Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Too many spanners in the works
Over-politicised political campaign
The real enemies of the state
Suaris Interview: The Future of Malays #4
Proton distorts market, bleeds Malaysians
We Need a new Huguan Siou
Gangnam style

Posted: 17 Feb 2013 05:22 PM PST

Now here we have a prime minister who was educated by missionary brothers in St John's Institution and went to the University of Nottingham which have crucifixes on every steeple and wall — and that has not altered his faith as a Muslim. And while he is espousing 1Malaysia wherever he goes, there are the likes of Ibrahim who want to cosy up to him yet, spew rhetorical divisive venom.

Terence Fernandez, The Malay Mail

LET'S be honest. The prime minister is in the fight of his life. In an interview with The Malay Mail in December, Datuk Seri Najib Razak acknowledged that going into GE13 is not only the biggest challenge of his political career, but also in his 59-plus years of existence!

Truth be told, he needs support from all sides to win. But it appears that his biggest obstacles to gaining the mandate he needs, and whom many say he deserves, appears to be within his own party and administration.

There are many examples to cite. From the top of one's head, the Christmas open house in 2010 where he was the guest of honour comes to mind. Here, a senior officer from his office instructed the hosts at St John's Cathedral to remove all religious signs and ensure there was no singing of hymns.Jingle Bells was fine.

Then there is so called "supporters" or BN-Umno friendly NGOs like Perkosa — sorry I mean Perkasa — and its head honcho Ibrahim Ali (whom I'm ashamed to say is from my beloved home state of Kelantan) who incite people to burn Bibles!

One is sure Ibrahim was just making political speak and never intended to burn anything but his bridges with the non-Muslim community. But the fact remains that his association with the present ruling coalition will damage the later's chances with non-Muslim voters at the polls.

Then we have political partners who have been tainted by allegations of abuse of power and graft. These individuals should do the right thing and step aside instead of clinging on to power.

It is akin to a child caught with his hands in the cookie jar but not only denying it — but demanding another piece.

Of course, the reality of politics is that some of these politicians are powerful allies who can deliver blocks of votes hence, political expediency demands that they be tolerated — but for awhile.

However wether the voters will be able to stomach this impunity is another matter.

We also have administrators who act contrary to the interests of their political masters.

The chaos on the streets during the Bersih 3.0 rally is one, where the on-going criticisms of highhandedness of the police is going to resonate with some at the polling booth.

And closer to home The Malay Mail is now being investigated for criminal defamation for carrying reports on the death of a young woman in a police shooting, in Klang last month.

While it may be within its rights to probe us, our stand is that it is intimidation and an attempt to silence the Press.

The fact that I received calls from the Prime Minister's Office querying on that matter, reflects the concerns at the top.

And while the 100-or-so armed invaders in Lahad Datu are being given a taste of Malaysian hospitality, our authiorities kick out an Australian senator merely because he seems to be cavorting with the Opposition.

Again, the law is completely on the government's side.

Unfortunately, the spirit of the law is often ignored, hence the accusations of selective persecution.

Najib, with all his efforts — drum beating and all — has received kudos from a large section of the Malaysian public. As an individual leader, he has the best chance of regaining his two-thirds. But my take is, it will not happen.

"In Najib we trust" was our headlines on Friday. While this may be true for many, sad to say the same cannot be said for some of those who are expected to be his close allies and right arm.

But the prime minister did say in the interview to "give me a chance".

Let him have his mandate and see the reforms that will take place.

One is eager to give him that chance. The only nagging issue for me is the words of Najib's predecessor Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi when I interviewed him in 2008.

"So what if I get 90 per cent of the mandate? If Umno does not want me, what can I do?" I want to believe that Najib is made of sterner stuff.

Over-politicised political campaign

Posted: 17 Feb 2013 05:19 PM PST

These strategies and approaches are being adopted by political parties on both sides. While a popularist approach might be attractive, it does great disservice and damage to the political process. Malaysians must show their displeasure with what is being adopted by political parties and call on political leaders and candidates to articulate the substantive issues of governance and why they deserve our vote.

Denison Jayasooria, The Malay Mail

POLITICAL party strategists are free to be creative and innovative in drawing voters.

As we get closer to GE13 we are seeing worrying trends which we must resist and call upon politicians from both the political divide to focus on the core issues and not divert to what could be called unhealthy approaches

We are seeing the trend towards entertainment such as spicy dance girls and engaging popular foreign artists.

We also see others approaching political campaigning with incitement of burning religious scriptures, the justification for two-third majority to deny individuals of citizenship. Yet others are giving out numerous goodies through public funds in an unsustainable and short term focus only.

These strategies and approaches are being adopted by political parties on both sides. While a popularist approach might be attractive, it does great disservice and damage to the political process.

Malaysians must show their displeasure with what is being adopted by political parties and call on political leaders and candidates to articulate the substantive issues of governance and why they deserve our vote.

Recently at the Malaysia Strategic Outlook Conference organised by ASLI Malaysia I highlighted five general trends toward GE13 which have long-term damaging effects. It is often said that politicians are just concern for short term either capturing power or retaining it.

As responsible citizens, we must call on all political parties and potential candidates to focus on the real issues and not be distracted by side shows.

Trend 1 — Politicisation of race and religion The worrying trend is the increasing reference to race and religion in political speeches. Here we see the incitement to burning bibles on one side and another is the poster war of political faces at Thaipusam. These are not election posters but non-Muslims seeking to ride on a religious festival through popularity or crowd catching.

Concern has been expressed by the silence of political leaders linked to the Federal administration especially on extremely sensitive issues like incitement to burn bibles. The efforts by Kelantan chief minister in visiting the Penang Catholic Bishop and the efforts by civil society to re-agenda the burning of bibles to reading the bible are brilliant efforts by society to defuse the issues in the spirit of moderation, tolerance and appreciation.

However these efforts were not initiated by Federal linked officials nor were there any action by the authorities. It is essential to reaffirm certain parameters for political talk and action. Malaysia has reached a stage of political maturity that we must focus on substantive political discourse and not a cheap fling on emotive aspects.

Trend 2 — Politicisation of welfare and assistance There is a battle on the ground to give out short term, dependency driven cash hand-outs which is unsustainable. Federal and state politicians are using public funds to induce a culture of dependency which is unhealthy

Trend 3 — Politicisation of the administration Federal and state officials and machinery are being used for political purposes. While ministers and Exco members officiate functions, the events are more like election campaigning. In some situations funds are being channelled via NGOs or voluntary oganisations to the grassroots. Its recipients are not broad base but focused on supporters or linked to political leaders.

There is a thin line here between services and political favouritism. We must as citizens demand that all public sector agencies at all levels of government at Federal, state and local government must be A-political and politically neutral, serving all its citizens irrespective of political affiliation or association.

Trend 4 — Politicisation of Election Commission

While the Election Commission (EC) has taken efforts to explain the situation such as the reliability of the voter list, the recent Sabah Royal Commission of Inquiry via the statement of witnesses is impacting the credibility and neutrality of the agencies involved especially the schemes to enlarge the voter base through granting of citizenship to establishment favouring citizenship seekers from neighbouring countries.

There is much distrust and it will be helpful for EC to work closely with civil society such as Bersih and Transparency International to enhance its image rather than seeing these public interest citizens based networks as just anti-establishment.

The EC appointment of Election observers under tight conditions have not instilled greater public confidence. The conditions and type of organisations accredited must be reviewed so as to regain public confidence.

However the matter for long-term structural change is the way EC commissioners are appointed. It must be a transparent and independent process with non-former civil servants appointed in contrast to the current composition.

Trend 5 — Politisation of public discourse and media coverage

Political discourse is most often propaganda style with mainstream media focused on pro administration and the social media for alternative views. While there has been a number of public debates, this approach is not popular among the politicians in a face to face debate. A majority shy away from these and those from the current administration.

The very propaganda style is not good for the best interest of the citizen.

The citizen-voter must be able to hear what the policies and provisions are in a calm and conducive environment. There must be a lively debate and interaction on issues pertaining to good governance, economic growth and equitable distribution, accountability and human rights compliance

The real test is why any political party or candidate should secure a vote. The politicians must explain why. They must from all side focus on the substantive concerns and make a commitment.

There must be a greater commitment for public reasoning. We must not treat the voter as uninterested in policy discussions and future trends of the nation. Some tends to treat voters as ignorant and only interested in hand-outs. The 2008 election results showed this was a wrong perspective. Malaysians are matured citizens who must insist that national interest and not personal interest is the character of the new politics. Some key policy areas of national concern which potential candidates must be able to answer are:

• What are your policies to ensure economic growth and equitable distribution whereby inequality is addressed?

• How would you ensure all-inclusive socio-economic development?

• How would you address issues pertaining to ethnic discrimination, abuse of power such as excessive use of force by enforcement and curtail corruption?

• How would you ensure all communities have their cultural and religious rights protected?

• How would you protect and promote human rights and strengthen the human rights institutions and accountability at the parliament level?

At the end of the day it is the citizen-voters, who set the agenda. They must not be passive and let these negative trends dominate Malaysian politics. They must set the agenda and ensure politicians and political parties are more accountable and treat the citizen-voter with greater respect and dignity

Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria is the Principal Research Fellow, Institute of Ethnic Studies (Kita), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) & secretary-general Proham (Society for the Promotion of Human Rights.

The real enemies of the state

Posted: 17 Feb 2013 01:47 PM PST

By deporting Senator Nick Xenophon, the Malaysian authorities have given the impression that there is something to hide.

S Vell Paari, FMT

When I arrived in Kuala Lumpur from Perth two days ago, the first SMS that I received upon switching on my mobile phone was that Australian senator Nick Xenophon had been detained at the Low Cost Carrier Terminal (LCCT) and was awaiting deportation for allegedly being an "enemy of the state".

The enemy of the state claim, to me, was bewildering.

Setting aside his scheduled meetings with Anwar Ibrahim and certain NGOs, wasn't he and the delegation representing all the political parties in Australia scheduled to meet with the Election Commission and Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri Abdul Aziz as well?

When a senior federal minister of Malaysia and the Election Commission could see fit to schedule a meeting with Senator Xenophon, where is this security treat?

Let's be frank, Senator Xenophon is not an independent observer, he is aligned to Anwar and Pakatan Rakyat but have not our leaders like Xenophon been critical of foreign countries and their policies. Were this leaders considered a security threat and deported when they arrived in those countries?

Dr Mahathir Mohamad during his tenure as prime minister made various threats against the US and Australia, was he ever deported during any of his visits there? Even recently he made statements against the US and Hilary Clinton but when he went there to receive an award, he was not deported for being an enemy of the state.

It took three Bersih rallies before we realised that it is best to give an approval in the case of the Himpunan Rakyat, where everything proceeded peacefully and with praise for the police.

Similarly, we should have just allowed Senator Xenophon together with the delegation to carry out their visit, hold their meetings, state their views and return back to Australia, without drama.

By choosing to deport him, we have turned him into a hero. By deporting him, we have given the world an impression that we have something to hide.

Just two weeks ago we had a similar group from Europe who came to look into the government's control over the mainstream media and their statement was not favorable to the government, which was aired by certain mainstream TV channels and online media.

The real security threat

What about George Soros? He visited Malaysia to launch his book. This man was accused of attempting to destroy the Malaysian economy and to bring Malaysia to its knees to beg IMF's help. But was he deported as an enemy of state?

It is these sort of double standard approaches that brew disaster for Barisan Nasional.

For example, recently about a 100 rebel fighters from the Philippines landed in Sabah fully armed. And the Home Ministry is still figuring out how to deal with them. Is this not a major security treat? Were they deported?

I think it must have been Xenophon's V-neck T Shirt which is the cause for the security threat.

Posted: 17 Feb 2013 12:57 PM PST

Najib promised to, borrowing his latest buzzword, "transform" his administration. How could he possibly do that when all his ministers would again stand for election? If they win, they would surely again be ministers. What transformation did he have in mind? Hishammudin becoming Women's Minister?

M. Bakri Musa

Suaris Interview: The Future of Malays Part 4: It is said that Malays are at a crossroad. This is particularly so with the upcoming General Election 13 where the choice is between feudalism and liberalism. To what extent do you agree with that viewpoint?

[The original in Malay appeared in suaris.wordpress.com on February 6, 2013.]

MBM: I agree that we Malays are at a critical juncture. Our choice is between continuing on the present path that has led us to where we are today, with our minds still trapped, or make a sharp turn towards liberating them. Remember that the path to the dumpsite is the one well-trodden.

I do not agree that the forthcoming election (GE 13) will be a choice between liberalism and feudalism, as I understand both terms. Instead it will be between a party that has grown old, tired, and bankrupt of ideas versus another that is young, vigorous, and full of fresh talent.

As an aside, "liberalism" to me means a system that treats every human as having certain inalienable rights or freedoms granted unto him (or her) by Almighty Allah, among them, the freedom of thought, to choose our leaders, own properties, and pursue happiness. Feudalism on the other hand was the social system prevailing in Medieval Europe where humans were either lords or peasants. Land, property and peasants belonged to the lords. Your fate and place in society was determined at birth and remained fixed throughout life. Meaning, born a peasant, and you would remain one until death.

Clearly from the perspective of respect for human lives and values, liberalism is closer to Islam than is feudalism.

True, Malay society today still retains many feudal elements. Nonetheless we are free to choose our leaders. Even though we could not choose our sultans, we do not consider ourselves slaves to them. Yes, we use the term "patek" in referring to ourselves when addressing a member of the royalty. That is merely a habit. A sultan can no longer grab a village maiden for his palace collection. We hitherto peasants could now (if we wish to and can afford it) own a house more palatial than the istana and drive a car that could overtake the sultan's in speed, price and glamour.

Returning to GE13, before we make a decision as to which party to vote for, it is prudent to do a downstream analysis. There can only be three possible outcomes. First, Barisan be returned to power; second, Pakatan to prevail; and third, neither winning a decisive victory. By decisive I mean where the buying of a handful of victorious candidates would not alter the balance of power a la Perak 2008.

If Barisan were to win, that would mean voters approve of the current pervasive corruption and abuse of power. We would have gone further, essentially rewarding those who have destroyed MAS, Perwaja, Bank Bumiputra, and others. Expect the greed of ministers and their families to grow unabated. Our rotten system of education would continue its decline. Our professors and academic leaders would continue to be chosen based not on their scholarly contributions but their ability to suck up to the politically powerful. Najib would continue to lead as he has for the last four years – delivering an alphabet soup of acronyms, endless exhortations, and a surfeit of sloganeering, much like the character in Shannon Ahmad's short story Uggapan (Slogans).

Barisan leaders are scaring citizens into believing that our stability depends on their winning the election. On the contrary, if Barisan fails to secure a greater victory than in 2008, (no one is predicting it will win a supra majority), there will be an ugly power struggle at the top. The Najib/Muhyyuddin rivalry would eclipse the earlier Abdullah/Najib power struggle in its messiness. It would be even uglier than the Mahathir/Ku Li confrontation a generation earlier. The permanent establishment would be paralyzed, not knowing which faction to support. Mahathir has already sharpened the knife that he used with devastating effectiveness on Abdullah. This time the victim would be Najib.

In defeat, there would be much soul searching in Pakatan. Perhaps their leaders would now resolve to focus on the things that they could agree on that would benefit the nation and citizens, as with eradicating corruption and abuse of power, ensuring justice, improving the education system, while distancing themselves from such meaningless symbolic items as with an Islamic state and who could use the word "Allah." Those obsessions do not contribute to the well being of citizens, on the contrary, they divide us.

The second possible outcome would be a Pakatan victory. That would not mean that all our problems would magically disappear. Far from it! First, Pakatan leaders are only human; there would be a great temptation to regard their victory as a bountiful harvest. There are many more family disputes during such times! Expect a not-so-pretty grab for positions, and contentious issues like who would be Deputy Prime Minister and whether he (unlikely a she) would be a Malay or non-Malay. There would also be the jostling for key portfolios as with education, finance, and internal affairs. Those are to be expected.

The pettiness would challenge the wisdom and patience of Pakatan leaders. If they were to behave like kids at Hari Raya or Chinese New Year greedily grabbing duit rayas and ang pows, then their future and also that of the nation would indeed be gloomy. However, if they were to consider their victory not as Hari Raya but the beginning of Ramadan, meaning, a time to be tested, patient, and diligent, then their and our future would be bright.

More interesting is to imagine what would happen to UMNO in defeat. Those who joined the party not for the sake of the party and country but for their greed would quickly abandon it. Their flow of opium would be cut off. Meanwhile the new 2M team of Mahathir and Muhyuddin would be merciless on Najib. Erstwhile sleepy supporters of the equally soporific Abdullah Badawi would now be intent on exacting revenge on the two sides.

As ugly and embarrassing as that would be to Malays, it would bring only good to UMNO. The party would begin its slow and long overdue rehabilitation, back to it glorious past. Its members would now be limited only to those who truly love and are passionate about the organization and of Malays. The party might once again be the pride and love of our people and not as at present, an enabler for the corrupt and criminal.

There are two other much more meaningful consequences to an UMNO defeat. Consider that the corruption of Khir Toyo, former Chief Minister of Selangor, was only exposed with Pakatan winning the state. Had UMNO won in 2008, that slimy character would now still be its chief executive, with his greed and corrupt ways unabated. Because Pakatan won, he is now awaiting jail, pending appeal, for his corruption conviction. There are many Khir Toyos at the federal level; they could only be exposed with a Pakatan victory.

The second important consequence would be on members of the permanent establishment, from senior civil servants and heads of GLCs to sultans and professors. They would now realize that their careers are no longer dependent on their skills at sucking up to Barisan. They would be forced to examine themselves carefully and not be so politically partisan. The future of their careers would now depend on their dedication, diligence and professionalism, not their political skills and leanings. That could only be good for the country generally and its administration specifically.

Many, especially in UMNO, predict a vicious racial riot a la May 1969 with the party's defeat. I totally disagree. First, in 1969 the power shifted from Malays (UMNO) to Chinese (DAP). If UMNO were to lose in the coming election, power would still be in Malay hands except that those Malays would not be from UMNO. Second, our society is much more wise and mature now. The Chinese for example need not have to parade with their dragons to show off their might. A look around KL and Penang would be enough to reassure them and others. And if Malays were to run amok on the streets, those luxury bungalows and BMWs they would burn down might just belong to the likes of Khir Toyo and Abdullah Badawi!

In 1969 UMNO was still Malay, and Malays, UMNO. Today conditions have changed radically, as evidenced by the recent massive KL112 rally.

Extremists like Ibrahim the Frog could easily be taken care of. An offer of a directorship or two and trips to Macao would silence them. Alternatively, do not impede the anti-corruption agency. I am simply amused that Malay leaders from Mahathir to the academic Ramlah Adam would pin the hopes of our race to characters like Ibrahim the Frog.

For Malaysians, the greatest consequence to a Barisan defeat would be that we actually get to experience and benefit the meaning of free elections. That is, by merely putting an "X" in the appropriate box on the ballot paper, we could change our government. There is no need to riot or demonstrate on the streets. A Barisan defeat would effectively demonstrate the true meaning of checks and balances in a democracy.

The third and worst possible consequence would be if neither party were to win convincingly. We had a glimpse of that ugliness in Perak following the 2008 election. All, politicians from Barisan to Pakatan and members of the establishment from civil servants to the sultan, did not shine. Their behavior brought shame to the nation. They however, were oblivious of that.

Expect that, only worse, in Putrajaya. The behavior of these politicians would be more flagrant than those of the ladies of the evening. As odious as that would be, there would be some redeeming values. We would finally see those politicians for what they really are, worse than those prostitutes at Chow Kit Road. At least those ladies had the morality not to sell themselves so openly and in broad daylight.

The odiousness would so enrage many that able and honest citizens would now be encouraged if not compelled to offer themselves as candidates in the future. That can only be good! We would finally get to appreciate the awesome power of the ballot booth and that elections have consequences, prompting us to be more prudent the next time we vote. That is one invaluable lesson.

In short, the best outcome for Malaysia in GE 13 would be for Pakatan to win convincingly. Next would be for neither side to do so. The worst outcome would be for Barisan to be returned to power. Stated differently, a hung parliament would be a not-so-pretty Pakatan victory.

Next: Suaris Interview. The Future of Malays #5: You appear cynical towards things labeled "Islam." Many view you as not being enamored with "conservative Islam" as currently practiced by most Muslims and not with Islam itself. What's your comment?

Proton distorts market, bleeds Malaysians

Posted: 17 Feb 2013 12:51 PM PST

The thrust of the turnaround plan is to boost Proton's image by ditching the idea that cheap is the way to go. Nothing is being said here about value for money and being competitive. Obviously, bringing in a German associate company not so long ago to help with quality control is not working either.

Joe Fernandez

It's interesting that former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad should reveal at this juncture, as Proton Advisor, that the privatized national car maker is putting the finishing touches to a turnaround plan. This man has an infinite capacity to continue spewing sheer nonsense in economics.

The forthcoming 13th General Election no doubt figures prominently in the so-called turnaround plan. The idea is designed to make the embattled Barisan Nasional Government and the national car concept suddenly look attractive.

If Proton has a genuine turnaround plan, it must mean that the market distorting parasitic vendors and suppliers a la Bumiputeraism will be phased out to open up the market to competition. This will never happen as this community continues to leech off the car owners unfortunate enough to own a Proton and need spare parts and service. Opportunities, the politics dictate, are to be hogged.

The turnaround plan must also mean that there will be greater diversity in its workforce. Again, it's a non-starter, given the politics of "creating and keeping the jobs for our community alone".

For another, turnaround must pledge that Proton will somehow conjure up a new series of engines and not through sheer magic. The engine, the core of what car-manufacturing is all about, is the national car maker's Achilles heel. It has no R&D facilities worth speaking about, no world-class engineers, and all this despite Government promises of continued financial and other support in this area.

This leaves the so-called national car maker dependent on continued hand-outs from the tax-payer despite having gone private and Government protection to ensure that its market share of 50 per cent along with Perodua doesn't shrink even further.

There's a limit to how much the Government can help protect Proton's market share. Foreign makes are likely to make further inroads into the domestic market, given their economies of scale and the newly-found tendency among Proton-allergic Malaysians to fork out ever-increasing amounts to get a foreign car model which will be worth their investment.

Mahathir thinks in a contradiction in terms that producing more expensive versions, as part of the turnaround plan, will help pull Proton through and put it on the road to viability and sustainability. This hare-brained approach based on a simplistic notion fails to take into account the fact that it was a combination of Government protection, infusion of tons of money from the tax-payer and Petronas, and cheap pricing that in the first place initially won it the lion's share of the domestic market. That market share is now in grave peril as it's set to shrink year by year.

The national car project, to rub salt into the wounds, does not enjoy the kind of economies of scale that has helped world number one Toyota for example to take the world by storm. It's said that no car manufacturer can be in the game for the long-haul unless production exceeds one million units a year, a new engine model is turned out every three years, and one has a share of the world export market.

This is where Proton completely falls apart on all counts.

Proton is congenitally incapable of raising production levels and even if could, it will not be able to sell the number unless the export market has no qualms about coming to the rescue of an uncompetitive and long outdated engine model.

Clearly, Proton thanks to Mahathir during his long innings in power has painted itself into a corner and there's no way out.

This is the end result of thinking like a communist – read Mahathir -- when it comes to economics and the market.

Communism has proven that the idea of a national anything is a non-starter and it's anybody's guess why Malaysia chose that path under Mahathir. Ignorance is bliss, a little knowledge is dangerous, and the politics of race obviously had a lot to do with it. The Proton idea appears to have been hatched by a jaguh kampung over a teh tarik at a mamak stall: "If Japan can produce cars, why can't we? etc etc . . . Malaysia Boleh!"

It's a certainty that the Proton idea would be killed in any change of Government in Putrajaya, and with good reasons. The future of the automobile industry is in India and China, a fact already recognised by global manufacturers in Japan, Korea and the West who are flocking to the two Asian giants. Proton cannot emulate the established car manufacturers to live and fight another day simply it has no standing whatsoever in the industry.

Hence, any new Government will be foolish to fork out even a sen to the ailing national car maker and this will suddenly make the future all the more dangerous for it.

If the carpet is pulled out from under the feet of vendors and suppliers, spares will suddenly dry up and car owners will ditch their vehicles in a panic. The bottom will fall out from the market. It's not clear to what extent the slack can be taken up by spares available from Japan and Taiwan.

Proton cannot continue to be an ego game at the expense of long-suffering Malaysians, especially car owners.

It was not so long ago that Proton started at the same time as Hyundai of Korea. Hyundai has gone on to achieve global recognition and ranking. Proton remains a manufacturer struggling still very much at the kampung level.

If there's one thing that has done Proton in, it's taking Mahathir's advice on car manufacturing when he's no subject matter expert. If Mahathir reads widely and everything, as his apologists claim, he should have realized this ages ago.

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.

We Need a new Huguan Siou

Posted: 17 Feb 2013 12:47 PM PST

THE CURRENT issue arising from the so-called declaration of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim as Huguan Siou has another angle to it that the people of Sabah need to be aware of. But first, I say there is NO need for Anwar or PKR to apologise to KDCA. In fact I really feel the KDCA and its president, the Huguan Siou, should instead apologise to the Kadazandusuns for failing to serve them.

Richard Libun Adou, former Vice President of KDCA

Jonathan Yasin and Datuk Wilfred Bumburing have now denied that Anwar was installed as Huguan Siou of Malaysia . But my purpose here is not to argue on that point. What I want to state is that there is a powerful reason why Anwar was declared, (oh, okay, given a sash that says) "Huguan Siou of Malaysia ."

The reason this happened is that the new generation of Kadazandusuns are hungry for real leadership because their original Huguan Siou, Tan Sri Joseph Pairin Kitingan, has become weak, ineffective and no longer acts as a fighter for the rights of the Kadazandusuns and Muruts (KDMs). To them, their Huguan Siou is a just a puppet with no teeth or courage to say and do what need to be said and done.

The title of "Huguan Siou," I think, was chosen by the PKR leaders of Paginatan because they wanted Anwar to be seen mainly as a new leader of the KDMs. They could have chosen another word for "paramount leader" but unfortunately, the Kadazandusun language doesn't have any other word for that has equal weight as "huguan siou."

Maybe it would have been a better decision to use a Malay title, like "Pahlawan Reformasi Malaysia" or something, but it would still be not as meaningful as "Huguan Siou" in the context of Sabah.

Unfortunately, this decision rattled a lot of people. They have forgotten that the words simply mean "paramount leader" or "highest leader." Is the name really sacred? Is the KDCA the only body who has the exclusive right to use the name which is in the KDCA's Kadazan Dusun Malay-English Dictionary?

What if another Kadazandusun association wants to give their president the same title? I believe in the old days each village in Penampang had its own huguan siou, so they were more than one huguan sious walking around in those days!

Whatever the arguments going on about this, one thing is clear: the new generation of KDMs are crying out for a new and dynamic leadership which is strong and courageous in fighting for their cause. They need something new which fits the needs of the KDMs in the new globalized world. They feel that Pairin has betrayed them by being on a political platform which to most of them is against their spirit for rights and dignity.

Many of them also feel that the Huguan Siou shouldn't be a politician, but someone who serves his people socially and culturally without any political affiliation. As it is Pairin is a Member of Parliament for Keningau, assemblyman for Tambunan and a deputy chief minister. With these responsibilities he has no more time to serve as Huguan Siou, or even as president of the KDCA.

And because of this the KDCA has become weak and inactive. It no longer works aggressively to pursue the objectives listed in its constitution. It is as if KDCA has lost its spirit because its Huguan Siou is no longer osiou (brave) enough to do and say the right things because it has become subservient to a greater master.

KDCA has become so quiet and lethargic, making noise only during the Pesta Kaamatan. A former deputy president of KDCA had prepared a strategic plan for KDCA to become more active and productive, but this was never implemented.

This is so unfortunate because the Kadazandusuns are having their vision confused and blurred in a very challenging time. At one time the association was at least producing a good number of books, but now this productivity has stopped. It needs to organize the young members to compliment their knowledge and skills, or at least boost their morale and spirit and be proud of KDCA and their Huguan Siou.

There is a need to groom them for leadership in their community. There is also a need for documentation works to record countless aspects of the cultural heritage which is fast disappearing, It cannot use the excuse that KDCA doesn't have the money because most activities, like producing CDs of traditional musical performance, need very little money, but such CDs can be sold to tourists for good income.

Also Pairin and Dr. Maximus Ongkili if they wanted it aggressively, can get government funding for many worthy causes, such as youth leadership seminars, or cottage industry courses. Sadly these are not done by KDCA or the Koisaan Co-operative because of a lack of dynamic and creative leadership.

In fact by now the Koisaan Co-operative should already have a franchise of KDM-owned minimarkets all over Sabah offering discount prices to KDMs. The immigrant people such as the Bugis and Pakistanis have their respective bodies to help their own people go into business but we the so-called proud natives are unable to do this.

Even the management of the Pesta Kaamatan at the Hongkod ground had overlooked the need to help our own people as proven by the mistake of charging extremely high rental for the stalls and canopies during the Pesta Kaamatan. The rent are so high that many sellers had to share stalls. This is against the spirit of helping our own people.

It will hurt the feelings of many KDMs when someone says the Paramount Leader may have become a No-amount Leader, but this is the reality of our fate as a people. We don't dare tell our leaders there need to step down no matter how ineffective he has become, thinking that such an advise would go against the sacred, or that it will cause ousung (cursed for going against an elder). But the truth is the concept of ousung is dragging us back into the stone age.

Gangnam style

Posted: 17 Feb 2013 12:25 PM PST

Young people may well enjoy watching Psy on YouTube — the music is infectious and the dance steps are great fun but that doesn't mean they'd select their leaders in the same way: entertainment is one thing, politics is another.

Political strategists have been very focused on how to win over Malaysia's all-important new voters. There are now more than five million young people aged 20-29, most of whom are first-time voters with no clear political loyalties.

Over the Chinese New Year in Penang, the prime minister made a stab at winning their support. Sharing a stage with the global YouTube sensation Psy of "Gangnam Style" fame, he sought to enhance his "coolness" and therefore his electability.

Firstly, it's worth mentioning that YouTube sensations like Psy are exactly that — momentary blips on the radar of celebrity. Bringing him into Malaysia to drum up support shows that Barisan Nasional is behind the curve in understanding this youthful demographic because these fads pass very, very quickly. They aren't anticipating or leading: they're just following.

Secondly, if Malaysia was a presidential-style democracy, such tactics might stand a chance.

However, we are not. For better or for worse, we've adopted the Westminster system: a system that requires strong political parties, solid constituency representation as well as an adept collective leadership.

Thirdly, the event with Psy also reveals the pitfalls of seeking to win over the younger voters by associating yourself with something "cool". Being "cool" isn't easy. Moreover, once you try too hard you're instantly the opposite of cool, something the PM experienced on that stage on Monday as he implored people to vote for Barisan.

Finally, there's also a major tactical error at work. Young people may well enjoy watching Psy on YouTube — the music is infectious and the dance steps are great fun but that doesn't mean they'd select their leaders in the same way: entertainment is one thing, politics is another.

For young Malaysians and especially those with degrees, the issues they're facing are very straight-forward. A cool PM is great but one who can solve sky-rocketing car prices, dismal starting salaries and the soaring price of housing would be truly rocking...

With this in mind, I've spent some time talking to some Malaysian graduates — especially those pouring out of the country's 20 public universities and 50 or so private institutions of higher learning.

For them, the job market is extremely challenging. A 2011 Graduate Tracking Index released by the Ministry of Higher Education in September 2012 revealed that at least 40,000 of these graduates were unemployed 12 months after they had completed their studies.

Johari (not his real name) is recent graduate from the International Islamic University (IIU) in Gombak, Kuala Lumpur. First mooted under the current Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim when he was in the administration, the IIU with its lavish suburban campus has become a leading tertiary educational institution, in part because the course-work is conducted in English.

Working at a non-profit, Johari earns a seemingly comfortable RM3,000 per month. However, as he explains his take-home pay is very quickly reduced to a far more modest amount:

"I'm every lucky that my parents live within commuting distance of the city. Friends from Terengganu or elsewhere have to fork out another RM400-500 on accommodation. Having said that, I spend about the same amount on my transport, leaving home every morning by 6.15am. More often than not, I only get back to the house by 10 or 11 at night."

Transport is a big chunk of Johari's monthly expenditure. He'd like to buy a car but he knows he can't afford to run it and more especially pay for parking in the city.

Separately, he resents Malaysia's inflated car prices — a legacy of the Mahathir era especially that of the national car project Proton.

"I go on the Internet and compare prices for cars in Malaysia with Thailand or elsewhere. We're paying so much more for the same models because of the duties!" In fact, he's read the criticisms of the Malaysian automotive policy from the up-and-coming opposition politician Rafizi Ramli.

Johari adds: "I'm not a political person but I have to agree with Rafizi's arguments."

However, Johari stresses that he does not necessarily agree with all of the opposition's populist rhetoric. For example, he rejects their more radical views on student loans dished out by PTPTN (National Higher Education Fund Corporation).

"I believe we should be responsible for paying for our own tertiary education. However, I would add that if we're good students and win better grades this should lessen our repayments." At the moment, he's accumulated some RM28,000 in student loans that he's paying off at the rate of RM100 per month. He acknowledges that he won't settle this debt until he reaches 40.

Housing is a further source of complaint and he says: "I don't know if I'll ever be able to afford a house in the Klang Valley. I imagine that I'll have to settle for a small flat somewhere. Saving enough money for a deposit will take a very long time and that's before we're even talking about marriage! As graduate I should be able to bring mas kahwin (dowry) of at least RM12-15,000. My last girlfriend was quite straightforward about her expectations. Status really matters."

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Isnin, 18 Februari 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan