Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- Listen to Shahrifah Zohra
- The Christians are coming!
- Can Deepak bring down Umno?
- When pumps fail
- Who is the kingmaker?
- Myth of ‘Umno is Malay; Malay, Umno’ forever shattered!
- Making our journey as a nation less arduous
- Gripped by water issues
- What are BN's and PR's Fiscal Policies?
- Kudos to Peaceful Assembly Act
- Winning by popularity: Can Umno rely on the prime minister’s personal standing?
- End days for the Great Survivor?
| Posted: 15 Jan 2013 03:39 PM PST
Darren Nah, The Malaysian Insider Malaysians all over the globe are pouring spiteful derision at an unknown, supercilious lady, Shahrifah Zohra, whose bubbling partisan affinities and inability to address the contentious issues posed by a contrarian student, Bawani KS (now an overnight sensation), led her to do what all noisome vixens do: Raise a whole lot of malarkey and hullabaloo about monkeys, cows, goats and, yes, even sharks. Her bestial [pertaining to beasts] diatribe came in an interminable, rapid fire succession. Shahrifah Zohra went from calling Ambiga (a Malaysian public figure fighting for free and fair elections) an anarchist, to asking the student, Bawani, to leave the Malaysia given Bawani's dissatisfaction, and to then doling out Galaxy Notes gratuitously to a body of passive, browbeaten students who was indifferent to the whole Orwellian mis-en-scene, and merely parroted affirmatives and clapped in support of both sides. In Shahrifah Zohra's deluge of half-baked, quasi-educated Malay-English creole verbiage, many might mistake her fulmination to be a truculent message sponsored by the Selangor Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA). However, Shahrifah Zohra does artfully credit Ambiga, the "anarchist," with one thing: enlightening Malaysians to human rights, which in this case, it so happens to be the right of free speech. Shahrifah Zohra, of course, in trumping the right of every individual to free speech, does not hesitate to remove her opponent's (Bawani's) microphone, and quickly proceeds to up the volume-ante to an audibly deranging holler. Aside from the (hopefully) non-permanent ear damage that Shahrifah Zohra's twenty-minute harangue has caused, it is very odd that Shahrifah Zohra should undermine her own case by saying that "it is my human right to speak, and you to listen" (paraphrased). Shahrifah Zohra's logic is a non sequitur. If everyone has a human right to speak, it does not follow that every human has a right to not speak when another speaks. In other words, you can't stop me from speaking simply by saying that you have a right to speak. We can both speak at the same time, though no one would be listening. (Bawani by this time has gone back to her seat, probably fatigued by her obtuse opponent. Stupidity can be very tiring!). In fact, Bawani's real contention was with the lack of free education in Malaysia. Or more pointedly, the lack of quality education in Malaysia was her main complaint. Which good citizen does not complain about her own nation, not to bring it down, but to build it better? Again, Shahrifah Zohra's non sequitur logic resurfaces, this time in international fury! She beseeches Bawani to leave Malaysia and go to Cuba, Libya and Argentina. Shahrifah Zohra does not mention the United States, the United Kingdom or Australia, but third-world nations. In her logic, we're meant to compare ourselves with Libya. Right. I'm sure you win a race by running with handicaps. It is very sad (and here comes my plangent tone) that the Malaysians in the video were so indifferent. "All the students in this hall," Shahrifah Zohra vaunts, "are happy with whatever the government does for them." And to a great extent, this is very true. The government does too much, and the people too little, and this is how we're silenced. People like Shahrifah Zohra can speak with such temerity at another co-citizen simply because, she knows (and we know) that the Malaysian government can take away whatever it has given; free education, petrol subsidies, free this and free that. One can even say that Bawani, by asking for free education, indirectly empowers people like Shahrifah Zohra! No one stops to think about the larger picture. No one talks about the appropriate role of government. Everyone talks about democracy, but no one talks about mob rule. Everyone wants things free, but no one sees the hidden charges.
|
| Posted: 15 Jan 2013 03:23 PM PST
Twenty years ago, he said, there were about 5 per cent of Christians in the country. The number has jumped to 9 per cent. We must not forget, too, Christians of other ethnicities. Dina Zaman, The Malaysian Insider Dr Chandra Muzaffar who spoke at the "Pathways Institute Seminar: Leadership Amidst Controversy" recently said, "It will be the Malaysian Christians who will make an impact at the upcoming general elections." There is a political awakening among them, and many feel sidelined and discriminated against, he said. The Allah issue is just but one of the many issues they feel strongly about. Again, a reminder: They are highly educated and earn incomes many envy. Twenty years ago, he said, there were about 5 per cent of Christians in the country. The number has jumped to 9 per cent. We must not forget, too, Christians of other ethnicities. There is also another thing that I would like to add, and had volunteered at the seminar. When we talk about Muslims in Malaysia, the conversation is really about the Malays. We fail to take into account that there are other Malaysian Muslims: the Chinese and Indian Muslims, and the first generation of migrants who have made Malaysia their home. Let's not forget the Arabs! The Chinese and Indian Muslims, and Arabs are some of the economic drivers of the country. Their contributions to the country's GDP cannot be overlooked. Don't forget the Shiites, too! What is my point? It would be that these very communities will not just make an impression at the polling booth, but are big huge billboards that should wake Malay-Muslims up. They want to be heard, and their traditions, culture and mindset accepted, and not just tolerated. Add the numbers up ― they are significant. Many times, I have encountered exchanges between Chinese-Muslims and Indian-Muslims, and the question asked often is why they aren't accepted as Bumiputeras? "I don't get the Constitution. If you are Muslim, you are automatically Malay and vice versa. I'm Muslim, and I'm still ticking off Chinese/Indian on forms. My culture and heritage dictate a long history of Islam, longer than you Malays." "We make more money than you. We drive the economy. Don't you dare say that we are insignificant!' My response is usually silence. They're right. It is obvious that the current politics and policies surrounding ethnicity and religions in Malaysia are outdated. It is also disheartening to hear, in this day and age the ever-oft complaint, that the non-Malays are going to take over. This coming even from the more exposed, educated Malay professionals. Are we really under siege? To some, yes. Even if they are Muslim? I pointed out.
|
| Posted: 15 Jan 2013 02:53 PM PST
When Anwar and his Pakatan colleagues are in agreement that Deepak has the goods to topple the BN government, then Deepak can have whatever he wants. CT Ali, FMT The need, greed and obsessison for money, wealth and power at its most corrupt can all be seen in the trials and tribulations that Deepak Jaikishnan, with his supporting cast of Rosmah Mansor, Najib Tun Razak and Anwar Ibrahim, are going through now. In Deepak we see the use of money not for good but for evil. He will have difficulty in finding friend as they see what he is now doing to his 'sister' and to those from whom he now seek help from. Today he is toxic to the two people most able to get him out of the business predicament that he has got himself into. A predicament born out of cronyism and politics so flawed that it requires a political solution only Anwar or Najib can contemplate. Najib and Rosmah have washed their hands off him – encouraged by no small amount, I am sure, by Deepak's threats to reveal Rosmah's and Najib's involvement in Altanatuya's murder. After much circumspect consideration, Najib and Rosmah have decided that what Deepak has to say about their involvement in the retraction of PI Bala's first SD would not harm Najib's chances of winning the 13th general election. So what is Deepak to do now? Deepak traitorously goes to the other man who may be able to help him – Anwar. Anwar knows that Deepak comes to him because Najib and Rosmah has cast him off. If Najib and Rosmah think that Deepak is not worth the money he is asking for, how much then is Deepak worth to Anwar? What Anwar has to decide now is whether what Deepak has on Najib and Rosmah can win Pakatan Rakyat the general election and make him the prime minister. Those are the only criteria that Anwar and Pakatan Rakyat will judge Deepak by. Taking Najib and Rosmah out of the political equation is not enough. There are Muhyiddin Yassin and Dr Mahathir Mohamad eager to step into Najib's shoes. Delivering a mortal blow to Umno Not only must Najib go but also what Deepak reveals of Najib, the Umno president, must deal Umno a mortal blow from which it cannot recover – at least not in time to ready itself to battle Pakatan in the 13th general election. Then, and only then will Anwar and Pakatan be able to consider 'working' with Deepak for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to come out. It is not Deepak who decides. All this talk of telling the truth and getting immunity as a whistleblower is bull dust.
|
| Posted: 15 Jan 2013 10:44 AM PST
One does not need a degree in rocket science to understand why there is a need for maintenance. These days the only beneficiaries of the quality of water are the makers and distributors of water filters. The quality of water leaves much to be desired and tying a piece of cloth to the mouth of the tap will attest to this. R. Nadeswaran , The SunSOME members of the Thomas Cup winning team of 1967 referred to him as the "tormentor". That's because he was their fitness coach and he spared no one. Those in sports circles knew him as a double international having played soccer and hockey for Malaya. Those in the football fraternity knew him as "Uncle Nada", but T. Nadarajah worked with the Selangor Waterworks Department in Pantai, Kuala Lumpur, where everyone saw the other side of him. Every year, he used to organise a walk for waterworks employees and in the mid-seventies, I was assigned to cover the event. They all came – the sweepers, plumbers, technicians and engineers. Food was prepared in the compound of the department and for a good measure, beer and toddy flowed. And for prizes, Uncle Nada gave away fruits, vegetables and the main prize was a rattan cage containing five chickens. He said something along the lines that medals and cups are useless to the workers. He would rather give them something which could end up on the dinner table. And one of the most telling remarks he made was: "They can be plumbers and labourers, but it is their hard work that keeps water flowing through your taps. Round-the-clock, they ensure that everything is working." It was an era when bottled water – mineral, distilled, purified, etc – was never heard of. If you were thirsty, you just turned on the tap, clasped your hands and drank the water direct from the source – without any worry or hassle. These days the only beneficiaries of the quality of water are the makers and distributors of water filters. The quality of water leaves much to be desired and tying a piece of cloth to the mouth of the tap will attest to this. I will not delve into the politics of water but raise some pertinent, common sense questions that have to be addressed. I have no intention of going into the contractual disputes between the Selangor government and the concessionaires. Let it be reiterated that privatisation was supposed to enhance quality and service, not to be detrimental to the people. Raw water and processed water are two different things. The problem is the processing of water and it has nothing to do with new dams. From what I have read, the water crisis has nothing to do with privatisation or new treatment plants. It has everything to do with failure of mechanical equipment to pump the water. Was it changed or did it disappear with privatisation? One does not need a degree in rocket science to understand why there is a need for maintenance. Like aircraft and printing presses, water pumps can last a lifetime with regular maintenance and replacement of parts as recommended by the suppliers or until they become obsolete because of innovations. So, the questions that should be answered are: We seem to espouse the "First World infrastructure, Third World mentality" at every turn. The public needs answers and the concessionaires must take cognisance that ordinary folk should not be pawns in trying to hammer through an unfair deal. R. Nadeswaran is editor (special and investigative reporting) at theSun. Comments: citizen-nades@thesundaily.com
|
| Posted: 14 Jan 2013 04:03 PM PST
Lim Sue Goan, Sin Chew Daily Utusan Malaysia recently published a photo of a Malay participant in the Perhimpunan Kebangkitan Rakyat rally on Saturday holding a DAP flag. It is a scene unimaginable during the Mahathir administration. The DAP had been labelled as an anti-Malay party over the years. Did the photo show that Malays have not only accepted the DAP, but are also willing to openly show their support? If it is a trend, the change of regime will then not be something impossible. In fact, the 13th general election is the first election in history with the highest chance of a regime change. The possible regime change mentioned by the opposition earlier was only wishful thinking as political conditions were not conducive yet. During the 1990 general election, the opposition parties formed the United Opposition Front (UOF) and shouted slogans to change the regime. It triggered a wave of ripples, but the BN regime remained steady. The opposition was always defeated in the last century as Umno grabbed most of Malay votes, until the outbreak of a party crisis within Umno in 1987, when Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah formed the Semangat 46 party after failing to challenge Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. Only then, the opposition saw a hope of overturning the BN. However, Tengku Razaleigh's influence was not reflected in the Malay community. Semangat 46 suffered a great loss in the 1990 general election and many political critics blamed him for wearing a Kadazan headgear with the so-called Christian cross on it during an activity in Sabah. In fact, the key was because Malay voters did not wish to change. The Chinese were passionate at that time. Therefore, the DAP was able to win 14 state seats in Penang and it could have taken over Penang if it had gained three more seats. Lim Kit Siang also ended the political career of Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu. In addition, PAS took over Kelantan. The opposition ushered in another opportunity to change the regime in the 1999 general election. The then Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was dismissed and arrested in September 1998, triggering the Reformasi movement. Anwar's wife Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail founded PKR and later formed the Alternative Front with PAS and the DAP. PAS was the big winner in that election. The DAP suffered a great loss, with even Dr Chen Man Hin, Karpal Singh and Lim Kit Siang losing their seats as Chinese voters were scared away by the Islamic state issue. The newly founded PKR won five parliamentary seats or 11.67 per cent of the votes. It is not true to say the Reformasi movement had set off the anti-ruling party current among the Malay community. If Malay voters opposed Umno, BN should have lost power. In the 2004 general election, BN was able to regain Malay votes. Umno encountered a split after Mahathir lashed out at Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi during the 2008 general election. Indirectly, it led to the political tsunami. And now, could they still change the regime after Umno has reunited? It is not practical to hope for a split in Umno to achieve the change of power as votes would eventually return to BN. The alternative coalition can overcome the saying that describes Umno as the protective umbrella of the Malay only by changing the mindset and pursuing reforms. Most Perhimpunan Kebangkitan Rakyat rally participants were Malays. However, would rural voters accept the DAP? Different from the previous two general elections, there are four million swing voters this time, including 2.9 million new voters. The key to defend Putrajaya depends on whether racial politics is still working. History might repeat itself if racial politics resurfaces.
|
| Myth of ‘Umno is Malay; Malay, Umno’ forever shattered! Posted: 14 Jan 2013 03:16 PM PST
It is too late to change the personnel at EC. Besides, that would not make any difference. They have been indoctrinated to believe that their agency is just another electoral instrument of Barisan instead of an independent agency answerable to the King and thus the citizens. The only credible way to ensure fair and free elections would be to invite external observers. M Bakri Musa, The Malaysian Insider While Umno apologists and sycophants in academia, blogosphere and the mainstream media quibbled over such minutia as the number of participants at last Saturday's massive KL112 (January 12) rally, two facts are indisputable. First, that peaceful and largely Malay demonstration, the largest the nation had ever witnessed, forever shattered the myth that Umno is Melayu, and Melayu, Umno. Second, given a modicum of respect by and without provocation from the authorities, Malaysians are quite capable of partaking in peaceful rallies. On this second point the authorities, specifically the police under its new leadership, are finally learning that water tankers, personnel with anti-riot gear or tear-gas canisters and other crude displays of power often precipitate rather than prevent violence. Bersih 3.0 demonstrated that very clearly. The size and orderliness of the rally, together with the bravery and determination of the participants, was reminiscent of the transformative event of over 66 years earlier, the opposition to the Malayan Union Treaty. That altered the course of our history. Insha' Allah (God willing), last Saturday's rally too, will. The power imbalance between those demanding change and those in power back in 1946 was enormous. Then it was mostly illiterate and unsophisticated Malay peasants facing the much superior and more formidable colonial authorities. Yet in the end, right won over might, and justice prevailed! Today, while the Umno government is detested to the same degree as the old colonials, it is nowhere as sophisticated a wielder of power as the British. Meanwhile, those clamouring for change are far more worldly, more committed and in far greater numbers than their adversary, Umno and its supporters. More importantly, unlike the colonials, today's Umno government is crippled with corruption and incompetence while also being crude wielders of power. All the more we should expect that right and the truth, as well as justice, will again prevail. National Laureate Pak Samad's stirring reading of his poetry "Di Atas Padang Sejarah" (On This Field of History) last Saturday at Merdeka Stadium prompted me to make that comparison with the anti-Malayan Union movement. He is old enough to remember and may have even participated in that historic protest. "Di atas padang sejarah," Pak Samad asserted in his poetry, "pantang kita mungkiri janji." (We must not renege on our promises.). Today, the successors to those who brought us Merdeka over 55 years ago have betrayed that great promise. While Pak Samad's gray hair and rousing poetry lent an air of history and gravity to the moment, the Blue Gang's Ito Mohammad and his "Ubah Sekarang" (Change Now!), specifically composed for the occasion, gave the gathering a certain hip! There was no mistaking however, the seriousness of his message. "Ubah sekarang," Ito belted out in his trademark rhythm and blues beat to the cheers of thousands, "Kita cari kebenaran! (We seek the truth!) Ubah sekarang/Teggakkan Keadilan (Institute justice!)" Then to the roar of the crowd, he added, "Ubah Sekarang/Send-off Barisan!" Ito is a talented performer and a committed crusader with a definite mission, in the mould of Bono. Ito is for truth and justice, to give meaning to Merdeka, for the sake of our children and grandchildren. One thing is certain: Ito is no carma (cari makan — hired hand) artist! The anti-Malayan Union movement was led by the charismatic, farsighted and savvy Datuk Onn; so too KL112 in the person of Anwar Ibrahim. In many substantive ways Anwar is a far more formidable and superior leader. Onn meekly obeyed the commands of his Sultan in the sycophantic manner of Hang Tuah, and was banished to Singapore; Anwar in the chivalrous tradition of Hang Jebat had the courage to take on a man far more powerful (at least then) than the Sultans or King — Mahathir. Anwar paid greatly, physically and in many other ways, for his defiance but in the end, unlike Jebat, Anwar prevailed. Last Saturday was proof of that victory. Meanwhile his old nemesis Mahathir was left to rant in his blog. Far more important than leaders are the commitments of their followers. Umno could not have organised a rally a fraction of the size of KL112 without resorting to bribes, outright giveaways, or having their carma artists, academics and journalists singing high praises for its leaders. There was a pathetic attempt, no doubt by a bumbling Umno operative, at a Facebook posting, calling those rally participants to collect their fees! That posting bombed as it was immediately exposed for the hoax that it was. Those Umno hired hands were not even sophisticated enough to pull a cyberstunt! Anwar commits to 10 goals, the top being free and fair elections. Elections must not only be fair and free but, more importantly, be seen as such. Our Election Commission lacks credibility, both in conducting elections as well as maintaining the integrity of the electoral rolls. It is too late to change the personnel at EC. Besides, that would not make any difference. They have been indoctrinated to believe that their agency is just another electoral instrument of Barisan instead of an independent agency answerable to the King and thus the citizens. The only credible way to ensure fair and free elections would be to invite external observers. Free and fair elections should be the priority. The responsibility for maintaining the integrity of the electoral process extends beyond the EC and Election Day.
|
| Making our journey as a nation less arduous Posted: 13 Jan 2013 10:37 PM PST  On a daily basis, the staff members of my radio station want to debate issues that really matter to the country on a rational, analytical and non-partisan basis. We want to bring representatives of both sides of the political divide to the table (or rather our studios) to see where their fault lines lie, and whether there is room for agreement or compromise. We want Malaysians to call in to our talk shows and put forth any question to their elected representatives and their opponents so that we can all benefit from their explanations. But we cannot do these things freely. Malek Ali, founder of BFM 89.9 in fz.com FIFTY-FIVE years since Merdeka. Forty-nine years since the formation of the Federation of Malaysia. "At the crossroads" aptly describes our country. And some decisions we make today as citizens will set the tone for our journey as a nation for years to come. Here are some of our choices: Ethnic diversity: Strength or weakness? Do we see our multi-ethnicity as an advantage or disadvantage? History is laden with examples of ethnic strife, so that seems to be the natural order of the human condition. But where ethnic diversity is accepted, enduring civilisations appear to emerge. In our context, shall we use ethnicity to forever argue one's ethnic share of the Malaysian pie and play off one ethnic group against another for expedient political purposes? Or do we take advantage of our multi-ethnicity to become the trade fulcrum between the current and future economic giants of China, India and Indonesia, as we did 600 years ago, and expand our economic and human potential? It boils down to choosing between leaders who see strength in our ethnic and cultural diversity versus those who view it as a zero-sum game. Leadership: Populist or principled? In the context of political leadership, it's easy to be a populist. Goodies for the public are easy to grant. And it is even easier to be a populist in the opposition as promises can be made without needing to be directly accountable for them, at least not for a while. Principled leadership is a much rarer commodity. The principled leader accepts that an unpopular policy might hurt his chances at the polls, but he still goes through with it because it is the right thing to do. I wish there were a leader that said to me: "I will have to reduce petrol subsidies and here's the three-year subsidy reduction plan. I will have to introduce the goods and services tax (GST) because we need to widen our tax base. But in return, I promise you the eradication of wastage and corruption and within five years we will have the first phase of the MRT system completed, start to give great education, provide decent public housing and come close to running a budget surplus. Do we have a deal? I can't see any politician today who is brave enough to tell me what my options truly are. Religion: Public or personal domain? As citizens, we really need to address the elephant in the room by asking ourselves to what extent we want religion to play a part in our public lives. To me, religion is an intensely private matter and I resent the state playing the role of moral guardian and enforcer, especially when hypocrisy abounds. This could be a minority view, but regardless, let's put this discussion on the table. Let's truly debate the issue of the constitutional circumscription of the powers of the state in matters of religion. Let's also discuss the areas where civil law and Islamic law collide and which should take precedence in such an event. Do we want leaders who fudge the role of religion in Malaysia or do we want those who are brave enough to table it for rational debate?
|
| Posted: 13 Jan 2013 10:25 PM PST
It's public knowledge that from day one of coming to power, the Selangor government, led by Mentri Besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim, was bent on making life difficult for Syabas. Among other things, it refuses to approve the much-needed capital expenditure (capex) for Syabas to implement projects under the agreement and has stopped the company from imposing a tariff increase on water from January 2009 as provided under the agreement. Azman Ujang, The Sun I HAVE a confession to make. Since I started this column almost one and a half years ago, I have been obsessed with writing about Selangor's water politics. The issue threatens to hold the water security of the state, Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya to ransom amid warnings of a critical water crisis by next year.This is my seventh column on water. Although 2014 has been singled out by Syabas, the Selangor water services concessionaire, and the federal government as the year when the crisis would set in if the Selangor government continues to stall granting a development order for the Langat 2 treatment plant, I always believed that it would happen earlier. I'm not an alarmist or a pessimist, just a realist because having lived in Selangor for the last 30 years, it's obvious that this is one state where the pace of development has been uncontrolled and unstoppable. Added to this is the massive transformation of Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya in terms of construction development and population increase, for which the most basic need is water. Thousands of people from all over the country are settling down in the Klang Valley daily because this is where the hub of the economy is, providing jobs and business opportunities in a nation experiencing a population boom. Malaysia has also become one of the world's top tourist destinations with Kuala Lumpur being the main gateway, thus adding even greater pressure on water demand. The harsh realities of an earlier-than-anticipated water crisis were driven home with the onset of the New Year when some 500,000 people in 90 areas in Ampang, Cheras and Gombak had their taps running dry and had to make do with supply from Syabas tankers. The disruptions were due to a drastic decline in the water pumping level at the Wangsa Maju pump-house by 30 million litres a day (MLD). It used to pump 210MLD but had to be scaled down to avoid damage due to over-pressure. Now Syabas is working round the clock to instal bypass pipes, and supplies are due to be restored in two days if all goes well. As of the weekend, Syabas had deployed nearly 2,900 tankers at great cost to deliver water to affected areas. Well, this is just a harbinger, or even a preview, of what could be a bigger crisis if partisan politics is still the weapon or trump card used by Selangor in its game of brinkmanship with the federal government over a critical issue. Dr Ahmad Zaharuddin Sani Ahmad Sabri, an academician and water expert, is disgusted with Selangor and Pakatan Rakyat politicians for putting the blame on Syabas for the crisis, while failing to carry out its responsibilities under the water concession agreement. He has a point. Under the Selangor water concession agreement signed in 2004 that led to the privatisation of the state's water industry, river cleaning and water catchment areas, giving approval to operators of water treatment/supply for construction of new pump stations and the upgrading of plants and pump stations fall under the jurisdiction of the state government. Ahmad Zaharuddin said the state government owned a 30% stake in Syabas and is represented on its board by two directors, Noorusa'adah Othman and Suhaimi Kamaralzaman, but the way it keeps blaming Syabas is as if it wants to conceal its stake or that the company has no link to the Selangor government. "Why blame others? Why not discuss during a board of directors meeting what is wrong and what needs to be rectified," he told Bernama, while saying that he found it amusing that the state government even planned to sue Syabas for the water disruption. This is akin to suing itself, as it owns 30% of Syabas. It's public knowledge that from day one of coming to power, the Selangor government, led by Mentri Besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim, was bent on making life difficult for Syabas. Among other things, it refuses to approve the much-needed capital expenditure (capex) for Syabas to implement projects under the agreement and has stopped the company from imposing a tariff increase on water from January 2009 as provided under the agreement. This non-approval for a tariff increase had led Syabas to file a legal suit two years ago against the state government for a compensation worth over RM1 billion. All this is done because Khalid has come out with his plans to take over the state's water assets and restructure the water business, an issue he keeps harping on as the reason why he's stalling the development order for the Langat 2 plant, a federal government project to prevent a water crisis in the long term. He is not only adamant about rejecting the construction of the new plant, but has dug deeper into his bag of water politics, when he said he would wait even for 100 years to implement the restructuring plan. In another twist to the state government's water politics, Parti Keadilan Rakyat director of strategy Rafizi Ramli accused Syabas of making the people suffer in the hope of trying to topple the Selangor government. Rafizi said he was even convinced that this was Umno's political game that "had received the consent of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak". Najib quickly rubbished Rafizi's allegation. He made it clear that the Barisan Nasional government does not play politics over water which is everyone's fundamental right. "The opposition should not play politics when it involves the survival of the people," Najib said over the weekend. He said the situation would be "disastrous" if the Langat 2 plant, now over 30 months behind schedule, was not built. The federal government, however, is going ahead with building the plant and is ready to fight in court. Tenders for the RM1.2 billion project were closed last month. A highly placed legal source said that Selangor could only reject the application for the development order within the law. This means that political consideration won't stand in court. In the meantime, to prevent dry taps crippling more areas in densely populated parts, I think Syabas needs to rationalise the flow of water based on its capacity to produce treated water and not based on the seemingly unlimited demands of consumers, especially households. Given the constraints pending the Langat 2 plant coming into operation, would it not be more sensible to ration the flow if it's technically possible and if this is the reality? According to news reports, tempers flared among consumers who had to wait in long queues for water tankers. Certainly, rationing enables consumers to store water for their needs in their homes during specified hours and is better than collecting from tankers. As the prime minister said: "It is sad to see scenes of people carrying buckets of water in the affected areas, especially those who live in flats. "Some have to carry the buckets up 10 floors. The young can manage, but what about the elderly?" If Khalid and the state government are unmoved, Najib has offered the people of Selangor a way out. "All these problems will be a thing of the past if Barisan Nasional is returned to power in Selangor," he said in Semenyih on Saturday. With the general election expected within the next two months, and water being a matter of personal survival, Najib's pledge should be taken seriously to solve the water woes once and for all. Azman Ujang is a former editor-in-chief of Bernama.
|
| What are BN's and PR's Fiscal Policies? Posted: 13 Jan 2013 05:03 PM PST
The 13th general election is just weeks away and the two opposing coalitions do not feel the need to show the electorate their fiscal policies. All we get are populist freebies being handed out by both coalitions which are superficial and unsustainable. These are not fiscal policies to redistribute wealth, never mind fundamental changes in economic policies, including nationalization of utilities. Dr Kua Kia Soong, Suaram Adviser We look at the Republicans and Democrats in the US, Conservatives and Labour in the UK and we say that their general election is like choosing between Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola because mutatis mutandis, they all stand for the same neo-liberal capitalist policies. Nevertheless, we notice that for at least a year of electoral campaigning before their general elections, these Cola parties are expected to put forward their respective fiscal policies before the people. The Democrats, for example, want to tax the super-rich a bit more and have more public spending while the Republicans want spending cuts and tax cuts for the rich. Surprisingly in Malaysia, the 13th general election is just weeks away and the two opposing coalitions do not feel the need to show the electorate their fiscal policies. All we get are populist freebies being handed out by both coalitions which are superficial and unsustainable. These are not fiscal policies to redistribute wealth, never mind fundamental changes in economic policies, including nationalization of utilities. Well, the ruling BN coalition will just carry on as they have for the last 55 years waiting to be dumped by the rakyat but what are PR's fiscal and public spending policies? Do we have to wait for the election to be called and all the manifestoes to be printed in small print and these important policies submerged by the usual campaign rhetoric?
Financing the Welfare State One of the most transformational makeovers by PAS is their proposal for a welfare state instead of their erstwhile insistence on an Islamic state as the end-all and be-all of politics. Is there a consensus within the PR coalition for such a proposal? We don't hear DAP or PKR echoing this. Will this be in PR's last-minute manifesto and how will it be financed? Why can't we hear it now or are they going to give the excuse that BN may steal their idea? PR claims that "good governance" will save so much money that it will allow us to do wonders. Without fundamental changes in policy from that of BN's, this is a mere pipe dream. Take PKR's stand on guaranteed minimum wage for example…
Guaranteed Minimum Wage Policy The Selangor GLCs have successfully implemented such a policy with RM1,500 as the base line but the PKR director of strategy, Rafizi Ramli has been quoted as saying a minimum wage beyond RM1,100 in the other sectors would have an adverse effect on industries. He says this is according to a classified World Bank report. Since when has the World Bank been concerned about the plight of the lowest paid? So, does this mean that PR will not have a RM1,500 guaranteed minimum wage policy as demanded by the workers' network? We are unlikely to achieve the objective of a high-income society if we continually depend on low-wage labour and use the same excuse about the adverse effect on industry. When Singapore implemented such a policy with its National Wages Council in the 1970s, it was met with the same objections from those who were not prepared to up wages for their workers. It looks like they are now forced to face another round of reality check after the recent revolt by their foreign workers. With a guaranteed minimum wage policy acceptable to the labour organisations, our small and medium industries can be supported by other means of revenue and government incentives. That is why we need to have a debate about fiscal policies. So where will the money come from? Since the existence of the first human societies, taxes have been a means of financing public works and other expenditure. The question is whether the burden should be on the bottom 90 per cent or the top 10 per cent income earners. This is where a progressive fiscal policy is expected of any coalition that is contesting the general election.
Taxing the Rich The rich pay a substantial share of taxes across the developed world, and this share has risen in recent decades. According to the OECD, the top 10% of earners contribute about a third of total tax revenues—28% in France, 31% in Germany, 39% in Britain and 42% in Italy. America's wealthiest households contribute a larger share to government than in any other OECD country, at 45%. In Europe, they certainly have more to show for it – social services, unemployment benefits, a national health system and other social benefits. Despite this, William Buffett, one of America's richest men recently criticized the US tax system as manifestly unfair since he is taxed at a lower rate than his secretary! Malaysia's income tax system grants greater tax savings for the rich as well as encourages tax evasion. We rank among the world's top countries for illicit outflow of money. In addition, the limited coverage has resulted in poor revenue generation. Without sufficient revenue, individual income tax cannot provide substantial funds for poverty lifting projects. In recent years, the oil boom has provided the bulk of Malaysia's revenue. These windfall gains should have been scrupulously invested for our future generations. Instead, they have been blown on populist mega projects and financing the annual budgets. Oil's share of revenue is above 30% while nearly 50% come from direct taxes.
Review Fiscal Incentives and Tax Exemptions to Multinationals The granting of fiscal incentives to companies like Lynas is a trend that has existed for many years under the BN government which has offered generous tax holidays to such foreign investors. Some of these foreign investors have the effect of displacing existing investments that paid taxes. Thus, the country not only faces a reduction in tax revenue, there is no net increase in employment. The energy guzzlers in Sarawak (foreign-owned aluminium smelters, mining companies, etc) are not only expecting the same kind of fiscal incentives including tax holidays, they are opportunistically waiting for the tariff rates of the Bakun and Murum dams to fall further before they commit their investments. So what is PR's policy toward the granting of such fiscal incentives in general and these toxic, energy guzzling industries in particular if they come into federal power? These are some pointers for a progressive fiscal policy in the Malaysian civil society 13th general election demands: 1. Impose a higher marginal tax rate on high income earners and a correspondingly lower tax rate for lower income earners; 2. An incremental Capital Gains Tax on property; 3. A progressive inheritance tax; 4. Implement regular review and monitoring of the tax laws and implementation to ensure there are no tax loopholes; 5. Review capital allowances and tax holidays for foreign firms; 6. Regulate and impose a tax on all international financial transactions and hedge funds; 7. A progressive tax on all luxury goods.
Defence Cuts and a Progressive Economic Policy While we are agonizing over giving our lowest paid workers a guaranteed minimum wage of RM1,500, the government is coolly shopping for the next generation Multi-Role Combat Aircraft to replace the MIGs. British Aerospace (BAE) is trying to flog their Typhoons and other special offers in a RM10 billion arms deal! Is it also time for PR to tell us their defence policy or will they merely be interested in exposing the commissions that will be creamed from this next big arms deal? The Scorpene deal (costing RM7 billion) has been the biggest single deal so far and we still haven't got to the end of that story! This plus a progressive economic policy including nationalizing all utilities and essential services including water resources, health, public transport, energy, ensuring they are owned and controlled by the Malaysian peoples at federal, state and local levels, will bring respite to our lowest paid workers who deserve a decent standard of living and not populist crumbs.
|
| Kudos to Peaceful Assembly Act Posted: 12 Jan 2013 06:07 PM PST
NAJIB'S PROMISE: Yesterday's gathering at Stadium Merdeka indicates improved civil liberties Azmi Anshar, NST THEY came, they screamed, they mouthed, they preened, all in good spirits and in no worse shape than when they first arrived at the Stadium Merdeka since mid-morning yesterday for the hyped-up "Perhimpunan Kebangkitan Rakyat", where only a miniscule fraction of the touted one million crowd turned up. Large peaceful assemblies previously untenable are, to the surprise of Pakatan Rakyat diehards, possible but they would rather lose their manhood than admit that yesterday's gathering was somewhat prim, proper and... dull. So what if it was tedious, not to the Malay-dominated Pakatan faithful of course, but to other ordinary Malaysians making their way against the congested city streets commandeered by protesters. But by convoking the big crowd to the historical venue of national independence, Pakatan unwittingly magnified Datuk Seri Najib Razak's fulfilled promise for improved civil liberties. Parti Keadilan Rakyat de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, bless him, was still the centre of attention in this humdrum affair -- by his high standards of instigation. There was no sleight of hands instructing supplicants to break police barriers, no overturned vehicles carjacked by humans resembling raging monkeys, no bloody altercations with police and, startlingly, no drama queen antics of feigned injuries. Not very Anwarish. Instead, the assembly was addled with political chinwag purposely designed to bedevil government leaders, especially the prime minister, and selected government-linked companies where the opposition failed to rattle into corporate submission. What the crowd had to endure was a series of chest-thumping but debunked allegations by Pakatan leaders eager to downplay scurrilous events of past weeks that made them look like chumps: Pas and its paradoxically confusing edicts on the demand to apply "Allah" in the ecclesiastical context, DAP and its bizarre party elections where a loser can be a winner after 19 days of mulling and PKR and, well, whatever latest scandal roiling around Anwar. Moreover, the destructive elements in Pakatan couldn't muster a plausible pretense to provoke a fight with the police because the security people -- leery of the ways of certain anarchists and their propensity to rustle up street chaos on the call of a not-so-subtle hand signal -- kept a polite distance and simply made sure traffic flowed smoothly. So subtle was the police presence that they didn't even need to construct a protective shield for mainstream media reporters previously the brunt of vicious gangs. Which can only mean that the Peaceful Assembly Act envisioned by the government when it was enacted last year is now a resounding success: implementable once politicians organising the event follow the rules permitting their right to free expression but respect the authorities' right to fix the location for sensible crowd control. Otherwise, Pakatan leaders could have easily mobilised their people to congregate at the National Stadium in Bukit Jalil (recommended by police for bigger crowd accommodation and better public transport) or the PKR-controlled Shah Alam Stadium but the choice of the two venues wouldn't be as "cool and photogenic" as Stadium Merdeka. Pakatan apologists will continue to contest the fact that Malaysia has advanced the ideal that free association and assembly is steadily becoming the norm. That's the rub: the more "civilised and dull" assemblies they summon in the event Anwar feels threatened by fresh scandals, the better cemented are Malaysians' civil liberties. And that can't be happening. One fine day, Anwar and his ilk will realise that the mass public assemblies that served him artfully in the past, from his dodgy 1974 Baling demonstrations over farmers' hunger that didn't exist to his ugly street riots in 1998 after he was fired as deputy prime minister, will actually be banal and quaint, as it was yesterday. But that doesn't mean yesterday's serenity will repeat: with general election just a quarter away, Anwar will be desperate to figure out a way to incite an Arab Spring moment using typically fishy anti-government allegations under the intense glare of western media astigmatism. Just watch. |
| Winning by popularity: Can Umno rely on the prime minister’s personal standing? Posted: 12 Jan 2013 04:31 PM PST
What panic? The panic that Islam is in danger, and that only Malays acting together as Malays can save it. The panic that Malays and their place in the country are imperilled, and that only by coming and acting together in the name and on the basis of Islam can their stake in the nation be safeguarded. Clive Kessler, The Malaysian Insider "BN needs to milk Najib's popularity harder, say analysts" reads a recent headline (The Malaysian Insider, 12 January 2013). Sorry, but this is just delusional. A strategy that seeks to use Najib's supposed popularity to save Umno/BN, to pull its chestnuts from the fire at the last moment, will fail miserably. Umno has been around, and in charge (though in recent times unconvincingly), for over half a century. Najib has been PM for less than five years. So, with reason, he is less unpopular than his now increasingly unpopular party. He has not had a sufficient chance yet to make himself as unpopular as Umno itself, by its own doing over recent years, has become. And because he is widely seen as weak and vacillating, many people tend to be indifferent to him, unmoved by him, rather than to hate him. They just don't feel strongly about him in any way: love, admire, sympathise or hate. He does not inspire political passions of any kind. Rather, he comes across politically as simply a "cold fish." Nothing blood-stirring there about him. And when he tries, such as at the conclusion of Umno General Assemblies, to display political passion, it tends to fall flat, embarrassingly. That lack of powerful personal feeling or emotional "valence", positive or negative, towards the prime minister shows up in the polls as "popularity." Where what you are being measured against — here a suddenly and surprisingly quite unpopular party — is a negative, mere indifference comes over as a plus, a positive. Or that is how some people see things, how many people feel about what the government is now offering. But any notion that PM Najib's supposed personal popularity can possibly rescue Umno/BN is just fantasy. How might Umno/BN win the election? It's pretty late in the day now to try to work out a compelling strategy. But it would have to go beyond personalities, including Najib's. All else aside, that is the only way to neutralize the "negative" side of popular feelings about Najib. It would require Umno/BN to devise and promote a positive, coherent and principled agenda. Principled? Principled in the sense that it was unifying, that it united people and massed popular support from all directions. By practising the politics of convergence, and seeking to draw in its supporters and allies on all sides, from all quarters. Not a strategy, in other words, that divided, that sought to prevail at the polls by building up a numerical majority amassed from one side of the field only. Not a strategy that seeks "traction" by appealing to, by driving and even frightening together in an anxious and fearful huddle, the majority — or as many of them as can possibly be made to feel beleaguered — against all the various minorities. Can Umno/BN do that? Can it rise above the politics — well-known for its tactical popularity among the cattle rustlers in old cowboy Western movies — of the stampede, the politics of unleashing and seeking to control panic?
|
| End days for the Great Survivor? Posted: 12 Jan 2013 03:48 PM PST
Dr Chua Soi Lek's failure to unite his party may prove to be his downfall. Stanley Koh, FMT However much you may hate Dr Chua Soi Lek, you have to admire his ability to survive in the harsh and sordid world of Malaysian politics. His victory in the 2010 MCA presidential election will remain as one of the great comeback stories in our political history. That victory came barely two years after he had confessed to a sexual indiscretion and resigned all party and government posts. It was no mean victory. His rivals were formidable; one was the incumbent president and the other a former president. However, according to some pundits inside his own party, Chua may have used up all the dirty tricks in his survival kit and is facing his end days in politics. They say his failure to fulfil a promise to unite the various factions in MCA and to regain voter support for the party will prove to be his final undoing. The promise to heal rifts in the party was particularly important. If he had worked hard at it and been even half successful, he might not have become the lonely and desperate party chief that his detractors say he is today. According to insiders, Chua hands are sore from gripping the rein of leadership tightly for fear of losing it to some scheming faction leader who has wised up to his tricks, including those he used as part of the psychological war strategy to clinch the 2010 victory. They say he can now trust only a small circle of supporters. Ironically, that is what he used to say about his predecessor. Chua knows well enough that in his campaign for the presidency, he made enough internal enemies to last him a lifetime. And since then he has added to the list through his decisions in party appointments and recommendations for government positions. Now, with the general election looming, the time bomb of vengeance is ticking away. Many are the disgruntled warlords waiting to settle old scores. Will they sabotage the election just to prove that Chua is an unworthy president? But then again, they may not have to do anything. Everyone knows that MCA is facing the darkest hour it its history and many think it will be wiped out in the coming election. The fact is glaringly clear: Chua has failed to win back the Chinese community's support for MCA and BN in nearly three years of helming the party. He has made blunder upon blunder in his public statements on issues that the new generation of voters care about, such as human rights and environmental concerns. When not blundering, he would resort to glittering rhetoric about BN's claimed culture of consensus or, in classic BN style, skim over the issues. Frogs in a well shaft In the eyes of the public, MCA leaders are like frogs in a well shaft. They see only the sky above. They are no longer feeling the pulse on the ground, having lost the plot set by the party's founding fathers in their aspiration for a democratic and united Malaysia. Critics among party insiders privately acknowledge that today's MCA has neither a ideology nor any semblance of unity. "Party unity is, at best, an illusion," said a veteran who served as a party official during Lee San Choon's presidency. One would be naive to think that Chua is unaware of disunity in his party despite the rhetoric he uses to convince his political masters in Umno that the situation is otherwise. It is out of his awareness of disunity that he has exercised extreme care in selecting candidates for the 13th GE. Foremost in his mind is his own political survival, which depends partly on MCA winning back a decent number of seats. It is anybody's guess how many rival factions there are in MCA, but insiders agree that one of the most dangerous to Chua is the faction led by Ong Ka Chuan. He is a brother of Ong Ka Ting, whose presidency was undermined by the Save MCA Campaign launched in 2006 and the Snoop Squad controversy that Chua allegedly had a hand in. Another faction is linked to the party's former youth chief in Penang, Eng Boon Hiap. Eng is a staunch supporter of Chua's predecessor, Ong Tee Keat. In December 2011, he led 400 others in a resignation that shut down two MCA branches. However, the biggest threat to Chua's future comes from the fact that the "collective leadership" he put together after winning the presidency was based on a betrayal of trust and selfish interests. Both Liow Tiong Lai and Wee Ka Siong were staunch supporters of Ong Tee Keat and were, during a factional split under Ling Liong Sik's tenure, aligned to a faction that was at odds with the faction Chua supported. MCA leadership is indeed trapped in history with political personalities and characters void of principles and non-ideological.
|
| 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