Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Posted: 09 Jun 2011 06:57 PM PDT

Since the March 2008 general election, there has been a taxonomic group of very educated, progressive, professional and youthful politicians in the DAP, led by the relatively young but veteran political maverick Lim Guan Eng. The highly intellectual and articulate young elected representatives of the DAP are making waves in Parliament and at the various state assemblies, as well as in the public arena, where the battle for the hearts and minds of the people is taking place.

Comment By Thomas Lee Seng Hock

MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek has appealed to the Chinese to review their perception of the party and reevaluate its past and present contributions, especially on matters affecting the community.

In an apparent desperate endeavour to try to redeem whatever remains of the party's credibility, integrity and authenticity among the Chinese, Chua claims indirectly that the community has never rejected the party, but just went uncontrollably overboard in voting for a strong opposition in the last general election.

In an interview with Malaysiakini on Wednesday 8 June 2011, Chua claims that the Chinese want some representatives in the government to articulate their frustrations, and also want a strong opposition to keep a check on the government, but "sometimes, when they do this balancing act, they go haywire."

Chua claims that, deep down, the Chinese still want to be represented in the Barisan Nasional government, but since the community could not coordinate among themselves, they had ended up with more elected representatives in the opposition.

"In their heart, they said: 'Oh, we want to have a stronger opposition'. But in the end, everybody voted for the opposition, resulting in nobody in the government," he said.

In other words, Chua thinks that the results of the last general election, when the MCA was totally wiped out in Penang and sent packing in Selangor, Perak and elsewhere, are merely a freak electoral caprice and do not reflect the actual sentiment of the Chinese community.

During the last general election in March 2008, the MCA won only 15 of the 40 parliamentary seats it contested and succeeded in merely 31 of the 90 state seats, losing them mainly to the DAP. The MCA was totally wiped out in Penang, losing every seat it contested at both federal and state level.

Chua, apparently still in a reverie, thinks that the MCA still has a soft spot in the heart of the community, and that the party would bounce back into favour with the Chinese community at the next general election.

He cited various so-called achievements of the party, claiming credit for getting more federal funding for Chinese primary schools, getting better recognition for the United Examination Certificate of the Chinese independent schools, and helping to develop mutual recognition of university degrees between Malaysia and China.

Chua may think that the Chinese are fools for buying his so-called achievements. Any person with a bit of common sense knows that had not the alternative coalition of the DAP, PAS and PKR caused a massive electoral cataclysm at the last general election, the Umno-controlled Barisan Nasional government would not have granted such concessions to allow the MCA a safe-face reprieve to claim credit for them.

Anyway, the matters Chua claims that the MCA managed to "fight" for the Chinese are matters of essential rights which the community must be accorded without any need to ask or bargain for. To say to say that the community needs the MCA to negotiate for them is to admit the lack of power of the party within the ruling Barisan Nasional administration and its failure in being the true community representative in the government. Its position and relevance in the government are certainly suspect.

And in order to project the MCA in good light, Chua resorted to a smear campaign against the state administrations controlled by the alternative coalition Pakatan Rakyat, especially Penang and Selangor.

Chua cashed in on the current land disputes in Selangor involving the Sungai Buloh nursery and the Kampung Kerandang land, and alleged that the Pakatan Rakyat state government made a mess of the matters. He doesn't seem to really understand the logistic and long-term practical implications involved, but just wants to score political points by exploiting the disputes.

Chua also claimed that the Pakatan Rakyat Selangor state government allowed "thousands" of reflexology and entertainment outlets to flourish in Klang, implying that the alternative coalition is causing moral decline in the royal town.

He also alleges that the Pakatan Rakyat state administrations in Kedah and Penang have allowed the water tariff to increase by 20%.

Chua has given a misrepresentation on the Penang water tariff, claiming that the tariff had increased by 20%.

The fact is that the Guan Eng administration has not increased the heavily-subsidized rates for domestic consumers, but only imposed a water conservation charge to reduce water wastage.

Actually, only water tariffs for business have been increased to meet the production cost. Penang, meanwhile, still has the lowest water tariffs in the country for both domestic and business users.

To make a sweeping claim that the Guan Eng administration had increased the water tariff by 20% is to tell a very despicable lie, unbecoming of a national political leader.

The most outrageous claim, however, is Chua's statement that Penang under Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng of the DAP is now running on a deficit budget, which the MCA boss says would get worse next year.

Chua is either shockingly nescient and ignoramus, or a deliberate liar. The facts and figures are out in the open for all and sundry to see.

Since the Pakatan Rakyat took control of the Penang state government from the Barisan Nasional after the March 2008 general election, the state has recorded the biggest surpluses in the nation's history with RM88 million in 2008, RM77 million in 2009 and RM33 million in 2010, as certified by the Auditor-General in his report.

The solid and sound financial management by the Guan Eng administration also resulted in the heavily deficit-ridden Seberang Perai Municipal Council (MPSP) being saved from bankruptcy within just a year of financial rejuvenation.

The Guan Eng administration, guided by the principles of competency, accountability and transparency (CAT), managed to lead the MPSP to post RM41 million in budget surpluses since 2008 compared to the big deficits it recorded from 2000 to 2007 under the Barisan Nasional administration, which amounted to a whopping RM230 million.

It should also be noted that the Guan Eng administration is the only government in Malaysia, whether state or federal, to be highly commended by Transparency International for its anti-corruption efforts.

Chua Soi Lek's current attempt to woo the Chinese to support the MCA by attacking the Pakatan Rakyat, especially the DAP, is obviously and action in futility. The community in general has lost complete faith in the MCA, especially when its present set of leaders are found wanting.

In a commentary on the MCA I wrote in March 2011 when I was still chief editor of mysinchew.com, I made several observations of the party which I believe are still relevant. I am repeating them here.

Although Chua and the MCA are attempting to regain the middle ground lost en masse by the party in 2008, the party faces two big obstacles – one internal, and the other external.

The internal obstacle is surely its current leadership, which is composed of out-dated and spent political players, some with very weird and bizarre ideas like the one who proposed setting up a "Chinese Perkasa" to challenge the Malay rights group Perkasa, and some whose public comments of vital issues show their height of folly.

I think almost none of the current leaders will be able to do well if they are to contest in the next general election. The ground zero perception of them is generally negative. According to a Merdeka Center survey in 2010, only 9% of the Chinese voters have any respect for Chua, which is actually much better than that of Gerakan president Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon who received only 1%. The survey only listed these two Chinese leaders, but I believe it is a general reflection of the Chinese support for the MCA and Gerakan leaders.

The external obstacle in their way is the rejuvenated, regenerated, and reformed DAP.

The DAP can boast of an army of very bright, well-educated, well-trained, and morally upright young politicians to spearhead the thrust for the transformation of the nation into a new and better Malaysia. Among the young leaders are the likes of Teresa Kok, Chow Koon Yeow, Anthony Loke, Fong Po Kuan, Lim Lip Eng, Teo Nie Ching, Tony Pua, Jenice Lee, Gobind Singh, Boo Cheng Hua, Hannah Yeoh, Violent Yong, Liew Chin Tong, Jeff Ooi, Thomas Su, and many more.

Can the MCA beat off such an impressive formidable challenge from its diehard political opponent DAP?

To regain the trust and confidence of the Chinese community and to remain relevant, the MCA must undergo a total revamp of its leadership, getting rid of those who had overstayed their usefulness, and those who intelligence are found wanting. The practice of cronyism and nepotism must be eliminated.

Otherwise, what Chua claims about regaining the confidence and support of the Chinese community is merely an illusion – an impossible dream.

I rest my case.

[Note: Thomas Lee has been a newspaper editor and socio-economic and political analyst for over 35 years. He is currently a media consultant.]

Society’s conscience they are not

Posted: 09 Jun 2011 10:41 AM PDT

By Terence Fernandez, The Sun

THE do-gooders of society have always been on the receiving end of brickbats and the butt of jokes and cynicism for their passion, principles and causes. They are the conscience of society. The public and private sectors have recognised them as a "necessary nuisance" to keep public officials in check and private enterprise honest.

The annual grants to many of these groups which have been elevated from street-fighters to respectable, structured organisations, is testament to their importance in society.

Unfortunately, not all of them are there for noble reasons. Now that there is money to be made from setting up NGOs, there have been the mushrooming of many self-acclaimed campaigners and experts who are eyeing the generous coffers of the government and private sector which exceed RM100 million for civil society and NGOs.

They issue press releases like a mill, churning out statement after statement. One individual is linked to at least a dozen organisations, hence his name appears in the papers almost daily.

We had once approached some of these groups to open the books. Only Transparency International and the WWF obliged. The rest were protective of their earnings although some received government grants – concerned perhaps, as in one case, that the public would discover that the head of the organisation pays herself almost RM30,000 a month.

Not a bad way to make a living. Don't get me wrong. If it is commensurate with the amount of work done and the results, then one would say she is most deserving of it.

However, the government has become more discerning now. Ditto some private firms which have doled out millions of tax-exempt ringgit as CSR initiatives.

Speaking about this to Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism Minister Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob some time back, he wondered what taxpayers got out of the millions spent on grants to some of these NGOs.

"We want them to educate the public, but issuing press statements alone is insufficient. I also can issue statements all the time and it doesn't cost the public anything!"

Ismail was concerned about the "return on investment" from a RM2 million annual grant that the ministry has been awarding a consumer group. "They must start accounting for what they have received," he said.

I was reminded of Ismail's words from this conversation we had over a year ago, following the power tariff hikes which was reported on Tuesday. As usual, reporters are asked to call consumer groups for a response on a price hike and its effects on inflation and the pricing of consumer groups.

One NGO – the same one mentioned by Ismail – was uncharacteristically silent. Moreover, the president of the organisation was evasive and non-committal when approached. He kept pushing the reporter to his other exco members and even other consumer groups.

Our younger reporters were stumped, but those of us who had been in the newsroom longer were not surprised. "Of course lah that fellow won't talk. TNB (Tenaga Nasional Bhd) gave his organisation RM1.5 million two years ago," I said.

Continued research also revealed that both TNB and this organisation had been partners in various campaigns – money from the former in return for awareness projects from the latter.

Whether RM1.5 million is a lot to print posters and booklets on energy conservation is for the people privy to the books to answer.

But this is a sad reflection of the state of consumer activism and NGOs. Granted that they need funding to keep afloat, but here is an example of how one's principles and cause can be compromised by the power of money.

Likewise those who give out grants should also give them out freely without expectations if they are sincere – but to expect this would be naïve.

In any case, the rise in tariffs must be looked at comprehensively. No one is asking anyone to solely blame TNB. The deals the government entered into with independent power producers (IPPs), the pricing of natural gas, which is heavily subsidised, and the disparity in demand and supply in power generation are issues that bona fide consumer groups have touched on.

So too should have this consumer advocate and his organisation, but they chose to be coy, perhaps worried that their cash cow will stop doling out the dough if it were unhappy with statements and suggestions that this group makes.

But what they fail to understand is that if we in the press feel there is no substance in what is said by these organisations or their leaders, or if there is vested interest involved, then their precious statements will most likely find their way into the waste bin!

Longing For A Free Mind (Concluding piece)

Posted: 08 Jun 2011 06:47 PM PDT

I do not judge a leader by his lifestyle rather by how effective he or she is. Much as I admire Nik Aziz's piety and modest lifestyle, as a state leader he has failed miserably.

By M. Bakri Musa

[Presented at the Fifth Annual Alif Ba Ta Conference at Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ, organized by UMNO Club of New York-New Jersey, January 29, 2011.]

Q&A (Cont'd) Contemporary Leaders

Q13: We have leaders who surround themselves with opulence while millions of our citizens are mired in poverty. Should Nik Aziz (leader of the opposition PAS) who lives modestly be the more appropriate model? Further, should a leader sacrifice everything – his career, wealth and family life – for the sake of the nation?

A13: Although I do not care for opulence, I have no problem with those who do, including our leaders. In fact I prefer that our leaders be rich. In that way when they assume power they would not look upon that as an opportunity to enrich themselves. Also, the world being what it is, wealth is often a measure of your success and talent, and I want successful and talented leaders. I am here assuming that the wealth is not inherited or acquired though illicit means. I am only against leaders using the public treasury to enrich or indulge themselves. If it is their money I could not care less if they have gold toilet faucets or travel in luxury jets, as with California Governor Schwarzenegger.

Having said that, the constraint for a busy leader is time; for that reason I have no problem with and indeed encourage our leaders to travel in corporate jets rather than lining up and wasting time at the airport. Now there is a difference between a small corporate jet versus an Airbus of the type that Abdullah Badawi fancied.

I do not judge a leader by his lifestyle rather by how effective he or she is. Much as I admire Nik Aziz's piety and modest lifestyle, as a state leader he has failed miserably. Unfortunately it is the people of Kelantan who are paying for that failure. He has been chief minister for decades yet cholera is still endemic in his state. The burden of his leadership failure far outweighs whatever pahla (religious brownie points) he may have accumulated through his piety and modest lifestyle.

To the second part of your question, no, I do not believe that our leaders should unduly sacrifice everything just to serve us. I am suspicious of leaders who claim to do just that. On the contrary we should pay our leaders well, but not well enough that the monetary rewards become the only goal for serving.

The Sudanese-born mobile phone entrepreneur Mo Ibrahim established the Ibrahim Prize to reward honest, competent and effective African leaders. The funny thing is that those leaders really do not need the extra generous financial rewards from the prize because their expertise would be widely sought and generously compensated after they retire. The gesture however, is worthy of praise. Unfortunately it would not persuade the likes of Robert Mugabe.

I also believe in moderation, and I like my leaders to have other interests. It helps broaden their experience and perspective. That can only be good, quite apart from making them more human.

Q14: You have given us examples of free minds from our legends and history. Can you give us some personal examples?

A14: I have been fortunate to have lived in many cultures, had broad-based liberal education, and traveled widely. It would not surprise you to find me to be open-minded. The surprise would be if were to be insular. So my personal examples would not be particularly interesting.

Instead I will give you examples from my father. Unlike me, he did not go to university, only to the Sultan Idris Teachers' Training College in Tanjong Malim. He never lived in or experienced a different culture, and had never traveled outside the state where he was born, Negri Sembilan, except for the trip to Tanjong Malim Yet he was remarkably free minded.

I grew up in the 1950s, a period of intense nationalism, anticipating merdeka, and with that a resurgence of interest in Malay as it would be the national language of our new nation. Malay teachers in particular were at the vanguard of this movement. Tun Razak, the first Minister of Education, had expanded Malay schools to secondary level, with promises of further extension right up to the university level.

I was enrolled in an English school in the period just before the resurgence of this intense nationalism. My father went through great effort and expense to secure for me a slot in an English school. Soon after, Malay leaders including Tun Razak were exhorting everyone to support our national language by removing their children from English schools and to enroll them into these newly established Malay schools.

Being Malay school teachers, my parents were subjected to intense peer and community pressures to take my siblings and me out of English school. After all, if Malay teachers did not demonstrate their commitment, who would? As a Malay school teachers however, my parents were only too aware of the limitations of the Malay stream, in particular the lack of textbooks and teachers. So against all odds he resisted those intense social and professional pressures.

What strengthened my father's conviction was not that he could tell the future or that he had any particular brilliant insight rather that while Tun Razak and the other leaders were urging Malay parents to send their children to Malay schools, they were quietly sending theirs to English schools. Tun Razak in particular went further; he sent his to schools in England! You could say that my father heard the braying of the donkey (Tun Razak's children attending schools in England), and ignored the words of the Mullah, including the top Mullah, Tun Razak.

Many years ago I was visiting my old village and met one of my former kampong mates whose parents had followed our leaders' advice and taken my friend out of English school. On seeing where I am today, his only comment was that my father was wiser than his!

Q15: If you were given an opportunity for a private meeting with Prime Minister Najib, what three pieces of advice would you give?

A15: Najib has a short attention span so I will offer him only two. Even if I were to give him three, he would forget the third (or first) anyway!

One is not an advice but merely to elicit from him his vision of Malaysia, and then to inquire what his greatest fear is, politically. The two are related. I think I know what his answer would be to the second part of my question but as to the first, I have no clue. This despite his much-ballyhooed 1Malaysia public relations exercise, and its attendant extravagantly expensive international consultants!

The greatest fear of Barisan, and thus Najib as its leader, is that it would not regain its traditional two-third majority in the next general election. You know the fate of Najib's immediate predecessor, Abdullah Badawi, when he failed to deliver in the 2008 elections.

If that were to be his greatest fear, then I would advice Najib that the most effective way to deal with a fear, as I indicated earlier, is to imagine the worst case possible and then prepare for that eventuality. If things were to turn out less worse, then you would be relieved and have more confidence in tackling the crisis.

What could be worse than losing the supra-majority? Barisan failing to gain even a simple majority, and with that, the right to rule Malaysia. To add insult to an already unbearable injury, I would have him imagine UMNO winning fewer parliamentary seats than PAS. That would definitely and irreversibly shatter the myth that UMNO is Melayu, and Melayu, UMNO. If that scenario would not be scary enough, then I would add his losing his Pekan seat, as he nearly did in the 1999 elections.

The next election is due no later than March 8, 2013, so Najib has exactly 768 days from today to prepare for that eventual political catastrophe. Add a day more if there were to be a leap year till then!

There would be only two choices for Najib. One, knowing that he would lose everything come 2013, he should seize this short opportunity to enrich himself and his family. Then when he would be booted out he could charter a private jet to whisk him and his family out of the country. This unfortunately is the well trodden path followed by many Third World leaders, the latest being the Tunisian leader, soon to be joined by Egypt's Mubarak. If Najib were to pursue that course, he would of course deserve the wrath and curse of all Malaysians. Worse, that ill feeling would spill over and despoil the fond memories Malaysians have of his late father.

The other would be to execute his grand vision of a clean, efficient and meritocratic nation, as encapsulated in his 1Malaysia aspiration, and to propel Malays onto the global arena, his so-called glokal Malay agenda. Many, including Najib, have already forgotten that slogan.

He could do this by getting rid of all those tainted UMNO characters in his cabinet and party. So what if they were to rebel and plot against him; the result would not be any worse than the earlier scenario I painted.

Then there are those juicy government contracts. Put them out to competitive bidding and invite international bidders. If an American company were to win it, so what? At least the roofs would not leak or collapse. Yes, those pseudo UMNO entrepreneurs would be ticked off, like a hungry bear whose honey jar is suddenly taken away.

To demonstrate his commitment to meritocracy, visit the top universities of the world and invite those Malaysians there for a private dinner. They might not fall for his cajoling to return but they might just give him some useful advice and brilliant ideas. Who knows, one or two might return. It would be certainly be more productive than meeting a Petronas University flunkee lobbying for a scholarship.

If Najib were to opt for this second course, he would literally transform Malaysia come 2013. Voters, seeing the tangible results, may well enthusiastically endorse his leadership. If not, then Najib would at least have the satisfaction knowing that he has given his best for Malaysia.

My second advice to Najib is real one, not merely a question for him. It is also very short: Get rid of your wife from the public arena! [Spontaneous enthusiastic applause!] As you can see, I am not the only one who would like to throw him that advice!

If Najib's wife has the itch to involve herself in the affairs of the state (she has certainly given every indication of her itchiness for that), then lobby her husband to nominate her as a candidate in the next election.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Jumaat, 10 Jun 2011

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan