Showing posts with label Pakatan Rakyat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pakatan Rakyat. Show all posts
Monday, July 14, 2008
No-confidence motion rejected, Opposition MPs walk out
The Star (14/7/08): Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia rejected an emergency motion of no-confidence against Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and his Cabinet, which prompted a walkout by Opposition MPs.
The motion was filed by Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail last Thursday.
It was filed as a non-voting motion under Standing Orders 18 (1) and (2).
The motion was rejected in the Speaker's chambers under Standing Order 18 (7). Dr Wan Azizah was informed via a letter.
The matter was not brought up in Dewan.
The motion was rejected by the Speaker due to the "wrong choice of words."
The Opposition MPs walked out after their appeal for him to review his decision was rejected.
Pakatan Rakyat leaders said they were disappointed with Pandikar Amin's rejection of their emergency motion.
They also condemned the police roadblocks across the city, saying the action was "unjustifiable."
The motion was filed by Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail last Thursday.
It was filed as a non-voting motion under Standing Orders 18 (1) and (2).
The motion was rejected in the Speaker's chambers under Standing Order 18 (7). Dr Wan Azizah was informed via a letter.
The matter was not brought up in Dewan.
The motion was rejected by the Speaker due to the "wrong choice of words."
The Opposition MPs walked out after their appeal for him to review his decision was rejected.
Pakatan Rakyat leaders said they were disappointed with Pandikar Amin's rejection of their emergency motion.
They also condemned the police roadblocks across the city, saying the action was "unjustifiable."
Thursday, July 10, 2008
The SAPP pointman clears the political minefield for the Pakatan Rakyat army to advance
NST (10/7/08): It is now diaphanously settled that when the Sabah Progressive Party – for all the inflation of its Lilliputian political ambitions – threatened to file a House motion of no-confidence against the Prime Minister on June 23, it surreptitiously acted as a “pointman”, a platoon scouting for the greater army sympathetic to the Sabahans’ anti-Federal grievances, assessing and testing the battleline ahead for landmines, ambushes and potential dangers lurking in the unseen shadows of the national political discord.
The months of Pakatan Rakyat’s teasing and cloying superseding the epiphanous March 8 Polling Day, that they will push the motion for a vote of no-confidence against Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi, has finally ascended, the all-important document submitted by the PR generalissimo to Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia at his Parliament House office at 3.30pm today.
It can be inferred that the SAPP had acted on behalf of Pakatan Rakyat, sauntering about the House and in Sabah with their trash talk that they have the means to file the motion themselves when in reality, they detonated political landmines scattered along the path while searching for the means and ways for PR to slide the motion of such disruptive nature into a genuine political debate instead of creeping about in the gutters of rumour, speculation and promise.
Of course, the Barisan Nasional, with its tremulous majority and a Speaker not known to be generous in allowing motions of such magnitude, will ensure that the motion will be defeated come Monday as soon as Opposition Leader Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Ismail finishes her last utterance of her filing, on whatever grounds the Speaker wishes to adduce. The Pakatan Rakyat MPs will no doubt stand chagrined and mewl indignantly towards the Speaker for disallowing a debate on the motion which could lead to a demand for a careful count of hands.
It matters not if the motion filed under Standing Order 18 (1) and (2) can be converted into a main event of a heavyweight contest. Now that the Pakatan Rakyat has taken over battle strategy and operations, the minor tactic of deploying the SAPP is now concluded, the two-MP party nothing more than an irrelevant little fly on the wall. The real issue now is whether PR has succeeded in cajoling the shifty Sabahans into throwing their lot for the Opposition to trigger either a collapse in the BN Government or force the PM to call for a snap general election. Even that is a still a long shot.
MPs had barely survived the “skirt-chasing” incident where a female member of the Press became the news, censured for wearing a skirt deemed risqué, when word spread in the late morning that Dr Wan Azizah will file the motion. Once confirmed, Dr Wan Azizah, resplendent in a green outfit and flanked by the all-male senior chieftains of PKR, DAP and Pas, marched to the Speaker’s office and filed the motion, which reads: “That this honorable House assume a no confidence towards the leadership of the Prime Minister of Malaysia and his Cabinet in carrying out the nation’s administration due to the erosion of the people’s confidence towards the Government’s integrity.”
This time and unlike the SAPP’s insipid overture two weeks ago, this is not a David trying to sneak in a fortuitous slingshot towards Goliath’s head. This time, Goliath will meet his match and the mouth-watering prospects next week of a titanic altercation in the House is real while nationwide awe at such a heady development already reverberating.
In the Press conference minutes later, Dr Wan Azizah repeated the Opposition mantra on why they were hell-bent on filing the emergency motion even though the earlier prospect of such motion was, at best, teasing and cloying. But the way the PR chief characterised the motion was quirky: there is a motion of no confidence against the PM and his Cabinet but the PR is “not” seeking a voting in the process.
“We are not seeking a no-confidence vote,” her refrain went. “We are not hoping for a change in Government but to have our voices heard.” And why now and not, say, weeks before? “Because the situation in the country had worsened. This motion is simply to seek a change within the existing situation,'' she avouched, with half an eyeball acknowledging the immaculate timing of a groundswell of resentment that favoured PR.
At best, the reason for the no-voting process was simply the PR being disingenuous, knowing that a vote plays into the hands of the BN, with their natural 140-82 majority. Right after the March 8 polls, the Opposition scooped an unprecedented haul of 80 parliamentary seats and dented the BN’s two-thirds Parliamentary majority, if not its pride and ego.
From there, the idea of wresting the Federal Government from the BN and forming a brand new Federal powerhouse was a question of scrabbling the numbers of their own 82 against that 140, delicately deducting a disconcerting figure of 30-odd seats that Sabah BN was peddling as political poker ante if their Faustian demands for better Peninsular representation and big budget funding was as good as a Nigerian bank collateral caper.
Then the PM decided to call the Sabahans' bet and allocated huge development funds and other pledges, thus diffusing the PR’s strategy. Then came the debilitating fuel price hike bouncing against the slew of statutory declarations pounding on the BN leadership but alleviated by a sodomy charge against Anwar Ibrahim. However, the moral momentum seemed to pivot to the PR, which tapped a growing unrest in the populace, especially the working class with diminishing purchasing power and a big chunk of beef against the Government.
When Wan Azizah characterised the motion as another step in the Pakatan Rakyat effort to highlight the people’s problems and the motion was how the PR worked within what was allowed by the Parliament's standing orders, she revealed a PR gameplan for the ultimate powerplay. "The people are now faced with several major crises such as high fuel prices, increasing cost of food and basic necessities, eroding public confidence in the police, attorney general and the judiciary, and the increase in crime and corruption," she revealed.
Then came her nominal slash and burn of alleged BN improprieties – polls won through manipulation, backing out of its election manifesto of not increasing fuel prices and brushing aside the five PR states as “stepchildren”, threats against BN MPs who criticised "irresponsible" behaviour of the coalition's leadership. That the PR is using the motion within the realm of democracy, as admitted by Dr Wan Azizah, is another indulgent move in the bigger scheme of things, the people’s suffering a convenient prop in the PR’s “movie-making” endeavour.
If you were a betting person, you could distinguish the filing of the motion today as another ante upped in a long-running political poker game, the table money mountainous. Nevertheless, the crucial stakes on the table are very deceiving: Pakatan Rakyat may be holding the best hand but they may not necessarily win everything. The house of BN still looks to possess the toughest “poker face” and the ballsiest nerve to counter with a bigger bet that could either regain its losses…or break the bank.
The months of Pakatan Rakyat’s teasing and cloying superseding the epiphanous March 8 Polling Day, that they will push the motion for a vote of no-confidence against Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi, has finally ascended, the all-important document submitted by the PR generalissimo to Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia at his Parliament House office at 3.30pm today.
It can be inferred that the SAPP had acted on behalf of Pakatan Rakyat, sauntering about the House and in Sabah with their trash talk that they have the means to file the motion themselves when in reality, they detonated political landmines scattered along the path while searching for the means and ways for PR to slide the motion of such disruptive nature into a genuine political debate instead of creeping about in the gutters of rumour, speculation and promise.
Of course, the Barisan Nasional, with its tremulous majority and a Speaker not known to be generous in allowing motions of such magnitude, will ensure that the motion will be defeated come Monday as soon as Opposition Leader Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Ismail finishes her last utterance of her filing, on whatever grounds the Speaker wishes to adduce. The Pakatan Rakyat MPs will no doubt stand chagrined and mewl indignantly towards the Speaker for disallowing a debate on the motion which could lead to a demand for a careful count of hands.
It matters not if the motion filed under Standing Order 18 (1) and (2) can be converted into a main event of a heavyweight contest. Now that the Pakatan Rakyat has taken over battle strategy and operations, the minor tactic of deploying the SAPP is now concluded, the two-MP party nothing more than an irrelevant little fly on the wall. The real issue now is whether PR has succeeded in cajoling the shifty Sabahans into throwing their lot for the Opposition to trigger either a collapse in the BN Government or force the PM to call for a snap general election. Even that is a still a long shot.
MPs had barely survived the “skirt-chasing” incident where a female member of the Press became the news, censured for wearing a skirt deemed risqué, when word spread in the late morning that Dr Wan Azizah will file the motion. Once confirmed, Dr Wan Azizah, resplendent in a green outfit and flanked by the all-male senior chieftains of PKR, DAP and Pas, marched to the Speaker’s office and filed the motion, which reads: “That this honorable House assume a no confidence towards the leadership of the Prime Minister of Malaysia and his Cabinet in carrying out the nation’s administration due to the erosion of the people’s confidence towards the Government’s integrity.”
This time and unlike the SAPP’s insipid overture two weeks ago, this is not a David trying to sneak in a fortuitous slingshot towards Goliath’s head. This time, Goliath will meet his match and the mouth-watering prospects next week of a titanic altercation in the House is real while nationwide awe at such a heady development already reverberating.
In the Press conference minutes later, Dr Wan Azizah repeated the Opposition mantra on why they were hell-bent on filing the emergency motion even though the earlier prospect of such motion was, at best, teasing and cloying. But the way the PR chief characterised the motion was quirky: there is a motion of no confidence against the PM and his Cabinet but the PR is “not” seeking a voting in the process.
“We are not seeking a no-confidence vote,” her refrain went. “We are not hoping for a change in Government but to have our voices heard.” And why now and not, say, weeks before? “Because the situation in the country had worsened. This motion is simply to seek a change within the existing situation,'' she avouched, with half an eyeball acknowledging the immaculate timing of a groundswell of resentment that favoured PR.
At best, the reason for the no-voting process was simply the PR being disingenuous, knowing that a vote plays into the hands of the BN, with their natural 140-82 majority. Right after the March 8 polls, the Opposition scooped an unprecedented haul of 80 parliamentary seats and dented the BN’s two-thirds Parliamentary majority, if not its pride and ego.
From there, the idea of wresting the Federal Government from the BN and forming a brand new Federal powerhouse was a question of scrabbling the numbers of their own 82 against that 140, delicately deducting a disconcerting figure of 30-odd seats that Sabah BN was peddling as political poker ante if their Faustian demands for better Peninsular representation and big budget funding was as good as a Nigerian bank collateral caper.
Then the PM decided to call the Sabahans' bet and allocated huge development funds and other pledges, thus diffusing the PR’s strategy. Then came the debilitating fuel price hike bouncing against the slew of statutory declarations pounding on the BN leadership but alleviated by a sodomy charge against Anwar Ibrahim. However, the moral momentum seemed to pivot to the PR, which tapped a growing unrest in the populace, especially the working class with diminishing purchasing power and a big chunk of beef against the Government.
When Wan Azizah characterised the motion as another step in the Pakatan Rakyat effort to highlight the people’s problems and the motion was how the PR worked within what was allowed by the Parliament's standing orders, she revealed a PR gameplan for the ultimate powerplay. "The people are now faced with several major crises such as high fuel prices, increasing cost of food and basic necessities, eroding public confidence in the police, attorney general and the judiciary, and the increase in crime and corruption," she revealed.
Then came her nominal slash and burn of alleged BN improprieties – polls won through manipulation, backing out of its election manifesto of not increasing fuel prices and brushing aside the five PR states as “stepchildren”, threats against BN MPs who criticised "irresponsible" behaviour of the coalition's leadership. That the PR is using the motion within the realm of democracy, as admitted by Dr Wan Azizah, is another indulgent move in the bigger scheme of things, the people’s suffering a convenient prop in the PR’s “movie-making” endeavour.
If you were a betting person, you could distinguish the filing of the motion today as another ante upped in a long-running political poker game, the table money mountainous. Nevertheless, the crucial stakes on the table are very deceiving: Pakatan Rakyat may be holding the best hand but they may not necessarily win everything. The house of BN still looks to possess the toughest “poker face” and the ballsiest nerve to counter with a bigger bet that could either regain its losses…or break the bank.
Opposition file motion of no-confidence on PM
Bernama (10/7/08): The opposition Thursday handed a motion of no-confidence on the leadership of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to Dewan Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia at his office at Parliament House, here.
The motion was handed over by Opposition Leader Datin Seri Wan Azizah Ismail together with 14 Members of Parliament (MPs) from the opposition parties representing the Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), PAS and DAP.
When met by reporters after handing over the motion, Wan Azizah, who is also PKR president, said the motion was under Standing Order 18 (1) and (2) which reads "That the august House takes a resolution of no-confidence in the leadership of the YAB Malaysian Prime Minister and his cabinet ministers in the governance of the country because of the erosion of public confidence in the integrity of the government."
Wan Azizah said the motion was filed following the move by the government to raise the price of fuel recently although the government had promised before the 12th general election that it would not do so.
She said this had resulted in a crisis of confidence in the Prime Minister and his cabinet ministers.
"The people are facing major crises such as the escalation in the prices of fuel, food and essential goods, as well as the increasing erosion of people's confidence in the police, Attorney-General and the judiciary as well as the rising crime rate," he said.
Wan Azizah hoped the motion would be accepted and debated by the Members of Parliament.
Meanwhile, Pandikar Amin said he would study the motion before deciding whether to accept or reject it.
"I have two or three days to study the motion and will announce my decision on Monday," he said.
The motion was handed over by Opposition Leader Datin Seri Wan Azizah Ismail together with 14 Members of Parliament (MPs) from the opposition parties representing the Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), PAS and DAP.
When met by reporters after handing over the motion, Wan Azizah, who is also PKR president, said the motion was under Standing Order 18 (1) and (2) which reads "That the august House takes a resolution of no-confidence in the leadership of the YAB Malaysian Prime Minister and his cabinet ministers in the governance of the country because of the erosion of public confidence in the integrity of the government."
Wan Azizah said the motion was filed following the move by the government to raise the price of fuel recently although the government had promised before the 12th general election that it would not do so.
She said this had resulted in a crisis of confidence in the Prime Minister and his cabinet ministers.
"The people are facing major crises such as the escalation in the prices of fuel, food and essential goods, as well as the increasing erosion of people's confidence in the police, Attorney-General and the judiciary as well as the rising crime rate," he said.
Wan Azizah hoped the motion would be accepted and debated by the Members of Parliament.
Meanwhile, Pandikar Amin said he would study the motion before deciding whether to accept or reject it.
"I have two or three days to study the motion and will announce my decision on Monday," he said.
Posted by Unknown at 10:52 PM 0 comments
Labels: Bernama, Motion of No-Confidence, Pakatan Rakyat, PM
DAP and PAS’s loyalty to Anwar under scrutiny following sodomy allegation
NST (10/7/08): Ever since Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) advisor and de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was accused of sodomy by his former aide, the leaders of the two other opposition parties in the coalition pact basically agreed that the issue be settled through legal means.
However, there have been no indications that they have accepted the allegation to be unfounded.
Hence, the question arises as to how far the DAP and PAS would remain loyal to PKR in Pakatan Rakyat (PR) if Anwar is found guilty of the offence in the court of law.
The loyalty of PKR leaders and members towards Anwar, meanwhile, cannot be denied as the party had emerged out of the struggle to free Anwar 10 years ago when he was faced with the first sodomy allegation and abuse of power when he was still in Umno and the deputy prime minister then.
PKR information chief Chang Tian Chua, in a press interview, not only acknowledged the members’ loyalty to Anwar but also their readiness in facing those who tried to stifle the party’s struggle.
He, however, did not deny that presently only PKR appeared to be at the forefront and facing the onslaught.
“No matter how difficult it is, we will overcome it,” said Tian Chua.
Firmly refuting that PKR was in a leadership crisis following the latest sodomy allegation against Anwar, he was confident that DAP and PAS were together with PKR over the issue and that PR was still strong. “As a pact, we are strong. But we are confronted with a very big challenge now,” said Tian Chua.
Behind those firm words of commitment, DAP and PAS’ loyalty towards Anwar and PKR have not actually been tested and their clearly different political ideologies may pose Anwar as a liability to the struggles of PKR’s opposition partners.
DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng, for instance, when asked about the matter, said that so far there had been no change in DAP’s policy towards PR.
But his refusal to comment further on the sodomy allegation against Anwar and its impact on PR could be felt as trying to evade the issue.
To an earlier press query, he said the allegation should be resolved through the country’s legal system as “what is right, will still be right and what is wrong, will still be wrong”. But statements by PAS leaders on the issue have clearly shown that the party is loyal to the opposition pact “for the moment”. “We are still with Pakatan Rakyat. Whether he (Anwar) is guilty or not, that’s a question we will deal with later,” said PAS Youth chief Salahuddin Ayub.
PAS secretary-general Datuk Kamarudin Jaffar also admitted that the cooperation was for the time being because in future they would have to go separate ways according to their own plans.
“Right now there are no internal issues (in PR) related to current developments. But in future, we will move forward in line with our own party’s struggle,” he said.
So, it appears that the partners in the coalition front have their own agenda and plans although they now collectively enjoy public support.
As political analyst Prof Datuk Dr Zainal Kling put it: “The people’s support will determine whether Pakatan Rakyat can weather the controversy involving Anwar as a coalition pact, or distance themselves from PKR.” “To me, Anwar’s credibility among PKR members is not affected as based on past experience, he had cleared himself of the earlier allegation. So they regard this again as slander.
“However, there may be doubts in the minds of the public, who may regard this as ’sandiwara’ (drama) or an excuse on the part of the PKR leader. It must also be remembered that although Anwar was eventually cleared of the charge by the court there were evidence which the court did not dismiss (which indicate that homosexual activities did take place), so people might believe this (the allegation).” The former dean of the Arts and Social Science Faculty of Universiti Malaya also agreed that the statements made by leaders of PKR’s partners in the PR indicated that they did not reject the possibility that the latest sodomy allegation could be true.
“Their (DAP and PAS) loyalty to Pakatan Rakyat depends on the outcome of the investigations, the court hearing and judgment. If the decision is negative for Anwar, I believe it will eventually have a negative impact on PKR and society at large,” he opined.
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia lecturer, Prof Dr Mohammad Agus Yusoff, also believed that the latest controversy surrounding Anwar would not affect cooperation among the three PR partners for the time being.
Instead, he said, this was an opportune time for the opposition front to portray an image of solidarity against what they might claim as abuse of power by the government.
“Even if the decision in the end is negative for Anwar, support for PR will depend on public perception so to whether the investigations, trial and judgment are transparent and fair.
“If not, it will only serve to strengthen the opposition as they are now together in fighting against what they claim as abuse of power by the government.” Moreover, he added, DAP and PAS leaders were now seeing the second sodomy allegation against Anwar as personal rather than having to do with the party.
Mohammad Agus said the latest controversy had little impact on public support for PR as it still benefited from the current economic situation due to the oil price increase, by offering hope that things would change if they came into power.
“Although that hope cannot be fulfilled yet, it is enough for PR to gain public support and sympathy while it is confronted with a moral issue,” he added.
But he agreed that the opposition pact would not remain in the long term because of their different ideologies, especially between PKR and PAS, when it came to Malay politics.
“PKR sees its politics as people’s politics, while PAS’ politics is religious politics and protecting Islam is its priority.
“PKR practises what we call minority mentality, where they depend too much on the support of other races although in reality the Malays do not have to do this as they are the majority race in the country,” he said .
Whatever the outcome of the latest controversy involving Anwar, what is clear is that PR has never come out to state that their cooperation would be a long lasting one.
In fact, prior to this, leaders from PKR’s two partners in the PR were rather quiet on Anwar’s plan to topple the Barisan Nasional government by Sept 16, the latest, and replaced by PR, indicating their doubts about the realisation of the plan.
As Lim Guan Eng had said: “That (the plan), you have to ask Anwar. I am of the opinion that anyone has the right to plan.”
However, there have been no indications that they have accepted the allegation to be unfounded.
Hence, the question arises as to how far the DAP and PAS would remain loyal to PKR in Pakatan Rakyat (PR) if Anwar is found guilty of the offence in the court of law.
The loyalty of PKR leaders and members towards Anwar, meanwhile, cannot be denied as the party had emerged out of the struggle to free Anwar 10 years ago when he was faced with the first sodomy allegation and abuse of power when he was still in Umno and the deputy prime minister then.
PKR information chief Chang Tian Chua, in a press interview, not only acknowledged the members’ loyalty to Anwar but also their readiness in facing those who tried to stifle the party’s struggle.
He, however, did not deny that presently only PKR appeared to be at the forefront and facing the onslaught.
“No matter how difficult it is, we will overcome it,” said Tian Chua.
Firmly refuting that PKR was in a leadership crisis following the latest sodomy allegation against Anwar, he was confident that DAP and PAS were together with PKR over the issue and that PR was still strong. “As a pact, we are strong. But we are confronted with a very big challenge now,” said Tian Chua.
Behind those firm words of commitment, DAP and PAS’ loyalty towards Anwar and PKR have not actually been tested and their clearly different political ideologies may pose Anwar as a liability to the struggles of PKR’s opposition partners.
DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng, for instance, when asked about the matter, said that so far there had been no change in DAP’s policy towards PR.
But his refusal to comment further on the sodomy allegation against Anwar and its impact on PR could be felt as trying to evade the issue.
To an earlier press query, he said the allegation should be resolved through the country’s legal system as “what is right, will still be right and what is wrong, will still be wrong”. But statements by PAS leaders on the issue have clearly shown that the party is loyal to the opposition pact “for the moment”. “We are still with Pakatan Rakyat. Whether he (Anwar) is guilty or not, that’s a question we will deal with later,” said PAS Youth chief Salahuddin Ayub.
PAS secretary-general Datuk Kamarudin Jaffar also admitted that the cooperation was for the time being because in future they would have to go separate ways according to their own plans.
“Right now there are no internal issues (in PR) related to current developments. But in future, we will move forward in line with our own party’s struggle,” he said.
So, it appears that the partners in the coalition front have their own agenda and plans although they now collectively enjoy public support.
As political analyst Prof Datuk Dr Zainal Kling put it: “The people’s support will determine whether Pakatan Rakyat can weather the controversy involving Anwar as a coalition pact, or distance themselves from PKR.” “To me, Anwar’s credibility among PKR members is not affected as based on past experience, he had cleared himself of the earlier allegation. So they regard this again as slander.
“However, there may be doubts in the minds of the public, who may regard this as ’sandiwara’ (drama) or an excuse on the part of the PKR leader. It must also be remembered that although Anwar was eventually cleared of the charge by the court there were evidence which the court did not dismiss (which indicate that homosexual activities did take place), so people might believe this (the allegation).” The former dean of the Arts and Social Science Faculty of Universiti Malaya also agreed that the statements made by leaders of PKR’s partners in the PR indicated that they did not reject the possibility that the latest sodomy allegation could be true.
“Their (DAP and PAS) loyalty to Pakatan Rakyat depends on the outcome of the investigations, the court hearing and judgment. If the decision is negative for Anwar, I believe it will eventually have a negative impact on PKR and society at large,” he opined.
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia lecturer, Prof Dr Mohammad Agus Yusoff, also believed that the latest controversy surrounding Anwar would not affect cooperation among the three PR partners for the time being.
Instead, he said, this was an opportune time for the opposition front to portray an image of solidarity against what they might claim as abuse of power by the government.
“Even if the decision in the end is negative for Anwar, support for PR will depend on public perception so to whether the investigations, trial and judgment are transparent and fair.
“If not, it will only serve to strengthen the opposition as they are now together in fighting against what they claim as abuse of power by the government.” Moreover, he added, DAP and PAS leaders were now seeing the second sodomy allegation against Anwar as personal rather than having to do with the party.
Mohammad Agus said the latest controversy had little impact on public support for PR as it still benefited from the current economic situation due to the oil price increase, by offering hope that things would change if they came into power.
“Although that hope cannot be fulfilled yet, it is enough for PR to gain public support and sympathy while it is confronted with a moral issue,” he added.
But he agreed that the opposition pact would not remain in the long term because of their different ideologies, especially between PKR and PAS, when it came to Malay politics.
“PKR sees its politics as people’s politics, while PAS’ politics is religious politics and protecting Islam is its priority.
“PKR practises what we call minority mentality, where they depend too much on the support of other races although in reality the Malays do not have to do this as they are the majority race in the country,” he said .
Whatever the outcome of the latest controversy involving Anwar, what is clear is that PR has never come out to state that their cooperation would be a long lasting one.
In fact, prior to this, leaders from PKR’s two partners in the PR were rather quiet on Anwar’s plan to topple the Barisan Nasional government by Sept 16, the latest, and replaced by PR, indicating their doubts about the realisation of the plan.
As Lim Guan Eng had said: “That (the plan), you have to ask Anwar. I am of the opinion that anyone has the right to plan.”
Posted by Unknown at 5:13 PM 0 comments
Labels: Anwar, DAP, Kamaruddin, Pakatan Rakyat, Pas, Salahuddin
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Pakatan Rakyat may test the constitution to build their shelved Penang projects
NST (26/6/08): It was static to the ears of Penangites, a white noise of dread when the reality came crashing in that the RM2 billion Penang monorail and the RM1.5 billion Penang Outer Ring Road projects didn’t merit a mention for the much-needed funding. The Penang projects were not people friendly, the Prime Minister demurred in his speech at the House this morning when he laid out the Mid-Term Review of the Ninth Malaysia Plan when he sought an extra RM30 billion to boost a variety of other people-friendly projects. On a lesser impact, the proposed administrative centres in several states were also scratched.
Based on the figures provided by the PM, the bulk of the extra funds, at RM10 billion, will go to the economic corridors, the ones he touted the most among the many initiatives he made since the took over in 2004. But in these times of soaring oil prices, global security threats and problems in food production that for some states meant starvation, the Penang Government may be well-advised to not aggravate the shelving of the two projects by making a meal out of the zero funding.
Any gripes that the Pakatan Rakyat Government and the Penangites have, no matter how justified and excusable, cannot compare to the needling problems of the lower income group in simply surviving on monthly piecemeal basis, as the thrusts of the Mid-Term Review demands.
So what if there is no monorail to gallivant around the island and so what if the is no Penang Outer Ring Road -- a new expressway in connecting George Town to Gelugor in the south, near Penang Bridge and to Tanjung Bungah in the north – which would simply urge motorists to endure more years of bad congestion. At least the Second Penang Bridge project gets the nod but at the great disadvantage of higher construction cost, perhaps as high as 60 per cent if speculative reports are to be believed.
The overall economic picture in the meantime would not be high-defined perfection but a blank transmission for the Penang Government, who may have banked too much on the two projects to stimulate the state’s economy and grease the wheels of two its most profitable industries – tourism and all that is produced in the free trade zones.
But was the Feds’ motive in shelving the two projects not done out of political repudiation? That they had to salvage for lost pride after the majority of Penang voters’ power inured themselves that DAP’s Lim Guan Eng would make a far more endearing Chief Minister than BN’s Tan Sri Koh Tsu Koon in toppling the BN State Government on March 8?
The Deputy Prime Minister, in realising the negative backlash to the shelving of the two projects mean, came out strongly, denying that the projects’ shelving was a form of punishment to Penangites who voted for the Opposition. "It is not a question of punishing anyone. Essential projects will continue to be implemented whether the states are under BN or not," he insisted.
The government, Najib asserted, was forced to defer some projects after conducting a re-evaluation but it did not mean that they are cancelled. “They can be implemented when the situation permits," Datuk Seri Najib Razak told a Press conference in Parliament after Abdullah tabled the Mid-Term Review outline.
“When the situation permits” is the operative sentence to act. On one hand, the people of Penang may have to brace perhaps for more years of patience for these projects to come around but for the political climate going against them notwithstanding, the book on the projects may be closed for good, unless the voters suddenly decide in five years to return the BN to power and ease the Feds hardball stance.
But they are not waiting. There are strong murmurs that the Pakatan Rakyat Government is not leaving the “lost of ideal funding” for these two projects to providence or any justification that their needs are not “people-friendly”. The PR, arguing in principle that the BN lost of way among the plebiscites was the primary reason why they lost far too many seats on March 8, is determined not to be dragged that way too if they fail to get these projects moving. Some would say that getting the projects done at all cost would be their flagship election issue five years from now.
The business savvy among the PR crowd may now be thinking of alternative and independent means to raise funds for the two projects. That’s what it is: a mere lack of funding rather than lack of resolve, resourcefulness and some third party angel investors willing to fork out a cool RM3.5 billion in a coterie of investments and soft loans.
But Najib seemed to have anticipated this economically subversive thinking. When he was asked whether Penang could carry out the deferred projects on their own, Najib pointed the issue as a matter subject to the Federal Constitution. “You have to decide whether it is under the state or federal list. Secondly, if the state want to borrow (a loan), they still need permission from the federal government," he said in underscoring the Federal Government’s stand.
Perhaps that was why DAP supremo Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timur) seemed nonchalantly blasé in his reaction to the PM’s Mid-term review speech – he may have already this legal onslaught in his mind and in saying it out loud and likely to speak on behalf of his fellow oppositionists, especially from Penang, brushed aside the loss of funding as “nothing much exciting.”
So, it may soon boil down now to the Penang Government’s temerity to challenge the Federal Government in what may be a landmark constitutional battle to make the Federal Constitution favour them. The Penang Government’s argument may revolve around the fact that land and water is a state prerogative and anything that is grown, built, planted, dug or shifted on Penang soil is their business and their business alone.
So would that make Najib’s pointer moot? Perhaps not. The moment the Federal Government sniffs something amiss, like contractors suddenly making a beeline to excavate earth and plant huge foundations, a court injunction would quickly come down hard to stop all construction work.
Would that deter the Penangites? Not those hardy pugilists from the DAP, Pas and PKR with the cojones of bull fighters. They will slug it out, with their Queen’s Counsels and their brigade of local lawyers salivating at the thought of arguing this unique case in court, knowing that the legal concurrences may swing with them.
Based on the figures provided by the PM, the bulk of the extra funds, at RM10 billion, will go to the economic corridors, the ones he touted the most among the many initiatives he made since the took over in 2004. But in these times of soaring oil prices, global security threats and problems in food production that for some states meant starvation, the Penang Government may be well-advised to not aggravate the shelving of the two projects by making a meal out of the zero funding.
Any gripes that the Pakatan Rakyat Government and the Penangites have, no matter how justified and excusable, cannot compare to the needling problems of the lower income group in simply surviving on monthly piecemeal basis, as the thrusts of the Mid-Term Review demands.
So what if there is no monorail to gallivant around the island and so what if the is no Penang Outer Ring Road -- a new expressway in connecting George Town to Gelugor in the south, near Penang Bridge and to Tanjung Bungah in the north – which would simply urge motorists to endure more years of bad congestion. At least the Second Penang Bridge project gets the nod but at the great disadvantage of higher construction cost, perhaps as high as 60 per cent if speculative reports are to be believed.
The overall economic picture in the meantime would not be high-defined perfection but a blank transmission for the Penang Government, who may have banked too much on the two projects to stimulate the state’s economy and grease the wheels of two its most profitable industries – tourism and all that is produced in the free trade zones.
But was the Feds’ motive in shelving the two projects not done out of political repudiation? That they had to salvage for lost pride after the majority of Penang voters’ power inured themselves that DAP’s Lim Guan Eng would make a far more endearing Chief Minister than BN’s Tan Sri Koh Tsu Koon in toppling the BN State Government on March 8?
The Deputy Prime Minister, in realising the negative backlash to the shelving of the two projects mean, came out strongly, denying that the projects’ shelving was a form of punishment to Penangites who voted for the Opposition. "It is not a question of punishing anyone. Essential projects will continue to be implemented whether the states are under BN or not," he insisted.
The government, Najib asserted, was forced to defer some projects after conducting a re-evaluation but it did not mean that they are cancelled. “They can be implemented when the situation permits," Datuk Seri Najib Razak told a Press conference in Parliament after Abdullah tabled the Mid-Term Review outline.
“When the situation permits” is the operative sentence to act. On one hand, the people of Penang may have to brace perhaps for more years of patience for these projects to come around but for the political climate going against them notwithstanding, the book on the projects may be closed for good, unless the voters suddenly decide in five years to return the BN to power and ease the Feds hardball stance.
But they are not waiting. There are strong murmurs that the Pakatan Rakyat Government is not leaving the “lost of ideal funding” for these two projects to providence or any justification that their needs are not “people-friendly”. The PR, arguing in principle that the BN lost of way among the plebiscites was the primary reason why they lost far too many seats on March 8, is determined not to be dragged that way too if they fail to get these projects moving. Some would say that getting the projects done at all cost would be their flagship election issue five years from now.
The business savvy among the PR crowd may now be thinking of alternative and independent means to raise funds for the two projects. That’s what it is: a mere lack of funding rather than lack of resolve, resourcefulness and some third party angel investors willing to fork out a cool RM3.5 billion in a coterie of investments and soft loans.
But Najib seemed to have anticipated this economically subversive thinking. When he was asked whether Penang could carry out the deferred projects on their own, Najib pointed the issue as a matter subject to the Federal Constitution. “You have to decide whether it is under the state or federal list. Secondly, if the state want to borrow (a loan), they still need permission from the federal government," he said in underscoring the Federal Government’s stand.
Perhaps that was why DAP supremo Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timur) seemed nonchalantly blasé in his reaction to the PM’s Mid-term review speech – he may have already this legal onslaught in his mind and in saying it out loud and likely to speak on behalf of his fellow oppositionists, especially from Penang, brushed aside the loss of funding as “nothing much exciting.”
So, it may soon boil down now to the Penang Government’s temerity to challenge the Federal Government in what may be a landmark constitutional battle to make the Federal Constitution favour them. The Penang Government’s argument may revolve around the fact that land and water is a state prerogative and anything that is grown, built, planted, dug or shifted on Penang soil is their business and their business alone.
So would that make Najib’s pointer moot? Perhaps not. The moment the Federal Government sniffs something amiss, like contractors suddenly making a beeline to excavate earth and plant huge foundations, a court injunction would quickly come down hard to stop all construction work.
Would that deter the Penangites? Not those hardy pugilists from the DAP, Pas and PKR with the cojones of bull fighters. They will slug it out, with their Queen’s Counsels and their brigade of local lawyers salivating at the thought of arguing this unique case in court, knowing that the legal concurrences may swing with them.
Opposition pledges yet infulfilled
IPS (26/6/08): Even as the Anwar Ibrahim-led opposition Peoples Alliance coalition celebrates 100 days in office this week with huge rallies across the country, the public euphoria that brought them into power is beginning to cool off as people tighten their belts in the face of a slowing economy and escalating cost of living. Demands are rising for the opposition to implement their pledges.
It is clear now that it was easy to make election pledges, but next to impossible to fulfil some of them, especially the promise to lower the price of petrol to pre-2004 levels --world price then was about 20 dollars a barrel. The price of oil is now hitting 150 dollars a barrel.
In 2004, pump prices in Malaysia were under RM0.92, but today the price is RM2.70 and set to rise to RM3.20 by yearend.
"I cannot understand how Mr. Anwar is going to lower pump prices when world price is set to cross 200 dollars by year end," said a University of Malaya economist who declined to be identified, for fear of repercussions. "I think he has to tell his legions of supporters soon that petrol prices will only rise and not drop because the commodity is limited but usage is increasing," the economist told IPS.
For the opposition -- which captured five states and won 82 of the 222- seats -- the issue is pressing.
"As the opposition we promised the sky to win but as the government now we have great difficulty to deliver because we don’t have the power, our power to effect change is limited," opposition lawmaker Tian Chua told IPS. "But we are doing our best and the people understand it... they are with us," he said.
Many are still in a state of shock having been transformed overnight from "street fighters" battling police to lawmakers. The size of the victory and the suddenness of the transformation took everybody by surprise.
Voters who believed the opposition rhetoric and voted for change to see their lives transformed for the better are increasingly unhappy that change is slow to arrive.
"We want an end to corruption, we want accountability and transparency, we want redistribution of wealth and we want to see equality for all races," said R. S. Thanenthiran, national co-coordinator of the Makkal Sakthi or People Power movement that helped to bring the disparate opposition into power. "The era of blaming the previous governments for all the ills in the country is over and people want the new leaders to deliver," he said. "But they are still trapped in the old mentality," he told IPS in an interview. "They are the government now and they have to deliver."
A key opposition challenge is how to satisfy rising expectations which are fuelled by opposition rhetoric and rising cost of living -- on Jun. 5 there was a 41 percent hike in petrol and 61 percent hike in diesel prices.
Before the fuel hike the country’s poverty rate -- calculated by a household income of RM800 -- was 3.7 percent of the population, or 27 million people. After the fuel hike, and resulting massive jump in cost of living, the government is proposing to a new "lower income" category who earn RM2,000 and below. Nearly 25 percent of the population will fall under this new category of "low income earners".
The new definition covers only expenses for food, clothes, rental, utilities, transport, communication, health and education, former banker turned government minister for special functions, Amirsham Aziz told parliament on Jun. 24.
"Many among the former middle class are now falling into the lower income category and they are fearful and looking to the opposition political parties for deliverance," said S. Sivananthan, a senior official with the Malaysian Trade Union Congress, an umbrella body for private sector unions. "Clearly the former boom years are turning into lean years and people are angry at the sudden lost of status," he said.
The opposition Peoples Alliance is made up of three disparate political parties and has yet to formulate a single, holistic agenda to raise wages and household income and redistribute national wealth -- the key demands of the people.
Instead the former opposition is resorting to distributing sugar, rice and cooking oil to the poor and so doing are fuelling higher expectations for more handouts. "A comprehensive and workable scheme of measure to beat inflation and raise income is not in place yet," Sivananthan told IPS. "Populist measures like free rice are temporary measures and will raise expectation without solving the root cause which is low wages."
The difference between the three political parties that make up the Peoples Alliance is also a contributing factor in the failure to offer a comprehensive common agenda. While PAS, a Muslim fundamentalist party, wants a greater role for Sharia in the five opposition ruled states, the secular, Chinese-based Democratic Action Party supports defending the secular constitution and stopping the advance of Islam in a multi-ethnic secular society. Anwar and his Peoples Justice Party -- Malay-led but nominally secular -- is left sandwiched between the two feuding foes and drained by the constant need to keep the peace.
Increasingly public attitude toward Anwar is unfriendly, seeing him as pre- occupied more with grabbing state power by toppling Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi and less on alleviating the real problems the masses face. In fact, Anwar, who controls 82 seats in parliament, is preoccupied with secret negotiations to persuade government backbenchers to defect to his side. If he can get 30 lawmakers to defect he says he can topple Abdullah and form the next government without facing the voters for a fresh mandate.
Many of his own colleagues are openly against "buying" political opponents to make up the numbers because that may cause national instability, and put the Peoples Alliance at the mercy of the defectors whose loyalties will always be questioned. "It is also unethical… we should work at representing the people in parliament, act as an efficient check and balance on the federal government and go for a new mandate," said veteran opposition lawmaker Karpal Singh. "I am against using defectors to topple the government," he told IPS.
Many lawmakers also feel the future of the Peoples Alliance lies in addressing fundamental problems, and on populist measures like distributing food and cooking oil. Nevertheless the opposition victory has given the people fresh hopes that the new government is for them, and in their interest will be not hijacked by the rich and powerful.
After an initial huge jump in expectations and optimism the mood is now "cautious but optimistic" for the Peoples Alliance, partially because people still have grievances with the former National Front governments and their arrogant ways. But, experts warn, these are still the first 100 days and public mood could change dramatically unless the former opposition now in government put aside their differences, abandon populist measures and come together to tackle the real issues - which are poverty, low wages, rising cost of living and lack of social mobility (Baradan Kuppusamy).
It is clear now that it was easy to make election pledges, but next to impossible to fulfil some of them, especially the promise to lower the price of petrol to pre-2004 levels --world price then was about 20 dollars a barrel. The price of oil is now hitting 150 dollars a barrel.
In 2004, pump prices in Malaysia were under RM0.92, but today the price is RM2.70 and set to rise to RM3.20 by yearend.
"I cannot understand how Mr. Anwar is going to lower pump prices when world price is set to cross 200 dollars by year end," said a University of Malaya economist who declined to be identified, for fear of repercussions. "I think he has to tell his legions of supporters soon that petrol prices will only rise and not drop because the commodity is limited but usage is increasing," the economist told IPS.
For the opposition -- which captured five states and won 82 of the 222- seats -- the issue is pressing.
"As the opposition we promised the sky to win but as the government now we have great difficulty to deliver because we don’t have the power, our power to effect change is limited," opposition lawmaker Tian Chua told IPS. "But we are doing our best and the people understand it... they are with us," he said.
Many are still in a state of shock having been transformed overnight from "street fighters" battling police to lawmakers. The size of the victory and the suddenness of the transformation took everybody by surprise.
Voters who believed the opposition rhetoric and voted for change to see their lives transformed for the better are increasingly unhappy that change is slow to arrive.
"We want an end to corruption, we want accountability and transparency, we want redistribution of wealth and we want to see equality for all races," said R. S. Thanenthiran, national co-coordinator of the Makkal Sakthi or People Power movement that helped to bring the disparate opposition into power. "The era of blaming the previous governments for all the ills in the country is over and people want the new leaders to deliver," he said. "But they are still trapped in the old mentality," he told IPS in an interview. "They are the government now and they have to deliver."
A key opposition challenge is how to satisfy rising expectations which are fuelled by opposition rhetoric and rising cost of living -- on Jun. 5 there was a 41 percent hike in petrol and 61 percent hike in diesel prices.
Before the fuel hike the country’s poverty rate -- calculated by a household income of RM800 -- was 3.7 percent of the population, or 27 million people. After the fuel hike, and resulting massive jump in cost of living, the government is proposing to a new "lower income" category who earn RM2,000 and below. Nearly 25 percent of the population will fall under this new category of "low income earners".
The new definition covers only expenses for food, clothes, rental, utilities, transport, communication, health and education, former banker turned government minister for special functions, Amirsham Aziz told parliament on Jun. 24.
"Many among the former middle class are now falling into the lower income category and they are fearful and looking to the opposition political parties for deliverance," said S. Sivananthan, a senior official with the Malaysian Trade Union Congress, an umbrella body for private sector unions. "Clearly the former boom years are turning into lean years and people are angry at the sudden lost of status," he said.
The opposition Peoples Alliance is made up of three disparate political parties and has yet to formulate a single, holistic agenda to raise wages and household income and redistribute national wealth -- the key demands of the people.
Instead the former opposition is resorting to distributing sugar, rice and cooking oil to the poor and so doing are fuelling higher expectations for more handouts. "A comprehensive and workable scheme of measure to beat inflation and raise income is not in place yet," Sivananthan told IPS. "Populist measures like free rice are temporary measures and will raise expectation without solving the root cause which is low wages."
The difference between the three political parties that make up the Peoples Alliance is also a contributing factor in the failure to offer a comprehensive common agenda. While PAS, a Muslim fundamentalist party, wants a greater role for Sharia in the five opposition ruled states, the secular, Chinese-based Democratic Action Party supports defending the secular constitution and stopping the advance of Islam in a multi-ethnic secular society. Anwar and his Peoples Justice Party -- Malay-led but nominally secular -- is left sandwiched between the two feuding foes and drained by the constant need to keep the peace.
Increasingly public attitude toward Anwar is unfriendly, seeing him as pre- occupied more with grabbing state power by toppling Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi and less on alleviating the real problems the masses face. In fact, Anwar, who controls 82 seats in parliament, is preoccupied with secret negotiations to persuade government backbenchers to defect to his side. If he can get 30 lawmakers to defect he says he can topple Abdullah and form the next government without facing the voters for a fresh mandate.
Many of his own colleagues are openly against "buying" political opponents to make up the numbers because that may cause national instability, and put the Peoples Alliance at the mercy of the defectors whose loyalties will always be questioned. "It is also unethical… we should work at representing the people in parliament, act as an efficient check and balance on the federal government and go for a new mandate," said veteran opposition lawmaker Karpal Singh. "I am against using defectors to topple the government," he told IPS.
Many lawmakers also feel the future of the Peoples Alliance lies in addressing fundamental problems, and on populist measures like distributing food and cooking oil. Nevertheless the opposition victory has given the people fresh hopes that the new government is for them, and in their interest will be not hijacked by the rich and powerful.
After an initial huge jump in expectations and optimism the mood is now "cautious but optimistic" for the Peoples Alliance, partially because people still have grievances with the former National Front governments and their arrogant ways. But, experts warn, these are still the first 100 days and public mood could change dramatically unless the former opposition now in government put aside their differences, abandon populist measures and come together to tackle the real issues - which are poverty, low wages, rising cost of living and lack of social mobility (Baradan Kuppusamy).
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Opposition: Boycott Malay papers for fanning racial hatred
The Star (27/5/08): The Pakatan Rakyat alliance has called for an immediate boycott of Malay newspapers Utusan Malaysia and Mingguan Malaysia for what it said was unfair reporting and for allegedly fanning racial sentiments.
In a joint statement issued at a press conference in the lobby of Parliament, Opposition leader Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail said the mainstream media had shown signs of opening up since the results of the March 8 polls.
However, many publications still gave wider coverage to Barisan Nasional and its component parties, while stories on Pakatan Rakyat tended to be full of distortion and misinformation to discredit the alliance parties and their leaders, she claimed.
The Parti Keadilan Rakyat president was accompanied by alliance members DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng and PAS deputy president Nasaruddin Mat Isa in reading out the joint statement.
Dr Wan Azizah said the worst were the two aforementioned newspapers, which she claimed unfairly criticised and demonised Pakatan Rakyat leaders.
She also alleged these publications were always trying to provoke narrow ethnic sentiments, "clearly with the intention of creating anger among Malays against Pakatan Rakyat component parties."
In a joint statement issued at a press conference in the lobby of Parliament, Opposition leader Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail said the mainstream media had shown signs of opening up since the results of the March 8 polls.
However, many publications still gave wider coverage to Barisan Nasional and its component parties, while stories on Pakatan Rakyat tended to be full of distortion and misinformation to discredit the alliance parties and their leaders, she claimed.
The Parti Keadilan Rakyat president was accompanied by alliance members DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng and PAS deputy president Nasaruddin Mat Isa in reading out the joint statement.
Dr Wan Azizah said the worst were the two aforementioned newspapers, which she claimed unfairly criticised and demonised Pakatan Rakyat leaders.
She also alleged these publications were always trying to provoke narrow ethnic sentiments, "clearly with the intention of creating anger among Malays against Pakatan Rakyat component parties."
Posted by Unknown at 1:06 PM 0 comments
Labels: Boycott, Nasharudin, Newspaper Boycott, Pakatan Rakyat, Utusan Malaysia
Opposition states won’t be victimised, says Ong
The Sun (26/5/08): The Housing and Local Government Ministry will not hold back federal funds to victimise the people in the five states overned by the Pakatan Rakyat.
Its minister Datuk Seri Ong Ka Chuan said the people are entitled to the development funds under the Federal Constitution and the ministry will not hold them to ransom by denying the funds due to them.
In fact, he said, the five state governments can request the ministry for necessary funds in times of natural calamities like floods and for major projects that will benefit the public.
Ong was responding to a suggestion that the federal government is discriminating against the five state governments by not channelling funds through them, whereas the BN state governments are getting the funds directly from the ministry.
“As far as my ministry is concerned, the ultimate aim is for the funds to go to the grassroots. It is merely a technicality when the federal funds are diverted through the federal development officer. The funding has to be split into federal and state departments as the state and federal governments have different accounting and auditing procedures,” he said.
“There are guidelines for the federal development officer to follow in distributing federal funds. He can either channel the funds through the district offices or call for tenders for major projects like building bridges or installing traffic lights.”
Ong said although there are different administrative procedures at the state and federal levels, the money still goes to the grassroots.
“There is no conflict of interest in such different procedures as far as the implementation is concerned; it is a mere technicality and the purpose is the same. It will not affect the people’s interest,” he said.
He was speaking to reporters after officiating a Red Crescent Society function at the Red Crescent Malaysia, Perak branch on Sunday, at which 120 Red Crescent students from 24 schools received awards and letters of appreciation.
On the call by the National House Buyers Association to make it mandatory for all developers to adhere to the build-and-sell concept, Ong said it would have to be on a voluntary basis as the smaller developers cannot survive because of the high costs involved.
Also in the ministry’s pipeline is the revival of the National Housing Policy which will see the reduction of red tape which is not conducive to the building industry.
In addition, steps will be taken to protect house buyers when housing projects are abandoned. The revised policy is expected to be implemented early next year.
Its minister Datuk Seri Ong Ka Chuan said the people are entitled to the development funds under the Federal Constitution and the ministry will not hold them to ransom by denying the funds due to them.
In fact, he said, the five state governments can request the ministry for necessary funds in times of natural calamities like floods and for major projects that will benefit the public.
Ong was responding to a suggestion that the federal government is discriminating against the five state governments by not channelling funds through them, whereas the BN state governments are getting the funds directly from the ministry.
“As far as my ministry is concerned, the ultimate aim is for the funds to go to the grassroots. It is merely a technicality when the federal funds are diverted through the federal development officer. The funding has to be split into federal and state departments as the state and federal governments have different accounting and auditing procedures,” he said.
“There are guidelines for the federal development officer to follow in distributing federal funds. He can either channel the funds through the district offices or call for tenders for major projects like building bridges or installing traffic lights.”
Ong said although there are different administrative procedures at the state and federal levels, the money still goes to the grassroots.
“There is no conflict of interest in such different procedures as far as the implementation is concerned; it is a mere technicality and the purpose is the same. It will not affect the people’s interest,” he said.
He was speaking to reporters after officiating a Red Crescent Society function at the Red Crescent Malaysia, Perak branch on Sunday, at which 120 Red Crescent students from 24 schools received awards and letters of appreciation.
On the call by the National House Buyers Association to make it mandatory for all developers to adhere to the build-and-sell concept, Ong said it would have to be on a voluntary basis as the smaller developers cannot survive because of the high costs involved.
Also in the ministry’s pipeline is the revival of the National Housing Policy which will see the reduction of red tape which is not conducive to the building industry.
In addition, steps will be taken to protect house buyers when housing projects are abandoned. The revised policy is expected to be implemented early next year.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Nor Yakcop: Opposition states will be funded
Malaysian Insider (22/5/08): Malaysian Second Finance Minister Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop said the Barisan Nasional-led Federal Government will not choke development in Opposition-held states.
He said over the years, the federal government had already been having pragmatic relations with Opposition-held states and it would continue the close cooperation for the sake of national development.
He said development in the PAS, DAP and Parti Keadilan Rakyat-led states would gain greater momentum as the federal government had put in place various development measures in the last five years.
Speaking at a media conference after giving a talk on the Malaysian economy at an international conference in Singapore, Nor Mohamed said the government had put the last general election behind it and was now moving forward to bring fair development to the whole country.
He said Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had said that "he is the prime minister for all" and sincerely planned to distribute equitable wealth to the people and development to the states depending on affordability.
He said the economic and political challenges that the country was currently facing was a pale comparison to the crises that it had went through such as the 1969 racial riots and the financial crisis in 1997.
Nonetheless, he said the present challenges were real but the government has the ability to face it straight on.
Nor Mohamed said Malaysia was very lucky because as a commodity exporting country it had benefited from the current increase in the prices but income earned from palm oil and petroleum would not last long. It is projected that by 2014, Petronas would be net importer of oil.
He said the government would need to utilise its revenue judiciously and strategically especially for long term investments.
He pointed to the various kinds of subsidies the government was providing that had reached the RM$50 billion mark with the bulk of it or RM$45 billion for oil and gas subsidy and this had stretched government spending.
Nor Mohamed said a new scheme on oil subsidy, which the government was currently drafting to reduce its financial burden including the pump price of petroleum for vehicles, would be ready in a couple of months.
He explained government needed time to study the scheme as it had to distinguish which groups - the lower, middle or high income brackets - were to benefit most from the new subsidy structure.
Nor Mohamed also said inflation was not a major issue in Malaysia adding that it would hover around three per cent as forecast. — Bernama
He said over the years, the federal government had already been having pragmatic relations with Opposition-held states and it would continue the close cooperation for the sake of national development.
He said development in the PAS, DAP and Parti Keadilan Rakyat-led states would gain greater momentum as the federal government had put in place various development measures in the last five years.
Speaking at a media conference after giving a talk on the Malaysian economy at an international conference in Singapore, Nor Mohamed said the government had put the last general election behind it and was now moving forward to bring fair development to the whole country.
He said Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had said that "he is the prime minister for all" and sincerely planned to distribute equitable wealth to the people and development to the states depending on affordability.
He said the economic and political challenges that the country was currently facing was a pale comparison to the crises that it had went through such as the 1969 racial riots and the financial crisis in 1997.
Nonetheless, he said the present challenges were real but the government has the ability to face it straight on.
Nor Mohamed said Malaysia was very lucky because as a commodity exporting country it had benefited from the current increase in the prices but income earned from palm oil and petroleum would not last long. It is projected that by 2014, Petronas would be net importer of oil.
He said the government would need to utilise its revenue judiciously and strategically especially for long term investments.
He pointed to the various kinds of subsidies the government was providing that had reached the RM$50 billion mark with the bulk of it or RM$45 billion for oil and gas subsidy and this had stretched government spending.
Nor Mohamed said a new scheme on oil subsidy, which the government was currently drafting to reduce its financial burden including the pump price of petroleum for vehicles, would be ready in a couple of months.
He explained government needed time to study the scheme as it had to distinguish which groups - the lower, middle or high income brackets - were to benefit most from the new subsidy structure.
Nor Mohamed also said inflation was not a major issue in Malaysia adding that it would hover around three per cent as forecast. — Bernama
Posted by Unknown at 11:37 AM 0 comments
Labels: Bernama, Malaysian Insider, Pakatan Rakyat, Petronas
More parties weighing in for the Malay votes
The recent emergence of Parti Kegemilangan Bangsa Malaysia in Johor is not an issue that Umno hasn't handled before — it has even dealt with its own founder's splinter party. But Shannon Teoh senses that the situation today is unlike those that it has faced before.
NST (25/5/08): When a group of ex-Umno veterans formed Parti Kegemilangan Bangsa Malaysia (KBM) as a "back-up" to Umno last week, it was probably not the sort of safety net Umno was looking for. The situation was compounded on Monday when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad exited Umno and called for others to follow suit.
In an unprecedented situation, Umno is now having to deal with four splinter groups - Dr Mahathir's, KBM, Parti Keadilan Rakyat and Pas.
In the battle for the Malay electorate, Umno is now facing a multi-pronged attack, being accused of not championing Malay rights by Dr Mahathir and KBM while simultaneously fending off opinions that it has built up an ethnocracy founded on Malay dominance.
Considered Australia's foremost observer of Malaysian sociopolitics, sociology professor Clive Kessler believes that these recent developments are exerting an altogether new kind of pressure on Umno.
"These are ginger groups, so-called because they are spicy and are meant to lobby on particular issues. Whereas some splinter parties or even internal factions like Pemuda or Puteri might pressure from a position of youthful idealism, KBM and Dr Mahathir reprimand with the wisdom of the old patron," he said.
It's been more straightforward for Umno in the past. When founder Datuk Onn Jaafar formed the Independence of Malaya Party and then Parti Negara to push for multi-ethnicity, he was easily disposed of by Umno via its cohorts in the Alliance who had already positioned themselves as representatives of the different races.
The Team A-Team B schism in Umno resulted in Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah establishing Semangat 46 in 1989 to try and wrest power from Umno.
However, Semangat 46 found itself squeezed out by Pas loyalists in their shared home of Kelantan despite the loose coalition they had formed.
After just two elections, Umno was only too happy to negotiate the first voluntary dissolution of a political party through the process of law and allowed Semangat members back into the fold.
In between these two incidences, there were other splinters such as the National Association of Perak, Perak Malay League and former cabinet member Aziz Ishak's National Convention Party that never came to much.
Wong Chin Huat, a journalism lecturer who is pursuing a PhD on Malaysia's electoral system and party politics, explains that it is difficult for any Malay party, let alone an Umno splinter, to survive because of the constant desire for Malay unity.
"Because of the perceived threat to their dominance by other races, Malays tend to suppress the number of parties. Pas succeeded in the Malay heartland of Kelantan and Terengganu because there weren't many non-Malays and the people felt secure enough to allow a second party to operate."
Pas itself splintered from Umno and was the first mover after establishing itself where Parti Negara failed. Its "captive market" of Islamic support in the east coast was in contrast to Parti Negara's scattered support which saw the latter fall victim to the first-past-the-post electoral system.
Today, Pas is joined by PKR as the only Umno splinters and indeed, Malay-dominant parties that have survived in the long-term. After March 8, PKR can claim to have surpassed the psychological three-election watershed and has come out of it as the largest opposition party in Parliament.
Kessler believes that these splinters have survived where others have not because they were not just based on personalities but because they cleaved out a constituency.
"Pas brought out latent Islamic concerns and made it overt. Same with (Datuk Seri) Anwar (Ibrahim), it's not just personal to him, his agenda connected with the generation who grew up under the NEP (New Economic Policy). The parties were not just grabbing a power bloc from Umno; they were new groups being conscious of themselves."
However, if Wong's historical observation is to be taken into consideration, then more changes are afoot. Putting Pas aside and allocating it the timeless Islamic east coast support, if Malays are to back just one party to represent them, then either Umno or PKR must fall.
Johan Saravanamuttu Abdullah, visiting research fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, noted that Umno's capability to see off challenges by splinters has been weakened by blows to its hitherto rock-solid institutional strength.
"At this particular political moment, factionalism has become endemic and it seems to be a party in its 'September' years ever since the reformasi movement took a chunk out of Umno. Over the years, Pas has also slowly chipped away and eroded its structural strength."
And while this is a question of which Malay party will survive, Wong believes that the answer lies with the non-Malays.
"If in competing to be the prime Malay party Umno plays along the Malay nationalist line, non-Malays will be alienated and throw in their lot with PKR."
Should the tide swing towards Pakatan Rakyat, Malays who stand by Umno might find themselves at the losing end. While PKR is not highly institutionalised, its leadership has shown that it will not abandon Malay values.
Johan points out that PKR de facto leader Anwar and his wife, Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, are regarded as deeply religious.
Kessler, however, thinks that it would be grossly premature to be writing obituaries for Umno.
While it cannot assume an automatic first claim to Malay votes, it can still make strategic moves to ride on the wave of new concerns by the electorate.
“A party has to choose and it can’t be all things to all people. Umno can’t be in favour and against Ketuanan Melayu at the same time.
“So, if Umno were to give up its diehard Malay vote and go after the progressive Muslims, it could win back votes that went to PKR and also supply its BN (Barisan Nasional) allies with the non-Malay vote.”
He added: “Umno has to be prepared to let someone else represent the hardcore Malay vote and instead build a coalition that aligns with social forces and politics of the future, not backward trends.”
Johan feels Umno needs to address certain clear and present issues quickly: “Checking Dr Mahathir is important. Go to Kedah and maintain your structures.
“The people have also been expecting you to deliver on the promise of reform so the cleaning up of the judiciary et al is necessary to show that you are a party capable of providing the change required.”
No doubt though, that these recommendations imply efforts at making PKR unnecessary.
However, 57 years ago, when Onn first mooted a consociationist multi-ethnic party led by Malays, it was shot down emphatically by Umno.
“It’s been a very long learning curve,” Wong concluded.
“The problem then was that leftism wasn’t in the mainstream perhaps because the communists didn’t disarm and contest democratically. Maybe society has become settled today and nobody wants to be an all-out liberal or have a pure Malay ethnocracy.
“So it’s come to some sort of consensus, and you can’t challenge the people’s decision on this and, in a sense, you have to congratulate Umno for achieving this.”
NST (25/5/08): When a group of ex-Umno veterans formed Parti Kegemilangan Bangsa Malaysia (KBM) as a "back-up" to Umno last week, it was probably not the sort of safety net Umno was looking for. The situation was compounded on Monday when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad exited Umno and called for others to follow suit.
In an unprecedented situation, Umno is now having to deal with four splinter groups - Dr Mahathir's, KBM, Parti Keadilan Rakyat and Pas.
In the battle for the Malay electorate, Umno is now facing a multi-pronged attack, being accused of not championing Malay rights by Dr Mahathir and KBM while simultaneously fending off opinions that it has built up an ethnocracy founded on Malay dominance.
Considered Australia's foremost observer of Malaysian sociopolitics, sociology professor Clive Kessler believes that these recent developments are exerting an altogether new kind of pressure on Umno.
"These are ginger groups, so-called because they are spicy and are meant to lobby on particular issues. Whereas some splinter parties or even internal factions like Pemuda or Puteri might pressure from a position of youthful idealism, KBM and Dr Mahathir reprimand with the wisdom of the old patron," he said.
It's been more straightforward for Umno in the past. When founder Datuk Onn Jaafar formed the Independence of Malaya Party and then Parti Negara to push for multi-ethnicity, he was easily disposed of by Umno via its cohorts in the Alliance who had already positioned themselves as representatives of the different races.
The Team A-Team B schism in Umno resulted in Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah establishing Semangat 46 in 1989 to try and wrest power from Umno.
However, Semangat 46 found itself squeezed out by Pas loyalists in their shared home of Kelantan despite the loose coalition they had formed.
After just two elections, Umno was only too happy to negotiate the first voluntary dissolution of a political party through the process of law and allowed Semangat members back into the fold.
In between these two incidences, there were other splinters such as the National Association of Perak, Perak Malay League and former cabinet member Aziz Ishak's National Convention Party that never came to much.
Wong Chin Huat, a journalism lecturer who is pursuing a PhD on Malaysia's electoral system and party politics, explains that it is difficult for any Malay party, let alone an Umno splinter, to survive because of the constant desire for Malay unity.
"Because of the perceived threat to their dominance by other races, Malays tend to suppress the number of parties. Pas succeeded in the Malay heartland of Kelantan and Terengganu because there weren't many non-Malays and the people felt secure enough to allow a second party to operate."
Pas itself splintered from Umno and was the first mover after establishing itself where Parti Negara failed. Its "captive market" of Islamic support in the east coast was in contrast to Parti Negara's scattered support which saw the latter fall victim to the first-past-the-post electoral system.
Today, Pas is joined by PKR as the only Umno splinters and indeed, Malay-dominant parties that have survived in the long-term. After March 8, PKR can claim to have surpassed the psychological three-election watershed and has come out of it as the largest opposition party in Parliament.
Kessler believes that these splinters have survived where others have not because they were not just based on personalities but because they cleaved out a constituency.
"Pas brought out latent Islamic concerns and made it overt. Same with (Datuk Seri) Anwar (Ibrahim), it's not just personal to him, his agenda connected with the generation who grew up under the NEP (New Economic Policy). The parties were not just grabbing a power bloc from Umno; they were new groups being conscious of themselves."
However, if Wong's historical observation is to be taken into consideration, then more changes are afoot. Putting Pas aside and allocating it the timeless Islamic east coast support, if Malays are to back just one party to represent them, then either Umno or PKR must fall.
Johan Saravanamuttu Abdullah, visiting research fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, noted that Umno's capability to see off challenges by splinters has been weakened by blows to its hitherto rock-solid institutional strength.
"At this particular political moment, factionalism has become endemic and it seems to be a party in its 'September' years ever since the reformasi movement took a chunk out of Umno. Over the years, Pas has also slowly chipped away and eroded its structural strength."
And while this is a question of which Malay party will survive, Wong believes that the answer lies with the non-Malays.
"If in competing to be the prime Malay party Umno plays along the Malay nationalist line, non-Malays will be alienated and throw in their lot with PKR."
Should the tide swing towards Pakatan Rakyat, Malays who stand by Umno might find themselves at the losing end. While PKR is not highly institutionalised, its leadership has shown that it will not abandon Malay values.
Johan points out that PKR de facto leader Anwar and his wife, Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, are regarded as deeply religious.
Kessler, however, thinks that it would be grossly premature to be writing obituaries for Umno.
While it cannot assume an automatic first claim to Malay votes, it can still make strategic moves to ride on the wave of new concerns by the electorate.
“A party has to choose and it can’t be all things to all people. Umno can’t be in favour and against Ketuanan Melayu at the same time.
“So, if Umno were to give up its diehard Malay vote and go after the progressive Muslims, it could win back votes that went to PKR and also supply its BN (Barisan Nasional) allies with the non-Malay vote.”
He added: “Umno has to be prepared to let someone else represent the hardcore Malay vote and instead build a coalition that aligns with social forces and politics of the future, not backward trends.”
Johan feels Umno needs to address certain clear and present issues quickly: “Checking Dr Mahathir is important. Go to Kedah and maintain your structures.
“The people have also been expecting you to deliver on the promise of reform so the cleaning up of the judiciary et al is necessary to show that you are a party capable of providing the change required.”
No doubt though, that these recommendations imply efforts at making PKR unnecessary.
However, 57 years ago, when Onn first mooted a consociationist multi-ethnic party led by Malays, it was shot down emphatically by Umno.
“It’s been a very long learning curve,” Wong concluded.
“The problem then was that leftism wasn’t in the mainstream perhaps because the communists didn’t disarm and contest democratically. Maybe society has become settled today and nobody wants to be an all-out liberal or have a pure Malay ethnocracy.
“So it’s come to some sort of consensus, and you can’t challenge the people’s decision on this and, in a sense, you have to congratulate Umno for achieving this.”
Posted by Unknown at 9:15 AM 0 comments
Labels: Anwar, Dr M, KBM, Malay, NST, Pakatan Rakyat, PKR, Umno
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Abdullah calls emergency talks over Mahathir
The Sun (21/5/08): Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi called an emergency session of his ruling party's top policy-making body today, seeking to stamp his authority after the dramatic resignation of ex-premier Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad form Umno (United Malays National Organisation).
Mahathir's departure, which cast further doubt on Abdullah's future, has raised Malaysia's political risks and spooked investors as the government grapples with high inflation, slowing economy and rising subsidies.
Abdullah, who has scheduled to chair a special meeting of an Umno supreme council at 8pm today, also faced pressure from former deputy premier Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, the leader of the Opposition Pakatan Rakyat (PR) coalition.
Anwar has said his group had the numbers to topple the government.
"The excessive politicking has generated extra uncertainties into the whole political and economic environment," said Zainal Aznam Yusof, a senior fellow in Malaysia's Institute of Strategic and International Studies.
Umno has been in turmoil since a poor showing in the March 12th General Election, when the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition which Umno dominates lost its crucial two-thirds majority in parliament.
Malaysia said today the annual inflation rate hit 3.0% in April, the highest in 15 months, led by firmer food prices. The government is also considering reforms to fuel subsidy policy, aware that substantial fuel price hikes could stoke popular anger.
Record food and energy prices are increasing Malaysian price pressures but price controls on goods such as flour and cooking oil are helping to keep inflation among the region's lowest.
The stock market eased today, after losing more than 1% the previous day on jitters over the political flux, prompting the second finance minister to reassure the market that economic fundamentals remain strong.
ANWAR WAITING IN THE WINGS?
Mahathir's bombshell resignation on Monday (May 19) from the party he led for 22 years came with a call for other Umno members to quit en masse. A meeting of lawmakers yesterday ignored the call and rallied behind Abdullah.
Mahathir, who has become increasingly vehement in criticism of his successor, said he was leaving Umno in an attempt to force Abdullah out.
Mahathir wrote in his blog www.chedet.com that BN lawmakers should temporarily leave the coalition and declare themselves as independents in a vote of no-confidence in Abdullah.
"This is one way to force Abdullah to resign. Once he resigns, the MPs can return to the BN fold," he said.
Abdullah has refused to quit. Analysts said the most likely outcome of tonight's meeting was a reaffirmation by Umno leaders of their support for him.
"At this point, there are so many factions and alliances within the leadership," said Lee Hock Guan, senior fellow with Singapore's Institute of South East Asian Studies.
"But he will probably get the support of the majority within the Supreme Council."
Mahathir's resignation came three days after Abdullah ordered the Attorney-General to investigate the former premier and five others on possible offences over the appointment of judges while the former premier was in power.
The political uncertainties have added to speculation over whether the BN coalition can keep its stranglehold on power. An emboldened Opposition, headed by Mahathir arch-foe Anwar, is seeking to wrest parliamentary control by wooing BN defectors.
'WE HAVE THE NUMBERS'
"I do intend to topple the government, we have the numbers," Anwar told reporters in Singapore, a claim echoed by government insiders.
"I'm looking forward to early elections," Anwar said, adding that he hoped these would take place before September.
"The moment we are sure we can contest, we move."
"If you have a one to two majority, the government will be too fragile ... You don't need a two-thirds majority," he said, adding that he wanted a majority of five or six and saw a vote of no-confidence in parliament as the best course of action.
Umno, backbone of the 14-party BN coalition that has ruled since independence from Britain in 1957, holds 79 of its 140 seats.
The opposition is a loose alliance of Islamists (PAS), a Chinese-based party (DAP) and the multiracial Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), and needs to gain just 30 seats to win a simple majority and form the government.
In a sign that the party is tearing itself apart, the leader of Umno's youth wing demanded today that another senior member, Mukhriz Mahathir, son of the former premier, face disciplinary action for urging Abdullah to resign.
Mukhriz said yesterday he would not join his father in quitting Umno but demanded that the premier steps down.
But another of Mahathir's sons, businessman Mokhzani, decided to leave the party, along with Mahathir's wife. - Reuters
Mahathir's departure, which cast further doubt on Abdullah's future, has raised Malaysia's political risks and spooked investors as the government grapples with high inflation, slowing economy and rising subsidies.
Abdullah, who has scheduled to chair a special meeting of an Umno supreme council at 8pm today, also faced pressure from former deputy premier Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, the leader of the Opposition Pakatan Rakyat (PR) coalition.
Anwar has said his group had the numbers to topple the government.
"The excessive politicking has generated extra uncertainties into the whole political and economic environment," said Zainal Aznam Yusof, a senior fellow in Malaysia's Institute of Strategic and International Studies.
Umno has been in turmoil since a poor showing in the March 12th General Election, when the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition which Umno dominates lost its crucial two-thirds majority in parliament.
Malaysia said today the annual inflation rate hit 3.0% in April, the highest in 15 months, led by firmer food prices. The government is also considering reforms to fuel subsidy policy, aware that substantial fuel price hikes could stoke popular anger.
Record food and energy prices are increasing Malaysian price pressures but price controls on goods such as flour and cooking oil are helping to keep inflation among the region's lowest.
The stock market eased today, after losing more than 1% the previous day on jitters over the political flux, prompting the second finance minister to reassure the market that economic fundamentals remain strong.
ANWAR WAITING IN THE WINGS?
Mahathir's bombshell resignation on Monday (May 19) from the party he led for 22 years came with a call for other Umno members to quit en masse. A meeting of lawmakers yesterday ignored the call and rallied behind Abdullah.
Mahathir, who has become increasingly vehement in criticism of his successor, said he was leaving Umno in an attempt to force Abdullah out.
Mahathir wrote in his blog www.chedet.com that BN lawmakers should temporarily leave the coalition and declare themselves as independents in a vote of no-confidence in Abdullah.
"This is one way to force Abdullah to resign. Once he resigns, the MPs can return to the BN fold," he said.
Abdullah has refused to quit. Analysts said the most likely outcome of tonight's meeting was a reaffirmation by Umno leaders of their support for him.
"At this point, there are so many factions and alliances within the leadership," said Lee Hock Guan, senior fellow with Singapore's Institute of South East Asian Studies.
"But he will probably get the support of the majority within the Supreme Council."
Mahathir's resignation came three days after Abdullah ordered the Attorney-General to investigate the former premier and five others on possible offences over the appointment of judges while the former premier was in power.
The political uncertainties have added to speculation over whether the BN coalition can keep its stranglehold on power. An emboldened Opposition, headed by Mahathir arch-foe Anwar, is seeking to wrest parliamentary control by wooing BN defectors.
'WE HAVE THE NUMBERS'
"I do intend to topple the government, we have the numbers," Anwar told reporters in Singapore, a claim echoed by government insiders.
"I'm looking forward to early elections," Anwar said, adding that he hoped these would take place before September.
"The moment we are sure we can contest, we move."
"If you have a one to two majority, the government will be too fragile ... You don't need a two-thirds majority," he said, adding that he wanted a majority of five or six and saw a vote of no-confidence in parliament as the best course of action.
Umno, backbone of the 14-party BN coalition that has ruled since independence from Britain in 1957, holds 79 of its 140 seats.
The opposition is a loose alliance of Islamists (PAS), a Chinese-based party (DAP) and the multiracial Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), and needs to gain just 30 seats to win a simple majority and form the government.
In a sign that the party is tearing itself apart, the leader of Umno's youth wing demanded today that another senior member, Mukhriz Mahathir, son of the former premier, face disciplinary action for urging Abdullah to resign.
Mukhriz said yesterday he would not join his father in quitting Umno but demanded that the premier steps down.
But another of Mahathir's sons, businessman Mokhzani, decided to leave the party, along with Mahathir's wife. - Reuters
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Malaysia evolution going by unnoticed
The Australian (17/5/08): One of the oddest and least optimistic developments of recent years has been the way a sense of Southeast Asia has slipped out of the Australian consciousness.
This is not a partisan criticism, as the process was well under way under the Howard government but has not yet been reversed with the Rudd Government.
However, it is fair to say that both Kevin Rudd and his Foreign Minister Stephen Smith are aware of the problem and intend to address it. Watch for Smith, in particular, to undertake a program of Southeast Asian travel in the second half of this year.
The big exception to the trend is Indonesia. Everyone involved in foreign policy in Australia accepts the centrality of Indonesia to Australia's national interests. But the wider sense of Southeast Asia is fading, as are Southeast Asian studies at our universities, which could leave us radically undersupplied with specialists in nations of vital importance to us.
Several disparate factors are at work. One is, paradoxically, the success of establishing Indonesia's importance, so that institutions and individuals feel they have made their Southeast Asian effort so long as they have an Indonesian dimension. Another is the compelling quality of the Northeast Asian trade and geo-strategic story. Yet another is the rise of India, which has become our fourth largest export market. And, finally, we are understandably preoccupied with our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
All this has tended to crowd Southeast Asia off our agenda and my guess is we are less generally Southeast Asia literate than we were a decade ago.
This is ironic because Southeast Asia is undergoing profound and turbulent political change. The devastating cyclone in Burma could lead to political change there. I am hearing whispers of a big, forthcoming Indonesian initiative. It will bear the acronym JIM. I'm not sure whether this will stand for Jakarta Informal Meetings on Myanmar or something else. It will seek to work with China and India on a program for Burma to reach some kind of democracy. New thinking on Burma is desperately needed. Foolish US and European sanctions on Burmese exports, and against investment in Burma, guarantee its isolation, lack of development and liberalisation.
But change is abroad everywhere else in Southeast Asia, too. Thailand's new Government already looks shaky and the political future in this key Southeast Asian nation is extremely murky.
But perhaps the most important dynamic for change is under way in Malaysia. In the March election the opposition, led by former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim, won an unprecedented share of votes and four state governments. Anwar was unable to run for parliament because of an earlier conviction on what many saw as political charges brought against him under former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad.
That ban has expired and soon Anwar will enter parliament at a by-election. Malaysia consists of the Malay Peninsula and the east Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak, on the island of Borneo. The political representatives of these states occasionally have been in the governing coalition or out of it. Anwar hopes to woo enough of them to defect to his opposition coalition to put it in government without the need for another election.
This has happened before in parliamentary democracies, including Australia (John Curtin succeeded Robert Menzies in this fashion during World War II), and would not be remotely undemocratic.
It would, however, be revolutionary. The United Malays National Organisation has ruled Malaysia since independence in 1957. It traditionally got a majority of the Malay vote. It did this in part by providing racially based preferences for Malays. It also got enough of the minority Chinese and Indian votes to make its majority overwhelming. It did this in part by frightening the Chinese and Indians with the prospect of rule by the opposition Islamist Malay party, PAS, which has traditionally wanted a Muslim state with sharia law.
But that old structure of Malaysian politics has broken down completely. PAS is able to rally its supporters against the widespread corruption under UMNO. But the steady embourgeoisment of Malaysian society, especially Malaysian cities, has seen the old consensus break down under liberal attack as well.
A lot of younger, urban Malays want a more liberal, representative and democratic Malaysia. UMNO was caught in a crossfire from liberals and conservatives. Feeling under threat from PAS, it moved back towards greater Malay ethnic chauvinism and religious fundamentalism. This finally proved too much for the Chinese, who make up about one-quarter of Malaysia, and the ethnic Indians. They are a little less than 10 per cent of the population and are the most marginalised, getting neither the racial nor religious preferences of the Malays, or the employment and other economic opportunities that come from the big Chinese business community.
What Anwar has done, which is extraordinary, is wield these disparate influences into a more or less stable coalition, something I never thought he would be able to manage. No one except Anwar could hold it together. He has the Malay and Islamic credentials to negotiate effectively with PAS, and he has the civil liberties and modern economic credentials to reassure the Chinese and Indians.
His term in prison, combined with his previous experience as a deputy prime minister, gives him an overriding moral and political stature that makes it easy for all the disparate opposition figures to acknowledge him as their leader. This is an ironic echo of Mahathir's emergence after he established his independence by being expelled from UMNO in the late 1960s.
Part of the solution for Anwar will rely on Malaysia's federalism. The predominantly ethnic Chinese state of Penang will be infinitely more liberal than the overwhelmingly Malay and Islamic state of Kelantan.
A liberal, democratic Malaysia would once more change the dynamics, and the political culture, of Southeast Asia. It would pose a striking challenge for Singapore.
Anwar may yet not become PM, and if he does it may not be peaceful and he may not run a successful government.
But these momentous developments ought to figure much more prominently in our national discussion.
This is not a partisan criticism, as the process was well under way under the Howard government but has not yet been reversed with the Rudd Government.
However, it is fair to say that both Kevin Rudd and his Foreign Minister Stephen Smith are aware of the problem and intend to address it. Watch for Smith, in particular, to undertake a program of Southeast Asian travel in the second half of this year.
The big exception to the trend is Indonesia. Everyone involved in foreign policy in Australia accepts the centrality of Indonesia to Australia's national interests. But the wider sense of Southeast Asia is fading, as are Southeast Asian studies at our universities, which could leave us radically undersupplied with specialists in nations of vital importance to us.
Several disparate factors are at work. One is, paradoxically, the success of establishing Indonesia's importance, so that institutions and individuals feel they have made their Southeast Asian effort so long as they have an Indonesian dimension. Another is the compelling quality of the Northeast Asian trade and geo-strategic story. Yet another is the rise of India, which has become our fourth largest export market. And, finally, we are understandably preoccupied with our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
All this has tended to crowd Southeast Asia off our agenda and my guess is we are less generally Southeast Asia literate than we were a decade ago.
This is ironic because Southeast Asia is undergoing profound and turbulent political change. The devastating cyclone in Burma could lead to political change there. I am hearing whispers of a big, forthcoming Indonesian initiative. It will bear the acronym JIM. I'm not sure whether this will stand for Jakarta Informal Meetings on Myanmar or something else. It will seek to work with China and India on a program for Burma to reach some kind of democracy. New thinking on Burma is desperately needed. Foolish US and European sanctions on Burmese exports, and against investment in Burma, guarantee its isolation, lack of development and liberalisation.
But change is abroad everywhere else in Southeast Asia, too. Thailand's new Government already looks shaky and the political future in this key Southeast Asian nation is extremely murky.
But perhaps the most important dynamic for change is under way in Malaysia. In the March election the opposition, led by former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim, won an unprecedented share of votes and four state governments. Anwar was unable to run for parliament because of an earlier conviction on what many saw as political charges brought against him under former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad.
That ban has expired and soon Anwar will enter parliament at a by-election. Malaysia consists of the Malay Peninsula and the east Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak, on the island of Borneo. The political representatives of these states occasionally have been in the governing coalition or out of it. Anwar hopes to woo enough of them to defect to his opposition coalition to put it in government without the need for another election.
This has happened before in parliamentary democracies, including Australia (John Curtin succeeded Robert Menzies in this fashion during World War II), and would not be remotely undemocratic.
It would, however, be revolutionary. The United Malays National Organisation has ruled Malaysia since independence in 1957. It traditionally got a majority of the Malay vote. It did this in part by providing racially based preferences for Malays. It also got enough of the minority Chinese and Indian votes to make its majority overwhelming. It did this in part by frightening the Chinese and Indians with the prospect of rule by the opposition Islamist Malay party, PAS, which has traditionally wanted a Muslim state with sharia law.
But that old structure of Malaysian politics has broken down completely. PAS is able to rally its supporters against the widespread corruption under UMNO. But the steady embourgeoisment of Malaysian society, especially Malaysian cities, has seen the old consensus break down under liberal attack as well.
A lot of younger, urban Malays want a more liberal, representative and democratic Malaysia. UMNO was caught in a crossfire from liberals and conservatives. Feeling under threat from PAS, it moved back towards greater Malay ethnic chauvinism and religious fundamentalism. This finally proved too much for the Chinese, who make up about one-quarter of Malaysia, and the ethnic Indians. They are a little less than 10 per cent of the population and are the most marginalised, getting neither the racial nor religious preferences of the Malays, or the employment and other economic opportunities that come from the big Chinese business community.
What Anwar has done, which is extraordinary, is wield these disparate influences into a more or less stable coalition, something I never thought he would be able to manage. No one except Anwar could hold it together. He has the Malay and Islamic credentials to negotiate effectively with PAS, and he has the civil liberties and modern economic credentials to reassure the Chinese and Indians.
His term in prison, combined with his previous experience as a deputy prime minister, gives him an overriding moral and political stature that makes it easy for all the disparate opposition figures to acknowledge him as their leader. This is an ironic echo of Mahathir's emergence after he established his independence by being expelled from UMNO in the late 1960s.
Part of the solution for Anwar will rely on Malaysia's federalism. The predominantly ethnic Chinese state of Penang will be infinitely more liberal than the overwhelmingly Malay and Islamic state of Kelantan.
A liberal, democratic Malaysia would once more change the dynamics, and the political culture, of Southeast Asia. It would pose a striking challenge for Singapore.
Anwar may yet not become PM, and if he does it may not be peaceful and he may not run a successful government.
But these momentous developments ought to figure much more prominently in our national discussion.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Kota Belud MP said offered large sum to defect
The Edge Daily (14/5/08): Backbencher Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan (Kota Belud-BN) caused a stir in parliament yesterday when he alleged that he was offered a large sum of money to defect to the opposition camp.
“I’d like to ask the Speaker, is it not corruption for certain opposition leaders to offer goodies to members of parliament (MPs) to jump ship? I myself have received a call offering a large sum of money to jump ship. Is that not corruption?
“They also offered me a Cabinet position. Is that not corruption?” he said when debating the motion of thanks on the royal address in the Dewan Rakyat yesterday.
Abdul Rahman also claimed that bribery was pervasive during the contest against the late Tun Ghafar Baba for the position of Umno deputy president, where tons of money, projects and “pink forms” were used as “grease” to secure victory.
“We in Sabah still remember how delegates (to the Umno general assembly) can be bought and threatened. Thanks to the supreme leader of PKR (Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim) for introducing and turning money politics into a culture in Umno Sabah,” he said.
He also teased the Pakatan Rakyat on who would succeed Anwar if he became the next prime minister, claiming that his constituents were pressing him on the matter.
“Who will become the next prime minister after Anwar? The people want to know? Can Pakatan Rakyat continue to surprise and create history by appointing the first prime minister from among the Chinese and Indians — (for example) the honourable MPs from Ipoh Timur (Lim Kit Siang) or Bukit Gelugor (Karpal Singh) from the DAP. We will wait…” he said.
Abdul Rahman also questioned whether Pakatan would allow PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang to become prime minister.
“With his turban and robe ala Taliban, he is said to be unsuitable to hold the prime minister’s position as he can give the wrong image of Malaysia to foreign investors,” he said, adding that even non-Malays in Malaysia would be concerned if Hadi became either home or education minister.
He also asked whether PKR president and opposition Leader Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, whom he characterised as a puppet and warming the seat for Anwar, could become a prime minister.
Taking a swipe at Mohamed Azmin Ali (Gombak-PKR), Abdul Rahman said the PKR vice-president was so obsessed with his leader to the point of following Anwar’s style of clothing and speaking.
He ended his speech by saying Anwar was building an empire of nepotism and would appoint his daughter, Nurul Izzah (Lembah Pantai-PKR), to succeed him as prime minister.
“I’d like to ask the Speaker, is it not corruption for certain opposition leaders to offer goodies to members of parliament (MPs) to jump ship? I myself have received a call offering a large sum of money to jump ship. Is that not corruption?
“They also offered me a Cabinet position. Is that not corruption?” he said when debating the motion of thanks on the royal address in the Dewan Rakyat yesterday.
Abdul Rahman also claimed that bribery was pervasive during the contest against the late Tun Ghafar Baba for the position of Umno deputy president, where tons of money, projects and “pink forms” were used as “grease” to secure victory.
“We in Sabah still remember how delegates (to the Umno general assembly) can be bought and threatened. Thanks to the supreme leader of PKR (Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim) for introducing and turning money politics into a culture in Umno Sabah,” he said.
He also teased the Pakatan Rakyat on who would succeed Anwar if he became the next prime minister, claiming that his constituents were pressing him on the matter.
“Who will become the next prime minister after Anwar? The people want to know? Can Pakatan Rakyat continue to surprise and create history by appointing the first prime minister from among the Chinese and Indians — (for example) the honourable MPs from Ipoh Timur (Lim Kit Siang) or Bukit Gelugor (Karpal Singh) from the DAP. We will wait…” he said.
Abdul Rahman also questioned whether Pakatan would allow PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang to become prime minister.
“With his turban and robe ala Taliban, he is said to be unsuitable to hold the prime minister’s position as he can give the wrong image of Malaysia to foreign investors,” he said, adding that even non-Malays in Malaysia would be concerned if Hadi became either home or education minister.
He also asked whether PKR president and opposition Leader Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, whom he characterised as a puppet and warming the seat for Anwar, could become a prime minister.
Taking a swipe at Mohamed Azmin Ali (Gombak-PKR), Abdul Rahman said the PKR vice-president was so obsessed with his leader to the point of following Anwar’s style of clothing and speaking.
He ended his speech by saying Anwar was building an empire of nepotism and would appoint his daughter, Nurul Izzah (Lembah Pantai-PKR), to succeed him as prime minister.
Posted by Unknown at 4:12 PM 0 comments
Labels: Abdul Hadi, Anwar, BN, Corruption, DAP, Money Politics, Pakatan Rakyat, PKR, Taliban, The Edge Daily
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Malaysia’s ruling coalition rattled after election debacle
World Socialist Web Site (13/5/08): The new Malaysian parliament was sworn on April 28 after national elections on March 8, which delivered a major blow to the ruling Barisan National (BN) coalition. Unruly scenes during the country’s first ever televised parliamentary session highlight the sharp underlying political tensions that have surfaced as cracks have begun to appear in the regime that has ruled the country since independence in 1957.
De facto opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim upped the pressure on Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi when he predicted to journalists on April 14 that the government would not last the year. Such was the dissatisfaction in BN ranks, he said, that the opposition would be able to form a government with the support of defectors, particularly from the states of Sabah and Sarawak in Borneo.
Anwar was speaking at the conclusion of a 10,000-strong rally in Kuala Lumpur called to mark the end of a formal legal ban on his involvement in politics. Anwar was finance minister and deputy prime minister until 1998 when he was removed from his posts and expelled in the midst of the Asian financial crisis and sharp differences over economic policy. When he began to campaign against the government, Anwar was arrested and tried on trumped-up charges of corruption and sexual misconduct that resulted in the political ban.
Anwar’s wife is head of the Peoples Justice Party (Keadilan) and formally leader of the parliamentary opposition. However, it is widely believed that an opposition MP will step down to pave the way for Anwar to enter parliament via a by-election. In a clear signal of his intention to do so, Anwar attended the opening session as his wife’s guest.
The opposition parties, including Keadilan, the Democratic Action Party (DAP) and the Islamist Parti Islam se-Malaysia (PAS), now hold 82 seats in the enlarged 222-seat lower house—up from just 19 in the previous parliament. Abdullah’s own United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) and other BN partners slumped from 198 to 140 seats and lost the two-thirds majority needed to amend the constitution.
The government has denied that it is vulnerable to defections, but there are a number of signs that UMNO’s autocratic grip on power is slipping. As well as winning a significant number of federal parliamentary seats, the opposition gained control of four state governments—Penang, Selangor, Perak and Kedah—and retained power in Kelantan. Penang, Selangor and Perak; all are the country’s most industrialised states and Kedah is the main rice producer. Together the five states account for about 56 percent of the country’s GDP.
In the past, the government has not hesitated to punish opposition-controlled states by withholding federal funds and contracts. To do so now, however, would seriously undermine the economy and the government’s own economic plans. The loss of these states threatens to undercut the system of patronage that has formed a crucial prop for UMNO rule. The opposition Pakatan Rakyat or Peoples Front (PF) has promised openness and transparency in the granting of commercial contracts in the states that it controls.
Even the slavishly pro-government media has begun to acknowledge that a political shift is taking place. In a comment in the New Straits Times on April 28, the Malaysian Institute of Economic Research director Mohamed Ariff declared: “Malaysian politics will never be the same again. It is indeed heartening that Malaysia has come of age, with its people looking beyond mundane issues transcending ethnic boundaries, focusing on such loftier issues as institutional integrity, social justice and civil rights.”
The Star on March 23 warned government members that “Barisan stalwarts will have to accept the political reality after the March 8 political tsunami”. It pointed in particular to the breakdown of the communal politics on which UMNO has relied for the past half century to divide voters along ethnic lines. “The political tsunami did not happen without the combination of Malay, Chinese and Indian voters who wanted change. There was cross-ethnicity voting, with Malays voting for DAP and the non-Malays readily backing PAS,” the newspaper stated.
The opposition was able to tap into widespread dissatisfaction, including among the majority Malays, with rising prices, deepening social inequality, the lack of elementary democratic rights and rampant favoritism for a relatively thin layer of well-to-do Malays and Malay businesses closely associated with UMNO. Among the first steps taken by opposition-controlled state governments was to renounce the New Economic Policy, which discriminates against Chinese and Indians in education, business and government jobs.
Reforms promised
Prime Minister Abdullah is desperately seeking to shore up his own position within UMNO amid calls for his resignation. Starting on April 19, he announced a series of reforms to try to boost his popularity and fend off criticism from within the political establishment.
A commission is to be established to make the nomination, appointment and promotion of judges more transparent and end the government’s notorious manipulation of the judiciary. Abdullah indicated that former chief judge Lord President Salleh Abbas and five other judges sacked in a politically motivated purge by Mahathir Mohamad in 1988 would be paid compensation.
The number of officers employed by the state Anti-Corruption Agency is to be increased from 2,000 to 7,000. The agency is to receive commission status and report annually to parliament, as well as to the Prime Minister’s office.
Abdullah also announced a plan to ensure food security by spending $US1.3 billion to increase Malaysia’s rice production from around 65 percent of national consumption to 100 percent. High food and fuel prices were one of the main issues in the March election.
Abdullah told the press on April 21 that his reforms were not prompted by election losses but were pledges contained in BN’s 2004 election manifesto that had been delayed because of other priorities. No one believes this threadbare pretext, least of all those within UMNO seeking to replace the prime minister.
Former prime minister Mahathir Mohammed has been openly campaigning for Abdullah to be replaced by deputy prime minister Najib Razak. Mahathir has supported a call by former finance minister Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah for an extraordinary general meeting of UMNO to resolve the leadership question.
In late April the Batu Pahat UMNO division called for Abdullah to resign before the UMNO conference in December. In a separate comment, Mukhriz Mahathir, son of the former prime minister, warned that if Abdullah did not step down there could be a further split in UMNO. Abdullah’s resignation, he said, would allow “the party to close ranks and go about reclaiming its political pride” battered in the March election.
There is broader unease in conservative ruling circles. Already two state sultans, including Terengganu Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin who is currently serving as king, have defied Abdullah by refusing to uphold the prime minister’s nomination for the post of state chief minister. The king also refused last year to approve two judicial appointments reportedly because he believed they were corrupt.
Behind this political turmoil are sharp divisions over economic policy. After expelling Anwar in 1998, Mahathir imposed a series of capital and currency controls that, for a period, appeared to stabilise the Malaysian economy. After replacing Mahathir in 2003, Abdullah eased these measures, shelved several high-profile infrastructure investments and tried to boost foreign investment, prompting increasingly vitriolic opposition from his predecessor. At the same time, opposition parties have been critical of the government for not going far enough in removing economic restrictions and ending corruption and nepotism.
These tensions have been further fuelled by signs of an economic slowdown in the US and internationally which is expected to cut manufactured exports by 1.6 percent this year. While the decline will be offset by higher commodity prices for exports of palm oil and rubber, Malaysia’s economic growth is expected to slow from 6.3 percent in 2007 to 5.5 percent in 2008.
In comments to Associated Press on April 22, Anwar made clear that the main aim of the opposition was not to address popular concerns. “It is not very difficult to be a better government, to control corruption, to be more just, to improve the quality of education, public health, to stop the squandering of billions of dollars on your family members and cronies. That is quite easy,” he declared. The main challenge, Anwar explained, was to “change the course of the country” and to promote economic competitiveness and a market economy.
The implementation of market reforms will, however, only deepen social inequality and prompt popular opposition. As DAP parliamentarian Charles Santiago warned in an Asia Times article in March, the vote for the opposition parties was not an endorsement of free-market policies. “The average Malay was feeling the increase in prices, their jobs were no longer protected and inflation was eating their income ... You had a situation where you had subsidies for the rich and a free market economy for the poor.”
Whether or not Abdullah and UMNO hang onto power, the present political turmoil is likely to be the prelude to an even greater crisis.
De facto opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim upped the pressure on Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi when he predicted to journalists on April 14 that the government would not last the year. Such was the dissatisfaction in BN ranks, he said, that the opposition would be able to form a government with the support of defectors, particularly from the states of Sabah and Sarawak in Borneo.
Anwar was speaking at the conclusion of a 10,000-strong rally in Kuala Lumpur called to mark the end of a formal legal ban on his involvement in politics. Anwar was finance minister and deputy prime minister until 1998 when he was removed from his posts and expelled in the midst of the Asian financial crisis and sharp differences over economic policy. When he began to campaign against the government, Anwar was arrested and tried on trumped-up charges of corruption and sexual misconduct that resulted in the political ban.
Anwar’s wife is head of the Peoples Justice Party (Keadilan) and formally leader of the parliamentary opposition. However, it is widely believed that an opposition MP will step down to pave the way for Anwar to enter parliament via a by-election. In a clear signal of his intention to do so, Anwar attended the opening session as his wife’s guest.
The opposition parties, including Keadilan, the Democratic Action Party (DAP) and the Islamist Parti Islam se-Malaysia (PAS), now hold 82 seats in the enlarged 222-seat lower house—up from just 19 in the previous parliament. Abdullah’s own United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) and other BN partners slumped from 198 to 140 seats and lost the two-thirds majority needed to amend the constitution.
The government has denied that it is vulnerable to defections, but there are a number of signs that UMNO’s autocratic grip on power is slipping. As well as winning a significant number of federal parliamentary seats, the opposition gained control of four state governments—Penang, Selangor, Perak and Kedah—and retained power in Kelantan. Penang, Selangor and Perak; all are the country’s most industrialised states and Kedah is the main rice producer. Together the five states account for about 56 percent of the country’s GDP.
In the past, the government has not hesitated to punish opposition-controlled states by withholding federal funds and contracts. To do so now, however, would seriously undermine the economy and the government’s own economic plans. The loss of these states threatens to undercut the system of patronage that has formed a crucial prop for UMNO rule. The opposition Pakatan Rakyat or Peoples Front (PF) has promised openness and transparency in the granting of commercial contracts in the states that it controls.
Even the slavishly pro-government media has begun to acknowledge that a political shift is taking place. In a comment in the New Straits Times on April 28, the Malaysian Institute of Economic Research director Mohamed Ariff declared: “Malaysian politics will never be the same again. It is indeed heartening that Malaysia has come of age, with its people looking beyond mundane issues transcending ethnic boundaries, focusing on such loftier issues as institutional integrity, social justice and civil rights.”
The Star on March 23 warned government members that “Barisan stalwarts will have to accept the political reality after the March 8 political tsunami”. It pointed in particular to the breakdown of the communal politics on which UMNO has relied for the past half century to divide voters along ethnic lines. “The political tsunami did not happen without the combination of Malay, Chinese and Indian voters who wanted change. There was cross-ethnicity voting, with Malays voting for DAP and the non-Malays readily backing PAS,” the newspaper stated.
The opposition was able to tap into widespread dissatisfaction, including among the majority Malays, with rising prices, deepening social inequality, the lack of elementary democratic rights and rampant favoritism for a relatively thin layer of well-to-do Malays and Malay businesses closely associated with UMNO. Among the first steps taken by opposition-controlled state governments was to renounce the New Economic Policy, which discriminates against Chinese and Indians in education, business and government jobs.
Reforms promised
Prime Minister Abdullah is desperately seeking to shore up his own position within UMNO amid calls for his resignation. Starting on April 19, he announced a series of reforms to try to boost his popularity and fend off criticism from within the political establishment.
A commission is to be established to make the nomination, appointment and promotion of judges more transparent and end the government’s notorious manipulation of the judiciary. Abdullah indicated that former chief judge Lord President Salleh Abbas and five other judges sacked in a politically motivated purge by Mahathir Mohamad in 1988 would be paid compensation.
The number of officers employed by the state Anti-Corruption Agency is to be increased from 2,000 to 7,000. The agency is to receive commission status and report annually to parliament, as well as to the Prime Minister’s office.
Abdullah also announced a plan to ensure food security by spending $US1.3 billion to increase Malaysia’s rice production from around 65 percent of national consumption to 100 percent. High food and fuel prices were one of the main issues in the March election.
Abdullah told the press on April 21 that his reforms were not prompted by election losses but were pledges contained in BN’s 2004 election manifesto that had been delayed because of other priorities. No one believes this threadbare pretext, least of all those within UMNO seeking to replace the prime minister.
Former prime minister Mahathir Mohammed has been openly campaigning for Abdullah to be replaced by deputy prime minister Najib Razak. Mahathir has supported a call by former finance minister Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah for an extraordinary general meeting of UMNO to resolve the leadership question.
In late April the Batu Pahat UMNO division called for Abdullah to resign before the UMNO conference in December. In a separate comment, Mukhriz Mahathir, son of the former prime minister, warned that if Abdullah did not step down there could be a further split in UMNO. Abdullah’s resignation, he said, would allow “the party to close ranks and go about reclaiming its political pride” battered in the March election.
There is broader unease in conservative ruling circles. Already two state sultans, including Terengganu Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin who is currently serving as king, have defied Abdullah by refusing to uphold the prime minister’s nomination for the post of state chief minister. The king also refused last year to approve two judicial appointments reportedly because he believed they were corrupt.
Behind this political turmoil are sharp divisions over economic policy. After expelling Anwar in 1998, Mahathir imposed a series of capital and currency controls that, for a period, appeared to stabilise the Malaysian economy. After replacing Mahathir in 2003, Abdullah eased these measures, shelved several high-profile infrastructure investments and tried to boost foreign investment, prompting increasingly vitriolic opposition from his predecessor. At the same time, opposition parties have been critical of the government for not going far enough in removing economic restrictions and ending corruption and nepotism.
These tensions have been further fuelled by signs of an economic slowdown in the US and internationally which is expected to cut manufactured exports by 1.6 percent this year. While the decline will be offset by higher commodity prices for exports of palm oil and rubber, Malaysia’s economic growth is expected to slow from 6.3 percent in 2007 to 5.5 percent in 2008.
In comments to Associated Press on April 22, Anwar made clear that the main aim of the opposition was not to address popular concerns. “It is not very difficult to be a better government, to control corruption, to be more just, to improve the quality of education, public health, to stop the squandering of billions of dollars on your family members and cronies. That is quite easy,” he declared. The main challenge, Anwar explained, was to “change the course of the country” and to promote economic competitiveness and a market economy.
The implementation of market reforms will, however, only deepen social inequality and prompt popular opposition. As DAP parliamentarian Charles Santiago warned in an Asia Times article in March, the vote for the opposition parties was not an endorsement of free-market policies. “The average Malay was feeling the increase in prices, their jobs were no longer protected and inflation was eating their income ... You had a situation where you had subsidies for the rich and a free market economy for the poor.”
Whether or not Abdullah and UMNO hang onto power, the present political turmoil is likely to be the prelude to an even greater crisis.
Give prosecution powers to MCAC, says Khairy
The Edge Daily (13/5/08): Khairy Jamaluddin (Rembau-BN) has called for the Malaysian Commission for Anti-Corruption (MCAC) to be given prosecution powers as part of the country’s efforts to combat corruption.
“The implementation of the suggestion will allow the commission to focus on the prosecution of corruption cases and lift the burden off the Attorney-General’s Chambers, which is facing a backlog of cases,” he said in the Dewan Rakyat yesterday.
Debating the motion of thanks on the royal address, Khairy praised the government’s effort to fight corruption by restructuring the Anti-Corruption Agency into an independent MCAC and to provide protection to whistleblowers.
“I also hope the government will continue its effort to combat corruption through the use of modern technology,” he said, adding that this would allow for money spent on anti-corruption efforts to bring the best value.
He said the government could use information technology to lower the cost of procurement and channel the savings to development projects.
Citing the example of electronic procurement, Khairy said it could ensure that goods would be sold to the government at reasonable prices, adding that this system had lowered the costs to giant corporations by up to 25%.
In his speech, Khairy also welcomed Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar’s proposal to review the annual licensing requirement for the print media, which would eliminate the bureaucratic restriction on print media’s freedom.
According to him, an open, responsible and credible mass media was a pillar of democratic system and there should be an integrated effort to increase the credibility of all forms of mass media.
He said new journalists, including journalists for weblogs and Internet news portals, should also enhance their skills by undergoing professional training like new journalists in the mainstream media. “This will expose them to the basics of journalism such as ethical journalism and laws regarding sedition and false news, to produce responsible journalists.”
Once the media industry could demonstrate a high degree of professionalism, including a greater sense of responsibility, the government could transfer its role of regulating the media to an independent body, Khairy said.
Khairy also highlighted that there were models for a commission of complaints on the media in several countries to prevent seditious news reports which could incite public anger.
“If this mechanism can be established and the regulation of the media can be done independently without affecting public peace and security, and if the industry is serious about building up their capability and skill for ethical, fair and responsible journalism, then the Printing Presses and Publications Act can be abolished,” he said.
Khairy also criticised the opposition for promising to lower oil prices by tapping Petronas’ coffers to win support during the general election.
He said the government received RM48.3 billion, representing 66.2% of Petronas’ gross profit, which went straight into the government’s budget for development purposes in 2007.
“Among others, the balance of the profit is used for exploration and production activities in foreign countries. Is it wrong for Petronas to look after our future to ensure we can at least share these foreign oil reserves when our reserves dry up?”
Khairy also called for Petronas to hold a special briefing and table its complete financial report in parliament to prove that the government and the national oil company had nothing to hide.
There was a commotion when he touched on the issue of food crisis and accused the Selangor state government of giving top priority to “Projek Khinzir Raksasa” (mammoth pig project) or PKR, which is also the acronym of the largest opposition party.
He was referring to the decision of the PKR-led Selangor state government to proceed with the centralised pig farming project in Kuala Langat.
Khairy also claimed that PAS had lost its “teeth” as it failed to take DAP to task on issues such as the social contract and the Malay monarchy.
Dismissing Pakatan Rakyat as just a public relations ploy among those with different ideologies, he said PAS did not even bring up the Islamic state once it became a “junior partner” in Pakatan Rakyat.
A shouting match with name-calling ensued as Khairy refused to ,allow other members of parliament to interject his allegations and questions posed to the opposition.
At one point, Mahfuz Omar (Pokok Sena-PAS) responded by saying that the pig farming project in Selangor was actually approved by the previous state government led by Umno.
Retaliating to Khairy’s twist on PKR’s acronym, he said it was “Projek Babi Negara” (national pig project), which is a play on Barisan Nasional’s (BN) acronym.
“The implementation of the suggestion will allow the commission to focus on the prosecution of corruption cases and lift the burden off the Attorney-General’s Chambers, which is facing a backlog of cases,” he said in the Dewan Rakyat yesterday.
Debating the motion of thanks on the royal address, Khairy praised the government’s effort to fight corruption by restructuring the Anti-Corruption Agency into an independent MCAC and to provide protection to whistleblowers.
“I also hope the government will continue its effort to combat corruption through the use of modern technology,” he said, adding that this would allow for money spent on anti-corruption efforts to bring the best value.
He said the government could use information technology to lower the cost of procurement and channel the savings to development projects.
Citing the example of electronic procurement, Khairy said it could ensure that goods would be sold to the government at reasonable prices, adding that this system had lowered the costs to giant corporations by up to 25%.
In his speech, Khairy also welcomed Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar’s proposal to review the annual licensing requirement for the print media, which would eliminate the bureaucratic restriction on print media’s freedom.
According to him, an open, responsible and credible mass media was a pillar of democratic system and there should be an integrated effort to increase the credibility of all forms of mass media.
He said new journalists, including journalists for weblogs and Internet news portals, should also enhance their skills by undergoing professional training like new journalists in the mainstream media. “This will expose them to the basics of journalism such as ethical journalism and laws regarding sedition and false news, to produce responsible journalists.”
Once the media industry could demonstrate a high degree of professionalism, including a greater sense of responsibility, the government could transfer its role of regulating the media to an independent body, Khairy said.
Khairy also highlighted that there were models for a commission of complaints on the media in several countries to prevent seditious news reports which could incite public anger.
“If this mechanism can be established and the regulation of the media can be done independently without affecting public peace and security, and if the industry is serious about building up their capability and skill for ethical, fair and responsible journalism, then the Printing Presses and Publications Act can be abolished,” he said.
Khairy also criticised the opposition for promising to lower oil prices by tapping Petronas’ coffers to win support during the general election.
He said the government received RM48.3 billion, representing 66.2% of Petronas’ gross profit, which went straight into the government’s budget for development purposes in 2007.
“Among others, the balance of the profit is used for exploration and production activities in foreign countries. Is it wrong for Petronas to look after our future to ensure we can at least share these foreign oil reserves when our reserves dry up?”
Khairy also called for Petronas to hold a special briefing and table its complete financial report in parliament to prove that the government and the national oil company had nothing to hide.
There was a commotion when he touched on the issue of food crisis and accused the Selangor state government of giving top priority to “Projek Khinzir Raksasa” (mammoth pig project) or PKR, which is also the acronym of the largest opposition party.
He was referring to the decision of the PKR-led Selangor state government to proceed with the centralised pig farming project in Kuala Langat.
Khairy also claimed that PAS had lost its “teeth” as it failed to take DAP to task on issues such as the social contract and the Malay monarchy.
Dismissing Pakatan Rakyat as just a public relations ploy among those with different ideologies, he said PAS did not even bring up the Islamic state once it became a “junior partner” in Pakatan Rakyat.
A shouting match with name-calling ensued as Khairy refused to ,allow other members of parliament to interject his allegations and questions posed to the opposition.
At one point, Mahfuz Omar (Pokok Sena-PAS) responded by saying that the pig farming project in Selangor was actually approved by the previous state government led by Umno.
Retaliating to Khairy’s twist on PKR’s acronym, he said it was “Projek Babi Negara” (national pig project), which is a play on Barisan Nasional’s (BN) acronym.
Posted by Unknown at 4:09 PM 0 comments
Labels: ACA, Corruption, Islamic State, Khairy Jamaluddin, Mahfuz, Pakatan Rakyat, Petronas, Pig, PKR, Raja-Raja Melayu, The Edge Daily
Ghapur accuses BN of practising double standards
The Sun (12/3/08): Amid strong rumours of Barisan Nasional (BN) parliamentarians crossing over to Pakatan Rayat (PR), Datuk Seri Panglima Abdul Ghapur Salleh (BN-Kalabakan) poured fuel into the fire while debating his motion of thanks on the royal address in the Dewan Rakyat (Parliament) today.
Accusing the ruling BN government of practising double standards, Abdul Ghapur issued a "serious warning" that BN would suffer greatly if this did not stop.
"Sabah mahu keadilan (Sabah wants justice)," he said, drawing a roar from his fellow parliamentarians.
After a moment, he corrected his phrase saying: "Sabah wants justice, not the party."
In a press conference later, Abdul Ghapur was asked if PKR adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had approached him and if he was considering defecting, he denied it.
However, Abdul Ghapur kept emphasising that if not for the number of MPs from Sabah and Sarawak, PR would have managed to get the simple majority to form the new government.
"One-hundred-forty seats minus 54 from Sabah and Sarawak, there would not be enough to even form a simple majority (for BN)," he told reporters later.
He had also called for oil royalty to Sabah to be raised to 20% from its current annual rate of 5% amounting to RM500 million.
If approved, some RM2 billion, which "is not too much", can be channelled on an annual basis to help the state alleviate poverty rates and solve "a lot of problems in Sabah".
In his debate earlier, Abdul Ghapur said the BN did not listen or act on the complaints and issues of the people of Sabah and if the BN did not change its ways, "in the next election, it will not just be BN which will lose. Even I will lose".
In voicing the issues that inundated the state, Abdul Ghapur brought to light that the people in the rural areas drank water from the wells.
"If there is no rain, where will they find water? Even in the urban areas the waters coming out of
the pipes are the colour of teh susu (tea with milk).
"Electricity supply is often disrupted in cities of Kota Kinabalu and Sandakan. Is this the meaning
of independence?" he asked, also raising housing, inflation, security and housing problems.
Describing Sabahan voices as going into the right ear and coming out of the left, Abdul Ghapur
said East Malaysia were sidelined and it felt like the states were step-children.
"We are a country but we are made to be second-class citizens and maybe people will say that
Kalabakan speaks like the opposition.
"The fact is, we have been doing this even from before. It also looks like Sabah is being taken for
granted," he said, adding that "if there is opposition in the BN, accept it as it is constructive".
Abdul Ghapur said: "If a public referendum arises, Sabahans may prefer to opt to be part of the
Philippines if the long-standing issue of undocumented migrants was not dealt with."
Accusing the ruling BN government of practising double standards, Abdul Ghapur issued a "serious warning" that BN would suffer greatly if this did not stop.
"Sabah mahu keadilan (Sabah wants justice)," he said, drawing a roar from his fellow parliamentarians.
After a moment, he corrected his phrase saying: "Sabah wants justice, not the party."
In a press conference later, Abdul Ghapur was asked if PKR adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had approached him and if he was considering defecting, he denied it.
However, Abdul Ghapur kept emphasising that if not for the number of MPs from Sabah and Sarawak, PR would have managed to get the simple majority to form the new government.
"One-hundred-forty seats minus 54 from Sabah and Sarawak, there would not be enough to even form a simple majority (for BN)," he told reporters later.
He had also called for oil royalty to Sabah to be raised to 20% from its current annual rate of 5% amounting to RM500 million.
If approved, some RM2 billion, which "is not too much", can be channelled on an annual basis to help the state alleviate poverty rates and solve "a lot of problems in Sabah".
In his debate earlier, Abdul Ghapur said the BN did not listen or act on the complaints and issues of the people of Sabah and if the BN did not change its ways, "in the next election, it will not just be BN which will lose. Even I will lose".
In voicing the issues that inundated the state, Abdul Ghapur brought to light that the people in the rural areas drank water from the wells.
"If there is no rain, where will they find water? Even in the urban areas the waters coming out of
the pipes are the colour of teh susu (tea with milk).
"Electricity supply is often disrupted in cities of Kota Kinabalu and Sandakan. Is this the meaning
of independence?" he asked, also raising housing, inflation, security and housing problems.
Describing Sabahan voices as going into the right ear and coming out of the left, Abdul Ghapur
said East Malaysia were sidelined and it felt like the states were step-children.
"We are a country but we are made to be second-class citizens and maybe people will say that
Kalabakan speaks like the opposition.
"The fact is, we have been doing this even from before. It also looks like Sabah is being taken for
granted," he said, adding that "if there is opposition in the BN, accept it as it is constructive".
Abdul Ghapur said: "If a public referendum arises, Sabahans may prefer to opt to be part of the
Philippines if the long-standing issue of undocumented migrants was not dealt with."
Monday, May 12, 2008
'Pakatan' merely a PR exercise - Khairy
Bernama (12/5/08): A backbencher said Monday that the opposition coalition comprising PAS, DAP and Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) known as `Pakatan Rakyat' is merely a public relations (PR) exercise.
Khairy Jamaluddin (BN-Rembau) said the coalition was actually fragile, weak and suspicious of one another and were afraid of being stabbed in the back by each other.
"The coalition is purely a PR exercise. PAS and DAP are only putting up a show so that they will look impressive and strong in the eyes of the public. But in reality, there is clearly no mutual understanding basically," he said when debating the motion of thanks on the Royal address at the Dewan Rakyat Monday.
He questioned the PAS stand on the social contract raised by Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timur) so that it would be reviewed as well as the issue on the Islamic state pursued by PAS.
The lack of response to the issues raised by Lim portrayed the Islamic party as a `toothless lion' and afraid of the mastermind that PAS was collaborating with, Khairy said.
"We in the ruling party are also not ideal and have our weaknesses. But for as long as the Barisan Nasional (BN) is helming the federal government, we will defend the social contract that is enshrined in the Constitution," he said.
Khairy also questioned why Pakatan Rakyat could not give a commitment to do away with the New Economic Policy in all the states under its administration for greater uniformity and consistency.
He said the inconsistency was apparent in the five states administered by the Pakatan Rakyat where in Kedah and Kelantan it was an Islamic State, a Malaysian Malaysia in Penang, a puppet government in Perak and the pig breeding project in Selangor.
He also asked for a special briefing to be held in Parliament where a detailed statement would be tabled so that the financial position and where the Petronas profits were being channelled to would be clearly understood by all members of Parliament.
According to the Petronas financial statement 2007, the government received RM48.3 billion in terms of taxes and royalty and this amount represented 66.2 per cent of the gross profits of Petronas while the balance was utilised for oil explorations in foreign countries.
Khairy also suggested that the government adopted the `e-perolehan' system which was capable of saving as much as 25 per cent in terms of cost for the purchase of items as was being practised by mega companies in the world.
He also proposed the `track and trace' system in the government administration so that the public could obtain immediate and current feedback on their applications which would improve the delivery system and reduce corruption.
In his speech, Karpal Singh (DAP-Bukit Gelugor) defended his statement which touched on the rights of the Malay Rulers, which he said had not violated the law.
"So far, 20 police reports had been made against me, even 2,000 police reports can be made, but what I had stated (on the issue of the transfer of the Perak Islamic Religious Department Director Datuk Jamry Suri) did not breach the law," he said.
He hoped the Attorney-General would give appropriate consideration when the investigation reports on the case were sent to him very soon.
The Dewan Rakyat will sit again Tuesday.
Khairy Jamaluddin (BN-Rembau) said the coalition was actually fragile, weak and suspicious of one another and were afraid of being stabbed in the back by each other.
"The coalition is purely a PR exercise. PAS and DAP are only putting up a show so that they will look impressive and strong in the eyes of the public. But in reality, there is clearly no mutual understanding basically," he said when debating the motion of thanks on the Royal address at the Dewan Rakyat Monday.
He questioned the PAS stand on the social contract raised by Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timur) so that it would be reviewed as well as the issue on the Islamic state pursued by PAS.
The lack of response to the issues raised by Lim portrayed the Islamic party as a `toothless lion' and afraid of the mastermind that PAS was collaborating with, Khairy said.
"We in the ruling party are also not ideal and have our weaknesses. But for as long as the Barisan Nasional (BN) is helming the federal government, we will defend the social contract that is enshrined in the Constitution," he said.
Khairy also questioned why Pakatan Rakyat could not give a commitment to do away with the New Economic Policy in all the states under its administration for greater uniformity and consistency.
He said the inconsistency was apparent in the five states administered by the Pakatan Rakyat where in Kedah and Kelantan it was an Islamic State, a Malaysian Malaysia in Penang, a puppet government in Perak and the pig breeding project in Selangor.
He also asked for a special briefing to be held in Parliament where a detailed statement would be tabled so that the financial position and where the Petronas profits were being channelled to would be clearly understood by all members of Parliament.
According to the Petronas financial statement 2007, the government received RM48.3 billion in terms of taxes and royalty and this amount represented 66.2 per cent of the gross profits of Petronas while the balance was utilised for oil explorations in foreign countries.
Khairy also suggested that the government adopted the `e-perolehan' system which was capable of saving as much as 25 per cent in terms of cost for the purchase of items as was being practised by mega companies in the world.
He also proposed the `track and trace' system in the government administration so that the public could obtain immediate and current feedback on their applications which would improve the delivery system and reduce corruption.
In his speech, Karpal Singh (DAP-Bukit Gelugor) defended his statement which touched on the rights of the Malay Rulers, which he said had not violated the law.
"So far, 20 police reports had been made against me, even 2,000 police reports can be made, but what I had stated (on the issue of the transfer of the Perak Islamic Religious Department Director Datuk Jamry Suri) did not breach the law," he said.
He hoped the Attorney-General would give appropriate consideration when the investigation reports on the case were sent to him very soon.
The Dewan Rakyat will sit again Tuesday.
Posted by Unknown at 11:13 PM 0 comments
Labels: Bernama, Islamic State, Khairy Jamaluddin, NEP, Pakatan Rakyat, Petronas, Raja-Raja Melayu
Route to power of government-in-waiting morally illegitimate
Just International (8/5/08): If the Opposition were to wrest power according to the route mapped out by its de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim, it would be a government with no moral legitimacy. It would be technically and legally legitimate, but it would fail the higher criteria - the moral criteria. This is a grave matter and indeed would lead to grave consequences.
Anwar Ibrahim has publicly admitted that he has negotiated with various government parliamentarians and that he has roped in at least 31 of them to the opposition Pakatan Rakyat (PR). With this, PR would have attained a simple majority or more in parliament and it would soon move to take over power from the incumbent Barisan Nasional (BN).
We must bear in mind that people who voted BN wanted BN. The jumping of parliamentarians from BN to PR, after secret negotiations with Anwar, is a blatant and immoral betrayal of voters. Is this the "democracy" and government that the PR deem acceptable?
BN and the PR component parties PAS and DAP are agreeable to a new anti-jumping law. PKR, led by Anwar, is the only one that disagrees. A number of countries have such laws e.g. India.
Jumping parties is not the way and the country would become a laughing stock of the world. If elected representatives want to jump to another party, they should have the morality and dignity to resign and re-contest.
Interestingly, the leader who is currently engineering a government through the back door, is the same one who engineered the wholesale jumping of elected representatives in Sabah in 1994 from the opposition to BN. It is becoming to be a habit. The low morality of this route to power is readily appreciated. However the same leader is now vigorously promising democracy and good governance, as well as a host of goodies. It would be wise to judge a person from action rather than words.
It is also of interest to note that he has personally jumped about quite a lot, from a radical Malay nationalist during university days, to a radical Islamicist during his ABIM and UMNO days, and now a thorough Western-styled democrat and Western human rights proponent. As such, he is now a cosy ally of the West and much promoted and adulated in their media. The West though, we must know, have as their ultimate objective in this region the checkmating of China, foreseen to be a clear challenge to Western global dominance. They also aim to suppress Muslims from challenging their dominance. Their relations with any regional leader will be assessed in how those two objectives will be advanced. The Muslim factor is obvious. The China factor will be increasingly obvious in the years to come.
To be noted that on the whole the strident critics of UMNO or the BN have not been applying the same yardsticks to Opposition parties and leaders. In merely one issue - the jumping of BN parliamentarians to PR - they have been loudly and conspicously silent. Are they really interested in democracy, justice and good governance as righteously claimed? As a group, they have failed one early test of being an impartial watchdog for good governance. It is however not too late to self-correct.
Admittedly such jumping in the past, which rarely occurred, had generally been to BN's advantage. This time it is not.
There is however one other difference - due to the unprecedented scale of the event, it would lead to chaos and instability, with major impact on politics and the economy. Quite apart from the serious immorality, is this our preferred choice? (Tarmizi Idris)
Anwar Ibrahim has publicly admitted that he has negotiated with various government parliamentarians and that he has roped in at least 31 of them to the opposition Pakatan Rakyat (PR). With this, PR would have attained a simple majority or more in parliament and it would soon move to take over power from the incumbent Barisan Nasional (BN).
We must bear in mind that people who voted BN wanted BN. The jumping of parliamentarians from BN to PR, after secret negotiations with Anwar, is a blatant and immoral betrayal of voters. Is this the "democracy" and government that the PR deem acceptable?
BN and the PR component parties PAS and DAP are agreeable to a new anti-jumping law. PKR, led by Anwar, is the only one that disagrees. A number of countries have such laws e.g. India.
Jumping parties is not the way and the country would become a laughing stock of the world. If elected representatives want to jump to another party, they should have the morality and dignity to resign and re-contest.
Interestingly, the leader who is currently engineering a government through the back door, is the same one who engineered the wholesale jumping of elected representatives in Sabah in 1994 from the opposition to BN. It is becoming to be a habit. The low morality of this route to power is readily appreciated. However the same leader is now vigorously promising democracy and good governance, as well as a host of goodies. It would be wise to judge a person from action rather than words.
It is also of interest to note that he has personally jumped about quite a lot, from a radical Malay nationalist during university days, to a radical Islamicist during his ABIM and UMNO days, and now a thorough Western-styled democrat and Western human rights proponent. As such, he is now a cosy ally of the West and much promoted and adulated in their media. The West though, we must know, have as their ultimate objective in this region the checkmating of China, foreseen to be a clear challenge to Western global dominance. They also aim to suppress Muslims from challenging their dominance. Their relations with any regional leader will be assessed in how those two objectives will be advanced. The Muslim factor is obvious. The China factor will be increasingly obvious in the years to come.
To be noted that on the whole the strident critics of UMNO or the BN have not been applying the same yardsticks to Opposition parties and leaders. In merely one issue - the jumping of BN parliamentarians to PR - they have been loudly and conspicously silent. Are they really interested in democracy, justice and good governance as righteously claimed? As a group, they have failed one early test of being an impartial watchdog for good governance. It is however not too late to self-correct.
Admittedly such jumping in the past, which rarely occurred, had generally been to BN's advantage. This time it is not.
There is however one other difference - due to the unprecedented scale of the event, it would lead to chaos and instability, with major impact on politics and the economy. Quite apart from the serious immorality, is this our preferred choice? (Tarmizi Idris)
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Ku Li: Umno is here to stay
The Star (11/5/08): Umno veteran Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, who has been busy rallying the party’s grassroots for change, shares his views on a range of issues, including Malay supremacy, the NEP and the future of Umno and Barisan Nasional.
Q: Umno will mark its 62nd anniversary today. As a party veteran, one who challenged and narrowly lost the presidency, set up a rival party but later returned to the fold, how would you describe the crisis facing Umno now?
A: If you call it a crisis, this is one of monumental significance not just to Umno members and to the Malays but to the country. I cannot foresee the country without Umno. The Malays, for what they are worth, good or bad, only know Umno and its allies – the other component parties, whether in the Alliance old or Barisan Nasional. I cannot imagine how the Malays will behave or react without Umno on the scene.
I know people in some circles greeted the results of the March 8 election results with euphoria, saying the victory of the Opposition showed maturity in the thinking of the people. Maybe so, but I like to take a different interpretation.
I think the losses incurred by the coalition, and Umno in particular, were because people were disgusted with their leaders and what had been happening in the Government under the rule of Barisan Nasional and Umno.
It would have been different if Umno didn’t behave like that. Even if people had opted to go the multi-racial make-up of the PKR, for instance, probably they might have won some seats. But not to the extent of what they are enjoying now. That’s my view.
I want to correct the bit in your question about Umno celebrating its 62nd anniversary. Actually we are not. We are only celebrating the 20th anniversary of Umno Baru. The Umno that was founded in 1946 by Datuk Onn Jaafar and the freedom fighters in 1946 was declared unlawful by the High Court in 1988. That gave birth to Umno Baru, which is there today and will celebrate its 20th anniversary.
Q: With all the disgust against it, is there hope for Umno? Can the party reinvent to meet demands for equality, accountability and transparency, given its patronage and gravy train culture?
A: As I said earlier, I cannot imagine people continuing without Umno. The party has been on the scene for a long time. The LDP of Japan went through that. The Congress Party of India too went through the process when the people rejected it.
But I think it is a different thing here, in this country. Like most people say, here it’s the politics of race. It is not completely ideological-based parties that you live with. As such, I don’t know where the Malays are going to scuttle or run to, if Umno is defeated wholly in the next general election. I think people will still support Umno, maybe not to the degree that they used to support but they will return when Umno changes its ways.
But I am not talking about the need for a complete re-engineering of Umno or of the party re-inventing itself. Umno has to behave, that’s all. If it behaves and runs this country fairly and justly, it will get back the support it used to get.
What was wrong with Umno-led rule from 1955 to 1959, before we gained independence? And what do you think of the rule from 1957 to 1969, and from 1971 or 1972 until now? Was it all bad? I don’t think so. Except, of late, you see excesses; you see abuses by Umno leaders who were also getting very arrogant. This is the perception that people have.
And that is why they decided to debunk Umno and Barisan. After all, why should they vote for people whom they don’t even know? Who is PKR? It is a party that is relatively new and came into the fray in a big way in this election. Previously, they only fielded two or three candidates, in Kelantan and Penang, with no showing. But they did so because people were so disgusted and angry with Umno leaders. That’s why they opted for anything.
Some people said I should not have disbanded my old party Semangat 46 under Gagasan Rakyat, which I think would have done much better than PKR or whatever. So you see, if Umno wants to come back, I don’t think it needs to re-invent itself.
Q: You have been rallying the grassroots for change but only a few have held EGMs. Are you still optimistic about a groundswell and getting the nominations needed to contest the presidency?
A: There is a groundswell against the leadership because of the bad election results for the party in power. But there is no groundswell for whoever wants to challenge or change the leadership. I don’t feel it yet. But there are people who are anxious to see a change in the leadership of the party and possibly the Government.
I am going around not purely to canvass for posts and change in the Government but I want to get people at the grassroots level to discuss the effects or the outcome of the election results.
If they could hold extraordinary general meetings, then they could effect changes to the constitution. We have to give back power to members to elect office bearers at branch, division and supreme council levels and also to select candidates for general elections.
Q: Do you expect more divisions to hold EGMs’?
A: I don’t know. If conducted in a fair and free atmosphere, with no threats from any quarters or harassment from any one, possibly there will be more. But even those who have come to me saying they want to hold one have decided to back off, maybe because they were threatened, or bought over. Only a few have held it in spite of the big numbers who came to see me. Maybe they will do it later, I don’t know.
Q:What’s the biggest motivation for you to do this now?
A: Firstly, we have suffered huge losses. I mean, we have lost four states and we have lost the two-thirds majority over no big issues, really, except that people were disgusted with the way the leadership had performed. We need to have a change, if not in the persons or personalities, but in the way they do things.
People look at Umno as being “very racial” now, whereas it has never been racial from day one. It has always been caring, considerate, looking after the interests of others. Umno has also always been accused by PAS and other opponent parties of being too soft and compromising on lots of issues. But Umno wanted peace and stability. That is the actual hallmark of Umno’s brand of struggle and because of that, we have achieved progress. What’s important is to ensure that everybody can come together.
Q: On the question of ketuanan Melayu that is premised upon the social contract agreed to by the nation’s founding fathers, Malays agreed to citizenship for non-Malays in exchange for recognition of their special rights. Should non-Malays born after Merdeka still be bound by this? Do they not have equal standing with Malays by virtue of being citizens?
A: Actually, it is a fallacious way of looking at the term because the concept of ketuanan Melayu is more historical than anything else. As Tunku Abdul Rahman used to tell all of us then, this is Malay land. The Malays are from this country, not from any other, unlike the Chinese or the Indians who are from elsewhere.
But since then they have become loyal citizens of the country and those who are born here are automatically citizens having equal rights as the Malays. But because the Malays were the original people of the land, they have these special rights and special privileges. These were not negotiated; they were already there in the 1948 Federation of Malaya agreement before independence.
When the British negotiated with the Malay Rulers and Umno to do away with the Malayan Union proposal, form the Federation of Malaya and introduce a new constitution, these special rights were entrenched in it. Similarly, the position of Islam, the position of the Rulers and all the other things were carried forward into the constitution.
It was never intended to impose the views of the Malays over the rest. The Malays are not dominant. Even though we won 53 seats in Parliament in 1953 with the majority of 38 Malay MPs, we never exercised that. And after that, even when we had two-thirds in a series of elections, we never imposed our will on others. But the problem is that the term is being bandied about loosely.
Secondly, it is being seen that the Malays are arrogantly abusing their positions in government. Generally, not all leaders but some leaders and this gives rise to the impression that Malays want to dominate. But I have not seen the leaders of Umno, all the prime ministers from the time of Tunku right down to (Datuk Seri) Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, trying to show that they are dominant or domineering over the rest. Have you seen it?
Q. But after the elections, haven’t there been more groups clamouring for reinstatement of ketuanan Melayu?
A: Yes lah, because the Opposition has won big and whoever wins will talk big. But Abdullah, after winning big in 2004, he talked of the big mandate but then did not flex his muscles and penalise anybody.
As for MCA vice-president Datuk Ong Tee Keat who came out with a statement that ketuanan Melayu should be dropped, he is fighting for MCA leadership. It happens lah. But you will hear more from the Umno side when we come closer to the date of the Umno election in December.
Q: There is a lot of debate on the issue in the alternative media, on websites and blogs. Based on what is being expressed about ketuanan rakyat, has the concept of ketuanan Melayu become outdated?
A: I think so. But in effect, it isn’t true. People are comparing it to a slave and master situation. Is there such a thing? If there are servants and slaves at all, it’s between the lowly paid and their masters. But who is lowly paid? The Malays, Indians and to a certain extent, some Chinese, isn’t it? It’s not like what was in America’s South in the old days of slavery. It’s just gross exaggeration and it’s not healthy, you know.
Ketuanan rakyat is a new phrase coined by (Datuk Seri) Anwar Ibrahim, taking advantage of the feelings against ketuanan Melayu. He is very quick at that.
Q: Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has warned of conflict if there’s a change in the Government with the crossing over of Barisan. He says Malays are making demands in response to demands made by others and some are talking about going back to feudalism. What are your views on this?
A: Like I said, just now, Ong came out with a statement that ketuanan Melayu should be dropped. Fair enough. But there are also lots of demands from the Malays, as Dr M has expressed. Take the recent congress in Johor Baru. They refused to invite politicians but got together about 200 Malays associations and NGOs. They have demanded that the Malay rulership be restored with its traditional powers. In other words, depriving the elected representatives of some of their powers and to go back to the Rulers. I think that’s not on, because we have democracy now.
Except for matters like restoration of immunity for the Rulers, we have to look at that. Not the Rulers per se, but the institution. After all, our diplomats and officials who work in foreign lands are given immunity. This immunity originates from the immunity of the sovereignty. It’s an age-old custom and practice but that’s just a small area to be re-examined. Overall, I think the preoccupation with ketuanan Melayu is just a reaction to the election results.
Q. Are the Rulers exercising their powers more noticeably or being more vocal now?
A: I don’t think so. Raja Nazrin (Perak Regent Raja Dr Nazrin Shah) has been speaking out but all the things he has been saying echo the words of the Bar Council, like independence of the judiciary, and other groups. He rightly re-emphasised and re-stated things that are in the Constitution. Of course, it also reflects the feelings of the people who are not happy with the Government and the way the judiciary was behaving. So, this gets into the press and catches the eye of those people who are not happy with the Government. That’s about all.
About the appointment of Mentris Besar of Terengganu and Perlis, it was the inaction of the leadership or slowness that prompted the Rulers to appoint MBs who were not candidates of the party. The actions were seen as Rulers taking the initiative before the political leaders. But I think the Rulers were pressured to act within their constitutional powers. I don’t think it is seen as Rulers taking powers into their hands. It’s just coincidental that we had these bad election results and all these things relating to the Rulers and therefore it is seen as you have described it.
As for the case of Tengku Faris’ (Kelantan’s Tengku Mahkota Tengku Mohammad Faris Petra Sultan Ismail Petra) speech, the statement was taken out of context. I have seen the whole speech and it was a repeat of what is in the Constitution.
Q: How is your current relationship with Dr M? Based on what he has been saying, it seems both of you share the same sentiments.
A: Good. As for sharing the same sentiments, maybe we are, but not absolutely.
Q: In one interview before the elections, you were asked whether Malaysia was ready to move away from the New Economic Policy. You said it was going to be there for another 50 years or more. Have you changed your views?
A: No. I still feel the NEP is a good policy but it should not have been implemented the way it was and caused a lot of problems and created misunderstanding among the various races. It was not intended to be like that nor was it formulated that way. It ended up favouring a select group of people in a particular community.
The NEP was devised during the Second Malaysia Plan to bring everybody together, to give opportunities to those who never had opportunities and to lift up everybody, irrespective of Malays, Indians or Chinese or others, out of poverty. It was a good programme, I thought. Unfortunately, some people took advantage and abused their positions. And these excesses have given rise to a lot of grievances and doubts about the policy itself.
Q: If you do get the nominations, win the presidency and get to become Prime Minister, what would be your priority?
A: The first and most important is unity: To bring about unity in all aspects of government policy, programmes and even to the NGOs and the political institutions. That is the priority concern and should be the primary concern of everybody. The education system must be re-looked into exhaustively, in that it is geared towards this end. This is because the future depends on the unity of the nation. Without it you cannot have stability, peace and progress. Underpinning that is, of course, education. It is also important that the knowledge acquired is kept abreast with changes, so that we can rise to the occasion and compete with likeminded people elsewhere in the world. We should not be left behind.
Secondly, you have to kill corruption, which is cancerous. You have to go to town with it. I am impressed with the model in Hong Kong. I don’t know what the Government has in mind but the agency in Hong Kong works. It should also work here with some modifications. Whatever it is, wiping out corruption is of prime consideration because unless and until we can kill it, you cannot progress.
You cannot expect costs to come down – cost of living, cost of doing business and everything. We really have to fight this tooth and nail. Similarly, within Umno, we have to stop all this nonsense about giving of contracts, permits and “pocket money”. All these must be brought down without exception.
Q: There are still many repressive laws and people are demanding that these be done away with. What is your view on laws like the Printing Presses and Publications Act, Universities and University Colleges Act, Official Secrets Act and the Internal Security Act?
A: All ought to be reviewed. Some ought to be repealed. UCCA should be repealed. The OSA must be reviewed. Some features are important but not the draconian measures. The Printing Presses and Publications Act has no place. It has to go. The Police Act should also be re-looked. As for the ISA, it must be re-looked. I don’t think we can do away with that, I must say honestly, because even democratic countries like the US have laws with the same features that we have in the ISA. Even Britain has new laws to fight terrorism. I think we can remove all the features that appear to be rather draconian and make sure that individual rights are protected sufficiently. Ensure that it is palatable for the Government to use but never to use it for political purposes.
Q: The perception out there is the ISA is always used for political persecution.
A: That’s what they say. Even Umno chaps have been arrested. (Datuk) Zahid Hamidi was detained, along with many other people, including Anwar. So anyway, we have to re-look that.
Q: For much of the latter part of your political career, your supporters say you have been a victim of media blackouts, unfair coverage and spin. Do you think political parties should own newspapers?
A: I’m glad you realise it. I think (the ownership of newspapers by political parties) this is a historical development. Utusan Melayu was formed by people from Singapore. When we were gaining independence, Umno needed a voice in the papers to project its image and to appeal to the people to support its movement against the Malayan Union.
That is how Utusan Melayu slowly came under the influence of Umno. Later, Tunku with the help of some friends bought into Utusan Melayu as a vehicle to influence the thinking of the people. When I was asked to buy the Straits Times, we couldn’t do so because some of the operations were in Singapore, which was not under our jurisdiction at that time. I had to negotiate with the OCBC group and eventually bought the interest in Malaysia.
The paper split into the Straits Times in Singapore and the New Straits Times in Malaysia. We took over and paid cash for it. We did not want to own it completely so we listed the shares. But because of these historical developments, Umno had to own some of the shares. Eventually, when Umno was declared unlawful, the shares went to the Public Trustee and then sold to a public company. Umno has a very small percentage in the newspaper now.
Even Utusan Malaysia has gone public. Control is through the Government, not through the ownership of equity. MCA used to own Tong Bao, Nanyang Siang Pau and The Star. Now they still own The Star. But slowly all these things will go. What I would like to see is for anybody who wants to own a newspaper to be able to do so. Whether they survive or not, it is up to them. But before we can allow that, we must ensure that the laws of defamation and libel are strengthened and penalties must be very serious, so that people don’t go to town with their newspapers.
Q: How would you rate Pakatan Rakyat’s chances of taking over the government through crossovers? Do you share Dr Mahathir’s view of taking the threat seriously?
A: I do. We should not take it lightly because unlike Umno members in the peninsula, those in Sabah have only been members since 1990 or just before that. Umno is relatively new there. And also people in Sabah have been jumping parties – from Usno to Berjaya to Umno and so many other parties. The whole lot of them have been jumping here, there and everywhere. I’m not saying that they don’t have principles or they have a stand on certain given ideals. But I think their heart is not in the party struggle. Because of the racial politics here, we are closer to the party struggle than those in Sabah.
They were brought in to help in order to help Dr Mahathir then to make sure they could thwart me and Semangat 46 in the number of seats in Parliament. Anyway, we shouldn’t take the threat lightly for it is serious. And I do hope the leadership will really look into this and confide in the MPs and state assemblymen and those from the component parties and look into their problems. Otherwise you may find that there is no Barisan Nasional except for Umno. You should look after them.
I think they are very unhappy. The election results have shocked and disgraced them. Apart from that, they are losing confidence in the future. If they think that the future is not so bright for them why should they remain? I think the leadership today cannot give them sufficient comfort to ensure that the future is all right. But I think that the future will be all right, if we can bolster their confidence. I think it all depends on the leadership. But the leadership today is embroiled in so many things, it is not helping (M Veera Pandiyan).
Q: Umno will mark its 62nd anniversary today. As a party veteran, one who challenged and narrowly lost the presidency, set up a rival party but later returned to the fold, how would you describe the crisis facing Umno now?
A: If you call it a crisis, this is one of monumental significance not just to Umno members and to the Malays but to the country. I cannot foresee the country without Umno. The Malays, for what they are worth, good or bad, only know Umno and its allies – the other component parties, whether in the Alliance old or Barisan Nasional. I cannot imagine how the Malays will behave or react without Umno on the scene.
I know people in some circles greeted the results of the March 8 election results with euphoria, saying the victory of the Opposition showed maturity in the thinking of the people. Maybe so, but I like to take a different interpretation.
I think the losses incurred by the coalition, and Umno in particular, were because people were disgusted with their leaders and what had been happening in the Government under the rule of Barisan Nasional and Umno.
It would have been different if Umno didn’t behave like that. Even if people had opted to go the multi-racial make-up of the PKR, for instance, probably they might have won some seats. But not to the extent of what they are enjoying now. That’s my view.
I want to correct the bit in your question about Umno celebrating its 62nd anniversary. Actually we are not. We are only celebrating the 20th anniversary of Umno Baru. The Umno that was founded in 1946 by Datuk Onn Jaafar and the freedom fighters in 1946 was declared unlawful by the High Court in 1988. That gave birth to Umno Baru, which is there today and will celebrate its 20th anniversary.
Q: With all the disgust against it, is there hope for Umno? Can the party reinvent to meet demands for equality, accountability and transparency, given its patronage and gravy train culture?
A: As I said earlier, I cannot imagine people continuing without Umno. The party has been on the scene for a long time. The LDP of Japan went through that. The Congress Party of India too went through the process when the people rejected it.
But I think it is a different thing here, in this country. Like most people say, here it’s the politics of race. It is not completely ideological-based parties that you live with. As such, I don’t know where the Malays are going to scuttle or run to, if Umno is defeated wholly in the next general election. I think people will still support Umno, maybe not to the degree that they used to support but they will return when Umno changes its ways.
But I am not talking about the need for a complete re-engineering of Umno or of the party re-inventing itself. Umno has to behave, that’s all. If it behaves and runs this country fairly and justly, it will get back the support it used to get.
What was wrong with Umno-led rule from 1955 to 1959, before we gained independence? And what do you think of the rule from 1957 to 1969, and from 1971 or 1972 until now? Was it all bad? I don’t think so. Except, of late, you see excesses; you see abuses by Umno leaders who were also getting very arrogant. This is the perception that people have.
And that is why they decided to debunk Umno and Barisan. After all, why should they vote for people whom they don’t even know? Who is PKR? It is a party that is relatively new and came into the fray in a big way in this election. Previously, they only fielded two or three candidates, in Kelantan and Penang, with no showing. But they did so because people were so disgusted and angry with Umno leaders. That’s why they opted for anything.
Some people said I should not have disbanded my old party Semangat 46 under Gagasan Rakyat, which I think would have done much better than PKR or whatever. So you see, if Umno wants to come back, I don’t think it needs to re-invent itself.
Q: You have been rallying the grassroots for change but only a few have held EGMs. Are you still optimistic about a groundswell and getting the nominations needed to contest the presidency?
A: There is a groundswell against the leadership because of the bad election results for the party in power. But there is no groundswell for whoever wants to challenge or change the leadership. I don’t feel it yet. But there are people who are anxious to see a change in the leadership of the party and possibly the Government.
I am going around not purely to canvass for posts and change in the Government but I want to get people at the grassroots level to discuss the effects or the outcome of the election results.
If they could hold extraordinary general meetings, then they could effect changes to the constitution. We have to give back power to members to elect office bearers at branch, division and supreme council levels and also to select candidates for general elections.
Q: Do you expect more divisions to hold EGMs’?
A: I don’t know. If conducted in a fair and free atmosphere, with no threats from any quarters or harassment from any one, possibly there will be more. But even those who have come to me saying they want to hold one have decided to back off, maybe because they were threatened, or bought over. Only a few have held it in spite of the big numbers who came to see me. Maybe they will do it later, I don’t know.
Q:What’s the biggest motivation for you to do this now?
A: Firstly, we have suffered huge losses. I mean, we have lost four states and we have lost the two-thirds majority over no big issues, really, except that people were disgusted with the way the leadership had performed. We need to have a change, if not in the persons or personalities, but in the way they do things.
People look at Umno as being “very racial” now, whereas it has never been racial from day one. It has always been caring, considerate, looking after the interests of others. Umno has also always been accused by PAS and other opponent parties of being too soft and compromising on lots of issues. But Umno wanted peace and stability. That is the actual hallmark of Umno’s brand of struggle and because of that, we have achieved progress. What’s important is to ensure that everybody can come together.
Q: On the question of ketuanan Melayu that is premised upon the social contract agreed to by the nation’s founding fathers, Malays agreed to citizenship for non-Malays in exchange for recognition of their special rights. Should non-Malays born after Merdeka still be bound by this? Do they not have equal standing with Malays by virtue of being citizens?
A: Actually, it is a fallacious way of looking at the term because the concept of ketuanan Melayu is more historical than anything else. As Tunku Abdul Rahman used to tell all of us then, this is Malay land. The Malays are from this country, not from any other, unlike the Chinese or the Indians who are from elsewhere.
But since then they have become loyal citizens of the country and those who are born here are automatically citizens having equal rights as the Malays. But because the Malays were the original people of the land, they have these special rights and special privileges. These were not negotiated; they were already there in the 1948 Federation of Malaya agreement before independence.
When the British negotiated with the Malay Rulers and Umno to do away with the Malayan Union proposal, form the Federation of Malaya and introduce a new constitution, these special rights were entrenched in it. Similarly, the position of Islam, the position of the Rulers and all the other things were carried forward into the constitution.
It was never intended to impose the views of the Malays over the rest. The Malays are not dominant. Even though we won 53 seats in Parliament in 1953 with the majority of 38 Malay MPs, we never exercised that. And after that, even when we had two-thirds in a series of elections, we never imposed our will on others. But the problem is that the term is being bandied about loosely.
Secondly, it is being seen that the Malays are arrogantly abusing their positions in government. Generally, not all leaders but some leaders and this gives rise to the impression that Malays want to dominate. But I have not seen the leaders of Umno, all the prime ministers from the time of Tunku right down to (Datuk Seri) Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, trying to show that they are dominant or domineering over the rest. Have you seen it?
Q. But after the elections, haven’t there been more groups clamouring for reinstatement of ketuanan Melayu?
A: Yes lah, because the Opposition has won big and whoever wins will talk big. But Abdullah, after winning big in 2004, he talked of the big mandate but then did not flex his muscles and penalise anybody.
As for MCA vice-president Datuk Ong Tee Keat who came out with a statement that ketuanan Melayu should be dropped, he is fighting for MCA leadership. It happens lah. But you will hear more from the Umno side when we come closer to the date of the Umno election in December.
Q: There is a lot of debate on the issue in the alternative media, on websites and blogs. Based on what is being expressed about ketuanan rakyat, has the concept of ketuanan Melayu become outdated?
A: I think so. But in effect, it isn’t true. People are comparing it to a slave and master situation. Is there such a thing? If there are servants and slaves at all, it’s between the lowly paid and their masters. But who is lowly paid? The Malays, Indians and to a certain extent, some Chinese, isn’t it? It’s not like what was in America’s South in the old days of slavery. It’s just gross exaggeration and it’s not healthy, you know.
Ketuanan rakyat is a new phrase coined by (Datuk Seri) Anwar Ibrahim, taking advantage of the feelings against ketuanan Melayu. He is very quick at that.
Q: Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has warned of conflict if there’s a change in the Government with the crossing over of Barisan. He says Malays are making demands in response to demands made by others and some are talking about going back to feudalism. What are your views on this?
A: Like I said, just now, Ong came out with a statement that ketuanan Melayu should be dropped. Fair enough. But there are also lots of demands from the Malays, as Dr M has expressed. Take the recent congress in Johor Baru. They refused to invite politicians but got together about 200 Malays associations and NGOs. They have demanded that the Malay rulership be restored with its traditional powers. In other words, depriving the elected representatives of some of their powers and to go back to the Rulers. I think that’s not on, because we have democracy now.
Except for matters like restoration of immunity for the Rulers, we have to look at that. Not the Rulers per se, but the institution. After all, our diplomats and officials who work in foreign lands are given immunity. This immunity originates from the immunity of the sovereignty. It’s an age-old custom and practice but that’s just a small area to be re-examined. Overall, I think the preoccupation with ketuanan Melayu is just a reaction to the election results.
Q. Are the Rulers exercising their powers more noticeably or being more vocal now?
A: I don’t think so. Raja Nazrin (Perak Regent Raja Dr Nazrin Shah) has been speaking out but all the things he has been saying echo the words of the Bar Council, like independence of the judiciary, and other groups. He rightly re-emphasised and re-stated things that are in the Constitution. Of course, it also reflects the feelings of the people who are not happy with the Government and the way the judiciary was behaving. So, this gets into the press and catches the eye of those people who are not happy with the Government. That’s about all.
About the appointment of Mentris Besar of Terengganu and Perlis, it was the inaction of the leadership or slowness that prompted the Rulers to appoint MBs who were not candidates of the party. The actions were seen as Rulers taking the initiative before the political leaders. But I think the Rulers were pressured to act within their constitutional powers. I don’t think it is seen as Rulers taking powers into their hands. It’s just coincidental that we had these bad election results and all these things relating to the Rulers and therefore it is seen as you have described it.
As for the case of Tengku Faris’ (Kelantan’s Tengku Mahkota Tengku Mohammad Faris Petra Sultan Ismail Petra) speech, the statement was taken out of context. I have seen the whole speech and it was a repeat of what is in the Constitution.
Q: How is your current relationship with Dr M? Based on what he has been saying, it seems both of you share the same sentiments.
A: Good. As for sharing the same sentiments, maybe we are, but not absolutely.
Q: In one interview before the elections, you were asked whether Malaysia was ready to move away from the New Economic Policy. You said it was going to be there for another 50 years or more. Have you changed your views?
A: No. I still feel the NEP is a good policy but it should not have been implemented the way it was and caused a lot of problems and created misunderstanding among the various races. It was not intended to be like that nor was it formulated that way. It ended up favouring a select group of people in a particular community.
The NEP was devised during the Second Malaysia Plan to bring everybody together, to give opportunities to those who never had opportunities and to lift up everybody, irrespective of Malays, Indians or Chinese or others, out of poverty. It was a good programme, I thought. Unfortunately, some people took advantage and abused their positions. And these excesses have given rise to a lot of grievances and doubts about the policy itself.
Q: If you do get the nominations, win the presidency and get to become Prime Minister, what would be your priority?
A: The first and most important is unity: To bring about unity in all aspects of government policy, programmes and even to the NGOs and the political institutions. That is the priority concern and should be the primary concern of everybody. The education system must be re-looked into exhaustively, in that it is geared towards this end. This is because the future depends on the unity of the nation. Without it you cannot have stability, peace and progress. Underpinning that is, of course, education. It is also important that the knowledge acquired is kept abreast with changes, so that we can rise to the occasion and compete with likeminded people elsewhere in the world. We should not be left behind.
Secondly, you have to kill corruption, which is cancerous. You have to go to town with it. I am impressed with the model in Hong Kong. I don’t know what the Government has in mind but the agency in Hong Kong works. It should also work here with some modifications. Whatever it is, wiping out corruption is of prime consideration because unless and until we can kill it, you cannot progress.
You cannot expect costs to come down – cost of living, cost of doing business and everything. We really have to fight this tooth and nail. Similarly, within Umno, we have to stop all this nonsense about giving of contracts, permits and “pocket money”. All these must be brought down without exception.
Q: There are still many repressive laws and people are demanding that these be done away with. What is your view on laws like the Printing Presses and Publications Act, Universities and University Colleges Act, Official Secrets Act and the Internal Security Act?
A: All ought to be reviewed. Some ought to be repealed. UCCA should be repealed. The OSA must be reviewed. Some features are important but not the draconian measures. The Printing Presses and Publications Act has no place. It has to go. The Police Act should also be re-looked. As for the ISA, it must be re-looked. I don’t think we can do away with that, I must say honestly, because even democratic countries like the US have laws with the same features that we have in the ISA. Even Britain has new laws to fight terrorism. I think we can remove all the features that appear to be rather draconian and make sure that individual rights are protected sufficiently. Ensure that it is palatable for the Government to use but never to use it for political purposes.
Q: The perception out there is the ISA is always used for political persecution.
A: That’s what they say. Even Umno chaps have been arrested. (Datuk) Zahid Hamidi was detained, along with many other people, including Anwar. So anyway, we have to re-look that.
Q: For much of the latter part of your political career, your supporters say you have been a victim of media blackouts, unfair coverage and spin. Do you think political parties should own newspapers?
A: I’m glad you realise it. I think (the ownership of newspapers by political parties) this is a historical development. Utusan Melayu was formed by people from Singapore. When we were gaining independence, Umno needed a voice in the papers to project its image and to appeal to the people to support its movement against the Malayan Union.
That is how Utusan Melayu slowly came under the influence of Umno. Later, Tunku with the help of some friends bought into Utusan Melayu as a vehicle to influence the thinking of the people. When I was asked to buy the Straits Times, we couldn’t do so because some of the operations were in Singapore, which was not under our jurisdiction at that time. I had to negotiate with the OCBC group and eventually bought the interest in Malaysia.
The paper split into the Straits Times in Singapore and the New Straits Times in Malaysia. We took over and paid cash for it. We did not want to own it completely so we listed the shares. But because of these historical developments, Umno had to own some of the shares. Eventually, when Umno was declared unlawful, the shares went to the Public Trustee and then sold to a public company. Umno has a very small percentage in the newspaper now.
Even Utusan Malaysia has gone public. Control is through the Government, not through the ownership of equity. MCA used to own Tong Bao, Nanyang Siang Pau and The Star. Now they still own The Star. But slowly all these things will go. What I would like to see is for anybody who wants to own a newspaper to be able to do so. Whether they survive or not, it is up to them. But before we can allow that, we must ensure that the laws of defamation and libel are strengthened and penalties must be very serious, so that people don’t go to town with their newspapers.
Q: How would you rate Pakatan Rakyat’s chances of taking over the government through crossovers? Do you share Dr Mahathir’s view of taking the threat seriously?
A: I do. We should not take it lightly because unlike Umno members in the peninsula, those in Sabah have only been members since 1990 or just before that. Umno is relatively new there. And also people in Sabah have been jumping parties – from Usno to Berjaya to Umno and so many other parties. The whole lot of them have been jumping here, there and everywhere. I’m not saying that they don’t have principles or they have a stand on certain given ideals. But I think their heart is not in the party struggle. Because of the racial politics here, we are closer to the party struggle than those in Sabah.
They were brought in to help in order to help Dr Mahathir then to make sure they could thwart me and Semangat 46 in the number of seats in Parliament. Anyway, we shouldn’t take the threat lightly for it is serious. And I do hope the leadership will really look into this and confide in the MPs and state assemblymen and those from the component parties and look into their problems. Otherwise you may find that there is no Barisan Nasional except for Umno. You should look after them.
I think they are very unhappy. The election results have shocked and disgraced them. Apart from that, they are losing confidence in the future. If they think that the future is not so bright for them why should they remain? I think the leadership today cannot give them sufficient comfort to ensure that the future is all right. But I think that the future will be all right, if we can bolster their confidence. I think it all depends on the leadership. But the leadership today is embroiled in so many things, it is not helping (M Veera Pandiyan).
Posted by Unknown at 4:08 PM 0 comments
Labels: BN, Malay, Pakatan Rakyat, Raja-Raja Melayu, The Star, Umno
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
From MP PAS
MPs blogs
Blogs without feed
In blogs
Datuk Seri Najib Razak
