A serious case of mental block

You can drag a horse to water but you can’t force it to drink, they say. Well, we not only need to drag the Malays to water, we also need to force their heads into the water and make them drink.

NO HOLDS BARRED(Malaysia Today)

Raja Petra Kamarudin

This is what the Sin Chew Daily reported yesterday:

Change Or Perish, Pak Lah Tells UMNO

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said the Malays have changed their old thinking and value system, only that UMNO seems to have "forgotten" that the Malays have indeed changed.

He said the Malays have changed, but if UMNO remains unwilling to change, then the party will eventually head for destruction.

"UMNO has forgotten that the Malays have changed their own thinking and perspectives. It has forgotten that the Malays have changed their value system. The Malays are no longer what they used to be. They unreservedly express themselves. They even wave the DAP flags!"

Abdullah said during an exclusive interview with Sin Chew Daily at his private residence in Kuala Lumpur that during his five-year tenure as the prime minister, he has managed to change the mentality of the Malays.

He said young Malays believe they can stand on their own feet, and this is the major value that has changed the young Malays today.

"Young Malays feel that they need the opportunities, so they begin talking about DAP and PKR. They believe they have better opportunities there."

On the admission by former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad that he had failed to change the mentality and attitude of the Malays, Abdullah said decisively, "I can change the Malays!"

On UMNO's reluctance to change in order to check money politics and racism, he said although this is a mounting task, he knows UMNO members are in the midst of changing.

"UMNO is getting more and more powerful, with some three million members. The larger the membership, the more problems will arise. We have all kinds of people among these three million members. I'm very unhappy (with money politics in UMNO), and have told (UMNO disciplinary board chairman Tan Sri Tengku Ahmad) Rithauddeen to take actions as soon as possible."

*******************

99% Malays will not eat pork
98% Malays will not touch a dog
90% Malays will not drink liquor
80% Malays will not eat un-slaughtered meat
70% Malays will not eat in a non-Muslim restaurant
60% Malays will not indulge in homosexual activities
50% Malays will no indulge in extra-marital sex
40% Malays will not take bribes
30% Malays will not wish the non-Muslims on their religious festivals (such as Merry Christmas, Kong Hee Fatt Choy or Happy Deepavali)
25% Malays will not shake hands with a member of the opposite sex
20% Malays will not celebrate the ‘Christian’ Valentine’s Day on 14 February
10% Malays will not celebrate birthdays
5% Malays will not take loans -- to avoid paying interest

Okay, the above is not a real poll. I just made it up. I don’t think anyone has ever conducted a poll to analyse this issue. But the ‘list of priorities’ is not that far off the mark although the percentages are a figment of my imagination. I just wanted to get your attention and demonstrate the priorities of the Malays.

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad once cried during an Umno General Assembly because, he said, he had failed to change the Malays. When asked during an interview soon after he retired as Prime Minister on 1 November 2003 what he would consider as the greatest regret of his 22 years in office, he replied his greatest regret is that he could not change the Malays.

And that was Tun Dr Mahathir, the strongest-minded Prime Minister Malaysia ever had in 51 years of nationhood. Can Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, a ‘softer’ man, achieve what someone regarded as a dictator had failed to do?

Now, before we take the word ‘dictator’ as something negative, let me stress that there are many types of dictators and sometimes we need a dictator to set things right. A benevolent dictator is not so bad for the country and is maybe just the thing the country needs to cure it of its ills. It is when we get a malevolent dictator is when things became very dicey. But then dictators can sometimes change from being benevolent to malevolent when power gets to their heads. That is the problem with having too much power in the hands of a dictator and not enough democracy.

For example, if a dictator heavy-handedly passes laws that make it a crime to perpetuate racism, even if the law is draconian and robs us of our fundamental rights, in the long term it would be good for the country. But then laws tend to get abused and ‘good’ laws eventually get used for what they were not originally intended.

Take the Internal Security Act as one example. It was a ‘good’ law when we needed to solve the problem of massacres, assassinations, bombings and terrorism in the 1960s. But once all the chaos and anarchy ends and the law is not abolished, and then it is used for other purposes, such as for stifling dissent and for curtailing criticism of those who walk in the corridors of power, what used to be ‘good’ gets transformed to bad.

So good can very rapidly become bad when wrongly applied. And good dictators can also become bad dictators when they no longer just want to end racism the ‘undemocratic’ way but start using their vast powers to do things like to put down criticism of their rule.

I suppose this is why the ends can never justify the means. If we accept undemocratic methods to achieve good, these undemocratic methods eventually come back to bite us in our sorry behinds.

Anyway, back to the issue of the day, whether Abdullah can do what Mahathir failed to do: to change the Malays.

When I was under ISA detention in September, I spent days arguing and debating with the six Special Branch officers who had been assigned to ‘take my statement’. These are basically marathon interrogation sessions where they point out to you the error of your ways and try to get you to repent so that you can again be released into society. I suppose they not only discovered they could not change me, but they were also perturbed that I passionately defended my position to the very end. I was ‘unreformable’ and there was no way they could reformat my brain and reinstall a new program.

They should have known that I am an ‘old model’, the first generation ‘hardware’, and new software can’t run on old hardware. Ever try installing Windows XP into an old 386? There is no way it would work. You would need a very old Windows program to run a 386.

So I am old hardware, a 386, and I need the Windows 3.0 to make me tick. Forget about Windows XP. That is what the Special Branch officers did not understand.

The debates we engaged in behind the barbed wire fence of the Police Remand Center (PRC), your first stop for 60 days before they either allow you to go home or you get sent to Kamunting for at least two years, was why I write what I write. I whack the Malays to kingdom come. I show no mercy. I ask for no quarter and offer none as well. Why am I so brutal with the Malays? And even the way the Malays practice Islam is not spared. I am heartless and merciless in my criticism.

My reasoning was simple. And I explained it to the Special Branch officers. The Malays will never change. Even Tun Dr Mahathir said so. (But Abdullah, though he agrees that the Malays need changing, does not share Mahathir’s view that they can’t be changed. Abdullah thinks he is able to change them).

The Malays, I explained, need to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the new Millennium. You can drag a horse to water but you can’t force it to drink, they say. Well, we not only need to drag the Malays to water, we also need to force their heads into the water and make them drink. So we may end up drowning a few. So what? The end result would be we get them to drink, though against their will.

When someone is a lunatic and no drug can cure him or her, we need to use shock treatment. Sometimes shock treatment is the best cure when reasoning and medication can’t do the job. We have been Merdeka for 51 years. How long more are we going to wait before we declare that drastic times require drastic measures? Another 51 years when it would by then have already been too late?

I am third-generation Malaysian, I told the Special Branch officers. My grandfather fought for Merdeka. I, too, am now a grandfather. I have four grandchildren of my own. So my grandchildren, who in 20 years from now will be inheriting this country, are fifth generation Malaysians. Five generations is long enough. If, by now, we have not changed, then we never will.

So we are in a crisis situation. In 1960, when Malaysia was facing a crisis, we introduced the ISA. The ISA is not only draconian but unconstitutional as well. It is, in short, a downright ‘illegal’ law. But even the opposition agreed that the ends justify the means and they supported the ISA.

I, too, believe that the Malays need to be changed. Tun Dr Mahathir believed the same thing. And so does Abdullah Badawi (though he feels he can rectify what Mahathir couldn’t).

Sure, I whack the Malays, I told the Special Branch officers. I insult them. I vilify them. I make fun of the way they practice Islam. I make some Malays ashamed that they are Malays and would rather be called something else. But no good medicine tastes nice. All medicine is bitter. And I do not want to sugar-coat the medicine to hide its real taste. What you see is what you get.

But the Special Branch officers did not agree with me. They felt I was beyond redemption. They did not need 60 days with me to try to ‘turn me over’. They knew I was beyond salvage. So, after just ten days, they packed me off to Kamunting where I was supposed to spend the rest of my days on earth. And as long as I defended my views and refused to change my position, I would remain in Kamunting, be in ten years if necessary.

But I am now out again, thanks to my lawyers who did a good job getting me released. And I am back at it, whacking the Malays. I can’t help it. If I hated the Malays I would just say, “To hell with them. Why bother to try to change them?” But the English say: spare the rod and spoil the child. And the Malays say: if you love the child, you beat him or her.

Humbug Reforms ala Badawi

source: www.malaysiakini.com Are PM’s ‘reform’ bills mere humbug?

by Kim Quek | December 19, 2008

If there is one lesson that we can learn from the just concluded parliamentary debates on the prime minister’s much hyped ‘reform’ bills - that the only way to reform a corrupt autocracy is to get rid of it. In three days of intensive debates (Dec 15 to 17), the Barisan Nasioanal (BN) rammed rough-shod over vehement objections from Pakatan Rakyat to get the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Bill (MCAA) and the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill (JAC) approved in Parliament. With that, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi (Pak Lah) declared victory for having finally fulfilled his promise to clean up the judicial system and wipe out corruption by pushing through these two bills. But the truth is: the opposite to what Pak Lah said has taken place. Instead of freeing the judiciary and the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) from the clutches of the executive, whose abusive manipulations of these institutions have been the root cause of the crisis of public confidence, the passing of these two bills have in fact legally formalised the executive’s (in the form of the prime minister) hold on these institutions. Take the JAC. The rationale for this bill is to restore independence to a judicial system that has been critically maimed since the 1988 judicial crisis when top judges were unjustly sacked for political reasons and the Constitution also amended (Article 121) to subject the judiciary to parliamentary authority. So the obvious solution to overcome this excessive executive interference in the judiciary is to transfer the power to appoint judges from the prime minister to an independent panel, as well as to reverse the amendment to Article 121 so as to free the judiciary from the jurisdiction of Parliament. But how can the JAC Bill achieve these objectives when it’s introduction not only was not accompanied by an amendment to Article 121, but the bill also empowers the prime minister to appoint and sack at will the majority of members of the Commission (Clauses 5 & 9), and also to change at will the provisions of the Bill (by Gazette notification) within the first two years of its operation (Clause 37)? Thus instead of relinquishing, the prime minister has strengthened his hold on the system of judicial appointment. Further, the introduction of JAC without amending Article 122B of the Constitution has rendered the bill ultra vires the Constitution. At present, the appointment of superior court judges are governed under this article, which provides for an elaborate system of consultations with various office-bearing judges (heads of various courts) by the prime minister before he advises the king who shall then appoint the judges, after consulting the Conference of Rulers. In the case of appointing the chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak, the chief ministers of these two states must also be consulted. Systems that conflict and overlap Hence, without amending Article 122B to accommodate the JAC Bill, we have now two parallel systems that conflict and overlap each other. De facto law minister Nazri Abdul Aziz refuted such claims of constitutional conflicts by contending that the task of JAC is merely to compile a list of candidates for the prime minister to choose from and the prime minister is still free to act as provided for under Article 122B, and hence JAC does not impinge on the former. This argument is flawed and self-defeatist. First, when two parallel and different systems of consultation are on-going, potential collisions and conflicts are inevitable, in which case JAC must give way to Article 122B, as the Constitution must take precedence. Second, Nazri’s explanation is tantamount to a confession that JAC is merely a dispensable accessory to the prime minister’s decision-making process (to appoint judges), as nothing in the bill binds the prime minister to choose the appointee from the list produced by JAC. It is clear that the JAC Bill is unconstitutional and it not only defeats the purpose for which it is enacted but also worsens the judiciary’s present precarious position as an independent institution. If Barisan Nasional is sincere in wanting to restore independence to the judiciary, it should simply supplant Article 122B with a Commission appointed by the king in consultation with the Conference of Rulers (without advice from the prime minister) just as the Election Commission is appointed by the king under Article 114. The JAC should of course include all the relevant stake-holders. In addition, Article 121 must also be amended to re-instate the principle of separation of powers between the parliament, judiciary and executive. The MACC bill As for the MACC, it is admittedly an improved version over the present ACA, having now a wider scope of operation under a more elaborate bureaucracy of new advisory and overseeing panels. However, it lacks crunching power where it counts and does not address the fundamental flaws that have been crippling this corruption buster. These flaws are: a) ACA lacks independence as it operates under the dictates of the Prime Minister’s Department. As a result, it has often been abused to unjustly persecute opponents of the ruling party while showing no zeal to pursue corruption cases against the ruling elite. b) ACA does not have prosecuting power, which is vested with the attorney-general. The latter has been turned into an institution that famously practices selective prosecution since the reign of Dr Mahathir Mohamad, with successive AGs showing loyalty to the incumbent power over-riding allegiance to the Constitution and the country. And the present scandal-ridden AG (Abdul Gani Patail), who is himself under investigation for falsifying evidence in the persecution of Anwar Ibrahim 10 years ago, has proven to be no exception, having been seen as a major stopper to many a corruption investigation and prosecution against the ruling elite. Regrettably, the MACC Bill does not provide remedies to any of these shortcomings. The newly created Special Committee on Corruption, which is made up of parliamentarians, is not determined by Parliament and does not report to Parliament, but instead selected at the discretion of the prime minister, and reports to the prime minister. So do the other four newly created bodies – Anti-Corruption Advisory Board, Special Operations Review Panel, Corruption Prevention and Consultative Council and Complaints Committee - all beholden to the prime minister. So where is the independence so earnestly clamoured for by the public for this corruption fighting body? And without independence, can we really expect MACC to declare war on the corruption that is evidently raging out of control now among the hierarchy of the ruling party? Similarly, under the MACC Bill, prosecuting power continues to stay with the attorney-general. So how do we expect MACC to overcome this final stumbling block to net the big fishes, without transferring the prosecuting power from the attorney-general to MACC? (It is pertinent to note in this respect that out of the numerous cases of big time corruption among the top hierarchy of the ruling coalition and its cronies, none has been successfully convicted in recent memory). Optimism unwarranted Immediately after passing these two “reform” bills, Pak Lah expressed confidence that these bills will restore public confidence, thereby “increase the country’s competitiveness and attract investors to come”. Noting that “negative perceptions with the judiciary and ACA were very strong before this”, Pak Lah added: “With the setting up of these commissions, we won’t have any corruption and even if there is, it will be very little” (Malaysiakini, Dec 17). While giving credit to Pak Lah for at least admitting that our judiciary and anti-corruption efforts are in bad shape, his optimism over the effectiveness of these reform measures is at best naive, and at worst dishonest and deceiving. In fact, even if these two bills have been properly drafted to address the present flaws of these institutions, there is still the question of integrity of the key office-holders who helm these institutions – chief justice, attorney-general, inspector-general of police and director-general of ACA. It is often said that one may have the best laws in the world, but if we have crooks to implement them, the good laws may come to nothing. In the case of Malaysia, none of these key office-holders is spared of the taint of scandals and improper conduct. Neither do we expect them to be otherwise, knowing the low integrity and caliber of our political leadership. Corrupt political leadership does not have men of outstanding integrity; neither can it be expected to enact effective laws to maintain high integrity in government. That truism has practically reduced our options to only one - a change of political leadership. That is, if we are still serious about restoring the rule of law and the pursuit of excellence for the country.

Gov't gives green light to IJN privatisation

Drama surrounds Pandithan in life and in death

By Baradan Kuppusamy

KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 19 — The late IPF founder Tan Sri M.G. Pandithan had an eye for drama when alive, most famously by once holding a hunger strike beside a coffin, but even in death, drama dogs him, his party and his legacy.

One such drama is being played out before Justice Mohamad Ariff Yusof at the High Court in Jalan Duta here.

It is a case full of suspense and drama and a key issue is whether on his death bed in April, Pandithan had held a meeting of the IPF supreme council, whether the meeting was legally constituted and whether the appointment of his wife as party president over that of senior party leaders who had been loyal to him for over three decades is valid.

The case was brought by Pandithan loyalist V. Mathialagan, the IPF leader for the northern region who was sacked as an IPF member in November by Puan Sri Jayashree Pandithan and her faction.

Imagine the scene — Pandithan lies dying at the ICU of Kuala Lumpur Hospital. He can speak although he is in a semi-comatose state, the court heard. An IPF supreme council meeting is summoned to decide the fate of the party after Pandithan.

The key issue is who is to head the party.

According to affidavits filed by Mathialagan, no meeting took place, no decision was made and Jayashree was not picked as acting president. He says Pandithan was too far gone to do anything.

However, Jayashree in her affidavit said a meeting took place in the "waiting room" of the ICU and because of the serious condition Pandithan was in, two members were allowed into the ICU at a time and had "participated" in the "meeting".

"There was a meeting, Pandithan did select his wife as acting president and supreme council members endorsed the decision," said lawyer S. Selvam for Jayashree.

He said Mathialagan and others took part in the "meeting", signed the minutes and subsequently attended three supreme council meetings chaired by Jayashree and only after he was sacked did he file a suit questioning Jayashree's appointment as acting president.

He said Pandithan used "hand signals" to indicate his decision and everybody accepted Jayashree as acting president and signed the minutes of the meeting.

Saraswathy Kandasami, lawyer for Mathialagan, however, argued yesterday that the real truth was that Pandithan was too far gone to summon a meeting let alone chair it and pick his wife as acting president.

"In reality such a meeting never took place," she told judge Ariff. "The whole event was created, the minutes were fabricated and the party was hijacked by Jayashree on her husband's death bed."

"It never took place,” she said, arguing that as a result any subsequent decision Jayashree took including sacking Mathialagan was illegal and void.

To complicate matters the hospital has written a letter saying no meeting took place at the ICU at the time when Pandithan was fighting for his life.

But Selvam argued that a meeting does not necessarily have to be held in a boardroom with all the paraphernalia of a formal meeting. "This is an emergency situation; it does not have to be a formal meeting.

"As long as Pandithan is aware of his decision and as long as the supreme council members endorsed his decision the selection of Jayashree is valid," he said. "A meeting did take place."

He further said on Dec 14 the IPF AGM selected Jayashree as president and therefore even if the ICU meeting is questioned, the IPF floor had subsequently endorsed her as president.

Mathialagan's counsel Saraswathy however argued that the AGM was illegal and void because only "selected" members were permitted to attend and participate.

"Hundreds of other members were barred," she argued. "This is a conspiracy to hijack the party from its rightful members."

Ariff heard the arguments patiently and declared his mind is open but he is worried because section 18/C of the Societies Act 1966 is "crystal clear" that the court is barred by law from hearing any dispute involving decisions of a political party.

The hearing is continuing with both parties submitting on law and fact.

The outcome of the suit is important because considering the altered political landscape after March 8, the Barisan Nasional is finally ready to admit IPF as a member and help it to organise and strengthen itself to win over working-class Tamil voters who had fled the MIC/BN in large numbers.

Pandithan tried and failed since 1990 to gain entry into the BN because of strong opposition from MIC president Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu.

But under pressure from Umno, Samy Vellu has dropped his opposition to opening the doors for IPF to enter but the party's internal squabbles are a major setback.

It is split into three factions — IPF proper under Jayashree, an IPF Bersatu faction under M. Panjamurthi and the third faction controlled by Mathialagan.

The fight is also about spoils and if the factions can close ranks, the rewards that come with BN membership are many.

IPF's Mathiyalagan Has No Locus Standi To File Injunction Against Jayashree

KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 18 (Bernama) -- Indian Progressive Front (IPF) former vice-president V. Mathiyalagan has no locus standi to file an injunction to stop Puan Sri Jayashree Gnanapandithan from continuing to serve as the party's president, the High Court here heard on Thursday.

Counsel S.Selvam, who represented Jayashree and two other defendants, said this was because the application for an injunction and a writ of summons against the defendants was filed by Mathiyalagan after he was suspended by the party on Nov 12 2008. He was subsequently sacked on Dec 14 2008 by the party's general assembly.

Selvam also submitted that under sections 18B and 18C of the Societies Act 1966, the court had no jurisdiction to hear and entertain the application sought by Mathiyalagan as the sections said the decision of the political party was final and conclusive in the matter.

Citing several cases decided by the Federal Court, Selvam said it showed that the party's decision on the appointment of Jayashree as party president should not be challenged, quashed or reviewed in any court and on any grounds.

Selvam submitted that the proper forum for Mathiyalagan to resolve his dispute with the party was the Registrar of Societies.

Selvam also submitted on the preliminary objection raised by Jayashree that the court had no jurisdiction to hear Mathiyalagan's application and sought the court to throw out the application.

On Nov 24, Mathiyalagan filed a writ of summons against Jayashree, party secretary-general K. Velayutham and assistant secretary K. Neducheralanathan and named them as defendants.

In the suit, he applied for an injunction to stop Jayashree from continuing to serve as the party's president.

Besides the injunction, he also sought aggravated and exemplary damages, costs and other reliefs deemed fit by the court.

He also sought a court order to stop Jayashree from intervening in the affairs of the party and a declaration that she was not a legitimate IPF president and all actions by her as the president were null and void.

Mathiyalagan also sought a declaration that the letter appointing Jayashree as party president dated April 20, 2008 and the meeting of the party's supreme council held at Kuala Lumpur Hospital on April 20, 2008 was null and void.

He alleged that the IPF supreme council's statement on Jayashree's appointment as acting president and later as party president in place of her late husband, Tan Sri M.G. Pandithan, was fraudulent.

He said Jayashree's action in calling herself IPF president without any legitimate policies or powers had brought confusion to IPF supreme council members, IPF members and the public.

In her affidavit filed on Dec 11, Jayashree said there was no fraud, complot or falsification in her appointment as party president.

The hearing, before Judicial Commissioner Mohamad Ariff Md Yusof, was adjourned to tomorrow.

Mohamad Ariff said that as the preliminary objection raised by Jayashree involved a very important case of law, he advised Mathiyalagan's counsel, K.Saraswathy, to submit tomorrow to convince the court that it had jurisdiction to entertain Mathiayalagan's application.

-- BERNAMA

Penswastaan IJN Bukan Jawapannya

Institut Jantung Negara yang ditubuhkan pada bulan September 1992 merupakan sebuah institusi kesihatan yang sudah lama menyumbang bakti kepada rakyat Malaysia. Ianya menjadi pusat rujukan bagi penyakit kardiovaskular di negara ini serta menawarkan khidmat untuk menangani dan mengurus penyakit jantung. Dengan khidmat para pakar yang terbaik, serta kerjasama yang erat dengan Papworth Hospital di United Kingdom dan Herz-und di Jerman, Institut Jantung Negara berupaya menjadi pusat pakar jantung terbaik di rantau ini dengan keupayaan teknologi terkini.

Namun keputusan kerajaan yang secara prinsipnya bersetuju dengan penswastaan IJN kepada Sime Darby Berhad amatlah mengecewakan. Di saat kita sedang menghadapi kesukaran untuk berdepan dengan kedudukan ekonomi sejagat yang meruncing, keputusan ini tentulah memberikan dampak yang bukan kecil kepada rakyat keseluruhannya. Pada hemat saya kerajaan tidak wajar mengambil langkah yang sebegitu drastik sedangkan rakyat amat memerlukan perkhidmatan kesihatan yang menawarkan kos berpatutan.

Rekod penswastaan kita ternyata tidak memberansangkan. Lihat sahaja apa yang berlaku dengan Telekom Berhad dan Pembekal Tenaga Bebas(IPP), penswastaan tidak menjamin peningkatan kecekapan dan keupayaan. Selagi penyakit kronisme dan pengambilan komisen berbillion ringgit dari tender kerajaan masih berlaku, penswastaan ternyata bukanlah jalan penyelesaian bagi mempertingkatkan kecemerlangan IJN.

Sungguhpun penswastaan mempunyai kesan positif terutamanya di dalam memacu pertumbuhan ekonomi, namun tanpa garis panduan jelas seperti pertanggungjawaban dan ketelusan apatah lagi ketirisan masih leluasa, penswastaan IJN dikhuatiri akan berakhir menjadi satu episod gelap dalam pengurusan ekonomi dan perkhidmatan kesihatan di negara ini.

ANWAR IBRAHIM

Cabinet shelves IJN bid

(Rocky's Bru)Christmas gift for Malaysians and heroic doctors. The Cabinet, chaired by Pak Lah, has decided to put off a decision on Slime Darby's bid to take over the cash-rish National Institute Heart (IJN). Najib is expected to announce this at a press conference at 4.30 pm.

The good news came about the same time doctors at IJN signed a petition to softly oppose Sime's takeover bid. These doctors, in my mind, deserve our highest regards.

19^th December 2008

Statement from IJN medical consultants

We read with concern the perceived perception that the medical staff of IJN are demanding higher pay and will leave IJN if these demands are not met.

We feel it is important that these negative perceptions are correctly put into context.

The institution was set up in 1992 as a corporate body directly under the purview of Ministry of Finance. Its board of Directors include representatives from Ministry of Health and MOF to ensure its direction and objectives of providing good quality and affordable medical care to Malaysians from all walks of life are adhered to.

In that respect, IJN has done and continue to do well, both in maintaining its moral as well as financial obligations. The institution has been self-sustaining since its inception (and has been able to pay year end bonuses annually without fail). For 2007 and up to end Nov 2008, we have accumulated 285,764 number of outpatients, performed 15,084 cardiac catheterization interventions including angiograms and angioplasties, 6,094 heart and lung surgeries, 7 mechanical hearts and heart and lung transplants surgeries.

As true with any organization of our size, there will be people leaving the organization at various times in order to pursue different career paths. Over the last 7 years of operation, out of a total of 35 consultants, only 7 have left IJN to work either in local or overseas private centres. Therefore, our consultants' annual attrition rate is only 3%, and we have responded consistently over time to promote our home grown talents to fill up the voids accordingly. Currently, 75% of IJN consultants have been in their posts for more than 10 years.

All of us are salaried based on a different payscale than that of the MOH though not at par with the private centres. Periodic review of salary scale is usually undertaken, subject to approval from Ministry of Finance.

As proven from our consultants' attrition rate and longevity in serving this institution, it is logical to surmise that on the whole we are happy with the current scheme and proving it by remaining with IJN. Many of us have served more than 10 years, excluding time spent within the MOH Hospitals prior to setting up of IJN.

Being responsible employees of IJN, we are not in the position to dictate the outcome of the privatization proposal from Sime Darby to the stakeholders of IJN. However, the perception that the privatization proposal is in response to demands for higher remunerations by its medical staff is misconceived and must be corrected accordingly to safeguard and preserve the trust placed upon us by our patients.

---ENDS--

75,000 pesara dapat pencen minima RM720 mulai Januari

Lebih 75,000 pesara kerajaan dan penerima pencen akan menerima pencen minima RM720 sebulan mulai Januari tahun depan, kata Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz.

Bagaimanapun, bayaran pencen minima itu hanya untuk mereka yang berkhidmat 25 tahun.

Kerajaan dijangka membelanjakan RM140 juta bagi pembayaran pencen minima itu, katanya ketika mengulung Rang Undang-undang Pencen (Pindaan) (No. 2) 2008 di Dewan Rakyat, Khamis.

Beliau menjawab pertanyaan ahli parlimen Bebas dari Pasir Mas, Datuk Ibrahim Ali sama ada kerajaan bersetuju memberikan pencen minima dan mencadangkan sebanyak RM750 sebulan.

Menurut Nazri, jumlah RM720 itu dianggap hamper tepat seperti dicadangkan Ibrahim.

Ibrahim yang bangkit semula ketika Nazri memberikan jawapan itu, bertanya pula bagaimana dengan anggota tentera yang pencen setelah berkhidmat selama 21 tahun dan adakah mereka layak menerima pencen minima tersebut.

Menjawab soalan itu, Nazri berkata, anggota tentera pangkat rendah yang berkhidmat 21 tahun layak menerima pencen minima manakala pegawai pula layak jika berkhidmat 25 tahun.

Dalam pada itu katanya, ketika ini terdapat seramai 657 balu atau duda yang bermastautin di luar Malaysia telah berhenti menerima pencen terbitan, manakala seramai 1,332 pesara bermastautin di luar negara menerima pencen asal (tanpa unsur pelarasan).

"Keseluruhan tambahan perbelanjaan kerajaan untuk dasar ini adalah sebanyak RM32 juta bagi tahun 2009," katanya.

IJN PRIVATISATION

1. I have always been for privatisation. In fact privatisation started during my time. People know all about the Government companies, departments and functions which were privatised. Some were successful, some were not. But I don't think people know about privatisation proposals which had been rejected. I know about them because the proposals were studied carefully before they were rejected. There were reasons of course but there was no necessity to make public the rejections or the reasons.

2. With regard to the Institut Jantung Negara, I must say I have a personal attachment to it. I don't think I need to explain why. The IJN is really the institution that is physically closest to my heart.

3. IJN is a unique institution. It started as a Government department but the Government felt that it was unfair to put the staff on Government pay scheme. So it was corporatised. As a corporate body it has been successful in giving the people good service. It is one institution that has not been subjected to criticisms and vilifications by the press or the public as most other institutions have been. We often hear of its many "firsts" and we are proud of them.

4. The doctors and nurses are very well trained and efficient. During the 50 days I was hospitalised there I never heard them complain about their salary or how they have been treated. They seem to me to be a happy lot. They are not mercenary, thinking only of their pay. I think they love their work; they love to see their patients recover and go back to normal, especially their transplant patients.

5. The service they provide is excellent. People usually complain about their personal grouses to me. But not a single patient, rich or poor that I have met has voiced complaints to me or to the people I know about their bad experience with IJN.

6. Maybe I am biased because I owe my life to IJN. But I think as a corporatised institution the IJN has done extremely well.

7. If it is going to give the same service to civil servants and pensioners the Government will have to pay out the same amount of money after privatisation. How does the Government gain? Besides if the poor are going to be charged the same low fees and charges how does Sime Darby make money? Or will the Government continue to subsidise an ever growing bill for treatment of the poor? If so why is there a need to privatise? How does Sime Darby, a business entity make money when 80 per cent of the patients are poor?

8. Some of the major surgeries performed there are so costly that the IJN lost money on them. Will Sime Darby shoulder these losses?

9. There are far too many questions about this privatisation which need to be answered. Some I think cannot be answered.

10. I seldom oppose privatisation but this is one instant when I feel privatisation is the wrong thing to do.

11. Leave this institution as it is. It is our pride and it is doing a good job as it is.

12. The Barisan Nasional Government is not too popular today. Why do something that may give the opposition another issue to belabour the Government.

Abdullah's last-ditch reforms hit trouble

Political insiders said Abdullah tried but failed to persuade the political establishment to bite the bullet and approve the tough measures necessary to rehabilitate the judiciary, fight high level corruption, raise efficiency and keep police abuse in check.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

By Baradan Kuppusamy, Asia Times Online

Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi has tabled two new reform bills, but not surprisingly given his impending exit, both have run into strong opposition within and outside parliament. Abdullah's hopes of forging a consensus through the two crucial bills, hoped to give him some kind of positive reform legacy before he stands down in 2009, have been rocked by the dissent.

One bill has been designed to clean up the judiciary, and provide for the independent selection of judges, while the other aims to give greater powers to the Anti-Corruption Agency. Opposition lawmakers, lawyers, retired judges and even government

backbenchers all say the bills have been so watered-down that they have little bite.

The bills are expected to be passed, but without the broad support originally expected. "We are deeply disappointed," said Ambiga Sreenevasan, president of the Malaysian Bar Council, a professional body for 13,000 lawyers. "Although there are some improvements, the executive still has an overbearing presence."

Critics say that under the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) Bill, which Abdullah tabled in parliament on December 12, the executive would continue to have undue influence in the selection process.

"Under the JAC the selection is done by a committee, some of whose members are appointed by the government," said Sreenevasan. "The bill gives power to the government to appoint or sack committee members without giving reasons."

Of the proposed nine commission members, five would be appointed directly by the government. "Politicians and others connected with the government could end up in the committee and compromise its independence," she said.

In addition, the prime minister would have unfettered power to amend provisions for the JAC two years after the bill's approval in parliament. "We are worried - this last provision is highly unusual," she added.

Currently, the chief justice draws up a list of candidates from which the prime minister can choose and submit for royal assent, which is rarely withheld. Last August a judicial inquiry concluded that the selection process was open to abuse and that politicians and businessmen had colluded with senior judges to promote individuals unfit for the bench.

Meanwhile, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) bill will give wide new powers to officials to investigate and seize records, including bank accounts. But critics say that under the bill the MACC still cannot prosecute independently, as it must seek permission from the attorney general.

"We want the MACC to be placed under parliamentary [control] and be armed with independent powers to prosecute," said veteran opposition lawmaker Lim Kit Siang.

Abdullah has defended the bills, saying they would restore judicial confidence, fight corruption, and were a major step forward for the country. "My promise to the people is to institute reforms and I am doing just that," he told parliament when tabling the bills.

"I am fulfilling my promise of reform before I leave," he said. "Let's all close ranks for the sake of the nation."

Abdullah, who first took over as prime minister in 2003, asked his ruling United Malays Nasional Organization (UMNO) earlier this month to be allowed to remain in office until March so that he could carry out the promised reforms.

Opposition lawmakers have requested a delay of at least three weeks for them to study the bills and recommend changes, but the government, which has a 32 seat majority in the 222-seat parliament, is adamant they will be passed without delay.

Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, while welcoming Abdullah's initiative to fight corruption and clean up the judiciary, said changes are needed to ensure that the bills are independent and free of political interference.

Anwar said anti-corruption officers must be given full discretion to charge in court anyone under investigation and found to be involved in corrupt practices, without reference to the attorney general's chambers for permission.

With the clock on his tenure ticking, Abdullah does not have the luxury of time to make changes and retable the bills. Already the focus of the political establishment, investors and the diplomatic community is on the incoming leader, Najib Tun Razak, who takes over in March, 2009 as the new prime minister.

Political insiders said Abdullah tried but failed to persuade the political establishment to bite the bullet and approve the tough measures necessary to rehabilitate the judiciary, fight high level corruption, raise efficiency and keep police abuse in check.

These are the areas Abdullah had promised to act on after winning the biggest political mandate in Malaysia's history at the 2004 general election. After failing to carry out these promised reforms, voters turned against UMNO at this year's March elections, giving the political opposition control over five of the countries 13 states.

The abrupt manner in which the two bills were introduced last week, when the current parliament session was nearing an end, sparked an uproar and fueled charges that Abdullah purposely delayed the legislation in order to catch the opposition off guard and bludgeon the bills through.

The bills' contents were not made public before they were introduced and the cloak of secrecy that enveloped their drafting has resurrected charges about the lack of transparency surrounding Abdullah's government.

To be sure, some of the clauses of the anti-corruption bill are progressive, such as its wider scope for investigation and the total anonymity promised for whistle blowers. Five "independent" committees are also to be formed to mitigate any excesses of executive authority over the commission.

Still many remain dissatisfied. "What we need is a simple, independent commission to select people of the highest integrity as judges, and for another commission to catch corrupt crooks and effectively prosecute them," said a senior lawyer.

"What we have now are convoluted systems because of numerous compromises made to satisfy political factions ... the key aims are lost in the urge to satisfy the entrenched political forces," the lawyer said. "It was a battle between the weak reformer and the strong entrenched forces. Convoluted, watered-down versions are the result."

Police beat up Jerit supporter at Parliament? (updated)

By Nathaniel Tan

Update 6pm: From Suaram -

Tamilchelvan A/L Masilamani who was arrested this morning at the House of Parliament has been released on police bail around 4.10pm. He was charged under section 186 of the Penal Code for obstructing public servant in discharge of his public function.

He is now getting medical treatment at a general hospital after his released. His neck was injured because of being kicked by police personnel during the arrest.

While still thinking about Syukree, I read that the final leg of the Jerit campaign went alright, except for one major hitch.

Via a Suaram press statement:

About 11.15am one of the cyclists - Tamilchelvan A/L Masilamani (in his early forties) ) was arrested by the police. The offence against him was obstructing police duty. He was accused of blaming the police personnel for stealing their bicycles, although he had only stated that their bicycles were lost.

According to Tamilchelvan who still detained at IPD Dang Wangi, he was beaten up by about 10-15 police personnel during the arrest. He was then bleeding and has not been able to access medical treatment until now.

If that’s true, it’s certainly police abuse. Deplorable!

Press Statement - Peaceful Expression of View is Part of Democratic Process

Arrest warrant may be issued by police over alleged Antarabangsa theft

KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 18 (themalaysianinsider)— Bukit Antarabangsa landslide survivor K. Thanarajah, whose wife Dr N. Yogeswari died in the recent disaster, risks being issued an arrest warrant by the police.

Selangor Police Chief Deputy Comm Datuk Khalid Abu Bakar said this was due to the fact that Thanarajah had not come forward to give a statement claiming that search and rescue personnel were still searching an abandoned bungalow at Bukit Antarabangsa after operations had been stopped.

At a press conference, he announced that he had ordered for a notice to be issued to Thanarajah, under Section 111 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to request for his presence at the police station and provide a statement to what happened in Bukti Anatarabangsa.

He added the police only possessed a picture of a man drying clothes, given by Thanarajah, which did not clarify whatsoever crime was being committed.

Commenting on baseless police reports, Khalid warned against the dangers of unfounded accusations and advised parties involved should come forward to assist in investigations.

“Such claims are bad for the security staff and also the family involved, so we want to get to the truth as fast as we can.”

Government allowance for IGP who beat up Anwar

By Shannon Teoh(themalaysianinsider)

KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 18 — Former police chief Tan Sri Rahim Noor is getting paid an allowance based on his last drawn salary despite his pension being forfeited after he was convicted of assaulting Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in 1998, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz revealed in Parliament today.

Nazri, who is Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, said Rahim began receiving the alimentary allowance after appealing to the Yang DiPertuan Agong.

“The allowance is the prerogative of the Crown and is based on the IGP’s last drawn salary,” Nazri told reporters after debating the Pensions (Amendment) Bill 2008.

His shocking revelation came after Pakatan Rakyat lawmakers objected to Datuk Ismail Abdul Muttalib’s (BN-Maran) claim that Anwar is drawing a pension for his service to the country. Anwar was assaulted on Sept 20 1998 after he was detained under the Internal Security Act. He was earlier sacked as deputy prime minister on charges of corruption and sodomy.

Anwar, who made his parliamentary comeback in August after a thumping victory in the Permatang Pauh by-election, angrily refuted Ismail’s statement by saying that he had not been paid a sen “while in jail”. Anwar was jailed in 1999 but the Federal Court freed him in 2004 from his sodomy conviction.

M. Kula Segaran (DAP-Ipoh Barat) then stood up and declared that “man who beat the former Deputy Prime Minister was paid a pension but the victim did not receive a sen”.

But Nazri then clarified that Rahim was technically not receiving a pension but an allowance.

He added that it was wrong to assume Anwar had not been paid a pension at all but that it only stopped upon his corruption conviction.

Under the law, civil servants, elected representatives and Cabinet ministers receive a pension but this will be withdrawn should the individual be jailed a year or fined RM2,000 or more.

According to Nazri, the Pensions Act provides for an alimentary allowance but at the discretion of the Agong.

Nazri further explained that Anwar’s pension would now be calculated based on total years of service as an MP even from before his conviction.

The pension will also be based on his highest drawn salary, i.e., as deputy prime minister.

SAMY VELLU WILL TRIUMPH AT WHATEVER ODDS

Datuk Seri S Samy Vellu may been seen to be not a favourite among the Malaysian Indian community at this current moment but whatever the circumstances, the community is not going to put him down since his contribution to the Indian community had been somewhat outstanding despite various obstacles.

One thing Malaysian Indian need to realise is he is still a force to be reckon and the Barisan Nasional leaders are fully aware of his firm and authoritative stand on Indian issues. Maybe of late after his unexpected defeat at Sungei Siput, he may be seen to be 'unwilling' to use this firm authority.

The greatest mistake of Datuk Seri S Samy Vellu is to have taken the Indian community for granted and under-estimated the grievances of the 'ground' Indian community as informed by his 'political agents' that they fully will stand by him.

If Datuk Seri Samy Vellu had stood firm by Hindraf's demands or had somewhat shown his support, it would have been a glorious time, not only for him but the Indian community on the whole and his MIC.

Another reason for his failure is, supporting 'dead woods' in MIC. Datuk Seri Samy Vellu should have just allowed the MIC members to decide on suitable candidates and not made his pick. Every human err sometime.

Recent meetings and discussion with ordinary Indians have made him to realise his grave mistake and he is trying to amend his ways so that he could depart with peace that he had effectively contributed to the Indian communities welfare, survival and progress.

It is very clear that only Datuk Seri S Samy Vellu can make this CHANGES at this current moment and he should be allowed his last wish. One thing Malaysians need to realise is that I too despise Datuk Seri Samy Vellu but I personally know that if he sets his mind, he can 'rock the boat'.

The question is, will Datuk Seri Samy Vellu do it?

Trying to challenge Datuk Seri Samy Vellu by Datuk M Muthupaniappan is just a big joke. Datuk Muthupaniappan could be described as a greatest failure to the Indian community. Indians in Negeri Sembilan just got rid of this useless, corrupted and non-effective 'politician' (shame to call him politican), what do you think MIC members on the whole will do.

HINDRAF APPEALS UPON HUNGER STRIKERS TO CALL OFF STRIKE.

HINDRAF APPEALS UPON HUNGER STRIKERS TO CALL OFF STRIKE.OPPRESSIVE UMNO REGIME WOULD PAY FOR THEIR SINS.

HINDRAF appreciates the effort of S.Jayathas and 14 others who began a hunger strike to protest the ISA arrests and had vowed to go on hunger strike until the Government abolishes the ISA.

Last few days have been tough and testing moments for those participating. They are now weak and Mr jayathas had to be rushed to hospital today after he collapsed during the Maha yaagam (Fire ritual). Jayathas is a kidney patient and last had his dialysis done a week ago.

I now appeal to all those participating in the strike to call off their hunger strike as the UMNO regime is a ruthless and oppressive regime which does not care about its citizens. It is not worth scarifying lives for UMNO for they are a bunch of cruel and inhumane lot who cares a damn about humanity, democracy and rights.

To the 15 hunger strikers I bow before all of you and appeal you would heed my humble request and call of the strike. The whole democracy loving Malaysians are behind you. Your sacrifices and spirit have encouraged many others. Well done and keep up the spirits.

P.Waytha Moorthy

Chairman

HINDRAF