Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- Migrants in politics and the Borneo Xenophobia
- Mahathir enters fray as Malaysia braces for poll
- Gangnam twist for Malaysian elections
- BN may scrape through in GE13
- ‘Najib’s Sabah functions stage-managed’
- Rosmah, where is your book?
- Gross Encounters of the Zin Kind
- The need for an evolving meritocracy
- Psy a PR blunder for Najib, BN
- Indians in a spot in any Islamic Revolution after 13th GE
- Sabah shows way in religious harmony
- Having Faith in Malaysians
- The kingmakers of Borneo
- Courtesy, decorum and Psy
- Mandela Vs Mahathir - Statesman & Man of Distaste
- Indian capacity to ‘create trouble’ endless
- The flawless wasatiyah?
| Migrants in politics and the Borneo Xenophobia Posted: 15 Feb 2013 05:37 PM PST
Logically, I would have assumed that as 25% of parliament was allocated to Sabah and Sarawak since 1963 to date, they would have increased the seats to 7% by the 2013 General Election. No other demographics have changed except the vast oil and gas potential of Sabah and Sarawak and of course the population size. So, you see, there really isn't any excuse to deny Sabah and Sarawak 35% of parliamentary seats in this country. Nilakrisna James Xenophobia is a morbid fear of foreigners. At the heart of Sabah and Sarawak lies a deep distrust of foreign people, foreign cultures and foreign intrusion. It has formed the backdrop of our policies and Federal-State relations the past half a century; a crippling phobia that may never end and which may mar the judgments of all present and future political representatives that we send to parliament. This will be the downfall of the Borneo states. It is this deep distrust of foreigners that made us afraid of Malaya in the first place but when it came to the White People ("Orang Putih"), we treated them as rajahs or masters. Yet, one of the same colour and stock can never be our superior and to this day the descendants of head hunters and migrants refuse to bow to a brown authority. These descendants will continue to demand autonomy and rights and a Borneo Agenda and some have gone as far as asking for a similar exit as Singapore, even going so far as thinking that our former colonial caretaker may still have pity for us and take our woes seriously. FEDERAL AGENDA VS. BORNEO AGENDA I was asked whether Malaysia is made up of three separate nations under one federation or a federation made up of 13 states. Good question but I ask humbly, what difference does it really make? I stand by the premise that the Malaysia Agreement stands paramount as the document which binds this nation together and gives the country, known as Malaysia, legitimacy. In its paramount status, it can neither be revoked nor amended nor breached. In the Malaysia Agreement, four separate territories stood on equal grounds to agree to an amalgamation that respected the equality of these territories, neither one being less equal than the other. Britain was merely a signatory to release her obligations as caretaker. Singapore eventually exited. Three separate territories remain, with the United Nations clearly recognising that these three territories have gained independence from Britain, with two independent territories—Sabah and Sarawak—gaining their independence by joining Malaya, a country that had already gained its own independence six years earlier. The United Nations and the Commonwealth now recognise these three separate territories as one nation, which in 1963 agreed to call itself Malaysia. Sabah and Sarawak were officially "swallowed" into one nation and henceforth lost their separate and independent status as territories in their own right. It is the Federal Constitution, which has been amended no less than 650 times, which makes Sabah and Sarawak merely "States" in the entire Federation. This officially and legally makes us two separate States out of 13 in the Federation; an arrangement agreed to by our forefathers; men who were clearly not in any position to argue otherwise. Herein lies your answer. We are a federation made up of 13 states, nothing more, nothing less, because the Malaysia Agreement allows us the freedom to determine our status via a Federal Constitution in accordance with the recommendations made in the Cobbold Report of 1962. It is even more chilling to note that though the Borneo Agenda may have been a crucial part of the negotiation process in 1962, Appendix F of the Cobbold Report of 1962 reinforced the recommendation that the principle of a strong Central Government must never be prejudiced by the safeguards demanded by the Borneo territories and I quote directly from that Memorandum:- "The Committee, of course, is of the opinion that whatever safeguards might be provided for the Borneo territories must conform with the expressed wish of the Borneo people themselves but that such arrangements should not prejudice the principle of a strong Central Government or curtail the fundamental liberties of the nationals of the Federation of Malaysia." Therein lies the true motive of Malaya and the final scenario wherein the Federal Agenda must never be compromised or prejudiced by the Borneo Agenda. In this respect, we have deliberately drafted a Federal Constitution that would prioritise forever a situation that would be very much in line with Prime Minister Najib's 1 Malaysia concept. It hopes for unity on the premise that the rules of the Federal Government are complied with fully. WAY FORWARD: INCREASE BORNEO PARLIAMENTARY SEATS Of course, we could be romantic and start a process of wishful thinking and hope that the fragile nature of our Federal Constitution (which can be amended anytime) may one day create a scenario where a new Government could reverse that whole motive and bow to the demands of the Borneo States. That will only happen if the Borneo States end up in a better bargaining position because West Malaysia remains so hopelessly divided that they have no choice but to look towards Borneo for extra political leverage. We can't always bank on West Malaysian disunity though. At some point, West Malaysian leaders will tire of our Borneo demands and will learn to bridge their own divides to keep Borneo MPs under control. Politics isn't about holding your peers and opponents to ransom. It is about negotiating your values for the greater good. I asked what difference this all makes because ultimately the only way our fate in Borneo will take a turn for the better is if we increased our parliamentary representation significantly so as to be able to actually make a difference in policies and at least protect further erosion of Borneo's interests through unfair legislation. We need AT LEAST 35% of MPs to come from Sabah and Sarawak who could en bloc (it is hoped) exercise their power of veto and at least think in one mind when it comes to Borneo's interests. The current situation is this: 222 seats in parliament; 56 for Borneo (25%) and 166 for West Malaysia (75%). The total number of MPs from Sabah and Sarawak do not even make up 35% of parliament to allow us the right to veto a Bill or an Act of Parliament, even if such legislation to be passed were to the detriment of the two Borneo states. Even if we were granted 35% representation, our Borneo MPs are so deeply fragmented between political parties whose interests and loyalties are so fundamentally rooted in the Federal Agenda that it still ends up being a far-fetched dream. But it would be the first step forward. The Cobbold Report 1962 suggested that the number of MPs from Sabah and Sarawak, respectively, must be determined by taking into account the population, size and potentialities of the two States. In 1963, the population of Malaysia was 8.9 million. 13% lived in the Borneo States: 5% lived in Sabah and 8% lived in Sarawak. In 2010, the population of Malaysia was 28.2 million. 20% lived in the Borneo States: 11% lived in Sabah and 9% lived in Sarawak. 60% of the total land area of Malaysia is in Sabah and Sarawak but only 20% of the population live in Malaysia's Borneo States, an increase of 7% in population since 1963. Logically, I would have assumed that as 25% of parliament was allocated to Sabah and Sarawak since 1963 to date, they would have increased the seats to 7% by the 2013 General Election. No other demographics have changed except the vast oil and gas potential of Sabah and Sarawak and of course the population size. So, you see, there really isn't any excuse to deny Sabah and Sarawak 35% of parliamentary seats in this country. WILL THE BORNEO STATES SEEK INDEPENDENCE? I read it now often in various blogs and am often questioned by so many different people, who are so sick of the political situation and lack of prospects for their families in this country, if there is a way out of Malaysia. There was a time when nobody dared to raise this issue for fear of being thrown into indefinite detention without a fair trial under the Internal Security Act. Lately though, people have become bold, more vocal and more willing to risk their freedom to find a solution because nearly all the people who ask me this question want to migrate to another country but simply cannot afford it. So, when left in a rut without choices, these people feel angry, frustrated and dissatisfied. The majority turn their anger towards new migrants who threaten their political legitimacy and, probably, may also be doing better financially, but quite a sizeable few are now taking their anger onto the streets, the NGOs and political parties, and they will vent this anger towards the ruling government of the day. The thought of Sabah and Sarawak being on their own in the hands of present leaders who are also accused of corruption and wrong-doing quite frankly scares me more than an annoying Malaysian environment. Within seconds of freedom, they would be at each other's throats trying to be the next Sultan! In any event, even if these angry people took their case to the International Courts, the United Nations and the Commonwealth, the demands for independence would require the mandate of the majority of the residents of Sabah and Sarawak by way of a State Government led referendum. This scenario may not be entirely impossible but is highly unlikely to succeed given the fact that the majority of the people of Sabah and Sarawak consider themselves to be secure, financially stable and relatively at peace in the system that Malaysia has built for them the past 50 years. We can be frustrated with the political chaos in this country but level headed people would understand that this is a natural evolutionary process in politics when a civilised bipartite system begins to form and not necessarily a situation that would justify an exit from a country they have grown to love. By nature, Sabah and Sarawak people are unwilling to challenge the status quo they have grown accustomed to since 1963 and though our native forefathers may have willingly chopped people's heads off, our natural instinct is to be a migrant like our ancestors and run away from revolutions and wars by jumping on the next boat out to sea. Ultimately, we just want to live a settled and prosperous life. We are no different to the aliens. In addition to this, the voices of those who are angry are moderated by the voices of new migrants who have happily settled down in the Borneo States. In Sabah, at least, the new migrants are now apparently in the majority and they will not be voting in favour of an exit from Malaysia. We are angry because it is alleged that these new migrants came through illegitimate channels in droves for a more sinister political reason aimed at neutering our local political voice. We can afford to be angry when these methods are illegal. So, in recent months, we have attempted to challenge their legitimacy in the Royal Commission of Inquiry, yet I frankly believe that even if their status is confirmed to be illegal, the Government would take years and millions of tax payers' money to resolve this situation. Their status as new migrants would probably not be resolved in time for the next General Election. And while we continue to complain and bicker and blame these new migrants, the Federal and State Governments would have amicably found a proper way to streamline and legitimise migration into Sabah and Sarawak for more people to settle permanently in the Borneo States. In the long run, new migrants will outnumber old migrants and they will have a legitimate reason to cast their votes in future general elections. Our best option in Sabah and Sarawak is to accommodate old and new migrants, legal or illegal, and increase the population and power bargaining status of our two States so as to eventually demand a reasonable increase in our parliamentary seats and our Federal budget. With so many mouths to feed in Sabah and Sarawak we could finally justify a bigger annual budget. Many natives would not want to be drowned by the political voices of groups from Indonesia or the Philippines but the reality is that as our borders worldwide become more porous, humans will move and migrate between various nations to seek a better life, more economic opportunities and better infrastructure. People only form political parties in this country when they feel their racial groups need representation or when they feel disenfranchised. So the more we reject new migrant groups and insult their very existence or their religion the more likely they are to retaliate and create descendants who are more than willing to form their own vocal NGOS and political groupings. By then the native population would have been reduced even further so as to render us completely irrelevant. This ultimately is where the real danger lies when it comes to native xenophobia in Borneo. The future of Sabah and Sarawak lies in peaceful co-existence with migrants. By treating them as stray animals we deny our own humanity and risk our own future legitimacy. If we therefore continue to see ourselves as being separate from the rest of Malaysia by drawing upon our racial divide, we run the risk of self-extinction. If we absorb new migrants as one of us, we become a stronger political force and can continue to exercise certain controls and demands even if the Borneo Agenda ceases to be relevant. THE END OF RACIAL POLITICS AND A NEW MALAYSIA With these realities, Sabah and Sarawak will remain in Malaysia and the racial demographics will change in the next 50 years as racial groups continue to inter-marry as a matter of economic and political survival. The new racial demographics will break down political barriers and eventually lead to a more acceptable form of civilised politics that can transcend beyond race and religion. One day only two parties will be acceptable to the Malaysian people who see themselves first as Malaysians, race as second. Those parties will have no necessity for component race based parties and will have no place for racism. They will be multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-ethnic and above all, progressive and issue-based. If mosquito parties should exist, they, too, will be issue-based to represent policies which perhaps the two main parties are unwilling to resolve or discuss. By then political racism will be passé, illegal and completely unacceptable. If we continue with racial polarisation and refuse to react to the pulse on the ground and pacify the budding seeds of discontent, this country will descend into anarchy and revolution. Everything we have worked so hard to achieve will be demolished within a decade. It is this fear that has driven millions of Malaysian talents to seek their fortunes overseas and, ironically, it would be Malaysians who end up roaming the planet as new migrants. This country will one day grow up and embrace the reality of happy citizens who were all once of migrant stock; of white, of black, of brown, of bloods that bear one colour: Red. We will eventually also honour the reality of their dual love and dual citizenship for their country of origin and their country of adoption. Until such time as we have leaders of integrity and worth, the road continues to be a rocky one. "Remember, remember always, that all of us, and you and I especially, are descended from immigrants and revolutionists." –Franklin D. Roosevelt Copyright 16 Feb 2013 and published with permission from the writer. Nilakrisna James is a Sabah-based lawyer, writer and activist who co-founded the apolitical NGO United Borneo Front (UBF) in 2010. She left the group in 2011 and remains a member of the ruling Barisan Nasional. |
| Mahathir enters fray as Malaysia braces for poll Posted: 15 Feb 2013 09:32 AM PST
"Cheating and fraud could be the deciding factor" ... opposition activist Ambiga Sreenevasan.
Lindsay Murdoch, Brisbane Times
As Malaysia approaches its tightest election in half a century, the opposition activist Ambiga Sreenevasan has shrugged off calls for her to be stripped of her Malaysian citizenship.
''This will be the dirtiest election ever because it is the most closely fought … Cheating and fraud could be the deciding factor,'' Ms Ambiga, who heads Bersih, a group campaigning for free and fair polling, said.
''There are many discrepancies appearing on electoral rolls, particularly with the sudden registering of foreigners, many of whom appear to be migrant workers.
''The mainstream media is far from free and fair … [The ruling parties] are doing everything they can to stay in power.'' Advertisement
Mahathir Mohamad, the former prime minister who ruled for 22 years, last week called for Ms Ambiga to be stripped of her citizenship.
Ms Ambiga said she and her family had lived in Malaysia for generations and she would leave it to others to judge whether Dr Mahathir - who broke a promise to stay out of politics when he left office in 2002 - was playing race politics in a country where ethnic Malays made up about 65 per cent of the population of 28 million. Ethnic Chinese account for another 25 per cent and ethnic Indians 8 per cent.
Opinion polls show the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition has lost much of the support of the Chinese, who have been alienated by corruption and policies favouring ethnic Malays, leaving the coalition heavily reliant on Malay votes to stay in power.
Ms Ambiga said voters had become empowered through the internet and social media and were no longer prepared to accept corruption. ''There is also for the first time a strong opposition which has brought out the scandals … I can sense the momentum is picking up,'' said Ms Ambiga, whose organisation has brought tens of thousands of people onto the streets to rally for free elections.
With only a few weeks remaining before the Prime Minister, Najib Razak, must call an election, religious tensions are also flaring over a call by an independent Muslim MP for the mass burning of Bibles which use the word ''Allah'' to refer to God.
Lim Guan Eng, the chief minister of the opposition-ruled island of Penang, put police on alert after a note was found at a church promising a Bible-burning ''festival'' this weekend. ''Let's teach 'em a lesson,'' the note read.
Financial markets are jittery over the political uncertainty in a country where the BN has never lost an election since independence from Britain in 1957.
At the last election in 2008, the BN lost its two-thirds majority as well as five out of 12 contested state governments. Mr Najib, who became Prime Minister in 2009, has abolished repressive national security laws and hopes Malaysia's strong economic performance and handouts to poorer Malaysians will shore up his support.
In a bid to placate Malay voters, he has also softened an earlier pledge to replace a 40-year-old affirmative action policy that favours Malays with a ''new economic model''.
In one poll released in January, Mr Najib was only one percentage point ahead of the charismatic Anwar Ibrahim, a former deputy prime minister who heads the multi-ethnic opposition alliance Pakatan Rakyat (People's Pact).
An opposition rally drew close to 100,000 people in Kuala Lumpur on January 12, one of the country's largest-ever shows of political strength.
More than 3 million new voters have registered since the last election, deepening uncertainty about the result.
Analysts say many of them are young voters who are likely to be more open to change.
|
| Gangnam twist for Malaysian elections Posted: 15 Feb 2013 09:28 AM PST
The episode shows that while the ruling BN coalition has vast human, financial and media resources at its disposal for the upcoming election campaign, social networking tools continue to expose government gaffes and blunders, magnifying and slanting them to audiences several times larger than spectators at the original event. Anil Netto, Asia Times Online PENANG - As a pivotal general election looms in Malaysia, online social media tools are playing a prominent role in challenging the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition's overwhelming dominance of traditional print and broadcast media. |
| Posted: 14 Feb 2013 03:49 PM PST
Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim might have to wait for the GE14 to become prime minister. Christopher Fernandez, FMT While coffeeshop politicians are firm in their convictions that Pakatan Rakyat will sweep to power in the 13th general election (GE13), based on prevailing realities, it looks quite certain that they might have to wait for the 14th general election (GE14) for their dreams to come true. While more Malaysians now hope to witness a change of government Рand this has caused a groundswell of support to surface for Pakatan Рthe likelihood that Pakatan can end 55 years of Barisan Nasional rule is still distant. Most Malaysians will need a longer time to adjust to Pakatan, a relatively new player. Malaysians tend to be creatures of habit and are very slow, suspicious and wary of making changes. They generally find themselves comfortable and do not want to change or will want a longer period of time to be convinced to make changes to the political environment in the country. But the good news for Pakatan is that all its good and hard work is paying off. But to wrest power is most likely not forthcoming in this general election. The opposition coalition should, however, maintain its growing momentum and work patiently and diligently to come to power in the GE14. Or it may be even earlier if snap polls are called. Some political analysts are of the view that a "hung" Parliament might emerge. This most definitely will be a tricky issue to deal with by both sides of the political divide. But it looks most likely that BN will emerge a narrow winner in the GE13, holding on to a reduced or a simple majority compared to the GE12 in 2008. While most political observers think that a completely free and fair election is unlikely in the GE13, a landslide victory by BN will arouse great suspicion. This is especially so when BN is seen to be loosening its grip on power. Over at Sabah and Sarawak Ever since the political tsunami of 2008, Pakatan has emerged as a formidable force and has started to cause cracks to appear in the impregnable BN fa̤ade in Sabah and Sarawak. The recent defections by BN politicians are a clear indication that the ground in Sabah and Sarawak is starting to shift more in favour of Pakatan, though BN has a vice-like grip on the two states it considers to be its perpetual "fixed deposits". In the GE13, while much headway will be made by Pakatan in Sabah and Sarawak, it is unlikely the opposition pact can stage an upset as the Sabahans and Sarawakians are probably more comfortable with BN and need an even longer time than West Malaysian voters to adjust to Pakatan. While it's hard to predict the final outcome, it will be certain that BN's fixed deposits will see their value dwindle as Pakatan is expected to swing more voters to its side in this GE13. Pakatan should be motivated to roll up its sleeves to work harder in East Malaysia to build up its power base and capitalise on the fact that its influence is beginning to grow and needs to be carefully nurtured. The feel of the ground in Selangor Unlike the distant East Malaysia, West Malaysian states are feeling the full fervour of the BN and Pakatan campaigns and it is really in the Pakatan states that a lot of politicking has been going on. All indications point that Selangor will be hotly contested, but it looks as if Pakatan is more aggressive as it goes all out to stop BN. Pakatan politicians in Selangor are wise to the tricks of BN, after the incident in Perak where they were removed on dubious grounds. Now Pakatan leaders in Selangor are on their guard. Selangor voters, too, know BN tricks and have indicated their interest in seeing Pakatan continue with its rule. Besides, Pakatan has consolidated its position in Perak, Penang, Kedah and Kelantan. In Perak there are signs that the voters are just waiting to vent their anger on BN over its manipulation of power in the state. Pakatan is expected to score a landslide victory in the silver state. In Penang, owing to the sterling performance of Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng, Pakatan is likely to chalk up a bigger victory, with DAP winning more seats. While BN has been trying very hard to grab power in Kedah and Kelantan, the two states, effectively PAS strongholds, are not going to give way to BN. While certain stunts have been pulled off by BN to try and topple the Pakatan governments in the two states, they were ineffective.
|
| ‘Najib’s Sabah functions stage-managed’ Posted: 14 Feb 2013 03:39 PM PST
The immensely popular Stacy was kept to the last to get the crowd close to the stage just before Najib and his wife alighted from their car. Luke Rintod, FMT Prime Minister Naib Tun Razak's three functions in Sabah yesterday were short on spontaneity but choreographed to every small detail. There were flag waving, hoisting of banners and ordered rounds of applause and free eye examination with promises of glasses for those who need them. In Tuaran yesterday, prior to Najib's arrival at around 3pm, the deejays worked the 5,000 or so crowd, which local newspapers counted as 25,000, to stand and hoist the "I love PM" flyers when he entered. It was a similar scene in Papar and Beaufort. Nothing was left to chance. Local artistes like Asmin Mudin, Abu Bakar Ellah and Stacy, among others, were there to get the crowd in. The immensely popular Stacy was kept to the last to get the crowd close to the stage just before Najib and his wife Rosmah Mansor alighted from their car. His arrival with VIPs in tow including Chief Minister Musa Aman was heralded with traditional gongs, kompangs and a lion dance. "Saya datang hanya mahu tenguk Rosmah [I came only to see Rosmah]," said a Bajau man who quietly left the scene later without listening to any of the speeches. The function was to launch Sabah-level Nadi Kasih Programme that involves handing out RM5,000 to rehabilitate dilapidated houses. A middle-aged Bajau woman said she was "satisfied and very happy" after she had a glimpse of the couple entering the event held at the Tuaran Town Padang here. Another Dusun man displayed a video clip of himself at the event, saying: "I managed to shake hands with the prime minister while he was walking and that is quite an experience for me." Another local man, however, said he came to have a final look at Najib and his Rosmah. "Saya hanya mahu tenguk mereka buat kali terakhir [I only want to see them for the last time]," he said smiling. Earlier in the day, a free eye examination was held at the vicinity. Free spectacles will be distributed in early March to those who need them, officials said. At the Tuaran function, Najib delivered a relatively short speech criticising the opposition and its leaders without naming them.
|
| Posted: 14 Feb 2013 03:36 PM PST
What has happened to the book? Has Rosmah's publicist got the year wrong? Mariam Mokhtar, FMT Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak travelled around Malaysia championing his Merdeka slogan "Janji Ditepati", but his most ardent supporter, the self-styled First Lady Rosmah Mansor, has let him down. Last December, amid great fanfare, press coverage and the presence of royalty, Rosmah organised a pre-launch for her biography. A Bernama report said that the 164-page book, written by Siti Rohayah Attan and Noraini Abdul Razak, would cost RM150 and be published and distributed in January. So, where is the book? It is now February, and the rakyat is eager to know the progress of the much publicised book. While Rosmah was saving from her teens to buy expensive jewellery, a number of us have been saving for a life-changing book which will motivate and guide us towards success and riches. Few of us have managed to save up for priceless gems and we are delighted that Rosmah has promised to share her secrets with us. What has happened to the book? Perhaps, Rosmah's publicist got the year wrong. Did her publishing adviser Ahmad Maslan not realise that with Chinese New Year falling in February, the printers would be busy and business would slow down during the two-week period of festivities. With GE13 approaching, the printers have their hands full churning out election propaganda material. Is the biography going to be just another of BN's empty promises? Ahmad claimed that the biography would also include a "frank question and answer chapter" to answer "all the issues and allegations". Rosmah is naïve to think that writing a biography, to a book-shy Malaysian public, is going to "clear her name". With the book unavailable in the bookshops, Ahmad could enlighten us and say which allegation Rosmah is referring to. If writing a book is all that is needed to clear oneself of a wrongdoing, criminals would put pen to paper and be spared the bother of giving evidence in court. Lawyers, judges and the entire court process would be made defunct. Ghost writers, publishers and bookshops would thrive. Rosmah, Najib, former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and former Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan once rejected subpoenaes to appear in court. Perhaps, their reason for avoiding court was a mistrust of the Malaysian judiciary. Isn't it the business of the prime minister to make good the system and restore the public's trust in its judiciary? During 56 years of BN rule, very few of our politicians know the meaning of shame. They allegedly lie, rape, steal, murder and take what does not belong to them, then turn up in Parliament as if nothing unusual has happened. The rot set in during Mahathir's tenure but in a few weeks' time, we have the power to change all this and install a government which will do the rakyat's bidding. Rather than plunder the rakyat's money. Those Malays who refuse to accept that Umno is detrimental to their well-being, only need to see how the senior Umno politicians promote their children. These politicians did not breed successful and enterprising children who end up in plum jobs. Their children are denied the hard work, hunger to succeed and self-discipline needed to mould their character. There is no equality in educational and work or job opportunities. Their children have all the advantages which are denied to the rakyat. Whose daughters get multi-million-ringgit projects to do with alternative energy or transport systems? Whose son lands lucrative contracts involving air-traffic control? Whose son is free to pose as a member of royalty and beat strangers who dare challenge him in public? Whose children are able to purchase apartments and give themselves inflated salaries, with the millions of ringgits allocated for the National Feedlot Corporation?
|
| Gross Encounters of the Zin Kind Posted: 14 Feb 2013 12:21 PM PST
Is anyone keeping tabs on how much taxpayers' funds are being spent on generating the incessant propaganda we are being bombarded with? If Ng Yen Yen can spend RM1.8 million on creating six Facebook pages, how much is being paid to create these propaganda video spots as well as for broadcast airtime, in addition to the mobile and billboard advertising, not forgetting the ubiquitous banners bearing images of BN figures? Kee Thuan Chye I was greeted first thing this morning by an SMS from a dear old friend. It read: "Saudara XXX [my friend's name in full], Selamat Menyambut Hari Lahir. Happy Birthday. Ikhlas dari DS Ir Mohd Zin Mohamed, Kordinator BN Selangor. Sayangi Selangor, Yakini BN." At first, I wondered why my friend had forwarded me this SMS. Then when I saw the four-letter word he had appended at the end of it, I understood. He was sharing with me his disgust at the greeting from Mohd Zin. This coordinator of Selangor Barisan Nasional (BN) who is campaigning to win the state from Pakatan Rakyat at the soon-to-be-held general election has been sending out many such messages to a whole lot of people ever since last year. However, they have become such an annoyance that the recipients invariably express nothing but disgust each time they receive such messages. Some of my other friends have also been complaining to me about Mohd Zin's barrage of not only SMSes but postcards and letters as well. And social media is full of curses against him and his unsavoury proselytising efforts to the BN cause. Most recipients know that all this is being done for a blatant political purpose, which means the gesture is not one of goodwill. Nor is it imbued with sincerity. Many even say that no other country in the world practises this kind of tactic to solicit votes. They are greatly concerned that Selangor BN has easy access to their private particulars, like their birthdate and mobile number. And even the constituencies they'll be voting at – for these are also included in the postcards and letters. Who has been supplying Selangor BN all this information? And why should the electoral constituencies be included when the purpose is supposedly to send a festive greeting? Why run it with the tagline "Yakini BN" (Have Faith in BN), right beside the BN dacing symbol, at the top of the letter? Another question on people's minds is: Who is paying for all these proselytising efforts? Is the rakyat's money being used? I'd like to think that since this is a BN initiative, the expenses should be borne by BN. I'd also like to think that BN has tons of money so paying for it should not be a problem. I certainly hope this is the case. My own children received a Chinese New Year letter last week wishing them Gong Xi Fa Cai and attempting to indoctrinate them about BN's transformation programme. One side of the letter is in Chinese, the other in Malay. The letter is signed by BN chief Najib Razak and carries a picture of him. But the people behind it are Selangor BN, going by the contact details provided at the bottom. This is the third or fourth time my children have received such a letter. The first one was in conjunction with Malaysia Day last August. Then, the contents of the letter were aimed at emphasising our so-called "non-confrontational culture" in order to persuade the recipient to eschew street protests. What that letter said was hogwash because if ours was truly a non-confrontational culture, Umno would not have led the massive street rallies to protest against the Malayan Union in 1946. The letter was an obvious attempt at brainwashing. The same is true of the Chinese New Year letter. Acknowledging that there are people who are still sceptical about BN's economic and political transformation programme, it tries to persuade the recipient to accept the idea that such a programme will take time and effort to be realised. Hence the need for long-term stability in government. In other words, vote for BN. Each letter was accompanied by ang-pow packets also bearing Najib's picture. I was horrified and bemused at the same time when I saw them. Which Chinese person would put money into these packets to give to others if they know that face represents a ruling party that is corrupt? Most would just throw the packets away! I must be right – BN does have tons of money, perhaps too much since it's spending it so foolishly. I, too, received a Chinese New Year message. Like my friend's birthday greeting, it came from Mohd Zin. Before that, I got one from him in December wishing me Merry Christmas. It wasn't the first and it gave me a creepy feeling. So I posted a comment on his Facebook page telling him in no uncertain terms to stop bothering my family and me. Another friend of mine reacted similarly but not at him when she got a birthday greeting last year. She forwarded it to me instead, with a curse on the people who had sent it. She was livid that BN had nothing better to do than to track people's birthdays and to stoop to such a low tactic to try and win their votes. Then there was the occasion when a Malay friend of mine received a racist SMS in Malay which read: "Congratulations! You are a registered voter for the Subang parliamentary constituency. Please fulfil your responsibility by ensuring that Malays continue to rule. BN IS THE CHOICE OF THE YOUTH." This SMS was, however, anonymous. But what's intriguing is that the sender knew my friend was registered to vote for the Subang parliamentary seat. My friend sent back an appropriate reply also in Malay: "It's not important to the devout whether the ruling party is Malay or non-Malay. Leaders who are free from corruption and hypocrisy will be the choice of those who have faith. God willing, I shall fulfil my responsibility of ensuring that we are ruled by a government that is caring and trustworthy. BN/Umno is the choice of obstinately stupid people regardless of age. Salam Bersih!" Another friend who had been blasted with a wider range of propaganda wrote me an e-mail full of ire and concern: "My mother and I recently made a day trip back to Ipoh by train and throughout our journey, we were appalled and disgusted to see how the trains and every platform pillar from KL to Ipoh bore images of that megalomaniac Najib. Even the discount card that's going to be issued to those earning less than RM3,000 will bear Najib's image. Only dictators have the need for this amount of propaganda. "When we reached home that day, we found in our mailbox full-colour letters and small calendars individually addressed to us – again bearing Najib's image. The letters had our voter information and referred us to the Selangor BN website. While I am planning to use the letter with Najib's image to pick up my dog's poop, there are a number of burning questions on my mind: How much is being spent to clutter our mailboxes with BN propaganda? Who's paying for this? Let's not forget that postage costs have gone up. Is the ruling coalition using federal funds for political campaigning? Are limits imposed on how much can be spent? "Is there an avenue where complaints can be made regarding the excessive propaganda in the media? I pay to subscribe to satellite TV and am forced to put up with propaganda videos interrupting the TV shows I'm watching. All of it is in the same insipid vein of the 'Cinta IT' rubbish that aired on RTM, forcing me to switch channels when it is aired. "Is anyone keeping tabs on how much taxpayers' funds are being spent on generating the incessant propaganda we are being bombarded with? If Ng Yen Yen can spend RM1.8 million on creating six Facebook pages, how much is being paid to create these propaganda video spots as well as for broadcast airtime, in addition to the mobile and billboard advertising, not forgetting the ubiquitous banners bearing images of BN figures? "I sent a complaint to MCMC (Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission) about the invasion of privacy but did not get any response. Not even the usual canned response." Our reactions – my friends' and mine – reflect our annoyance and our concerns. Mohd Zin and his cohorts need to be warned that the more they irritate us, the more we will be swayed against their cause. And this may actually work against them. To borrow from a recent analogy, the more they ask, "Are you ready for BN?", the more loudly they will hear the resounding reply – "No!" * 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!
|
| The need for an evolving meritocracy Posted: 14 Feb 2013 11:44 AM PST  Singapore must retain the concept of meritocracy, but it must also tackle inequalities the system fails to address. TODAY file photo A history of meritocratic success in turn creates a social culture in which individuals are driven to work beyond their comfort levels and in resourceful fashion, with sight of opportunities to rise above one's socio-economic class. In a country bereft of natural resources, depending solely on its population, such a system has been paramount in achieving economic progress. Pravin Prakash, Today Online Meritocracy, an essential and integral part of Singapore's political and social culture, has of late seen debate over its continued relevance here. In December, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong argued that while it was important to calibrate fundamental machinations of the system of meritocracy, there was no better option. "If we're not going on merit, what are (we) going to look at?" he asked. More recently, Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Lawrence Wong acknowledged that Singapore's system of meritocracy could be improved to ensure it benefits all segments of society. And academic Donald Low last month argued for, among other things, "trickle-up meritocracy", which seeks to limit the rise of inequality by equalising not just opportunities, but also resources at the start for those with less. All three views, while differing on the level of evolution needed, note the imperative to renegotiate the terms of a meritocratic system of governance.
A DRIVER OF SUCCESS
The term meritocracy may be understood broadly as a system that rewards an individual's merit with social, economic and even political accolades and rewards. The system hence accords all qualified individuals a fair and equal chance of being successful based on their own capabilities. In a more limited political sense, a meritocracy describes a style of governance where the political system selects the most educated and capable personnel to rule or an "aristocracy of talent". A meritocratic system is coupled with the principle of non-discrimination, in which merit and talent alone determine selection. It cannot be denied that there are fundamental benefits to a meritocratic system, which have been indispensable in the rapid rise of Singapore as a prosperous city-state. Meritocracy advocates fierce competition which pushes people to achieve the best that they can; regardless of class, race or creed they may find success if they get to the finishing line first. A history of meritocratic success in turn creates a social culture in which individuals are driven to work beyond their comfort levels and in resourceful fashion, with sight of opportunities to rise above one's socio-economic class. In a country bereft of natural resources, depending solely on its population, such a system has been paramount in achieving economic progress.
DIFFERENT STARTING POINTS
However, as Singapore continues to evolve, there must be continual attempts to assess if the system as it is remains relevant. Selection based on merit and non-discrimination dictates that all differences, including race, gender and class, be ignored. But one must also consider the unequal backgrounds from which people come. To use the analogy of a race, it is like judging runners on who crosses the finishing line first although they all start off from varying points. The pursuit of a "fair meritocracy" — which researcher R Quinn Moore defines as one in which "inherited advantages or disadvantages are compensated for" — has been the prerogative of the Singapore Government. In this, it has had success, but up to an extent. We must account for the widening gaps of inequality that meritocracy creates, without destroying the competitive environment that meritocracy offers. More effort must be made to ensure that while everyone races for the finishing line, the starting points become more equal. It means, for example, ensuring that children compete in schools on a more equal footing. There is a curious turn in the Singaporean logic of meritocracy, where it is ethnic-based organisations such as the Chinese Development Assistance Council, MENDAKI and the Singapore Indian Development Association, which offer subsidised tuition at cheap rates, primarily targeting the underprivileged. But inequality is not inherently a race or ethnic issue. The impetus of levelling unequal starting points needs to shift from these organisations to the Ministry of Education. Perhaps more schools could offer small-group tuition at the same subsidised rates, with teacher-tutors paid the rates offered by these organisations. It would allow for a more systematic tuition programme that divides the children into classes based on the nature of tuition necessary — rather than ethnic-based programmes at various centres that sometimes struggle to offer the optimal service weaker students often require.
WHAT IS 'MERIT' TODAY?
Education is the tip of the iceberg in a discussion about meritocracy in Singapore. The recent Punggol by-election saw Ms Lee Li Lian, a trainer with an insurance company, defeat Dr Koh Poh Koon, a consultant colorectal surgeon. More than just the victory of one party over another, this might also be indicative that voters no longer accept wholesale the entrenched ideal of the technocratic politician in Singapore. A politician, in other words, need not be a doctor, lawyer, engineer or professor. Qualities like a history of grassroots leadership, service to the community and a warm, approachable personality are perhaps increasingly being seen as more important. The definition of "merit", in other words, is being challenged in socio-political spaces. The recent furore over the Population White Paper is perhaps indicative of this; it is reflected in some of the concerns of local-born Singaporeans. Take this scenario: In 2030, a citizen, who is currently 20 years of age and about to enlist in the army, would be 37 years old by then. In this time, he would have served two years of national service and 10 cycles of reservist training. He would have worked for at least 15 years and contributed via taxes and other means to the economy. He may have gotten married and had children (thus contributing to the country's demographic needs). If, in his 37th year as a Singaporean, he is to compete with another 37-year-old with similar qualifications and who only became a citizen a year or two ago, should his "merit" be judged solely on the basis of academic qualifications and work-related experience? Read more at: http://www.todayonline.com/commentary/need-evolving-meritocracy |
| Psy a PR blunder for Najib, BN Posted: 13 Feb 2013 03:22 PM PST
The prime minister should realise that he cannot horse around with the wishes and aspirations of Malaysians anymore By M Krishnamoorthy, FMT "We must win back Penang at whatever the cost." So went the Barisan Nasional's plan to win the hearts and minds of Penangites during the Chinese New Year open house celebrations. Some smart aleck in BN or the Prime Minister's Office would have said at a high-powered meeting: "Yes. The only way to win the minds of voters is get Psy and his horse-riding song to rock Penang." But the big question is: Was Penang ready for Psy or was Psy used to attract votes for BN? The writing was already on the wall when there were protests not to bring the K-pop star. So, BN did not listen! listen! listen! and the famous quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the US, seems an appropriate epithet: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." Now, it's too late as the Psy show has backfired on BN's plans. It was a major public relations disaster as the Penang crowd refused to be fooled by the millions paid to engage Psy. When Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak asked the crowd before the start of the show: "Are you ready for Psy?" the crowd responded with a vociferous: "Yes!" Quickly switching gears, Najib then asked not once but three times: "Are you ready for BN?" "No!" the crowd shouted back. BN must recognise that throwing money at all its events at the expense of the taxpayers is a big "No!" BN must not horse around with sentiments, emotions and feelings of Malaysians. Boos and jeers It was clear that the multi-million-ringgit show in Penang on Monday was a blunder. It was not the first event where the crowd had not been receptive to BN's offers and overtures. Psy's performance was delayed for almost an hour. The event organisers were restless trying to ride on the wave of Psy's worldwide popular song. It was like waiting for the food at a dinner and speakers keep on dragging the time with their long-winded speeches. Najib, his wife Rosmah Mansor and state BN leaders like Teng Chang Yeow showed up on stage to placate the crowd but were least interested. Later came Najib's son's speech to demonstrate his Chinese-speaking skills to engage the audience. This failed miserably again as there was muted response from the crowd.
|
| Indians in a spot in any Islamic Revolution after 13th GE Posted: 13 Feb 2013 09:28 AM PST
If the Malays want to divide themselves politically it's not the Dap's business. The Dap should focus on the 45 per cent strong non-Malay minorities and forget the 55 per cent strong Malay majority. Let the Malays settle their politics on their own. Joe Fernandez Given the looming 13th General Election, the minority Indian Nation in Malaysia must keep in mind the tragic fate of the Christian minorities in the Middle East in the wake of the Arab Spring -- valid as its other reasons are -- which chose to ignore the fact that the only majority that matters is that in the legislature, not in demography. And that dialogue, not necessarily to agree, is the best way forward politically in any civilised nation wedded to democracy, human rights and freedom. |
| Sabah shows way in religious harmony Posted: 12 Feb 2013 07:55 PM PST
For Francis bin Dakun, a 44-year-old Catholic priest, Hari Raya celebrations are a family affair: "I take leave to spend time at home. I'm from a family of twelve: seven of my brothers and sisters are Muslim. My father, who became a Catholic, ended up building two kitchens in the house." Karim Raslan, The Star At a time when our public discourse is seething with resentment and distrust, the quiet but very dignified mutual respect of the Dakun family is so refreshing, if not uplifting. IN Sabah, the line between religions often runs through the middle of a family. Needless to say, many West Malaysians with our black-and-white way of viewing the world might fine such proximity a little disturbing. Still, as I discovered a few weeks ago when I was shooting my Astro Awani show Ceritalah Malaysia in the former timber boom town of Keningau, issues of identity are all the more fluid and less divisive the further away you are from Kuala Lumpur. For Francis bin Dakun, a 44-year-old Catholic priest, Hari Raya celebrations are a family affair: "I take leave to spend time at home. I'm from a family of twelve: seven of my brothers and sisters are Muslim. My father, who became a Catholic, ended up building two kitchens in the house." "We are Dusun and in the past, we had no religion. We followed the traditional beliefs. My father (he's passed away now) was a bobohizan. "He was like a kampung doctor and when we were sick he would take care of us since he understood the various herbs and medicines." "I became a Catholic when I was 14. It was a personal choice and the family respected it. "I did not hear God's voice calling me to be a priest. However, I was 25 years old at the time and working in a shipping company in Kota Kinabalu, I saw that the there was a great need: that the Church lacked priests. It took me seven years of training in Kuching to become a priest and further two years study in Rome. "We use Bahasa Malaysia in our religious ceremonies," (indeed we filmed a wedding he presided over in a small church outside the town). "The use of the word 'Allah' is normal and acceptable in our community. "We have been using it from well into the past. We are so comfortable with the word and cannot help but use it during the service." Father Francis' elder sister Nooridah Hidayah bte Dakun is a Muslim and an ustazah. She is also extremely active in the community giving regular talks on Islam and the Quran as well as a surprisingly innovative multi-faith discussion last year between Muslim, Christian and Buddhist religious figures. Listening to Ustazah Hidayah as she talks about her childhood, it's clear that she was sensitive and very spiritual from an early age: "I was close to my Atok, my grandmother and each year they had a ceremony to guarantee the family's safety – the 'menerebung'. However, I would feel worried. I was afraid that the 'menerebung' didn't really protect us, didn't cover everything. "I had doubts and was uncertain. I began questioning everything: where did the rain come from, the storms at night? "It was then that I came across the word 'Allah.' At the time I was a Christian and I found the word in Christian books. Finally, I managed to find the Syahadah itself and the sentence made me feel at ease and at peace. "When I was 14 I went to a residential school. "There and with the help of an elder sister who'd converted and married a Muslim, I, too, became a Muslim. It was a difficult time. "The family was unhappy and it took five years for my father to accept my choice of religion. Then one day as I was about to pray, he called me by my Muslim name, Hidayah." Her initial struggle for acceptance by her family has given Ustazah Hidayah a greater degree of empathy and warmth: "We must accept others for their faith. We must have hikmah. "We should approach others respectfully. There is no need to speak harshly." Both brother and sister are soft-spoken and diffident and there is a slight aura about them, especially when they are together. As a West Malaysian Malay I can't help but find the Dakun family's history and their respective personal journeys to Christianity and Islam enormously instructive. Moreover, at a time when our public discourse is seething with resentment and distrust, their quiet but very dignified mutual respect is so refreshing, if not uplifting. As Father Francis says: "In our family, one thing that is meaningful to me is that religion is not the cause of disunity but to bring us closer. After all, we are just one family."
|
| Posted: 12 Feb 2013 06:06 PM PST
Some have claimed that Malaysia's pluralism is also its weakness. I happen to disagree. I believe that the plural and complex nature of Malaysian society serves as an effective means to temper the tone and tenor of our national political discourse, and that as a result of this complexity all the parties of the country – from both BN and PR – will have to settle to a moderate median line in the long run. No party can run Malaysia alone, without being in a coalition and without abiding by the general will of such a coalition. Farish A Noor A few years ago, a Malaysian diplomat who also happens to be a friend of mine asked me: "After living abroad for more than two decades, were you ever tempted to give up your citizenship?" It was a question that was easy to answer, and I immediately said, "No. I remain a Malaysian because I happen to love my country very much." It was true then, and it remains true today. I have, since the age of 18, lived in Britain, France, Holland, Germany and now Singapore. For the benefit of those who may be curious, I will also point out that I studied abroad at the cost of my mother, after we sold our land and house to pay for it, and not by the grace of a government scholarship. I chose the life of an academic because I love learning and teaching, despite the fact that I knew I would never be rich – unlike so many of my schoolmates whose luxurious lifestyles I can never hope to emulate.
But I happen to love my country and its people, and despite the doom-mongering of the naysayers I still believe that Malaysia – despite its size – is a country that deserves its place on the stage of world history. My faith rests not in the institutions of the state, for institutions are but empty structures that need to be filled by people who give it meaning and purpose. My faith lies in Malaysians and their ability to judge and think wisely when it matters most. The reasoning behind this faith of mine comes from my experience as a teacher of history, and Southeast Asian history in particular. I have noted in my lectures and writings many times over that whenever Malaysia has come close to the brink, it has always been saved by the Malaysians themselves. Note the lessons of history that we can learn from: At the elections of 1986, the Malaysian public showed that they would not endorse radical or violent politics by punishing the party that articulated it, PAS. Likewise in 2004, after PAS's ill-advised support for the Taliban, it was trounced at the elections again. Then in 2008, the Malaysian public likewise expressed their distaste for communitarian politics by robbing the BN of its two-thirds majority in Parliament. In fact, if there is one consistent variable in Malaysian politics, it is that the Malaysian public has rarely, if ever, rewarded extreme religious-conservative or sectarian-communitarian parties and politicians. Perhaps this is due to the simple fact that as Malaysians we realise that we are bound together and will share the same fate, despite the antics of some elected representatives. Some have claimed that Malaysia's pluralism is also its weakness. I happen to disagree. I believe that the plural and complex nature of Malaysian society serves as an effective means to temper the tone and tenor of our national political discourse, and that as a result of this complexity all the parties of the country – from both BN and PR – will have to settle to a moderate median line in the long run. No party can run Malaysia alone, without being in a coalition and without abiding by the general will of such a coalition. My hope is that in the long run all the parties of Malaysia will learn that they have to appeal to Malaysians as a whole, as a plural and complex nation, rather than to their respective racial, ethnic, religious and/or linguistic vote bases. Read more at: http://www.ukeconline.com/CEKU/having-faith-in-malaysians/
|
| Posted: 12 Feb 2013 05:32 PM PST
In 1962, the Cobbold Commission that heard HALF A PERCENT (0.5%) of the total population of North Borneo and Sarawak decided that this represented an affirmative decision to proceed with the signing of the Malaysia Agreement, even though a significant proportion of the 0.5% who bothered to respond to the Cobbold Commission had expressed reservations to the idea of forming Malaysia and requested more time. By Nilakrisna James In 2011, the late Datuk Amar James Wong Kim Min, former Minister of the State Government of Sarawak, handed me an autographed copy of his book, "The Birth of Malaysia". Despite the United Borneo Front's proposal to have this coveted piece of literature as part of the history textbooks in the national curriculum for Secondary Schools, many are still deprived access to this book and are completely unaware that the contents of this book merely includes the essential reports prior to the formation of Malaysia in 1963. Within these reports are essential viewpoints and insights into what the people of North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak wanted from the Central Government of the proposed Federation of Malaysia, now known as the Malaysian Federal Government. There is no point harping on racial or religious grounds about the consequences of the IC issue in the RCI if we do not remember that these issues were the very fears expressed in the reports that were made and drafted over 50 years ago. I consider it my duty to the nation as an ordinary citizen to now progressively work through these reports and summarise the key points of these reports prior to the election so that we will make an informed decision about who we really want as the masters of our economic fate in Borneo. I am writing this in response to the illegal IC debate which I believe goes to the very root of the issue of a breach of Sabah's territorial integrity and the heart of our future political security. The Malaysia Agreement 1963 The Malaysia Agreement was signed on the 9th July 1963 between the United Kingdom, the Federation of Malaya, North Borneo (now Sabah), Sarawak and Singapore. Without the Malaysia Agreement, Malaysia would not exist. Without the Malaysia Agreement, Sabah and Sarawak would not be part of Malaysia. The Malaysia Agreement therefore stands as the most important document in the history of Malaysia. Unlike the Federal Constitution, it can NEVER be amended by anybody unless the territories that originally signed it decide once more to return to the negotiation room and determine a new future. The Malaysia Agreement is also an agreement that has no time limit and not bound by any limitation. If the Malaysia Agreement had a time limit, then the territories which signed the Agreement will no longer be bound to one another upon expiry of that time limit. So, logically, the Malaysia Agreement stands timeless. If this was an ordinary Agreement, breach of any of its clauses could be challenged. If it was an ordinary Agreement, it would have stipulated what must be done if there was a breach of the clauses. The Malaysia Agreement remains silent on the issue of breach. This is deliberate. The Malaysia Agreement was drafted deliberately in its simplest form to allow the maximum loopholes and flexibility so that the territories which signed the Malaysia Agreement will have no unreasonable restrictions in determining their fates in the Federation of Malaysia. With top lawyers as signatories to the Malaysia Agreement, it would be inconceivable that the Agreement was drafted without careful thought and arrangement. Some of the signatories were educated and could have had access to the best legal advisers in the UK. The Malaysia Agreement therefore was calculated to be silent on some issues and loud on others. When Singapore exited the Malaysia Agreement in 1965, there was much debate in parliament which is well recorded. No matter how much discussion went on there, they knew full well that nobody could challenge Singapore based on the Malaysia Agreement. Indeed they could not challenge Singapore based on any other legal document either. So it was all talk amongst Malaysian politicians with no impact on Singapore. Singapore went on to become the richest of the territories that entered into the Malaysia Agreement and Singapore was neither sued for their exit nor legally challenged. Lee Kuan Yew had one of the best legal minds in the East and he was no fool. If he wanted to continue leading Singapore, he knew he could not screw up his decision for Singapore in 1965. Nearly fifty years on, the guy is still standing tall with no regrets except his admission to me of "deep collateral guilt" for the people of North Borneo and Sarawak. To understand the gravity of this situation therefore, all Malaysians must understand that the Malaysia Agreement was not a unilateral decision made by the Government of Malaya. Malaysia was formed because the British had to decide how best to dispose of their two colonies, Sabah and Sarawak. Before they could form Malaysia and sign the Malaysia Agreement therefore the British proposed that a Commission of Enquiry be carried out in North Borneo and Sarawak in 1962 to determine how the people of the Borneo territories felt about the proposal. The idea had already been discussed between the British and Malayan Governments in 1961 and on principle, Singapore and Malaya had by then agreed to merge and it was merely a question of seeking the views of the people of North Borneo and Sarawak and also the Sultan of Brunei, as to whether Brunei would also wish to join the new Malaysia. Brunei, which was far smaller than the territories of Sabah and Sarawak, and yet in view of its proximity would have been subjected to the very same fears of communism at the time, somehow had a far better excuse not to enter into the Malaysia Agreement, which the British Government seemed to have fully respected. The Malaysia Agreement was eventually signed after a Commission of Enquiry was carried out in North Borneo and Sarawak and two reports were presented to the British Government. These two reports were:- 1. Report of the Commission of Enquiry, North Borneo and Sarawak 1962 (Cobbold Report) 2. Report of the Inter-Governmental Committee 1962 (IGC Report) The Commission of Enquiry Appendix B of the Cobbold Report shows the Census Abstract for North Borneo and Sarawak in 1960. In North Borneo, the population in 1960 was 454,421. They had 304 graduates, which was about 0.07% of their population. In Sarawak, the population in 1960 was 744,529. They had 548 graduates, which was also about 0.07% of their population. The Cobbold Commission sent out open invitations to the people of North Borneo and Sarawak to give their views both orally and in written form. Of a combined total population of 1,198,950 people in North Borneo and Sarawak, the Cobbold Commission received 2,200 written letters and memoranda (0.183% of the population) and 4000 or so people appeared to give their views orally (0.334% of the population). In 1962, the Cobbold Commission that heard HALF A PERCENT (0.5%) of the total population of North Borneo and Sarawak decided that this represented an affirmative decision to proceed with the signing of the Malaysia Agreement, even though a significant proportion of the 0.5% who bothered to respond to the Cobbold Commission had expressed reservations to the idea of forming Malaysia and requested more time. With only 852 graduates in total, it is unclear how many of these graduates bothered to give their views. In any event, North Borneo and Sarawak did not have the intellectual capacity to form a pool of educated leaders to decide their political destiny in 1962. Like schoolboys in a sandpit, a parody of 'Lord of the Flies' was inevitable as power struggles developed between people who were selected based on their popularity and political leanings rather than their intellectual prowess. For men who had only known subservience and wars, our forefathers were expected to develop democracy and political structures with civilisations that were centuries ahead of us. In 50 years, we are expected to develop the intellectual capacity of nations that began developing these political structures in the 16th century. Barely a hundred years ago, we were considered merely savages and uncivilised people. It is no wonder to me that in 2013, we are still sweeping the mess under the carpets. The arrogance is more than evident, the greed glaring in the face of the nation and the vast majority of us, nearly all of us, stay silent, as we did in 1962, still somewhat savage and uncivilised in the way we attack each other politically. The Cobbold Commission must therefore, posthumously, take full responsibility for a premature recommendation that has on hindsight led to more devastating consequences than could have possibly been predicted by even 0.07% of the population in 1962. We have lost all sense of harmony as documented in the Cobbold Report and we have become angry with each other, with foreigners, with our fingers pointing in all directions so that everybody has a part to play in the chaos and hatred. This is, by all accounts, tragic and devastating and, as a nation, we have lost our humanity. We no longer have faith in our system because we have stopped trusting anybody. We assume first and foremost that our neighbour has a bone to pick with us. A small proportion of the population cares about the weak, the animals, the refugees and those who seek shelter in our country. A huge proportion of this population feel disenfranchised and cheated of their rights: their voting rights, their racial rights, their religious rights, their native rights, their territorial rights, their economic rights, their political rights, their freedom rights, their civil rights, their marching rights, their union rights, their welfare rights, their medical rights, their educational rights, and it goes on. They will get to the cause of this disenfranchisement and someone must take the blame: those who lead, those who benefit, those who are related, those who are more well-off, those who try to stop the chaos, those who are simply in the way of these arguments. The rights can easily be negotiated within reasonable parameters but we still have savages who can never get it right. We are simply, in the eyes of all developed civilisations, pathetic and ridiculous. By all accounts, it is still perhaps only 0.07% of the nation that can reasonably lead this country. Yet, the nation will stay silent, as they did in 1962. Our votes will never be enough to make a sizeable representation of what we feel as a nation and what we want as our future political destiny. We vote not by logic but by sentiments and so it is easy for us to be manipulated and fooled. The security of Sabah and Sarawak And so, in Borneo, we have no choice. To be known as the Borneo Kingmakers, to be the one who could hold the Federal Powers to reason and harness the security of our borders and immigration status, to be in a position to secure our 60 State seats and 25 Parliamentary seats in Sabah, to be in a position of phenomenal wealth and power so as to never have to bow and say yes to Malayan Federal orders, and more importantly to be able to hold Malaya to its Malaysia Agreement promises, the leaders at the helm of Sabah and Sarawak must be the type of leaders that common ordinary folk commonly describe as a dictator and a tyrant; men accused typically of rising to the top through corruption and raping of resources and holding the populace at bay with enough to keep them financially stable. Such leaders would belong to 0.07% of the population of Sabah and Sarawak and they stand out as leaders who are charismatic enough to secure the forests and immense oil and gas reserves that are offshore and onshore the island of Borneo. We need these leaders to secure our rights in Borneo and ensure that every nominated Sabah and Sarawak minister at the State and Federal level will be taken seriously enough to hold immense portfolios and corporate positions so that the reality of Borneonisation is observed without having to say so. They secured these realities through ways which we can never agree with and yet, there is no other way than to go through the coffers of our immense resources. They needed a form of silent mandate from the silent majority of people in Borneo to gather enough wealth to put them in a position of power that makes them more powerful than any other leader in the other 11 States of Malaysia. They know full well they can never secure the mandate of the public to reach the top and so they did what they felt they had to do before any other leader from the other 11 States got there first. Any man or woman with the ambition of being powerful enough to sit on the same level playing field as the Prime Minister of Malaysia would have done exactly the same thing as such leaders in Sabah and Sarawak without a shred of remorse. We are too small to be significant and so we simply cannot afford to be sentimental and idealistic. We have to be ruthless, bold and follow the path of fierce logic to achieve our part of the bargain in 1963 when we signed the Malaysia Agreement. Neither you nor I, if we qualified as 0.07% of the brains of Borneo, would have done it differently. It comes to mind therefore that even if I were ever given the mandate to lead Sabah as the Chief Minister, I would have probably followed in exactly the same footsteps as Musa Aman and Harris Salleh before him, with one exception. I would have amalgamated with Taib Mahmud and ensured the victory of whichever coalition we wish to negotiate with in West Malaysia but I would not allow Taib to take Sabah for a ride. It does not matter who the next Prime Minister of Malaysia is because at this point, by whatever means they took to achieve it, both Musa and Taib are the only two leaders in Sabah and Sarawak who would have the tenacity, the money and the balls to stand to the end like Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein and Robert Mugabe: big guys in small places who wrapped big guys in big places around their little fingers, while the rest of the world complains. Copyright 13 Feb 2013 and published with permission from writer. Note: Nilakrisna James is a lawyer, writer and activist who co-founded the apolitical NGO, United Borneo Front, in 2010 with politician, Datuk Dr. Jeffrey Kitingan. They parted ways at the end of 2011 when Dr. Jeffrey assumed the Chairmanship of STAR as an oppositional leader independent of any Federal led coalition. Nilakrisna remains a member of UPKO, a native component party of the ruling Barisan National alliance. |
| Posted: 12 Feb 2013 04:36 PM PST
Let's get it clear. We are Malaysians. And we are polite and courteous and we do treat our guests well. Let's not allow politics to sour us up into grumpy, crazed extremists out to commit violence for the sake of making a point or embarrassing those we hate. The Malaysian Insider If one were to read Korean rapper Psy's Facebook page, one would assume that some Malaysians out there are extremists or psychopaths who cannot accept another person's point of view. There are threats, praises and everything in between over Psy's "Oppa Gangnam Style" performance in Penang during the second day of this year's Chinese New Year celebrations. Let's get this straight. Psy is a professional singer who was paid to sing his hit song in Penang's Han Chiang school field. He and his back-up group performed the song twice. That was what he was paid to do. So where is the love for the South Korean whose hit song has seen some 1.3 billion views on YouTube? Where was the usual Malaysian courtesy accorded to a guest of the country? Why do we need to vent our spleen about his performance, threaten him to stop him from performing, or condemn him later for not going the extra mile to do something else beyond singing his song? When did we Malaysians become so rude? When did we become so opinionated and passionate about our politics that we watch a live performance and make a big deal about it? Psy came to perform. People came to watch, dance and sing along. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with him gracing Barisan Nasional's Chinese New Year do if he was paid for it. Nothing wrong for anyone else to hire him later, too. What was wrong was the way we treated him on the social networks. Do these social networks bring out the worst in us and unveil our baser instincts? Or do we want to disprove the hype that we are the happiest people, with the most dazzling smiles and courtesy in the world, simply because that is what our government says we are? Let's get it clear. We are Malaysians. And we are polite and courteous and we do treat our guests well. Let's not allow politics to sour us up into grumpy, crazed extremists out to commit violence for the sake of making a point or embarrassing those we hate. That's not being Malaysian; that's lunacy that no one should tolerate. Instead of celebrating Chinese New Year with entertainment, some Malaysians have made it their cause to rant and rave and show their dark side because of politics. You shame yourself as a Malaysian for doing so. And you so shame your parents and your country in the process that it will be a wonder if anyone else will ever perform in Malaysia, no matter the fee.
|
| Mandela Vs Mahathir - Statesman & Man of Distaste Posted: 12 Feb 2013 04:02 PM PST
South Africa is made up many indigenous peoples. Add to that, the migrant Asians, white settlers and other neighbouring African states. Today, they celebrate their diversity and are called the Rainbow Nation. Here, we threaten Pendatangs with revocation of citizenship. Even the word PENDATANG which I never really heard in my school days in the 70's has gained considerable currency so much so I am quite nonchalant to define myself as a Pendatang even though I am GENPENTIGA. Ice Cream Seller The last few weeks, I have been prodded enough to awaken my few and far between bouts of commenting on issues here. A white Afrikaneer (please tell Ibrahim Ali that it is not a type of cheese) that I knew told me that he was so proud of what he referred to as MY PRESIDENT. To come from someone of the opposite divide and to say so with such pride was something to hear and behold Bottom line - they won the world cup with nearly all their players white and sweating blood and guts to bring glory to their country and the event was a great advertisement for their country. Here, we threaten Pendatangs with revocation of citizenship. Even the word PENDATANG which I never really heard in my school days in the 70's has gained considerable currency so much so I am quite nonchalant to define myself as a Pendatang even though I am GENPENTIGA (Generasi Pendatang Tiga). PRIBUMI, BUMIPUTRA (all imported words from India by the way) are singled out at the expense of people of migrant descent. Unfortunately, the singular defining factor of separation in our land has been for sometime now along the lines of religion - diversity can be accepted provided religion is the same. On one occasion, he appointed a political opponent, a tribal chief - Mangosuthu Butolezi as the President whilst he was away from office. Mangosuthu Butolezi was a Zulu chief.
|
| Indian capacity to ‘create trouble’ endless Posted: 12 Feb 2013 03:56 PM PST
Joe Fernandez Carpet dealer Deepak Jaikishan has now let on that Rosmah Mansor, the wife of Bugis-origin Prime Minister Mohd Najib Abdul Razak told him once that "90 per cent of all problems in Malaysia are created by ten per cent of the Indian community". Call it either super efficient utilization of human resources or not enough trouble being created. The last time we heard any such thing, it was Adolf Hitler blaming the Jews in Nazi Germany, "for creating trouble", before sending the scapegoats to the gas chambers. Sabahans must be heaving a sigh of collective relief to learn that the 1.7 million (2005 figures) illegal immigrants in their midst, except for the MyKad-seeking minority from the Indian sub-continent, are a figment of their imagination. Any perception of trouble-making in their nation by other illegal immigrants is mere hallucination. The statistics cited by Rosmah must be "true" since the Indian Nation in Malaysia has been given the short end of the stick for the last 56 years. Even so, ninety per cent of the Indians in Malaysia, in the reassuring words of the Prime Minister's wife, are meekly accepting their miserable lot and are not trouble-creators. This is the peaceful crowd led like lambs to slaughter by MIC leaders since 1957. There are no prizes for guessing who are among the ten per cent of Indians who are considered trouble-creators by Rosmah. It's not about crying wolf once too often It's simple for an Indian to make it to Rosmah's List of Indian Trouble Creators in Malaysia: "just fight back against anyone -- usually not an Indian -- who creates trouble for them". Rosmah, in taking it personal, no doubt has entered private eye and former Special Branch operative P. Balasubramaniam in her List since he reportedly had the temerity, like murdered pregnant Mongolian wannabe model Altantuya Shaariibuu, to keep asking for monies allegedly promised to him for whatever reason. In the first place, she probably chose him for whatever task she had in mind in her mistaken belief that "no one will believe an Indian". It's not about crying wolf once too often. Apparently, Indians are not known to be into the Gospel Truth unlike others who are congenitally incapable of telling lies. Then there's the little matter, as age-old wisdom holds, of sparing the snake momentarily and killing the Indian first. Rosmah herself is Truth Personified. Of course, dead Mongolians tell no lies either. Now, Deepak has certainly been added as well to Rosmah's List of Indian trouble- creators in Malaysia and no doubt at the very top just next to Bala, the one "who no one will believe". The shocking Statutory Declaration I vs the infamous Statutory Declaration II. We can rest our case. Rosmah's List, obviously drawn up when she was not too busy pronouncing impotency in cases referred to her for expert medical opinion, might be a little too biased. Police work really hard to keep the peace in the country We can concede that Indian gangsters can sometimes be real trouble-creators and especially if they inconveniently make off with a luxury car or two which belong to a Datuk and sell them for a song to the Triads. Then the Police would have to take it really personal and beat the you-know-what out of the first Indian they meet near the scene of the crime in order to get at the truth. We have to hand it to the Police. They work real hard to keep the peace in the country. Still, the Indian gangsters are not bigger criminals than the white collar types -- not Indians of course -- and the still drinking mother's milk Datuk -- again not Indians --who routinely put their hands in the National Cookie Jar at our expense. Just take a look at the burgeoning National Debt Burden. Meanwhile, Rosmah's List of Indian Trouble-Creators reportedly excludes the real trouble-creators like former Prime Minister and Huguan Siou of the Illegal Immigrants Mahathir Mohamad: May 13, the killing of Indians in Kampung Medan by illegal immigrant mercenaries from Madura, doing a number on the Indians, Sabah illegals, electoral rolls, Forex losses, Maminco, mispricing of government contracts, Danaharta, Sodomy I, Sodomy II etc etc Surely Mahathir, whose family hails from Kerala, southwest India, should top her List. He's the architect of institutionalized discrimination over 22 years to give the Indians in particular and Malaysians in general, the short-end of the stick. All Malaysians will be on accord that Mahathir's capacity to create trouble is infinite. In order to lay the groundwork for his trouble-creating activities, Mahathir wrote "The Malay Dilemma". The on-going Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) in Sabah has revealed that Mahathir tried to steal the country from the Orang Asal – Dusuns including the Kadazan or urban Dusun and the Muruts – and hand it over to the riff-raff from neighbouring countries and even from as far away as the Indian continent, his grandmotherland, in exchange for votes. Hindraf Makkal Sakthi, run by P. Waythamoorthy and his elder brother P. Uthayakumar, may be removed from Rosmah's List soon if they are willing to play ball, whatever it means. The ad hoc apolitical human rights movement was even outlawed until recently on the grounds that it was functioning like a terrorist organisation and probably was either inspired by or was in cahoots with the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. This romantic notion of terrorism a la the PRDM (Polis Raja Di Malaysia) falls apart once we realise that there's really no love lost between the Sri Lanka Tamils and the Indian Tamils whether in Sri Lanka or Malaysia. Of course, to the Malaysian Police, a Tamil is a Tamil no matter where he comes from. Waytha in the habit of playing with fire Still, it can't be denied that Uthaya looks like a trouble creator all the same but not everyone will agree that Waytha is in the same boat as his brother in Malaysia. The younger brother is more noted for creating trouble for the country abroad by drawing unwelcome attention to the country's shoddy human rights record. This includes the overwhelmingly Malay police asking Indian policemen to join them in beating up Indian youths in custody. He's also in the peculiar habit of "playing with fire", to quote the Home Ministry's favourite phrase, by pointing out that Article 153 in the Federal Constitution makes no mention of any Special Privileges, is confined to only a reasonable proportion in four areas – civil service, institutions of higher learning, scholarships, business opportunities – and besides covers non-Malays as well. Uthaya has the annoying habit of demanding to know why local authorities are denying even cendol licences to Indians. Uthaya must be racist if he wants to enjoy cendol sold only by Indians. He has also been pointing out that 5,000 Indian scrap metal dealers, all unlicensed, are at the mercy of the local authorities who keep fleecing them over their status. If only Uthaya could accept that it's not nice to throw sand in the rice-bowl of others. If the scrap metal dealers are all licensed, it would indeed be difficult for those in enforcement at the local authorities to keep their families in the style they have become accustomed to ever since the advent of scrap metal. In the case of the straight A Indian students denied government scholarships and places in local universities, Uthaya should know that there are "too many Indian lawyers and doctors in the country". He should accept that there are others who want to be doctors and lawyers as well even if they are not straight A students. Indians love their MIC leaders too much to let them suffer It's strange that only ten per cent of the Indians are fighting back and that the rest, including 350,000 stateless people, are living in the hope that "some nice things will happen to them someday with no effort on their part". Meanwhile, they want to keep a good distance from the Hindraf trouble creators especially since they love their MIC leaders too much despite these gutless wonders squatting on them all these years. MIC leaders are human beings too and could do with the scraps and crumbs that come their way now and then from the powers-that-be in return for delivering Indian votes en bloc. It's no coincidence that the Hindraf brothers are lawyers, noted trouble-creators from among Indians. In any case, this bad habit among lawyers will soon be a thing of the past since the Certificate in Legal Practice (CLP) has been ingeniously designed to weed out future trouble-creators. The Indian lawyers are kidding themselves if they take others for fools. Any Tom, Dick and Harry can be a lawyer – the thrust of the CLP -- as long as trouble-creators can be weeded out. Therein the challenge facing the ten per cent of Indians in the country addicted to trouble-making as the nation heads towards the 13th General Election.
Joe Fernandez is a mature law student, among others, who loves to write. He feels compelled, as a semi-retired journalist, to put pen to paper -- or rather the fingers to the computer keyboard -- whenever something doesn't quite jell with his weltanschauung (worldview). He shuttles between points in the Golden Heart of Borneo formed by the Sabah west coast, Labuan, Brunei, northern Sarawak and the watershed region in Borneo where three nations meet.
|
| Posted: 11 Feb 2013 12:54 PM PST
The poison is being stirred in the minds of the grassroots, that if the DAP is allowed to hold power with Pakatan, the Malays will lose all. The most interesting part of this campaign is that the Malays have already lost to the 'Chinese businesses' and are struggling to survive. Amir Ali, Free Malaysia Today An unchallenged BN has resulted in the coalition to be complacent, allowing the creeping of all forms of extremism within its ranks. A quick look at the ruling Barisan National's 'moderate' call shows how flawed it is, with a definite failure at home. Moderation is the name, says the Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak who has joined in the creation of an international alliance of the moderates, to prove his commitment. Yet, with his flight to Gaza and his outright support for the Hamas, has it not exposed the flaws at the international level? By no means, is the Hamas a moderate movement. It has been said, in the past, that the BN government has one major flaw. Complacency is the name. The fact of being unchallenged for decades has led the BN to be complacent, allowing the creeping of all forms of extremism within its ranks. Pressed by the rising opposition forces, BN has acquired yet another major weakness. The ruling coalition, pushed in a corner, does not know how to deal with this forceful and powerful opposition. Hence, we saw the cats coming out of the bag of extremism. While the central powers within the BN claim they are in favor of moderation, their partners and supporters do not seem to agree with them. Many among the supporters of the ruling coalition reject the '1Malaysia' concept, insisting on the pursuing the ethnic divide. To them, Malay rule is sacred, but what is more important is the denial of others' rights. Nevertheless, the BN is pushing a silent campaign against the opposition. Among the Malays, there are fears that the 'Chinese will rule' if the Pakatan Rakyat comes to power. Many still believe, in the very heartlands of the Pakatan's power bases, that the Malays must go back to the Umno. When asked why? They would reply that the Malays owes a lot to the Umno, or that they cannot afford the Chinese to take over. The fact that Malay political rule is a salient point in the Umno-BN campaign is indicative of the failure of the 'wasatiyah'. It also shows a lack of control of the PM on his troops, and of the Umno grassroots. It simply does not make sense that a party leader promoting moderation, allows his grassroots to campaign solidly on 'Malay power'. Read more at: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2013/02/12/the-flawless-wasatiyah/ |
| 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