Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- Double standard, one-sided, 7.25%
- When all else fails, use Sedition Act
- Constitutional posers for GE13
- Freedom to be loyal
- Judiciary has failed the rakyat
- Not many date options are left
- Arguing for an anti-party hopping law
- What I’d Like For GE are My Two Front Teeth… No Crime…
- Defining our political future
- Najib’s election dilemma
- Cocky BN needs to repent
- Replacing national flag: chasing after fantasy demons?
- Janji Demokrasi – the real Merdeka event
- Nefarious act of betrayal
- Doing battle over land deals
| Double standard, one-sided, 7.25% Posted: 07 Sep 2012 02:40 PM PDT The double-standard practice and one-sided action seen during the current tenure of the incumbent government should be put to a stop. Selena Tay, FMT It cannot be denied that the political temperature has gone up a notch after the recent Merdeka Day celebrations. In taking a swipe at Pakatan Rakyat, Defence Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi recently mentioned that Barisan Nasional has fulfilled more than 87% of its promises since the first parliamentary election in 1959 when it was known as the Alliance. From the first parliamentary election till now, it has been 12 terms that BN has been in power. "Take 87% divide 12 terms and you get 7.25%. This means that for each term BN only managed to fulfil 7.25% of its promises," said Mahfuz Omar, PAS MP for Pokok Sena in Kedah. Zahid had also mentioned that Pakatan has fulfilled less than 15% of its promises. Countered Mahfuz: "We still win hands down. Fulfilling 14% of our promises per one parliamentary term is still more than BN's 7.25% per term. That is if Zahid still wants to play with figures." This is a clear indication that BN leaders are poor in maths. This is evident when Umno leaders also like to tell their Malay constituents that DAP wants to control the nation after the coming 13th general election. How can DAP control the nation when it is contesting only 50 parliamentary seats? There are a total of 222 parliamentary seats and even if DAP were to win all its 50 seats, it is not even one-third of the total. Does this not show the mathematical skills of BN leaders? To-date, BN has continued to harp on its "Janji Ditepati" (Promises Fulfilled) theme. This theme sounds foolish when there is still a lack of basic amenities, for instance, a regular supply of clean tap water in the interior areas of Sabah and Sarawak. This problem also exists in Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak's home state of Pahang, especially in the Jengka areas as reported by a local Malay daily. Sabah and Sarawak are also lacking in good roads, especially in the rural and interior areas. Another example is good bus transport; for instance, in the 1990s there was regular bus service for the Taman Bukit Maluri, Kepong-KL route. Now there is no bus service for this route. Promises by the government to improve the bus service are nothing to shout about. What about the oil royalty payments to the Kelantan government? Till today, there is absolute silence about making the payments except the setting up of an Oil Royalty Payments Committee. "Is the committee nothing but an eyewash to dupe the Kelantan voters in view of the coming general election?" asked Dzulkefly Ahmad, the PAS Kuala Selangor MP. Selective prosecution On the promise of transparency in open tenders, this promise has not been kept. The National Feedlot Corporation contract is one such example. "The mainstream media has blanked out the government's misdeeds, mistakes and failures in keeping promises. Therefore, the majority of the people especially those in the rural areas are kept in the dark. This is done with the intention of keeping them ignorant so that they will continue to vote for the incumbent government," said Dzulkefly. One-sided media coverage during BN's tenure is one thing. Another thing is the misdeed of the current government in using its lackeys to bully opposition leaders. These lackeys delivered "shit-cakes" to Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng as well as holding a mock funeral rite for him and stepping on his posters, yet these are not highlighted by the mainstream media. In a recent incident earlier this month, another group of lackeys threw a shoe into a mosque in Kedah when Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim was giving a religious talk. Besides, the lights and loudspeaker were repeatedly switched off and when Anwar started to speak using a loudhailer, the mosque's siren was suddenly activated. These lackeys seem to be above the law. Are they entitled to ride roughshod over the rakyat? "No action is taken on these goons as they are the devil's own. Selective prosecution seems to be the order of the day but if the opposition makes a mistake, the government-controlled media will go to town over it," said Dzulkefly. Finally, there is also the broken promise regarding the cleaning of the voter rolls. This issue needs no further elaboration.
|
| When all else fails, use Sedition Act Posted: 06 Sep 2012 04:26 PM PDT The act of arresting, handcuffing and detaining 19-year-old Ong Sing Yee will start a backlash against the authorities. Mariam Mokhtar, FMT In the past, Malaysia's Sedition Act 1948 was used to silence the political adversaries of the ruling administration. Today, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak's government has deemed it necessary to curb individuals, NGOs and even teenagers. This government refuses to understand that it needs to summon the courage to tackle the necessary and urgent reforms demanded by the electorate. It should not take the easier option of hounding teenagers and people who dare criticise. The act of arresting, handcuffing and detaining 19-year-old Ong Sing Yee for 15 hours and then interrogating her without the presence of her lawyer, will start a backlash against the authorities. Ong's crime? She had been charged with sedition for stepping on posters of Najib and his wife, the self-styled First Lady Rosmah Mansor, during the Janji Demokrasi march on the eve of Merdeka Day at Dataran Merdeka. If Najib and the police would really like to make an impact, they should raid people's homes and arrest, handcuff and detain all those people, including and especially Malays, who use newspapers with Najib's photographs to line their cat litter trays. Some do this with relish, because they claim, this is their own form of silent protest. Photos of Najib seem to attract all sorts of contempt. Not so long ago. It is alleged he had to arrest boys for throwing bricks at his pictures on KTM trains. MP for Puchong, Gobind Singh Deo, had already said that stepping on photographs of the prime minister and his wife is not sedition. Najib and his wife are not rulers, nor are they the government. Najib is merely a government servant. In May, NGO and social activist Irene Fernandez was charged with sedition. A Jakarta daily reported that she had claimed Malaysia was unsafe for migrant workers. Curbing free speech In June, the Sedition Act was used by the Johor police to investigate the former Perak mentri besar, Nizar Jamaluddin for his comments on the Sultan of Johore's purchase of the car registration number plate, WWW1. The number plate had cost the Sultan RM500,000 and Nizar opined that the money could be put to a better use, such as helping the poor. Kosmo, an Utusan publication which printed two cartoons on the controversy, escaped censure. "Why the double standard in only charging me whereas no action has been taken against Kosmo for the same offence? Is it because Kosmo is an Umno paper whereas I am a Pakatan leader?" asked Nizar. At the time, Azmi Sharom, a law lecturer at the Universiti Malaya (UM) also criticised the use of the Sedition Act 1948, to prosecute individuals. "The underlying theme is the government is using all these powers to curb dissent against the government, to curb criticism of the government. "What they are doing to Nizar is very clearly to suppress his right to free speech, his opinion. This is obviously a bad law… It is bad faith on their part. If they think something is bad, then don't use it. Get it fixed first," said Azmi. Signs of desperation Najib and his administration lack original ideas to push through reforms. They have failed to act on their promises. What happened to the National Harmony Act which Najib promised last June, to replace the Sedition Act? Malaysia now has an opposition which is strongest and the most credible party to take on the BN government.
|
| Constitutional posers for GE13 Posted: 06 Sep 2012 04:03 PM PDT
Once Parliament is dissolved, a general election need not be held immediately. The Constitution permits a delay of 60 days from the date of dissolution. Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi, The Star A GENERAL election may be around the corner. So we need to brush up on our knowledge of the constitutional principles relating to elections. No fixed term: Under Article 55(3) of our Constitution, the life of Parliament is stated to be five years from the date of its first meeting. As that date was April 28, 2008, the existing Parliament will automatically dissolve when the sun rises on April 28, 2013. However, it is constitutionally permissible for the Prime Minister to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to dissolve Parliament before the expiry of its term and thereby to give himself the advantage of choosing the most favourable time for the electoral contest. This is in contrast with many Commonwealth countries including Britain which have enacted laws to have fixed term legislatures. Malaysia may wish to emulate this wholesome practice. Early dissolution: Though the King is a constitutional monarch required to act on advice, in the matter of early dissolution, he has been explicitly vested by Article 40(2)(b) with a discretion to accept or reject his PM's counsel. Conventionally, however, he always obliges though in exceptional circumstances he may not do so. Elections: Once Parliament is dissolved, a general election need not be held immediately. Article 55(4) of the Constitution permits a delay of 60 days from the date of dissolution. This means that contrary to popular expectations of early polls, the next election can be held as late as the last part of June 2013! One must note, however, that the timing is not for the PM to determine. The nomination date, the date of polling and the campaign period are in the hands of the Election Commission, which must act with independence and impartiality. The present law permits a campaign period of no less than seven days though news has it that for the next election, the EC will permit 10 days. Interim period: Between the dissolution of one Parliament and the convening of the next, who steers the ship of state? The Constitution is gloriously silent on this important issue. For this reason, the British constitutional convention is adopted that the incumbent PM who called the election continues to remain in office in a caretaker capacity. Powers of the caretaker PM: Leadership during interim periods poses problems of democratic legitimacy for the caretaker government. This is due to the fact that once Parliament is dissolved, the PM ceases to satisfy the twin requirements of Article 43(2). These requirements are that the PM must belong to the House of Representatives and he must in the judgment of the King command the confidence of the majority of the members of the House. As the House ceases to exist, the legitimacy rug is pulled from under the PM's feet. For this reason there is worldwide debate about the need to impose clear curbs on the powers of interim governments. In Australia, a Caretaker Convention has been drafted to outline that the proper role of such a government is to be a night watchman, to hold the fort, not to initiate radical policies, not to dismiss or appoint new judges or undertake significant economic initiatives. In India, the President has on several occasions vetoed caretaker governments' measures because exercise of such powers may embarrass the government to be formed. In the Malaysian case of PP v Mohd Amin Mohd Razali (2002) the court held that Article 40(1), which requires the monarch to act on advice, is not applicable if the advice is rendered by a caretaker government during the dissolution of Parliament. Hung Parliament: If no single party or coalition emerges with an absolute (50% + 1) parliamentary majority, the new legislature will be referred to as a hung Parliament. Such parliaments exist and function throughout the world but have never made an appearance in Malaysia at the federal level. Commentators are deeply divided about their demerits or merits. Appointment of PM: Whatever one's views on hung parliaments may be, it has to be conceded that they create massive problems for the Head of State on a number of issues, among them the critical one of who is to be trusted with the mantle of leadership. Several competing considerations are available. First is the incumbency rule. If no one secures an absolute majority, the caretaker PM must be given the first chance to form the government. Second, in Nepal there is a constitutional rule that in a hung Parliament, the first bite of the cherry must be offered to the leader of the largest party. Third, if a viable coalition or a unity government can be hammered out, it should get the chance to lead the nation. Fourth, if no coalition can be cobbled together, the Head of State should appoint a "minority government" that is capable of obtaining ad hoc support to pass the budget and other critical measures. If the defeated PM asks the King for an immediate "double dissolution", should His Majesty consent? It is submitted that Article 55(4) requires that after one dissolution the new parliament must be convened within 120 days. The proper course of action would be for Parliament to meet, a vote of no-confidence to be taken and then only the House dissolved for a new election unless an alternative government can be put in place. Caretaker's tenure: If the ruling party fails at the general election, must the caretaker PM who took the country to the poll resign immediately? In England Gordon Brown refused to step down till he had (unsuccessfully) exhausted efforts to form the government. If the caretaker PM refuses to step down, can the King dismiss him? If the formation of a unity or coalition government takes a long time, must the defeated Prime Minster re-main in office till a new PM is appointed? Most amazingly, Belgium went 535 days with a caretaker government because the new government took time to be pieced together. The permutations of politics are many and more than any other aspect of a nation's political life, general elections throw up issues that test our wisdom to the fullest. > Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi is Emeritus Professor of Law at UiTM
|
| Posted: 06 Sep 2012 03:59 PM PDT
An anti-hopping law would give party leaders even more power over MPs, who already cannot muster the courage to disobey the party whip if they believe that a Bill is not in the interests of their constituents. Tunku 'Abidin Muhriz, The Star MANY commentators with whom I generally agree on measures to improve our country seem to have been hoodwinked into supporting a popular anti-democratic move, namely the banning of party hopping by members of parliament and state legislators. I opposed this in a political philosophy essay I wrote at university in 2002, I opposed it in my column in 2008 and I oppose it now. The whole campaign is based on two flawed assumptions. The first is that Malaysians vote for political parties, not for individuals. This is legally untrue (our Federal Constitution refers to "individuals" elected to the Dewan Rakyat and the "individual" to be appointed Prime Minister, but never to "political parties"), but even those who understand this important distinction claim that "Malaysians vote for parties by default", which has not been scientifically verified (I suspect most Malaysians give consideration to both the party's manifesto and the candidate's background and record). If it turns out that Malaysians do in fact vote for the party rather than the candidate, they should campaign for a law to be passed to make this a legal reality, but until then, it is dangerous to fix a perceived problem based on unverified claims. The second assumption is that whenever an instance of party hopping occurs, it is the candidate who is at fault, rather than the party. Well, let us imagine that I vote for Puan Thavamani of the Feline Front because she campaigns (in accordance with the party manifesto) to ban dogs from public roads. She wins the election, but months later there is an internal party struggle. The leader is replaced, and he reverses the party policy: dogs will now be allowed to roam free everywhere. I am furious, because I supported the candidate based on this manifesto pledge. If YB Thavamani now supports canine freedom on public roads, she would be violating the trust I placed in her. At the very least, I would expect her to defy her party whip in relevant parliamentary votes. But let us imagine that party policy changes in other areas too, and it is clear that the manifesto is being disregarded to the extent that a different political party, the Cats Pact, better reflects the manifesto I supported. I would most definitely support YB Thavamani hopping from Feline Front to Cats Pact better fight for the causes that I supported. Clearly, if a no party-hopping law was in force, she could not do that. More flexible commentators agree that she should be able to hop, but must resign and re-contest. However, apart from the costs involved, this would also be a breach of my trust – I voted expecting her to serve for a full term. Furthermore, it is possible that the new result could be less democratically legitimate if the by-election has a lower turnout than at the general election (perhaps my critics will then support the undemocratic idea of compulsory voting). My detractors will say that my analogy does not apply in Malaysia, where the reality is that inducements are made to successful candidates to switch loyalties for pure political power play rather than ideological differences. Even then, there is a better way to deal with unprincipled party hopping than to attempt to ban it: namely, to democratise the political parties. At the moment, it is easy for Party Leader A to buy a candidate's support from Party Leader B because in both parties it is the party leader who decides who gets to be a candidate and where: the loyalty goes upwards. But if Party B were to instead have candidates elected by local party grassroots or even all voters in a constituency (like in US primaries), it would be much more difficult for Party Leader A to buy any support: the candidate would feel loyalty downwards, to a much larger base of people. Naturally, none of our party leaders from both sides of the divide are supporting such a scheme because they all want to hold on to the enormous powers of patronage they currently enjoy. Indeed, an anti-hopping law would give party leaders even more power over MPs, who already cannot muster the courage to disobey the party whip if they believe that a Bill is not in the interests of their constituents! So, while I certainly sympathise with those who are disgusted by unprincipled politicians, I believe that banning party hopping will not deal with the root causes. Rather, we should seek more democracy within political parties, more transparency on political party funding and more media freedom. These will help ensure that in future, any candidate who wishes to switch allegiance will better have a damn good reason to do so. > Tunku 'Abidin Muhriz is president of IDEAS
|
| Judiciary has failed the rakyat Posted: 06 Sep 2012 01:42 PM PDT Will the judiciary take all the blame if both Nor Afizal and Chuah were to commit more rapes? Jeswan Kaur, FMT It's confirmed that the two judicial experts who found statutory rape of two minors a non-issue need help in understanding what rape is – or else they will go on delivering reproachful judgments in favour of rapists. On Aug 28, Sessions Court judge Nisa Abdul Aziz released a 22-year-old electrician Chuah Guan Jiu on "good behaviour" after he was convicted of raping his then 12-year-old girlfriend twice last year. Chuah was instead bound over for three years on a RM25,000 good behaviour bond. He had committed the crime at his flat in Jalan Ru 1, Air Itam on July 18 and 19. The offence under Section 376(1) of the Penal Code carries a jail sentence of up to 20 years' jail and whipping. But Nisa decided that since the sexual act was consensual between Chuah and the victim and that he had not tricked her into the act, no "rape" had taken place. Nisa made the perpetrator's future her priority, not the fact that he had tricked his minor partner into having sex with him; the facts of the case stated that Chuah had persuaded the victim to skip school and follow him to his home, which then led to the offence being committed. So the judge thought best that Chuah be bound over for three years on a RM25,000 good behaviour bond. A shame that the judge failed to understand the psyche of a rapist who not once but twice raped his schoolgoing girlfriend. Worse still, Nisa made the probation report her "bible" in stating that Chuah did not have a prior criminal record and was a Form Two school drop-out. What is even more shocking is that Nisa, like her predecessor, Court of Appeal president Raus Shariff, displayed her ignorance on what constitutes statutory rape and that Malaysia is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) 2009. According to the Committee on the Rights of the Child – Implementation Handbook for the CRC, a girl under the age of 18 is a minor and is not in a position to give informed consent. The second-highest ranking judge in the country, Raus had opted to show concern for perpetrator Noor Afizal Azizan's "bright future" in setting aside the five-year jail term imposed on the national bowler by the Malacca High Court, and instead binding him over for good behaviour. Nor Afizal, then 19, was charged with raping his 13-year-old girlfriend at a hotel in 2010. A tragedy that Nisa and Raus have not only failed to uphold justice but they have also downplayed the crime of statutory rape, claiming, on the contrary, that consensual sex between a minor and an adult is "permissible" under the law. Nightmare for the parents By siding with the rapists, both Nisa and Raus have decided that the welfare of the rape survivors is none of their business and that irrespective of their ages, rape survivors are "party" to rape. When Raus's judgment created a public uproar, all he did in trying to clarify his decision was to say that despite being let off on a personal bond of RM25,000 for good behaviour, public interest had been served as Nor Afizal had been convicted and the offence recorded. Raus' clarification comes as a nightmare to the parents of the young girls. What do we make of such senarios – a rapist is allowed to roam about freely simply because the judge was impressed with his "credentials" or because the rapist is too young to do jail time? Are Raus and Nisa willing to take all the blame if both Nor Afizal and Chuah were to commit more rapes?
|
| Not many date options are left Posted: 05 Sep 2012 06:20 PM PDT
Lim Sue Goan, Sin Chew Daily There are not many date options left. The 13th general election is likely to fall in November this year, January or March next year. Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak recently hinted that the general election might be fall in November, as 11 is his favourite number. Therefore, people started to speculate, avoided the Deepavali and Awal Muharram on Nov 13 and 15, the polling day could fall on Nov 3, 11 or 25. However, it could also be a false alarm, as there is still no sign showing that the election will be held in November. If the Prime Minister wants to distribute candies on September 28 when the Budget is tabled, it will take time to achieve the expected effects and they would not make it by November. Najib is very likely to announce another round of the RM500 BR1M aid distribution or other people-friendly measures. The aid can be issued the earliest in December and the timing will be nice if the election is held in early next year. Feedback from the public shows positive response to the BR1M aid, even better than fuel subsidies, and it consumed only RM2.6 billion. Therefore, it is believed that the BN will not miss the opportunity to create a feel-good mood. Moreover, the factional problem of Umno has not yet been solved. Some district leaders actually ignore Najib's plan of fielding only those with the highest chance of winning, and insist to compete. The election would not come so soon before the problem is solved. Therefore, Umno leaders are very likely to authorise the party president the full authority to decide on election candidates at the annual party congress, to eliminate different voices in the party. Also, Umno is expected to motivate party members and implement the party's policy at the congress. Therefore, the possibility to have the election in November is not high. Since they have been waiting for so long, why should they take the risk now? Therefore, it is believed that the election should be held either in January or March next year. Since February 10 is the Chinese New Year, February is not suitable for campaigning. Of course, Najib would not allow the Parliament to be automatically dissolved after April 28 to avoid affecting the morale of BN's component party members. In any case, even if the election falls in November, Najib is now Malaysia's longest serving Prime Minister without his own electoral mandate, the previous record was four and a half year. It shows that the BN is really facing the most difficult political situation this time. The BN has done all it wants to fight for swing votes and its policies can no longer be changed. The people have also already made their decisions. Further delay will make the situation more chaotic, and more and more conflicts will be triggered. It is not something in favour of the BN, too. Incidents triggered by the Janji Demokrasi rally on August 30, including the move of stepping on a picture of Najib, would not affect the Pakatan Rakyat as the society has been seriously divided. The BN, instead, should be vigilant against unexpected events. For example, after two Sabah lawmakers have withdrawn from the BN and decided to support the Pakatan Rakyat, the BN should not give them more time to stir up Bumiputeras' sentiments. If the world economy does not deteriorate and the global food prices surge, it might still affect domestic prices in early next year. Therefore, based on the above analysis, January will be the best timing and the situation would turn dangerous if they fail to make good use of the opportunity.
|
| Arguing for an anti-party hopping law Posted: 03 Sep 2012 04:41 PM PDT
In conclusion, the current need for an anti-party hopping law reflects poorly on us as a democracy. Malaysia needs to move forward and away from merely voting according to party lines to voting because of individuals. Voting according to party lines restricts the voices of the people as MPs are tied to the party line and cannot represent the actual views of the people which may at times be at odds with the party he/she represents. Galvin Wong, The Malaysian Insider Recent events have focused on the topic of whether or not there should be restrictions on MPs switching sides. The hopping of Beaufort MP Lajim Ukin and Tuaran MP Wilfred Bumburing has definitely brought back memories of what happened in Perak few years ago. The former event, together with Lim Guan Eng's proposal of an anti-hopping law, has generated much debate from both sides of the political divide. In this article, I attempt to frame the arguments for MPs to step down and be given a fresh mandate if they intend to switch parties and also try to counter-argue against those who disagree with the need to do so. In 2004, it was clear that the people voted mainly based on national issues. Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's message of reform caused major casualties such as Abdul Hadi Awang and very nearly Karpal Singh. These were capable, popular candidates, only through an added emphasis by voters on national issues could they have lost or, in Karpal's case, nearly lost. In the 2008 GE, it was clear that the trend continued. This was proven by how Nurul Izzah Anwar and Tony Pua, two newbies to the political scene, upset established candidates such as Shahrizat Abdul Jalil and Chew Mei Fun in the urban seats of Lembah Pantai and PJ Utara as well as how Michael Jeyakumar beat S. Samy Vellu the rural seat of Sungai Siput. As mentioned earlier, this is a clear indicator that people essentially voted according to party lines. This means that the candidates who are elected are expected to support party stands in Parliament. Not only that, when issues not discussed during elections come up during their term, the decisions on what stands to take are also the party's to make in our system of representative democracy. The candidate's mandate is to merely to support the party. When one MP changes parties, this will mean that he/her stands change accordingly. This is extremely undemocratic as people have not approved this and there is the likelihood that he/she is not representing his/her constituency's views. That there may be ethical issues involved in which he/she may have hopped because of position or cash rewards strengthens the case against party hopping. An anti-hopping law pushes for a by-election to be called and for the people to decide whether they agree with he/her decision and whether or not they should retain him/her despite the ethical issues. One can argue that if he/she changes parties but maintains his/her stands, a new by-election should not be called. However, I would have to say that this is unlikely due to the fact that in Malaysia our political parties practise strict toeing-of-the-party line. An example of this is Tunku Abdul Aziz who claimed that he was forced out from the DAP for failing to agree with the party's stand on Bersih 3.0. In addition, one must not forget that defections do not merely affect the representation of a few constituencies. At times, a few defections would mean an entire change in a state government. The Perak constitutional crisis in 2009 is an example of this. A change in the state government is not the most of it. The next election will likely be a closely fought one. Proof of this is Merdeka Center's survey which indicated that 49 per cent of people were happy with the government, which might mean that almost half of the number of Malaysian voters might go for Pakatan Rakyat. If both parties have close to the same number of seats after the elections, it is highly likely both sides will attempt to tempt MPs over. And this may result in an entire federal government changing due to defections. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to figure out how bad this is. The government will be one that does not reflect the wishes of the majority. That's how high the stakes are. Let's take a look at the arguments for party hopping. Wan Saiful Wan Jan, CEO of IDEAS, was quoted in The Sun as stating that if a politician believes that his party is making the wrong stand for the people, it would only be fair to the rakyat if he changes parties. Another argument that has been circulating is that Malaysians would very soon be voting for the individual candidate and not the party. Thus, legislation forbidding party hopping would not be needed. Wan Saiful brings up an excellent point. However, his point is only valid in a situation where the mandate a MP receives is one where people support him according to his own personal stands and he has the mandate to make decisions for them on his own accord. As has been said, this is simply not the case in Malaysia. Therefore, if an MP decides that a party's stands are wrong, it is only right for him to resign and for a by-election to be held to make sure of what the people want. Moving on to the second argument. The truth is that even though surveys show people want to start voting based on individuals, there is a significant lack of information for them to do so. If a voter wants to vote based on a candidate's stands or track record/CV, he or she requires such information. This is a problem in Malaysia as there are few newspapers that publish such details. Mainstream and online media like The Star, The Sun, The Malaysian Insider and Malaysiakini report news only on high-profile party leaders such as Khairy Jamaluddin and Tony Pua. Lesser-known representatives are given little or no attention whatsoever. Local newspapers such as the Selangor Times are solutions to such a problem. They publicise actions taken and stands by state assemblymen and local MPs, allowing the people to effectively evaluate the performance of their representatives. There has to be local newspapers which are neutral as well, portraying actions and stands of candidates from both sides of the political divide in order for the people to make effective, informative decisions when voting for a candidate based on his record. The government has also come up stating that such a law would be against freedom of association. Both Roger Tan and P. Ramakrishnan have both written lengthy articles in The Star and Aliran respectively on this point and I would not add much additional value by elaborating further. Instead, I would like to comment on what should be done if, say, an anti-party hopping law is ruled unconstitutional. The fact of the matter is, even though an MP has the right to associate with different parties, he has the responsibility to make sure that his decision and stands will first reflect that of the people. Therefore, if formal methods are declared unlawful, the only way would be an informal method. I propose that each party's MPs publicly declare that they would stand for a by-election if they choose to hop. The party should highly encourage the current term MPs to do so and once the 13th general election concludes, the new MPs as well. In conclusion, the current need for an anti-party hopping law reflects poorly on us as a democracy. Malaysia needs to move forward and away from merely voting according to party lines to voting because of individuals. Voting according to party lines restricts the voices of the people as MPs are tied to the party line and cannot represent the actual views of the people which may at times be at odds with the party he/she represents. A freer and much increased flow of information as well as a slacker system of toeing the party line are measures that must be taken. Hopefully when the 14th GE is held, there will no longer be a need for an anti-hopping law.
|
| What I’d Like For GE are My Two Front Teeth… No Crime… Posted: 03 Sep 2012 02:05 PM PDT
Dina Zaman, The Malaysian Insider When will the General Elections be held? Asking Malaysians on what they think the outcome of the General Elections only elicit shrugs. Everyone is tired of everything: the politics, rising cost of living, lack of work-life balance and crime. Many feel that come GE 13, nothing will change. "Same old, same old. Voting Pakatan Rakyat won't mean a better future." What is there to hope for, asks a majority of professionals. They view Pemandu suspiciously, because they don't experience what the organisation touts. If the national bowler can be let off scot free for raping a 13 year old, what protection and rights will their children have, is another question. Malaysia seems to be lawless — it's a cowboy town. In a closed group the writer is a member of, members are vocal and frustrated. The topics discussed in the group range from jokes to issues on religion, diversity and politics. On the topic of Pemandu's GTP, a member commented that, " I think it offers more of the same — quick wins and low-hanging fruits, which are all well and good, but sooner or later, you're going to run out of quick wins and low-hanging fruits and then what? Also, the measurement biases/moral hazard problems haven't been solved. Take the crime NKRA for instance, all v 2.0 does is set new targets based on the same measurements, but they'll still be reported by people whose performance these targets are meant to measure, so there'll still be the tendency for crime figures to be underreported and in some cases, mis-reported." Another member added, "Notwithstanding the arguments and discussion given above, I think the main problem with our public policy formulation is not the actual process, but rather the primary data that we based our initial assumptions on. For some reason, government agencies are reluctant to share their statistics on numerous public policies with Institute of Higher Learning, or Research Groups (read OSA). That in itself is not necessarily a bad thing, if the said agencies are prepared to carry out analysis on these statistics themselves. Most of the time, that is not the case, thus the data gathered are most of the time lumped together, and any Tom, Dick or Harry who happens to be in charge can make his/her assumptions on those findings (which explains why we get merepek policies)." "Personally, I think PEMANDU is a wonderful idea. Too long had our agencies played the role of both formulator and implementer, (even govt have the legislative and executive branch kan ?) for it to be fair and consistent." Back in Glitzy Kay El…  Glitzy Kuala Lumpur now seems to have lost some of its steam. — AFP pic Nadia Jalil is a young mother, highly educated, and views Malaysian politics with great humour. She is the quintessential young Malaysian success story: brilliant, went to the right schools, literate, witty with a bite, married with a child. She wears the hijab fashionably, and despite the rather masculine work that she does, is girly. Her husband has quit the rat race and is now focussing on a food-and-beverage business. Both their families help care for their daughter, and because of the rising costs of housing, they live with Nadia's parents. They own one car, and rely on public transport for work and to get to wherever they want. Like many other young Malaysians, she wonders what will happen to her country. Her election wish-list is long, and realistic. "Obviously I cannot ask for a total cessation of mudslinging, but maybe if there's sex involved, the mudslinging doesn't have to be conducted on the front pages of national newspapers for our children to see," Nadia says. A relatively "clean" election, without last-minute appearances of postal votes and/or voters who are dead is another, and she would like candidates who have a minimum IQ of 100, and are literate in BM, English or either one. Nadia can be described as a policy-wonk, and some of the policies she would like to see are a repeal of the Town and Country Planning Act 1976 to allow for local elections. This would mean more accountability and more empowerment for the people in charge of our cities; a smaller government: fewer, not more, ministries and agencies. Revamp the current JPA system — currently promotions are based on availability, not expertise, so someone who's been working on international trade for years can find themselves transferred suddenly to the Forestry Department simply because there's a vacancy there in that position. This needs to change, and lastly, the Department of Statistics to provide access to data, especially for research. Malaysian data access is one of the worst in the world. This hampers research, which then hampers educated policy-making. She would also like an actual rationalisation of subsidies, licences and rents. "This is absolutely wishful thinking, especially since 1MDB's inexplicable purchase of Tanjung, but those IPP contracts need to be re-negotiated. While you're at it, take a look at the long-term procurement contracts for all the GLCs." She does concede that there are success stories. "The myEG online government thing. If it is a crony running it, at least it's a competent crony. Improvements to the immigration process have been great. Hooray for automated passport renewal! And I like those new garbage bins provided by DBKL." The Boys (and Girls ) in Blue  Supporters of Barisan Nasional seen with a party flag. — AFP pic And running it is a young man passionate about politics and volunteerism and is a familiar name to readers of this website and also Free Malaysia Today. Zaidel Baharuddin is the director of BNYV 2012. His nomination to lead the group has been a pleasant surprise, and his mantra to the volunteers is straightforward, 'Low Cost, High Impact.' The headquarters is all white and blue on the outside and inside, and all the furniture and appliances have been donated by corporations and individuals. There's a campus-like feel to it, though seeing people's heads bobbing past the living room window can be unnerving, especially in the middle of the night. Zaidel is proud and excited about the venue and BNYV 2012. In a nutshell, it's a platform for young Malaysians aged from 19 to 25 to voice out their opinions on everything and anything to the Government. "Here's the thing; BNYV may sound like a political platform, but it is not. It's an avenue for Malaysians youths to tell the Government what they think. It does not claim to be the voice of Malaysian youths, or backed by them." But yes, he knows that the public may not buy the sentiment. So when is the GE, Zaidel? "I don't know. God's honest truth. This (BNYV 12) was also set up to get volunteers to help out with the GE but we don't know when it will be. If GE is next year…" he scratches his head as he frowns, "I guess we may have to change our name!" Of course he wants BN to win. Of course he wants an increase in youth votes, another term for the current Prime Minister, and for the ETP and GTP to work and be effective. All these are a given. But he also wants to instil a spirit of volunteerism and activism among the young. "I'm very inspired by Ron Paul's grass roots campaign and our UMNO 1946. Orang sanggup gadai rumah, kereta, untuk politik! (People were willing to mortgage their homes and cars just for politics.)" Look, he says, he's a product of a local tertiary education. His parents are working to middle class people. He knows what the rakyat feels. How is he going to marry if he can't even afford a house? Have people seen the quality of houses now, despite the six star price tag attached to them? Education and childcare are another concern for him. As a young uncle to a special needs child, he knows what the parameters are like. He may be in BN but he's not raking in the money. He's like everyone else with dreams and worries. "This AUKU and freedom of speech thing," he observes, "I'm all for freedom of speech but I have a caveat. Just because you are young it does not mean that you can voice out at any time. No. You voice out when your work is effective, your deeds are righteous and ideas are good." Will BNYV be relevant post GE? Oh yes. He wants to take it beyond the elections, and turn the volunteerism machine into something bigger. "I know that there is a silent majority which supports us, but have all sorts of reasons for not being involved in politics. The narrative is hijacked by a noisy minority. This setup does not guarantee any volunteer any payment; in fact, we don't pay anyone. Everything is on a limited budget here. But we're confident of growing big." What a taxi driver has to say  Cab drivers too have something to say about the current political climate in Malaysia. — AFP pic And like all cab drivers in the city, W has seen and heard many things. He's seen snatch thefts and smash and grab crimes in front of his taxi as he ferried passengers to their destinations, and his car has witnessed joy and heartbreak. He must know something about the GE. "Aiyo. I wish the government would just get the elections over and done with. That's my wish. Then it'll give us time to see who we want, and vote for. If we have snap polls… how are we going to vote? So little time." The cost of living is another issue he wants the Government to focus on. Subsidies should only be for the working to middle income Malaysians. "Why should the rich benefit from subsidies?" Even the expatriates who have come to work, complain. They feel that they have been tricked. "Kuala Lumpur is not cheap. Every week the prices go up and up in the supermarket. And this is not a high-class supermarket, you know?" But he has high hopes for Malaysia. He believes the country will right itself, providing that the ruling government knows what to do with resources. "I just hope it's soon. I think we're fed up of waiting-lah."  In some areas in Malaysia, party flags are out in full force but they remain flapping from houses and lampposts. Malaysians don't seem to be enthusiastic about the upcoming general election. - AFP pic In certain areas like Bangi, Sg Buloh, party flags are out in full force but they remain flapping from houses and lampposts. In fact, the bridge leading to the Sg Buloh hospital is lined with faded BN and PAS flags. What an enthusiastic welcome to the elections. There isn't an air of general cheer in these areas, and despite the flags and ceramahs, there's little excitement on the ground. Most of the population living in these areas are more concerned about other things, like paying the rent, saving up for old age and illnesses. Bread and butter issues. Attempts at on the spot, impulsive interviews were met with smiles and hands waving "No." They're too busy, not interested, and not keen to have their opinions published. Maybe we could try up ahead, the people there may talk. On Facebook…. Luckily there is social media to help with interviews with Selangor-ians.  On Facebook, Malaysians are sharing their thoughts about the upcoming general elections. — AFP pic Are they anticipating the elections? It's mixed. While Clayton is not bothered, Hazri and Harlequin are anxious to see the aftermath of the GE. They want it to happen so they can get on with their lives. They also hope that politicians really know the true scenario of the country; Clayton wants both the Government and Opposition to work together "… to get the work done (for the country)…" It's frustrating to see both at loggerheads with each other and not working for the rakyat. Clayton's work allows him to observe both sides. He's blasé about the situation, but "If I am the PM, I will include the opposition in all discussion so that we have an open discussion on what really needs to be done for the people and not only for those who will put money in our pockets. Look into long term policies and not just focus on short term policies that benefit the ruling government." Hazri thinks both parties have a good chance of winning: BN with their strong party machinery and their solid economic plans and Pakatan Rakyat backed by the frustration of the people and strong economic performances in Selangor and Penang. "I wish PR is more solid in their economic outlook," he says. Mimi sounds fed-up. "I'm hoping for more peace and stability in our country as an outcome from the next GE. No more hanky panky and riots, and please ELIMINATE all those LEMBU ministers."
|
| Posted: 03 Sep 2012 09:48 AM PDT
You must remember that it is Najib or Anwar – two individuals impossibly flawed by their years in Umno. Two individuals that are cut from the same cloth by the same self-titled bespoke tailor that was Umno. CT Ali Who will get your vote? Najib Tun Razak or Anwar Ibrahim? Will your political affiliation decide your choice or would quality of leadership matters? Honesty, compassion, integrity, confidence and flexibility are all qualities impossible to find in abundance in either of them when political leaders should have all of these qualities – and more. Najib is at best mediocre. He plods around bemused and befuddled by the unfamiliar situation he now finds around him – Rosmah Mansor, the cut and thrust of Umno and Barisan Nasional politics and his own inadequacies swirl around him in ever concentric eddies that threaten to whirl him away to places unknown. Anwar does trip the light fantastic at times. A charming chameleon who can make himself to be the person we want him to be with just that hint of sincerity that allows us to think that maybe, just maybe that is the real Anwar. And yet the next day he goes off at a tangent because the political expediency needed in juggling Pakatan Rakyat gives him no other option but to do so. Will our choices be based on what is good and right and in the best interest of the nation as a whole? Perish that thought. We are humans and as humans, we reserve the right and the privilege of choosing a leader we think will do good to us. And there my friends lies the confidence and bravado that Najib and Anwar have in their belief that the Malaysian people might choose either of them as prime minister. Surely those right-thinking people among us (of which… ahem… this writer thinks himself as one) would have consigned either of them to that heap where the "not to be resuscitated" sign should tell us that they are both past their use-by-date. But we humans are not creatures of rationality. But this is Malaysia. We have no others. So Najib or Anwar it is. Defining our political future If it was a matter of choosing between Najib and Anwar, then I say that Najib is the lesser of the two men. But the lesser of the two men is now the prime minister of our nation. Those of you who do not want Barisan Nasional say you are tired of the corruption, the abuse of executive power for political and personal financial gain and the total lack of good governance displayed by BN leaders. Those who do not wish to see Pakatan in government talks about the impossibility and improbability of having three diametrically opposed political entities (now together within the Pakatan coalition for political gain) working in tandem for the common good of the nation and its people. How could these three once opposing political organisation be held together just because of their hatred for Umno? We are moving towards the 13th general election and toward our future with all these dilemmas unresolved – not the best of situations but that is all that we have. The pity of it all is that it will still be with us whether we vote for Najib or Anwar. So what are we to do? What should we do? What must we do? What can we "janji" to do? We need to move towards good governance. And the bottom line to good governance is a vibrant democracy. Only then will we have sustainable and equitable economic growth and political stability. This we will not have with the present crop of political leaders now in power and even among those waiting to gain or seize political power. We need to define the culture of our political future. We do not want leaders who seek to gain or remain in power by the manipulations of ethnic or religious sentiments. There are not just Malays and the "others" in Malaysia. We are all one people. Let us no longer talk about Ketuanan Melayu, the institution of royalty, about educating our children in schools that accentuate their ethnicity while ignoring the realities of a society that now demand equality in opportunities and the personal freedom to decide and express their voice in politics, education and in everything that affects their life and the life of their family and the nation they live in. We already have independence. We already have national integration a long time ago. Now we want the freedom to go on with our life the best way we can – and the function of government is to facilitate that demand. We want and we will choose a government that can do that. We will not allow Najib or Anwar to lead us elsewhere. If the two of them want their political kingdom, then their political kingdom must conform to our aspiration of what we want. Who your father is, who you are, what race you belong to, what language you speak, what your religion is and where you are coming from politically no longer matters to us – what matters is that we will have our Malaysia. You ignore these demands at your own peril. Read more at: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2012/09/04/defining-our-political-future/
|
| Posted: 03 Sep 2012 09:34 AM PDT
Each time the election has been put off, it has either been in the wake of a scandal revelation — such as the National Feedlot Corporation — or after a mass rally such as those involving the electoral reform movement Bersih. Bridget Welsh When will Malaysia's 13th general election (GE) be held? Pundits continue to speculate on the election timing, with views ranging from Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak making a surprise announcement to speculation that he will go the full term. One thing is certain: the polls have to be held before the end of June next year. The person who appears most reluctant to hold the polls is Najib himself. He is now Malaysia's longest serving prime minister without his own electoral mandate — either from his own party, Umno, that has not held elections since 2008 — or from Malaysians. The pressure to call the polls and deliver a comfortable majority remains intense. Najib's predecessor, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, was forced to resign when he failed to win two-thirds of the parliamentary seats in the 2008 GE. Based on fieldwork and polling, of the 222 seats up for grabs, 84 per cent of them are "competitive" — and with the Barisan Nasional (BN) and the opposition having about the same number of "safe seats". It is thus not surprising that Najib has repeatedly delayed facing the electorate. Multiple windows for the GE have been by-passed. Instead, Najib has worked diligently to earn popular support with the aim of tying his personal popularity to a victory for his ruling coalition. DIMINISHING RETURNS His clock is ticking, as there is less than a year left before the GE will have to be called. The longer Najib waits, the more uncertainty he faces, with the real prospect of diminishing electoral returns. Part of this is a product of the hype surrounding the earlier windows to hold the election. By failing to call the polls on repeated occasions after the election machinery was ramped up and candidate lists forwarded, Najib fuels a possible perception of weakness, as the delays are read as a lack of confidence on his part. Najib also opens himself up to further uncertainties. Each time the election has been put off, it has either been in the wake of a scandal revelation — such as the National Feedlot Corporation — or after a mass rally such as those involving the electoral reform movement Bersih. A pattern has set in — where weaknesses in Najib's political reform efforts have been showcased, only to lead to further efforts to reconsolidate support. The question Malaysians are asking is what will come next. Most are saturated with stories of scandal and intrigue, but ultimately the longer the delay, the greater the possibility of further revelations and civil society mobilisation. This was the pattern in 2007-2008 and it is already repeating itself, as illustrated by the recent protest against the controversial amendments to section 114A of the Evidence Act 1950. The changes presume that a person is guilty for anything written on their websites and social media mediums. STATE OF THE ECONOMY The most serious unknowns Najib faces with his delaying tactics involve the economy. Malaysia has performed well in terms of growth under his watch — an average of 5.8 per cent growth in the three years. Yet the economy is closely tied to global trends. Slowing growth in China, recession threats in Europe and a lacklustre economic recovery in the United States, cast real shadows on Najib's political fortunes. A slowdown is already evident, with third-quarter growth figures dropping to 5.4 per cent. Najib's government has also been unable to stave off the impact of global inflation. In the first six months of this year, stealthily but steadily prices for fuel have risen, with a 10-sen rise in the month before Hari Raya Puasa alone. The attention to the economy calls into question Najib's main strategy of using financial handouts to win support. Billions of ringgit have been doled out to constituents in a variety of forms, from vouchers to disadvantaged families to salary bonuses. More are expected in the upcoming Budget this month, the second year in a row the Budget will have been used as an apparent election primer. While the influx of public sector cash in the economy has boosted consumption, little attention has centred on the long-term implications of short-term allocations and deficit spending. Read more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/najibs-election-dilemma-bridget-welsh/ |
| Posted: 02 Sep 2012 05:11 PM PDT Before fingers are pointed at Pakatan for doing a bad job, it will do BN good to take a good look at itself and realise how how bad a track record it has. Jeswan Kaur, FMT Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the country's former longest-serving prime minister, wants the rakyat to vote for Barisan Nasional come the 13th general election. His reason is that the federal government under the Barisan Nasional was all ears and had changed many laws and policies to bring a better future for the people. Thanks but no thanks, Mahathir; had BN been listening, there would have been no reason for the "Bersih" saga to take place. If all was well at the polls, the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections or Bersih, would not have taken to the streets, not one or twice but thrice. And did the BN government listen then? No! Why then must the rakyat vote BN back into power, if all BN does is to "monopolise" its existence and hoodwink the people into believing that it cares? Had BN been a good listener as Mahathir is desperately alluding, there would have been much peace and harmony among the people. In the over five decades that BN has held the nation's fort, much damage has been done, all because its leaders chose to give in to corruption and their never-ending hunger for more power. On the contrary, the opposition under the Pakatan Rakyat banner has only had a taste of "calling the shots" since 2008; has it in just four years done as much damage to the nation as BN has been doing for the past 55 years? For Mahathir to brag that only BN can determine the survival of the nation is implausible as the fate of the country does not lie in the hands of BN; likewise, Pakatan too should not claim it can do wonders for a nation whose people are slowly but surely being torn apart by racial slurs made by the very politicians who had once pledged to keep the nation united. Too many mistakes made Still, given time and experience, the opposition can deliver, provided it ties up all "loose ends" and all three parties under it – PKR, DAP and PAS – work in unison. Any attempt by Mahathir or the likes of him to conjure up a "prima facie" case in the favour of BN is not going to work. Too many deliberate mistakes have been made by BN time and again, a reflection of its disrespect for the very voters who ensured its survival over the years. Is BN willing to "repent", to take cognisance of all its wrongdoings and pledge never to take the rakyat for granted? Can Mahathir give the people the assurance that BN has turned over a new leaf? Clearly, the former premier is unable for the "sludge" covering BN is beyond cleansing; the repeated acts of corruption tell the people that BN has become "too big for its shoes", its arrogance shrouding all promises made to the rakyat. The instances are one too many. The controversial listing of the Felda Global Ventures Holdings is aimed at putting BN in the good books of the people; but really, why will the rakyat bother trusting the federal government when it knows, come what may, BN will never put an end to corruption, a scourge that is here to stay. BN had no qualms appointing Isa Abdul Samad, the former Negeri Sembilan menteri besar who was suspended from Umno for engaging in money politics, as the chairman of Felda. Is this what Mahathir means by "BN listening to the rakyat"? The day BN gets serious in wanting to "listen to the rakyat", it will make an end of corrupt politicians like Sarawak Chief Minister Taib Mahmud. Until then, it is pointless for Mahathir to beg for the rakyat's support in ensuring BN's victory in the coming general election. BN selfish Before fingers are pointed at Pakatan for doing a bad job since it came on board four years ago, it will do BN good to take a good look at itself and realise how how bad a track record it has. Post-May 13, 1969 racial riots, did BN learn its lesson and work at strengthening unity among the people? No; instead, the racial divide became wider to the extent that the non-Malays have been made to feel "out of place" in their own homeland. Was it not Mahathir who last year cautioned the non-Malays not to get carried away with the life enjoyed in this country, saying they owed it all to the Malays, the real "owners" of this nation? Did it ever bother Mahathir how the non-Malays and maybe a handful of Malays must have felt each time Umno at its general assembly promised to wage war against the non-Malays should they dare question Article 153 of the Federal Constitution which safeguards Malay rights and privileges? Is this how BN pays attention to the rakyat's woes?
|
| Replacing national flag: chasing after fantasy demons? Posted: 02 Sep 2012 01:47 PM PDT
Two apparently well-meaning youths displayed a flag that looked similar but different from the national flag as a token to commemorate unsung heroes of independence at an independence eve rally, and lo and behold, the entire top leadership of Umno jumped instantly into a frenzy of wild accusations against the opposition without any proof. By Kim Quek As tension continues to mount ahead of the imminent general election, almost the entire top heirarchy of the incumbent Barisan Nasional government appears to have gone bonkers. Two apparently well-meaning youths displayed a flag that looked similar but different from the national flag as a token to commemorate unsung heroes of independence at an independence eve rally, and lo and behold, the entire top leadership of Umno jumped instantly into a frenzy of wild accusations against the opposition without any proof. Prime Minister Najib Razak accused the opposition of wanting to replace the national flag, and warned of many more undesirable changes including the institution of royalty, should the opposition alliance come to power. Minister of International Trade and Industry Mustapa Mohamed warned of a plot to amend the constitution and to turn the current constitutional monarchy into a republic. Minister of Agriculture and Agro-based Industry Noh Omar said that in wanting to replace the national flag, the opposition has lost direction, and shown signs of power crazy even before they are in power. Minister of Home Affairs Hishamuddin Hussein said he would act decisively against the "perpetrators of the provocative act", adding that the police have started investigation, and the attorney general will prosecute upon obtaining sufficient evidence. Many other Umno ministers also launched similar attacks against the opposition simultaneously, including Rural and Regional Development Minister Shafie Apdal and Youth and Sports Minister Shabery Cheek. Meanwhile, the police announced in its face book page that it was launching a man-hunt on the offenders who "tried to change the national flag", saying that such act "violates the federal constitution and the democratic process", which is a breach of the Sedition Act. ACCUSATION DEBUNKED Amidst this furor, two youths promptly appeared on the scene to debunk the story of changing flag. Blogger Serigala Selatan, a student, claimed in his blog posting that he and a friend Zairi Shafai were the duo who showed the flag in question, known as Sang Saka Malaya. It was a flag used by pre-independence nationalists during their struggle to gain independence for then Malaya. As the story of their struggles has been erased from the official history, they wanted to remind the country of the existence of these forgotten heroes by displaying the Sang Saka Malaya on this commemorative occasion. Serigala said they have not the slightest intention to replace the national flag (known as Jalur Gemilang) with Sang Saka Malaya, from which the Jalur Gemilang has evolved. Meanwhile, top leaders of Pakatan Rakyat instantly and flatly denied that they ever conceived the idea of changing the national flag. HILARIOUS BUT SERIOUS MISCONDUCT Judging from the ferocity and intensity with which so many Umno ministers jumpted to the attacks, one would have imagined that the opposition must have been caught red handed in the act of committing the highest treason against the country, but alas, the truth turns out to be simply that these senior Umno leaders have been acting like a bunch of hyper-imaginative kids chasing after some fantasy demons, as there is neither a shred of evidence nor any credibility whatsoever to their accusations. As DAP leader Lim Kit Siang succinctly put it, "the change of national flag is never a Pakatan Rakyat agenda and has never been discussed or raised in any Pakatan meeting". In fact, the entire episode is so bizarre and funny that it would have made a hilarious Hollywood comedy, if not for the serious implications it carries for the nation. Here we are not talking about some naughty politicians politicking, but the entire top hierarchy of the Malaysian government making unfounded accusations that are grave and obviously far-fetched. Such weird conduct by the ruling clique suggests that they are either dim-witted or dangerously deceitful, or perhaps both. Whatever case it is, it means our country is in terribly bad hands. Needless to say, this is another serious setback for BN along its bumbling road to defend a political power that looks more precarious by the day.
|
| Janji Demokrasi – the real Merdeka event Posted: 02 Sep 2012 09:07 AM PDT
The comparison of the participants at the Janji Demokrasi gathering and those at Himpunan Merdeka is striking. The former were not promised any incentives. The only incentive for them was expressing their disaffection for the government, sending the ruling party the message that it cannot hijack Merdeka for its own selfish purpose: Merdeka belongs to the people, not to BN. Kee Thuan Chye
The occasion could not have been better chosen or timed: The eve of the country's 55th Merdeka anniversary, two hours before countdown. The venue could not have been more appropriate: Dataran Merdeka, where the countdown to Merdeka is held every year to commemorate the very first countdown to independence in 1957. The theme could not have been more telling: 'Janji Demokrasi', a response to the government's Merdeka theme, 'Janji Ditepati'. Sasterawan Negara (National Laureate) A Samad Said (centre) to read his impassioned poem with its powerful ending: Kita laungkan jerit senyaringnya: "Janji Demokrasi!" (We cry with all our hearts: "The promise of democracy!" Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein predicted few people would turn up. But he was wrong. They came by the thousands – some counted tens of thousands – dressed in yellow, as requested by the organisers.
A demonstration like this would have come in the past from the opposition, but the amazing thing about this one is that it came from the rakyat. The rakyat came to Dataran Merdeka – people of all races, dressed in yellow, in fraternity, united in a common cause. When this comes from the rakyat, not opposition politicians, the ruling party must needs tremble. The rakyat even defied the police ban on the gathering. Hours before the event, the police tried to frighten people away by declaring the gathering illegal. But the people didn't care. Their disregard was a clear sign that the system is falling apart. When the people don't respect the law enforcers as well as the policy-makers, the end for the latter has to be near.
Of those who attended the Bukit Jalil event, 'Himpunan Merdeka', an insider tells me, "at least 50 percent were instructed to attend. We were given RM60 for meal expenses, free travel on the LRT. Those who brought their family got an additional RM50. Free rides on chartered buses were provided." About 100,000 people reportedly showed up, but there must have been many who were lured by the live performances of famous local artistes, the fireworks display and the lucky draw. The prizes included a Proton Prevé, a Chevrolet Cruze, air tickets to London and Sydney, motorcycles, bicycles, etc. The comparison of the participants at the Janji Demokrasi gathering and those at Himpunan Merdeka is striking. The former were not promised any incentives. The only incentive for them was expressing their disaffection for the government, sending the ruling party the message that it cannot hijack Merdeka for its own selfish purpose: Merdeka belongs to the people, not to BN. That they managed to do so, in defiance of the police, on such a significant national occasion must be devastating for the government. Going by this, if BN were to retain Putrajaya at the next general election, it will not have an easy time governing for another five years. It will likely face consistent resistance from a recalcitrant rakyat. Would it be facetious then to suggest that it capitulate now? Indeed, some people have already been calling this year's Merdeka celebrations "Umno-BN's farewell bash". However, BN's leaders continue to strive to maintain that they are right.
The reasoning sounds weird and warped. Mainly because the logic of putting the onus on the people to ensure peace and stability is strained and contrived. Usually, that duty is assigned to the government. But what is more telling is Najib's evasion of the all-important point – that 'Janji Ditepati' is also BN's campaign slogan for the upcoming general election. That is the point of contention that he should have addressed. In his speech at Himpunan Merdeka, Najib responded to the Janji Demokrasi gathering by saying that it involved only the minority whereas the gathering at Bukit Jalil involved the majority. First, many people were compelled to attend Himpunan Merdeka – among them civil servants and staff of some statutory bodies.
Third, if there had been no banning of the Janji Demokrasi gathering and the threat of possible arrest, many more people might have gone for it. Plus, many who did not show up nonetheless support it in their hearts. On social media that night, many said they wished they had gone, and many more cheered the success of the turnout. Fourth, those who did come for the Janji Demokrasi gathering were not attracted by incentives, like payments, free transport and lucky draws. Their reason for coming was sincere and genuine. Sore losers Not only that, he also demonised the opposition by accusing them of trying to bring chaos to the nation. Merdeka Day is supposed to be a day of national harmony and reconciliation. Desperate though Najib may be to win the next general election, he should still have shown respect for the occasion. Instead, he hijacked the event and used it as his election platform. How then can it not be said that the Janji Demokrasi gathering was totally justified? By the way, the gathering was peaceful, and Dang Wangi district police chief ACP Zainuddin Ahmad admitted that no untoward incidents were reported. Yet even so, he added, "We'll investigate later (for any violations)." What's there to investigate if there were no untoward incidents? He also said they would investigate Samad for reading a poem. Since when has reading a poem become an offence? Don't the police have more important things to do – like going after criminals instead? It's time the police realised that people power is on the rise and adjusted to the new paradigm – or they will look stupid playing their outdated games. It does not do them well to take their cue from their boss at the Home Ministry, Hishammuddin Hussein, who in commending them for maintaining security at the Janji Demokrasi gathering said: "We see that the event, which was aimed at creating chaos, failed …" His statement was outright unfair – and downright stupid. He also sounded like a sore loser. But then, if you have seen how gamblers behave when their chips are down, you will understand why he said it. KEE THUAN CHYE is the author of the bestselling book 'No More Bullshit, Please, We're All Malaysians', available at major bookstores. |
| Posted: 01 Sep 2012 03:38 PM PDT
Party-hopping is a potent threat to parliamentary democracy and it is hoped that politicians will come to grips with this issue in a bipartisan manner. Roger Tan, The Star THE great Winston Churchill (1874-1965) was known for party-hopping. In 1904, he changed parties from the Conservative Party to the Liberal Party, and was made Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies in 1905. He officially returned to the Tories in 1925 after he failed in two successive attempts to win a seat as an independent. On record, his reasons for defecting to the Liberals were the Conservatives' reluctance to undertake social reform and their protectionist policy of favouring trade with the British Empire. But on the other hand, the Liberals were then an up-and-coming party, and his calculated move obviously did catapult him to high office at the rather young age of 31. Of course, admirers and detractors of Churchill would respectively describe his act as one of political conscience and opportunism. But that is immaterial as until today, the British parliamentary system still does not proscribe party-hopping which also has different nomenclatures such as party-crossing, party-switching, party-leaping, floor-crossing and waka-jumping. Like any democracy, regardless of it being an established or an incipient one, Malaysia too faces this perennial problem of party-hopping and elected representatives resigning from their political parties to become an independent. Hence, we are not short of inveterate party-hoppers. One of them is Sabah State Reform Party (Star) chairman Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan. Prior to this, he had joined Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS), the Parti Bersatu Rakyat Sabah (PBRS), Angkatan Keadilan Rakyat (now defunct Akar), United Pasokmomogun Kadazandusun Organisation (Upko) and Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR). It is, therefore, not surprising for such politicians to be given various undignified names such as political frogs, traitors, lepers and chameleons. But we not only do not have any anti-defection law, but the Federal Constitution guarantees the freedom of association – that is the right to join or not to join an association or dissociate from it. The justification for this is best summed up by the eminent Indian jurist, Nanabhoy Palkhivala, in his book, Our Constitution Defaced and Defiled: "No greater insult can be imagined to members of Parliament and the state legislatures than to tell them that once they become members of a political party, apart from any question of the party constitution and any disciplinary action the party may choose to take, the Constitution of India itself expects them to have no right for themselves, but they must become soulless and conscienceless entities who would be driven by their political party in whichever direction the party chooses to push them." However, today the Indian Constitution not only disqualifies an elected representative if he resigns from his political party but also if he votes or abstains from voting contrary to any direction issued by his political party without its prior permission or without having been condoned by his political party within 15 days after the date of voting or abstention. In fact, there are about 40 other countries which have various anti-defection laws. Our neighbour Singapore has a provision in Article 46 of her Constitution which disqualifies a member of parliament if he ceases to be a member of or is expelled or resigns from his political party. Hence, a by-election was held on May 26 this year when Hougang Member of Parliament Yaw Shin Leong was expelled by the Workers' Party on Feb 15 for alleged extramarital affairs. In Malaysia, freedom of association is enshrined in Article 10(1)(c) of the Federal Constitution, but Article 10(2)(c) and (3) allow Parliament to impose such restrictions as it deems necessary in the interest of security, public order, morality, labour or education. In the 1992 case of Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan v Nordin Salleh, the Supreme Court (now Federal Court) ruled that an amendment to the Kelantan state constitution prohibiting party-hopping was inconsistent with Article 10(1)(c). The apex court declared that such a law was invalid because the restriction imposed by the Kelantan Constitution could not be a restriction imposed under Article 10(2)(c) and (3) of Article 10 as it was a law passed by a state legislature and not the Federal Parliament. In the words of the then Lord President, Tun Abdul Hamid Omar: "It is, in our view, inconceivable that a member of the legislature can be penalised by any ordinary legislation for exercising a fundamental right which the Constitution expressly confers upon him subject to such restrictions as only Parliament may impose and that too on specified grounds, and on no other grounds." It follows that any anti-hopping law if passed by the Penang state legislature will be inconsistent with Article 10 since our apex court has already declared that only Federal Parliament can impose any restriction on freedom of association and dissociation such as on the ground that party-hopping is morally reprehensible. And this cannot be done by way of an amendment to a state constitution or an ordinary legislation passed by a simple majority in Federal Parliament. In other words, for any anti-hopping law to be intra vires the Constitution, amendments must first be made by Federal Parliament to Article 10 or Article 48(6) (which disqualifies a person who has resigned from the Dewan Rakyat membership from running again in a general election for a period of five years from the date of his resignation) and section 6(1) of Part I of the Eighth Schedule to the Federal Constitution. In this sense, one would have expected the Penang state government to be more respectful of the Federal Constitution when Article 4 declares that the Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with it shall be void. To pass a law knowing that it is invalid but with the hope that someone will challenge its validity at the Federal Court is indeed an example of bad governance and it says a lot about the government's lack of respect for the rule of law and constitutional supremacy. That said, personally I would support an anti-hopping law. Having seen the amount of politicking and instability since 2008 caused by those who have defected or become independents, including the Sept 16 fiasco, I believe such a law will provide stability especially if the next election is going to be the most keenly contested one in our nation's history. In fact, hitherto none of the defectors is near the stature of Churchill and neither has any one of them impressed me to be doing out of their own conscience other than perhaps for their own personal aggrandisement. It is also rumoured that some have turned into multi-millionaires overnight. Be that as it may, party-hopping is a potent threat to parliamentary democracy. It is a nefarious act of betrayal especially when it can be employed as an extra parliamentary means to topple a democratically-elected government. In fact, this issue is many times more crucial than those advanced by Bersih! Therefore, by prohibiting our elected representatives from switching their political allegiance, it will ensure that the sacrosanct will of the people expressed through the ballot box is respected. If they defect, the inevitable consequence must be that they give back their seat or seek a fresh mandate. It is hoped that politicians will come to grips with this issue in a bipartisan manner as it will not bode well for the nation if due to this we are plunged into political chaos or the country comes to a standstill after an election. Currently, all political parties are in one way or another hypocritically guilty of condoning and enticing party-hopping. One can only hope that they will remember and remember it well that what goes around will come around to haunt them. The writer is a senior lawyer.
|
| Posted: 01 Sep 2012 11:27 AM PDT  Cheap sale: Oh (in the foreground) showing the various public properties that he claimed the Lim administration sold off to private developers and individuals. Barisan Nasional politicians have been on the warpath over the way the Penang state government has been selling off land to private developers. Joceline Tan PENANG'S famous Esplanade has been quite a political hotspot ever since the Speaker's Square was located there. It is the Pakatan Rakyat government's gesture towards democracy and free speech in the state. But things got a little too hot last weekend when a blue truck drove up to the spot and the occupants on board launched an instant ceramah criticising the state for selling off land to private developers. It was the Barisan Nasional's mobile war truck, a refurbished mini lorry that opens up into a small ceramah stage, equipped with sound system and projection screen. The mobile war truck idea came about after Barisan was denied the use of public community halls and fields for ceramah purposes by the Pakatan government. It immediately drew a small crowd of mostly curious onlookers. But Speaker's Square is said to be patrolled by loyal DAP supporters, who hang around the place, ready to heckle speakers who criticise their party. That was more or less what happened last Sunday. Jeers and boos erupted from several people when state Barisan Youth chief Oh Tong Keong, who is a superb Hokkien speaker, began his "Penang For Sale" talk. "We know you were angry and decided to vote for them. But we must vote for a government that works hard, creates jobs, builds affordable houses, not a government that sells off the people's land. Penang people like to shop during cheap sales, but Penang land is not for cheap sale. One day, Lim Guan Eng may even decide to sell off Komtar," said Oh who is also Penang Gerakan Youth chief. Oh and his Gerakan colleagues have been a thorn in the side of the Pakatan government over the sale of public land. The most controversial transaction thus far has been Taman Manggis, a piece of land in the heart of George Town that the Barisan administration allocated for housing for the poor and which the Pakatan government has reportedly sold to a company to build a hotel and private medical centre.  Dr Thor: 'DAP trying to sell Penang's land, sea and sky.' Oh said it was "taking from the poor to give to the rich" and named Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng "land broker of the year". Oh's team also asked about a certain "Miss P" who owns the bungalow rented out to Lim and who apparently has links to the hotel and medical centre project. Lim retaliated by slamming Oh as "brainless, childish, immoral, dirty and shameless" while also accusing him of dragging the owner of his rented residence into politics. But strangely enough, he did not deny the alleged connection of "Miss P" to the project. The string of names shot Oh to some degree of fame and as he stood on top of the truck last weekend, he held up the Chinese language newspaper of the report. "It's okay, he can scold me, I don't mind. It's also okay that Guan Eng couldn't build any low-cost houses. But it is not okay for him to take land from poor people to give to rich people," he said, as some people clapped while the DAP supporters booed. By then, one of the DAP guardians in the audience was using a loud hailer to shout down Oh. It was Malaysian-style democracy at work; people are all free speech but they only like it when the speaker is saying things that they want to hear. Incidentally, there was a "war casualty"; the man with the loud hailer was so worked up over the war truck ceramah, he suffered chest pains and had to be hospitalised. However, he had several VIP visitors the next day in the form of Lim, state exco member Phee Boon Poh and assemblyman Ng Wei Aik and there were bouquets of flowers around his bed. Ironic statement But the funniest part of the Barisan war truck incident was that Lim condemned it as an illegal assembly and threatened to use the illegal assembly law against them. This was coming from the man whose party used to condemn the illegal assembly legislation. "If they do it again, I will inform the police and MPPP (Penang Island City Council) to take action," Lim said.  Jong: 'Penang people want sustainable development.' There has been too much emphasis on glamour projects and too little on rakyat-type of projects. It was only after the Taman Manggis case exploded that the state government quickly said they would allocate a site for low-cost housing. Among all the DAP YBs, only Jelutong MP Jeff Ooi has spoken out and made a stand on housing for the poor. After the 2008 victory, DAP strategists and advisers had the impression that Penangites were starved for development. The party's developer friends had complained about Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon's cautious approach on development and they thought the way into the hearts of Penangites would be through more development Lim announced a barrage of mega projects which he thought would impress Penang folk but proposals like the undersea tunnel and super-highways have backfired. The protests against unchecked hillslope projects also came as a shock to his government. Mega projects bring a lot of side effects and should not be rushed through without proper studies and planning. It is quite ironic that while people complained that Dr Koh did not bring more development, the complaint now is that Lim is too pro-development. "People do not mind development but it also means more people and cars. Penangites want assurances about traffic and the environment. They want sustainable development," said Datuk Richard Jong, the new deputy president of the Penang Chinese Chamber of Commerce. The Barisan side can understand why Lim is into mega projects he wants to build his legacy and leave a visible mark. But they are puzzled why Lim is selling off plots of land belonging to the state and MPPP from the sale of the 41ha Bayan Mutiara land to smaller lots in the city. Lim could have saved himself a lot of trouble by being more upfront about the land sales. It is possible some of these smaller properties are sitting there not generating any income. Selling them would add to the state's coffers and provide revenue to fund future projects. Instead, he has claimed that he is doing it to "save money for the people". Questionable transactions When the opposition queried him about the land sales, Lim demanded that they show proof of what they are saying which is ridiculous because the onus is on Lim and his team, as public servants, to explain and defend their decisions. All this has paved the way for his opponents to conclude that the state's Freedom of Information Act and its CAT policy to promote competency, accountability and transparency are just for show.  Ooi: The only DAP man who fought for low-cost housing Basically, Lim's critics think it is wrong to sell off public land without a good reason. Land is a scarce commodity especially on the island and they think that it should be developed via joint-venture so that the property remains in public hands. Moreover, they claimed that some of these transactions were below market value. Gerakan publicity chief Dr Thor Teong Ghee has been very critical of the Bayan Mutiara deal for several reasons. He said the land, which the previous government had intended for the new state government complex, was sold at below market value. Secondly, it was sold to a developer whom he claimed did not have a sound track record. There has been no clear explanation about how the land is to be developed and Dr Thor's fear is that instead of developing it, the new owner may break it in smaller parcels and resell at a hefty profit. "Just imagine, it would be like Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu earmarking a huge tract of land to develop as the Free Trade Zone and selling it to one company to do as he likes," he said. Those on the Barisan side know what they are doing may not necessarily change people's mind about the DAP but they say Lim has got away with too many baseless accusations. They are telling him not to simply blame or accuse the previous government. They say they are not going to take it lying down; they are fighting back. For instance, when Lim wanted to appoint Datuk Patahiyah Ismail as MPPP president in 2009, it was pointed out that the Local Government Act 1976 states that the president has to also be a councillor but the 24 councillor posts were already filled. When Penang Gerakan chairman Datuk Dr Teng Hock Nan, a former MPPP president, questioned the legality of Patahiyah's appointment, Lim accused Dr Teng of being anti-woman and slammed him as "chou nan ren (bad man)". Dr Teng had made a valid observation but Lim was then riding so high that he could say and do what he liked. The hate and blame game was quite entertaining for some people in the first few years but after four years, even DAP people are growing uncomfortable about it. State exco member Chow Kon Yeow has told reporters that it is time to act like the government of the day and take responsibility. Dr Koh's administration was not perfect, it had weaknesses and mistakes but it was certainly not as terrible as Lim has painted it out to be. Dr Koh was a real Penang-born gentleman, he did not shout at journalists or bar them from his press conferences. He did not simply call people liars and racists just because they questioned what he did. He did not blame people when things went wrong nor did he claim credit for what he did not do and he has made a graceful exit. Journalists are beginning to appreciate Dr Koh for his finer points just as they are starting to see the real Lim. Lim seems to have his back against the wall over the land sales especially on the Taman Manggis land case. It looks real bad for a government to sell land meant for the poor to build a hotel and private hospital. It is an emotive issue and it has refused to go away simply because the answers from the state have not been convincing at all. Last week, when Lim was asked about it for the umpteenth time, he exploded and said it was all lies created by Teng Chang Yeow (Penang Barisan chief) and that Teng would sell off the whole of Penang if he became Chief Minister. Two days later, Dr Thor returned fire he said that Lim had sold the land, the sea and even the sky of Penang. The land referred to the land sales, the sea referred to Lim's plans for an undersea tunnel and the sky referred to the increased building density that some developers are enjoying. It is game on. There will be no elegant silence on both sides.
|
They came to show their disapproval of the government's hijack of this year's celebrations by imposing the theme 'Janji Ditepati' (Promises Fulfilled), which is actually the ruling party's election campaign slogan. They came to remind the government that it had indeed not fulfilled its promises – above all, the promise of clean and fair elections.
These were people who came of their own accord, braving the possibility of arrest. Very different from many of those who would be attending the official Merdeka Day celebrations the next night at the Bukit Jalil Stadium, the extravaganza organised by the government to display its might.
Prime Minister Najib Razak, in defending the use of 'Janji Ditepati' as the Merdeka theme, says there is no reason for anyone to dispute it "unless a person is not used to keeping promises". He says everyone should fulfil their promises, including ordinary people. "If the people want the country to be peaceful, stable and more prosperous, the people must promise to contribute to peace and prosperity."
Second, many of the people of his so-called "majority" are those still zombified by the massive doses of government propaganda they are fed every day through the mainstream press and television, and have therefore not awakened to the government's chicanery.
| 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