventional detention law to prosecute him in court for 'he' has yet to commit a crime.

Nonetheless, I believe that kind of reasoning is flawed.

First of all, if an arrest is to be made on a terror suspect, that would likely mean the authorities have sufficient evidence of his terrorist involvement in the first place; otherwise an arrest warrant cannot be issued. Secondly, the police still has the right to detain a criminal suspect for 48 hours for interrogation - even without a warrant. On the other hand, a person can be incarcerated up to 60 days of interrogation without access to legal counsel under the ISA.

In fact, I would support the ISA if and only if the legislation is restricted to cover terrorist or military threats. The fact is that today, the party in power has the prerogative to choose who is a 'threat' and who is not. This gives powerful individuals in the government to abuse the ISA. Individuals like Raja Petra Kamarudin and Teresa Kok were considered threats to national security simply because they disagreed with certain government policies and practices. Are bloggers and MPs now more dangerous than crooks and terrorists?

Recent trends have also shown that the ISA is currently being used to serve political purposes.

But what about the racists? People have called for the ISA to be used on politicians like former Bukit Bendera division chief Ahmad Ismail who labelled the Chinese Malaysians as squatters last year. Nothing happened. So to say that Malaysia needs the ISA to prevent people from stirring racial sentiments is irrelevant. When the ISA is really needed to serve its true purpose, it is not used. What is the point then?

But I believe in the freedom of speech. Being of Chinese descent, if one decides to make a racist statement on my ancestry in public, does it mean I should start a racial riot and torch every Malay home or business? No. But unfortunately, our society is not mature enough to handle such harsh statements - yet.

The ethical issue with the ISA is that a person can be arrested for a crime he has yet to commit. That is like putting the cart before the horse. Likewise, when heavy Muslim-dressed passengers have to undergo tighter security screenings for 'potential terrorist affiliations' in European and American airports, many here cry foul against the religious/racial profiling being exercised by the liberal West. Similarly, the police here could also arrest every single motorcycle rider on the road for being potentially 'Rempit'. Why not?

Hence, I believe the ISA has already served its purpose to suppress the communists. Laws are drafted to fulfil the nation's needs of a specific period and therefore we cannot expect a law to remain relevant forever. Laws have to be amended according to the times. The same applies with the ISA.

I would support if the role of the ISA is to be reviewed by the government. However, I am still not to keen on that idea. I would rather see the ISA be abolished and a new set of law be tabled to address the issues of national security. Why allow a law like the ISA which has all the room for abuse by corrupt leaders to continue to prevail?

Thus, the reviewed ISA or whatever name the new law is to be called, should be more specific in its definition of 'national threats' and the criteria which define them in order to prevent future abuses.


Click here to read more...

When will narrow-minded Malaysians wake up?

It is disappointing to see and hear narrow-minded things some Malaysians had to say, despite belonging to a nation of more than half a century old; let alone a multi-racial one. When will some of us learn to understand the concepts of a matured, open-minded society to move beyond such insularity?

A couple of incidents that took place in the course of the week were really self-explanatory (of the point I am trying to make here). There are still narrow-minded citizens and MPs alike out there who continue to put the rest of our society to shame with their remarks and statements.

One that really left me annoyed and disgusted was the argument Kulim Bandar Baharu MP Zulkifli Noordin put forth in his support for the abolishment of the PPSMI (the teaching of Science and Mathematics in English) initiative. In his blog post, Zulkifli reasoned that there was no real urgency for Malaysians to be proficient in English and the government had done the right thing to honour the Malay language. Taking Japan as an example, he said that the Japanese have gone on to accomplish great technological triumphs without being proficient in English.

To further support his premise, he also argued that the Filipinos was only capable of producing household maids despite being highly proficient in the English language.

Firstly, Zulkifli (image) is naive enough to compare Malaysia with Japan. Japan can afford NOT to learn English because they are in a position to offer much to the world. They are not the 4th largest world economy for nothing. Malaysia, on the other hand, imports the majority of technologies and knowledge from abroad. Thus, who are we to decide that the world should learn our language and we can all together forget about the learning the most important language of all - English? Unlike Japan, Malaysia has relatively little to offer the world for us to demand such privilege Japan is currently enjoying.

Secondly, Zulkifli's statement about Filipinos is utterly disrespectful. There's even a sprinkle of racism in that, I reckon. Being a lawyer himself, he should know that his remarks may have had an impact on the Malaysian Filipino community. But above all, it is also disrespectful towards the good and honest people who have no choice but to work as household maids in this country due to poverty and the lack of job opportunities back home.

In fact, has Zulkifli ever thought that it is us who should be ashamed that even household maids speak and write better English than most of our government officials, corporate figures and elected representatives?

There are also the inconsiderate racists among us that still believe in the superiority of a race over others. The last time I checked, this was Nazi/Apartheid-like mainstream mentality that no longer exists today. Recently, a Kajang municipal councillor who was interrogated by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) alleged commission investigators hurled racist remarks at him during questioning [source].

MACC officers had apparently called him a stupid Chinese and even asked if he (the municipal councillor) was from China.

Perhaps the municipal councillor could not converse in Malay as good as the MACC officers. But that does not mean he is stupid nor is he from China. Well, I have seen my fair share of Malaysian Malays who cannot even converse or write in proper Malay.

So what gives?



Click here to read more...

Taking one step forward & three steps back, the M'sian way

On July 9, the government decided to end the teaching of science and mathematics in English (PPSMI) in national schools, beginning 2012 onwards. Again, the Malaysian people is divided with this latest regression of an initiative set up in 2003 to ensure Malaysia remains competitive in the globalised world of information and technology. But in my opinion, the government has shamefully taken a step forward but three steps back.

1 step forward:

1. Deputy Education Minister Dr Puad Zarkashi says that by ditching the PPSMI, the government saves RM40 million annually.
   

3 steps back:

1. Students who are caught in between the transition between English and Malay will suffer the most.
2. The government will allocate almost RM5 billion to strengthen the teaching and learning of English in schools.
3. Malaysia's ability to compete globally in the future is being jeopardized.
   

If there is one thing that really caught my attention, it is the amount of money the government is willing to pump in to "strengthen the teaching of English" in schools; after deciding to scrap the PPSMI. If the government has RM5 billion in the first place, why isn't that sum of money been put to help improve the PPSMI?

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak argues that only 8% of science and mathematics teachers are proficient in the English language. But the depressing statistic could also improve if half of that RM5 billion of funding is to put better use to bolster the proficiency among the remaining 92%.

It will not be a surprise to see the 8% (those who are proficient) to continue to shrink when students of today end up as teachers in a decade's time. Students now have no reason to improve their standard of English - given that the language itself is still not a 'must pass' subject in the SPM examination and also important subjects are no longer taught in English beyond 2012.

The government is not taking a gamble but a miscalculated dive into the dark waters of arrested development. Various cultural/language groups and politicians have come to support the scrapping the PPSMI, saying the initiative to teach science and mathematics in English is unconstitutional to begin with. They say it is an act of defence for the dignity and position of the Malay language as the national tongue. And by reverting back to the old ways, they are also strengthening the status of Mandarin and Tamil in society.

I'd say their argument is flawed. "Strengthening" one's language does not come by teaching science and mathematics in that language. It is through quality teaching materials and literature that improvements are made to one's proficiency. Therefore, to say that by scrapping the PPSMI could memartabatkan or strengthen the Malay language (Mandarin and Tamil included) is highly unfounded.

But the argument of the PPSMI is not to champion the English language whilst disregarding the other languages. Neither it is made to only improve the proficiency of English among students. The PPSMI serves a higher purpose which is to ensure young Malaysians are well equipped to compete globally.

I urge the proponents of the PPSMI-ditching campaign to be realistic. Sure, patriotism is good but blind patriotism can kill. English, whether we like it or not, is the language of science, information and knowledge.

The effort to improve the standards of English as a subject and learning science and mathematics in English are two different matters. One cannot learn the sciences simply by being proficient in English. On the contrary, one has to be familiar with scientific and academic terminologies in order the master a field.

As former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad has pointed out in his blog, just how many local academicians in this country do not take English textbooks for references? And if I may add on, just how many non-English speaking local academicians have gone to published world class writings or even being revered by the scientific community?

It is understood that rural schools children face difficulties in science and mathematics due to their poor command of English. But by scrapping the PPSMI in order is to simply run away from reality and is definitely not the solution. Therefore, the government should give more attention in developing and improving the proficiency of English among rural children and not taking their poor command of the language that as an excuse to scrap the PPSMI.

Malaysia was successful in the 1990's because the majority of our workforce and intellectuals were educated in the English medium. We have an edge over neighbouring countries like Indonesia, Vietnam and Thailand when it came to attracting Western investors simply because we have better command of the English language.

So this is my plea to the government: Do not burn the whole forest over a sick tree. If the PPSMI has not achieved its intention, it does not mean that the whole idea is rubbish. The problem lies with its implementation and the lack of thorough study and evaluation. The English language subject in schools should be improved but at the same time, the government should also maintain and further develop the PPSMI initiative. School children are not guinea pigs for our experiments. Neither is the future of our nation a gamble.



Click here to read more...

KTM Komuter- A decade and half not enough to be world class?

The KTM Komuter which runs through the heart of the nation's capital has been awful in both quality and punctuality. Since 1995, the KTM Komuter remains the sole railway network which connects large suburban neighbourhoods and satellite towns surrounding Kuala Lumpur to the heart of the city. Many depend heavily on its service daily despite having to face frustration and annoyance ever day for substandard service. Something just has to be done!

The KTM Komuter is notorious for cancellations, delays, breakdowns and overcrowded cars which occur on a daily basis. First introduced in 1995 to help ease traffic congestion in Kuala Lumpur and reducing travel time, it is depressing to know that it takes less time to drive to the city centre today than taking the KTM Komuter.

It is KTM Komuter's unwritten rule to have 20 minute intervals between trains but we all know it would take a fool or a tourist from Singapore or Hong Kong (where they enjoy efficient and punctual railway services) to at least believe half of that bullocks. The fact is that on many occasions, KTM Komuter trains arrive at stations once every 30 minutes and sometimes even to an hour at peak hours or heavy rain.

The KTM Komuter trains also suffer frequent breakdowns with many excuses ranging from power failure to mechanical problems. Thus, it is high time the government intervene to address this appalling state of affairs. KTM Komuter has enjoyed a relative period of monopoly in the railway business. However, that does not mean they are given the ticket to be complacent and incompetent in their service to the public.

One of the major reason why the KTM Komuter is so inept is their inability to cope with high ridership levels which have risen since 1995 and will continue to do so long into the future. However, the indecisiveness by both the KTM Bhd and the Ministry of Transport is to blame for the current state of the KTM Komuter service.

The KTM Komuter rail network spans 173km but has only 53 units (out of its original 63) to cover that kind of distance. With daily ridership of about 101,000, KTM's newest unit of the fleet was commissioned in 1997. That was more than 12 years ago. In other words, no serious steps were actually taken to cope with rising passenger traffic for more than a decade!

KTM announced on February 7 2008 that they will purchase 8 new commuter train sets (with four cars each) that will guarantee increased passenger capacity. Currently three car train sets are serving the route. And on May 2009, KTM said they will introduce eight EMU (Electric Multiple Unit) Hybrid trains by June to use as a temporary solution should any problem arise with existing trains or for peak hours.

The EMU Hybrid train is a set of existing KTM Komuter train which uses diesel locomotive power with the help of a Power Generating Car that provides electricity for the air-conditioning, audio/ visual system and train doors. Kind of defeating the purpose of having a electrified commuter service, ain't it?

Speaking from my personal experience as a commuter, I still have not seen any improvements to the daily cancellations, delays and overcrowded cars the service is notorious for. I believe many fellow communters share the same view.

Also, I find it very puzzling to see newer stations being added to the already inefficient line in the past 5 years when KTM itself do not even have enough trains to properly function for the existing number of stations. Having newer stations mean higher passenger loads and ultimately, longer delays as the trains need to stop longer and at more places in a day. With new trains not expected to arrive by 2010, how would KTM expect its current fleet to cope with the increased passenger traffic when these stations open?

Perhaps KTM should consider standardizing the amount of time a train takes to travel from one station to the next one. The distances may vary between two stations along the line but that can be compensated by either increasing or decreasing the speed of which the train travels between such two stations.

Also, the KTM could try setting a maximum amount of passengers per car for a train to avoid long boarding times. Since trains have to be at a certain time and distance apart from each other, longer boarding times at Station A could delay the entire line! Current KTM policy (from personal experience) suggests that the driver should attempt to sardine-pack as many passengers as possible before embarking. This, I believe, has a multiplying effect on train delays.

Of course, to ensure all of the above could be carried out effectively, KTM must ensure its trains are all rail-worthy and well maintained to avoid unnecessary mechanical or electrical failures. But above all, having additional trains to ease the pressure should be the priority if the KTM wants to be able to handle the ever increasing passenger volume in years to come. KTM cannot expect its decade-old and limited number of trains to continue ferrying the masses to the city centre for the long haul.

Former Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi famously took a one-hour journey on the KTM Komuter and the LRT. He said he was not satisfied with the rail services and wanted immediate improvements to be made after listening to complaints from fellow commuters and experiencing the horrendous service first hand. He told reporters the following:

“I just saw the plight of people using the trains to get to work every morning. They were jostling to get on board every time a train arrived. There appeared to be no system."

“There were many more suggestions given me by the passengers for my attention. I (Badawi)will strive for improvements, I will propose changes.” [The Star, 21/8/08]

Proposing is one thing. Actually getting it to happen is another.



Click here to read more...

About time making English a "must pass" subject

KUALA LUMPUR: Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin is surprised to learn that English is not a “must pass” subject for SPM and wants public feedback on the matter. [The Star, 9/6/09]

The importance of the English language as the lingua franca of knowledge and technology cannot be overstressed. The mastery of the language among Malaysians have spiralled downwards since Independence and unless we make things right in the near future, we may just kiss our hopes of becoming a developed nation goodbye.

But before I start, I must say I am a little baffled over Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin's (image) reaction when he discovered English is not a "must pass" subject for the SPM examinations. I'd like to say: "About time, Mister DPM." God knows how long one has to be a minister to actually recognise such an obvious shortcoming in the system.

I belong to the school of thought that fully supports the government's decision to teach science and mathematics in English in schools and making the language a "must pass" subject in SPM. And I am also aware that there are certain quarters of our society oppose this move as they argue that by doing so ,we would put the rural folks at a loss and even compromise the position of the national language. But I must explain that by supporting the teaching of science and mathematics in English does not mean I am less of a citizen. I just feel all of this is essential for the nation to progress.

In my dictionary, forsaking the nation's future is the bigger crime and in this case, the mastery of the English language by Malaysians is of the greatest importance if we ever want this country of ours to succeed.

The issue of the the English subject is a perpetual problem - a vicious cycle where the end has as much influence on the beginning of the problem - and vice versa.

The people who oppose the teaching of science and mathematics in English argue that since Japan, China and Korea can maintain their teaching and learning in their native languages, why can't we do the same? But I would like to simply say that they are Japan, China and Korea...not Malaysia. These countries are major exporters of technology let alone economic powerhouses and therefore have the privilege to not have English being shoved down the throats of their younglings. Malaysia, on the other hand, do not have that kind of choice and privilege.

If I'd be cynical, what difference would teaching science subjects in English make? After all, most of the technical terms and jargon in the national language are direct phonetic translations of their English equivalents anyway.

Those people are right to argue that the rural students who have less access to quality materials would be at a loss if English is made a "must pass" subject. They also believe that the government should first ensure teachers are capable of teaching English. But just how do they expect young teachers to master the English language if they do not have a strong foundation in the language in school in the first place. See why this is a perpetual problem?

But I still believe we should start somewhere. I mean, at least there is a start to a solution to the never-ending cycle and is definitely better than folding our arms and expect English-fluent teachers to grow on trees. Making the English subject a "must pass" would encourage students who are poor in the language to work harder. A standard is set for people to follow, not to set it lower for it to follow people.

At the same time, the government should ensure language teachers are equipped with the necessary skills and materials to teach English effectively and properly. The DPM has recently contemplated to revisit the Kirby College concept first developed in the 1950s where Malaysian teachers are sent abroad to learn English in an English-speaking environment. It is a good idea and must I say the rural schools be given more attention on this compared to urban schools if the concept ever takes off.

Perhaps the government should also consider gradually increasing the passing mark of the English language subject, instead of making the subject a "must pass" over the next few years. That would certainly ease the pressure on the rural students while giving them and the teachers enough time to improve their language skills. But no matter what, it should eventually come a time that the English language subject be made a "must pass" subject in schools.


Click here to read more...

Limit on SPM subjects to 10 not a good idea

NILAI: The days of students taking up to 20 subjects in the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) examination are over. Next year they will be allowed a maximum of only 10 subjects.[NST, 4/6/2009]

The government's decision to cap the number of subjects taken in the SPM examinations to 10 has received a myriad of reactions from the public. In the wake of mounting public dissatisfaction over how public scholarships are offered, the government has attempted to restore some 'quality' to our education system rather than allowing the 'quantity' of A's to continue to dictate one's level of success. But is limiting the number of examination subjects the best solution to the problem?

In Malaysia, students who have completed their fifth form education are required to take the SPM or the Malaysian Certificate of Education examination. It is equivalent to the British O-Levels.

The current rule of thumb among students is that the more A's you get, the higher your chances of getting a scholarship. Here, the 'quantity (of A's)' is of higher importance when really, the 'quality' of one's overall achievement is what merits a coveted scholarship.

Limiting the number of SPM subjects may seem as a plausible remedy to the problem but I feel it is a short-sighted solution which may not bring the intended results in the long run. The government's decision is a good one but certainly not the best in my books.

Firstly, I do not see why it would be a wise move to stop students from learning more. Learning should be an expandable act where every student should have the freedom and liberty to learn as much as they want and can. It is nothing wrong for a student to take 'extra' subjects in school and with that, I would also like to say that I do not believe that students who have gotten 17 or 21 A's (a ridiculous amount I'd say) have committed a crime. Thus, I feel the government should not punish them of their own success. This is very important if we believe in a progressive society.

In my opinion, the real solution lies not in the students but the system itself. Why treat the leaves when the root has the problem? If this whole conundrum is caused by the criteria being used by the Public Service Department when granting scholarships, then it is only logical to fix that - not the students. Instead of capping the number of SPM subjects, I would suggest a standardized evaluation of a student's work. A Grade Point Average(GPA) system would serve both the students and government's best interest.

A GPA system allows students to take as many subjects as humanly possible but his or her overall scores are standardised to an average value - thus providing an even playing field to students who do not have the privilege of taking as many subjects in the examination. When such a system is in place a student who has scored, say 10 A's out of 10 subjects would have equal chances with one who has 17 straight A's when they both apply for scholarships.

That being said, I feel we should not discourage students from outdoing themselves by capping the number of examination subjects. Instead, the government should strive to improve the quality of our education system and review redundant subjects that serve no purpose but to produce 'parrots' and 'tape recorders'. I would not say the Malaysian education system is abysmal but neither would I boast to the world it is world-class. But what the government can do is to inspire students to push their intellectual limits and at the same time, lobby to better our books, teachers and schools.
Click here to read more...

What Malaysia can learn from Britain

We can all learn a thing or two from the recent British Parliamentary allowance scandal that has made public confidence in the House of Commons hit rock bottom. For those who may not know what it is all about, the British parliament is in dire straits over allegations of public funds abuse by several MPs - including Prime Minister Gordon Brown himself.

In Britain, elected representatives in the House of Commons receive a monthly salary of £4,000 (after tax). On top of that, MPs are also eligible to make several claims over miscellaneous expenses and enjoy various allowances.

One of the earliest revelations exposed in the media was that of Prime Minister Gordon Brown. He claimed £650 for food, £83 for telephone bills, £1,403 for cleaning, £90 for home repairs, and £108 for his satellite TV.

Another senior minister, the Chancellor Alistair Darling, was reported to have claimed £2,000 for furniture, another £2,000 for new carpets, and £300 per month for food. He also claimed £1,200 to pay for his council tax and mortgages.

David Miliband, the foreign secretary, claimed for a £412 hand-crafted chair, a goose-down duvet and chenille throw from Marks & Spencer. He also bought a £450 John Lewis sofa, and claimed £9,000 to do his kitchen, plus £89 for other “household items”.

And the list goes on with the names of more than 200 MPs already exposed.

So what can we all learn from the shortcomings of our former colonial masters? Britain and Malaysia share a similar system of governance. Perhaps, the biggest moral-of-the-story we can all take, dissect and apply to our own backyard at the end of the day is the reaction of the British people and the Parliament to the crisis.

Looking at what the lack of public accountability has done to Britain, the Malaysian government should encourage transparency in every level - from ministries to local municipal councils. And if a government has second thoughts in enforcing public accountability among its staff, then the people should seriously consider who are they voting into office in the first place. Being transparent is not a choice, it is a must.

Therefore, making information such as personal allowances and other claims on expenses by ministers and MPs should be made available to the public. And any Abu, Ah Meng and Muthu should be able to have access to such information with ease. It is our right as taxpayers to know where all our money is going or has gone to.

The fact that British newspapers are responsible for exposing the dirty linen of MPs show that the mass media in Britain have no fear in reporting the truth. It is common knowledge that the local media in Malaysia have their news and articles filtered to avoid being too critical or cynical about the government or risk having their printing permits revoked. It is no wonder why so many people these days have turned to the so-called alternative media i.e. the Internet in search of news and independent opinions. Taking the crisis in Britain as an example, a free press could do the country a world of good by helping to promote public accountability. Press freedom is one of the prerequisites of a progressive nation and there is no debate about that.

The scandal has also forced British Parliament Speaker Michael Martin to step down for his 'failure to maintain public confidence in the Parliament'. It is the first time in 300 years that a Speaker in the Westminster parliament was forced to resign. Nonetheless, the response of British MPs to this was exemplary.

Despite growing dissatisfaction towards the Speaker, British MPs still behaved appropriately - there were no shouting, shoving or a contest of who has the richest vocabulary of insults in the Parliament. Government and Opposition MPs all followed procedures and protocols, obeyed every order of the Speaker and yes, there was no motion to remove the Speaker from his post - much of which is a testament to the maturity of the British Parliament. British MPs knew that as long as Martin is in the House, he has the authority.

This is indeed a far cry from what happened in Perak recently where the State Assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar was forcibly removed from his seat during an Assembly (images below).

The criterion of having elections every five years alone is not enough to fully describe what a democratic society should be. Public accountability, a mature Parliament and press freedom are the aspects of which Malaysians and their government should learn to give enough attention. Taking how their British counterparts handled themselves in the wake of embarrassing scandals, Malaysian politicians have a lot to learn and do.
Click here to read more...

Where is the sense of conscience and responsibility?

IPOH: Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir said today he was not "the menteri besar of the court" who did not have the support of the Perak people as claimed by Kelantan Menteri Besar Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat. [ 25/5/09, Bernama]

May 22 is the darkest day for democracy in Malaysia - albeit having many 'darkest days' of late following the coup d'etat in Perak. The Court of Appeal declares Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir as the rightful Chief Minister of Perak despite the Federal High Court ruling in favour of Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin just 11 days earlier. The Barisan Nasional (BN) may have had the last laugh in this political scuffle but their despicable deeds will forever be etched in the minds and hearts of the Perak people who have been robbed of their state and democratic rights.

In the midst of the unrest, one can only ask: Where is the sense of conscience and responsibility?

Zambry has even the guts to say he is not the Chief Minister of the Courts [source]. His apparent ignorance of the truth is nauseating . If not of the courts then of who? The people?

The only way to prove how far his statement is true is to have a state-wide election again and let the people of Perak decide who they want to be their Chief Minister - Zambry or Nizar? Unless Zambry and his band of state representatives return the power to the people, he will always be a Chief Minister of the court - not of the people.

Thus, Zambry has no right (other than his right to freedom of speech) to claim he is NOT the Chief Minister of the courts. Has he forgotten that his status as Chief Minister was restored or rather, 'given' to him by the Court of Appeal and not through the votes of citizens?

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and his much-marketed philosophy of 1Malaysia appear evermore hypocritical now when '1Perak' itself is unachievable. If the Barisan Nasional is truly about serving the people then Najib -as Perak UMNO Chief- should not have allowed the power-grabbing that had placed the state into political turmoil to take place.

Zambry states that the Barisan Nasional 'had tried its best to ensure stability and harmony in the state' during the crisis - which begs the question: Would Perak be tosed into such disarray if and only if Barisan Nasional had not attempted a power-grab?

It is easy to ask the Pakatan Rakyat to 'respect the rule of law' or to 'place the peace and stability above all else' but did it occur to Zambry and Najib that the Perak crisis is borne of Barisan Nasional's actions? The people of Perak are not to be taken for a ride!

In the UK, the recent parliamentary expenses scandal has left the Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin no choice but to resign. The Speaker is to quit in June following his role in diminishing public confidence in the Parliament and accusations of bias in in the handling of the scandal. Would Malaysians see the same pattern in our own backyard, following the Perak crisis? Like many Malaysians, I long to see the restoration of God-given conscience and sense of responsibility among politicians and leaders.

So, this is my take on the Perak issue: Political appointments and the formation of state governments should never be placed in the hands of the Courts for it defeats the purpose of Malaysia being a democratic nation. Whether it is the Pakatan Rakyat or Barisan Nasional at the helm, the only way to settle a dispute such as this is through elections. I'd call for the return of democracy to the hands of the Perak people and let them decide which party would best represent them. Period.

Click here to read more...

Meritocracy - There is no better time for it than now!

PUTRAJAYA, May 18 — Only 20 percent, or one in five, of Public Service Department (PSD) scholarships are given based on merit while the rest are allocated based on racial quotas. [The Malaysian Insider]

Meritocracy - A system of a government or other organization wherein appointments are made and responsibilities are given based on demonstrated talent and ability. Nonetheless, meritocracy is a philosophy not clearly defined here in this country, given the many aspects of government dealings that do not seem to adhere to it. One notable government policy to go under that notion is the racially-biased New Economic Plan (NEP). Though noble at first, many Malaysians are now beginning to question its use or rather the ethical purpose after 30 years of its implementation.

It is revealed that only 20% of government scholarships by the Public Service Department (PSD) are given based on merit. The remaining 60% are given out based on the population ratio of respective races while East Malaysian bumiputras and underprivileged students are allocated 10% each.

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz had last year told the Parliament that the PSD follows the 55:45 ratio when giving out scholarships i.e. 55% for bumiputra students and 45% for the other ethnic groups.

In an attempt to defend the shocking finding, Tan Sri Ismail Adam, the PSD director-general said it was unfair to direct the blame at his department over allegations that top students were being overlooked as there are too many students applying for limited number of government scholarships.

“Over 8,000 students are qualified to be considered for 2,000 scholarships. Please be fair to me. Perception without having an understanding and perspective of the issue can bring about conclusions that may not be right or fair. I understand the unfortunate ones can be emotional. But please be fair in your comments, " he said in his email to the Malaysian Insider in response DAP's Lim Kit Siang who brought this matter to public attention recently. [16/5/09, The Malaysian Insider]

"Overwhelming demand" is certainly not exactly the best excuse when 80% of the scholarships are given out based on skin colour. That means only 20% are allocated for students who have truly earned a scholarship through good grades. Is academic excellence not the top priority when granting such scholarships to students? The public has the right to know if it is not.

Also, how far would the 20% have gone to help underprivileged students whose families cannot afford the luxury to send their children to universities or colleges? What is achieved when students who have mediocre academic grades or who are from wealthy families are given scholarships to study abroad at the expense of those who are more deserving?

Nonetheless, it is encouraging news that the Cabinet has decided to look into this matter. More than 800 straight-A students who failed to attain a scholarship will have their appeals taken up to the Cabinet for discussion, according to a news report by the The Star.

Deputy Education Minister Datuk Dr Wee Ka Siong cited a case of a student with 6A1 and 4A2 who obtained a scholarship to study engineering but students with 13A1s and 14A1s that they were given places to do matriculation instead of being awar­ded with scholarships. Such incidents are not uncommon with hundreds of thousands of students graduating high school every year. The question is: How long shall the shenanigans continue before meritocracy is restored?

The PSD has to be transparent in their process of short-listing eligible students and awarding scholarships. The lack of public accountability can only serve to fuel continued public suspicion and unhappiness over the matter. It was suggested some years ago that the PSD should publish the names of scholarship recipients but unfortunately, it fell on deaf ears. Being transparent is the only way the PSD could be free from such criticism if it is too much for Tan Sri Ismail Adam to handle. But then again, shouldn't all public agencies be transparent to begin with?

Above all, I believe government aids like scholarships in Malaysia should one day cease to be governed by race or skin colour. Instead, students who are underprivileged or those who have done their extremely well in their studies should be given the priority in receiving scholarships.

Society can only thrive under meritocracy where people are awarded based on their qualifications and talents. And in Malaysia, there is no better time for meritocracy than now.
Click here to read more...

Royal M'sian Police - They watch over us. But who watches over them?

The recent power struggle in Perak has opened a can of worms to show yet another ugly of side of a body that has the royal mandate to serve and protect - the Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM). The role of the PDRM in the coup d'état by the Barisan Nasional to wrest control of the state government unconstitutionally is highly questionable, especially to those who believe in the true spirit of democracy.

I, for one, disapprove what the PDRM had done in the handling of the Perak Constitutional crisis - from a civil stance. It is elementary knowledge that an institution like the police should always remain above politics and place the best interest of the public first, above everything else. Sure, there are some who concede that the PDRM had little or no choice but to do what had to be done in Perak in the midst of political and civil chaos but I beg to differ. I feel the PDRM could have done better.

And of course, I am not alone with such a notion that the PDRM had somewhat crossed the line. The Bar Council on May 7 condemned the police's 'unwarranted' interference in the course of events relating to the Perak crisis - that includes putting down protests and physically removing V. Sivakumar from the Speaker’s chair in the Perak state assembly [source].

Consider the following:

1. On March 3, the police sealed the Perak State Assembly building - preventing all 28 Pakatan Rakyat (PR) state elected representatives from entering to hold a sitting. However, on May 7, the police warned the public not to participate in street protests and would not hesitate to arrest anyone found 'preventing' state representatives from entering the Assembly building.
   
2. Police officers in plain clothes physically removed V. Sivakumar from the Assembly even though he was the rightfully appointed Assembly Speaker and had not stepped down from that position.
   
3. The police arrested BERSIH activist Wong Chin Huat under the Sedition Act on May 6 in less than 24 hours after his press conference to propose the 1BlackMalaysia campaign - a spin-off to Najib's 1Malaysia slogan, urging Malaysians to wear black on May 7 to protest against the Perak coup.
4. As many as 14 people were detained for participating in a peaceful candlelight vigil outside the Brickfields police station where Wong Chin Huat was held.
   
5. Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan imposed a ban on the colour black and warned the public not to turn up at the State Assembly building in that colour or risk being arrested.
   
6. At least 60 people were arrested on May 7 for wearing black and for 'gathering illegally' in Ipoh.

Speaker V. Sivakumar being forcibly removed from his seat.

Perhaps, the issue here is not what the PDRM 'had done' but rather what they had 'failed to do' which I believe, is to be above politics. Judging from what the PDRM had done - from the arrest of an activist to the ban on black attires - little can be said about whether the PDRM is truly above politics. It seems to me that the very institution tasked to serve and protect the public is wrongfully being used to serve a political agenda. Is the PDRM politically neutral? It should be.

The belief that the police favours a particular political entity over the other is rather apparent and it takes no effort to actually identify the institution's political inclination. One fine example is the PDRM's objection to the setting up of the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC), saying there is no need for one [source].

The proposed IPCMC would be an independent, external oversight body whose principal function is to receive and investigate complaints about the PDRM and its personnel. Having a watchdog would certainly help to make the police more accountable and transparent. [More info on the IPCMC]

And in a published document [pdf] by the president of the gazetted Senior Police Officers Association, ACP Jamaludin bin Hj Khalid, the association which claims to represent 95,000 members 'threatened that it would support the Opposition' if the IPCMC is given the green light. The following are a few of the 'threats' as listed in the document by the association which I find rather preposterous:

1. The police would allow the crime rate to rise further.
2. A 5-day working week/8 hours a day rule would be demanded for all police personnel.
3. The police force would vote for the Opposition.
4. The mass resignations of police officers.

The failure of former Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to implement the IPCMC is one of many unfulfilled promises made during his premiership. And apparently, the lack of decisive implementation of such policies can only come back to haunt us, as the Perak crisis have already shown. Hence, I believe the best course of action would be setting up the IPCMC nevertheless. This is because the IPCMC is essential for the check-and-balance we so desperately need when the PDRM is responsible for so many unwarranted actions of late.

If the police has the audacity to act like thugs - throwing about such childish threats of 'potential severe repercussions' and its ignorant refusal to acknowledge the fundamental need for public accountability, then it is high time that the government look into how things are actually run in the force - starting with the leadership.
Click here to read more...

Malaysia needs to overtake Gabon to achieve First World status

KUALA LUMPUR, May 4 - Malaysia will have to fundamentally rework its economy to become more productive and R&D based if it is serious about making the quantum leap to become a high income economy and move out of the income bracket currently occupied by countries such as Gabon and Botswana. [The Malaysian Insider]

"Gabon? Where in the world is that?" It is an honest question many Malaysians would ask (with all due respect to the Gabonese people, of course) when they hear that their country is lagging behind the west central African nation.

Latest figures from the World Bank revealed that Malaysia has now fallen behind Hong Kong, South Korea and Singapore in terms of gross national income (GNI) per capita and is now trying to play catch up - much to our embarrassment.

In 2007, Malaysia had a GNI per capita of US$6,420, far behind countries such as Singapore (US$32,340), South Korea (US$19,730), Japan (US$37,790), Hong Kong (US$31,560), Australia (US$35,760), Finland (US$44,300), and Switzerland (US$60,820) and Norway (US$77,370).

Gabon has a GNI of US$7,020.

Many Malaysians would be shocked to learn that despite Gabon having a population of just 1.5 million, they are still able to generate such wealth, compared to Malaysia's 27 million.

It is indeed heartbreaking for Malaysians to see their country fall behind nations like Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore - countries which were once economically on par with Malaysia just three decades ago.

What had shoved Malaysia into such a demise is anyone's guess but it is definitely not a surprise to find ourselves so low in the world rankings. If we have an MP who had once the courage (I'd say shamelessness) to celebrate Malaysia's achievements, saying Malaysia is 10 times more developed than Ghana, then it is no wonder that the real-world figures would eventually come come forth to prove our lack of ambition. If beating Ghana, which became independent in the same year as Malaysia, is a cause to celebrate, would it then be suicidal to know that Gabon has overtaken us, given the west central African nation achieve independence later than Malaysia?

From left: Libreville, the capital of Gabon and Kuala Lumpur.

And recently Lee Saw Hoon, a senior director of the Malaysia Productivity Cor­­poration said Malaysia had done well to maintain its 21st position in the World Economic Forum’s la­­test global competitiveness report [source]. According to the report Malaysia was the sixth most competitive Asian country after Singapore, Ja­­pan, Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan.

I don't know about Lee but I can't take that lying down. We should be up there with Singapore, for goodness' sake! Mind you, we were the ones who kick them out of the Federation and left them in the dark without having any natural resources of their own. Today, they are one of the financial powerhouses of the world.

And when international performance is concerned, Malaysia's dismal FIFA World Ranking never seems to escape the public's attention. Malaysia is currently ranked 161st in the world and yes, you've guessed it - countries like Eritrea, Myanmar and Turkmenistan are above us. Gabon, on the other hand, is ranked 48th.

However, the lack of ambition is not the only cause for our shortfall. It is because we have misplaced our priorities over the decades; further condemning ourselves to remain as a Third World country even after half a century of independence. It is high time for certain sectors of the government to take heed and stop the racial bickering, policies and propaganda. It is imperative that we devote precious time and resources to put Malaysia back onto the world map before we find ourselves overtaken by Cambodia.
Click here to read more...

BN lost. So blame it on the Chinese and Indians?

KUALA LUMPUR, April 12 — Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin is confused, perplexed, puzzled...wonders whether the Chinese have begun to think of themselves as kingmakers in the new political landscape. [The Malaysian Insider, 12/4/09]

Speaking on the loss of two by-elections (Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau) recently, Malaysia's newly appointed Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin (image) believes the voters from the Chinese community were the deciding factor in sending the Barisan Nasional contingent packing for home.

In an interview with Mingguan Malaysia, Muhyiddin was reported to have called the Chinese Malaysian voters 'ungrateful' for ditching the Barisan Nasional despite the latter pouring in millions of ringgit every year to improve Chinese-vernacular schools.

Muhyiddin continues to suggest that the non-Malay community have begun to think of themselves as kingmakers in the new political landscape and is jeopardizing the status quo of the Barisan Nasional establishment.

"The Chinese even though are a minority group feel that they have the deciding power because the Malays are split into three groups… In such a situation, they can decide the outcome of an election and this can be seen from the general election and the by-elections. They think they have the power to decide. It is not only the Chinese but the Indian community as well,’’ he told Mingguan Malaysia today. [The Malaysian Insider, 12/9/09]

Isn't the 'power to decide' the reason why we all vote?

A columnist of Mingguan Malaysia echoed Muhyiddin's sentiments against the non-Malays especially the Chinese community for the loss of the Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau by-elections.

Para pengundi bukan Melayu seperti biasa akan membuat banyak tuntutan pada musim kempen tetapi undi mereka tetap kepada pembangkang. Ini termasuk peti-peti undi yang paling banyak menerima peruntukan yang ditagih oleh pelbagai pihak mewakili pengundi antaranya RM1 juta untuk sekolah Cina, RM400,000 sekolah Tamil, tuntutan tanah rizab dan puluhan lagi. Apa makna ini semua? Bukankah ia menampakkan BN terus dipermainkan oleh pengundi bukan Melayu... keputusan kedua-dua pilihan raya kecil itu dan beberapa yang lain sebelum ini adalah isyarat jelas kepada BN supaya jangan lagi terperangkap dengan muslihat sedemikian. [source]

Non-Malay voters are bound to make plenty of demands during election campaigns but their votes still belong to the Opposition. This includes the various financial allocations given to constituents like to RM1 million set aside Chinese-vernacular schools, RM 400,000 to Tamil school and etc. What do all these mean then? This is a clear indication that the Barisan Nasional is being taken for granted and is dictated by the non-Malays. These defeats (in the by-elections) should serve as a lesson to the BN to not fall for the ploys of the non-Malays again.

I find myself feeling disgusted at the Deputy Prime Minister's statement and the column published by Mingguan Malaysia. To hear such statements coming from a minister, never mind a Deputy Prime Minister and a national newspaper further reiterates why many believe certain institutions in this country are beyond repair.

Muhyiddin's knowledge of Chinese votes going to the Opposition and not Barisan Nasional is first of all, very perplexing. Are not votes suppose to be private and confidential? Even if that is not the case, Muhyiddin's reproach of non-Malays casting their votes for the Opposition underlines his failure to understand the basic concepts of democracy - the right of the people to decide.

To call the non-Malays kingmakers of Malaysian politics at the expense of the majority (the Malay community) is to take cheap shots. Too cheap, in fact. Muhyiddin did not realise this but there are also Malays who voted for the Opposition.

Is Muhyiddin also trying to imply that the non-Malays have no say in the choice of government? UMNO refuses to back down on their racial politics simply because securing the total support of the Malays is enough to secure them the power to govern by default. But contrary to the myths of racial politics, not all Malays are for UMNO. Likewise with the Chinese and MCA, and the Indians for MIC.

But the biggest disappointment rests not with the Deputy Prime Minister calling the non-Malays kingmakers or a Malay-language daily blaming the Chinese for BN's defeats, it is the whole argument of race, race and race that our leaders are bringing to the fold - yet again. Just less than 2 weeks ago, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak (image) urged the nation "to embark on a great journey together to transform the country, promising them that his administration would place priority on performance and the people." Poetic words indeed.

One Malaysia is a concept coined by Najib and his administration which he pledges to place the needs of the people first, regardless of ethnic backgrounds. But it seems easier said than done if his second-in-command continues to view things racially.

The non-Malay voters of Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau may be kingmakers this time around but they are not stupid to exchange their democratic rights for cash splurges and school donations. The non-Malays are not beggars where all praise and gratitude is due to the Barisan Nasional government. In fact, the Barisan Nasional should be grateful to the people as they have been given the mandate to rule and develop this nation of ours since independence from the British. That being said, it looks like BN have a lot of thinking to do now for the next General Elections.

And good luck, Najib in realising the One Malaysia concept of yours.




For further reading:

• 'Cina, India bukan peminta sedekah'
• Kebijaksanaan kaum Cina berpolitik - Mingguan Malaysia
• Najib vows One Malaysia, People First, Performance Now
  

Click here to read more...

Taking Najib with a pinch of salt....for now

KUALA LUMPUR, April 3 — New prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak tonight freed 13 ISA detainees and lifted the suspension of two opposition papers — Harakah and Suara Keadilan. [The Malaysian Insider]


April 3 marks the appointment of Malaysia's 6th Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak - succeeding Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi at the nation's helm amidst much political and economic volatility. But going into office with the new premier are not hope and optimism for a better future but rather, skepticism and uncertainties surrounding the very man himself.

Najib, who is also the newly-elected party president of UMNO said on March 29 that he wants the people to judge him by his actions and on not preconceptions and rumours. But one may be forgiven to take this with a pinch of salt whilst keeping his/her fingers crossed.

My judgement for Najib to be a better Prime Minister remains undecided. But I am nonetheless skeptical of his recent actions that he hopes are able to strike a favourable rapport with the Malaysian people.

One of the first things Najib did in less than a week in office was to release 13 detainees held under the infamous Internal Security Act (ISA). Among them were members of the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf), Darul Islam and Jemaah Islamiah . Hindraf are considered a 'terrorist' group by the government while members of the Darul Islam and Jemaah Islamiah were detained for their connection to the Bali bombings of 2002. [source]

Granting 'freedom' to these men who were detained without trial are for public display, as the restrictions imposed on the freed Hindraf members suggest their new-found liberty are actually short-changed.

The two Hindraf lawyers V. Ganabatirao and R. Kengadharan revealed that they cannot leave the districts they live in, must be back home by 7pm, must acquire written permission from the district police to leave their districts and cannot give any press conference, take part in gatherings of more then five people or take part in organised political activities [source]. Is this what it means to be 'free'?

Najib also ordered the ban on two Opposition-backed newspapers - Harakkah and SuaraKeadilan to be lifted. They were first banned by the Home Ministry for three months on March 23 for repeatedly publishing stories that were “wrong, sensational and sensitive in nature”, according to Home Minister Datuk Syed Hamid Albar. But many Malaysians saw this as a move by the Barisan Nasional to handicap the Opposition's media coverage on the three by-elections scheduled for April 7.

Thus, I cannot help but to question the timing of this: Why only lift the ban now? Why did Najib fail to stop the ban from going through in the first place or to settle for something lesser like publicly voicing his disapproval of the ministry's decision when he was then the Deputy Prime Minister?

Another example that similarly demands the why-only-now? response is Najib's latest excursion to the streets to meet ordinary citizens. He took time to visit hawkers, shopkeepers and restaurant operators in the heart of Kuala Lumpur.

But how often does that happen when Najib was a mere minister and then, the Deputy Prime Minister? Why the sudden urge now to get his leather shoes dirty to meet ordinary citizens in the streets. Though I commend Najib's latest move to be the 'people's PM' all Prime Ministers ought to be but the skeptic in me refuses to back down from asking: why only now?

Najib kindly asks to be judged for his actions upon his appointment. As much as I would like to give the greenhorn Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt, I say actions with hypocritical public displays of being a dedicated leader deserves no judgement but of a poor one.

Forgive me, but it is not easy to be optimistic when a man with unresolved allegations of corruption and murder ascends to office and will ultimately lead this beloved nation of ours. I'd say judge Najib over the years as Prime Minister; not just a week of street excursions, ban lifts and detainee releases.
Click here to read more...

Playing the race card: Old habits die hard

KUALA LUMPUR, March 22 - Malay right-wing group Pertubuhan Pribumi Perkasa today threatened that it would react to the actions of those who chose to question Malay supremacy. [The Malaysian Insider]

They say old habits die hard. And in Malaysia, die hard they do. On March 22, a Malay right-wing group known as Perkasa threatened it would react to those who constantly challenge the supremacy of the Malays. The latter is one notion Malaysians are familiar with, though it sounds awfully similar to UMNO's mantra.

Its president, Datuk Ibrahim Ali (image) who is also an independent MP of Pasir Mas, said he was willing to risk being detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for the sake of "country, race and religion." He further reiterates to suggest that those questioning the supremacy of the Malays do not act in the name of justice. I sure hope he does not mean having another May 13 would be one.

"If they are polite, we will be polite. But if they are not, neither will we. If they are kurang ajar (ill-mannered), we too can be kurang ajar. The truth is that justice has not yet come to Bumiputeras who have spent centuries being oppressed by colonial masters. We will not tolerate Bumiputeras losing face or our honour. Especially Malays and Islam, do not ever try to play around with these," he said. [The Malaysian Insider, 22/3/09]

Speaking at the group's function was former Prime Minister Tun Dr, Mahathir Mohamad who believes the Malay community was under threat by 'various parties' and suggest it was unfair to label Malay nationalists as racists as they are merely fighting to protect the rights of their community.

The trend of rising racial tensions in Malaysia has been at its peak as more non-Malay Malaysians are beginning to voice their concerns after decades of pro-Malay policies. But the main worry lies when politicians cry wolf of threats that may not exist after all. In the case of Perkasa, its president is urging the Malay masses to fight a threat that is non-existent. What he fails to prove is this so-called 'threat to Malay supremacy' of his.

There is a distinction between the term 'special position of the Malays' and 'the supremacy of the Malays'. The latter is a philosophy engineered by UMNO, like Ibrahim Ali, to elevate one race above the others; i.e racial supremacy. The term 'special position of the Malays', however, is a Constitutional provision to guarantee the position of the Malays as the natives of the land. I believe many non-Malays have no problem agreeing to this. But the problem starts when politicians begin to equate the constitutional provision with the UMNO-designed racist belief.

But who is denying the constitutional provision of the Malay community? Just who is calling for the Malays to leave the country? If none, then what 'threat' is Ibrahim Ali to claiming about?

(To read why racial supremacy of any kind is dangerous to the country's future, click here)

Ibrahim Ali had last year also called on other races to adapt to the local culture of Malays as they have already been given many rights and freedoms in this country. But would that solve the problem? There is no guarantee that the elusive 'threat' of Ibrahim Ali's would dissipate if all non-Malays adopt the Malay culture. No surprise if terminologies are invented to differentiate the 'native Malays' with the 'adopted Malays'. After all, they already had no problems separating Malaysians into Bumiputeras and non-Bumiputeras despite having the term "Malaysian" stamped on every national identity card.

Unless fear-mongering politicians stop playing the racial card, the future of a Malaysian Malaysia seems bleaker than ever before. People who heed the call of one race's supremacy over the others do not realise that as Malaysians, all races are in this together albeit a tough act to pull. We can no longer afford to just be selfishly concerned with our individual community-be it Malay, Chinese or Indian if we truly believe in the concept of Bangsa Malaysia.

In truth, the real danger is the prospect of a disunited, racist Malaysia.
Click here to read more...