Share |

Wednesday, 22 September 2010

Khairy says min wage “a moral obligation”

By Anil Netto,

Along with Nazri’s straight talking to Utusan comes another pleasant surprise: Khairy Jamaluddin has called on the government to implement a minimum wage.

Khairy Jamaluddin
Image via Wikipedia
In an opinion piece in The Edge (20 September), the Umno Youth leader said a minimum wage has become a moral obligation that the government must fulfil immediately.
Khairy rightly pointed out that a third of the workers in the country earn less than RM700 a month – which is below the poverty line. And the average annual increase in wages was only 2.6 per cent over the last decade – below the global average of 3.2 per cent.
He pointed out the starting pay in some industrial estates in Selangor is as low as RM450; in Kedah and Johor, workers in some large firms may earn only RM380 while applicants with technical certs could start with just RM540. At this rate, how are we going to become a high-income nation as envisaged under the New Economic Model, he wondered.
Khairy even said the RM900 proposed by the MTUC may not be enough especially if the worker is the sole breadwinner in a family with multiple children and living in an urban area.  “If we want to continue to be a sweatshop, by all means resist a minimum wage. But if we strive for higher value in our economy and higher incomes for workers, we need to be bold enough to institute structural changes and attract the right kind of investments.”
He said the minimum wage was one of the recommendations of the recent BN Youth Lab report submitted to the PM on issues that mattered to young people. “For hundreds and thousands of workers in Malaysia, the market and its attendant dogma have failed them.”
Yes, it’s about time we introduced a minimum wage. Even the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers (FMM) has come around to accepting the idea of a minimum wage, but they want it set as RM700, as reported in The Star. Huh? Below the poverty line? Typical.
Actually, as Khairy and others have pointed out, even RM900 is too low. In fact, the RM900 figure is actually a dozen years out of date. The figure RM900 was mentioned when the Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) proposed a minimum wage to Mahathir during a meeting in the late 1990s. To the unionists’ surprise, Mahathir even suggested that RM900 was not enough and suggested RM1,200. Veteran unionist K George, writing for Aliran Monthly, explains:
The RM900 figure
The sum of RM 900 as minimum wage was proposed in August 1998 when Mahathir met the MTUC leaders at the meeting called for by him.  At that meeting, Mahathir surprisingly maintained that RM900 was not enough for an average family of five persons to survive for a month.  Instead, he proposed that the minimum wage should be RM1,200. His excuse for not implementing his proposal of RM1,200 immediately was the financial crisis at that time in Malaysia.  But when the economy started to improve gradually, Mahathir left the scene in October 2003 without resolving the minimum wage issue.
In the meantime, a few months after the August 1998 meeting with Mahathir, the then president of the MTUC, Zainal Rampak was offered a  senatorship…
I asked the MTUC as to why they stuck to RM900 and did not take up the suggestion of Mahathir which was RM1,200.  The answer was straightforward and convincing: “It is the first claim submitted to the government after Abdullah became the Prime Minister.”
Unscrupulous employers not happy
I understand from reliable sources that the majority of employers do not want a Minimum Wage Act enacted not because the proposed RM900 is too high a wage.  Then, what could be the reason?
Well, all private sector employees are entitled under the law to EPF contributions from their employers at the rate of 12 per cent of their basic salary  while the employees themselves contribute another  11 per cent of their basic salary. Both contributions must be sent to the Employment Provident Fund office monthly. This is a form of retirement benefit fund to enable workers to retire with reasonable savings to carry on with their life with peace of mind.  For example if your basic salary is RM1,000 a month, the employer must contribute 12 per cent, which is RM 120, and the workers should contribute 11 per cent, which is RM110, from their salary, making a total of RM 230 savings a month (plus interest)….
… Some unscrupulous employers will cheat the workers by preparing a pay slip stating that the basic salary is RM300 for example and the remaining amount of RM700 will be listed as allowances for overtime, transport and for working on weekends and public holidays etc. Thus the EPF contribution by the employer is based on RM300 rather than on the actual pay of RM1,000.  As a result, the employers’ contribution is drastically reduced to RM36 instead of RM120 and the workers contribution is reduced to RM33 instead of RM110.  In other words, the workers lose out RM84 per month in the savings account for their old age.  Of course, the employees concerned could report this matter but they would not because they would be afraid of losing their jobs as a consequence of their action. If there was a minimum basic wage, the employer cannot play with the figures but will be forced to  calculate not only the EPF contribution but also any payment for overtime and for working on weekends and public holidays based on actual salary.
Finally, a minimum wage law is usually applicable nationwide, not based on industries or on the cost of living in certain states or regions.  Such problems could be taken care of by introducing special allowances and/or other facilities on a temporary basis.

Careful analysis of Teoh Beng Hock’s note

You guys really have to read this.

Ahmadinejad lost in translation

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has addressed the General Assembly on the second day of the UN's millennium development goals summit. But it is not what he said on Tuesday that has made the news but what happened during the simultaneous translation of his speech, which has caused controversy.

Right from the start, his speech was overshadowed by technical problems, as the president was heard saying: "there's no translation." And these problems continued to cause confusion two minutes into his speech. All this was followed by an ominous announcement: "The interpreters would like to state that they are reading from a written text translated into English." With that, the translation stopped altogether.

Despite all the technical issues, Ahmadinejad managed to communicate his message that there is a need for an overhaul of what he called "undemocratic and unjust" global decision-making bodies.

The much anticipated speech has now left many wondering what actually went wrong as the Iranian president's speech ended the same way as it had started, without any translation.

Ahmadinejad, who arrived in New York on Saturday, told the Associated Press news agency that "the future belongs to Iran," and challenged the US to accept that his country has a major role in world affairs.

US officials have made it clear that there are no plans for Barack Obama, the US president, to have any contact with the Iranian leader in New York this week.

Tight security

The New York Post, a right-wing tabloid, criticised US government spending on security preparations surrounding the Iranian leader's visit.

"Ahmadinejad has access to a private elevator on his floor, a source said, and everything he touches is supplied by his aides. His rooms' windowpanes were swapped for bullet-proof glass," the paper reported.

On the topic of Iran's nuclear programme, which Iran insists is for power generation rather than bomb-making, Obama plans to reiterate that the "door is still open" for international engagement, a US security official said on Monday.

Al Jazeera's Zeina Awad said on Tuesday that international diplomats are closely watching Ahmadinejad's actions in New York, because "any developments could have long term repercussions" for a nuclear deal.

While Ahmadinejad stole the spotlight, world leaders discussed the best ways to reduce global poverty.

Poverty reduction plans

Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, opened the annual summit on Monday with a plea to presidents, prime ministers and kings to use their power to meet UN goals to help the world's poorest by 2015.

Ten years after world leaders set the most ambitious goals ever to tackle global poverty, meeting the deadline will be difficult, if not impossible in some cases, the UN says.

On Monday, Nicolas Sarkozy, France's president, made an impassioned plea to developed countries to join his country in raising its contribution to meet the millennium goals. France, he said, would increase its contribution by 20 per cent over the next three years

Mary Robinson, the former president of Ireland who was the UN human rights commissioner when the millennium goals were set in 2000, told Al Jazeera that there were two key reasons for why the UN has fallen short of its goals.

The first, she said, was the lack of a "rounded" approach to human rights, taking into account women's reproductive and legal rights and issues. The other is that the policies are not linked to employment, and do not address the jobless rates in the Middle East and North Africa.

She also conceded that there was an issue of accountability.

"The Millennium Development Goals did not have a sufficient benchmarking and accountability, including more accountability of the rich countries," Robinson said.

Ten African countries, including Ethiopia, Egypt, and post-conflict Angola, have halved their absolute poverty levels, Benin ranked in the top 10 in education improvements, and Angola and Niger significantly reduced child deaths.

On the minus side, Amnesty International said efforts in many countries fail to address the widespread discrimination women face in accessing food, water, sanitation and housing - especially in slums. It accused Kenya of ignoring the needs of women living in slums and Nigeria of evicting slum dwellers and driving them deeper into poverty.

Source: Al Jazeera and agencies

Sosilawati case: Lawyer suspects disbarred last year

'Indian youths engineered into gangsterism'

(Malaysiakini) The Human Rights Party Malaysia (HRP) claims that Umno's social engineering has denied Indian youths the right to education, jobs, business mobility, loans and contract opportunities that has resulted in many of them turning to gangsterism and violent crime.

NONEProtem secretary general P Uthayakumar (right) alleged this has resulted in the emergence of a new Indian criminal underclass at levels disproportionate to the Indian community's 8 percent of the nation's population.

He says detaining such youths without trial under the Emergency Ordinance (EO) will not do; Indian gangsterism must be tackled at its roots.

He also hit out at the MIC who instead of addressing the root causes, blamed Tamil movies, lack of parental care, and lack of guidance by Indian NGOs and the Indian community.

Uthayakumar said this in an open letter to Premier Najib Abdul Razak and Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein dated Monday, copied to Malaysiakini today.

He was responding to an Utusan Malaysia report yesterday that called on the police to curtail increasing Indian gangsterism in light of the Sosilawati murder case.

Utusan Malaysia had also reported that 300 Indian youths were detained under the EO within four months in the Selangor alone.

'Overlooking root causes'

“We are against all forms of crime and violence, and are for appropriate action and punishment,” said the former ISA detainee.

jerit tamil school parliament protest 290307 ill“However, the government has to implement policies to solve the root causes of gangsterism and violent crimes by giving opportunities to higher education and business mobility, education scholarships, jobs, loans and contracts opportunities,” he said.

He said no Indian youth would want to become a gangster, if he was not denied educational opportunities.

That 523 Tamil schools are not fully aided and unable to function at optimum level contributes to the problem.

Scholarships from the government and GLCs for Indians are also limited, he said.
gemencheh tamil school 230107 schoolHe said Indian youths were also denied skills training such as that provided by Giat Mara Colleges for bumiputeras.
He lamented that the Indian community is also denied land ownership schemes such as what the Felda settlers receive, as well as equal higher education opportunities in public universities.


Denied business opportunities

Uthayakumar also claimed that the community has been denied business opportunities, licences, permits and APs to do business and participate in contracts and projects, and denied government and bank loans to assist in business.

hindraf batu cave 261107 demand dialogueHe quoted the Kuala Lumpur police chief from 10 years ago, Syed Abdul Rahman Syed Abd Kadir, who was reported to have said that having decent jobs and business opportunities would keep Indians out of gangs.

The reality however, said Uthayakumar, is that Indian youths are even denied licences to operate scrap metal shops, car washes, food, flower and fruit stalls and denied even garbage collection, security guard and car park contracts.

He said Indians were denied a host of other basic opportunities such as to run petrol stations, Ayamas outlets, Proton outlets and service centres, KFC and McDonald's outlets, low rental highway rest stop shops and local council stalls, and so on.

Stataless Indians- an epidemic?


Human Rights Part Sec-Gen P. Uthayakumar describes about the fate of 35-year-old Malaysian citizen Thayalan, who was not issued an Identity Card until last week. His ordeal had also affected his entire family, where most of them had to wait a long time to attain their birth certificates or ICs. He also speaks at length about the statelessness problem that is plaguing the Indian community in Malaysia as alleges the government as ‘denying’ the poor illiterate Indians their basic documents. Video by {Sunny Lim}, Citizen Journalist

Marginalisation, not Tamil movies, the cause of violence

M Nadarajah (Malaysiakini)

Another opinion, based on a selective use of mostly American studies on the relationship between media and violence, institutionalised by Consumers Association of Penang (CAP), suggests that the central agency causing the
problems within the Tamil community, in particular gangsterism, stems from the Tamils watching Tamil cinema.

Apparently, the Tamil cinema from Madras, India is the cause of Tamil Malaysians straying away from the path of expected positive community development. Solution: Get rid of Tamil films.

CAP has without doubt made major contributions to protecting the interest of the Malaysian consumers. But certainly it has done an unforgivable disservice to the Tamil/Indian community. Possessing a huge cultural capital and capable of influencing popular opinion, CAP seems to have been able to promote an argument that many, including the Malaysian government, like to
parrot.

Tamil films are the cause of Tamil anti-social behaviour. A recent New Straits Times editorial (Sept 12, 2000) offers a view that is contrary to what CAP likes to believe. The NST correctly observed that the characters in the films that CAP, and others like CAP, love to attack - films like Thalapathi and Nayagan by a sensitive and creative Tamil filmmaker Mani Ratnam -
are really about poor people who have been forced into situations that have led them to resort to violence. CAP seems either completely ignorant or evasive of complex Indian realities.

CAP has also the habit, at least in this case, to offer selective support studies as evidence of the connection between media and violence. It mentions some American studies, for instance, while carefully avoiding others that throw doubt about these studies or tries to explain the relationship between the media and violence in a more complex fashion, what I believe to be more realistic. In any case, CAP does not have last word on this matter. The relationship CAP is trying hard to establish is really a contested one. There is simply no agreement on it.

To American reports such as "Children, Violence and the Media" by the Senate Committee of the Judiciary brought in September 1999 that relates violence in America to the media, there are many more studies that simply throw doubts about a simplistic connection. CAP seems to make a moralistic analysis, a claim that implies that all violence spring from similar causes or that all violence has same characteristics. That is a rather naïve understanding about violence or aggression in society.

Murder rate lower

A 1998 Unesco global study on media violence suggest that "depending on the personality characteristics of the children, and depending on their everyday-life experiences, media violence satisfies different needs: It 'compensates' own frustrations and deficits in problem-areas. It offers 'thrills' for children in a less problematic environment."

In the discussion on solutions to media violence, the same report suggests, "What are possible solutions? Probably more important than the media are the social and economic conditions in which children grow up", an expert in the field has this say: "Children in Canada and the United States watch virtually the same television. Yet, the murder rate in Canada, and the rate of
violence in general, is much lower than in the United States. Children in Japan watch probably the most violent, the most lurid and graphic television in the world, and the rate of violent crime there is minuscule compared to Canada and the United States."

In a 1996 article, the same scholar, Jonathan Freedman, observed that "Television is an easy target for the concern about violence in our society but a misleading one. We should no longer waste time worrying about this subject. Instead let us turn our attention to the obvious major causes of violence, which include poverty, racial conflict, drug abuse, and poor parenting."

Melanie Brown, an Australian academic, in a 1996 article makes the following observation: "Numerous research studies identify an association between exposure to violence in entertainment and violent behaviour, but do not prove that exposure causes violent behaviour. Rather, there is a risk that exposure to media violence will increase the likelihood of subsequent
aggressive behaviour. This risk can be increased or decreased by a large number of other factors." Counter studies can be quoted at length.

The more serious problem with CAP's attack on Tamil cinema involves the logic of their mode of argument. CAP's argument - and those who look up to CAP - starts from the media not the individual and group or society s/he belongs. This reversal is
really the problem with the "media effects" model of explanation.

Essentially, the tendency is to start an explanation from the media and make a flat and unsustainable connection to the individual. This kind of explanation is also highly psychological in nature, losing touch with the social environment. If an explanation starts from the individual-in-community, then the tendency will be to look at the social background, identity issues,
race/ethnicity issues, gender issues, etc. In this cluster of effects, media would just be one contributory factor.

It is time CAP stopped attacking Tamil cinema as a central cause of the Tamils/Indians social problems such as gangsterism and address the more critical issues faced by the community. Of course, media is not innocent. But it needs to be critically addressed and not causally over-valued.

Minority community

A third group of people likes to believe that the Tamil/Indian peoples' problems are really a result of socio-economic and political marginalisation. Assigning causal status to Tamil schools or Tamil cinema for problems within the Tamil community is really confusing issues and blurring the focus and diluting the seriousness of socio-economic and political marginalisation.

The Tamils are a working-class minority community, a community that has been, as a result of the developments in Malaysia, pushed from rural to urban poverty, from plantation worker to factory hand, from living in an estate environment to living in a squatter area. Serious problems within the community stem from the state of socio-economic powerlessness it faces.

The Tamils/Indians are a poor minority community and poverty has become an inter-generational problem, poverty reproducing poverty. Economic powerlessness, the size of its population and poor political foresight of the Indian leadership have also led to political powerlessness.

Consequently, within the national community, the Tamils do not have much bargaining power. The Tamil community and its problems are hardly addressed seriously and systematically in the national context. Perhaps the only problem that constantly gets national attention at present is the problem of gangsterism. Even this is addressed as a punitive strategy rather than a preventive one. As part the preventive strategy if there was one, one cannot overlook the importance of upgrading the Tamil school system.

Powerlessness in the community has led to many difficulties. For instance, the young Tamil Malaysian youths educational and career options are severely limited in comparison to the other communities. Tamil schools are faced with serious  problems affecting education of a poor minority community. The presence or use of Tamil in the marketplace or public places is confined or limited to Tamil/Indian areas. Tamil Malaysians who have brought fame to Malaysia are hardly treated as
"national heroes" and have found difficulties being recognised or rewarded as one. A few millionaires like Anantha Krishnan produced by the system do not really solve the problems related to the general marginalisation of the community. Ordinary Tamils/Indians Malaysians have an uphill task to deal with in relation to their poverty and marginalised status.

Serious implications

The assignment of Tamil cinema and/or Tamil schools as main causes of Tamil Malaysians community problems is not only limited and careless but also dilutes the focus on more serious preventive measures addressing the community's socio-economic and political marginalisation. The focus on Tamil cinema and Tamil schools carry a number of serious implications.

One, Tamils/Indians who are critics of Tamil school system or Tamil cinema seem to suggest that there is something wrong with the Tamil culture or the way it articulates. Indirectly their suggestions imply severe limitation of, if not the complete removal of, certain popular Tamil cultural forms/institutions.

While cultural criticism is important for societal re-learning, corrective actions and creative cultural intervention and evelopment, they have to be part of a strategy that takes into consideration the "larger picture".

Two, such a tendency, in the context of socio-economic and political powerlessness, directly contributes to a subtle assimilation
agenda. Thus, for instance, without the proper institutionalisation of Tamil education or the promotion of an active educational system promoting multiculturalism and multicultural competencies or the production of popular Tamil entertainment forms, including Tamil cinema, the unfortunate direction of change would be the progressive loss of Tamil identity. In this context, we can see for instance a new phenomenon in Malaysia - dark brown-skinned Tamils taking on the behaviour of or, portrayed as, "blacks"!

Three, we need to re-think our strategy of building a national Malaysian community. Is it by an assimilation agenda or by actively promoting mother tongue education and/or multi-culturalism? The global society, for instance, is concerned of many languages and many linguistic communities on the brink of extinction. According to a recent study, the National Geographic Magazine observes, "half of the world's 6,000 languages will become extinct in the next century [and] 2,000 of the remaining languages will be threatened during the century after that."

In this context, it should be our effort to preserve and actively promote cultural diversity, not in terms "muzeumising" it for the purpose of selling it to tourist but in terms living it actively. Mother tongue education is not really anti-national if we can work out practically how our children, in their respective cultural stream, also go through national social and cultural socialisation.

Four, there seem to be a careful avoidance of the issues of governance in a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society. Critics instead turn their attention on the consequences of bad and unsustainable governance instead of addressing the issues of bad or ineffective governance. Thus, the suggestion is "get rid of Tamil schools" not "Why it has failed or not doing well enough?"
This is really punishing the victim.

The debate over the problem of the Tamil/Indian Malaysian community will go on. I only hope that those in power to influence public opinion and popular action evaluate the situation carefully and propose a line of thinking and action that will help to deal with the cause of the problems faced by the Tamil/Indian Malaysian community rather than the symptoms.

Soi Lek calls for racial tolerance

 


KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 21 — Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek tonight called for racial tolerance and harmony amid a battle of wills between Umno and Malay rights group Perkasa.

The MCA president said racist remarks against any community should be considered as an insult to the whole country.

“Phrases such as ‘immigrants, go back to China or India’ and other derogatory remarks which have been said by certain parties against the Chinese and Indian community should not happen because we are all Malaysians.

“For Malaysians who love the country, these remarks should be an insult and action should be taken against the irresponsible parties,” he told the audience during the 1 Malaysia Lantern Festival at Wisma MCA here.

Dr Chua said Malaysians should be identified by their nationality and not their race.

“In line with the 1 Malaysia concept, we should seriously consider the question of race asked on each application form available at the moment.

“Our Malaysian citizenship should become the core of our identity and not our race or ancestry. For example, when we sit for an examination, does it make any difference if we are a Malay, Chinese or Indian?” he added.

Umno has appeared to be divided on whether to associate or alienate the party with the controversial Malay rights group.

Several Umno leaders including Pulai MP Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed and Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin have claimed that the party was not bowing to Perkasa’s demands.

But other leaders like Umno deputy permanent chairman Datuk Mohamed Aziz have said that there was no need for Umno to distance itself from Perkasa, and that if there were Umno leaders who felt that way, it was their personal views and did not reflect the party’s stand.

Datuk Seri Najib Razak said last Friday that Umno was not in conflict with any non-governmental organisations despite the recent move by party leaders to distance it from Perkasa.

Shortly after that, Umno secretary-general Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor said he had never asked party members to sever ties with Perkasa, denying an earlier statement where he was reported to have said that the country’s largest Malay party will not back Perkasa in the next general election and that the right-wing group was eroding the party’s non-Malay support.

Dr Chua stressed that there must be social and political stability for the country to achieve Vision 2020.

“I am confident that every Malaysian who loves the country has the responsibility to realise 1 Malaysia so we must always promote tolerance to ensure social and political stability. Only then can our country move forward and become a high-income nation by 2020,” he said.

The MCA has continuously been targeted by Perkasa and the Malay rights group has been the main instigator in a recent spat between the two largest parties in Barisan Nasional (BN).

Umno and the MCA appeared to be at each other’s throats when Dr Chua called for the removal of the 30 per cent Bumiputera equity target and urged the government to accept the 13 resolutions formulated during its recent Chinese Economic Congress.

Perkasa further fanned the fires when it attacked the MCA for allegedly questioning the “special rights of Malays” which it claimed were enshrined under the Federal Constitution.

Umno leaders then warned the MCA not to forget the BN’s struggles when fighting for the rights of the Chinese.

Perkasa has also lodged a police report against Dr Chua for questioning the 30 per cent Bumiputera equity target.

A-G gets police probe papers on Banting murders

KUALA LUMPUR: The police investigation papers on the murder of a cosmetics millionaire and three other people were handed over to the attorney-general today, Home Minister Hishammuddin Tun Hussein said.

He said the police were waiting for a DNA report and the complete investigation papers would be handed over to the attorney-general in a fortnight.

"I give the assurance that the complete report on the murders is expected to be ready in two more weeks," he told reporters after launching the police Facebook account and a media centre at the Bukit Aman police headquarters, here.

Sosilawati Lawiya, 47, her driver Kamaruddin Shamsudin, 44, lawyer Ahmad Kamil Abdul Karim, 32, and CIMB Bank officer Noorhisham Mohammad, 38, who were reported missing on Aug 30 after they had gone to Banting, Selangor, over a land deal, were killed, their bodies burnt and the ashes thrown into rivers in the vicinity of Ladang Gadong near Banting, according to police.

The police recovered bones and other items from the rivers and had picked up eight people, two of them lawyers, to facilitate their investigation into the murders.

Hishammuddin said he felt that the police had done a good job of investigating the murders, having uncovered sufficient evidence and arrested the suspects in a short time.

In PUTRAJAYA, Kuala Lumpur CID chief Ku Chin Wah met Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail today, apparently to hand over the investigation papers.

Ku was seen entering Abdul Gani's office at 11.45am and leaving about four hours later. He declined to speak with reporters.

Abdul Gani declined comment, but said the Attorney-General's Chambers would issue a statement soon.

New landscape
Hishammuddin, when asked whether the media had gone overboard in reporting on the murders, said the media could not be totally blamed although there were aspects which could have been improved.

"That is why now we are looking at a new landscape and a new approach; it's a partnership," he said in an apparent reference to the police Facebook account he had just launched.

Asked about the many comments and views conveyed through the Facebook social website to facilitate the police investigation into the murders, he said all the information was taken into account so long as it did not hamper the police investigation.

After launching the police Facebook account, www.facebook.com/pages/Polis-Diraja-Malaysia, Hishammuddin said the page would be a new channel for the people to lodge reports other than at police stations and through other means.

He said the ministry had a responsibility to use new methods to channel accurate information to avert any misunderstanding among the people over any case.

"I hope this facility at the central level can be extended eventually to the state, district and (police) station levels. It is vital to channel most accurate information. With threats (such as human trafficking, terrorism, drug smuggling and cyber crimes), new methods have to be introduced by way of an out-of-the-box approach," he said.

Inspector-General of Police Ismail Omar and Deputy IGP Hussin Ismail were present at the event.

-Bernama

Indonesia bans maids from leaving for Malaysia, Kuwait and Jordan

JAKARTA: Indonesia's Labour and Transmigration Minister Muhaimin Iskandar today announced that prospective maids from the country would be banned from leaving for Malaysia until the Indonesian goverment could assure their safety.

He said the move was being taken in response to the case where an Indonesian maid was allegedly abused by her employer in Penang on Sept 13.

He said action had to be taken to protect maids who went overseas to work despite not having valid documents to do so because they risked being abused.

"As such, do not leave for Malaysia until your (maids) safety is assured," he was quoted as saying in Denpasar, Bali, by the Kompas.Com. news portal.

Besides Malaysia, the ban also applies to prospective maids heading for Kuwait and Jordan.

Muhaimin also said that, for the maids' safety, the Indonesian government wanted them to be holding their own passports and be registered with the nearest Indonesian embassy or consulate office.

He also asked maid agencies in the republic to do their part to ensure maids sent by them to work overseas were adequately protected.

Indonesian maid Winfaedah, 26, who hails from Lampung, was reported to have been physically and sexually abused by her employer and his wife for months before being dumped by the roadside in Nibong Tebal, about 40km away from her employer's home on Penang island, on Sept 13.

A local resident had helped her to lodge a police report at the Nibong Tebal police station before she was admitted to a nearby hospital for treatment of wounds inflicted on her.

The Indonesian government had expressed its appreciation to Malaysian police for their quick in action in arresting the suspects involved.

- Bernama

Now, if only Muhyiddin Yassin can think like this

This was the e-mail I received yesterday from British Member of Parliament Nick Clegg who is the Leader of the Liberal Democrats as well as Deputy Prime Minister of Britain. Below that is his speech delivered at the party conference yesterday. If only the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia could think and talk like this. (This article is about 10 pages long but worth reading).

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Dear Petra,

Imagine you're asking a friend or neighbour to vote Liberal Democrat in the 2015 General Election.

Imagine how it will feel to say that in Government, the Liberal Democrats scrapped ID cards. To say we cut crime while stopping Labour's mass incarceration of children. That finally we have a fair tax system where the rich pay their share - and the lowest earners pay no income tax at all. You'll say we brought troops home from Afghanistan after they'd finished the difficult job we sent them to do.

You’ll be able to tell people they have a new right to sack MPs who do wrong, and that the party funding scandals of the past are history. And if we campaign hard enough in the referendum on Fairer Votes you'll be able to say the clapped out First Past the Post system is gone for good.

That is the goal, the prize, that I have set out in my speech to our Party Conference today.

In 2015 Britain will be a different country. For five years you and I will give it a different kind of government and a new politics. Five years of transforming the state and reversing generations of centralisation.

Five years of delivering fairer taxes, a fair start for every child, a rebalanced green economy, a cleaner politics - as we promised to do in our Liberal Democrat election manifesto.

The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are and always will be separate parties, with distinct histories and different futures. But for this Parliament we work together to fix the problems we face and put the country on a better path.

This is the right Government for right now.

Our first job is a difficult one - balancing the budget.

Let me be clear with you about this - we are not dismantling the state. Even when all the cuts have happened, the Government will still be spending the same proportion of national income as it did in 2006. We will not repeat the mistakes of previous recessions.

But to delay solving the deficit would mean the Government would soon be paying £70 billion a year on interest payments alone. We cannot ask our children to pay our credit card bills.

We have to do it so that Britain in 2015 can be a different country.

Strong, fair, free. A country we can be proud to hand on to our children.

Thank you for all your support and all your hard work. Together we will change Britain for good.

All best wishes,



Nick Clegg MP

Leader of the Liberal Democrats & Deputy Prime Minister

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

Nick Clegg’s speech to Autumn Conference

Mon, 20 Sep 2010

"Britain in 2010 is anxious, unsure about the future, but Britain in 2015 will be a different country. Strong, fair, free and full of hope again. A country we can be proud to hand on to our children. That is the goal we must keep firmly fixed in our minds. That is the prize."

Speaking at Liberal Democrat Autumn Conference today, Liberal Democrat Leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said:

Check against delivery

Two and a half years ago, I stood in this very hall to make my first speech as Leader of our party. I said that the chance for change was within our reach, and we had to seize it. That chance came. Perhaps not quite in the way many of us could have expected.

But the chance came and you – we – responded with real courage and conviction.

Cynics expected us to back away. Instead, we confounded those who said that coalition Government was impossible. We created a Government which will govern and govern well for the next five years.

Of course there are those who will condemn us. We are challenging years of political convention and tradition and our opponents will yell and scream about it. But I am so, so proud of the quiet courage and determination which you have shown through this momentous period in British political history.

Hold our nerve and we will have changed British politics for good. Hold our nerve and we will have changed Britain for good.

Just think what we’ve done already. We’ve ended the injustice of the richest paying less tax on investments than the poorest do on their wages. We’ve guaranteed older people a decent increase in their pension. In November, we will publish a Freedom Bill to roll back a generation of illiberal and intrusive legislation. By Christmas, Identity Card laws will be consigned to the history books. From New Year’s Day, the banks will pay a new levy that will help fill the black hole they helped create. On 1 April, 900,000 low earners will stop paying income tax altogether. In May, the people of Britain will get to choose their own voting system. And this time next year, there will be a pupil premium so the children who need the most help, get the most help.

We’ve always been the face of change. We are now the agents of change. And every single person in this room is part of that change. Actually there’s one contribution you all made to the success of the coalition negotiations that you probably aren’t aware of. Our formidable negotiating team got all the training they needed battling out policy right here on the conference floor.

Some things are different in government. Some are the same. I still think the war in Iraq was illegal. The difference is lawyers now get anxious when I mention it. I still believe in our commitments to the developing world. The difference is I get to make those commitments at a UN summit and make them happen. I still campaign for political reform. The difference is I’m now legislating for it as well. The only real problem is I’m still trying to explain to my children that going from leader to Deputy PM isn’t a demotion.

We will take risks in government. But we will never lose our soul. We haven’t changed our liberal values. Our status is different but our ambition is the same.

Remember the four big promises we made in the election campaign? For the first time in my lifetime, Liberal Democrats are able to deliver on those promises.

We promised no tax on the first £10,000 you earn. We’ve already raised the personal allowance by £1000. And in the coming years we will go further to put money back in the pockets of millions of low earners.

We promised more investment in the children who need the most help at school. It will happen at the start of the next school year.

We promised a rebalanced, green economy, a new kind of growth. Already we’re taking action on the banks. We’ve set up a regional growth fund. There will be a green investment bank to channel money into renewable energy. These are the first steps to rewire our economy. New jobs, new investment, new hope.

And we promised clean politics. We’re giving people the chance to change our voting system, cleaning up party funding and finally, a century after it should have happened, we are going to establish an elected House of Lords.

Those pledges we made, together, in the election of 2010, will be promises kept in the election of 2015. The Coalition Programme, which commits the government to making all these changes, is not the Liberal Democrat manifesto. But it is not the Conservative manifesto either. It is our shared agenda. And I stand by it. I believe in it. I believe it will change Britain for good.

Now, some say we shouldn’t have gone into government at a time when spending had to be cut. We should have let the Conservatives take the blame. Waited on the sidelines, ready to reap the political rewards. Maybe that’s what people expected from a party that has been in opposition for 65 years. People have got used to us being outsiders, against every government that’s come along. Maybe we got used to it ourselves. But the door to the change we want was opened, for the first time in generations.

Imagine if we had turned away. How could we ever again have asked the voters to take us seriously? Labour left the country’s coffers empty. So the years ahead will not be easy. But you do not get to choose the moment when the opportunity to shape your country comes your way. All you get to choose is what you do when it does. We chose a partnership government.

The truth is I never expected the Conservatives to embrace negotiation and compromise. But they did and it does them credit. David Cameron showed he could think beyond his party and help build a new kind of politics. The election result didn’t give a single party the mandate to govern. It gave all parties the mandate to govern differently. We answered that call. And one of the most remarkable surprises of this Coalition Government is that our parties are not, despite so many cynical predictions, simply settling for the lowest common denominator between us.

Instead, we have become more than the sum of our parts. For those of us who believe in plural politics, that’s not a surprise. In life, two heads are usually better than one. And in politics, too, when the country faces grave challenges – the deficit, the threat of climate change, a war in Afghanistan, millions of children trapped in disadvantage – two parties acting together can be braver, fairer and bolder than one party acting alone.

The new politics – plural politics, partnership politics, coalition politics – is the politics our nation needs today. The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are and always will be separate parties, with distinct histories and different futures. But for this Parliament we work together: To fix the problems we face and put the country on a better path. This is the right Government for right now.

Our first job, however, is a difficult one. Balancing the budget. I did not come into politics to make spending cuts. But it is the only choice if we want to steer Britain out of the economic mess Labour made. The only choice if we want to bring back hope and optimism to our nation. We are gripped by a crisis, and it’s the worst kind: it’s invisible.

You can’t see the debts mounting up.

Walk the high street, go to work, talk to your friends, you won’t see the signs of our debts or our deficit. The numbers sound alarming, but in the end they’re just numbers. It doesn’t feel like we can’t afford things.

So how did this debt crisis happen? Put simply, over the course of the recession, 6% of our economy disappeared. The shock was so profound that even now the economy is growing, we are poorer today than we thought we would be. All the old predictions about our future economy – predictions on which spending plans had been based – have turned out to be wrong. We can’t keep spending money as if nothing had changed.

The problems are there. They are real. And we have to solve them. It’s the same as a family with earnings of £26,000 a year who are spending £32,000 a year. Even though they’re already £40,000 in debt. Imagine if that was you. You’d be crippled by the interest payments. You’d set yourself a budget. And you’d try to spend less. That is what this government is doing.

This isn’t new for Liberal Democrats. Speak to councillors who’ve led councils across the country; they know what it’s like to pick up the pieces after Labour spent a community dry. Newcastle, Sheffield, Lambeth, Southwark, and right here in Liverpool. Our Council leaders know the poorest are the ones that suffer when the finances get out of control and money has to be spent on debts. They know there is nothing fair about denying you have a problem and leaving it for the next generation to clear it up. Would you ask your children to pay your credit card bill?

I’ve heard some people say that the cuts we are making are somehow taking Britain back to the 1980s, or the 1930s. Dismantling the state. It isn’t true. Even when all the cuts have happened, we will still be spending 41% of our national income – the same amount we were spending in 2006.

The Spending Review is about balance and responsibility not slash and burn. Of course, I wish there was a pain-free alternative. Who wouldn’t? But whatever Labour say now, there isn’t one. Not even in Alistair Darling’s old plans – they too would have meant massive cuts. Delay won’t solve the problems – in fact, it would make them worse.

We could have decided to go more slowly but it would have worsened not eased the pain. Because every day you ignore a deficit, it gets harder to fix. The debts mount up and you have to pay interest on them. Already we are spending £44bn a year on interest alone. Under Labour’s plans, that would have risen to nearly £70bn. A criminal waste of money that shouldn’t be lining the pockets of bond traders. It should be paying for police, care workers, hospitals and schools.

That’s why this government’s aim is that by the time of the next election, our debt problems will be solved; our debts falling as a proportion of national income. We will have wiped the slate clean for a new generation.

In making these changes we will learn from the mistakes of previous recessions.

We will not repeat the mistakes of the 1980s in which whole communities were hollowed out. I know from my constituents in Sheffield how worried people are that cuts will hurt the North in the way the industrial changes of the 1980s did. So let me say to everybody in those communities, in Scotland and in Wales, many of whose lives were torn apart. Yes, it will be difficult, but it will not be like the 80s. We will not let that happen. We will make these cuts as fairly as possible.

Finding money for the pupil premium to help children get the best start in life. Reforming welfare to help people get back to work.

We will not let capital spending – investment in new buildings, infrastructure and repairs – be swept away as it has in the past. We have a billion pound Regional Growth Fund targeted specifically at creating growth in those areas of the country that have been dependent on public sector jobs. We’ve offered a National Insurance tax break to employers who set up new companies outside London and the wider South East. And we are determined to wean the economy off Labour’s lop sided obsession with financial services in the City of London. Rebalancing our economy - so opportunity is never again concentrated only in the south east corner of our island. So no matter what your background or where you live, you have the opportunities you crave.

The destination is the right one but getting there is going to be hard. To those thousands of people who work in the public sector, who do such an outstanding job in our schools, hospitals, police forces and local councils, I say this:

I know these are very unsettling times for you. I will not disguise the fact that we need to take difficult decisions today to ensure there are good, affordable public services tomorrow. We have protected the funding for the NHS, the biggest public service of all.

We will provide more, not less, money for the children in our schools who need the most help. But I know you will be thinking: why should you have to make any sacrifices to deal with a recession you didn’t cause?

Why are the bankers who helped create the mess not taking more of the blame? Why should you have to accept a pay freeze, or changes to your pension, when the richest still get away with paying little or no tax at all? I agree.

That’s why we imposed a levy on the banks in our first budget. It’s why we’re working hard with our friends in Europe and beyond on the idea of a financial activities tax on profits, pay and bonuses. It’s why we’re going to be forcing the banks to own up about the ludicrous pay and bonuses they give out. It’s why our Banking Commission is looking at whether to split the banks up completely to keep our economy safe. And it’s why we’re working flat out to get the banks lending again to small businesses, the lifeblood of our economy.

We have done more in five months than Labour ever did to sort out the greed and the recklessness of the banks. Our approach is simple: they helped bring down our economy. It must never happen again.

People who avoid and evade paying their taxes will no longer get away with it either. We all read the headlines about benefit fraud. We all agree it’s wrong when people help themselves to benefits they shouldn’t get. But when the richest people in the country dodge their tax bills that is just as bad. Both come down to stealing money from your neighbours.

We will be tough on welfare cheats. But unlike Labour, we’ll be tough on tax cheats too. We will crack down on the super rich who hide away money overseas. We will take on organised crime gangs set up to avoid tax. And we will prosecute five times as many tax cases as Labour ever did.

So the message is loud and clear: Just as the public sector must be made affordable, the banks must be held to account. And tax avoiders and evaders must have nowhere to hide.

I want to make something crystal clear about the coming Spending Review. It is not an ideological attack on the size of the state. There is one reason and one reason only for these cuts: As Liam Byrne said in that infamous letter: there isn’t any money left.

It’s not smaller government I believe in. It’s a different kind of government: a liberating government. This government will transform the state. Reversing generations of centralisation. Putting power into people’s hands. Because the job of government is not to run people’s lives. It is to help people to run their own.

I want Britain to have the best schools and hospitals in the world. But that doesn’t mean we should be controlling them all from Whitehall. Governments that have the arrogance to imagine that 100 ministers and 1,000 civil servants can fix the country all by themselves. Governments like that fail.

So we will restore power to people, families, communities, neighbourhoods and councils. Turning the tide of centralisation and for the first time giving power away. Councils, like all parts of government, are going to have to make do with less money in the years ahead. But they will have more freedom than ever before.

Labour rattled on about decentralisation, but they held the purse strings tight. We are different; we are liberal. Because we will put local government back in charge of the money it raises and spends. That’s why in our first budget we unlocked more than a billion pounds of ring-fenced grants. That’s why we will end central capping of Council Tax. That’s why we will allow councils to keep some of the extra business rates and council tax they raise when they enable new developments to go ahead.

And I can announce today that we will be giving local authorities the freedom to borrow against those extra business rates to help pay for additional new developments. This may not make the pulses race, even at a Liberal Democrat conference. But I assure you it is the first step to breathing life back into our greatest cities.

Our leaders in Sheffield say it could allow the redevelopment of derelict mines in the Don Valley; our leaders in Newcastle believe this could help them create a new science park; in Leeds they argue the Aire Valley could be transformed. But whether in Newcastle, in Sheffield, in Leeds or indeed in every city in the UK. What matters most is that finally, they will be in the driving seat, instead of waiting for a handout from Whitehall. Local people, local power, local change.

The same approach – financial freedom – is governing our relationship with Scotland and Wales, too. That’s why we are taking forward the Calman Commission to give Scotland real freedom and responsibility over its own money. And why, if the referendum for more devolution in Wales is successful, we will take forward a similar process for the Senedd. Giving the nations of the UK the freedom they deserve.

Putting power in local hands is one of the many things Labour never really understood. The Labour leadership candidates are trying to rewrite history. But we remember. Civil liberties destroyed on an industrial scale. A widening gap between rich and poor. Failure to act on the environment. Locking up more children than anywhere else in western Europe. Kowtowing to the banks. A foreign policy forged in George Bush’s White House. The invasion of Iraq.

And then, on top of all that they brought the country to the brink of bankruptcy. Writing cheques, even in the final days of their government that they knew would bounce. This country could not have borne five more years of Labour.

Has anyone else lost track of the books Labour people keep publishing? Never in the field of political memoirs, has so much been written by so few about so little. They went from nationalisation to serialisation. From The Third Way to a third off at the book shop.

And the next generation is still fighting the same backstabbing battles instead of talking about the future for Britain. We held a public consultation about the Spending Review.

We had 100,000 ideas from members of the public about how to cut waste and do things more effectively. And not a single idea from the Labour Party.

I want to say something to whoever is elected as the next Labour leader. You cannot duck difficult choices forever. All you have done in the last four months is carp and complain. But a decent opposition has to provide a decent alternative. Your party let people down in government. Until you face up to your responsibility for the state we’re in you’ll let people down in opposition too.

Labour did some good things, of course they did. But just think what they could have done. With enormous majorities, 13 years and money to spare. The best opportunity for real fairness there has been in my lifetime. But imprisoned by timidity they squandered a golden age.

We must now take up the challenge that Labour ducked. We must do more, even though they left us with less. When faced with the daunting task of reducing our deficit, the temptation might have been to go slow elsewhere. One difficult task at a time – that would have been the cautious response. But it wasn’t our response.

Because I believe at times of great difficulty, great things can still be done. At times of great difficulty, great things must be done. Some say we’ve bitten off more than we can chew. I say there’s no time to wait. We could wait to solve the welfare crisis, but every day people struggle to get back into work. We could wait to give our children a better start at school, but they only get the chance to grow up once. We could wait to reform our prisons, but every day offenders leave prison and go straight back to crime. We could wait to cut the deficit, but every day, we spend £120m servicing our debts, and that’s £120m we can’t spend on our children.

We have four years and seven months before the next election. 1690 days. We’re not going to waste a single second. There is no time for the old go-slow, timid governments of the past. We’re keeping our eyes on the horizon, not on the headlines. Building, brick by brick, day by day, the changes Britain needs.

Of course the ambition of these reforms will provoke controversy. I know some people, for instance, are worried about our plans for expanding Academies, as we heard this morning.

It wouldn’t be Liberal Democrat conference if we didn’t have a motion that provoked strong passions on both sides. The great thing is that all Liberal Democrats share a passion for education. When it comes to lasting fairness education is everything.

So I want to be really clear about what the government is proposing. It’s not Labour’s academies programme: a few schools singled out for preferential treatment - a cuckoo in the nest that eats up attention and resources. We’re opening up the option of Academy freedom to all schools. Because if one head teacher is free to run their classes in the way they know is best, why shouldn’t all head teachers be free?

My vision is that every school, in time, will be equal, every school equally free. But there’s one freedom new schools shouldn’t have. Freedom to select. The whole concept of our reforms falls apart if you use it to expand selection – because instead of children and parents choosing schools, you get schools choosing children. So we have made it absolutely clear: we will allow people to set up new schools but we will not allow them to pick and choose the brightest. No to more selection.

Welfare reform will be controversial too. Benefit reform is difficult in times of plenty, but essential when money is tight. Labour’s welfare system simply isn’t fair. It pays people to live without hope of a better life instead of paying to help them build a better life. A liberal welfare system is different. It’s built around work. I believe in work. Work is essential to a person’s sense of self worth, their identity.

We will only build the fair, mobile society we want. If we make it easy for everyone to get out to work and get on in life. And that’s what this government will do.

So the immediate future will not be easy, but the long term prize is great. I want you to imagine what you will say to people when you knock on their door at the next General Election.

Imagine how it will feel to say that in Government, Liberal Democrats have restored civil liberties, scrapped ID cards, and got innocent people’s DNA off the police database.

Imagine how it will feel to say that our Government has taken action to cut reoffending, and cut crime, while stopping Labour’s mass incarceration of children.

We will have withdrawn our combat troops from Afghanistan, our brave servicemen and women having completed the difficult job we asked them to do.

You will be able to explain that finally, we have a fair tax system where the rich pay their share, and the lowest earners pay no income tax at all.

Our banking levy will have raised £10bn, reckless bonuses for short term gain will have ended, and banks will be lending responsibly again.

Imagine how it will feel to visit home after home that our Green Deal has made warm and affordable to heat.

You’ll be able to tell people they have a new right to sack MPs who do wrong, and that the party funding scandals of the past are history.

You’ll be campaigning alongside Liberal Democrat candidates for the House of Lords.

And if the British people say yes to the Alternative Vote in the referendum next May – forcing MPs to work harder for your vote – then you will also be able to say that the clapped out politics of First Past the Post is gone for good.

To those who are angry now about the difficult decisions needed to balance the budget you’ll be able to show that those decisions have set us on a better course with new growth and jobs that last.

And, finally, you’ll be able to say that all this has been delivered by a totally new way of doing politics. Never again will anyone be able to frighten the voters by claiming that coalition Government doesn’t work. Liberal, plural politics will feel natural; the sane response to a complex and fast-changing world. Just imagine how different our country will be.

Britain in 2010 is anxious, unsure about the future, but Britain in 2015 will be a different country. Strong, fair, free and full of hope again. A country we can be proud to hand on to our children. That is the goal we must keep firmly fixed in our minds. That is the prize.

The years ahead will not be easy but they will make the difference our country needs. Stick with us while we rebuild the economy. Stick with us while we restore our civil liberties, protect our environment, nurture our children and repair our broken politics. Stick with us and together we will change Britain for good.

Malaysia's recipe for disaster

education.jpg
By Aizuddin Danian,
 
This has got to be the most sombre and depressing article i've read in many moons. Why? Because its true. All of it.

Fast forward to the present and it would be very hard for any graduate to follow my act without substantial help from their parents. No, I wasn't from the privileged class and I didn't get a leg-up from my parents, save for the education they gave me. Present day graduates start their working life at RM1800 to RM2000 a month, not a lot of difference from 25 years ago but prices of everything have tripled and quadrupled. A hawker meal now cost RM5 (drinks extra), prices of cars and houses have grossly outpaced income and there are new expenses like toll, hand phones, Astro and internet. Our ringgit has depreciated against foreign currencies making consumer goods and overseas travel more expensive. To put it simply, real income has declined.

If its this bad for us of this generation now, imagine how bad it'll be for the next. Unless we do something about it.

Blaming this on BN's corruption is convenient (while arguably also being true). I'm not yet convinced, as some others are, that simply voting in an alternative Government in GE13 will make that much of a difference. Of course, i'm ready to be proven wrong on that point, but my gut tells me that there is something systemically wrong with Malaysia for us to have gone down this path. Something that can't be voted away; a devil in different clothes is still the devil.

Could it be policy errors, has Malaysia focused on the wrong things over the years? The reason why Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea has taken such awesome strides in the last 2 decades could be a result of their economic policies -- they focused on financial services (Singapore) and high-technology industrialization (Taiwan and South Korea). While we were stuck with crops and agriculture and tin. We did well when the world needed those things in abundance (circa 1960s-70s-early 80s), but when the rest of the world moved on, did we follow?

Are we making the same mistakes now with our reliance on oil and gas to fuel (pun intended) our economy? I don't know how much longer that source of income will last, but it can't be forever, probably not even through my lifetime. What do we do when that runs out too?

Have our forays into high-tech like the MSC or high-industrialization like the automobile industry been in vain? In principle, probably not. After all, it worked elsewhere, why wouldn't it work in Malaysia? Good ideas are good ideas but its also true that no good idea survives when starved of a solid supporting framework. And, to me, that's what we've missed the boat on.

How good is our human capital? The first thing a manager is taught is that your people are your company's life. You are only as good as your worst employee. The same must be true of a country. We are only as good as our worst citizen. Sadly, they've been just too many of those.

It's not their fault, not entirely anyways. This is where government comes in, the investment in the human capital of a nation is probably the highest priority of any developing nation, and that's been our greatest failure. Singapore did it. Taiwan, Korea, and even China today is doing it. 

Development of human capital means education. It means taking the roots of the country, our children, and giving them mental fortitude and strength to carry the nation on their shoulders. We didn't do any of this. The school system, fragmented by the need to have national schools, non-national schools, chinese schools, madrasahs (islamic schools), and everything in between is a mess of epic proportions. By trying to cater to everyone, we end up helping no one. 

The syllabus is poor (you can't expect ill-qualified teachers to teach something beyond their own capacity to understand), the curriculum subject to political whims (English should have been made the language of at least half the subjects in schools) and the bar constantly being shifted in order to ensure a good Ministry of Education report card (doesn't it concern anyone that straight "A" SPM students can hardly speak English, fail their university Matriculation and do poorly at international-standard exams such as GCE?). 
Compare this to what a world-class education looks like: 

The following minimum courses of study in mandatory subjects are required in nearly all U.S. high schools:
    • Science (usually two years minimum, normally biology, chemistry and physics)
    • Mathematics (usually two years minimum, normally including algebra, statistics, geometry, algebra II, and/or precalculus/trigonometry)
    • English (usually four years minimum, including literature, humanities, composition, oral languages etc.)
    • Social sciences (usually three years minimum, including various history, government/economics courses)[30]
    • Physical education (at least one year)

Common types of electives include:
    • Computers (word processing, programming, graphic design)
    • Athletics (cross country, football, baseball, basketball, track and field, swimming, tennis, gymnastics, water polo, soccer, wrestling, cheerleading, volleyball, lacrosse, ice hockey, field hockey, boxing, skiing/snowboarding)
    • Publishing (journalism/student newspaper, yearbook/annual, literary magazine)
    • Performing Arts/Visual Arts, (choir, band, orchestra, drama, art, ceramics, photography, and dance)
    • Foreign languages (Spanish, French are common; Chinese, Latin, Greek, German, Italian, Arabic, and Japanese are less common)
    • Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps
Taught by, at the minimum, Master degree holders (with wages exceeding US$50k a year), the curriculum is designed to create a well-rounded student. Not everyone is a genius, and for those that aren't, the education system prepares them with the skills they can appreciate. The truly talented are taken aside and fully rewarded and developed with courses that are meaningful to them. Compare that to Malaysia where teachers are under-paid, under-appreciated, under-trained. Where the good, the bad, the ugly students are all just lumped together -- they all learn the same thing at the same pace, with a syllabus designed to train the lowest common denominator rather than being flexible enough to excite the brightest minds the nation has to offer.

Most importantly, their students are given the freedom and are encouraged to think. While ours? Programmed through rote learning at best, punished for thinking out of the box at worst. That's what you get when life revolves around examinations and the ability to reproduce exact answers for objective questions. The world isn't white or black, not even A or B, its certainly not a multiple choice question. 

We were never taught the difference. Look inside yourselves, you know it's true. For those of you fortunate enough to study overseas, the truth is even more painfully obvious. 

The cycle continues into tertiary education. Far too few good teachers, far too many ordinary students who only know one way to study -- swallow the textbook and regurgitate it when requested. It's no wonder that our universities score so poorly every year on international scoreboards. A university full of weak students will never attract the best educators. Without the best educators, you won't have research (thus those abysmal world rankings), and you certainly won't have the development of good students. Of course, exceptions exist. But a country is built on backs of the masses, not it's exceptions.

Then you get people in the workforce, a product of decades of poor learning. What do you expect then? A miracle? No, you get an average workforce, unable to compete with the best the world has to offer. The very best talent become frustrated and leave in search of recognition and a more challenging environment. 700,000 bright Malaysians working overseas with few wanting to return? If that's not a damning indictment of our country's conditions, then nothing is. An already weak, intellectually and talent wise, workforce becomes just that much more weaker without bright stars around it to act as motivators and role models. Then, lack of competition breeds laziness and a dearth of inspiration.

Then you get Malaysia. That's our recipe. That's how we arrived.

Seems like a lot to lay on the backs of a country's education system, but that's where the truth really lies. The roots of a nation make it strong or weak. The stronger the roots, the greater the tree. Education is the fertilizer of powerful roots. 

Scare stories of corruption, lies and deceit from the incumbent may bring an alternative government to power the next time we go to the polls. But until we get our roots right, there is only so far this country will go.

Stop Bullying! Vote to stop demolition of 2nd Orang Asli Church in Kelantan, Malaysia

By Haris Ibrahim,

A second Orang Asli church in Kelantan is facing the prospect of demolition for reasons still unknown to the native community there.

This cannot be right.

We have a duty to protect the right of our fellow anak Bangsa Malaysia to profess and practise the faith of their choice.

This must include the right to have a house of worship in close proximity to their community to approach God as their conscience dictates.

You can do your part by lending your signature to a petition to speak up for the rights of our Orang Asli brothers and sisters.

To view and sign the petition, click the photo below of the church in question that is still under construction.
The new church under construction

Bini puaka: Mahasiswa adakan himpunan



Solidariti Mahasiswa Malaysia (SMM) menyeru seluruh mahasiswa turun ke Mahkamah Jalan Duta 24 September ini bagi mendengar keputusan perbicaraan kes “bini puaka” melibatkan lima pelajar Universiti Malaya (UM).

Setiausaha SMM, Mohd Ridzuan Othman berkata, himpunan itu sebagai menyatakan harapan keadilan di peringkat seluruh mahasiswa kepada institusi kehakiman di Malaysia.

For the rest of this report in Harakahdaily, click on the poster.

Killer Cheese!!

Image(Asia Sentinel) Exporting uranium is the best course in Oz

A recent article in The Australian by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam about nuclear power was, predictably enough, severely fact-challenged. Ludlam tries to make out that nuclear power reactors are on the way out, when in fact, they are making a big comeback, particularly in Asia. No fewer than 88 new power reactors are scheduled to open in the next seven years.

Another example of his wrongheadedness is the statement that private companies won't invest in nuclear – but they do. I could go on, but it's much easier to pick out the things he says that are true, such as, "We still earn more from our cheese exports than from uranium."

Surprisingly – at least in the most recent 2008/2009 figures – this one checks out, reflecting on how successful Australia's dairy industry is, and how restricted our uranium mines have been over a long period of time. But this got us to thinking – how does Australia's cheese export industry compare to Australia's uranium export industry in other ways?

Firstly, to safety: Australia's dairy industry is far more dangerous than our uranium industry. There have been numerous on-farm deaths recorded most years - including deaths of children - while uranium mining, often carried out in open cut mines or in-situ leaching, are pretty safe forms of mining, particularly in comparison to coal mining. Certainly, if the same number of deaths that occurred on dairy farms occurred in uranium mines, it would make headline news.

But what about the end results of the production?

Nuclear is easily one of the safest forms of energy production, and if it replaces coal mining, it probably saves lives of people working at energy plants and the general public who have to breathe the air.

Meanwhile, in developed countries, the biggest cause of death is coronary disease. One of the contributors to coronary disease is fatty foods - like cheese. So arguably, uranium is better for us than cheese. But who cares about the welfare of people, I hear you cry – what about the environment?

Dairy farms take up about 2 million hectares of Australia's most fertile land – some of it that might be rainforest if left to its own devices - while uranium mines scarcely take up 50,000 hectares in arid and remote parts of the nation.

Dairy farming is also Australia's thirstiest agricultural endeavor, taking up about 25 percent of all the water used in Australia for irrigation.

How about carbon emissions?

Cows emit large amounts of potent greenhouse gases, whereas the uranium we export has the potential to replace about 80 percent of all of Australia's carbon emissions.

Aha - but what about radioactivity, I hear you ask?

Nuclear power reactors do not emit much radioactivity - indeed, you are far better living next to one than a coal-fired power station, which spews out nasty radioactive elements in fly ash. Radioactive waste can be dropped down a hole, where it can rest with all the other radioactive elements. It's no biggie.

Cheese, on the other hand, contains potassium 40, a radioactive element with a half-life of 1.3 billion years. Combine this with the nasty doses of radiation you can get from your cheese grater – and even worse from your kitchen bench top and you have a recipe for more than just a cheese sandwich.

So, given all of these factors, why is it that the government is not banning the export of this potentially harmful, yet simultaneously delicious, cheese?

The answer is because it would be a very, very stupid idea – but it's actually somewhat less absurd than Scott Ludlam's antiquated anti-nuclear arguments.

Gavin Atkins blogs for Asian Correspondent, with which Asia Sentinel has a content-sharing agreement, under the title
The Shadowlands ( http://asiancorrespondent.com/gavin-atkins-shadowlands )

’1Malaysia’ – the enemy within

Christopher Barnabas | Malaysiakini

As the nation celebrated the 47th anniversary of the formation of Malaysia, it is crucial to note that we are a nation divided at unprecedented levels in the history of the country. While political ideologies may differ from both sides of the divide, it is the treacherous levels of racism and extremism that are most disturbing to the common people today.

It was timely that during his Malaysia Day message entitled ‘Our Fight against Extremism’, Najib Abdul Razak took upon himself to warn against the rise of extremism in the country, articulating his sadness that by rejecting the diverse way of life, they are rejecting his ’1Malaysia’ vision.

Going through some government websites, I came across the ’1Malaysia’ concept paper, with one key point that stood out particularly clearly: ‘Malaysians, regardless of race or religion need to think and act as one race, that is the Malaysian race, that thinks and acts towards a common goal to build a world that is prosperous, progressive, peaceful, and safe thus enabling it to compete with the other communities in the world’.

Now having read that, let us examine several unsettling incidences since its inception which have resulted to an absolute failure of this vision thus far:

1. The Mahathir factor: The longest-serving former Umno president/PM of Malaysia has been labeled the ‘father of all racism’ by an Umno cabinet minister last year. Not surprising therefore that he appears unconvinced publicly about the ’1Malaysia’ vision. Recently, he went as far as to conclude that even the newly proposed NEM which supports ‘merit-based’ policies are clouded with a racist agenda, prompting Zaid Ibrahim to diagnose him as having a psychological disorder.

2. Malay First: Muhyiddin Yassin’s insistence that he is Malay First, and then only a Malaysian contradicts the very foundation of the 1Malaysia vision. Obviously, our DPM either doesn’t subscribe to the 1Malaysia vision, or he is showing outright defiance of our PM.

3. The ‘Allah’ issue: The issue of non-Muslims using the word would not have been an issue in the first place had the Umno-led government respected the legitimate rights of other faiths communities. Even PAS agrees that historically, the word ‘Allah’ predates Islam, with the word being used by other faiths in all other Muslim dominated countries worldwide. A suggestion by an Umno leader that non-Muslims in Sabah and Sarawak be allowed to use the word, while those in the peninsula are banned seems incomprehensible.

4. Cow-head protest: Hissammudin Hussien’s infamous defense of this disgraceful extremist act potentially led to a form of ‘suburban terrorism’ in various parts of the country. Numerous religious sites were vandalised, where violence and intimidation were used to achieve a racist agenda.

5. Umno posterboys: Who could ever forget the ‘pendatang’ comment of Ahmad Ismail from Penang, then Najib’s aid (Nasir Zafar) Chinese women came as prostitutes and Indians as beggars’ remark, and Azhar Ibrahim’s (Penang Umno) May 13 threat? Not to be outdone, Umno appointed Perak Mufti Harussani continues with his lies, such as Muslims conversion in a Perak church or an alternative constitution erasing the special rights of the Malays.

6. Biro Tata Negara: Racism isn’t born; rather it has to be taught. BTN courses serve this purpose surely. Muslim civil servants have long complaint that BTN teachings cultivated racism instead of nation building. Instead of being the catalyst in promoting the 1Malaysia vision to future leaders of our nation, we now have school principals and teachers churning our racial slurs reminiscing Mugabe’s Zimbabwe or the Apartheid regime, surely a result of the Umno-BTN indoctrination.

7. Utusan Malaysia: The mouthpiece of Umno has been propagating outright racial and extremist commentaries, recently suggesting a massive war to take place shortly between the Malays and non-Malays. How and why Utusan remains defiant and bold in its reporting indicates clearly the stand taken by its owners.

8. The ‘doa’ by the Penang khatib: Instead of investigating first, Penang Umno chief Ahmad Zahid sensationalised the matter almost into a racial catastrophe. As it turned out, the preacher confirmed it was his own doing with no directives from Guan Eng as originally insinuated. Religious differences aside, since when does praying for someone from a different faith warrants a police case?

9. Sabahans bullied: From the agreed rotational chief minister role, Umno has taken a firm grip of this position, recently publicly demanding seats that historically belong to BN component parties. Illegal immigrants continue to be rampant with annual renewal of immigration permits for over 84,000 refugees, with signs of new refugee settlements being organized in the state.

10. Perkasa: An off-shoot of Umno with Mahathir and Ibrahim Ali leading the pack, this group advocates extreme racial politics to disgusting levels. Umno leaders participate in this movement’s activities, while many of its members coming from Umno itself. Enough reports about this group, so I shun say more to prevent further publicity for this ‘neo-Nazi’ movement!

Surely there are more points to be added, but if we just examine these facts, it is clear that the positive intentions of the 1Malaysia vision have failed miserably since its highly publicized launch last year. Disregarding our political affiliations, we cannot deny the fact that Malaysia truly needs this vision to unite our divided nation.

The only option for success is therefore to eliminate the root cause of the problem, which is none other than Umno. Collectively as a party, Umno is beyond transformation. It is an institution that currently thrives on extreme ethnic and tribal sentiments, even confirmed as being a racist party by Mahathir last year. It was therefore baffling to hear Dr Chua Soi Lek defending the party recently, stating that Umno is not a racist party. It would be interesting to hear his comments on the points listed above.

However, not everyone in Umno can be considered as being the antithesis of 1Malaysia, judging from some refreshing views from the likes of Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, Nazri Abdul Aziz, Khairy Jamaluddin and even Najib himself, but individually however, they will be buried with their views within the party. It would be ideal that these ‘transformers’ leave Umno and form alliance with the true believers of ’1Malaysia’ before they face extinction from the political landscape in the country.

It is worth to remember these words: ‘You don’t fight racism with racism. The best way to fight racism is with solidarity’ – by Bobby Seale. As we celebrate the formation of Malaysia, let us all, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, unite to purge this tumor known as Umno into destruction in order to accomplish the vision of a peaceful, just, and truly united 1Malaysia.