Perkasa anjur himpunan ‘Raja Berdaulat, Kasih Dijunjung’

Tema 'Ke Titisan Darah Terakhir Demi Raja dan Negara' menjadi pemangkin semangat kepada perhimpunan pada kali ini.

KUALA LUMPUR: Pertubuhan Pribumi Perkasa Malaysia (Perkasa) akan menganjurkan perhimpunan yang dikenali ‘Raja Berdaulat, Kasih Dijunjung’ pada 29 April ini sebagai tanda taat setia kepada Raja-raja Melayu.

Sambil mengalu-alukan penyertaan rakyat daripada pelbagai kaum, Presidennya Datuk Ibrahim Ali berkata pihaknya telah memohon kelulusan Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur untuk menggunakan sama ada Dataran Merdeka atau Padang Merbuk sebagai tempat perhimpunan.

Ketika ditemui FMT beliau berkata, tema ‘Ke Titisan Darah Terakhir Demi Raja dan Negara’ menjadi pemangkin semangat kepada perhimpunan pada kali ini bagi menarik seramai mungkin ahli dan orang ramai.

Menurut Timbalan Presiden, Datuk Abd Rahman, perhimpunan ini juga bagi meraikan Pertabalan Duli Yang Maha Mulia Seri Paduka Baginda Yang Dipertuan Agung ke-14, Sultan Abdul Halim Mu’adzam Shah di Istana Negara Jalan Duta pada 11 April lepas.

Beliau mengecam tindakan Pakatan Rakat yang didakwa mengejek dan mempersendakan Raja-Raja Melayu ketika majlis pertabalan tempoh hari.

Abdul Rahman berkata, mereka tidak berpeluang untuk bersama-sama dalam Balairong Seri Istana Negara bagi mengikuti adat istiadat majlis pertabalan Tuanku.

“Bukan seperti wakil rakyat Pakatan yang diberi keistimewaan hadir dalam Balairong Sri Istana Negara pada majlis tersebut.

Bukannya mahu menjaga tata tertib bahkan mengejek dan mempersenda Raja-Raja Melayu termasuk Perdana Menteri,” katanya dalam

sidang media di luar Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah (IPD) Dang Wangi petang tadi.

“Perkasa akan tentang habis-habisan pihak yang cuba menghapuskan sistem pemerintahan raja berperlembagaan dan menukar negara ini menjadi sebuah negara republik.

“Perkasa akan terus pertahan dan memperkasakan Raja-Raja Melayu. Itu adalah satu perjuangan Perkasa yang tercatat dalam Perlembagaan Perkasa,” tegas beliau.

‘Cops bashed me’ man charged with ‘bashing’ cop

Technician S Morle, who claimed he was beaten till he fainted, has been accused of throwing a beer can at a police inspector during the Thaipusam festival.

GEORGE TOWN: A 30-year-old technician, who claimed he was assaulted by 20 policemen during the Thaipusam festival, has been charged with assaulting a police officer instead.

S Morle from Padang Serai claimed trial for the charge under Section 186 of the Penal Code for obstructing a public officer.

He was charged with throwing a beer can at Inspector M Chandran during the Thaipusam festival chariot procession return trip.

Morle was charged with committing the offence at a public sitting area along the Jalan Penang-Lebuh Chulia junction, located opposite Odeon Cinema, between 2am and 2.30am on Feb 9.

The charge carries a maximum two-year jail or a fine up to RM10,000 or both upon conviction.

Morle, represented by lawyers RS Nethaji Rayer and S Raveentharan, pleaded not guilty before Magistrate Noor Aini Yusof after DPP Nur Azizan Jaafar read out the charge. He posted a RM2,000 bail with one surety.

Last Tuesday, the technician revealed that he lodged an official complaint with Suhakam claiming that a group of policemen had beaten him till he bled and fainted.

Morle, who also lodged a police report on the incident, told a press conference organised by Suaram that he received intensive medical treatment for his injuries.

Morle claimed that he was holding a bottle of beer wrapped in a plastic bag during the chariot procession when a man approached him and abruptly snatched the bottle; and asked for his identity card.

When Morle questioned who he was, the man allegedly assaulted him until he fell to the ground.

Then he claimed that a group of policemen suddenly came over to kick and punch him while he was still lying on the roadside before thousands of people following the chariot.

Morle was then dragged to a dark back lane where the policemen took turns to assault him, including beating him with mineral bottles, until he bled and fainted.

He was then taken to the Sungai Dua police station where the policemen allegedly continued to hit him until he fainted again.

Morle claimed that he passed out blood in his urine and was denied the right to contact his parents.

When contacted last week, George Town police chief ACP Gan Kong Meng had vowed that “there would be no cover-up”.

‘Dr M chided Najib for stoking racial tension’

Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim, who was then education minister, revealed this in the Dewan Rakyat during a debate on the ISA replacement bill.

KUALA LUMPUR: Racial unity has been a key feature of Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak’s administration under his 1Malaysia campaign but Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim revealed that the former had landed in trouble for singing a different tune in the past.

In 1987, Anwar said, the then Umno Youth chief Najib had received a stern warning from former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad for stoking racial tension.

Anwar, who was then Umno vice-president and education minister, disclosed this while debating the Securities Offences (Special Measures) Bill 2012 in the Dewan Rakyat today.

Earlier, Pokok Sena MP Mahfuz Omar asked Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nazri Abdul Aziz why he (Mahfuz) was detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) during the Operasi Lalang in 1987 when he did nothing wrong.

The PAS leader said it was Najib who stoked racial tension during that period but was let off the hook.

“Najib is the one who said that he wanted to soak the keris in Chinese blood (during an Umno rally) but he was sent for a holiday to Australia while I was detained for no reason,” he added.

However, Nazri dismissed Mahfuz’s accusation, saying that Najib never uttered such a remark and that he too was present at the rally.

Barisan Nasional MP Abdul Manan Ismail also defended Najib, claiming that the latter was not sent to Australia for a holiday and accused Mahfuz of lying.

Anwar agreed with Manan and corrected Mahfuz but maintained that the problem in 1987 was between Najib and then MCA Youth chief Lee Kim Sai.

“The fact is, many of them detained at that time were not involved in instigating a racial riot,” he said.

During Operasi Lalang, the Mahathir administration detained over100 political leaders and activists, including DAP stalwarts Lim Kit Siang, his son Guan Eng and Karpal Singh.

Deputy minister backs students’ right to rally

However he also believes that the PTPTN is still relevant and just needs refinement.

PETALING JAYA: The students’ sit-in rally at Dataran Merdeka has ruffled many feathers but not those of Deputy Higher Education Minister, Saifuddin Abdullah.

In an exclusive interview with FMT last night, the outspoken deputy minister asserted that the students who have been camping there overnight since Saturday had every right to voice their opinion over an issue that is “close to their hearts”.

Over 300 students had set up camp in Dataran Merdeka over the weekend to push for free tertiary education and the abolishment of the National Higher Education Fund Corporation (PTPTN) loan scheme.

As expected, the ruling government has criticised the move while members of the opposition have gone down to the ground to offer their support.

Saifuddin, however, acknowleged the students’ right to occupy Dataran Merdeka as long as the sit-in was conducted within the parameters of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2011.

“Considering that the police haven’t taken any action, my reading of the sit-in is that it is legal,” he said. “And it is their right although I personally believe that the PTPTN is still relevant and just needs improvement.”

“Whether or not these students get support from their peers or the same kind of sentiment from the public is another matter. I’m not saying I agree they should be there but it is their right and I recognise it.”

Saifuddin’s stand will be seen as gracious compared to that of Higher Education Minister, Khaled Nordin, who yesterday challenged the students to return the loan money currently used to fund their education if they were so unhappy with it.

When asked whether he agreed with Khaled, Saifuddin said that that viewpoint was separate matter altogether.

Though mindful of his position, he nevertheless said that any disagreement over the issue should be directed solely at the students’ demands and their choice in voicing them.

“If we look at the issue from other perspectives, then it is like telling someone who can’t play football to play basketball instead,” Saifuddin said.

“That’s not the way to handle things. If they love football but can’t play well then we should facilitate football instead of discussing basketball.”

‘I’m put in a spot



The Temerloh MP added that he too would have visited the students in Dataran Merdeka if not for the garland of flowers that they had placed on framed pictures of Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, and Khaled on Saturday.

He noted that the flowers were a Hindu symbolism for death and that it was “uncalled for” to use them in this instance.

“It is a little difficult for me to visit the students after they put flowers on my boss,” Saifuddin said. “That has put me in a spot. And the situation is a little heated at the moment.”

“Then there have been opposition leaders who have visited the students, which is their right, but which has also given a certain perception to some people.”

This isn’t the first time that Saifuddin has backed student rallies. Last December, he found himself in hot water after he defended the rights of all students to assembly and voice their views even after a protester lowered a banner bearing Najib’s likeness outside the Umno headquarters.

An angry pro-government group responded by demanding that Saifuddin take responsibility for the “banner incident” by resigning from his position as deputy minister and Umno supreme council member.

But Solidariti Mahasiswa Malaysia (SMM) came to Saifuddin’s defence, saying that he had been made “victim by certain parties in the government”.

Let’s ban people who believe in God from public office

Anyway, why in the first place are oral and anal sex crimes in Malaysia, never mind if between straight or gay people or between husband and wife? Well, that is because Malaysia practises British laws. Most of our laws were inherited from the British Colonial government and we just continued with them after Merdeka. And British laws are basically Christian laws.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin

Before I talk about what I want to talk about today, let me start with that news report about the member of the Johor royal family would beat up a rapper (read here: http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/newscommentaries/48720-johor-royalty-linked-to-assault-on-rapper).

Now, when I write something about, say, the Chinese, I will get accused of generalising. I will be told that it is unfair of me to paint all Chinese with the same brush. This may be true of certain Chinese. This may be true of MCA Chinese. But not all Chinese are like that. Those who are like that are the minority. The majority are not like that.

Apparently, not generalising is something that only I must not do. It is okay for you to generalise. And I must not do this specifically when I talk about the Chinese. We must not generalise about only the Chinese. When it comes to Malays or members of the royal family then it is okay to generalise. In fact, it is a must, it is good that we generalise.

It may have escaped that pea-brain of yours that 49% of the Malays voted opposition in the last general election in March 2008 (more if you exclude the postal and phantom voters) while more than 50% of the members of the royal family support the opposition. Yes, more than 50% of the members of the royal family support the opposition, idiots!

Anyway, just so that you know, I knew what you would comment if I published that news report on the member of the Johor royal family beating up that rapper. I intentionally published it to see what type of responses we would get. My purpose was to show you what hypocrites many of you are. And I was right. You responded the way I thought you would.

Do you think that your racist, anti-Malay-anti-royalty attitude is going to help Pakatan Rakyat in the coming general election? And you grumble when you can’t seem to get 60% or 65% of the Malays to vote opposition. You are not happy that Pakatan Rakyat cannot garner more than 50% of the Malay vote. Are the Malays the problem? Or are you the problem?

I consider myself a liberalist Malay. I support the rights of LGBTs (lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people) -- something even Christians cannot accept, so don’t talk about Muslims. I support the rights of Muslims to leave Islam -- a no-no for the majority of Malays-Muslims. So that makes me amongst the minority.

Yet, how liberal I may be, I still consider most Malaysia Today readers as racists and bigots, in particular the non-Malay readers. If I can think like that what do you think the more conservatist and fundamentalist Malays-Muslims are thinking?

Yes, maybe the Malays-Muslims are not the problem. Maybe you are the problem. Have you ever thought of that? Have you ever thought that, as I have been saying time and again, that your foul-mouths are pushing the Malays-Muslims away? Do you really expect more than 50% of the Malays to vote Pakatan Rakyat and more than 50% of the members of the royal family to support the opposition when you have such foul-mouths?

And I am both -- I am both Malay and a member of the royal family. And if I am angry how do you think the other Malays are feeling? And you want us to support the opposition and vote Pakatan Rakyat when we are angry about your attitude? Why should we allow Pakatan Rakyat to take power when you opposition people think poorly of the Malays and the royal family?

Hey, those Malays in the corridors of power may be corrupted. Those Malays who support those in the corridors of power who are corrupted may also be corrupted. Sure, we may all be corrupted, but that does not make us stupid. In fact, to be corrupted and still hold on to power means you must be very clever. Stupid people can’t do that, especially not for 55 years and maybe another 55 years to come.

Don’t make the mistake of underestimating our intelligence just because we happen to be Malays. You want the support of the Malays and members of the royal family then learn how to win the hearts and minds of the people you want to win over. Thus far you are not doing a very good job at it.

Okay, now on to what I want to really talk about in today’s article. Sekijang MP Baharum Mohamad said that 30% of Malaysian men are gay, meaning that three out of 10 are homosexual, something he called “scary”. (Read more here: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2012/03/23/stop-the-homosexual-witch-hunt/). There is also a call to ban LGBTs from public office. I wrote about this yesterday (read here: http://malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/no-holds-barred/48718-human-rights-and-fundamental-liberties-for-idiots).

Okay, why do we want to ban LGBTs from public office? Is it because the laws of Malaysia make homosexuality a crime? Is it because homosexuality is a sin according to the Abrahamic faiths (Jews, Christians, and Muslims)? Or both?

Well, if we go by Malaysia’s common law, then oral and anal sex acts are also crimes, even between husband and wife. And the punishment is the same for all sex acts – oral or anal, straight or gay. Hence, they are all equal in seriousness. Hence, also, if we want to ban LGBTs from public office, then even straight people who indulge in oral and/or anal sex must also be banned from public office.

That would be according to the law -- straight or gay, both go to jail for the same number of years if they indulge in anal and/or oral sex.

The question is: if we want to implement the law and ban both straight and gay people who indulge in oral and/or anal sex, how do we do it? Would they be asked to swear on the Bible or Quran during the swearing-in ceremony that they are straight and have never indulged in oral and/or anal sex since the day they were born? Can we trust those who swear on the Bible or Quran? I personally would never trust people who swear on the Bible or Quran. That is not good enough for me. I would need more proof that that.

Can we instead make them take a lie detector test? But even that is not enough. Some people can beat a lie detector test. The only sure way would be to inject them with a truth serum. There would be no way they can lie under the influence of a truth serum. Then we will know if those who are about to take public office are straight or gay and whether they have ever indulged in oral and/or anal sex some time in their lives.

Anyway, why in the first place are oral and anal sex crimes in Malaysia, never mind if between straight or gay people or between husband and wife? Well, that is because Malaysia practises British laws. Most of our laws were inherited from the British Colonial government and we just continued with them after Merdeka. And British laws are basically Christian laws.

You see, in Islam, oral and anal sex, as long as between husband and wife, are not a sin. Some scholars or ulamak say they are but others dispute this and say they are not. So, according to common law, they are crimes, but according to Islamic laws they are not. But a person caught for oral and/or anal sex would be sent to jail under common law and not Islamic law -- in short, under old Christian laws of pre-Merdeka British inheritance.

So, I am a Muslim, but if I am caught for the ‘crime’ of indulging in oral and/or anal sex, I get sent to jail for 20 years because of Christian laws that we inherited and never repealed after Malaysia got independence from Britain.

Apa ni? Gila ke?

I am not a Christian and yet I am subjected to Christian laws that somehow have become Malaysia’s common law.  On the other hand, anal sex between homosexuals is a sin under both Christianity and Islam. So that too has become a crime under Malaysia’s common law. But the Buddhists in Thailand allow or tolerate homosexuality. So, if I am a Thai Buddhist, and since this is not considered a sin, how can you punish me under laws that are actually old Christian and Muslim laws that have been adopted as Malaysia’s common law?

In short, just because your religion disallows it, you turn it into common law and then punish me for it.

Apa ni? Gila ke?

Actually, we should not be banning LGBTs from public office. We should be banning those who believe in God from public office. Just because they happen to believe in God they impose laws that they believe to be God’s laws on us although we may not share their religious beliefs. Then we end up with Christian laws as Malaysia’s common laws. Then oral and anal sex even if between husbands and wives are made a crime.

So, yes, this is not about just LGBTs. It is not a crime to be gay. It is a crime to be a practising gay who indulges in oral or anal sex. But then you do not have to be gay to be a criminal. Even straight people who indulge in oral and anal sex are criminals under Malaysia’s common laws that are actually old Christian laws.

Apa ni? Gila ke? So what do you want me to now say: bodoh punya Kristian?

MALAYSIA – A SMALL COUNTRY

1. Malaysia is, relatively speaking, a small country. The population is only 28 million with a per capita income of USD8,000. But many Malaysians have done very well on the world stage. They are big and often they are the biggest in the world.

2. This is especially so in business. These people make their first million in the country. And they grew, prospering in the conducive business environment that Malaysia provides.

3. PETRONAS is a Government company. It is a national oil company like those found in most oil-producing countries. But PETRONAS did not confine itself to merely collecting royalty. PETRONAS went into all the different upstream and downstream areas of the petroleum industry. It went abroad, prospecting, producing, transporting, shipping, laying pipes and building ports and terminals. It is also into natural gas liquefaction and petrochemicals.

4. It is rare for a Government company to do well. But PETRONAS has done well and contributed much to Government revenue.

5. The private sector has not done badly either. Many have grown and expanded. Kuok Bros, building on its sugar and flour monopoly business, expanded into luxury hotels. The Shangri-La Hotel chains are all over East Asia and beyond. Palm oil plantations in Malaysia and Indonesia contributed billions to the corporation.

6. Lim Goh Tong came to Malaysia penniless. A casino license granted by the first Government of independent Malaysia contributed to the creation of one of the biggest corporations in the world. Resorts World operates casinos in Malaysia, Singapore, USA and UK, and elsewhere. Additionally, his Malaysian corporation owns huge palm oil estates and cruise ships.

7. The Genting group has more hotel rooms than any other hotel chain in the Far East.

8. Yeoh Tiong Lay (YTL) is another Malaysian company, which started as a construction company but now owns valuable properties in KL and other Malaysian towns. It owns a profitable power plant in Malaysia and a water supply utility in the UK.

9. Datuk Azman Shah owns a hotel chain, the Holiday Villa, largely in Malaysia but also in London, Sudan and other locations.

10. Vincent Tan has many businesses. He is also a big property owner in KL and in other parts of Malaysia. His most remarkable success in the Cosway chain of stores, with thousands operating in East Asian countries, in the USA and in Mexico.

11. Ananda Krishnan made his first million trading in oil. Coming home he started Astro and Maxis, telecommunication and paid television businesses. He is the owner of three satellites, which provide telecommunication service covering most of Southeast Asia. He owns and operates mobile phone services in many countries, including in India.

12. Eversendai is not a Japanese company. It is a Malaysian company, which has done very well in the Middle East especially. The main business is steel framework for building, including the Burj Khalifa, currently the tallest building in the world. The owner is an Indian.

13. And there are many more companies, which had their head start in Malaysia but have grown and expanded to many parts of the world. They may not be as big as the ones I have listed but they have done quite well for themselves.

14. For a relatively small country, still not a developed country, Malaysia can be proud of the successes of its sons. I am sure that these successful people must also be proud of themselves and their achievements. I am also sure that they never forget their small beginnings in Malaysia, the kick-start that set them off to achieve great things.

15. There are many other kinds of successes that Malaysians can be proud of. We were once the biggest producer of tin and rubber in the world. Now we are the biggest producer of palm oil in the world.

16. Malaysians now bought and own brand name companies like Laura Ashley, Crabtree & Evelyn.

17. Yes, Malaysia is a small country but it has provided Malaysians of all races the opportunities to excel and succeed beyond the dreams of its founding fathers, perhaps beyond the dreams of the Malaysian tycoons themselves.

Mahathirism and bailouts for cronies: Why do students need loans to go to university

Today, the raging debate is about PTPTN loans. Buried within this concern that has gone viral and public today is a long and festering issue of making education into a business to profiteer from. The trophy of course goes to Tun Dr Mahathir although he has recently and as usual, blamed Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim entirely.
When the Pakatan Leader announced that the Opposition political party will do away with education loans and ensure everyone had free access to higher education, the avalanche of BN machinery has come cascading.
Senior BN personalities have immediately dismissed the notion of free education. Their arguments ranged from maintaining that the nation would be bankrupted to one of one of putting the blame entirely on the head of DSAI. How pathetic.
But history is recorded. Let us take a trip down memory lane.
This is what Tunku said
In 1958 the late YTM Tunku Abdul Rahman Al-Haj declared, “Here I would like to emphasize that there is one thing the Government will not consider in terms of lack of money, and that is the question of education. In this case, the Government is giving special consideration in order to honor its education policy. The future of the country depends a great deal on the students of today.”
We did not have petro-dollars then; we did not have the highly profitable palm oil either. We were a poor, fourth-world nation that had just earned its independence after having lost so much wealth to feed and comfort the colonial powers. But Bapa Malaysia had that courage, determination and wisdom to recognize that education was the cornerstone for the future of the nation. He made it very clear that the Government must shoulder this responsibility fully.
And YTM Tunku encapsulated the role and responsibility very clearly – one that does not let money to be the impediment of education. If the money had to be found, it better be found so that every one can have free education.
And what Hussein Onn said
If that is not enough, let us hear out another Visionary Leader, the late YAB Dato’ Hussein Onn who held in 1979, “It has always been the Government’s desire to widen the opportunities and access to higher education for all. Tertiary education should not be confined only to those who can afford or those who come from higher income groups. But, it should be available to everyone who qualifies.”
Again, a right thinking Government ensured that there are no financial impediments to further education.
Then came Mahathirism
But look at what Mahathirism has yoked the rakyat with. Through all kinds of unprecedented privatization policies, crutches, favoritism, Ali Baba schemes, and what have you, the visions of our past Leaders were systematically dismantled and abandoned by the doctor who helmed the nation for 22 years.
And today when the students, unable to continue any longer with the burden of PTPTN loan schemes – given the spiraling cost of living and shrinking purse strings, raise the alarm what do we get in rebuttal?
> blaming the Opposition leader;
> challenging the opposition held States to go it alone;
> attempting to justify by stating that the Government already subsidizes the cost of education;
> taking high handed action against protestors; threatening that the country would sink into bankruptcy if education was free;
> accusing those in support of free education of becoming victims of populist ideologies – all of these despite having created for the select and privileged few a handful of billionaires;
> extravagant lifestyles for BN leaders and their families;
> recording eyebrow-raising profits year in, year out for some select companies;
> and what have you.
Just shut up and study!
One cannot question the wheeler-dealer mega million businesses inked under cloak and cover of the Official Secrets Act (OSA); arresting and shutting down people in the know who question such deals with the infamous Internal Security Act (ISA) and beating up people with scare tactics and chemical laced water cannons if they protest in public.
"Your job students is to shut up and study, otherwise we will throw you out" has been the all too often threat billowed down the necks of students who moaned and groand under the trying conditions.
Too busy with bailouts for cronies
It is not a problem to pump billions of ringgit into loss making Government ventures; it is also okay to rescue sons and daughters and proxies when they hit troubled financial waters, thereby costing the nation’s coffers millions of ringgit.
So Mahathir set in motion an idea that was contrary to what YAB Dato’ Hussein Onn and YTM Tunku Abdul Rahman Al-Haj had about education. For the Tun and BN, education cannot be free. If you want we will lend you some money but you better pay up or else we will come after you like a blood hound.
Today when it comes to education, all the way from pre-school to the graduate corridors it is money making. From school bags to pencils, from text books to workbooks, from sports to extra-curriculum activities, from projects to examinations – it is money. Even to get to do your mandatory internship, you have to fork out your own money because the pittance paid by some organizations cannot even buy you one lunch every day.
No money, no talk.
And on top of that you have to borrow from your own Government and earn your guts out to make good all payments.

So, in a nutshell is it not a case of bonded slavery in disguise? The ordinary rakyat must slog all the way to his or her tombstone making others richer. If you happen to get rich through the long corridors of education, sheer hard work, and some luck, you must also keep paying the rent-seekers to keep moving on, right?
When do we say enough is enough? When do we say the buck stops right here? When do wake up and see the whole truth? And how?
It is only when we are all agreed on the answers to these questions can we start back from where our founding fathers YAB Dato’ Hussein Onn and YTM Tunku Abdul Rahman Al-Haj left us.
Otherwise, we are headed in one direction – all the way downhill for a crash landing. But by then the pilots would have fled to their havens under the pretext of giving others a chance to lead, you know.
Malaysia Chronicle

It’s not about BN or PR — it’s about changing the system

by Pak Sako - CPI
Monday, 16 April 2012

“If a factory is torn down but the rationality which produced it is left standing, then that rationality will simply produce another factory. If a revolution destroys a government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves.” – Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

“[T]o dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics, is the first task of the statesmanship of the day… This country belongs to the people. Its resources, its business, its laws, its institutions, should be utilized, maintained, or altered in whatever manner will best promote the general interest… “The people” are absolutely to control in any way they see fit, the “business” of the country.” – Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States of America, An Autobiography.

The million-dollar question for the voting public is not about choosing between a Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat government based on who is more generous, holier or less corrupt.

It should be what to do to shake up the system.

That should be the prime concern of the voting public.

That should be the focus of political analysis and commentating.

The system is where the problems that bedevil the people originate, and it there where the seeds of real change lie.

If there is no intention to review and alter the system, all talk of ‘reformasi’ or ‘transformation programmes’ is meaningless.

What is ‘the system’ and why bother about it?

The system is the set of political and economic arrangements, relationships and mindsets under which government and society operate and with which they interact.

A democracy like Malaysia is defined by government under the control of the public, using everything at its disposal to unerringly serve the public interest.

The basic understanding is that the people are the owners and controllers of their political and economic destinies.

In a democracy, therefore, the system can have only one legitimate purpose: it is to give its all in the service of the people’s interest.

Politicians, business interests and religious leaders, as elements of the system, are bound by this higher purpose. The state is not to be misused for their enrichment, for lavish ceremonial purchases, for religious mind-control or for promoting free markets everywhere.

A constitutional monarchy is likewise also bound by this purpose. The claim that Malaysian society is “semi-feudalistic” (see Zairil Khir Johari, ‘Of songkoks, uniforms and managing expectations’, The Malaysian Insider, 1 July 2011)— which implies service also to rulers and lords— is false and dangerous.

Suppose the public purpose of the system is undermined.

Suppose special interests have hijacked the system, that they are able to manipulate it for their gain at the expense of the public, behind whatever guise (‘public projects’, ‘the national interest’, ‘for the glory of God’).

Suppose also the government of the day stands idly by or even takes part in the abuse.

Switching between new but passive leaders or governments will not help.

The public must instead be able to investigate and alter every single institution and political and economic arrangement to restore rule by the people and fulfill the ‘public-interest-only’ criterion.

That is the condition for real change. Any compromise short of the people taking charge of the system is defeat.

How is the system like in Malaysia?

The Malaysian political-economic system is not geared towards maximally serving public purposes and needs. Certain ‘leakages’ and mindsets block it.

The situation is rooted in events related to the nation’s foundation.

The system assembled after Independence saw influential political and business interests secure advantageous positions and establish mutually-benefiting interrelationships (see Tricia Yeoh, ‘Malaysia after regime change’, The Malaysian Insider, 24 March 2012).

This lopsided starting condition and dilution of public priority became entrenched over time under regime constancy. Lax internal oversight is to be expected.

A feudal mindset— of leaders lording it over the people and the people hand-kissing their “superiors”— contributes. Transparency and asking questions become taboo.

Government decision-making in matters such as economic ownership and wealth distribution filter through consideration for the elite as a matter of routine, without protest. Free-market economics becomes the excuse for privatising public assets (oil refineries, power generation, ports) to corporate ‘captains’.

The culture of ‘the cut’ is emulated in the bureaucratic layers of government and government-founded companies. In Petronas, a company established by law ostensibly to protect and serve the national interest, some top managers set themselves six-figure monthly salaries and bonuses from revenue streams—30 times the average national income.

Other examples abound. The foregoing is sufficient to make the case for intervening in the system.

Regime change as a tool to change the system

A way forward is to raise the prospect of regime change and tying it to an ultimatum to initiate a reshaping of the system.

This threat should force an unresponsive government to act.

This ultimatum must also be brought to bear on the opposition, who should be made to declare commitment to it.

If the ruling government shows scant commitment in delivering meaningful systemic change, the apple cart should be upset by an overthrow via elections.

The successor government is then to be held ransom to the same demand.

Failure to perform should trigger another change of government, and so on until the goal is achieved.

Regime change is desirable for the following reasons. It gives the people the needed window of opportunity, however small, to mount an attempt to regain the freedom to intervene to change the system.

It creates a momentary vacuum in which old connections become temporarily uncoupled. The vista opens for reconsidering old rules, norms and contracts. A chance is had to dramatically alter old institutions and relationships and drawing up new rules.

If nothing else, regime change rattles up the system such that some activities of some parasitic elements are disrupted.

Change can also be a source of renewal.

It allows for a different experience and viewpoint, a chance for stock-taking and reflection, and a refreshment of the collective spirit upon breaking out of a stale old shell.

The people would feel liberated knowing that they can sack a government and assert greater control over it and thus the system.

Choosing between BN and PR

In Malaysia, significant power is concentrated at the federal level that could be used to massively impact the system in a way not possible at lower levels.

The federal route is the least-costly and quickest democratic route for rocking the boat.

A practical rule for deciding on regime change would thus be to remove a ruling government from federal power after a reasonable duration of time if it fails to effect sweeping change to the system with the aim of restoring eminence to public interest.

In applying this rule, governments that persistently collude with or maintain an unjust system are to be rejected. Governments that benefit from an unjust status quo might not have the incentive or motivation to change the way things are.

It would also be morally questionable to continue to reward with federal power a government that has against it allegations of serious past wrongdoings and abuses.

So do we keep or remove BN? Three points swing the case towards the removal of BN:
BN has had a formative role and remains a vested interest in the status quo; it would be difficult if not impossible for it to affect the needed changes on the system from within;
In spite of the current BN administration’s reformist proclamations, its economic and political transformation programmes contain no plans for inquiring into and reshaping the system; their implementation seems to show that they are intended to work within the confines allowed by the existing system, seeking some efficiency improvement perhaps, but not modifying the superstructure itself;
BN has against it a string of allegations of wrongdoing and abuses stretching back to at least the 1980s that await proper investigation and redress; to re-elect it under the circumstance would invoke a moral crisis.

If, after an appropriate evaluation of the opposition, regime change is chosen, what next?

The people must see to it that the successor government executes a radical plan for changing the system.

Such a plan would be extensive in scope and detail, and cannot be covered here. But among the least that a successor government should do is
to subdue, neutralise and remove negative elements and structures of the system (the crony capitalist structure, domineering religious institutions), and not just swap old components with new ones (e.g., replacing BN cronies with PR cronies);
to desist from introducing undemocratic elements and structures in the system (e.g., the shifting of power to religious (syura) councils or other anti-democratic committees);
to prevent public policymaking from being undermined by assertive ideologies (whether these be the supremacy of religion or the supremacy of free markets);
to consider changes that empower the people (e.g., the people having greater ownership of their economy and greater say in how the economy is to serve them; fostering in the individual a sense of intellectual independence and self-confidence).

Needless to say, a successor government should practice sportsmanship and obey the public’s will to replace it in the future.

There must be hope yet for a reformed BN.

There must be room too for a ‘third force’ beyond BN and PR, in the event that both are captured by a corrupt system.

Concluding remarks

Because an overhaul of the system and its institutions would involve actions such as aggressively going after the corrupt, reviewing land ownership and land-use patterns (timber, oil palm), investigating corporate ownerships and relationships, and generally dislodging the elite from the commanding heights of state control and policymaking, the elite are likely to fight back.

Resistance should be anticipated and planned for. It is vital for a new government not to get weak in the knees and make compromises.

Civil society movements have a role to play and should push for more transparent and participatory decision-making. They could also inspire self-sustaining, community-based action (a network of active residents’ associations, for instance). The rare example of Bersih as a broad grassroots movement seeking to bring systemic change in the area of elections should be encouraged elsewhere.

In the economic sphere, the neoliberal/free-market economic ideology promoted to the government and opposition by libertarian think-tanks such as IDEAS (Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs) needs urgent counterbalance.

Other organisations, such as CPI (Centre for Policy Initiatives), could contribute towards providing a variety of alternative ideas for policymaking.

The public should not be straight-jacketed into choosing only a free-market economic model or its neoliberal variant, the so-called German ‘social market economy’.

They must also be able to deliberate on other more egalitarian economic models and approaches such as those practiced by Australia and Norway, two countries at the top of the U.N. Human Development Index.

There could be other side benefits of regime change.

A BN that is free from an incumbent’s stress could refuse to play the game of escalating the ‘religious arms race’. It could capitalise on the secular position supported by the Federal Constitution and act as a compelling force for it. If this happens, it could counteract a possible slide towards greater theocratic influence in governance under PR.

Lastly, public personalities who propose the soft-softly approach that does not so much as scratch the surface of the system should prove they are not spineless or in cahoots with a crooked system.

Would Najib Razak and Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah tell the elites to exit the control-room of the state and submit to the public’s will?

Can Anwar Ibrahim and other opposition leaders highlight their specific strategies for changing the system?

Would Mahathir Mohammad join the chorus?

Who dares say “change the system”?

EC says 19,342 voters moved to correct past errors

The Malaysian Insider 
by Shannon Teoh

KUALA LUMPUR, April 16 — The Election Commission (EC) denied today that it has changed electoral boundaries but instead moved 19,342 voters because they were placed in the wrong constituencies.

According to those who attended a briefing for MPs this afternoon, EC chief Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof (picture) said corrections have been made since 2004 using the Election Geographical Information System (EGIS).

“The corrections in locations have been conducted by state EC chiefs since 2008 but there have been no changes to the boundaries of state or parliamentary constituencies.

“It was found that there were voters in the wrong constituency, 19,342 voters were involved,” he told the MPs at the briefing in Parliament.

PKR had complained last month that 31,294 voters have been moved into neighbouring constituencies illegally as border revisions must obtain the approval of a two-thirds majority of Parliament.

The opposition party pointed out that the Election Act only allowed border revisions within constituencies for administrative purposes and not to move voters from one constituency to another.

“When the EC has made a mistake in drawing borders, they cannot rectify (this) according to their whim and fancy. It should be part of a redelineation, as it moves a voter from one constituency to another,” PKR vice president Fuziah Salleh had said.

A redelineation is due but may only be conducted with the approval of two-thirds of Parliament, according to the Federal Constitution.

But Abdul Aziz said today subsection 25 (3) of the Election (Registration of Electors) Regulations 2002 gave the EC powers to make corrections if voters were found to be in the wrong locality.

The subsection reads “where an error has resulted in any person being registered as an elector of a registration area which is not a registration area in respect of which that person should have been registered, the Chief Registrar may enter that person’s name in the principal electoral roll or the supplementary electoral roll for the appropriate registration area.”

The EC chief also said these corrections have been frozen until after general elections but the “19,342 that have been changed, will remain changed.”

He added that the EC would try its best to inform the 19,342 voters even though there was no law compelling it to.

Provision 'Detrimental To Parliamentary Democracy' Not For Political Offences

KUALA LUMPUR, 17 April (Bernama) -- The provision in the Security Offences (Special Measures) Bill 2012 which states detrimental to parliamentary democracy is not a provision that will be used to punish political offences, the Dewan Rakyat was told Tuesday.

Instead, the provision covers a wide range of aspects involving democracy said Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz when winding up debate on the Security Offences (Special Measures) Bill 2012.

A number of Parliamentarians from the opposition had raised their concern that the provision in the new legislation has a wide scope of coverage that may curtail democracy under the country's constitution.

The provision 'detrimental to parliamentary democracy' provided for in the new Bill would be used for seven new categories of offences from the overall 13 offences under Section VI of the Penal Code which was introduced in line with the abolishment of the Internal Security Act 1960.

Section 130A (a) defines 'activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy' as 'an activity carried out by a person or a group of persons designed to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by violent or unconstitutional means'.

According to the amendment bill, whoever by any means, directly or indirectly, commits an activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy' shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years, while Section 124C suggested a jail sentence 'which may extend to 15 years' for the offence of 'Attempt to commit activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy'.

Individuals who by any means, directly or indirectly, commit espionage or sabotage can be punished with imprisonment for life under Section 124N, while attempts to commit espionage or sabotage are punishable with a jail sentence of up to 15 years.

The Bill specifies espionage as involving activities to obtain sensitive information by ulterior or illegal means for a purpose prejudicial to the national security or interest.

Offences involving sabotage include an act or omission intending to cause harm for the interests of foreign powers or knowingly producing defective materials used for national defence.

Anyone who prints or sells any document or publication that incites people to go against parliamentary democracy will also be sentenced to imprisonment up to 15 years.

Persons guilty of posting placards, circulars or documents with incitement to violence, or counseling violent disobedience to the law or to any lawful order, or likely to lead to disruption of peace, can be punished up to five years in prison.

Sections 124D and 125D of the Bill states that anyone who prints, publicizes, sells, issues, circulates, reproduces or possesses any document or publication detrimental to parliamentary democracy, can be imprisoned for a term that may extend to 15 years.

A five-year prison term applies, under Section 124H and Section 124I, to anyone who incites violence or disobedience to laws of the country through publication or on electronic media; and for anyone who disseminates false information, be it via publication or by electronic means.

The Security Offences (Special Measures) Bill 2012 was passed in the Dewan Rakyat without any amendments, despite objections that it might lead to further human rights abuses.