Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- Selangor dances the limbo for JAIS
- BN fails to kill with a borrowed knife
- Copycat judge in a copyright case!
- Why the hudud controversy will not die
- Deflate the bloated civil service
- A philosophical comparison of the budgets
- A CAT lesson from the Jais-DUMC fiasco
| Selangor dances the limbo for JAIS Posted: 13 Oct 2011 04:29 PM PDT
The Sultan's decree does not resolve important issues raised by the farcical raid on DUMC and has left many with bottled up feelings of resentment and discontent Officials of DUMC have, from the outset, vehemently denied the allegations that Muslims had been proselytised at what they claim was a multiethnic gathering to raise funds for HIV/AIDS. They have however, criticised the actions of JAIS enforcement officials for their role and conduct in the unauthorised raid. Mariam Mokhtar, Free Malaysia Today The principal parties involved in the Selangor Islamic Affairs Department (JAIS) raid on a Methodist church function last August have officially endorsed the sultan's solution, and the matter is deemed closed. The Sultan of Selangor's brief statement said that "….there had been attempts to subvert the faith and belief of Muslims" during the dinner at the Damansara Utama Methodist Church (DUMC) organised by the NGO Harapan Komuniti during Ramadan. Despite this, many issues remain unresolved and the rakyat is more perplexed than ever because his statement raises more questions than answers. How much involvement has Umno in the affairs of an opposition led state, do state religious authorities think that they are above the law and had abuses of power by JAIS been swept under the carpet? The statement did not allude to any evidence uncovered in these "attempts" at proselytisation, neither did it make reference to the Christians. However, it mentioned that no further legal action could be taken because of insufficient evidence and that JAIS had acted correctly in conducting the search. Sultan Sharafuddin said: "Therefore, after carefully deliberating the report by JAIS and after obtaining advice from religious authorities and legal experts, we are in agreement that there would be no prosecution against any party. "We are satisfied that the actions of JAIS were correct and did not breach any law enforceable in Selangor. We command that (Islamic officials) provide counseling to Muslims who were involved in the said dinner, to restore their belief and faith in the religion of Islam." Officials of DUMC have, from the outset, vehemently denied the allegations that Muslims had been proselytised at what they claim was a multiethnic gathering to raise funds for HIV/AIDS. They have however, criticised the actions of JAIS enforcement officials for their role and conduct in the unauthorised raid. Perhaps, the most disquieting statement was when the sultan said that he was "gravely concerned and extremely offended by the attempts of certain parties to weaken the faith and belief of Muslims." Malaysians have remarked that they are just as offended because nothing has been done to check high-handed officialdom and the mistrust which the officials have in the rakyat. Firstly, they are offended that Malays are perceived to be of weak faith and an even weaker constitution, that their presence in a largely Christian flock, when hymns are sung or prayers said, could make them denounce their faith. Secondly, the notion that any multiethnic event, be it a funeral, Christmas party, celebration of a festival or something as innocuous as a dinner, is seen as an attempt to convert the Muslim brethren. As defender of the faith, the sultan had also directed his subjects to stop questioning the actions of JAIS and that activities which spread other religions to Muslims should cease. He said: "The religion of Islam as practised in Selangor is one of tolerance. Muslims are always encouraged to respect the believers of other religions. However, persons or parties cannot take the opportunity to spread other religions to Muslims." What if a similar raid was on a mosque? But disgruntled non-Muslims have remarked: "It is all right for you Muslims. But who speaks for us, when members of our community undergo forced conversions? "Families are torn apart, children are separated from their mothers, bodies are snatched from graves, marriages cannot be registered. Where is the freedom to practise our religion as provided in the constitution?" A Malay resident of Petaling Jaya living beside a Church said: "No one questions JAIS for wanting to do its job. The issue is how JAIS conducted itself when it carried out the raid. "Did JAIS have any respect of the sanctity of a place of worship? Did it even follow procedures when conducting the raid? Are there any standard procedures in the first instance? "If a similar raid were to be conducted on a mosque, wouldn't there be a Muslim backlash? Without search warrants or strict adherence to guidelines to raid, do you think anyone will have any respect for authority if they simply bulldoze their way in? "Where is the respect for another person's religion?" Where is our tolerance?"
|
| BN fails to kill with a borrowed knife Posted: 13 Oct 2011 03:44 PM PDT
The BN government has lost a golden opportunity to finish off Pakatan in the battle of the budgets. The fact that Pakatan had announced its alternative budget earlier should have provided BN with a weapon, that is, RM1,100 to kill off Pakatan and yet BN strategists have failed to capitalise on this simple ruse which, in ancient Chinese military strategy, is called "Killing with a Borrowed Knife" or "Stabbing the Enemy with his Own Knife". Selena Tay, Free Malaysia Today Barisan Nasional's (BN) strategists for the 2012 Budget presented on Oct 7 really got it wrong this time. While there were gifts and goodies galore for civil servants, and pensioners as well, the private sector's low wage-earners and its retirees were neglected. Pertaining to the private sector's low-income group, the minimum wage figure was the bone of contention. The sector's low-wage earners were anxiously waiting for this figure to be announced by Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak as Pakatan Rakyat was the first to fix the floor wage at RM1,100 in the Pakatan budget unveiled on Oct 4. If Najib had set the figure as RM1,200, Pakatan would have been blown out of orbit because there would have been a great swing of support from Pakatan to BN. Instead, BN budget strategists, for whatever reasons best known to themselves, chose to ignore the private sector low-wage earners. The minimum wage figure is a much-needed benchmark upon which wages will be decided but BN has chosen to ignore this fact at its own peril. Therefore, BN has certainly lost a golden opportunity to gain support from the private sector employees, especially those who work in blue-collar jobs in factories or those lower-ranked office staff such as general or administration clerks. See, all it takes is just RM100 to blow Pakatan away! The fact that Pakatan had announced its alternative budget earlier should have provided BN with a weapon, that is, RM1,100 to kill off Pakatan and yet BN strategists have failed to capitalise on this simple ruse which, in ancient Chinese military strategy, is called "Killing with a Borrowed Knife" or "Stabbing the Enemy with his Own Knife". If BN chooses to announce the minimum wage figure now, the impact will be lost and the public will know that BN is insincere or worst still, it is an election gimmick to garner votes from the low- income group. This terrrible blunder represents a great failure by the BN federal government to improve the earnings of Malaysian citizens. And it just goes to show that it is the government which is depressing the wage market and this means that all this talk by the government about improving workers' rights is merely hot air. Concerning the private sector retirees, theirs is a case of double tragedy. They, too, should have been entitled to the bonus payout of RM1,000 (RM500 paid out in August this year before Hari Raya Aidilfitri and RM500 to be paid this coming December). This is because in their heyday, they too have worked hard, paid their taxes and contributed to the development and progress of the nation. It is a travesty of justice that they have been so poorly neglected time and time again by the BN government. As for those old-timers, aged 70 and above, their Employees Provident Fund (EPF) savings would have most probably run out as the salary was small in those days. Thus, in this present day and age, their savings would have shrunk tremendously due to inflation and they would have no choice but to rely on their children to provide for them. That is all well and fine if their children are earning well but what if their children fail to make it in life? And what about those who are single? 1Malaysia slogan empty rhetoric The government's generosity towards the civil servants and pensioners has irked the low-wage earners who are clamouring for fair treatment to be meted out to them, too. It is extremely amazing that the government deems it fit to ignore the pleas for minimum wage from the low-income group in the private sector. This clearly shows that without a doubt the 1Malaysia slogan of "People First, Performance Now" is empty rhetoric to dupe the public. Ditto for the much-hyped up slogan of "BN is a caring government". Caring indeed but perhaps caring only for its own stranglehold of power in Putrajaya?
|
| Copycat judge in a copyright case! Posted: 13 Oct 2011 03:34 PM PDT
While serving as a High Court judge in Johor in early 2000 Abdul Malik had allegedly committed the offence of plagiarising a judgment by then Singapore High Court judge GP Selvam and the irony of the matter was that Malik was hearing a case regarding copyright infringement. By Martin Jalleh When the respected retired judge N H Chan called certain judges in the appellate courts "imposters", "intellectual and legal frauds", "incompetent", "inane", "ignoramuses", "inconsistent" and even an "idiotic" bunch, little did he realise that he was being very mild. Now it has come to the public's notice that crouching amongst the growing company of judicial clowns and court jesters in the Palace of Justice is a copycat judge who allegedly plagiarised chunks of a judgment of another judge – in a copyright infringement case! Former Law Minister Rais Yatim has confirmed that the government had known about the plagiarising judge, but Rais tries to take the rakyat for a ride by blaming it all on the then Chief Justice (CJ), and that it was left to the latter to investigate and to take appropriate action. Copycat out of the bag Recently, veteran lawyer Karpal Singh, with the support of close to 60 Pakatan Rakyat MPs, submitted a motion to the office of the Parliament speaker against Justice Abdul Malik Ishak, to have him placed before a tribunal and be removed. While serving as a High Court judge in Johor in early 2000 Abdul Malik had allegedly committed the offence of plagiarising a judgment by then Singapore High Court judge GP Selvam and the irony of the matter was that Malik was hearing a case regarding copyright infringement. Malaysiakini highlighted two news reports in Singapore's Straits Times -- 8 March and 13 April, 2000 which were referred to by Karpal Singh. The newspaper quoted then CJ Eusoff Chin as having written to his Singapore counterpart, Justice Yong Pung How, asking for more information on the allegation of plagiarism. A month later, Eusoff told journalists that the matter was resolved and that it had arisen out of a "misunderstanding". He however did not elaborate. (By the way, this is the same CJ, whom a former CJ Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah had described as one who "kept lying to him" when the latter was a Federal Court judge and Eusoff was his boss! (Star, 30 Jan. 2008). The Straits Times also reported that Rais Yatim had promised an investigation. Rais was ridiculous enough as to add that it was not easy to establish plagiarism because it was normal for judges to quote one another extensively and that: "Quoting another judge is not plagiarism." The Straits Times report of 8 March, 2000 reduced Rais' "rescue bid" of the judge to pure rubbish when it quoted the former Singapore judge (Selvam) accusing the Malaysian judge of having obtained a copy of his (Selvam's) judgment through a lawyer and "having copied chunks from me without acknowledging". (Rais sat on the case for four long years and did nothing about it!) Selvam was also quoted to have said the Malaysian judge backdated his judgment so that people "will think I copied from him!" The naked truth appears each time Rais speaks through his rear end. After the Singapore judiciary got the cat out of the bag, the copycat was transferred out of Johor Baru and kept in cold-storage for a while. Seven years later the plagiariser would be promoted to the Court of Appeal (16 July, 2007)! This can only happen in Bolehland! Karpal Singh has described (on several online news portals) Malik's alleged plagiarising as a "judicial scandal", "misconduct of a very serious nature", "a source of embarrassment for our judiciary" and one that warrants "stern disciplinary action" by a Royal Tribunal. Will Justice Abdul Malik Ishak have enough honour left to resign on his own accord? Is there any remaining sense of decency and self-respect in him to acknowledge and accept the fact that his position as a judge has become clearly untenable. Will the Chief Justice save the judiciary and the country from further embarrassment or has the judiciary entirely lost its sense of shame and the CJ prefers to continue in his elegant silence? Meanwhile, taking the easy way out like Rais, Minister in the PM's Department Nazri Abdul Aziz said the government could not take action against Abdul Malik as it was a matter for the current judiciary to settle. Asked why the judiciary had not censured Abdul Malik until now, he said: "I don't know, you have to ask them." Strange, coming from a man who had once proudly and loudly declared himself as the "Minister for the Chief Justice"! Malik's other "achievements" On 10 Oct. 2009, the Court of Appeal, with Malik as the presiding judge, struck out Anwar Ibrahim's RM100 million defamation suit against Dr Mahathir on the technicality that the memorandum of appeal was not in Bahasa Malaysia. Malik stressed the supremacy of the national language as he delivered his 31-page written judgment in English! On 5 Oct. 2011, the Federal Court allowed Anwar Ibrahim's application to expunge portions of a written judgment made by Malik on 6 July in the Court of Appeal related to the Sodomy II trial, that were deemed disparaging of the politician and his lawyers. Karpal Singh (Anwar's lawyer) complained to the judges that Malik had "without jurisdiction and for an apparent purpose invoked a non-existent jurisdiction to maliciously and scurrilously (go into the merits and) embark on a relentless attack on Anwar and the lawyers (in the written judgment)". "This amounts to judicial assassination of the worst kind ... (and) to make matters worse, the appellant and the lawyers were not given an opportunity to defend ourselves... as the appellate court had allowed the preliminary objection. "The remarks were uncalled for and put the Judiciary in bad light. If the case was allowed to be heard on its merits, we (would have been) prepared to defend ourselves. However, we were not allowed to do so as the court allowed the preliminary objection." Karpal also questioned as to how Malik produced the written 40-page judgment on the day the appeal was heard at the Court of Appeal. Various law journals had reported that the judgment was produced on 6 July, but lawyers for Anwar only received it on 15 Aug. Malik had also scurrilously written: "This case will fall in history. It will be chronicled as the only known case in our country or for that matter within the Commonwealth enclave where the appellant as an accused person persistently and consistently filed one application after another in an attempt to recuse the learned trial judge from hearing and continuing to hear the sodomy trial which is ongoing." Very ironically, it is the case of Abdul Malik which will fall in history and be chronicled as the only known case in our country or for that matter within the Commonwealth enclave where the one found guilty of plagiarising in a copyright infringement case was the judge himself!
|
| Why the hudud controversy will not die Posted: 13 Oct 2011 03:13 PM PDT
The politicians, mullahs and kings do not know all the answers or what's best for society. The Muslims must be able to evaluate and decide on hudud free from social pressures and political or religious brainwashing. This includes the notorious 'bad Muslim' stigma that could prevent them from saying 'no' to hudud when 'no' is what they truly desire. Pak Sako, Free Malaysia Today PAS and DAP's decision to 'agree to disagree' on hudud must be taken for what it really is: a politically-motivated temporary ceasefire. It does not resolve the hudud controversy. The controversy can never be resolved as long as the fundamental questions of the hudud debate continue to be avoided. The questions are:
A national dialogue on implementing hudud must exhaustively probe these questions before anything else. An open and critical exploration of these questions will help the public learn and decide about whether hudud is necessary, worthwhile, appropriate or out-of-date. It will enable policymakers to discover whether the informed public desires hudud or not. Without full public discussion and public consent, it is immoral for policymakers to presuppose the value of hudud and speak about its implementation. It is also wrong to assume that a simple parliamentary majority (which is all that is needed) is an automatic mandate to incrementally amend the federal constitution to accommodate hudud. The public on their part should not leave it the politicians, the religious scholars or the royalty to decide matters for them. The politicians, mullahs and kings do not know all the answers or what's best for society; they have a personal or biased interest in the matter; and it is undemocratic to allow the preferences of these vested interest groups to influence a decision that should be in the hands of the people. Special obligation to explain If after careful deliberation the people choose to reject hudud, this decision must be respectfully accepted. The Islamic theologians are useful insofar as they can provide the evaluating public with technical input, such as the scope, workings and other details of hudud. Likewise with the political scientists and other relevant experts. All members of the public including interest groups and civil society organisations should thrash out the questions about the purposes and worth of hudud. The Muslims must be able to evaluate and decide on hudud free from social pressures and political or religious brainwashing. This includes the notorious 'bad Muslim' stigma that could prevent them from saying 'no' to hudud when 'no' is what they truly desire. As for the non-Muslims, they are not free to wash their hands of the issue; they are responsible parties to any law that the politicians they had elected might enact and administer upon their fellow citizens. PAS and all other proponents of hudud have a special obligation to explain the explicit and implicit aims they believe hudud is to serve and the rationales for these. They must engage in discussions about the value of hudud and the problems and concerns associated with it. The burden of proof is on the shoulders of the proposers of the law.
|
| Deflate the bloated civil service Posted: 11 Oct 2011 03:25 PM PDT
It is time the government addresses the issue of the overbloated civil service. If you take pensions into account, emoluments and pensions as a percentage of the government's operating expenditure, the increase is from 29.8% in 2006 to 41.6% in 2010. Despite the fact that the annual budget is always increasing, the emoluments and pensions percentage proportion of the Budget is also ballooning! Selena Tay, Free Malaysia Today The 2012 Budget has failed to address the serious issues of soaring prices, rising inflation, minimum wage, corruption, cronyism, wastages and leakages in government departments but make no bones about it. Malaysia's civil service has got to go on record as being the most overbloated in the world. As at 2010, it numbers about 1.2 million employees on the government payroll out of a population of 28 million. What gives? The civil service has been expanding rapidly since the 1990s and its growth has been accelerated especially fast since 2007. In 1990, the government had 773,997 employees, by the year 2000 there were 894,788 staff members and by 2010 about 1.2 million. One of the key objectives of privatisation under the then prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad was to increase the efficiency of the delivery system and to reduce the civil service staff members to just above 500,000. Therefore, it could be said that the privatisation exercises were a complete and dismal failure in creating a lean and efficient civil service as the number now is more than twice its targetted size of 500,000. The overbloated civil service has for the most part to do with the government's policy of making our civil service the job saviour for the unemployable graduates, at least 70% of whom were Bumiputeras. This will result in a poor quality workforce but worse than that it also depletes the government's treasury. The Budget will be negatively impacted for the present and future years if the government does not restructure the civil service. Their pay rise itself will be a waste of public funds if there is a lack of efficiency and productivity. 'Iron rice bowl' This simply means that their paychecks are safely guaranteed by the government for the rest of their lives. This spurs them on to vote for Barisan Nasional come what may. Thus, their loyalty is secured as their morality and conscience go down the drain. In 2005, the government's emoluments expenses to maintain the civil service is RM25.6 billion and in 2008 it was RM41 billion (an increase of 60.2%). The civil service, therefore, is a heavy burden on emoluments as a percentage of Malaysia's financial budget. From taking up 23.3% of the nation's operating budget in 2006, it has been nothing but a yearly increase as it grew to 25.5% in 2007, 28.1% in 2008, 24.6% in 2009 and 33.1% in 2010 in spite of the yearly massive increase in operating expenditure from 101.2 billion in 2006 to RM154.2 billion three years later in 2009. If you take pensions into account, emoluments and pensions as a percentage of the government's operating expenditure, the increase is from 29.8% in 2006 to 41.6% in 2010. Despite the fact that the annual budget is always increasing, the emoluments and pensions percentage proportion of the Budget is also ballooning!
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development (OECD) shows Malaysia having the highest ratio of civil servants to the population in the Asia-Pacific region at 4.68% with Indonesia having 1.79%, Philippines 1.81%, South Korea 1.85% and Thailand 2.06%. Therefore the overbloated civil service is a major contributory factor to the financial burden of the government. In 2007, the government created 2,000 jobs in the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs to give jobs to unemployed graduates as "price monitors". Their job was to jot down the prices of goods at wet markets, supermarkets and hypermarts. What is the purpose of this job is anyone's guess.
|
| A philosophical comparison of the budgets Posted: 10 Oct 2011 04:18 PM PDT
On the surface, both appear to be quite similar in intent and target, namely, to help alleviate the rising cost of living particularly amongst the lower-income groups. Yet the philosophical formulation of the two documents cannot be more divergent. Breaking through the sheath of populist pronouncements, one would discover a sharp contrast between the underlying ideologies that define the two budgets. Zairil Khir Johari, The Malaysian Insider And so it has come to this. The last push. With the general election expected soon, both Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional are preparing themselves for the final assault. Barricades have been erected, cannons lined up and guns trained on the other side. In the last week, we have witnessed the opening salvos launched by both sides. First to the tilt was Pakatan Rakyat with a modest offering encapsulated in the title "kesejahteraan untuk semua" or "prosperity for all'. And just as it was about to gain traction the ruling Barisan Nasional descended with a no-holds-barred mega welfare budget, coincidentally called "bajet membela rakyat, mensejahtera negara", or "defending the people and prosperity for the country". Without a doubt, both sides have angled the budget with an election in mind. Thus, there is no escaping the menial comparisons between the two sets of proffered "goodies" — RM500 for lower-income households compared to RM1,000 for lower-income housewives, or cash and book voucher bonuses for students compared to RM700 childcare allowances, or a restructuring of teachers' salary schemes compared to an outright increase in teachers' allowances. In short, most comparative discourse has been about whose sack contains bigger and better presents — Santa Najib or Santa. On the surface, both appear to be quite similar in intent and target, namely, to help alleviate the rising cost of living particularly amongst the lower-income groups. Yet the philosophical formulation of the two documents cannot be more divergent. Breaking through the sheath of populist pronouncements, one would discover a sharp contrast between the underlying ideologies that define the two budgets. Take the position on expenditures. Again, both appear similar on paper — BN's RM232 billion compared to PR's RM220 billion, with BN curtailing the long-running national deficit to 4.7 per cent of GDP compared to 4.4 per cent for PR, though the latter is based on a more conservative GDP projection. However, closer inspection would reveal that the essence of PR's spending policy is necessarily tempered by a commitment to prudence, efficiency and sustainability. For example, the PR document promises to issue Approved Permits (APs) at market value, thus raising RM1.2 billion in what can only be described as lost revenue. In addition, an open tender system as well as an Unfair Public Contracts Act is promised in order to increase value-for-money and to ensure public interest is protected. More importantly, there is also a commitment to reducing the Petronas dividend to 40 per cent of projected net profits, thus ensuring our national cash cow is able to plough its profits back for reinvestment. The BN's spending approach, on the other hand, is really just about spending. In this case, reducing the deficit merely means spending controls and reallocation of resources without necessarily addressing wastefulness, inefficiency and the need for sustainable economics. Another key difference is the discretionary budget of the Prime Minister's Department (PMD). The BN's budget has carved out RM13.5 billion for the prime minister's use, while PR has pledged to reduce that amount by a third, returning it to the levels of half a decade ago. Reducing the prime minister's spending is only half the story — the true intention of this exercise is to take steps towards decentralisation of power. Over the last few years, multiple new agencies have been created and parked under the blossoming aegis of the PMD. This has not only served to consolidate power under the prime minister, it has also emasculated various ministries which have seen their functions replicated and usurped. Seen in this context, PR's reduction of PMD expenditure is therefore not only an attempt to return power to its rightful ministries, but more importantly to reduce the arbitrary power of the prime minister. Following this, a promise was also made by the opposition leader, coincidentally also the last finance minister to table a surplus budget nearly 15 years ago, that a PR prime minister would not concurrently sign the treasury cheques — another clear commitment to devolvement and decentralisation of power. Both budgets also apparently target a very specific group — households with cumulative incomes of below RM3,000 — representing nearly 60 per cent of our population. To assist this group, BN is doling out cash bonuses of RM500 for each family, RM100 for schoolchildren and RM200 for tertiary students as a means of riding out the expected economic storm. The PR budget, while also promising assistance in the form of a RM1,000 homemaker allowance and a RM1,000 bonus for the elderly, will also grant childcare allowances of RM700 a year in addition to the facilitation and establishment of certified childcare centres. This incentive is designed to encourage female participation in the workforce, thus increasing productivity and income of the targeted households.
|
| A CAT lesson from the Jais-DUMC fiasco Posted: 10 Oct 2011 06:01 AM PDT
However, I firmly believe that the unilateral Jais enforcement action without an official search warrant on the DUMC was certainly not appropriate, but surely appalling and apprehensive, especially when the victims concerned are generally peace-loving members of a church. Thomas Lee Seng Hock Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah of Selangor has issued an edict exonerating and absolving the Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor (Jais) from any wrong-doing in the fiasco involving its enforcement personnel in their controversial raid on a private party held on the premises of the Damansara Utama Methodist Church (DUMC) in Petaling Jaya.
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan