Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Political funding: A reality check
After mega dinner, mega disaster awaits the MCA
The UEC: An Interminable Election Issue
The Murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu
PKR must end Azmin-Khalid conflict
Najib shoots pre-election messengers
Free speech fanaticism
What’s the tit-for-tat for RM40m?
Musa Aman scandal punctures Najib’s vision
Suspense too much for some
GE13: Should the global community care?

Posted: 18 Oct 2012 02:28 PM PDT

Let's face it. All political parties, including those in the opposition, receive donations and contributions from their supporters. Otherwise how would they carry their vast organisation and nationwide activities, which need to be sustained throughout the five-year gap between elections?

Abdul Rahman Dahlan, The Malaysian Insider

When Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz recently made an announcement in Parliament reflecting on the decision of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and Hong Kong's Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) in clearing Datuk Seri Musa Aman of the alleged corruption charges, a cynical smile cracked my face: the opposition must be finding themselves in a very awkward position now.

While previously they have had a field day attacking Musa's alleged abuse of power and corruption, the same announcement has coerced them into changing their "attack-with-extreme-prejudice" strategy.

A few days after the announcement, the opposition conveniently shifted the attack from Musa to political funding for Umno. Source of the condemnation — this time around — includes calls that such funding is preposterous, labelling such funding as unacceptable and that a royal commission of inquiry must be called in instantly.

While I leave the opposition to their agenda, let's peel some underlying truth within the fabric of Malaysian politics. It is not illegal for any Malaysian to give money to a political party of his or her choice — or to anybody for that matter. Should the donor wish to remain under the cloak of anonymity, the request should be respected as long as the donation stays within the confines of the law.

But the opposition's world thrives on the axis of inequality and double standards. Allow me to illustrate my point. When the donation falls into Umno's coffer, the source must be revealed immediately. But have you heard the opposition declaring the sources of donation they have received so far? We all know that the opposition, too, receives political donations from all and sundry. How ironic!

For instance, take the spanking new multi-million ringgit DAP headquarters in Penang, which the DAP decided to acquire within two years after assuming office in Penang. The Penang DAP headquarters building is reported to have cost about RM3.5 million. According to the Penang DAP chairman, the money was collected through donations. Apparently millions have been collected to date.

When I asked a senior DAP leader on Twitter who financed the building, he replied in no uncertain terms that the millions collected were from the DAP's well-wishers and loyal supporters. It is interesting to note that when individuals give money to the DAP, it is called "sincere donation" but when the same treatment is accorded to Umno, the opposition cries "Foul!" and accuses Umno of cronyism, corruption and abuse of power.

Ironically, while Musa is accused by the opposition of looting and pillaging Sabah's rich timber areas, it was his incessant drive to protect the timber and the forest from being plundered by the irresponsible few that made him the darling of environmental groups from around the world. These organisations consistently heap praises on Musa's forest conservation programmes. Forest areas are being replanted at a record pace under Musa's watch, making hundreds of thousands of previously logged areas green again within 30 years.

In fact, during his tenure as chief minister, Musa gazetted more forest areas with lucrative timber profits and placed them under the protection of the State Assembly to ensure that no chief minister — including himself — could unilaterally give permission to log the protected areas without express approval from the State Assembly!

The same fervour is seen in Musa's handling of the state's huge reserves of minerals such as coal, silica, gold and limestone which, if mined, are potentially worth billions to the state's coffer.

When asked why he does not utilise these resources, which could potentially increase the state's revenue instead of spending effort and money on his conservation agenda, Musa frankly replied: "Sabah at the moment is already blessed with oil money, so let's keep the forest and minerals for our children's and grandchildren's future."

Now if you go by what is being alleged by the opposition in Parliament, you would think Sabah finances were in utter mess — plundered by corrupt leaders and at the same time causing millions of its people to go destitute and live in a broken society.

That is far from the truth. The fact of the matter is under Musa as the chief minister, Sabah has grown by leaps and bounds. The cash reserves of the state are at an all-time high, surpassing even the two most industrialised states in Malaysia (Selangor and Penang) and still growing strong as we speak. If the chief minister was corrupt to the core as painted by the opposition, the state would be penniless. It doesn't take a genius to empty the state coffers if one is a "vacuum cleaner" as alleged by the opposition.

Posted: 18 Oct 2012 02:08 PM PDT

Now what has the MCA to say about Utusan's lies and dirty reporting — nothing! The silence of the MCA in response to the racist brainwashing engaged in by Umno speaks volumes about the low quality and lack of backbone of the MCA's leaders — past and present.

Koon Yew Yin, The Malaysian Insider

It was reported in The Star that several thousand people attended the mega dinner in the Ipoh Stadium, organised by the Perak MCA, on October 14.

In his speech, Dr Chua Soi Lek, the MCA president, urged the guests to vote for Barisan National because it had established a solid foundation dating back to independence. He also said that the DAP would not be able to defend the Chinese even if Pakatan Rakyat took over power because it is subservient to PAS and PKR.

At the function, Dr Chua presented RM500,000 to 44 Chinese primary schools and six national-type secondary schools or RM10,000 for each school.

Various thoughts come to my mind on reading the report of the mega dinner. One is of disbelief that MCA leaders can stoop so low in using public funds for Chinese education in their attempt to win a few seats in the coming elections. But we should not be surprised especially when we look at the MCA's track record in the 2008 general election in Perak where it won only one state and three parliamentary seats.

A chairman of one of the Chinese schools told me that he did not attend the dinner because he did not want to appear so stupid as to accept the RM10,000 bribe to vote for the MCA.

Learning from the senior partner, electoral bribery appears to be the main item in the standard operating procedure manual of the MCA for the coming election. But unlike Umno in the peninsula, and Taib Mahmud and Musa Aman in Sarawak and Sabah who have billions in their political slush funds, the MCA can only throw out crumbs — such is the party's impotency and poor standing in BN and the governmental system.

See No Evil, Speak No Evil, Hear No Evil

With regard to Dr Chua's statement that the DAP is subservient to PAS and PKR, it is necessary to remind MCA supporters that almost every act of the Perak Pakatan Rakyat administration before BN unfairly regained control was criticised by the mainstream press, especially by Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian.

Chinese readers of the Malay papers and media will be familiar — and must be thoroughly disgusted — with the racist campaign of hate and poison poured out on a daily basis by Umno, the MCA's partner, which owns the mainstream Malay papers.

We now see that the Malays are being peddled the line that the Pakatan Rakyat is selling out to the non-Malays and that there is a Christian plot to take over the country.

These dirty tricks and political spinning have not only continued but have gotten worse. Increasingly racial and religious extremist sentiments are coming to the forefront which all of us need to condemn if our country's social fabric is not to be torn apart. But does the MCA dare to speak out? No, instead it is a party to these dirty tactics.

National Education: Monumental MCA Failing

It is pathetic to see the MCA going round the country and throwing out crumbs to the Chinese schools. During the past 50 years, not only has the MCA failed Chinese education dismally but it has also been a leading partner in the decline of our national school system. Today our national schools are characterised by regressive language and religious dogmas, dismal performance, low standards and unemployable products. No middle- or upper-middle-class parent — whether Chinese, Malay, Indian or from any community — would want to have their young children schooled in the sekolah rendah kebangsaan and sekolah menengah if they can help it.

This national disgrace has the MCA as one of its leading players. The party has held the deputy minister of education portfolio for umpteen years. Can the MCA point to any educational innovation that it has introduced? Can the MCA point to any educational policy of merit, fairness, and tolerance that it has been responsible for since independence?

The Chinese deputy minister of education or Dr Chua may be good at giving speeches to Chinese schools and giving out chicken feed funds but when it comes to helping determine the course of national educational policy in key areas, their position is more like that of the office boy.

Let's take the National Education Blueprint report. Now what is the MCA to say about the establishment of the matriculation college system which has discriminated against the deserving non-Bumiputeras. Malaysian public universities offer a one-year matriculation programme. These courses have largely catered to the Bumiputera population and are deemed as having a much lower standard, qualifying criteria and final examination requirement for entry into university. This situation is in contrast to that which non-Bumiputera students face as they are required to sit for the much tougher two-year STPM in Form 6. Now how did this system come about if the MCA has not been a willing accessory to the educational discrimination and injustice.

READ MORE HERE

The UEC: An Interminable Election Issue

Posted: 18 Oct 2012 01:30 PM PDT

The fact that the MQA has yet to do a proper accreditation of the UEC when other foreign universities have done so since the Eighties is not saying very much for "1 Malaysia" is it?

Dr Kua Kia Soong, Former principal of community-run New Era College, 19 October 2012

In every general election since 1975 when the Malaysian Independent Chinese Secondary Schools' (MICSS) Unified Examination Certificate (UEC) was first run, the UEC has been an election issue. The 13th general election is no exception.

I should know about the UEC. When I first came back to Malaysia from my studies in the UK in 1983, I was contracted by the former Chairman of the United Chinese School Committees' Association of Malaysia (Dong Zong), Lim Fong Seng to enable the UEC to be recognized all over the world. This I did with alacrity and within two years, notable universities in the US, Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore had recognized the UEC after the standard accreditation procedures. In most cases, their representatives visited our office and the Independent schools of which there were sixty in West and East Malaysia. Occasionally, I went to visit the key educational institutions abroad.

Today, more than 400 foreign tertiary institutions around the world already recognize the UEC and our MICSS students are found in countries all over the globe, including France, Germany and Russia. Ever since the Eighties, the National University of Singapore has been poaching hundreds of top UEC students not only for their academic excellence but also for their trilingual capabilities in an effort to balance their other Anglophile Singaporeans.

ACADEMIC ACCREDITATION, NOT RACIAL POLITICS

So why has the BN government doggedly refused to recognize the UEC all these years? In 1975, when the MICSS decided to hold its first Unified Examination, the Chinese education leaders were summoned to Parliament by then Education Minister Dr Mahathir and were told in no uncertain terms to cancel the examination "or else…!" They carried on regardless of the consequences and the UEC has been held every year since then without ever springing a leak in any examination papers!

Clearly, the reason for UMNO's position is their hegemonic position of imposing a Malay-centric education system with Bahasa Malaysia as the main medium of instruction. It should be pointed out at the outset that BM and English are compulsory language papers in the UEC and many MICSS schools also run the SPM at the fifth secondary year.

Consequently, through these years the UEC has become a political issue since UMNO refuses to recognize the MICSS system which is wholly supported by the community and not by the government. The community is thus paying double taxation when, apart from paying income tax, they also financially support this mother tongue education system.

Should the recognition of UEC remain a political issue when the BN government recognizes all foreign certificates based on their accreditation by the Malaysian Qualifications Authority (MQA)?

How else do foreign students gain admission into our institutions of higher learning?

The fact that the MQA has yet to do a proper accreditation of the UEC when other foreign universities have done so since the Eighties is not saying very much for "1 Malaysia" is it? Thus an issue such as the recognition of the UEC should from the very start have been easily handled by the MQA instead of being treated as a political football by politicians all these years.

As we have seen in the recent harassment of SUARAM through the government's directive to six government agencies, there should be a standard operating procedure for government agencies such as the MQA to carry out their job – in this case, the accreditation of the UEC – without political interference. The result of the accreditation process should then be made known and the UEC recognized or rejected accordingly. QED!

THE NEW KUANTAN MICSS & UEC

As a political gesture to win the Chinese vote, the BN government has recently approved a new secondary school in Kuantan to be governed by the Chinese community there although the letter of approval has stipulated that the new school would run the SPM. The Prime Minister Najib Razak has since said that these Kuantan students can sit for the UEC (The Sun 18 October 2012).

The sincerity of the government on this issue is in serious doubt when we bear in mind that to date hundreds of operators have already been given permits to open English-language international schools in Malaysia. Why the glaring double standards? Why do private English-language schools have a special immunity that non-profit-making community-run MICSS cannot enjoy?

Dong Zong, under the leadership of Triple Doctor Yap Sin Tian (he has three PhDs!) has tried to maintain a "purist" position by insisting that this new Kuantan school is not strictly an MICSS just because of the stipulations of the approval letter. They have said that therefore, Dong Zong would not allow its students to sit for the UEC.

As the person contracted by Dong Jiao Zong to help set up the tertiary-level New Era College for the MICSS in 1995, I see these as hypocritical and double standards. The stipulations for the new Kuantan secondary school are no different from the approval given to New Era College in 1997 – they merely reflect the BN government's (problematic) educational policy. The Dong Jiao Zong leadership did not reject the offer to New Era College then but proceeded to start the college in 1998 according to the curriculum we had planned.

It is therefore shocking that even after the Prime Minister Najib Razak has said that these Kuantan students can sit for the UEC and the new stakeholders in the Kuantan school have committed to be an MICSS, the Dong Zong leaders still insist that they will not allow the Kuantan school students to sit for the UEC. Such a legalistic position is reactionary and would make the Father of the UEC, the late Lim Fong Seng turn in his grave.

The reasons behind Dong Zong's "purist" position is highly dubious when we consider that some MICSS such as the Kuala Lumpur Chong Hwa, Kuen Cheng and others have been running the SPM concurrently with the UEC all these years. Since when have the Dong Zong leaders been so concerned to strictly follow the government's definition of a MICSS?

MAKING THE UEC WIDELY AVAILABLE

From a visionary point of view, Dong Jiao Zong should be lobbying for the UEC to be as widely available as other examination certificates at least in Malaysia and Southeast Asia instead of restricting its currency as in the case of the new Kuantan School.

To conclude, the reputation of the UEC will be intact as long as the examination board is professionally run, the quality of the MICSS is maintained and the certificate is associated with academicians and leaders of integrity. Chinese educationists should never fail to bear in mind that, of all the values instilled in students by education, perhaps none is as essential as academic integrity. Academic dishonesty – such as the pursuit of bogus PhDs - is a serious violation of the trust upon which an academic community depends.

The Murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu

Posted: 18 Oct 2012 01:10 PM PDT

Six years on, troubling questions remain about the Mongolian beauty's death, and who ordered it

John Berthelsen, Asia Sentinel

It will be six years tomorrow since bodyguards for now-Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak dragged the Mongolian translator and party girl Altantuya Shaariibuu out of a car in a patch of jungle near the Kuala Lumpur suburb of Shah Alam. As she begged for her life and apparently that of her unborn child, they knocked her unconscious, then shot her twice in the head.

That was Oct. 19, 2006. According to court testimony, Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, members of the elite Unit Tindakan Khas, both assigned to Najib's office, then wrapped Altantuya's body in C4 plastic explosives and blew her up, possibly to mangle her remains so badly that the fetus would be destroyed.

Sirul Azhar was interrogated by police shortly after the murder was discovered. He was informed that anything he said could be held against him, in accordance with the law. In his cautioned statement, as his confession was called in Malaysia, he told authorities he and Azilah had been offered RM100,000 to kill the woman and her two companions, who were causing highly public embarrassment for Abdul Razak Baginda, Najib's best friend. The 28-year-old Mongolian woman, in a letter found after her death, wrote that she was sorry she had been blackmailing Razak Baginda.
If French police records are to be believed, Razak Baginda was allegedly central to a massive bribery case in which a total of nearly €150 million in payments were steered to two Razak Baginda companies, Perimekar Sdn Bhd and Terasasi Hong Kong Ltd.

As Asia Sentinel reported earlier this year, records seized by the French police show that former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and the French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe were aware of the transactions. Memos obtained by Asia Sentinel show the French expected at least part of the money to be steered to the United Malays National Organization, Malaysia's biggest ethnic political party.

Sirul's confession was never admitted in court despite its seeming legality. And, despite a 14-month trial, neither the prosecutors, the defense nor the judge asked who had offered the RM100,000 payment to the two men. Najib's chief of staff, Musa Safri, reportedly dispatched the two policemen to pick up Altantuya and her companions, who mercifully weren't around when the two murderers abducted Altantuya, or presumably they would have died with her, As nearly as can be detremined from official records, Musa Safri was never questioned about the matter, nor was Najib.

This recounting is important because in recent weeks Najib's government has embarked on a concerted legal campaign to discredit a long string of political reform and independent news organizations who have kept the Altantuya story and others concerning corruption and political misdoings alive in Malaysia. Instead, the government and UMNO leaders have accused the reformers of being the tools of the opposition Pakatan Rakyat coalition, or of foreign powers, out to destabilize Malaysia. The presumptive foreign powers are shadowy ones, sometimes German, sometimes American, sometimes Israeli, sometimes unnamed. Enormously long blogs have been written calling into question the French documents, which were published by Asia Sentinel.

But whoever these foreign powers are, they are cast as out to hoodwink Malaysia's voters out of the government that is best for them in national elections to be held sometime next year, probably in April. This is an old story, peddled by a long string of disreputable governments across the world when reformers get too close, and it may hold sway again in Malaysia.

But there is one incontrovertible fact. Altantuya Shaariibuu is dead, and she appears to have been killed at the behest of someone with considerable clout in Kuala Lumpur. If her dying statement to Sirul Azhar, as he recounted it in his confession, is to be accepted, she appeared to have been carrying the baby of someone, perhaps high in power in Malaysia.

And, despite indignant denials from the powers that be, Altantuya appears to have had inside knowledge of the later events in France when Razak Baginda and Najib Tun Razak visited to deal with matters surrounding the purchase of Scorpene submarines from the French contractor DCN.

Although pro-government critics have denied she had ever visited France, according to testimony given by Abdul Razak when he was under investigation for ordering the two bodyguards to kill Altaantuya, he himself told investigators he traveled with her to France in 2005.

PKR must end Azmin-Khalid conflict

Posted: 17 Oct 2012 03:04 PM PDT

Swift action by PKR to end the conflict between Azmin and Khalid will portray the party as a truly democratic one.

Amir Ali, FMT

The conflict between PKR deputy president Azmin Ali, seen as the culprit in a long-standing and shameful political squabbling, and Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim risks destroying the image of the party in the wake of the coming general election.

In a democratic party, there will be such conflicts of interest that will arise from time to time but it is rare that such power struggle will spill over in the public arena via the media.

The very reason for the usual "secrecy" behind these internal struggles is that political parties tend to act fast in order to nip in the bud any dissension.

However, in the case of the Azmin-Khalid conflict which is now focused on the menteri besar's political secretary Faekah Husin, the conflict has been allowed to go on for far too long.

In order to end such conflicts immediately, PKR should have created a committee to resolve these issues internally and swiftly. The committee must be composed of the grassroots and party leaders from other states who have the interest of the party at heart, not the interest of any of the personalities involved.

It should not involve de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim since he is known to be close to Azmin who was his personal secretary in the past. Party president Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail should also not be part of the committee as she is said to be close to Faekah.

Independent observers, too, can be invited to such a committee to deliberate on the issues involved in order to represent the people's views in such conflicts.

The purpose of such a committee will be to listen to the grouses by the leaders in the conflict and the reasons for the differences in their views. The culprit should be punished by the party leadership after the submission of the report by the committee.

Murky political waters

As part of the punishment, the culprit should be suspended or even fired from all party and state posts in order to send a strong message.

It is only through such discipline that PKR will rise as a truly democratic party. This will encourage the masses to see the party in a new light, a democratic one.

READ MORE HERE

Najib shoots pre-election messengers

Posted: 17 Oct 2012 12:54 PM PDT

If the coalition underestimated the reach and influence of the online media and websites at the 2008 polls, this time it is making no such oversight.

Anil Netto, Asia Times

PENANG - Malaysiakini, a leading independent news portal, and Suaram, a human-rights organization, have come under heavy government pressure in the run-up to what is expected to be a hotly contested general election in Malaysia. Both independent groups have reported on politically damaging scandals surrounding Prime Minister Najib Razak and his ruling United Malays National Organization (UMNO) party.

In particular, Suaram has exposed and Malaysiakini reported allegations of irregularities in the procurement of Scorpene submarines from France at a time when Najib served as defense minister. The murder of a Mongolian woman, allegedly the lover of a Najib aide connected to the deal, has raised the political stakes of the scandal.

Suaram has taken the issue to France with the help of French lawyers and initiated a high-level judicial investigation into the Scorpene deal. Malaysiakini has provided considerable coverage of the exposes surrounding the deal, as well as countless other instances of alleged corruption and abuse of power in Najib's administration.

Both have come under concerted criticism by establishment figures and the mainstream media. An official investigation involving half a dozen government agencies has been initiated against Suaram. Authorities are pursuing allegations that Suaram paid bribes to civil servants for access to secret government information.

Home Minister Seri Hishammuddin Hussein has said the investigations are not linked to Suaram's actions in the submarine scandal. He and other government critics have charged that Suaram's and Malaysiakini's receipt of foreign funds, including from the US Congress-supported National Endowment for Democracy, has undermined their independence and influenced their agendas.

In particular, Malaysiakini's link with the Media Development Loan Fund, which owns a 29% holding in the news portal, has recently been put under the spotlight in the state-influenced mainstream media. One of MDLF's funders is the Open Society Foundations, a US-based organization founded by philanthropist and financier George Soros that promotes the development of civil society in developing countries.

Soros has long been a convenient whipping boy in Malaysia. In the early 1990s during the Mahathir Mohamad administration, Malaysia's Bank Negara bet on the British pound against Soros' position and ended up losing unknown billions of ringgit. The bad blood behind the scenes bubbled over when the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis broke out, with Mahathir famously referring to Soros as a "moron" for his alleged role in undermining the region's currencies, including the ringgit.

But the charges of associating with Soros don't have the same political resonance today. Malaysiakini noted last week that Najib himself met with Soros two years ago during a visit to New York. Still, UMNO politicians are taking aim at Western funding agencies to target critical civil-society and media groups and distract popular attention from their own political troubles ahead of national polls, which must be held by the first half of next year.

Read more at: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/NJ18Ae01.html

Free speech fanaticism

Posted: 17 Oct 2012 12:26 PM PDT

Different countries may define blasphemy differently but some common elements must be there. There must be a clear intention to wound religious feelings, a likelihood of breach of public order, and an element of religious insult or vilification.

Prof Shad Saleem Faruqi, The Star

THIS column on Oct 4 on "Hate speech hypocrisy" had argued that the right to free speech is not unlimited and carries concomitant responsibilities.

My article elicited a number of responses, some very learned, and I welcome them and wish to respond.

Sarachandran wrote that the perception among Muslims of their persecution is genuine and based on an objective overview of world happenings.

But "how would we weave into this paradigm the unprovoked destruction of priceless Buddhist iconic images by the Taliban and the mere murmuring protestations by the world community and deafening silence of enlightened Muslims?"

I totally agree with Sarachandran that we must not be selective in our condemnation and must take a stand against all atrocities no matter who the violator is and who the victim.

The first function of freedom is to free someone else.

Two readers asked about blasphemy against other religions besides the state religion. The answer to this has to be that the law must not be selective.

It must shield all religions against vilification. For example, the Malaysian Penal Code in section 298 contains the general offence of wounding religious feelings. The provision protects all faiths.

It must be acknowledged, however, that around the world the law on blasphemy is either discriminatory in its reach or administered unequally.

For a long time till its repeal in 2007, the UK law on blasphemy defined the offence only in relation to the Church of England.

Though the law was rarely enforced, the same effect was achieved by convicting those who insulted Jews under the common law offence of breach of peace.

However, when a Muslim citizen of Britain, humiliated by Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses, filed a police report, the public prosecutor got cold feet. The citizen then tried to initiate a private prosecution but the High Court rejected his application.

In Greece and South Africa, blasphemy is only against the Christian Church. In the European Union, despite laudable activism in the cause of human rights of non-Muslims, constitutional jurisprudence is not free of anti-Islam bias.

For example, Muslims girls are prosecuted for wearing the hijab. Mosques with minarets are vigorously opposed because that would ruin the skyline.

Reader Buyung Adil raises a question about "who will define blasphemy?" My view is that the offence must be defined by law and tried before non-sectarian, civil courts.

Different countries may define the offence differently but some common elements must be there. There must be a clear intention to wound religious feelings, a likelihood of breach of public order, and an element of religious insult or vilification. Mere disagreements with or respectful criticism of religious rulings should not be prosecuted.

What penalty must be prescribed? One reader strongly argued against the death penalty and I totally agree.

Fines along with counselling and community engagement sessions may be adequate. The purpose should be to re-educate and banish the ignorance that leads to the prejudices on which hate speech is based.

Reader Buyung also asks the provocative question: "Why aren't Buddhists, Hindus, Catholics, Protestants, Confucianists, Bahais, Zoroastrians creating violent terrorism over acts of blasphemy?"

This is a very large and involved question and only a few points can be explored.

First, it is probably true that deep, unquestioning veneration for their faith is more widespread in Muslim societies.

The militant secularism (e.g. the banning of Bible-reading in public schools as in the United States) is impossible in Muslim societies.

Secondly, it is not true that other civilisations do not indulge in religious-racial violence and persecution.

In the US, firebombing of black churches by white racist groups is known. Right-wing Christian groups destroy abortion clinics and shoot dead the patrons.

The Ku Klux Clan used to lynch blacks. During George Bush's government, nearly 7,000 Muslims were profiled, detained and harassed.

Was there no religious violence in Ireland till the 70s – inquisitions and burning of heretics; Jew-baiting and discrimination against Catholics; and the holocaust in Europe? Are not Europe and the UN to be blamed for the genocide in former Yugoslavia?

Who committed and who helped the slaughters in Sabra, Shatila and Jenin?

In India, religious, caste and tribal violence is endemic. The Babri mosque was razed to the ground and Muslims were butchered in Gujarat with political and police connivance.

In Sri Lanka, race/religious violence claimed more than a hundred thousand lives. In Thailand and the Philippines, religious violence by both sides is well known.

Thirdly, reader Buyung implies that terrorism is a speciality of Muslims. Much depends on how one defines terrorism.

America's actions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Vietnam, Kampuchea, Laos, Afghanistan, Iraq, Gautemala, Chile, Panama, Nicaragua, Cuba, El Salvador, Colombia, Congo/Zaire, Haiti, Somalia, Iran, Grenada, Costa Rica and Dominican Republic can also be defined as terrorist.

Israel's brutalities in Palestine and Lebanon are flagrant violations of international law. Actually, humanity has a bloody record and no civilisation can claim superiority in this area.

What has happened today is that through selective demonstration and fear-mongering, the topic of Islamic terrorism is allowed to demonise a religious community.

What’s the tit-for-tat for RM40m?

Posted: 17 Oct 2012 12:23 PM PDT

CT Ali, FMT

"Every political party has the right to receive political donations" so said Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak. I agree that it is the right of any political party and any Barisan Nasional politicians (you must not forget to say that) to accept donations.

You received RM4,000? Okay lah!

What about RM40,000? Still okay.

And RM400,000 is very okay… the generous donor must at least get a "thank-you" letter from Najib himself.

How about RM4 million? Wow! Must at least have lunch and/or dinner with the prime minister.

And RM40 million? Mi Casa. Su Casa! (My house is your house or make yourself at home!)

Granted that there would be more than one or two businessmen donors who would willingly part with their hard-earned RM40 million, then take all of them to dinner. Though, of course, if you have given them more than billions in business profits, then it is they who must take you out to dinner.

While chewing on that Wagyu beef (tender, tasteful and wonderfully wrapped in rice paper and tripled seared on an iron grill at RM100 an ounce), they might even ask you respectfully if they can give you more… money, that is.

That Wagyu beef is too expensive. Of course, there is that small matter of the Wagyu cows being given beer to give them that special "oomph" but you don't think about these minor religious transgression when dining with millionaires.

This is the thing with Najib – he knows how to behave in social circles and he knows just what to say.

You can fault his wife, his handling of the Defence Ministry, Perak, Sibu, National Feedlot Corporation (NFC) and a host of other "Najib expletive deleted debacles" but not his family pedigree.

But he sure has to come down to earth as we approach the 13th general election – tyres for taxi drivers and now RM9 million in "gifts" for the Sikh community.

I wonder how that RM40 million donation to Sabah Umno (not to Chief Minister Musa Aman) is going to be spent. I guess keeping the Umno's "jentera" (machinery) happy is more important than the Sikhs.

Did the MACC probe this matter?

Now, prime minister, no matter what you say about a political party's right to give or take donations, if you have any common sense, what would be the quid pro quo for such a generous donation?

Quid pro quo means a more or less equal exchange or substitution of goods or services: "a favour for a favour" and the phrases with almost identical meaning include "give and take", "tit for tat", "this for that", and "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours".

It is almost beyond belief that you can dismiss this matter with a one-liner "every political party has the right to receive political donations".

No wonder your deputy, Muhyiddin Yassin's friends are already staking out their preferred rooms on the fourth floor of the prime minister's office.

Musa Aman scandal punctures Najib’s vision

Posted: 16 Oct 2012 01:41 PM PDT

While MACC's head of investigation is claiming that it is still in the midst of investigation, how could minister Nazri claim in the same breath that MACC has concluded that there was no evidence of corruption?

Kim Quek

Prime Minister Najib Razak's refusal to disclose the donor of the S$16 million contraband cash seized at the Hong Kong International airport, following his minister's earlier acknowledgement of the cash as donation to Sabah Umno, has only heightened suspicion over the web of deceit and cover up of high corruption in the corridor of power.

His minister Nazri Aziz had earlier (Oct 11) given a written reply in parliament denying that the said S$16 million cash was Sabah Chief Minister Musa Aman's money, claiming that it was a donation to Umno party in Sabah instead, even though the carrier of the cash, Michael Chia Tien Foh, was a well known personal agent and close associate of Musa Aman, as will be elaborated later.

In a further attempt to dismiss the notion of any impropriety over the episode, minister Nazri added in his statement that the Malaysian Anti-Corrupition Commission (MACC) has concluded that "no element of corruption was proven".

However, this statement has glaringly contradicted MACC's latest stance on the issue, aired only a few days earlier.

Answering questions by reporters on the sideline of the recently concluded Sixth Conference of the International Association of Anti-Corruption Authorities (IAACA) in Kuala Lumpur, MACC deputy chief commissioner (operations) Shukri Abdul said on Oct 5: "The investigation against Musa is on corruption and we have completed the investigation, but the panel has instructed us to get more evidence."

By "the panel", Shukri Abdul was referring to MACC's operations review panel, which instructed the operation division to collect further evidence against Musa after being presented with the report on the case during the panel's last sitting in May.

DISHONEST ANSWERS ALL ROUND

Obviously, one of the two is lying; or more likely, both are lying, as there is no credibility in what these two gentlemen have said, if we were to take into consideration the full circumstances of the case.

Nazri is unlikely to have told the truth, as he couldn't have known more than the head of investigation.

As for Shukri, how serious can we take his word that MACC couldn't come to a conclusion despite four long years of investigation into a simple case of someone caught red-handed while smuggling an enormous sum of laundered cash? After all, evidence galore in the Internet of the intricate network of money flow originating from timber corruption in Sabah with Michael Chia as one of the focal points of the trail that eventually ends up in Musa Aman's personal account in UBS AG in Zurich. In fact, a flow chart showing these money movements complete with account details was produced by the Hong Kong Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), a copy of which has been conveyed to MACC, according to Sarawak Report website, which has also posted the chart in http://www.sarawakreport.org/2012/04/hold-on-trust-for-aman-more-devastating-evidence-from-the-icac-investigation/. It is not difficult to see from this elaborate network of bank accounts and money transactions that the S$16 million incident is only the tip of the iceberg of a clandestine operation to siphon massive timber corruption money from Sabah.

Apparently, ICAC has also forwarded its findings to MACC, and requested for inter-country co-operation to wrap up the case, but such attempt was reportedly blocked by Attorney General Gani Patail.

Can MACC deny that it is in possession of the fruits of ICAC's laborious investigations into the case including the said money flow chart that conclusively crucifies Musa Aman? Perhaps the parliamentary select committee on corruption should summon MACC chief commissioner Abu Kassim to answer this question.

MUSA'S LIES EXPOSED

Adding to the credibility crisis of the duo – Nazri and Shukir – is the blanket denial by Musa Aman of all allegations against him.

Responding to Sarawak Report's various allegations that among others, Musa's two sons studying in Australia regularly received timber kickbacks from bank accounts controlled by Chia, Musa flatly denies these in a written statement on April 12, 2012 that reads:

"I deny all these allegations. I wish to put it on record once again that I have no business association whatsoever with an individual named Michael Chia".

Musa's denial, however, was contradicted by banks statements produced in the Singapore High Court in a civil suit (Suit No.752 of 2010/N) in June that was brought by Chia's former associate and now adversary involving a money dispute.

To defend its position in the dispute, UBS AG produced bank statements that clearly showed that Musa's sons Mohammed Hayssam Musa and Hazem Musa Hazem Mubarak Musa were regular recipients of money remitted from accounts of companies which Chia claimed to be under his control. These British Virginia registered shady companies with large amount of unaccounted for cash regularly flowing mysteriously through their accounts are obvious vehicles of money laundering.

Thus both UBS AG and Chia, out of the necessity to defend their respective positions, had unwittingly produced in court evidences that tell us that Musa Aman has told a blatant lie that he has no link whatsoever with Michael Chia. More than that, these bank documents also collaborate documents in Sarawak Report's possession (including the abovementioned flow chart) that regularly surface in its frequent exposure of Musa Aman's nefarious ventures as the notorious timber baron of Sabah.

Interestingly, according to Sarawak Report, these secret reports are leaked documents from not only ICAC, but also from MACC, which has carried out a parallel investigation on Sabah timber corruption, following the arrest of Michael Chia in Hong Kong on 14 Aug 2008 for money smuggling and laundering.

Judging from MACC's long silence and inaction despite the wealth of evidence of Sabah timber corruption in its hands, it is not difficult to visualize the limitations under which it has to operate.

UMNO INCRIMINATES ITSELF

Prime Minister Najib Razak certainly didn't help matters with his curt refusal to divulge the source or any information that may lessen the gravity of this scandal. In that encounter with the press after chairing the Barisan Nasional supreme council meeting on Oct 12, he even tried to sanitize this sordid incident by saying "every political party has the right to receive political donation as long as it is done in a proper way". He added that the amount of the donation is irrelevant, repeating the proviso that "as long as it is done in a proper way".

It really boggles the mind to think that the Prime Minister could consider such bizarre fashion of conveying donation as "the proper way".

May we remind the Prime Minister that money smuggling and money laundering are serious criminal offences, for which Michael Chia would have been prosecuted, convicted and jailed and the cash confiscated, if not for the Malaysian government's refusal to extend its co-operation to the Hong Kong authorities.

And since Michael Chia is only a courier, the master for whom he serves – Umno – is even more guilty.

In any democratic country, law enforcers would have swung into action following the Prime Minister's open admission of such association of breach of law; but of course, in Boleh Land, this is business as usual – nothing to make a fuss about.

This latest scandal is only one of many that have been incessantly popping up lately despite the imminence of a crucial election. It only serves to reinforce the hard fact that our self-styled "reformist" Prime Minister's many "transformations" he claimed to have brought to the nation are more illusion than substance.

As for his vision of "best democracy" and "developed nation" status in the near future, is it not a land too far to reach?

Suspense too much for some

Posted: 15 Oct 2012 03:18 PM PDT

After more than a year of intense speculation, the whole country is still kept in suspense as to the date of the 13th general election.

Slightly more than 13 million Malaysians aged 21 and above are eligible to cast their ballots to choose 222 representatives in the Federal Parliament and 505 representatives in 12 state assemblies (except Sarawak, which already held its state election on April 16 last year).

Philip Hii, The Star

AT FIRST the people thought that the general election was going to be in July last year. When nothing happened, the date Nov 11, 2011 was mentioned. They pointed out that the number 11 was Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak's favourite number. Favourite or no favourite, the polls did not happen.

Then came the new year and speculators pointed to March, May, July and finally the last month of this year as the "The Day".

The intensity of the speculation has diminished somewhat as many people have adopted a "let-it-be" attitude. For some, the delay has made them anxious. Others are rather fed up, while certain segments of the business community are impatiently waiting for their usual election-related windfall. Even the components of the ruling coalition are rather restive.

Only the Opposition seems to welcome the delay, saying that it is working in their favour as it gives them more time to reach the voters.

The current speculation is that the elections would likely be held after February next year when the distribution of government handouts as promised in Budget 2013 has been completed.

Najib might also wait for the expiry of his Government in March next year, which would compel Opposition-ruled Penang, Selangor, Kedah and Kelantan to participate in the general election simultaneously.

If none of the above happens, the polls must be held by June 27 next year, at the very latest.

January next year is considered a good election month because of the "feel-good" factor as Chinese New Year falls on Feb 10. It is believed that holding the elections close to the Lunar New Year would garner more Chinese support.

"It is the first time in our country's history that uncertainty over an election date has dragged on for so long. It is inconvenient for employers and employees," said a businessman who wanted to be known only as Wong.

He said the uncertainty had made it difficult for him to approve leave application of his staff, especially those who applied for November and January.

"The best I can do is grant them a short period, from two to five days, but on condition that they must return to work if the elections are called," Wong added.

A graphic designer, Angela, said she was worried that her approved leave from Nov 21 to 30 would be revoked.

"If that happens then it would be a great loss to me as I have bought an air ticket to Bali," she said.

Those most affected by the uncertainty are civil servants, police, military personnel, printers, and members of the media.

Some party members and workers in the ruling coalition are also starting to get "irritated". An old SUPP member said withholding the announcement of the election date so close to the end of the current ruling government's term could be interpreted as a "show of weakness and indecisiveness".

He said many Malaysians were already politically mature and most of them have already decided who to vote for, or whether to vote at all.

In 2008, Barisan Nasional under the leadership of Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi suffered its first major setback when Pakatan Rakyat won 82 seats, thereby denying the ruling coalition of a two-thirds majority.

Barisan also lost control of five states — Penang, Selangor, Kelantan, Kedah and Perak. It, however, regained Perak following the defection of three Pakatan assemblymen.

Following the poor showing, Abdullah announced that he would step down. On March 26, 2009, Najib was elected unopposed as the new Umno party leader, paving his way to the nation's premiership.

Abdullah tendered his resignation on April 2 and the next day, Najib was sworn in as the sixth Prime Minister of Malaysia.

It is stipulated in the Malaysian constitution that the general election is held every five years.

The country's past 12 general elections were on Aug 19, 1959; April 25, 1964; May 10, 1969; Aug 24 and Sept 14 1974; July 8, 1978; April 22, 1982; Aug 3, 1986; Oct 21, 1990; April 25, 1995; Nov 29, 1999; March 21, 2004; and March 8, 2008.

GE13: Should the global community care?

Posted: 15 Oct 2012 01:45 PM PDT

All the so-called reforms are like attempting to varnish a table that is ridden with termites.

By S Ambiga, FMT

Those in the international community may be forgiven for saying… "is there a problem with the democratic process in Malaysia?".

In the international arena, our leaders portray Malaysia as a moderate Islamic nation that is built on the democratic principles that are enshrined in our Federal Constitution. The fundamental rights of freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, the right to life and a fair electoral process, are indeed guaranteed under our Federal Constitution.

The reality is, however, far less idyllic. There are serious questions whether these rights are respected and upheld by those in power.

Since before the 1990s, Malaysians have been pushing for a reform of the system of governance. There has been growing discontent over issues like rampant corruption, abuse of power, deaths in custody and selective prosecution (or persecution), to name but a few of the grouses.

We are increasingly alarmed by the use of race and religion by politicians to divide the people for political gain, with no regard whatsoever for the possible long-term consequences of this conduct.

We note with disgust our mainstream media descending to the lowest depths of junk journalism. We are appalled at the growing instances of political violence.

In the clearest example of how low we have sunk, human rights defenders and civil society who are seen as opposing the government are facing ruthless attacks by the government of the day.

Suaram, established in 1989 and which has in the past year been exposing possible corruption by Malaysians in high places in the purchase of Scorpene submarines from France, is suddenly facing investigation by several government agencies.

The mainstream media is once again playing its role in showing no regard whatsoever for presenting the whole truth. In a front-page news story, preposterous claims were made that NGOs like Suaram and Bersih were funded by organisations like National Democratic Institute (NDI) and Open Society Institute (OSI) for the purpose of overthrowing the government.

Directors of Suaram have been hauled up by enforcement agencies for their exposé on the corruption, yet our anti-corruption agency fails to even begin to investigate the claims of Suaram that a huge commission of RM500 million had been received by a Malaysian entity in the Scorpene deal.

Civil society is now continuously portrayed in the media as the enemy which is seeking to overthrow the government at the behest of foreign powers. These accusations have also been hurled at Bersih, more so since July last year when we had a successful rally of more than 50,000 people on the streets of KL, clamouring for clean and fair elections.

Another rally was held in April this year when more than 200,000 people were on the streets, again asking for electoral reform. Malaysians do not easily take to the streets. The numbers must mean that there were good reasons why they did.

What reforms?

I will not go into more details of the attacks that human rights defenders have had to face by those in authority or those who had the tacit approval of the authorities. Suffice it to say they have been sustained and relentless.

When asked, our leaders will say that this government is reforming because of the replacement of many oppressive laws, and the apparent move to greater democracy. They will say that after the Bersih rally last year, a parliamentary select committee (PSC) for electoral reform was set up and a report issued.

What they don't go on to explain is, what replaces these oppressive laws and what they are doing to effectively implement the PSC recommendations.

In my view, the new legislation just does not go far enough, and the important recommendations of the PSC report are largely ignored or poorly implemented.

Bersih also continues to receive reports of electoral malpractices and the integrity of the electoral roll leaves much to be desired. Our Election Commission does not enjoy public confidence and is not seen by many as independent.

This, together with all the other issues that plague our system of governance, leads to the inevitable conclusion that the next crucial general election will be seriously flawed.

All the so-called reforms are like attempting to varnish a table that is ridden with termites. It is difficult to fix a system that is fundamentally flawed by building on the same rotten foundation.

That is, even if there is real political will to reform.

The Global Commission on Elections, Democracy and Security which is headed by Kofi Annan (former United Nations secretary-general) and which has many distinguished members including Ernesto Zedillo (former president of Mexico), Madeleine K Albright (former US Secretary of State) and Professor Amartya Sen, issued a ground-breaking report on clean and fair elections dated September 2012.

In his foreword, Annan states, "The spread of democracy across the world has been one of the most dramatic changes I have witnessed over the course of my career. In country after country, people have risked their lives to call for free elections, democratic accountability, the rule of law and respect for human rights. Elections are the indispensable root of democracy…"

I make no apologies for quoting from this report at length for I cannot say it better.

The report clearly outlines that clean and fair elections are not just about choosing leaders, but are about building a solid framework for a democracy that works for the people.

Some conclusions

After studies, the following were some of the conclusions arrived at:

1. "Elections with integrity are important to values that we hold dear – human rights and democratic principles. Elections give life to rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and association, the right to take part in the government of one's country through freely elected representatives, the right of equal access to public service in one's country, and the recognition that the authority of government derives from the will of the people, expressed in 'genuine periodic elections' which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot.

2. Elections are fundamental to the ethos and principles of democracy…

3. Citizens lose confidence in democratic processes when elections are not inclusive, transparent, and accountable. When elections have integrity, they bolster democracy, respect fundamental rights, and produce elected officials who are more likely to represent their citizens' interests.

4. But in addition to promoting democratic values and human rights, elections with integrity can also yield other tangible benefits for citizens. Evidence from around the world suggests that elections with integrity matter for empowering women, fighting corruption, delivering services to the poor, improving governance, and ending civil wars…

5. Electoral accountability, in turn, is associated with lessening government corruption…

6. Electoral accountability, in turn, has direct benefits for improving representation of the poor…

7. Even in countries emerging from civil wars – the most difficult of contexts for building democracy – research now shows that when the termination of the war is accompanied by elections in which former combatants run for office and campaign for votes, countries are less likely to revert to civil war. At the same time, however, other studies note that fraudulent elections are correlated with societal violence and political instability…"

In an interview after the presentation of the report, Stephen Stedman, director of the Global Commission and a political scientist from Stanford, was asked what the motivation was for the report.

In speaking of the chairman (Kofi Annan), he said that Annan was "driven by his experience of having to deal with several elections in Africa that had become violent and had gone off the rails. And there is a frustration he feels about how little attention had been paid to those places before they blew up".

READ MORE HERE

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Jumaat, 19 Oktober 2012

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan