Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- 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?
- Battle for MB post eclipses polls
| 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.
|
| Najib shoots pre-election messengers Posted: 17 Oct 2012 12:54 PM PDT
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. 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 |
| 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. Read more at: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2012/10/18/whats-the-tit-for-tat-for-rm40m/ |
| 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. 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?
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.
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.
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?
|
| 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. 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). 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".
|
| Battle for MB post eclipses polls Posted: 13 Oct 2012 02:33 PM PDT The rivalry between Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim and Azmin Ali for the Selangor Mentri Besar post has overshadowed the battle for control of the state. But while Azmin has control over his party, he has problems getting the support of the coalition. DAP's Karpal Singh reminded him that the MB post is a consensus decision while PAS secretary-general Datuk Mustafa Ali said he was "too ambitious". Joceline Tan, The Star THE exchange of fire between loyalists of Azmin Ali and Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim last week was not the first but it was the fiercest to date. The stakes have increased as the general election draws near and there is no denying that the two PKR leaders are doing what it takes to be in the cushy seat of Selangor Mentri Besar (MB). The Azmin-Khalid feud has reached a new level of intensity. But politicians are such natural actors. When Khalid walked into the House shortly before the Dewan Rakyat session began on Monday, Azmin leapt to his feet with outstretched arms. There was no man-hug that would have been over-acting but they smiled like they were in a toothpaste advertisement as they shook hands, knowing that all eyes were on them. Anyone looking at the pair last week would have been puzzled, even confused, as to whether they are rivals or buddies. The two adversaries are, quite ironically, seated next to each other Khalid as the Bandar Tun Razak MP and Azmin as Gombak MP. Azmin immediately launched into an earnest explanation about his interview in a Malay daily that had sparked off the latest rounds of attacks, saying that the reaction generated was not fair to both of them.  Faekah: The petite but fierce political secretary has taken the bullets for Khalid. Khalid was quite blas about it and told him: "No problem, there's no need to apologise. In fact, I just told reporters outside: Thank you to Azmin for saying that I am federal material.'" The pair even left the House together a couple of hours later Khalid to attend a meeting and Azmin to visit one of his party workers in hospital. In the afternoon, they were together again, this time at a PKNS meeting in Shah Alam. Again, there were lots of smiles and jovial exchanges, with Azmin praising Khalid's handling of Selangor's financial affairs. It was not exactly Oscar-winning stuff but it was a good show. Beneath the civil smiles and pleasantries lie a simmering rivalry that is centred around the post of Selangor MB. The two men are savvy enough to leave all that I-say-you and the you-say-me attacks to their machais. They are well-matched to take on each other. Khalid is the MB, but Azmin pulls the strings in PKR as the deputy president, Selangor chief and party election director. Azmin is not only a political animal but a smooth operator. Khalid, on the other hand, is not as naive as some imagine. Behind that absent-minded professor demeanour is a man determined to hold on to what he has. Khalid has often been described as an accidental politician. That is not really the case because he has been interested in politics since his days as CEO of Guthrie Bhd. He had even vied for a division post in Umno. The MB's office is a dream come true for him and he is not going to let go without a fight. The latest attack began with a front page interview in Sinar Harian where Azmin praised Khalid's achievements in Selangor and declared that Khalid's corporate experience would be needed at the federal level if Pakatan takes Putrajaya. The headline the next day was: MB Baru Selepas PRU13 (new MB after general election). That was when the bullets started flying between supporters of both sides. In the corporate world, that would be known as being "kicked upstairs" removed without losing too much face.  Zuraidah: She walks and talks like a man but is a fierce defender of Azmin. Azmin has often told those who claim that he wants to take over from Khalid that, "I am eyeing Putrajaya, not Selangor". But he is well aware that Pakatan's hopes of winning the federal government are getting slimmer by the day and the coalition is more likely to hold on to Selangor than arrive in Putrajaya. Hence, his move to close in on the MB post. Khalid's chief defender has been his loyal political secretary Faekah Husin. She did not mince her words about Azmin's interview; as a result she has been severely criticised by Azmin's camp. The petite lawyer admitted with a laugh, "there are bullet holes all over my body." Azmin's boys joke that Faekah is the "First Lady of Selangor". They go for her because she is an easier target to hit than Khalid and there are now renewed calls to sack her for criticising Azmin. Mundane remarks But sacked from what and for what? Faekah is only an ordinary party member, she does not have a party post and her remarks about Azmin were rather mundane. Moreover, the only person who can sack her is Khalid and he trusts her implicitly; that is what makes her so powerful in Selangor. Faekah is Khalid's spokeswoman, and during the launch of his book Fearless: From Kampung Boy to CEO, he singled her out for mention. Going by the video that was aired during the launch, it is quite clear that she is central to Khalid's politics and work. Her power status goes up another notch if one considers that she was the former political secretary to PKR president Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail and they are still very close. Azmin's boys know they will have to take Faekah down before they can get Khalid, hence the periodic calls for her removal. In June this year, a group using the Twitter handle @PecatFaekah had agitated for Faekah's resignation. The group has not given up and has since extended their scope to @PecatFaekah/Arfah, the latter being Khalid's press secretary. While Khalid relies on Faekah to check Azmin, Azmin uses Ampang MP Zuraidah Kamaruddin to poke at Khalid. They are Alpha females who do not mind taking the heat for their men. Zuraidah, who is Azmin's No. 2 in Selangor, ticked off Khalid a few months ago when he declined to defend Azmin over some compromising photographs of a couple in a toilet. More recently, she lectured Faekah for "jumping the gun" and told her to improve her communication skills with party leaders. Azmin's supporters maintain that the MB post should have gone to him instead of Khalid. Azmin was in the lead to be the MB when Selangor fell in 2008. But in the early hours of March 9, Khalid's name overtook Azmin's and by the time the sun came up, Khalid was confirmed as the choice of MB. Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had opted for Khalid because he was a big corporate name and also because he thought that Khalid would be easier to control than Azmin; he was wrong on the second count. Azmin was deeply disappointed and one of those at Anwar's house that morning recalled witnessing how the de facto leader tried to placate Azmin for almost an hour. "Azmin's face was white with anger if you had cut it with a knife, there would have been no blood," said an insider. Anwar's pitch at that time was that Putrajaya was within arm's reach and he needed Azmin to be in charge. The younger man was sucked into the Sept 16 fairy tale along with many other Malaysians. He is older and wiser and going for the realistic option this time around. In that sense, Azmin's remarks in Sinar Harian were very much about about staking his territory and preparing everyone for his ascent. But while Azmin has control over his party, he has problems getting the support of the coalition. DAP's Karpal Singh reminded him that the MB post is a consensus decision while PAS secretary-general Datuk Mustafa Ali said he was "too ambitious". Khalid's situation is the reverse he is the preferred choice of Pakatan but he does not seem to have the backing of his party. His other problem is that his state seat in Ijok is said to be quite vulnerable and he will have to work hard to do well there. Third candidate There has also been talk about positioning Nurul Izzah as the next MB, and Taman Medan, a state seat in Selangor, has been named as a possible constituency for her. It is not an implausible scenario because Datuk Seri Dr Khir Toyo was only slightly older than her when he was plucked from obscurity for the post. The Lembah Pantai MP and party vice-president has popular appeal and there is still that wow-factor surrounding her. But her problem is that, intellectually, she has not measured up to her generational peers like Rafizi Ramli or Rembau MP Khairy Jamaluddin. She has not shone in Parliament compared to several other first-time MPs. Without her father's name, she would be just another pretty and ambitious politician. Her other problem is that she seems to be modelling herself after the eccentric Batu MP Tian Chua whom not many people take seriously these days. They like to pursue sensational and gimmicky issues without proper research and when proven wrong, they simply move on to a new issue. Over time, such incidents affect one's credibility. For instance, Nurul Izzah went to town about the Defence Ministry submarine that could not dive. She got loads of publicity but when the submarine dived in the sea off Sabah with no less than the King on board, she behaved as though she had never talked about it. Nurul Izzah is a good ceramah speaker but has yet to show that she can think and argue factually in a debate. She has a lot of catching up to do and Azmin will see to it that she stays in Lembah Pantai. Nurul Izzah and Dr Wan Azizah have made statements to the effect of siding Khalid but Anwar has been silent on the feud but it should not be read as impartiality. The de facto leader holds the veto decision and he will use it when the time comes. In the meantime, the feud will simmer on. Azmin and Khalid will continue to smile and say lovely things about each other in public while the knives are sharpened behind the scenes.
|
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.
| 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