Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
| Many shortcomings in RCI proceeding Posted: 02 Feb 2013 03:23 PM PST
Surprisingly no political parties within BN or the opposition have sent representatives to be among those posing questions in the ongoing RCI. By Richard Libun Adou, FMT It is very clear that these shortcomings seriously hinder the original purpose of the RCI which is to seek the truth for the sake of justice. The RCI is being carried out to enable a panel to hear witnesses' testimonies as well as to question and dig for deeper information from them. Lawyers (including from the Sabah Law Association or SLA) and members of political parties have been given the opportunity to pose their own questions. So other than members of the RCI panel, several lawyers have been authorised to pose more questions to those making testimonies for the purpose of clarification and obtaining of more details. What I find wanting is that the political parties such as Umno, MCA, PBS, PBRS, Upko, STAR, Sapp and other parties have not sent their representatives to be among those who could pose such queries. It is a wonder why these parties, after making such loud noises about the issue of illegal immigrants all these while, have not pursued or even clamoured for participation in the RCI proceeding. I however applaud Ansari Abdullah, James Ghani and the SLA representative for being active in posing very good and relevant questions. I suspect one or two of these political parties are afraid to be in the proceeding because some of their leaders maybe identified by witnesses as the culprits or perpetrators of the illegal immirants problem in Sabah. I am also flabbergasted that Joseph Pairin Kitingan (PBS president) had made a statement asking people not to make any comments on the RCI testimonies until the whole process of over. I find his remark to be reflective of his cowardice in the issue. His statement has disappointed a lot of the people, especially the KadazanDusunMuruts (KDMs). Why reject Suhakam? In the matter of those giving testimonies many people who can present their cases have been excluded and deprived of their opportunity to speak up. Our biggest loss is the absence of Suhakam in the list of those testifying. I have been made to understand that Suhakam requested to contribute in the matter. Its offer to pose questions was rejected for unknown reasons. Also the number of individuals from the public allowed to pose questions are limited. The RCI should allow more people the opportunity to pose questions. We can now only imagine what great revelations Suhakam could have offered the world on their own findings about the illegal immigrants issue. Suhakam, as we know, is the main body dealing with matters of human rights in Malaysia and has stacks of filed reports on the issue. Why was Suhakam rejected? Who were the parties privy to the surprising rejection? Is the RCI also practicing "selective witnessing"? Even the Kota Kinabalu DAP Member of Parliament, was reportedly rejected. I also noticed that the SLA is not serious in its participation. Its representative missed one Thursday afternoon session of the inquiry and no one was sent as a temporary replacement.
|
| Reject any form of modern day slavery Posted: 02 Feb 2013 03:17 PM PST
The workers' organisations in this country have demanded a minimum wage of RM1,500 for all workers because it is closer to a decent wage at this day and age. Kua Kia Soong, FMT At the time, the Chinese associations were calling for means testing as a way to ensure social justice in the award of scholarships and loans and other "special privileges" given to the bumiputera. Means testing has been instituted in developed countries for years and the simple humanist and distributive logic is that on a sliding scale based on need, the poor are entitled to more than those with less need, i.e. the rich. In the countries with some elements of a welfare system, social benefits are dispensed based on means testing. Likewise, grants for tertiary education are also given out through means testing – you get a full grant if your parents' incomes fall below a certain threshold, but the grant is proportionately reduced the higher your parents' incomes. This is an example of a social policy designed to ensure social justice and parity for all. This point is particularly relevant to the current demand for free tertiary education in Malaysia. When we look at other sectors in the Malaysian economy, such as housing and property, the recent decision by the Selangor state government to rescind the discounts for bumiputeras who are buying houses costing more than RM2.5 million is itself some form of means testing, although the threshold is more than a little mind-boggling – does a bumiputera who can afford a RM1 million or RM2 million house still need and want a discount? Clearly this is a step in the right direction but it falls short of extending the criteria of means to other categories of house prices relevant to those most in need of social justice. Social justice for all workers This blatantly reneges on an arrangement with foreign workers before they came to this country and Suaram calls for the restitution of their rights and just returns. The workers' organisations in this country have demanded a minimum wage of RM1,500 for all workers because it is closer to a decent wage at this day and age. Now, among the measures suggested for helping struggling small and medium enterprises is some form of subsidy by the government for the most deserving businesses. Here's is where means testing can easily determine which businesses qualify for such subsidies by utilising information furnished from the annual tax returns. Thus, with means testing we can ensure our precious national resources are invested wisely in the enterprises where they can make the biggest difference. Clearly, to meet the democratic goal of social justice, means testing is relevant to all sectors, wherever there are claims for scholarships, discounts, subsidies and other such entitlements. Defend all workers' rights These demands include:
|
| Posted: 02 Feb 2013 02:32 PM PST
Dzof Azmi, The Star Recently, a friend of mine posted an announcement on Facebook that she was leaving Malaysia. She was sick and tired of its failings as a country, and she saw no progress at all. My initial reaction when reading this was sadness, followed by an urge to ask her to stay and help make this country better – forgetting that she has basically been trying to do that for the last few years in her own way. Another part of me wanted to say "Never mind the idiots", but I suspect she believes that it is the idiots who get the most press coverage, and evidence of their idiocy is prevalent 24/7. But why should I try to stop her, if at the end of the day she believes that leaving the country is what's needed to be better? I myself advocate going abroad to study or for work experience as it develops a more rounded view of the world with all its eccentricities and foibles. It may be that she wants to raise a family, and she feels that Malaysia is not the best place to do that. This might have been the conclusion she came to if she had consulted the recent report by the Economist Intelligence Unit (the sister company of The Economist magazine) titled "Where to be born in 2013", and found that Malaysia wasn't even in the top 35 countries to grow up in for the next few decades (tinyurl.com/b6webej). The study takes into consideration overall quality of life, including how happy people are, how economically well off they will be, the prevalent level of crime, trust in public institutions and overall quality of healthcare. Of the 80 countries examined, Malaysia lies at 36th, above China (49th), Thailand (50th), Vietnam (68th) and Indonesia (71st), but below Australia (2nd), Singapore (6th), Hong Kong (10th) and Britain (27th). Switzerland was top, while Nigeria ranked lowest among the countries listed. From this, I think it would be easy to assume, "Well, let's move to Australia or Singapore, where my children will get a better chance to grow up successful". And yet, reality is rarely as simple as the economic models that try to quantify it. There are so many factors in play, including your existing economic status and society networks. Obviously, if you move to Britain but can't get a good job there, then it's not likely that anything else you do there will be successful. Other circumstances may matter. While many Malaysians consider leaving for the sake of their child's education, it was recently reported that a number of Japanese families are relocating to Malaysia in order for their children to get an education here (tinyurl.com/axq95n2). The contradiction may be explained by comparing salaries and ambitions: Malaysians may feel good public education is out of reach at home, while the incoming Japanese migrants have money and mature, rewarding careers. What may not be right for you now, may be exactly what you're looking for 10 years down the road. What needs to be realised is that in an era of globalisation, people will always have the option to move to greener pastures. The problem exists not just between countries, but between cities in the same nation. For example, many of the best and brightest of people born in Kuching or Alor Setar will end up living and working in KL or Penang. As a result, the quality of talent in the towns they leave behind drops, while the large cities continue to grow. However, after some time, people may reach a point in life where they feel they want to go back to their hometowns and build something there, near loved ones whom they grew up with. Thus, migration is a flow that can come full circle, guided by ever-changing needs and opportunities. In all this, if Malaysia wants to be relevant as an attractor for talent, it must develop in the right ways. It cannot be that it is all bad; after all, Malaysia came 36th in the list, not 70th, so there must be things that we are already doing right. The study suggests that the countries that are successful have robust economic development in an environment that is peaceful and liberal. It is also better to be a small country, presumably because they can better address the problems of disparity between the haves and have-nots. Putting aside the idea that the Klang Valley could segregate as a separate city-state, I'd say these conditions suggest that some of our national policies seem to be along the right lines – specifically, portions of the Economic Transformation Plan and the Government Transformation Plan – while identifying a few which may eventually be limiting. And naturally, it is those few that invite the most political rhetoric, which then means that they take up the most column inches and public attention, which in turn encourages some friends of mine to think that Malaysia is going backwards and that they should leave. Yes, the best laid plans don't always succeed, and we are right to be cautious of rosy pictures painted by politicians. All I can say is that you can still best identify opportunities in the country you grew up in and have put down roots as long as you keep your eyes open for them. But your eyes must be open. There are Malaysians abroad who seem embarrassed of their heritage – mainly because they believe the reason they left was because things back home were "so bad" and that progress meant to press on the accelerator and speed away. But if you blinker yourself and only look straight ahead, you may miss opportunities that your upbringing and heritage have best prepared you for. Logic is the antithesis of emotion but mathematician-turned-scriptwriter Dzof Azmi's theory is that people need both to make sense of life's vagaries and contradictions. Speak to him at star2@thestar.com.my.
|
| 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