Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Is Malaysiakini in mischief mode?
No quick fix for East Malaysia
CAT got your tongue, Mansor?
Sabah BN struggling to regain initiative
Polls in December?
Stop pretending that everything is going well
Subsidies important for vulnerable groups
Only Anwar can fail himself
Votes in the moneybag

Posted: 03 Oct 2012 02:34 PM PDT

Shamsul Akmar

SPIN AND DEFLECTION: The core issues of Soros' involvement in regime change and puppet governments ignored

Shamsul Akmar, NST

IT is quite telling that Malaysiakini, whose credibility is being questioned following accusations of being foreign-funded and a foreign tool to cause mischief to the nation, is turning to Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad to "absolve" itself.

Having vilified Dr Mahathir throughout almost its entire existence, Malaysiakini is using a letter written by Dr Mahathir to billionaire financier George Soros, to indirectly justify its acceptance of the latter's funding.

Malaysiakini used the letter written by Dr Mahathir to Soros in early 2006 as the basis of the article, which can be basically summed up into five main thrusts:

IT was Dr Mahathir who offered Soros the olive branch after the former had, during the 1997/98 financial crises, accused the latter of wreaking havoc on Asian nations as a rogue currency speculator;

DR Mahathir asked Soros to join him in a Global Peace Forum "criminalising war" campaign;

DR Mahathir assured Soros that his participation in the Forum would not affect his other concerns;

DR Mahathir met Soros in Kuala Lumpur 11 months later and they buried the hatchet when the former said he accepted that Soros was not involved in the devaluation of Malaysia's currency; and,

DR Mahathir dug up the hatchet when he recently said Soros was seeking regime change in Malaysia.

Peace offering

From the very start, it was clear that Malaysiakini was working on a spin -- this is obvious in its contention "the 2006 letter which Malaysiakini has a copy, indicates that it was Dr Mahathir who first approached Soros with an olive branch in hand".

How can it be construed that Dr Mahathir was the first to offer the olive branch when Soros, in a Jan 7, 2006 interview with a mainstream Malaysian publication, the New Straits Times, reportedly said he agreed with the measures Dr Mahathir had taken to deal with the regional financial crisis of 1997/98?

In retrospect, in 1997/98, Dr Mahathir had blamed Soros and other rogue currency speculators for causing the regional crisis, and having ascertained how they had committed their malfeasance, Dr Mahathir came up with a remedy that defied conventional monetary policies, especially those propagated by the International Monetary Fund.

In other words, Dr Mahathir would only have been able to come up with the remedy after determining the cause and the remedy could only work if the cause or illness had been diagnosed correctly.

If Soros said that he agreed with the measures Dr Mahathir had taken, then it meant Dr Mahathir's diagnosis that the crisis was caused by currency speculators had to be correct.

As such, none other than Soros, a well-known speculator himself, vindicated Dr Mahathir, who was described as a heretic when he blamed the speculators for the currency crisis.

And such a concession, by any standard, is a giant olive branch offered by Soros to Dr Mahathir and this prompted Dr Mahathir to write the Jan 11, 2006 letter.

The next point is about Dr Mahathir asking Soros to join him in the Global Peace Forum which is a platform that seeks to criminalise war.

Again, it is obvious that the invitation was made on the premise that Dr Mahathir believed Soros shared his views about war and his campaign against George W. Bush, one of the leading perpetrators of the Iraq invasion and war crimes.

As Dr Mahathir pointed out in his letter that "whatever may be the differences between us, we seem to have identical views on war i.e. on killing people in the pursuit of a national agenda", he obviously believed that Soros was against war as an option in settling international conflicts.

In other words, Dr Mahathir was very aware of other things that Soros does which he may disagree with but they held a common view about war and believed they should work together on it.

The invitation to Soros via the letter did not come with a request for funding or any financial assistance.

Malaysiakini also picked on the part of Dr Mahathir's letter where he said: "I am aware of your other concerns -- about democracy etc. But this anti-war campaign for the ultimate human right will not be in conflict with any other rights that you may espouse. So I hope you will join".

Malaysiakini's description of the remarks as Dr Mahathir taking great pains to reassure Soros is an exaggeration, as what Dr Mahathir had done was merely to say that if Soros were to join the Forum, the objectives would be consistent with whatever other human rights activities Soros was involved.

Beyond the letter, Malaysiakini highlighted the meeting between the two in Kuala Lumpur 11 months after the letter was written, describing it as an event "where the two foes buried the hatchet" following which Dr Mahathir said he accepted that Soros was not involved in the devaluation of Malaysia's currency.

It should have ended at that, regardless of whether Dr Mahathir truly believed that Soros was involved in the currency speculation or not or he was merely being polite. Furthermore, what Dr Mahathir said was that he accepted that Soros was not involved based on what Soros had told him during the meeting.

However, the currency speculation issue and Dr Mahathir's recent accusations of Soros' involvement in wanting to see regime change in Malaysia are two separate things.

Why spin Dr Mahathir's letter?

But why did Malaysiakini go to great lengths to reproduce much of Dr Mahathir's letter to Soros and attempt the spin?

It was obvious the whole article was written to fulfil three aspects:

SOROS is not a rogue or a villain as portrayed because Dr Mahathir himself had asked the former to join the Global Peace Forum;

THAT being the case, if it is alright for Dr Mahathir to want Soros to work with his Malaysia-based Global Peace Forum surely there is nothing wrong with Malaysiakini receiving funds from Soros or his organisations; and

IF the above two aspects are insufficient to vindicate Malaysiakini and exonerate Soros, the third approach is to expose Dr Mahathir as being contradictory and inconsistent when it comes to Soros. As such any of Dr Mahathir's contentions, including the recent accusations that Soros was pushing for regime change in Malaysia, should be ignored.

But underpinning all these is one particular objective -- Malaysiakini is trying to tell its readers and supporters that there is nothing wrong with receiving funds from Soros because Dr Mahathir too had asked for his help.

So instead of coming out to defend Soros, Malaysiakini used Dr Mahathir to absolve itself and to a large degree Soros, too.

The issues of whether Soros is truly pushing for regime change and whether Malaysiakini should explain itself for receiving funds from Soros are conveniently ignored. And Malaysiakini has also conveniently ignored reports of Soros' sinister involvements in setting up numerous puppet governments and regimes.

No quick fix for East Malaysia

Posted: 02 Oct 2012 03:50 PM PDT

Erna Mahyuni, The Malaysian Insider

"All you East Malaysians need to do is vote out BN!" I hear that time and time again from various people in Peninsular Malaysia and it's getting frankly tiresome.

I apologise to Sarawakians in advance for having to explain things on your behalf, but I have lived in your state so am not totally clueless. Unlike the many who think that all that is needed is a Braveheart-like uprising where the united peoples of Sabah and Sarawak rise up against tyranny and all that jazz.

It's not that simple. And that's my biggest beef with opposition rhetoric. It oversimplifies things, forgetting context and ignoring the complexities of East Malaysia.

One challenge both Sabah and Sarawak have is geography. We're far removed from West Malaysia, quite literally, and in some ways it has worked out for the best but has also made integration tricky. There are far too many assumptions on each side about the other and "getting to know" each other requires a two- to three-hour flight.

Sarawak is a huge state and its terrain makes traversing it prohibitively expensive. The Penans and other interior-dwelling folk have it worse; they are forced to trek hours to the nearest transport stop to get to the nearest city. They do not have ready access to the things we city dwellers take for granted: piped water, electronic and physical media, hospitals and decent schools.

Even on the outskirts of Kota Kinabalu, the state capital of Sabah, there are schools that are little more than glorified shacks with crowded classrooms and malnourished children. Don't get me started on the West Malaysian teachers who refuse their postings to Sabah and Sarawak or clamour to be sent home as soon as possible.

Racial tolerance is more pronounced here. Yet, the reality is that despite the "peace" between the various races in East Malaysia, it isn't easy to get them on the same page politically.

Sabah, for instance, has various splinter parties that are also quite clearly delineated by race. SUPP is predominantly Chinese, PBS is mostly Sabah Bumiputera with a few Chinese people, the Muslim Bumiputeras once mostly congregated in USNO, but the BN-friendly now are in Umno.

It's not much different in Sarawak. The various communities may get along better but dig down and their politics is the same old selfish Malaysian politics. It's never about what's best for the state or the country; it's about what's best for their own communities. Let the Penans rot in the jungles so long as my community gets first pick of lucrative contracts.

That is the reality of the Malaysian mindset; the preoccupation with what's best for your own kind to the detriment of everyone else. Malaysians don't seem to believe in "win-win." It's "I take everything and everyone else can go die-lah." Which explains our love for monopolies.

PKR's already shot itself in the foot by refusing to co-operate with local parties in Sabah and Sarawak. How am I, as a native from Sabah, supposed to place trust in a party that made Azmin Ali Sabah PKR chief? How am I supposed to believe that Anwar Ibrahim and his cohort won't do the same thing and just hand out division chief titles to people from the peninsula as "rewards" to the faithful once the state is won?

What Pakatan Rakyat should be doing is forming alliances with local opposition parties. Instead, it intends to compete against them. Of course, BN will probably end up winning because of split votes.

Don't get me started on people harping on about how Sarawakians should all unite and toss its current chief minister out. Here's news for you: The reason he's still in power is because the people who have benefitted from his position like him where he is. Ponder that for a moment.

It took Bruno Manser to come in and unite the various Penan tribes. It will take more than a well-meaning Swiss to unite the various factions in the two states. Sadly the people trying to play catalyst are not altruistic crusaders but those with an eye on Putrajaya.

By the way, because I have to keep reminding you, Sabah did vote against BN. But BN "convinced" PBS MPs to jump ship in the biggest "frog" incident in Malaysian history. Back in the day, Anwar Ibrahim was proud to be seen as "delivering" the state back to BN.

It's not that simple; it was never that simple; it will never be that simple. So word of advice to Pakatan: When three words can sum up your campaign ("BN is bad!"), you need to do a lot better.

CAT got your tongue, Mansor?

Posted: 02 Oct 2012 03:34 PM PDT

The deputy chief minister (I) should clear the air if he thinks he has been framed over the 'cocky, arrogant, tokong' controversy.

Five months ago, PKR state chief and Deputy Chief Minister I Mansor Othman let the "CAT" out of the bag but now denies ever having done so, that is, uttering the words "cocky, arrogant, tokong" (CAT) in reference to Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng.

Jeswan Kaur, FMT

No one should be ashamed to admit they are wrong, which is but saying, in other words, that they are wiser today than they were yesterday. – Alexander Pope

Mansor apparently made the "CAT" remark on Lim who is also DAP secretary-general during a private meeting between him and some PKR local members in May.

Details of the meeting were leaked and published in verbatim in a blog "Gelagat Anwar" in June.

But then Mansor is not the first to define Lim as "CAT"; similar remarks were in the past made by former PKR local leaders like independent MPs Zahrain Md Hashim of Bayan Baru and Tan Tee Beng of Nibong Tebal.

However, in Mansor's case, his on-off denial in having said those words to Lim has put the former in an uncomfortable position in the eyes of Penangites, particularly supporters of Pakatan Rakyat.

In what has become an embarrassing episode for Mansor, the "CAT" fiasco has, as feared by DAP national chairman Karpal Singh, been capitalised by ruling Barisan Nasional to gain political sympathy from the rakyat.

Hoping to halt further damage to the Pakatan image, Karpal wants Mansor to clear the air on the "cocky, arrogant, tokong" controversy.

Karpal believes Pakatan can resolve the issue amicably as it involves two individuals and is not between two parties.

The question here is, what is taking Pakatan so long to douse the "CAT" fire which is being kept alive by BN sycophants like Perkasa, which keeps raising doubts in the minds of the people on Pakatan's capability to manage the country should it secure victory in the coming 13th general election.

While Pakatan decides how best to end the "CAT" controversy, Umno crony – Media Prima-owned TV3 – decided to do the dirty work for the government when it aired on its 8pm Buletin Utama more than once the audio recording of the details of the meeting.

Berani buat berani tanggung

There is a Malay saying that goes "berani buat berani tanggung" (if you dare do it, then dare face the music) and now it is left to Mansor to do the decent thing – own up to the fact that he did call Lim a "CAT".

In any case, the rift between Lim and Mansor cannot be disguised.

Mansor should have known better than to make such remarks although uttered during a closed-door discussion involving Mansor and some PKR local members.

To laugh off the "CAT" issue that has been taken to "greater heights" by Pakatan's nemesis Umno is not going to help Mansor save both his face and his political career.

If the utterance "cocky, arrogance and tokong" were made to vilify Lim, then it is a lesson learned the painful way by Mansor.

Mansor is not the first politician in the country's history to have maligned his superior nor will he be the last to do so. There was Mukhriz Mahathir, now the International Trade and Industry Deputy Minister, and the son of former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who had openly called for then prime minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to step down.

Then Umno Youth chief, Hishammuddin Hussein, refused to take any action against Mukhriz, dismissing the remark as a personal opinion.

Mahathir himself had chided his successor Abdullah for being "stupid" and in May 2008, the former announced he was qutting Umno as he had lost confidence in Abdullah's leadership and would rejoin the party only when Abdullah stepped down as prime minister and Umno president.

Such show of gutter politics has always been there and it is another matter that no one had the guts to confront Mahathir over such an act.

Where "CAT" goes, if indeed Lim is cocky and arrogant, then there is a place and time to raise the issue instead of indulging in petty gossip as Mansor has done, a move which has led many to question Mansor's capability as deputy chief minister.

To now chicken out of the "CAT" issue and dump blame on his detractors is not going to work wonders for Mansor. On the contrary, it is having the courage to say "yes, I did" that will save Mansor's day.

Rotten apples best discarded

Perhaps the "CAT" blunder is a blessing in disguise for it has given rise to the need to discard the rotten apples in Pakatan's fold.

It seems that Zahrain and Tan were not the only rotten apples in the DAP-controlled Penang; there are more with Mansor being one of them.

Posted: 02 Oct 2012 03:29 PM PDT

As an opposition candidate, defector Wilfred Bumburing will have the support of two former Tuaran MPs to woo voters making him a formidable candidate.

Joseph Bingkasan, FMT

KOTA KINABALU: If there was one thing that MP Wilfred Bumburing did for the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition when he defected to the opposition in July, it was to force the disparate BN branch in Tuaran to unite.

With the opposition in the state, seen by the BN as their 'fixed deposit', gaining ground, the parliamentary constituency of Tuaran has always been shaky as could be seen by the surge in support for the opposition in the last election.

There has always been a fear within the ruling coalition that the defection of top Sabah BN leaders to the opposition would have a domino effect around the state.

The exit in quick succession from the BN by MPs from Tuaran (Bumburing) and Beaufort (Lajim Ukin) as well as a Senator (Maijol Mahap) and a host of senior political leaders once aligned to Sabah Umno has caused the once mighty coalition to pause.

In Tuaran, the initial shock and constant quarelling resulting from the departure of former Upko deputy president Bumburing who is also its BN chairman, seems to ended for the moment.

Bumburing had cited disillusionment with the BN's inability to resolve the longstanding question of how hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants had been registered as voters and were now determining the future of the state as among his reasons for leaving.

Several senior leaders of Upko joined him in forming a new party, Angkatan Perubahan Sabah (APS), to work with the opposition Pakatan Rakyat coalition in the coming election.

According to sources, Pakatan leader Anwar Ibrahim has given Bumburing an assurance that he would have a say on the candidates to contest in constituencies where the Kadazandusuns are the majority.

Bumburing, who won the Tuaran MP seat in the 2008 election, is expected to defend his seat against the potential BN candidate, his former colleague Wilfred Tangau, the Upko secretary general who made way for him in the 2008 election.

Tuaran comprises the state seats of Kiulu and Tamparuli now held by PBS and Sulaman by Umno.

'Formidable' Bumburing

Once considered a BN stronghold, it is now a toss up. Tangau won the seat in the 2004 election when he polled 17,722 votes against PKR's Ansari Abdullah who garnered 8,555 votes.

The BN saw its winning margin drop significantly in 2008 when Bumburing polled 17,645 votes to Ansari's 11,023 votes. Independent Ajin Hazin Gagah managed 879 votes.

READ MORE HERE

Polls in December?

Posted: 02 Oct 2012 03:27 PM PDT

This is because Najib's trump card is the budget goodies and if the polls are held this year, the voters will be tempted to vote for BN in order to obtain the goodies next year.

Selena Tay, FMT

Now that the Budget 2013 has already been tabled, political analysts are again speculating on the date of the 13th general election. Many are of the view that the polls will be held only after February.

But this columnist thinks it can still be held this year, the latest by Dec 15 (after the Umno general assembly which ends on Dec 1).

This is because Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak's trump card is the budget goodies and if the polls are held this year, the voters will be tempted to vote for Barisan Nasional in order to obtain the goodies next year.

After the goodies are distributed, he will have no more weapon or trump card. Therefore to maximise the effect of the feel-good factor, he holds on to the goodies now to be used as a carrot.

According to the old folks of the Chinese community, perhaps the devil has gotten hold of the polls date and that is why it is difficult for everyone in BN to get it back.

So much for the devil and the date.

With regard to the budget presentation last week, what was uncalled for was Najib's attack on Pakatan Rakyat which lasted close to 20 minutes. That was really in bad taste and very unbecoming of someone who aspires to be a great statesman. And he has the gumption to talk about moderation!

Commenting on this, PAS Shah Alam MP Khalid Samad opined that "Najib must be having his mind preoccupied with Pakatan 24/7 and that must be the reason why he could not resist taking a swipe at Pakatan during the budget presentation".

Auditor-General's Report

However, what is also just as important as the budget is the Auditor-General's Report which, according to parliamentary procedure, should be tabled on the same day as the budget itself. Instead this vital report is late again as was last year.

The Pakatan MPs need to see the Auditor-General's Report so that they can evaluate the government's spending habits. If a certain ministry has overspent, then it is pointless to allocate another vast sum to this particular ministry again.

A point to note is that the incumbent BN federal government has been running a budget deficit since 1998 and is in the habit of requesting for a Supplementary Budget. This means that additional allocation is requested as the budget's allocation is insufficient to meet the demands of the ministries.

The whole thing shows that the government is not spending in a prudent manner.

Although it is good to dole out goodies to the rakyat, what the government is doing is akin to giving painkillers to the sick person and not curing the disease. In short, it is not solving the problem. It is only implementing a stop-gap measure to relieve the pain.

Back to the Auditor-General's Report. Without this report, Pakatan MPs will find it difficult to debate the budget in an effective manner because they are in the dark on whether the government has spent last year's allocation prudently and wisely as comparisons need to be made between the budget and the Audit-General's Report.

A good example is the National Feedlot Corporation project wherein RM250 million was allocated but the results were measly. This matter was revealed in the Audit-General's Report.

Of course, there are many other examples of procurements or purchases made at jacked-up prices and cost overruns in this and that.

Meanwhile, the national debt has increased to RM502 billion. Plus off-the-record contingent liabilities, the sum will definitely be much higher but with increased spending, the national debt percentage of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) could still be below 55%! A miracle indeed!

Posted: 01 Oct 2012 06:06 PM PDT

Regardless of whether it is the BN or the Pakatan Rakyat, there is a surge in the Operating Expenditure. However, no one tells the people how to improve productivity and open up new revenue resources to offset the increased expenditures.

Lim Sue Goan, Sin Chew Daily

The Budget has been pan-politicised and the confronting coalitions are busy in wars of words, blurring the vision of the country's economic future.

The last 14 paragraphs of Prime Minister cum Finance Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak's Budget speech had dignified the BN and belittled the Pakatan Rakyat. Members of the confronting coalitions picked up their respective Budget and booed at each other after Najib finished his speech. Najib has continued to attack the alternative coalition over the past two days and said, "You do Bersih 2.0, we do BR1M 2.0. You storm the barricades, overturn police cars, we help the rakyat." He also said that the Buku Jingga is not worth the paper it is written on.

Pakatan Rakyat leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim fought back and teased the BN when debating on the Budget in the Dewan Rakyat on October 1, while DAP Parliamentary Leader Lim Kit Siang challenged Najib to debate with Anwar.

When politicians think only about politics, they will no longer pay attention to more important issues.

At this very moment, Terengganu Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin urged the people to drop their subsidy mentality to form a hard working and competitive society, instead of just expecting for assistance.

Indeed, both the BN's Budget and the Pakatan Rakyat's alternative budget have failed to get rid of subsidies. And they are actually the pot calling the kettle black. They ridicule each other as being populist but have failed to realise that they are actually making the same mistake.

Take the BN's Budget as an example, the Operating Expenditure has increased to RM201.9 billion, accounting for 80% of the total expenditure, and among them, 20.8% is allocated for subsidies.

The government's subsidies have amounted to RM42 billion this year, exceeding the estimated amount by 27%, or RM9 billion. The total subsidy in 2007 was only RM10 billion, which means that political confrontation has increased subsidies by four times.

Subsidies could anesthetise the people's nerves and when subsidies are forced to be terminated, the people might not be able to stand stably.

In addition, the emoluments for civil servants have also been increased from RM52 billion in 2012 to RM58.6 billion next year, accounting for 29% of the total Operating Expenditure. Since the government has shelved the Exit Policy to deal with problematic, indisciplined and underperforming civil servants, the number of civil servants has kept increasing, so does the emolument expenditure.

The Pakatan Rakyat's alternative budget also advocates pay rise for civil servants, such as increasing the salaries of police officers by 15%, providing a special allowance of RM500 for teachers and increasing the salaries of civil servants. The additional emolument expenditure is RM4.4 billion. However, it requires an additional RM5.1 billion based on the calculation of MCA President Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek.

It seems impossible to remove the subsidy system, while the administrative team has been continuously expanding. It is afraid that the debt might touch the national debt ceiling of 55%. The national debt has increased from last year's RM456.1 billion to the current RM502.4 billion, In other words, each person is averagely bearing RM18,000 of debt.

The government should tell the people how many oil resources are left and how long could they support our expenses. When would the country become a net oil importer and would it be in 2017, as predicted by the International Energy Agency?

The government should make public the national accounts to clearly show the people the country's financial situation, instead of keep pretending that everything is going well, telling the people that there is no big deal and distributing money.

If the financial direction and management are not changed today, I am afraid that Malaysians might one day walk on streets to protest against financial austerity. Such a scenario is horrible!

Subsidies important for vulnerable groups

Posted: 01 Oct 2012 01:34 PM PDT

Local thinktanks Refsa and Ideas have misplaced their focus on critiquing subsidies in the 2013 Budget.

We already have one of the highest levels of income inequality in the region. In pushing for a free market system without due attention to the structural defects of our political economy, proponents of a neo-liberal ideology run the risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Lim Teck Ghee

In their joint statement recently released on Sept 28, Ideas (Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs) and not-for-profit research institute Refsa (Research for Social Advancement) drew attention to the "shocking federal government subsidy bill for 2012" which according to them is now expected to hit RM42 billion, a massive RM9 billion or 27% above the RM33 billion originally forecast for the year.

While it is true that subsidies have quadrupled in the past five years, and some of it is wasteful and not efficiently targeted at the most needy or priority sectors, the Refsa-Ideas contention of the debilitating effects of subsidies on our economic health needs to be challenged.

Yes, blanket subsidies for cheap petrol and sugar do result in a degree of excessive and wasteful consumption.

However the extent is debatable, and even if considerable, is not a sufficiently compelling reason for their immediate removal.

The other argument that such subsidies "discourage investments in improving productivity and efficiency" and "benefit upper class Malaysians who consume much more than their poorer cousins" also needs dissecting.

There is little empirical research to back up what has become an increasingly popular line of argument. For it to be useful or credible, echoing of popular opinion is not sufficient.

The Refsa and Ideas team need to substantiate their position with hard data and rigorous analysis on these so-called negative effects.

It is necessary to remind the Refsa-Ideas team that subsidies have an important role to play in providing a safety net for vulnerable groups.

They help bring down the cost of living as well as enable access to health, education, transport and other necessities.

They are a necessary burden in a highly skewed capitalist economy such as Malaysia's where the lower classes of labour do not get the fair remuneration that they are entitled to or deserve.

In their final argument Refsa-Ideas state that "restructuring subsidies is the low-hanging fruit that will help restore fiscal balance and improve our dwindling national competitiveness."

In fact, subsidies and price controls to help poor households comprise a small proportion of the total government operating budget.

The largest part of the budget is spent on salaries (to civil servants); pensions to retired civil servants and supplies and services – the last bloated by "excessive and wasteful" procurement and projects whose costs are inflated by rent-seeking and patronage charges.

There is a credible counter argument that the ballooning deficit and growing mountain of debt in the country is mainly due to government spending on itself, rather than spending on the rest of the country or on the poor.

The Refsa and Ideas team would be doing the country a greater service if they shift their focus onto this lower hanging fruit, especially the allocations provided to the political ministries which have been overrun with staff whose main function seems to be to look after the political and economic interests of the ruling party and its supporters rather than provide services to the public.

Dr Lim Teck Ghee is the director of the Centre for Policy Initiatives.

Only Anwar can fail himself

Posted: 01 Oct 2012 01:29 PM PDT

Umno is not only in a battle for its political survival but is now in a battle within itself between faction for Najib and those for Muhyiddin.

For Anwar, the time for greatness is nigh. Anwar is now locked in mortal political combat with Umno. Najib Tun Razak is irrelevant to the final outcome of this battle. Najib is the dead man walking. At best, Najib can say that he was once prime minister of Malaysia.

CT Ali, FMT

Sixteen years at the highest level of government followed by six years at its lowest in solitary confinement, and he is still a work in progress.

Today at 65, when Anwar Ibrahim talks of politics that transcends race and religion, of politics that champions the democratic process, of a government that respects the rule of law and accepts a multi-cultural society, of freedom of religion, of a government devoid of vested interest and corruption – when he talks of all this and more – we not only listen but we hear what he is saying.

But what are Anwar's convictions? Why is Anwar able to transcend partisan politics? How has he been able to make PAS understand that the Islamic state it passionately espouses cannot be a part of Pakatan Rakyat common agenda but it can still be PAS'?

And yet for Anwar, an Islamic state is not a choice he can consider in the context of an international environment. For him, there must be moderation in Islam.

The Islam that Umno talks about where people are detained without trial, denied their basic rights, the media managed and manipulated to serve the vested interest of their political masters and where corruption is rampant is not the Islam that Anwar aspires to.

Anwar is for reform and transparency. He is for freedom and civil liberties. He understands that the civic, social and cultural attitudes of our society have changed… and changed radically. The issues that concern the Malays – language, education, the economy and Islam – concern him, too, but he knows that race-based politics is not the way to go.

Anwar knows that race-based politics is the easy way to go. His times in university politics, Abim and Umno can attest to that. He chose PKR, a multi-racial entity, because it is the more difficult option and the right option for Malaysia's future.

His task now is to see Pakatan evolved into a credible government. So what does liberty and liberalism entails in the concept that Anwar aspires to?

Anwar wants the Malays to be less intolerant of those who are not of the Islamic faith. The Malay understanding of Islam must not be so superficial. There must be moderation in Islam. Allah does not need to be defended. The Malays must deal with the realities of living in a multi-cultural and multi-racial society without resorting to the crutch of Ketuanan Melayu or Islam.

Let not Islam come into politics. Let Islam not be used for political gain. Let no one say that Islam is unjust.

Battle within Umno

Time has transcended Umno. There is too much moral hypocrisy in Umno. Umno ignores, nay it condones corruption. The rakyat are no longer complacent, they are disillusioned. The rakyat no longer trusts Umno and the commitment it makes.

Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tun Razak meant for the ISA to be used against militant communism. Today after the excesses of Dr Mahathir Mohamad, we know that the ISA is used by Umno and its leaders for their own vested interests.

So for the rakyat, political commitment is no longer enough – there must be put into place due process to ensure that the ISA and any other policy and issues are not abused for political gain.

Government policies must no longer be negative or punitive in nature. Anwar wants this too.

Our country is in a flux. Our values are changing, our aspirations for personal freedom to express ourselves on issues that matter to us are more defined and we seek a way out of the present impasse imposed upon us by the Barisan Nasional government. Is Anwar the way out of this impasse?

But what a prime minister!

He failed himself in all respects except one – just as Kepala Batas was the recipient of much physical development during Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's time as prime minister, Pekan became the recipient of same during Najib's time – at our costs.

Everything else that he did while prime minister – from his inability to move from under the shadow of the domineering Rosmah Mansor, the kow-towing to Mahathir by having Mahathir's son in his Cabinet, his use of money politics (Perak and the Sibu incident among the best documented) – belies the pedigree that he had come from.

How could the eldest son of Tun Razak proved to be so totally inept at everything that he did? We could all see that every policy that Najib sought to implement was an election policy.

His concern was the relentless persecution of his political nemesis rather than to do the business of government. Najib was all bluster with no substance. All talk with no action.

The Umno that Najib is president of is not only in a battle for its political survival but is now in a battle within itself, between faction for Najib and those for his deputy, Muhyiddin Yassin.

Najib has been adept at constructing his own political descent. Now the much older Muhyiddin feels the time has come to hasten that descent less his own opportunity for political greatness passes.

And so Muhyiddin plots the political demise of Najib just as he plotted the political demise of Abdullah who counted Muhyiddin among those who he thought he could depend upon when his back is against a wall.

READ MORE HERE

Votes in the moneybag

Posted: 01 Oct 2012 01:26 PM PDT

Budget 2013 is a sweetener to secure another deal from the people but it may not be enough to save the skin of the prime minister.

Free Malaysia Today

Was it an election budget? The government says no, but all the goodies dished out unerringly indicate the way is paved for the prime minister to ring the bell and call for election. He dangles many carrots and wants the people to buy them with their votes. The budget is the only story left to tell the people that there is a happy ending if the same government is returned to power. All the promises will be fulfilled only when the mandate is safely in the pocket of the prime minister. The most powerful man in the country hopes the people will forget all the old chapters on corruption and abuse of power. He wants a new beginning and a new licence – to continue his old ways.

Money can be a potent weapon to manipulate public opinion, especially when times are hard. A government will look good when it throws money to the poor. A leader becomes a hero when he satisfies the material needs of the impoverished masses. He becomes a deity when the downtrodden adores him for his boundless generosity. With all the wealth of the country at his disposal, the prime minister can do no wrong. Money is on tap and can be used at any time. It is most useful when election is around the corner and when the prime minister is in danger of losing his pants.

Billions will be spent to develop the country in the relentless quest for a high-income status. Indeed, 2020 is the vision set for us to become a developed nation. By then, the promised land will rise and all will live in splendid circumstances. The only flaw in this story line is that the rich will become richer and the poor poorer. All the mega projects are for the enrichment of companies and individuals linked to the political establishment. The majority of the citizens will stay stuck in the quagmire of rural and urban poverty.

The push for a modern state will leave many people dispossessed and dislocated. They do not matter in the grand scheme of things. They will be ruthlessly driven out to make way for the playthings of conglomerates supported by the unscrupulous politicians. New soaring skylines will emerge as Malaysia races to be on par with the technologically advanced economies. The only people who will marvel at the new "shiny city on the hill" are the corrupt, the depraved, the rapacious. The others who live on the fringes can only seethe with frustration.

Political ambitions

Budget 2013 promises a better quality of life in this resplendent city. All are cared for: the young, the old, the sick, the fishermen, the farmers, the jobless graduates, the homeless, the civil servants and many more – in return for their votes. Billions will be pouring in to finance the programmes although no one knows how and where the money will come from, given the unpromising domestic economic trends and the depressing global business scene. Prudent spending or fiscal responsibility is not our strength. Millions in public funds have gone down the drain over the years unaccounted for. Still, there is not a care in the world about the misuse of taxpayers' money.

READ MORE HERE

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Khamis, 4 Oktober 2012

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan