Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

‘Political Islam’ and Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad (Part One)
There’s No Excuse for Not Reporting the Truth
Leaving God
Standards of evidence
Trust your PM
Which will it be: Najib or Umno?
The Shadow Games: Umno power-struggle?
Unsustainable love affair with cars
The PAS conundrum – or is it really?
Is it any wonder that poverty is still prevalent in the resource rich states of Sabah and ...
The nation's future
Malaise in Malaysia: Corruption in High Places

‘Political Islam’ and Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad (Part One)

Posted: 01 Jan 2013 04:21 PM PST

In particular many "middle of the road" Malaysian voters, mostly non-Malay and non-Muslim but also including many Malays and Muslims, harbour reservations about Islamist politics — and specifically about what has long been, especially since the rise of the "new Islamists" and their capture of the party in the early 1980s, PAS's own "hardline" version of Islamist politics.

Clive Kessler, The Malaysian Insider

Dr Dzulkelfy Ahmad's recent commentary on "Political Islam at the crossroads in Malaysia" (The Malaysian Insider, 28 December) was both encouraging and disquieting.

Encouraging, because it said, and quite directly, a few things that many people, especially with the national elections approaching, have wanted to hear from the "moderate" forces or wing in PAS.

Things, for example, such as his conviction that PAS must, and can, take its stand on "the middle ground", and consolidate its appeal (or at least its acceptability) to centrist voters, by means of a consistent commitment to a moderate, conciliatory and "gentle" form or understanding of Islam.

And disquieting too, since, Dzulkefly's own exposition, as much by what it does not say as through its explicit words, provides grounds for doubt that his bland reassurances may be confidently accepted.

It prompts some real concern, through what he fails to understand and acknowledge as much as by what he does acknowledge.

These are important considerations.

Not abstract but considerations of immediate practical political relevance. Why?

A need for credible reassurance

Dzulkefly is, or so it seems to a distant and detached observer, a very decent man, a politician of admirable attitudes and political impulses (I will not use here the contentious term "instincts").

But is that enough?

Here and elsewhere Dzulkefly makes an argument and advances a position. He wants to provide reasons for people to suspend a number of the deep-seated doubts that they may have about the opposition Pakatan Rakyat coalition, and whether they should support it.

They are worried, in short, about giving their support to a multiparty coalition that might, if elected, eventually serve as the instrument for the creation of an explicitly Islamic state in Malaysia, or powerfully promote the demand for one.

They are worried that, with their well-intentioned but differently intentioned support, the Pakatan Rakyat coalition might become a vehicle in which the hardline political Islamists in PAS might ride to Putrajaya and from the "commanding heights" of government there push with unprecedented force for the further implementation in Malaysia of Syariah law, including the hudud punishment provisions.

That is their fear.

They want to be reassured.

Dzulkely wants to provide them with that reassurance, and people look to him, and to his "moderate" friends within PAS, for precisely that reassurance.

Dulkefly, as well as having his own political agenda and purposes (as all politicians do and must), may sincerely wish to provide Malaysians with that assurance. I think he does.

The question is whether people can accept that assurance, and whether they would be well-advised to do so.

As the thirteenth national elections approach, people are being asked to rely heavily on the trust that they place in, and in the reassurances provided by, Dzulkefly and his allies among the "moderate Islamists" in PAS.

It is a hugely important question, an enormously fateful choice — for them and for the nation as a whole.

That is why Dzulkefly's argument and its adequacy, or otherwise, need some thoughtful consideration.

"Political Islam"?

Yes, correct. Dzulkefly is right. In this country PAS represents, or is the manifestation of, the worldwide phenomenon of "political Islam", in its distinctive, and also historic, local form.

But what is "political Islam"?

It simply will not do for activist Islamist commentators to complain about so-called "Western" characterizations of Islam, both as a religion and civilization, as inherently and also threateningly "political", and then to assert, as Dzulkefly now does, that they also see Islam as inherently "apolitical" –– and so must invent, with the provision of a further adjective, the notion and fact of something called "political Islam".

Yes, in its outlook and history and civilizational self-understanding, Islam is inherently political.

Or, as Dzulkefly puts it, "The holistic paradigm of Islam includes its inherent and intrinsic interests in matters of 'government and governance', thus making it political from the very outset."

That is what many, both Islamic scholars and Western writers about Islam, have long maintained.

So there was never any need, as Dzulkefly now wants to suggest, for "Orientalists" and others to invent the term "political Islam" so that Islam's political dimension might at last be recognized, and so to call into being something that had not previously existed.

The question, as Dzukefly recognizes, is not whether Islam is political but what the politics of Islam should be.

And, specifically, what kind of politics should Muslims as Muslims in today's world, and now here in current Malaysian circumstances, seek to affirm and pursue.

If there was no need "adjectivally" to invent a special notion of "political Islam", or if that was not the reason, then where did the term come from and why was it devised?

Towards "Third-Phase Islam"

What is known in our time as "political Islam" has arisen not from the simple and gratuitous provision of an additional adjective to highlight (as if that were necessary!) Islam's inherent and characteristic — some would say "defining" — political dimension.

It arises from, and is the product of, the history, both specifically religious and more broadly civilizational, of Islam itself. It is the consequence of, and a reaction to, its "career in the world": of the entanglement of Islam in world history.

It is what we may term historically as "third-phase Islam".

i. The first phase. The first phase in religious evolution is born of a specific moment, the formative moment of the faith and faith community.

It comes from that moment, first experienced in this "faith tradition" by Abraham and later re-experienced anew (and, for Muslims, in its ultimately definitive form) by Muhammad, though others prophets in between had also been struck by a similarly powerful intimation, of first sensing the compelling presence of the divine.

That formative moment is when an individual, a prophet, is seized by the sudden, absolute, and all-encompassing awareness — both intellectual and broadly existential and hence spiritual — of the "one-ness" of God. That awareness takes the form not simply of a weak realization but of a powerful conviction. It is a total, and totalizing, apprehension of the central reality of Tauhid.

The first phase of religious evolution is born of this revelatory moment and centres upon the implications of its prophetic experience, upon its humanly transformative impact: for the prophet and for those who, by following his insight and lead, seek to replicate in their own inner lives, if only in part, that same transformation.

In that first phase religion itself, in this case Islam, is centred and focused upon that direct, immediate experience and conviction of Divine Unity. It is an awesome and awe-inspiring realization.

It is what in this tradition faith, what religion, is all about. What more, some wonder, might ever be needed?

ii. The Second phase. The first phase generally lasts for the lifetime of the founding or focal prophet himself. Whether it was Moses on the mountain or Muhammad in the cave, he (and he alone) has had the extraordinary experience, originating and defining, of the Divine Unity. He communicates that revelatory experience, others reach towards it and follow him.

A problem arises, however, with the death of the prophet. Others may succeed to his mundane role and assume some of his worldly responsibilities and functions. But their experience is not his, nor is it authoritative in the same way. Their experience may be derived from his, but only as a small and partial replication of his personal experience of revelation.

After his death, the community has to deal with the problem of the "absent lawgiver", of the vacuum of legal and spiritual authority, of their faith community's distancing or separation from the authoritative personal source of spiritual authenticity.

New problems arise, and people must wonder and will naturally ask themselves "What would the prophet himself have done?"

Differences of opinion arise. Conflicts occur. Different groups, to assert their own position and to justify their rejection of others, promote — in all sincerity — their own views not just of what the prophet meant and intended but also of what his entire life and prophetic career, as well as his spiritual understanding, were really about.

With that the history of the faith community enters into its second phase.

This is the phase where the intellectual and also the emotional focus of the believers are in some way, if only in part, transferred from their original or primary object, from the defining apprehensions of the Divine Unity or "godhead", and instead are attached in some measure to the now-absent founding prophet and to shared community memory of him.

This is generally done not as a diminution of their commitment to the Unity of God but as a reaffirmation of the community's own human and historical connection through whom God, in his awesome and majestic unity, has become and been made known to them.

The sacred faith, as members of the faith community now understand and experience and live it, becomes to some extent "prophet-centric".

Posted: 01 Jan 2013 10:27 AM PST

If these are instances of reports that were published without first verifying the facts because of the constraint of time, as per Firoz's implication, they should in the first place not have seen print. The reason is clear – not only are they untrue and capable of upsetting certain communities, they also negatively affect Utusan Malaysia's credibility. And, worse, they make the newspaper look stupid.

Kee Thuan Chye

What Utusan Malaysia's lawyer reportedly told the High Court on Dec 27 is shocking.

According to The Malaysian Insider, Firoz Hussein Ahmad Jamaluddin said newspapers do not have the "luxury of time" to verify the truth of news reports before publishing them.

In defending Utusan Malaysia's report that allegedly accused Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim of being a proponent of gay rights, Firoz also said, "If newspapers have to go through the full process of ascertaining the truth, the details, they wouldn't be able to report the next day."

If he thinks this would justify the publication of untruths by the media, he is grossly wrong. No media organisation should ever publish untruths or lies. On top of that, no media organisation can, after doing it, claim justification by saying it had no time to check its facts.

Not checking facts before publication is a cardinal sin in journalism. And no self-respecting journalist or media could absolve themselves by saying they did not have the "luxury of time".

If the truth cannot be verified, the report should not be published. That's the first principle of journalism. "When in doubt, leave it out" is the mantra of responsible media editors. It is the responsibility of a media organisation to tell the truth, not spread untruths to the public.

How could Utusan Malaysia stand by Firoz's claim? How could it allow its lawyer to say something as scandalous as this?

Is it any wonder then that Utusan Malaysia has, especially in the last few years, been publishing wildly speculative and unverified reports with cavalier disregard for decency and responsibility?

Such conduct has certainly been deserving of censure, but what is also deserving of censure is the Home Ministry for not having taken adequate punitive action against the newspaper.

The Home Ministry is the body which oversees the conduct of media organisations since it has the absolute power to grant and revoke licences, but it has been exceedingly lenient towards Utusan Malaysia.

It is surely aware that in the last few years, Utusan Malaysia has been found guilty of defaming a number of Pakatan leaders and others, among them Mahfuz Omar, Karpal Singh, Khalid Samad, Lim Guan Eng, Teresa Kok and Tenaganita Director Irene Fernandez.

In 2009, even Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri Aziz slammed Utusan Malaysia for its outdated racist propaganda.

Furthermore, the newspaper has been running mischievous reports without substantiation, many targeted at the DAP in order to demonise it and alienate it from Malay voters. One was about church leaders conspiring with the DAP to Christianise the country. Another was about the DAP wanting to turn the country into a republic by abolishing the Malay royalty.

Then last July, it said Singapore's ruling party, the People's Action Party (PAP), was plotting the downfall of the BN government through its local proxy, the DAP. This was of course preposterous – like the other two instances quoted above – because the truth is more likely to be that the PAP would prefer BN to remain in government for the sake of continuity.

This must surely account for why, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulation (ABC), Utusan Malaysia's circulation has dropped 20 per cent between July 2005 and June 2010, a period of five years. In terms of numbers, the drop is from 213,445 copies per day to 170,558.

Within the same period, its Sunday edition, Mingguan Malaysia, plummeted from 483,240 copies to 372,163, dropping even more at 23 per cent.

Utusan Malaysia being punished through the loss of its readers is one thing; what it needs to also experience is severe punishment from the authorities.

After all, other newspapers have been punished severely for lesser sins. In 2010, China Press had to apologise and suspend its editor-in-chief after it was given a show-cause letter by the ministry over its allegedly false report that the then Inspector-General of Police, Musa Hassan, had resigned.

That same year, The Star was also slapped with a show-cause letter – for running an article about the caning of three Muslim women for illicit sex. And in February 2012, it was severely hounded by the ministry for running a photograph of American singer Erykah Badu sporting tattoos of the word 'Allah' in Arabic on her upper body. It had to apologise and suspend two editors. After their suspension, they were transferred to other desks.

The Home Ministry did, however, issue a warning letter to Utusan Malaysia for its Christian conspiracy report, but that has probably been the only action it has taken against the newspaper in recent memory. Besides, a warning letter is nothing compared to the action against the two cases mentioned above.

One surmises this is because Utusan Malaysia is owned by Umno, the dominant party in the ruling coalition. So it enjoys more immunity than any other newspaper.

In this regard, it is timely to consider the Media Freedom Act that is being considered by the Opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat.

This Act, which DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng has said Pakatan would try to enact if it won Putrajaya at the 13th general election, would, apart from ensuring press freedom in the country, prohibit political parties from directly owning media companies.

Right now, the media companies are mostly owned by parties in the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition.

Among the influential newspapers, Berita Harian, Harian Metro and the New Straits Times are also owned by Umno, while The Star is owned by the MCA, and Tamil Nesan and Makkal Osai belong to MIC stalwarts.

Media Prima, which controls 8TV, ntv7, TV3 and TV9 and three radio stations, is also owned by Umno. This means that with BN being in government and controlling the State-owned RTM, the television medium is virtually monopolised by the ruling coalition.

The upshot of all this, as we have experienced over the decades, has been extremely unhealthy. Political coverage has been biased towards the ruling party and unfavourable towards the Opposition. News that would embarrass the Government or make it look incompetent is blocked from dissemination.

In total, the ruling coalition has been able to indoctrinate the masses with its propaganda to a frightening extent. One manifestation of its effects is the inability of some Malaysians to differentiate between "government" and "party" or to believe that BN is corrupt or abuses its powers.

Malaysian journalism, too, has lost its seat of nobility and honour because of one-sided reporting, manipulation of the truth and even the keeping of the truth from the public. It has become a custom for editors to sell their souls and toe the line in order to keep their cushy jobs.

It has also led to the kind of thinking expressed by Utusan Malaysia's Deputy Chief Editor, Mohd Zaini Hassan, who in July 2012 told a forum that it was all right for journalists to spin the facts to present readers with a "desired picture". He justified spinning as a way to attack the Opposition.

"Spin we can," he said. "No matter how we spin a certain fact to be biased in our favour, that's okay."

For saying that, Zaini has no business calling himself a journalist. His words bring disgrace to the profession. Spinning is distorting the truth, and distorting the truth is against the principles of journalism. It is also morally wrong. Those who spin are nothing more than propagandists.

Such propagandising should not be allowed any more, regardless of which coalition comes to power after the upcoming general election. We can put a stop to it by supporting the tabling of the Bill for a Media Freedom Act.

That Pakatan is willing to surrender the opportunity to control Malaysian minds through controlling the media if it comes to power speaks admirably of its commitment to a democratic Malaysia. But it should not stop at preventing political parties from directly owning media companies; it should also ensure that they do notindirectly own such companies.

Then and only then can we have the beginnings of a free media. Then and only then can we begin to enjoy the privilege of thinking for ourselves.

* Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the bestselling book No More Bullshit, Please, We're All Malaysians, and the latest volume, Ask for No Bullshit, Get Some More!

Leaving God

Posted: 31 Dec 2012 03:09 PM PST

Adelyn Yeoh, The Malaysian Insider

For the last couple of years, I have had an obsession about God and our fragile existence.

At this point, I want to make the distinction between faith and religion. Faith is the act of believing and religion is the institution through which faith sometimes operates through. Faith can operate without religion.

You could say that my obsession with these issues have been long and drawn out. I was a tween when I listened to a sermon advising us to continually thank God and to have conversations with God throughout the day. As an impressionable youngling, I took that advice to heart and pledged to follow it. God was always on my mind.

Then came an age where I wanted to do more for my faith; it seemed natural to want to devote time to it. So I got more involved, doing more things in school for fellowship, for God.

That was when the questioning set in. All my life I attended Christian mission schools where Christian fellowship was strong. Hence, school was the place I had most contact with religion, as my family was not the religious sort to begin with.

There were numerous things that did not sit right with me; things that did not seem just or fair, despite what religion claimed. Teachers would often use God as their trump card to get students to do their bidding. Other times, peers of mine would be denied the opportunity to bear leadership positions because they were from a different religious denomination.

Outside the classroom, the bickering continued. Religion is used as an additional divisive tool, not just by politicians but also by the average Joe. Overeager evangelical actions carried out by the average person working in the name of faith, despite having good intentions, often upset other parties. The reason for this is often because the evangelist has a presupposed notion of superiority. To put it simply, this is like me saying that oranges are the best fruits and you saying that apples are the best fruits, constantly disagreeing when such things should be subjective.

Therefore, the superiority seemed baseless and that sparked the beginning of my questioning which spanned the last few years. It first began with questioning the institution and, subsequently, the very fabric of faith itself.

The reason that I bring this up is because I don't think my situation is all that uncommon. I think that any logical person would eventually realise these inherent flaws.

Leaving faith for those who have had faith before is harder than it looks. It takes a lot of strength and courage to actively renounce what was previously held true. Those of us who were born into circumstances without the exposure of faith do not actively go through the same kind of personal costs as those who have had an exposure to faith.

For these reasons, it is therefore much more difficult to leave a faith, especially in a country like Malaysia where unbelief is not even a recognised option, and is taboo even. In this country, unquestioning belief is the default. Our society's denial of unbelief is perhaps the central reason why atheism is viewed with such antagonism. The face of atheism is the Hitchenses and Dawkinses of the world, which is not a very flattering or accurate depiction of atheists.

How do you force belief? You either buy it or you don't. And if you don't, how can you force a person to believe, especially if they have lost it?

You basically can't. But this doesn't mean that those who have lost it don't recognise the tremendous power that faith has — its potential for community building, for hope, for strength during trying times. Recognising this, unbelief too can be compatible with all the positive attributes of faith within a society. As such, unbelievers should not be treated with antagonism and, instead, room should be created to acknowledge this set of people.

Adelyn is an undergraduate student in Mount Holyoke College, USA, where she is pursuing International Relations and Mathematics. She also writes for CEKU at http://www.ceku.org.

Standards of evidence

Posted: 30 Dec 2012 01:43 PM PST

Can you respect my different political faith and beliefs the same way you respect my different religious faith and beliefs, asks Raja Petra.

Faith, in a way, can be described as the word to explain lack of evidence. Hence, whenever you fail to prove your beliefs with supporting evidence you classify it under faith. And you can get away with whatever beliefs that lack evidence by calling it faith. It would be considered quite acceptable.

Raja Petra Kamarudin, Free Malaysia Today

How many of you can claim to be believing what you believe in out of choice? Were you once a Christian from the west who visited India and then fell in love with Hinduism?

Or were you once a Buddhist who studied Islam and then decided that Islam is the true religion after all (and you did not convert because you wanted to marry a Muslim spouse)?

The majority of you believe what you believe because you happened to have been born into that belief system and were raised within that belief system and received an education, or rather an indoctrination, regarding that belief system.

There is a more than a 99% chance that if you had not been not been born a Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or whatever, today you would not be a Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.

As they say, you can choose your friends but you can't choose your relatives. You were not given any choice as to which family you would like to be born into. And with that lack of choice as to which family you are to be born into, you also have no choice as to what religion you will be following.

Your family and environment shape your beliefs and you grow up adopting a certain belief system, which you invariably accept as the correct belief system.

Then someone comes along and tells you that you are wrong. You have been misled or misinformed and are a victim of conjecture, superstition, fallacies, and folklore. What you had believed your entire life is false. What you presumed as the truth is not the truth. Truth can be tested and would pass the test. Your beliefs are not founded on truth and therefore cannot pass the truth test.

And this contradiction will upset you. Someone is telling you that you are wrong and this makes you angry. It makes you angry because you are not able to rebut this. You are not able to offer any evidence that what this person is telling you is wrong. And you are also not able to offer any evidence to prove that you are right.

The truth test

Ah, yes, your beliefs cannot be tested or proven. They will not pass the truth test. And that is because your beliefs are based on faith.

Beliefs, in particular religious beliefs, are called faiths — religious faith. The reason they are called religious faiths is because you need to believe based on faith, not based on evidence.

Can I use this same basis of 'evidence' in a court of law? Can I sit in the witness box in court and testify that I have faith and hence this faith will be my evidence to support my testimony?

The court can never accept my faith as evidence. Evidence has to be tangible. And tangible evidence must be in the form of documentary evidence or the testimony of an eyewitness.

Even if I were to adduce documentary evidence or quote the testimony of an eyewitness that is not acceptable. I must be the producer or maker of that document. If I am not, then that document will be rejected. The maker himself or herself needs to go to court to testify that he or she is actually the maker of the document. Only then will the document be admitted as evidence.

The same applies to an eyewitness testimony. If I were to relate an incident or the testimony of someone else, that would be mere hearsay. That too is not admissible in court. The eyewitness who told me about the incident or made that statement must personally go to court to testify that he or she saw what happened or heard what was said.

That would be the rules of evidence and the court is very clear on this.

You must have been personally there and you are relating what you saw or else the court cannot accept what you say. Either you personally created that document or else that document cannot be admitted into evidence.

Religion does not work on this basis. Religion is all about hearsay and third party or hand-me-down evidence.

And yet while we will reject such standards of 'evidence' in a court of law, we can readily accept it when it comes to religion. And we build our belief system around these so-called standards, which under normal circumstances would be unacceptable.

And based on this system of belief, we will pass judgment and make decisions that affect the life of people.

READ MORE HERE

Trust your PM

Posted: 29 Dec 2012 01:34 PM PST

Everyone must understand that BN MPs are already disclosing their assets to the prime minister who is the keeper of the gate. If you cannot trust your own PM, who else can you trust?

CT Ali, FMT

I am shocked! I am shocked, dumbfounded and flabbergasted that anyone could suggest that election candidates from Barisan Nasional should make public declaration of their assets.

How can they be asked to do anything that could jeopardise their safety or endanger their lives?

Several BN MPs have said that a public declaration of assets by potential election candidates may jeopardise their safety, ahead of what is expected to be the country's most intensely-fought polls.

Some have gone so far as to suggest that BN members of parliament would look more credible if they disclose their assets publicly.

Can you imagine what could happen to a BN MP if it became public knowledge that he had millions and millions of ringgit stashed at home or in his local or overseas banks or even in parts unknown?

That YB will become the target of every samseng who will not only proceed forthwith to the MP's gated mansion to rob him blind, but more worrying they will track his wife, girlfriend or mistress on their shopping trips to Milan, London or New York and then have the wife, girlfriend or mistress kidnapped for ransom.

Aiyah sure die one lah – not only got to pay out but also if the wife hears about the girlfriend or mistress, sure die twice!

BN MPs have already done enough untuk bangsa, negara, ugama dan lain lain……more of the lain lain than anything else.

Some of them have braved the wraths of their first wives by marrying another one or two other wives on the sly – an actress, a model or perhaps even a singer. Call it love, call it libido, call it anything you like. I call it the stupidity of aged fat lothario whose only attraction to the opposite sex is a fat bank balance.

One of them was 'brave' enough to confront the authoritative Malacca Custom and Excise Office and demanded that they 'close one eye' while he himself would probably be closing both his eyes in this game of dare.

That was brave of that MP because who can deny that the one eye is more at an advantage than the man with two eyes closed.

What about the "courage" of that BN MP caught with his pants down? Not only did he admit to the act after DVDs of the said act were distributed in Muar (well what else can he do when faced with such evidence already seen by the good people of Muar and elsewhere!) but he also courageously resigned from all his political post.

His supporters were so impressed with his 'berani mati' act that they soon elected him to be their party president. That just goes to prove that this really is Bolehland.

Being arrogant and obnoxious

BN members of parliament are not frighten to call a spade a spade and damm the consequences.

Nazri Aziz knows why he is being attacked all the time. It is not because he is arrogant nor was it because he is such an obnoxious character…no…as he said it:

"Don't you think that I am an asset, that there's an attack on me now? If I'm just an ordinary MP or I'm not important to Umno, you think they'll attack me? They won't, right?"

I guess being arrogant and obnoxious is part and parcel of being a valuable asset to Umno and BN.

These BN MPs will leave no stone unturned, will climb any mountain and will swim through shark infested waters in their tireless efforts to serve bangsa, negara, ugama dan lain lain.

Even if they fail time and time again in trying to serve bangsa, negara dan ugama, and even if they have never done their duty towards their electorates – what matters is that they did try. Give them credit for lying, cheating…… I mean trying!

Who suggested to Najib Tun Razak that his coalition candidates should be screened by MACC? Aisehman, as if the MACC are not flat out investigating the corrupt practices in Selangor, Kedah, Penang and in Kelantan.

Thank god BN was able to take back Perak and give some breathing space to MACC. MACC knows that states under Barisan Nasional are free from graft, plenty of corruption but no graft.

It has been suggested by some anti-national elements (well Pakatan Rakyat MPs actually – are they not one and the same thing?) that all this asset declaration exercise is an attempt by Najib to ensure that no candidates from Muhyiddin's camp will be allowed to stand as candidate for BN.

It is mischevious of anyone to suggest that Najib would do something underhand to rid himself of any political threats from within Umno.

READ MORE HERE

Which will it be: Najib or Umno?

Posted: 29 Dec 2012 01:32 PM PST

Dissatisfied Umno members believe Najib Tun Razak and Rosmah Mansor are the party's "main liabilities" that threaten the future of Umno.

Awang Abdillah, FMT

The recent 66th Umno general assembly sent out clear signs of increasing dissatisfaction among delegates with Najib Tun Razak's leadership and that a decision must be made before the 13th general election.

Since Najib took over from Abdullah Ahmad Badawi as PM in early 2009, the former's leadership has been directionless. He has been inconsistent and indecisive with his policies.

Though Najib is not as weak as his predecessor, he has nothing better to offer – no good leadership traits and no political and economic models on nation-building.

Umno members, from top to bottom, are very concerned about the party's future.

What they hear are only hollow slogans and rhetoric such as the 1Malaysia concept, transformation plan, financial painkillers like BR1M, KR1M, TR1M and other crap that play on the mindsets of the people.

In a nutshell these are just Najib's psychological propaganda to compensate for his inability to perform.

Any sincere leader who under-performs should switch to team leadership or resign.

Najib did neither. Instead he teamed up with his spouse, Rosmah Mansor. He gave more political clout to Rosmah who is neither an elected MP nor a cabinet minister than the delegates.

She has travelled all over the country and overseas acting as if she is the de facto premier overshadowing the cabinet ministers and extends her sphere of influence over their ministries and their respective departments and agencies.

She even went overboard by getting entangled personally with a number of nasty wrongdoings that threatened the credibility of the government and the party.

Najib must go

The party elite groups are so alarmed by the power wielded and abused by Rosmah and condoned by her husband.

Never in the history of Malaysian politics has the wife of a premier wielded so much personal control over the affairs of the government.

Hence the Umno elite groups believe the only way to save their party is to plot for Najib and company's downfall before the polls.

READ MORE HERE

The Shadow Games: Umno power-struggle?

Posted: 28 Dec 2012 10:18 AM PST

Muhyiddin's nationwide tour is done under the instruction of former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and this shows that Mahathir still has immense influence in Umno. Is Mahathir the one actually running the show in Umno?

Selena Tay, FMT

The whole atmosphere in Umno is extremely venomous and Najib may be asked to step down after the general election unless BN can regain its 2/3 majority.

Just when everyone was thinking that the political activity has gone down a notch or two during this end of the year holiday season, word is going around that Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak may be forced to hold the 13th general election before the Water Snake Chinese Lunar New Year which begins on Feb 10.

No one knows exactly what is going on in Umno because there is much cloak-and-dagger stuff in their wheeling and dealing.

However, if this talk is true, then the polls will have to be held only in early February as January does not favour BN because it is a very busy month due to it being the first month of the new school year and the teachers who are members of political parties will have no time to hit the campaign trail.

Therefore only the first weekend of February is available. Be that as it may, polls within the first three months after the Chinese Lunar New Year may lessen the Chinese votes because the Chinese who are working in Singapore (and there are many of them) will only utilise their leave for returning to their hometown during the two-week Chinese Lunar New Year period. Therefore this strategy can serve to lessen Chinese participation in the general election.

Now back to the goings-on in Umno. There is no reason to believe that PM Najib wants to hold the general election before the Chinese Lunar New Year.

This is because his brainchild, BR1M will only get going on Jan 15 and the payout is scheduled to go on until March 15. This time there are more applicants (youths, singletons and households whose income is below RM3,000) who will be getting the cash aid.

If the 13th general election is held before the payout is completed, then the rakyat will suspect that something is amiss. So although there are some in Umno who are impatient for the general election to be held fast, PM Najib will want to stand his ground and hold the polls in late March after all the BR1M recipients have received their cash aid although it cannot be denied that he is under pressure now.

It is also common knowledge that Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin has gone on a nationwide tour to meet all the Umno state liaison chiefs to see that everything is in order and to ensure that Umno's campaign machinery is in tip-top condition to face their greatest election battle of all time.

Najib in a precarious position

From all counts, the situation shows that there is a power-struggle going on in Umno and the general accepted belief by all and sundry is that PM Najib may be asked to step down after the 13th general election unless BN can regain the two thirds majority in Parliament and recapture all the Pakatan Rakyat (PR)-held states.

With all the Umno warlords aligned to one faction or other, the whole atmosphere in Umno is extremely venomous, the coming Water Snake year notwithstanding.

No one knows who is really a friend or foe. But Najib is the one who seems to be in a precarious position. Still, he will not give up without putting up a tough fight. Again, all his problems are caused by his delay in holding the polls and his delay must have irked the decisive Mahathir.

Unsustainable love affair with cars

Posted: 27 Dec 2012 01:36 PM PST

We cannot be building more roads and highways. Some hard decisions have to be made and in doing so, trade-offs have to be accepted. Whatever the decision, it involves pain of some sort to some party. Indecision because we want to avoid pain is not an option as when the day of reckoning comes, many more will be affected.

Nungsari Radhi, fz.com

ALTHOUGH the frequency has been somewhat reduced in the last few years, I still use the North-South Expressway quite often, especially the Kuala Lumpur to Penang stretch.

Most of the time, I drive alone as I enjoy the solitude with time to think for a few hours while navigating the traffic on the highway. However, it is now no longer therapeutic to drive.

The last few trips to Penang were rather stressful and the driving experience has gradually deteriorated over the years.

My last two KL-Penang trips took about 7½ hours each. Based on a journey of 350km, the average speed was well below 50kph. That is just horrible on a highway.

Speed, therefore, is not the issue on our highways. On the contrary, the problem, in my view, is the lack of speed. I can attest to the fact that over the years that I have been driving on the highway, drivers have generally become slower and to some extent, this has contributed to the highways getting jammed up.

Commercial vehicles are regularly seen passing slow-moving cars, slowing traffic down even more as these big vehicles have to cut into the overtaking lane.

Of course, there is also the problem of slow-moving traffic blissfully occupying the overtaking lane. These drivers should be fined by the traffic police.

The real problem, however, is the explosion in the number of cars on the highways, in particular, small-engine cars. You hardly see the bigger, high-performance cars on the highways. Those who have money buy cars for prestige, not mobility or even performance.

Those who can barely afford a car are those who are buying a means of transport. The growth in this group has been facilitated by loose credit, a low interest rate regime and the extension of the repayment period. This is the group that represents real demand for transport.

They may have chosen private transport because of the absence of public transport, but in doing so, their discretionary consumption is reduced considerably and they get themselves into debt.

In all likelihood, their personal or household balance sheets will show negative net worth and continue to do so unless their future income rises sufficiently. A car, unfortunately, is a depreciating asset.

Malaysia is on an unsustainable path with this love affair with cars. Car sales have been burgeoning — exceeding 600,000 vehicles a year — and created dependence on many fronts. The car market has grown at a compound rate of over 6% over the last 30 years.

Banks that extend credit, insurance companies that offer coverage, the government that collects taxes and the various dealers who sell and service the cars are all dependent on the trend continuing. There is therefore strong resistance to change.

In addition, the government subsidises pump prices — RON95 is currently at about 75 sen per litre. At a 50kph crawl on the highway, the consumption must be quite high, say, eight litres per 100km or 28 litres per KL-Penang trip, implying a government subsidy of RM19.60 per car per trip.

A back-of-the-envelope calculation based on 50kph and about one car distance between cars show there must have been about 17,500 cars on my recent trip or a total subsidy of RM343,000. And that's just for that one trip, which was on a Sunday during the year-end school holidays. The pressure on our fiscal deficit therefore remains high.

The point here is that something has to change. In this case, car sales cannot keep growing at the rate they have over the last three decades. Cars cannot keep clogging up the roads and highways everywhere while consuming increasing amounts of subsidies and contributing towards higher household debt.

The PAS conundrum – or is it really?

Posted: 27 Dec 2012 01:24 PM PST

No policy decision would be made without consensus from all three parties. This must be emphasised. No one party would be able to decide all on its own the policy of the coalition, since each pary's point of view would have to be given equal consideration even at the policy formulation stage.

Tricia Yeoh, Selangor Times

At a recent policy dinner at St. Mike's, a cozy Ipoh restaurant, I spoke of civil society, reform issues and my experience of having worked at the Pakatan Rakyat-led Selangor government. The discussion eventually centred on one subject alone, that being the 'PAS conundrum' (titled by me); conundrum being defined as a confusing and difficult problem or question.

This has been a recent trend, where I am often asked questions like, "How can we be sure that the radical, conservative Islamic right of PAS won't wield a bigger influence in Pakatan?", or "If Pakatan forms the next Federal Government, would PAS push its agenda of an Islamic State nationwide?", reflecting the real fears and concerns of a certain section of Malaysians.

The recent reports of the PAS-led Kelantan state government's gender-segregation regulations for hair salons that were initially imposed on non-Muslim outfits (which were later withdrawn), as well as two non-Muslim couples being issued summonses for indecent behaviour, have contributed to such sentiment.

The narrative being played up daily by MCA (not Umno, for obvious reasons) is that non-Muslims in Malaysia must therefore reject Pakatan wholesale based on the assumptions that first, these are bad policies; second, people do not like these bad policies; and third, if PAS can do it in Kelantan, they are likely to do it elsewhere.

At the very core of this discussion is the question of how the three Pakatan parties are able to agree on public policy and its implementation were it to take over in the upcoming 13th General Election, given their differences most starkly between DAP and PAS. The former is clearly opposed to the Islamic state, championing the cause of the secular state whilst the latter holds the Islamic state close to heart.

First, let us acknowledge that Malaysia is far from homogeneous, its society made up of an extremely wide range of ethnic backgrounds, religions, cultures, class, genders, and more relevant to this discussion: worldviews. The reason we are afraid is because we have not truly known the other. This we may attribute to a rigid education system, political party structure, history, the British practice of divide-and-rule thereby segregating the races, all of which resulted in frail identities that we are not confident about and therefore fearful of losing.

Any political coalition that attempts to mirror this complex makeup of Malaysian society is bound to face challenges.

The Barisan Nasional model of having race-based parties coming together in a coalition is becoming obsolete not because our society is necessarily becoming less defined by our respective cleavages (whatever they are, may it be class, language, ethnicity or otherwise). It is outdated because that structure inherently requires that each party retreats to their ethnic voting base and panders to their needs, almost always at the exclusion of others.

That the Pakatan coalition is multiracial is not a statement of lines blurring between these identities. In fact, it is an acknowledgement that these numerous (and sometimes multiple) identities exist, but are encouraged to flourish whilst looking out for the other within one big family. This is the approach that appeals to me. That I am not segregated by my race as a Chinese from others, but that whilst celebrating my Chinese-ness, I am also working alongside my Malay sister within the same party towards building a better country.

Now, to address the PAS issue. I highlighted it as a conundrum because keen Pakatan supporters who are worried about such trends above feel they are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. They seek change in Malaysia and ask themselves, at what cost is this change worth?

At the policy dinner, several views were given in response, including my own. First, that although PAS may have its strong views in Kelantan, it is a coalition of three parties rooting to be the next government. No policy decision would be made without consensus from all three parties. This must be emphasised. No one party would be able to decide all on its own the policy of the coalition, since each pary's point of view would have to be given equal consideration even at the policy formulation stage.

We can also see how a state like Selangor, which has the most mixed representation from all three parties amongst the Pakatan states, has been governed, as an example. Even when difficulties have come up over the past four years, these are resolved by recognising the concerns of all three parties, and then making a decision after such negotiation. This represents a sort of new politics, completely different when compared to the Umno-style dominance in the Barisan coalition.

Pakatan also has the advantage of raising concerns that are not necessarily based on race, and therefore a closer reflection of society's needs (poverty, education and so on). This is therefore an opportunity to use the political process itself as a method by which concerns that are representative of a people as a whole can be pushed forward rather than that from an exclusive segment of people alone.

Is it any wonder that poverty is still prevalent in the resource rich states of Sabah and ...

Posted: 27 Dec 2012 01:20 PM PST

Is it any wonder that poverty is still prevalent in the resource rich states of Sabah and Sarawak after 45 years in Malaysia?

CT Ali, Free Malaysia Today

History will tell us that alliances between states are entered into to serve strategic, economic and the national interest of their people.

More often than not these alliances are driven by political leaders who dream of greater glory and national advancement that the sum of such an alliance may bring.

History will also tell us that no nation can survive an alliance with another for too long when the interest of its people are exploited and taken advantage of by the another.

Such is the situation that the people of Sabah and Sarawak now feel they are in – the same Sabah and Sarawak that joined with Singapore and Malaya to form that new nation of Malaysia.

Joined not as the 12th and 13th states under Malaya but as equal partners having equal status and rights within the Federation of Malaysia.

Singapore has since bid adieu to Malaysia because it serves the political purpose of the Umno-led Barisan Nasional government of Malaysia for that to happen. Political Armageddon awaits Umno if Singapore was allowed meaningful participation into the federal politics of Malaysia.

With Singapore conveniently out of the way, this BN government of Malaysia did partake in and willingly encourage the following in Sabah and Sarawak:

First it proceeded forthwith to export to East Malaysia the politics of race and religion that had enabled Umno to divide and rule the population of Malaya to their political advantage for over 50 years.

Second this same BN government set out to colonise East Malaysia and took absolute control over their oil, gas and land resources for the benefit of Malaya – or more to the point for the advantage of the political elites in Umno in particular and BN in general.

Third they allowed with impunity the contemptible practice already embedded in the culture of Sabah and Sarawak politicians to grow indiscriminately – and that is the willingness of these politicians to indulge in party hopping and horse trading – much aided and infused by the proliferation of money politics, rampant state level corruption abuse of power and administrative management already prevalent in Malaya under the Umno-led government of Barisan Nasional.

Is it any wonder that poverty is still prevalent in the resource rich states of Sabah and Sarawak after 45 years in Malaysia?

Is it any wonder that corrupt administrators, crony timber robber baron and massive and endemic corruption now colour the politics in Sabah and Sarawak?

A political landscape that is also not unfamiliar to those in Malaya. A political landscape that any state and people will have to endure where corrupt politicians are allowed to rule not for the good of the people who elected them to office but for their own benefit.

Everyone has an agenda

For me the problems besetting our brothers and sisters in Sabah and Sarawak are no different from that faced by us in Malaya.

The nation's future

Posted: 27 Dec 2012 01:17 PM PST

Because they bother about their positions, we have seen our national debts climbing and money handed out generously. Because they fear losing their power, administrative agencies have been spared from the rod despite deteriorating efficiency.

Lim Sue Goan, Sin Chew Daily

To Malaysia, 2012 should have been a year of accelerated transformation. Everything seems to have been on the right track but unfortunately, several year-end international ratings seem to have exposed the "king's new clothes."

In the 2012 corporate bribery survey, Malaysia is right at the bottom. 50% of respondents contacted by Transparency International have replied affirmatively when asked whether they have lost their contracts due to bribes offered by their rivals during the past one year, attesting to the fact that commercial bribery is very serious in this country.

According to Global Financial Integrity's latest report, some RM196.8bn of black money made its way out of Malaysia in 2010 alone, the second highest in the world. During the past decade (2000-2010), a whopping RM871bn of money flowed out of the country through illegal means, a loss of RM33,000 for each of the country's 27 million inhabitants.

In addition, Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) studies show that Malaysia slides the most among 59 countries surveyed in mathematics and science performances.

It is not true to say that the government's Economic Transformation Programme has resulted in more foreign investments, as Q3 manufacturing investments plummeted 26.1% to RM6.2 billion against a sharp increase to about US$20 billion in our neighbour Indonesia.

International rankings aside, we also fumble in a number of domestic issues. While the transport ministry has reiterated that that legal issues pertaining to the AES system are non-existent, Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail lately announced that all court prosecution procedures involving the AES would be temporarily halted.

In another incident, the MCMC recently awarded eight 4G (LTE) Long Term Evolution permits, with companies having no telecommunication background getting the biggest quota share.

Rampant corruption, sliding academic standards, stagnant administrative and executive capabilities, lack of transparency in the award of contracts, etc. are all old issues. The ETP is not half as great as the government has claimed and the irregularities are still very much alive.

Without checking on corruption, the country's valuable resources will continue to drain away. Without solid effort to improve the calibre of Malaysians, there is no way we can achieve our vision.

If such things are allowed to go on next year, we won't expect to see any significant breakthrough in 2013.

We are not lacking talented people or ambitious plans. We are seriously in want of political wisdom.

Leaders with political wisdom should place national interests above their own.

Because they bother about their positions, we have seen our national debts climbing and money handed out generously.

Because they fear losing their power, administrative agencies have been spared from the rod despite deteriorating efficiency.

Malaise in Malaysia: Corruption in High Places

Posted: 27 Dec 2012 06:00 AM PST

It is an accepted cliché that power corrupts and is usually in reference to a country's leaders and their ability to amass private fortunes at the expense of their electorate. But the real tragedy is how corruption corrodes civil society. It creates cynicism, anger or voter apathy, with people losing confidence in politicians and therefore losing their connection with democracy. If the problem cannot be solved through the ballot box because of a corrupt electoral system, then a country is really in trouble.

Azeem Ibrahim, Huffington Post

Malaysia may not be in big trouble yet. While it still has a robust free press and whistleblowers are protected, the current issues have a chance to be addressed fairly. But the media is under pressure to conform and whistleblowers have been arrested instead of the corrupt officials. One of the foundations of the fight against corruption is the need to protect the messenger, and while many countries are being urged to adopt such legislation, it is only effective if respected and enforced.

Malaysia ranked 60th out of 182 nations last year in Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index, down four places from 2010, when 178 countries were included. Two recent scandals have rocked the establishment party of UMNO, bringing disrepute to people in high places from the Prime Minister down. The Scorpene submarines deal has exposed the hypocrisy of leaders who pledge to end corruption yet proceed as if winning elections is all about self-enrichment.

Malaysia was a signatory of the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) in 2008 with a legal obligation to "prevent, investigate and prosecute" cases of international corruption. However, a complaisant majority party and judiciary allow for delays in hearings, refusals to release documents and in the case of the submarines deal, to deny that French law has jurisdiction over Malaysian transactions. The French government however, is actively pursuing its own inquiry and has released over 153 documents making it clear that apart from individuals, the ruling party (UMNO) was the biggest beneficiary, receiving commissions, bribes and support fees in the millions.

In spite of government harassment, the civil rights organization, SUARAM, is determined to uncover the truth in its pursuit for accountability and stated in a May 2012 press conference in Bangkok, that it will continue to make the results public as the case proceeds in the French Court.

Another scandal has recently become public and tarnished the reputation of a former government minister and family members when it was revealed that National Feedlot Corporation funds weremisused for the purchase of condominiums using Malaysian government funds. Government patronage over the years has involved highway construction and defense contracts and a variety of other government arrangements with UMNO cronies. Prime Minister Najib Razak, who chairs the Finance Ministry Acquisition Committee, is in the powerful position of being able to award contracts and to charge whistleblowers instead as a smokescreen to protect his friends.

PKR leader Anwar Ibrahim has condemned such politically-motivated charges and his party is setting up a National Oversight and Whistleblower Centre to offer future informants protection via legal and monetary aid. Anwar promises to end corruption and dissatisfaction with UMNO and has been reinforcing the popularity of the PKR. But while the integrity of the electoral process is in doubt and the institutions responsible for anti-corruption and the rule of law have been compromised, it is difficult to foresee how the next election will play out.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Rabu, 2 Januari 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan