Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- What's the difference between BN & George Soros?
- Defence Ministry Acquisition of Rapid Intervention Vehicles
- Kenyataan Mukhriz Sahkan Negara Hilang RM3.5 Bilion Setiap Tahun Kerana Agihan AP Yang Tidak Telus
- Tanda Putera: Deconstructing Prejudice
- What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, Tun
- Why Tun M is terrified of the opposition!
- Batang Kali - Britain must take moral responsibility for massacre
- Education Review Blueprint: Panacea or Placebo?
| What's the difference between BN & George Soros? Posted: 11 Sep 2012 10:36 AM PDT
Dr Kua Kia Soong, SUARAM Adviser In the BN Government's on-going witch hunt against SUARAM to try to discredit us for pursuing the suspected corruption scandal over the Scorpene deal in the Paris court, they now try to suggest that there is a problem with us having received funds from George Soros' Open Society Institute. The Domestic Trade Minister wants Bank Negara to investigate if there is "money laundering" involved. In so doing, the Minister has unwittingly put Bank Negara in an embarrassing position. George Soros is well known as a currency speculator, philanthropist and promoter of open society. What is baffling is the BN Government's problem with Soros. From the BN Government's propaganda, there seem to be two problems: (i) He is a currency speculator (ii) He is Jewish.
The Jewish Question The fact that being ethnically Jewish (rather than being a Zionist) can be the basis for derision and condemnation in Malaysia (especially in the UMNO press) is evidence of the racist nature of the governing regime. This speaks volumes about UMNO's capacity for providing a non-racist path to progress in Malaysia. SUARAM certainly does not have a problem with Soros' ethnicity.
Who is NOT a Currency Speculator? Soros has a reputation as a smart currency speculator. But he has made his millions through his own means and devices. On the other hand, our own Bank Negara under Dr Mahathir's watch speculated in the international currency markets from 1992-94 using the rakyat's money and incurred losses cited as ranging from RM10-30 billion! It has been claimed that the maximum exposure of Malaysian taxpayers' money in the forex market during that irresponsible fling was as much as RM270 billion. (Malaysian Business, April 1994) It was the biggest disaster ever for Bank Negara which had to be bailed out by the Finance Ministry in 1994 but the biggest heads have yet to roll! It was after this fiasco and one of Dr Mahathir's most humiliating performances that he, in a pique of rage, called Soros a "moron". When the 1997 Asian financial crisis struck, Soros was again blamed. However, Mahathir eventually had to eat humble pie at a press conference with Soros on 15 December 2006 at which he accepted that Soros had not been responsible for the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Thus, after the 1992-94 forex scandal one would have thought that the BN government would think twice about denouncing currency speculators!
SUARAM's Principled Stand on Justice, Democracy & Human Rights Through the 23 years of SUARAM's existence, we have never compromised our principled stand on freedom, justice, democracy and human rights. We have never been beholden to any funders, whether foreign or local, as our anti-imperialist stand and actions in the Anti-War Coalition testify.
Malaysia sliding down the slippery road to banana republicanism From the Domestic Trade & Consumerism Minister's irresponsible statements about charging our company while CCM is still investigating the case and this latest gaffe involving Soros, the BN Government appears to be shooting itself in the foot. On the one hand, the Prime Minister is trying so hard to present himself as a reformer by promising more democracy, the rule of law and human rights in the run-up to the 13th general election; On the other, his minister continues to violate all these principles of good governance in his haste to try to discredit SUARAM. This seems to be the Prime Minister's dilemma. His words do not seem to match the BN Government's actions and with every gaffe by blundering ministers, we seem to be sliding down the slippery road to banana republicanism. |
| Defence Ministry Acquisition of Rapid Intervention Vehicles Posted: 11 Sep 2012 10:28 AM PDT  The reprimand by the Sultan of Johor, Sultan Ibrahim Ismail on the acquisition of Rapid Intervention Vehicles (RIVs) at exhorbitant prices highlights the malaise in the Ministry of Defence procurement exercises Tony Pua On Saturday 8 September 2012, the Sultan of Johor, Sultan Ibrahim Ismail asked that "nobody should take advantage of the situation for personal gains when acquiring equipment for the Special Forces," adding that recently four Rapid Intervention Vehicles (RIV) were purchased for RM2.76mil or RM690,000 each by the Ministry of Defence. Sultan Ibrahim then displayed one of the RIV vehicles and another personal vehicle that he purchased for RM150,000. "Which of these will be your choice? I do not understand why government purchases involve exorbitant charges that do not make sense," Sultan Ibrahim, who is also a Colonel in the Special Forces, was reported to have said. The above acquisition follows a series of controversial procurement of defence vehicles by the Ministry of Defence that have raised major question marks over whether the tax payers are getting value for their money. In 2008 the Ministry of Defence has acquired 12 Eurocopter Cougar EC725 for RM2.3 billion or RM193 million each despite the same model helicopter being acquired for only RM82.8 million each by the Brazillian government. The Ministry had attempted to justify their higher purchase price to the Parliamentary Accounts Committee on the basis that there were "customisations" on the vehicle to meet the needs of the local air force. Last year, the Ministry also awarded a RM6 billion contract to Boustead Naval Shipyard to build 6 offshore patrol vessels and a RM7.55 billion contract to purchase 257 units of 8x8 Armoured Personnel Carriers (APCs) from DRB Hicom Bhd. The RM6 billion contract was subsequently inflated to a RM9 billion contract and the Minister of Defence, Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi had justified the both the acquisition and the increase in price on the fact that Malaysians are acquiring the state of the art "littoral combatant ships" (LCS). It was subsequently exposed that the Ministry of Defence had merely "renamed" the German-made "Gowind Class" naval vessels into "LCS", which is the name for the more technologically advanced ships built for the United States. We can only interpret that the "renaming" of the ships is done to mislead the public into believing that we were indeed acquiring the best-in-class ships with the RM9 billion contract. Similarly, it was exposed that while we are buying 257 APCs from DRB-Hicom for RM7.55 billion, DRB-Hicom is acquiring the 257 APCs from Turkish defence contractor for RM1.7 billion. While DRB-Hicom will still need to install certain optional equipment, such as the turret guns and software systems onto the APCs, it is beyond reasonable believe that such additional "customisations" will cause the bill to be inflated from RM1.7 billion to RM7.55 billion; or from only an average of RM6.6 million to RM29.4 million for each vehicle. When the above controversies were exposed, I was accused by the Minister of Defence as a foreign spy seeking to expose national defence secrets and criticised as being ill-informed with regards to defence technology. However, when the critique comes from the Sultan of Johor, the Minister has no choice but to concede an investigation into the glaring financial irregularity. Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi had responded yesterday that "the Defence Ministry takes note of the comment positively. [He] will look into the difference in prices between the RIV awarded by Sultan Ibrahim priced at RM150,000 compared with the RM690,000 sold by the supplier." We call upon all of the above deals to be investigated and scrutinised not the Ministry of Defence itself, but by an independent Parliamentary Oversight Committee. Malaysians have no faith that the Ministry will be able to conduct an investigation that is fair and above board. In the light of procurement transparency promoted by the Government Transformation Programme, it is critical that the Ministry of Defence supports the set up of the Oversight Committee to prove that all is above board. After all, if all the above transactions are of value for money to the Government, then surely there is nothing to hide from this independent panel.
|
| Kenyataan Mukhriz Sahkan Negara Hilang RM3.5 Bilion Setiap Tahun Kerana Agihan AP Yang Tidak Telus Posted: 11 Sep 2012 10:21 AM PDT
Jika jumlah AP yang dikeluarkan mencecah 70,000 setiap tahun seperti yang dianggarkan, negara dan rakyat kehilangan hasil sekitar RM3 bilion hingga RM3.5 bilion setiap tahun kerana kementerian yang turut diketuai Datuk Mukhriz kini hanya mengenakan caj RM10,000 sahaja setiap AP apabila ia diagihkan kepada pihak-pihak tertentu tanpa melalui proses tender terbuka. Rafizi Ramli,YB Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad Saya mengalu-alukan maklumbalas pertama Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir terhadap isu penurunan harga kereta memandangkan beliau adalah antara orang penting yang bertanggungjawab menggubal dasar automotif negara, atas kapasiti beliau sebagai Timbalan Menteri Perdagangan Antarabangsa dan Industri (MITI). Saya sertakan laporan BERNAMA bertarikh 7 September 2012 mengenai kenyataan yang dibuat beliau semasa merasmikan Persidangan Perwakilan Wanita Umno Bahagian Jerlun: Mukhriz: 'BN tidak berani buat janji kosong'
JERLUN - Barisan Nasional (BN) tidak akan membuat janji yang tidak mampu ditunaikan oleh parti, kata Timbalan Pengerusi Badan Perhubungan Umno Kedah Datuk Mukhriz Tun Mahathir. Kenyataan Datuk Mukhriz yang mengesahkan anggaran kementerian beliau bahawa permit import (AP) akan menarik bidaan setinggi RM60,000 setiap satu jika dikendalikan secara telus melalui tender terbuka mempunyai kesan yang besar kepada kewangan negara. Jika jumlah AP yang dikeluarkan mencecah 70,000 setiap tahun seperti yang dianggarkan, negara dan rakyat kehilangan hasil sekitar RM3 bilion hingga RM3.5 bilion setiap tahun kerana kementerian yang turut diketuai Datuk Mukhriz kini hanya mengenakan caj RM10,000 sahaja setiap AP apabila ia diagihkan kepada pihak-pihak tertentu tanpa melalui proses tender terbuka. Bagi setiap AP, negara dan rakyat rugi sehingga RM50,000 dan jumlah itu masuk poket pihak berkepentingan yang mengaut untung besar akibat dasar tidak telus Umno/Barisan Nasional. Jumlah RM3 bilion hingga RM3.5 bilion ini adalah lebih tinggi berbanding anggaran yang dibuat KEADILAN dalam menentukan sumber kewangan untuk menampung dasar menurunkan harga kereta melalui pemotongan cukai eksais secara berperingkat. Ia juga membuktikan kemampuan kewangan kerajaan untuk melaksanakan dasar ini, jika Umno/Barisan Nasional benar-benar serius mendengar desakan rakyat. Kenyataan Datuk Mukhriz juga menggambarkan beliau masih belum faham mekanisme yang boleh digunapakai untuk menurunkan harga kereta kerana terlalu terbawa-bawa dengan pandangan yang berpihak kepada tauke kaya dan pengedar kereta yang membuat untung berlebihan dari sistem AP sedia ada. Rungutan beliau, kononnya harga AP yang tinggi jika dilelong secara terbuka akan menyebabkan harga kereta bertambah tinggi membayangkan beliau mahu mempertahankan kadar keuntungan berlipat kali ganda yang kini dinikmati pihak-pihak berkepentingan ini. Menurut perkiraan beliau, bila kadar keuntungan ini dipertahankan, sebarang peningkatan kos kepada pengedar kereta akibat harga AP yang lebih tinggi perlu ditanggung oleh rakyat. KEADILAN mengesyorkan supaya pengedar-pengedar berkepentingan ini bersaing sesama mereka dengan mengurangkan kadar keuntungan demi mendapatkan pelanggan. Apabila harga AP meningkat dan harga kereta mula turun, mereka tidak ada pilihan melainkan mengurangkan kadar keuntungan yang tidak berpatutan yang mereka nikmati selama ini. Demi menerangkan lagi mekanisme ini kepada Datuk Mukhriz, KEADILAN ingin menjemput Datuk Mukhriz untuk turut sama hadir ke Forum #turunhargakereta yang diadakan pada hari Khamis ini (13 September 2012) jam 8 malam di Dewan Perhimpunan Cina Kuala Lumpur & Selangor yang bakal menemukan YB Tony Pua, YB Dr Dzulkifly Ahmad, Saudara Wan Saiful Wan Jan, Saudara Rafizi Ramli dan YB Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad. Jika beliau benar-benar berjiwa besar demi kepentingan rakyat, kami yakin Datuk Mukhriz akan sudi singgah bersama-sama dengan rakyat berbincang kaedah terbaik untuk menurunkan harga kereta, terutamanya apabila beliau sendiri sudah mengesahkan bahawa kerajaan mempunyai dana yang mencukupi untuk melaksanakannnya.
|
| Tanda Putera: Deconstructing Prejudice Posted: 08 Sep 2012 04:04 PM PDT
I really doubt the capacity of Ms Shuhaimi to "look at all angles" if after looking at the records produced in my book she still insists that the communists were responsible for May 13. Dr Kua Kia Soong, SUARAM Adviser
I am in full agreement with the director of the forthcoming film 'Tanda Putera', Shuhaimi Baba that we should withhold any critique of the film until we have seen it. I have so far merely warned Malaysians about the record of the Barisan National in resurrecting the spectre of 'May 13' at every general election since 1969. Others have protested against some of the images posted on the Facebook for the film. But judging from Shuhaimi's interview in an online media (FMT, 6.9.2012), I am not too sanguine about her impartiality and capacity to discern fact from prejudice in a mature manner: "When I first read Dr Kua (Kia Soong's) book, I thought what came out first and shining through was his prejudices against Malays and his resentment against the office of the prime minister then. His accusations – alluding to who was responsible for May 13- that is, Tun Razak, was not only atrocious but irresponsible. But then he knows that, I am sure, since he's more intelligent than most men, and he does it for effect and propaganda and to rile up Chinese sentiments. It was too easy for him. As a writer, he preferred to be biased and did not shed any light on the riots but even considered the communists had nothing to do with it. His obvious biasness – not questioning why in Tunku's own book, and later in an authorised biography of Tunku as late as 1990 – Tunku did not cast aspersions on Tun Razak. There were reports and books written by people who were not present during May 13. Some were based on third party reports. Yet in one publication, no mention was made that the writer was not in the country, the author did not point out he was not present but his comments and observations on May 13 were like a first-person report. Complete with prejudices against the Malays and the Malaysian government. How is it that this author can be quoted as a reliable source? He had deliberately too omitted details of what were the insulting behaviours towards the Malays before May 13. I find the NOC (National Operations Council) report on May 13, 1969, may not be as complete, but it was more useful and reliable because they were verified with statistics and signed support reports and documents. The NOC report was also verified by a committee appointed by Tun Ismail. The head of the committee was a person of high integrity. So that's where I am coming from when I say I looked at all angles…"
Prejudices against Malays? First, I would like to thank her for reading my book although I am very disappointed that she has drawn very odd conclusions from it. I have read such accusations of my supposed "prejudices against Malays" among the mindless blogheads in cyberspace but I would expect better of an artist who seeks a reputation for integrity. For a start, she fails to provide any evidence for my supposed "prejudices against the Malays and (my) resentment against the office of the prime minister". Many respected Malay intellectuals have critiqued my book and made no mention of it being "prejudiced against Malays". I may be guilty of using class analysis in my writings but you will not find a more committed anti-racist crusader than me in this country… The late Rustam Sani (bless his soul!) wrote in his blog on 13 May 2007 after attending the launch of my book: "May 13: A Sunday morning well-spent at the book launch. There was absolutely no doubt in my mind that Dr Kua had penned a very important book – indeed, to my mind, he has made "publishing history" of sorts. I came out of the book launch feeling only half-satisfied with the discussion that took place and half-pessimistic about the future. It did not, however, diminish my appreciation of Dr Kua's book as an important contribution to my understanding of Malaysia's contemporary history, and for such interesting and thoughtful presentations by the guest speakers." Among the guest speakers was highly respected Malay intellectual, Professor Syed Husin Ali who disputed my "coup detat" thesis but he did not think that my book displayed "prejudices against the Malays". Azmi Sharom, writing in The Star on 31 May 2007, had this to say about the book: "As with Kua's earlier works, it is written in a passionate style that drives the narrative forward with a sense of urgency, so much so that reading it was a pleasure. I think that this is an important book. It raises issues and questions that challenge the official story of the riots and it adds new information that is vital if we as a nation are ever to truly understand that horrible period of our history." Again, he did not get the impression that I was "prejudiced against the Malays". Likewise, my socialist comrade Dr Mohd Nasir Hashim has not mentioned to me that he finds my account "prejudiced against Malays" because he also subscribes to class analysis of society and history. I am therefore dubious about the amount and the quality of research done by Ms Shuhaimi on May 13 and whether she seriously read my book. She says that "no mention was made that the writer was not in the country, the author did not point out he was not present but his comments and observations on May 13 were like a first-person report."
The Full Story of May 13 is Yet Untold First, my book uses declassified documents which I researched first-hand in London and made available in The British Public Records Office, Kew Gardens. That's a lot of valuable legwork that is potentially helpful research for Ms Shuhaimi's film. The suggestion that I was trying to portray this as a first-hand account is puzzling, as the title itself clearly states the fact that such first-hand accounts are extracts from the declassified documents themselves. Ms Shuhaimi is certainly the first person to make such an observation. The reason my book created such a sensation was because many Malaysians do not find the official versions credible. Contrary to what Ms Shuhaimi says, the official statistics on the casualties during May 13 are the least credible of all. I may not have been there but my brother in law was a professor at the University Hospital at the time and my brother was a medical student at Malayan University too. They saw the number of bodies that were tarred to conceal their ethnicity and they certainly exceeded the official figures. The documents in my book testify as much to this fact. I provided a class analysis based on the available evidence provided by the records at the time. A fuller story will only emerge with a Truth & Reconciliation Commission when families of the victims, the police, the army, hospital doctors and staff come forward to tell us their stories. A serious artist should welcome as many stories from the people as possible and not be beholden to the official version.
The Tunku's Views on Tun Razak Ms Shuhaimi accuses me of bias and claims that the Tunku didn't cast aspersions on Tun Razak. Again, this reflects on the quality of her research and her capacity to weigh historical documents. Obviously Ms Shuhaimi does not consider the documents produced in my book to be worth consideration or to be objective. She falls back on the Tunku's early writings and apparently, "the Tunku's authorised biography". For the information of Ms Shuhaimi, K. Das was the Tunku's official biographer and they had carried out a series of interviews which can be read in my 2002 title: "K. Das & the Tunku Tapes". Yes, a copy of the tapes was given to me by K.Das' family. Can any records beat these audio recordings done in the twilight of the Tunku's life when he could finally speak his mind? Will Ms Shuhaimi challenge me to produce the Tunku tapes to verify if the Tunku actually said these words to K. Das? "You know Harun was one of those – Harun, Mahathir, Ghazali Shafie – who were all working with Razak to oust me, to take over my place…" (Kua Kia Soong, 2002: 112) For the further information of Ms Shuhaimi, I am not the first person to see May 13 as a coup detat against the Tunku. A Malay (yes, Malay!) intellectual, Subky Latiff had already put forward this thesis in an academic journal, Southeast Asian Affairs, Singapore in 1977. Although I was not at the seminar when Subky Latiff presented his paper, I am sure there were no gasps of "how atrocious and irresponsible!" among the academics gathered there.
Why the deference to Authority? We can understand deference to authority in a feudal society. But why do we need to be deferential to the people we elect? Ms Shuhaimi refers to the Prime Ministers as if they are deities to worship. In fact, whenever a general election approaches, that is the time when the politicians including prime ministers eat humble pie and plead for our support. What are prime ministers but the leaders of the respective parties who happen to win a majority in the general election? If we take the trouble to research into Malayan/ Malaysian history, we will invariably find that the leaders of political parties often use foul underhand means to maintain their political positions. This goes not only for the incumbent but also for the opposition parties. My recent "Patriots & Pretenders" gives an account of the way the British colonial power connived to ensure the victory of the Alliance in the pre-Independence manoeuvres. Take UMNO as an example. If political chicanery had not come into play, Dato Onn Jaafar leading the Independence of Malaya Party could have become Prime Minister at Independence. If the British colonial power had not backed the Alliance, the PMCJA-PUTERA coalition could have given the Alliance a good run for their money and we could have had a socialist prime minister who would not want such feudal deference from the people! The proclamation of The Emergency in 1948 through to 1960 was to ensure the British colonial power passed political power onto their local custodians at Independence and not to the PMCJA-PUTERA coalition. Then again, if it had not been for Dr Mahathir's "tengkolok trick" in 1990, Tengku Razaleigh might have become Malaysia's prime minister. Likewise, the arrest of Anwar Ibrahim in 1998 altered the history of UMNO and assured Dr Mahathir's hold on power into the 21st century. Yes, like any democrat I have a healthy disrespect for authority in an oppressive regime and I would have imagined an artist with ideals and integrity would share such aspirations for truth, justice, freedom, democracy and human rights.
Were the Communists Responsible for May 13? I really doubt the capacity of Ms Shuhaimi to "look at all angles" if after looking at the records produced in my book she still insists that the communists were responsible for May 13. In my book I have shown that in the Tunku's broadcast at 2230 on 17 May 1969, he had qualified his earlier assertion that the disturbances were caused by communists, putting the blame instead on assorted "bad elements". Is this Ms Shuhaimi's own prejudices or does she have stronger evidence to show that the communists were indeed responsible for May 13? The regime used the communist bogey at the time because it was necessary for it to justify imposing a state of emergency and to carry out the agenda of the new Umnoputras. To conclude, I fervently hope that Ms Shuhaimi will seriously study my views like any honest artist and ponder the deconstruction of prejudice. Perhaps, this is an opportunity for Ms Shuhaimi as an artist to be more circumspect – be more of a calligrapher with a deft brush rather than follow the mindless mob that tars and feathers any detractors… |
| What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, Tun Posted: 08 Sep 2012 04:00 PM PDT
Isn't Mahathir, in his desperation to ensure the BN remains in power forever, indulging in undemocratic actions to deny the opposition the space and opportunity to form an alternative government that would guarantee the demise of the BN, wonders P Ramakrishnan.
Tun Dr Mahathir's warning that the country may never see a Barisan Nasional (BN) government again if Pakatan Rakyat (PR) is voted into Putrajaya, would provoke the response, "Good riddance to bad rubbish!" from many Malaysians who are totally fed up with BN rule. After 55 years of BN rule, it is time to say, "Enough is enough! It's time to go!!" Mahathir should stop whining that the federal opposition would do "everything possible" to stay in power forever if they were to form the next government. What's wrong with that, Tun? Didn't you do that, Tun, to stay in power forever? Why is it when you did "everything possible" to cling on to power, it was the proper thing to do but it is utterly wrong now for others to aspire to, as you did. Didn't you refuse our beloved Tunku, the honest Hussein Onn, the fearless Tengku Razaleigh and others admission into Umno Baru so that you could remain in power forever without any opposition from within the party? Didn't you introduce the system of 10 bonus votes for every nomination you received from Umno divisions to ensure that you would continue to be the President of Umno without any threat of a challenge? Didn't you fix a minimum number of nominations from Umno divisions to be eligible to contest the president's post? And didn't this effectively prevent Tengku Razaleigh from challenging for the president's post? Didn't the BN amend the federal constitution to disqualify those who resigned and thereby forced a by-election so that you could not be put to the test again? The amendment came soon after Shahrir Samad resigned as a BN parliamentarian in 1988, forcing a by-election in Johor Bharu, which he won convincingly as an independent, thus embarrassing you in the process. Didn't you have absolute control of the party and government so that your position would remain unassailable as long as you chose to stick around? Wasn't the BN guilty of gerrymandering to ensure that the BN had the best advantage to win the elections so that you and the BN could lord over the nation forever? Didn't you destroy the judiciary in 1988 when you played a role in the sacking of the then Lord President, Tun Salleh Abas? Wasn't it to preserve and perpetuate your position? Didn't you shackle the powers of the royalty by holding semarak gatherings throughout the country to run down the royalty and by amending the constitution so that you and the BN could remain in power forever without any obstacles or obstruction? Didn't the BN deny allocations for all elected MPs and State Assembly members – unfairly and unjustly – so that the BN could continue to rule forever by pulling the purse strings? Didn't the BN engineer the overthrow of the legitimately elected Pakatan government in Perak ignoring the choice of the voters so that the BN could forever continue to be in power by whatever means? Isn't the BN hounding Anwar through trumped up charges and all other foul means to prevent his political ascendancy, which threatens the BN's greed to remain in power forever? Isn't it because the BN wants to be in power forever – and by any means – that it is going after the brave Bersih leaders who had inspired Malaysians to march in their thousands demanding free and fair elections? Aren't you in your desperation to ensure the BN remains in power forever indulging in undemocratic actions to deny the opposition the space and opportunity to form an alternative government that would guarantee the demise of the BN? Why is it, dear Tun, that only you and the BN can have the licence to do everything possible to remain in power forever? Why are you denying the loyal opposition the same opportunity to protect and preserve their position? Haven't you heard of the saying, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander"? Your hypocrisy is really nauseating, Tun! P Ramakrishnan, the immediate past president of Aliran, now serves on the Aliran executive committee. |
| Why Tun M is terrified of the opposition! Posted: 08 Sep 2012 03:17 PM PDT
Daniel John Jambun If we look at how Tun Dr. Mahathir has been making political comments during the last few months we would have noticed very clearly that he is actually very worried, yes, utterly terrified, about of the possibility of the opposition taking over the government. The basis of this fear is real. Mahathir is not merely having a nightmare for nothing. And he has a lot of good reasons to see it all coming. Firstly, the great tsunami of 2008 changed the way the BN looks at itself. It made BN realize how fragile the national coalition is. In fact 2008 was such a close call that had it been without Sabah and Sarawak, the powerful BN leaders would no longer be sitting in Putrajaya right now. And he knows things had gone further downhill for the BN since then. In spite of all the dirty tactics, all the scandals against opposition leaders, all the manufacturing of endless good news about the economy, the Santa Claus programs, the people had continued to lose confidence in the BN. Now wonder Mahathir had gone into the bad habit of saying a lot nonsensical and downright stupid things! In desperation he said it's better to have a devil that you know that a devil you don't know. It was admittance that the BN is a devil. He had justified the huge influx of illegal immigrants into Sabah and made the totally ludicrous proposal that as long as they can speak Malay, they qualify to become citizens of Malaysia. This statement set off a barrage of firings from both the opposition and the BN leaders. It made us wonder what kind of mind was ruling us for 27 years. Now he had gone into fear mongering by saying again and again that if the opposition takes over the country, it would lead to total chaos, which goes in line with PM Datuk Seri Najib's idea that the opposition is not qualified to take over the government. Well tell that to Lim Guan Eng and Datuk Khalid Ibrahim. But to top it all, Mahathir's most interesting remark was his idea that if the PR takes over the government, it will rule Malaysia forever. The funny thing about this childish remark is that it is actually a compliment to PR! Mahathir said if the PR takes over, it will do things to make sure the BN can never come back to rule again, saying he "knows a few things." What he said here is very telling about what kind of government the BN has been running for 27 years under Mahathir. He doesn't know a few things; he actually know A LOT of things, meaning underhanded tactics and dirty tricks to ensure the opposition can never take over the government. Well, if he knows all these tricks and he had used them over the years, how come the BN is in real danger of toppling over now? Maybe Abraham Lincoln was right when he said, "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time" or as the Malay proverbs says, "Sepandai-pandai tupai melompat akhirnya jatuh ke tanah juga." Or maybe Mahathir's many tricks – increasing the population of Sabah with immigrants by four folds, gerrymandering, threatening and penalizing the opposition leaders and dissenters with draconian laws, manipulating the economy to keep Sabah and Sarawak poor so they continue to be beggars and dependants in Malaysia, suffocating the press, promoting social polarization through manipulation of race and religion, etc. etc. – had failed to put Malaysians under anymore control because they have had enough of it and realized it is time to change the government. He thought he could continue to put on a benign face and manipulate the people forever. But guess what, you can't fool the people forever. It is interesting that he believes that a new Malaysian government will become more corrupt than his government. Only a dictator who controlled a regime which put on a benign face for so long can think like this. He is actually telling the world, that by knowing "a few things" he was really corrupt and evil as a Prime Minister. By saying all these things he is actually admitting that he is a Machiavellian politician who would stop at nothing to get what he wants. And now, frustrated that he no longer calls the shots, he thinks he is helping Najib's government by going into fear mongering. And poor Najib can't say or do anything because Mahathir has a lot of clout, being able to play the role of a puppet player behind the scene. Najib has to keep quiet, or else. And when we fully realize the reality of this situation, in which our Prime Minster is at the mercy of his predecessor, we will have reasons to have even less confidence in the present BN government! So Mahathir is not doing Najib any favour by talking endlessly like a drunken and frightened monkey. Despite his praises for Najib, he only causes the people to see out PM as a weak puppet. It will be very interesting to observe what Mahathir will say on the next few days. You can bet he won't be able to keep quite more than a few days. He is too paranoid to keep quiet more than a few days. But what he needs to understand is that his ideas are getting more and more ridiculous and only to serve to convince us even more that our former PM is losing his marbles and showing clear signs of senility. But what is the real reasons Mahathir is so frightened of the prospect of the BN falling? Believe me Mahathir's reasons are less patriotic than what he tries to show to the public. The real reasons are personal. If BN falls, protective walls around him will crumble and he stands to face the music for a lot of misdeeds during his heydays. Why else is he so paranoid about the RCI and so eager to defend the illegals? Because of the reality of the Projek IC Mahathir. And this is not the only can of worms that are waiting to be exposed. There will be so many that the whole world will have to reel back in shock and disgust. But what can he do now, that the dark clouds are descending on his head and his family? The days of reckoning are here and nobody, even Mahathir with all his clout and money, can stop it.
|
| Batang Kali - Britain must take moral responsibility for massacre Posted: 07 Sep 2012 10:28 AM PDT
The smokescreen of 'defeating communism' was used to justify atrocities such as Batang Kali 1948. Notice that the Malaysian government has kept a guilty silence over this case despite hounding Mat Sabu over Bukit Kepong. Dr Kua Kia Soong, SUARAM Adviser On 4 September 2012, the London High Court of Justice handed down a judgement that there was no legal duty for Her majesty's Government to hold an inquiry over the killing of 24 civilians by HMG's Scots Guards at Batang Kali on 11/12 December 1948 and that the claimants had no grounds to challenge the decisions of the Secretaries of State not to hold an inquiry. The conclusion of the court was that the decisions of the Secretaries of State "were not unreasonable…" They had maintained that the facts of the case remained in dispute; the veracity of the accounts was in doubt as most of the witnesses had died, and the evidence would be unreliable since it happened more than sixty years ago. Regarding the claim that the Secretaries of State had an obligation to conduct an inquiry under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the court cited the House of Lords decision [Re McKerr and McCaughey UKHL 12, 1 WLR 807] that "there was no duty to investigate a death before the coming into force of the Human Rights Act on 2 October 2000." (para 93) Although this may seem like a setback for the claimants and all who demand justice for the 24 victims, there are certain positive dimensions in this judgement and hope in comparable cases elsewhere. 1. The court established that the 24 victims were civilians and not combatants (para 1): On 13 December 1948, the British High Commissioner had reported the deaths to the Colonial Office as "the shooting and killing of 26 bandits..." This was standard propaganda during the Emergency by the British colonial government and their local custodians. It has taken all these 64 years for this fact to be established by a British court! 2. The British Government had command and control over the Scots Guards The Secretaries of State had argued in the court that the British Government had no legal responsibility for the actions of the Scots Guards who did the killing at Batang Kali, so they were under no duty to hold an inquiry to pin the responsibility. They had argued, very much like our learned professors in the Mat Sabu/ Mat Indera case, that the Scots Guards were merely assisting the Federation or the Selangor Sultan or both, in maintaining order. In any case, they further argued that any responsibility would have lapsed to the Federation of Malaya upon independence in 1957 via Article 167 of the Constitution. Nevertheless, the court decided that: "It is clear, in our view, that the British Government had command and control over the Scots Guards. First, the Scots Guards were part of the British Army in contradistinction to the Malay Regiment and other local forces. Second, it is evident from the minute of the British Cabinet…that the reason for the decision to send the brigade of the British Army was to defend British interests against the advance of communism on what was in reality territory the British Government controlled, to prevent the deaths of British citizens and to protect its economic interests. Third, control over the deployment of the army in Malaya was vested in British Defence Co-ordination Committee Far East…Fourth, the Scots Guards were paid for by the British Government…" (para 112) Thus, this judgement has wide applications in the Mat Sabu/Mat Indera case although I suspect many of our local professors need not just legal exposure but rather, political awareness of our colonial history.
Batang Kali is Britain's Rawagedeh Another source of hope for the claimants of Batang Kali is the recent apology by the Dutch government for a massacre of 150 people at Rawagede committed by its soldiers in Indonesia in 1947, as the country fought for independence. Earlier in 2011, a court in the Netherlands ordered the government to pay compensation over the killings. The case was brought by relatives of those who were killed. Reports said the Netherlands would pay 20,000 euros to the relatives, but the exact figure was still being negotiated.
A Crime against Humanity The Rawagedeh claimants had argued that what took place in Rawagedeh on December 9, 1947 was a crime against humanity. Like any other colonial power, the Dutch had used the euphemistic term 'excesses' to describe the tragedy. Like the British in Malaya, the Dutch state defined it as an internal problem. On December 9, 1947 Dutch forces raided the West Javanese village to look for weapons and the Indonesian freedom fighter Lukas Kustario. Unable to find him, the Dutch military lined up the men and killed almost all of the male population. The widows of Rawagedeh and their children sued the Dutch state not only for the execution of their husbands and fathers, but also for failing to investigate the massacre. They wanted the Netherlands to acknowledge the unlawfulness of its actions, and sought financial compensation for their loss. Like the British state, the Dutch had also argued that the statute of limitations had expired. But according to the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity there is no statute of limitations on war crimes, or crimes against humanity. The Netherlands, however, like many other Western countries, is one of the states that did not ratify the convention. But the Netherlands did ratify the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court – after all, the court is at The Hague. However, according to the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court the court can only prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity committed on or after July 1, 2002 – the day it came into being. This is not dissimilar to the House of Lords judgement cited in the Batang Kali judgement of 4 Sept 2012.
Gracious and Glorious if Kate & Will Apologised for British State It will therefore only be a matter of time before the British state will be forced to face up to its moral responsibility to the Commonwealth and follow the example of the Dutch government. In this the Queen's diamond jubilee year celebrations, would it not be a gracious and glorious gesture for Kate and Will to openly apologise to the families of the victims of the Batang Kali massacre during their Kuala Lumpur visit in a few months' time? Britain has always tried to project a self-image that is civilized, dignified and humanistic. Apologists for the British Empire have painted a romantic picture of colonialists setting their colonies "on the road to modernity…" The ideology of colonialism, which rationalized and justified oppression and exploitation, has distorted Malayan history and this history has been passed intact to their local custodians (foreign lackeys?). The smokescreen of 'defeating communism' was used to justify atrocities such as Batang Kali 1948. Notice that the Malaysian government has kept a guilty silence over this case despite hounding Mat Sabu over Bukit Kepong. Without accounting for past transgressions, the British state will remain for ever trapped in history and the families of the 24 men massacred at Batang Kali will keep reminding the British state that they have a moral responsibility to apologise for the tragedy and to compensate the families for the senseless loss of their loved ones. The claimants have already notified their lawyers to appeal to the higher courts forthwith… |
| Education Review Blueprint: Panacea or Placebo? Posted: 07 Sep 2012 10:23 AM PDT
A plan is only as good as its implementation, and judging by the Ministry of Education's (MoE) track record, execution has never been its strong point. Sandra Rajoo
People seem to be all excited recently over the education review blueprint which is due to be made public on Sept 11. Some even hailed it as the best thing since sliced bread, and this is before they even know the actual content. Let us hold the applause until after we read the whole document and see where it is taking us. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, so to speak. Will this 'mother-of-all-solutions' blueprint stand up to scrutiny? Is it going to be a solid, excellent-for-education master plan or will it be a glitzy, complex and tricky-to-implement blueprint? A plan is only as good as its implementation, and judging by the Ministry of Education's (MoE) track record, execution has never been its strong point. This effort at revamping the education system, which is long overdue, has to be commended though. Nevertheless I am not holding my breath. Decades of failed endeavours by the MoE tend to make people cynical, and I am wary of those who throw out feel-good statements to pacify a sceptical public. Clearly, there is an inability to look at education holistically and plan accordingly. Piecemeal and ad hoc initiatives which have been the norm will not bring desired results. Recall the time the ministry tried to design a curriculum aimed at producing creative and critical thinking (CCT) learners. Learning was going to be fun and enjoyable apparently. Unfortunately, it didn't look very good on paper, and fared even worse in the classroom. Obviously, the desired outcomes did not materialise. Many teachers had no idea what CCT entailed, and were not too eager to encourage it, lest students start asking questions and forming opinions. So that became a failed venture. What became evident and has remained entrenched were the obsession with grades, dropping of literacy levels, robotic methods of learning, emphasis on rote-learning, 'invisible' teachers, lack of concern for students' welfare, demotivated students and indifferent education officials. The teaching and learning of Maths and Science in English (PPSMI) is another issue that makes our hackles rise. From its inception about 10 years ago until today it has been fraught with difficulty and mired in controversy. The education ministry appears helpless and at a loss, what with the flip-flopping and the inability to train competent teachers. The vagueness of the 'soft-landing' which promises the continuation of PPSMI for certain groups of students and the current situation where many teachers have reverted to teaching in BM reflect poorly on the ministry. There has so far been no effort made at monitoring the situation on the ground. Is it any wonder that many parents are moving their children to private or international schools, or resorting to home schooling? Another point of contention was when the Prime Minister announced that Literature in English will be incorporated into the curriculum. This was picked up by the media and was heralded as the panacea for our English language woes. But Literature has been in the curriculum for a decade or so already. The subject is not something new. It is amazing that the people pertinent in education circles are unaware of this fact. English woes aside, we need to also ensure that our children receive proper instruction in Bahasa Malaysia. The disorganised way in which BM is being taught in schools does not augur well for the present and coming generations. When English was the medium of instruction, it created many proficient and competent users of the language which cut across all ethnic groups. The same cannot be said about BM. How many are really competent in the language? This problem has been neglected for too long. Let's see what the new education blueprint has in store for us. Going by the 153 proposals adopted by the Review Panel, our education system does appear to be in a bit of a shambles, doesn't it? Concerned groups have been voicing their views and giving suggestions over the years, but were largely ignored. Was the ministry waiting all this while for a 'saviour' to come save the day? Is this blueprint going to be the saviour? The implementation of the blueprint will stretch over 13 years which is a long time. Is the ministry committed to carry the momentum over this long period? The revealing of the blueprint is expected to generate debate amongst stakeholders. We hope any critique given by the public is looked upon as feedback to how things can be improved. Any comment deemed unfavourable to the ministry should not be frowned upon and disregarded. All the same, I believe that responsible and dedicated educators will have their own personal education blueprint which they use to plan, guide, execute and monitor their performance. If people involved in education, from the director-general to the school principal to the classroom teacher, have been doing this all along, the nationwide review exercise would not have been necessary. Good teachers don't wait for directives from the top before giving their best to students. Ultimately it is not the blueprint per se that can save our education system, it is whether officials and educators can save it through a good understanding of their roles and a commitment to the responsibilities they hold. We want to reach a stage in our education where we can say with pride that our children are bright and capable because of the education system, not despite it. |
| 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