Guan Eng demands proof of threat to PM's life

Members of Congress Demand Obama Administration Classify Fort Hood Massacre as Act of Terrorism

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a self-proclaimed "Soldier of Allah," massacred 13 people (including a pregnant woman) at Fort Hood while shouting "Allahu Akbar." The Obama Administration classified the shooting as "workplace violence," similar to an attack by a disgruntled postal worker. Some members of Congress are calling for a change in the ruling.

  Watch More News Videos at ABC
  |
  2012 Presidential Election
  |
  Entertainment & Celebrity News

ABC News--In the wake of an ABC News story detailing claims by victims of the Fort Hood shooting that they have been neglected by the military and 'betrayed' by President Obama, the chair of the House Homeland Security Committee has sent a letter to his fellow members of Congress demanding that the Obama administration classify the attack as a terrorist act and provide full benefits to the victims and their families.

"It is time for the administration to recognize the Fort Hood shooting for what it is—an act of terrorism," wrote Rep. Michael McCaul, R.-Texas, in a letter cosigned by Rep. Frank Wolf, R.-Virginia. "To date, the Department of Defense and the Army classify this attack [as] 'workplace violence,' despite mountains of evidence [that] clearly proves the Ft. Hood shooting was an act of terror."

The letter recommends that members of Congress view the ABC News report, "which highlights the broken promises made to the victims of that attack by the Obama Administration. The video contains never-seen-before footage of the terrorist attack and moving interviews with several of the survivors."

"As this news piece makes clear," wrote McCaul and Wolf, "the result of this inexcusable [workplace violence] classification … is that victims and their families have not received the same recognition or medical and financial benefits as those wounded or killed in war."

In a report that aired on "World News with Diane Sawyer" and "Nightline," former police sergeant Kimberly Munley, who helped stop the Ft. Hood shooting, said that President Obama broke the promise he made to her that the victims would be well taken care of.

"Betrayed is a good word," said Munley, who sat next to First Lady Michelle Obama at the 2010 State of the Union address. "Not to the least little bit have the victims been taken care of … In fact, they've been neglected."

There was no comment from the White House about Munley's allegations.

Thirteen people were killed, including a pregnant soldier, and 32 others shot in the Nov. 5, 2009 rampage by the accused shooter, Major Nidal Hasan, at the Army base in Killeen, Texas. Hasan now awaits a military trial on charges of premeditated murder and attempted murder. (Continue Reading.)

‘Rosmah dabbles in witchcraft’

In an exclusive interview with FMT, Deepak Jaikishan reveals the alleged dark side of the prime minister's wife and makes a series of startling allegations.


PETALING JAYA: Bizzare black magic rituals and an insatiable appetite for wealth. These were some of the revelations of Deepak Jaiskishan about Rosmah Mansor, a woman he claims has no conscience.

According to her one-time confidant, the prime minister’s wife has allegedly cast spells on numerous people, including her husband, former premier Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and the latter’s son-in-law Khairy Jamaluddin.

Deepak claimed that Rosmah would go to the extreme in order to achieve her ambition, which is to be richer than the Sultan of Brunei.

“She indulges in bizzare witchcraft rituals that no religion in the world will accept,” he told FMT in an exclusive interview here.

When Abdullah delayed naming Najib Tun Razak as his successor, Deepak claimed that Rosmah turned to the black arts for help.

“Abdullah and his family went through a tough time, no thanks to Rosmah’s witchcraft. Almost the entire Cabinet is under her spell,” he alleged.

However, Deepak said that Rosmah, whom he termed as the country’s “prime minister”, could not put a spell on former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad because the latter has his own protection.

“She tried something but it didn’t work. Maybe he is protected in some ways.

“You see, it’s not like you can simply put a spell on someone. It only works if the person is weak in some ways. For example, it works if the person is not spiritual,” he added.

Deepak said that Rosmah employed the services of shamans from Kelantan, Terengganu and even India.

‘Amassed a wealth of RM30 billion’

In another startling allegation, the carpet dealer also claimed that Najib and Rosmah have accumulated a fortune amounting to about RM30 billion since taking over the reins in 2009.

He also confirmed the allegations regarding Rosmah’s penchant for expensive handbags and jewellery, saying that he personally arranged the purchase of valuables amounting to about RM300 million over the past five to six years.

“That’s only from me, you should ask the others…,” he added with a smirk.

The carpet dealer also revealed how Rosmah used him to keep tabs on projects that were being awarded by her husband.

“She will inform her people in the ministry to hand me information pertaining to the contracts, which I will then deliver to her,” he said.

Deepak added that some of the deals brokered by Rosmah would be executed without Najib’s knowledge.

“The value mentioned to Najib will be different from what Rosmah has planned. We used to communicate in codes so that Najib won’t understand.

“So when she telephones me and speaks in a certain way, I will know that Najib is next to her and I will know how to handle the matter,” he said.

Deepak revealed that he has become acquainted with Rosmah when she wanted to purchase carpets, and then over time, the bond grew stronger.

Asked what he received in return, he said: “Contracts! I received several contracts worth millions.”

However, Deepak refused to reveal what soured the ties, saying that it was a complicated matter.

“The gist of it… money and betrayal of promises,” he said when pressed further. “I was betrayed and I don’t handle betrayal very well,” he added.

Deepak also denied that he is backed by politicians and dismissed the speculation that he is spilling the beans on the instructions of Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin.

Commenting on the Altantuya Shaariibuu episode, he claimed that Najib knew the slain Mongolian national and he believes that a photograph of the two does exist.

“If you think about the choice of words Najib uttered when swearing on the Quran, he said that he didn’t know the ‘Mongolian woman’ but did not specifically mention Altantuya,” he added.

Meanwhile, Deepak said that more details on Rosmah’s black magic endeavours would be revealed in his second book, titled “The Black Magic Woman”, scheduled to be launched tomorrow.

He would also file a RM3 billion suit against, Najib, Rosmah and the Malaysian government next week for the business losses he suffered over the last few years.

“I will also file a separate defamation suit for RM100 million against Najib for describing me as not credible instead of denying the allegations,” he added.

Rosmah, where is your book?

What has happened to the book? Has Rosmah’s publicist got the year wrong?
COMMENT

Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak travelled around Malaysia championing his Merdeka slogan “Janji Ditepati”, but his most ardent supporter, the self-styled First Lady Rosmah Mansor, has let him down.

Last December, amid great fanfare, press coverage and the presence of royalty, Rosmah organised a pre-launch for her biography. A Bernama report said that the 164-page book, written by Siti Rohayah Attan and Noraini Abdul Razak, would cost RM150 and be published and distributed in January.

So, where is the book? It is now February, and the rakyat is eager to know the progress of the much publicised book.

While Rosmah was saving from her teens to buy expensive jewellery, a number of us have been saving for a life-changing book which will motivate and guide us towards success and riches. Few of us have managed to save up for priceless gems and we are delighted that Rosmah has promised to share her secrets with us.

What has happened to the book? Perhaps, Rosmah’s publicist got the year wrong.

Did her publishing adviser Ahmad Maslan not realise that with Chinese New Year falling in February, the printers would be busy and business would slow down during the two-week period of festivities.

With GE13 approaching, the printers have their hands full churning out election propaganda material.

Is the biography going to be just another of BN’s empty promises?

Ahmad claimed that the biography would also include a “frank question and answer chapter” to answer “all the issues and allegations”. Rosmah is naïve to think that writing a biography, to a book-shy Malaysian public, is going to “clear her name”.

With the book unavailable in the bookshops, Ahmad could enlighten us and say which allegation Rosmah is referring to.

If writing a book is all that is needed to clear oneself of a wrongdoing, criminals would put pen to paper and be spared the bother of giving evidence in court. Lawyers, judges and the entire court process would be made defunct. Ghost writers, publishers and bookshops would thrive.

The meaning of shame

Rosmah, Najib, former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and former Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan once rejected subpoenaes to appear in court.

Perhaps, their reason for avoiding court was a mistrust of the Malaysian judiciary. Isn’t it the business of the prime minister to make good the system and restore the public’s trust in its judiciary?

During 56 years of BN rule, very few of our politicians know the meaning of shame. They allegedly lie, rape, steal, murder and take what does not belong to them, then turn up in Parliament as if nothing unusual has happened.

The rot set in during Mahathir’s tenure but in a few weeks’ time, we have the power to change all this and install a government which will do the rakyat’s bidding. Rather than plunder the rakyat’s money.

Those Malays who refuse to accept that Umno is detrimental to their well-being, only need to see how the senior Umno politicians promote their children. These politicians did not breed successful and enterprising children who end up in plum jobs.

Their children are denied the hard work, hunger to succeed and self-discipline needed to mould their character. There is no equality in educational and work or job opportunities. Their children have all the advantages which are denied to the rakyat.

Whose daughters get multi-million-ringgit projects to do with alternative energy or transport systems? Whose son lands lucrative contracts involving air-traffic control?

Whose son is free to pose as a member of royalty and beat strangers who dare challenge him in public? Whose children are able to purchase apartments and give themselves inflated salaries, with the millions of ringgits allocated for the National Feedlot Corporation?

Whose sons can make a share price soar just by buying stocks in the company? Whose daughter can march into an office and force the senior editors to listen to her tirade until the early hours of the morning because an article slighted her father?

Whose sons flout religious rules which are rigorously applied to other Muslims? Whose son had a failing company which Petronas had to rescue?

Children should be off-limits in any political campaign, but a desperate Najib has decided to rope in family members to gain political mileage.

His daughter, his son-in-law and his son accompanied him and Rosmah on a walkabout to hawker stalls in Penang. Najib and his son, Norashman, have been featured in a Chinese New Year radio advertisement and they appeared on stage just before the Korean deejay, Psy, performed.

Does Najib think the children will be his secret weapon to improve his image? If his children are to be treated like celebrities and feed off the public, then the public should be free to scrutinise them, as we scrutinise him and his wife.

How many young men will identify with Norashman? How many Malaysians get the chance to go to Beijing to study Mandarin for a few months? Is Najib giving him a fast-track into a political career? Does the whole family live by normal family values?

Najib’s silent enemies

Is Najib aware of the difficulties faced by the average 20-something young graduate? Has Norashman tried to be a normal Malaysian and taken the bus to work?

Has he tried to get things done without using his father’s name to open doors? Has he queued at a hospital clinic to see a doctor? Has he used a tandas awam (public toilet)?

If Rosmah’s biography is yet to be printed, she should include the part about BN compromising public safety.

Najib and BN suffered severe humiliation because Psy refused to be BN’s political stooge, when he refused to stir the yee sang on stage with Najib and his men.

If the allegations of an assassination attempt are to be believed, then why did the BN machinery risk the lives of the rakyat, Najib’s son and wife? The whole area should have been cleared.

If Psy’s life was in such danger, why was he given no protection when he dined at the Daorae Korean BBQ restaurant in Jalan Tanjong Tokong?

The allegation concocted by BN’s Teng Chang Yeow stinks to high heaven, just like some of the monsoon drains in Penang.

It is clear that the rakyat voting in GE13 is not the only threat to Najib. He also has many silent enemies within Umno. Rosmah should state in her biography that certain quarters in BN are out to undermine him.

Mariam Mokhtar is a FMT columnist.

‘Dr M should contest against Anwar’

A former teachers' union president wants the former premier to take on his former deputy in the next general election.
VIDEO INSIDE

PETALING JAYA: Dr Mahathir Mohamad should take on his arch nemesis Anwar Ibrahim in the coming general election, said former West Malaysia Malay Teachers Union president Nordin Mahmood.

And Nordin wanted the duo to do battle in Anwar’s traditional stronghold of Permatang Pauh in Penang.

“As he [Mahathir] is adamant that he has contributed greatly to the country and that he still has the support of the rakyat, to prove this, he should contest against Anwar.

“Even if he loses, it would not be a great embarrassment as the seat is the stronghold of Anwar. But if he contests in Kubang Pasu [Mahathir's former parliamentary seat in Kedah] and ends up losing, his leadership status would suffer severely,” he added.

Nordin said if Mahathir wins, then Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak should quit and allow the former to assume the post once again.

Furthermore, he said Najib looked “very tired”.

As for Anwar, he said that a victory against Mahathir would prove his strength and popularity with regard to becoming prime minister if Pakatan Rakyat wins in the general election.

Personal attacks

Nordin said that of late, Mahathir’s attacks against Anwar have increased because he is wary that the latter would become the prime minister if Pakatan Rakyat were to win in GE13.

“Mahathir’s attacks have been personal in nature. He should be criticising Pakatan’s policies instead of attacking Anwar on a personal level.

“This is evident in how he incited PAS to not suggest Anwar as the prime minister and ‘predicting’ that Anwar would resort to violence a la the Arab Spring if he were to lose in the GE13,” he said.

Nordin added that it is quite peculiar for Mahathir to continue to be active as though he is still the prime minister.

“In other countries, leaders who have stepped down retire wholly and become respected statesmen. Unfortunately for Mahathir, some of the rakyat no longer respect him due to his political one-sided support for BN,” said Nordin.

He admitted that in Mahathir’s 22-year tenure as prime minister, he has no doubt contributed to the country.

“However, his socio-economic policy was not friendly to people in the lower income bracket, favoured the elites, created cronyism and corruption was rampant,” Nordin said.

He added that Mahathir is the reason for the collapse in the Malay language due to the implementation of the teaching and learning of science and mathematics in English (PPSMI) during his administration.

“PPSMI was implemented without the consultation of education and Malay language experts and the teachers’ union.

“His policy has led to the decline of the Malay language and the national education policy,” said Nordin.

Prosecution wants appeal of Anwar’s sodomy in July

Feb 22 fixed for probable hearing dates.

PUTRAJAYA: The prosecution has requested that its appeal against Anwar Ibrahim’s acquittal on a charge of sodomising his former aide, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, be heard in July.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Noorin Badaruddin said this was indicated to the Court of Appeal deputy registrar N Kanageswari during case management in her chambers today.

However, she did not give any reason why the appeal should be heard in July.

Noorin and one of Anwar’s lawyers, Ramkarpal Singh, met Kanageswari in chambers today, for case management of the matter.

Kanageswari has fixed Feb 22 for both the prosecution and defence to return and inform her on probable hearing dates.

“Prosecution is asking for the appeal to be fixed in July,” Noorin told reporters.

Meanwhile, Ramkarpal said he needed to consult co-counsel whether the timeframe requested by the prosecution was suitable to them.

He said the defence’s immediate concern was to get the notes of proceedings in order, before the court could fix the hearing date.

Both Noorin and Ramkarpal said the prosecution and defence were still in the midst of finalising the notes of proceedings.

On Jan 9, last year, the Kuala Lumpur High Court acquitted and discharged Anwar of sodomising Mohd Saiful, 26, at a Desa Damansara condominium unit in Bukit Damansara here, between 3.10pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008.

Anwar, 65, was charged under Section 377B of the Penal Code, which carries a jail sentence of up to 20 years and whipping, upon conviction.

The prosecution filed on Jan 20, last year a notice of appeal against the opposition leader’s acquittal from the sodomy charge.

On July 9, last year, the prosecution filed its petition of appeal which contained nine grounds.

The 80-page written judgment by High Court judge Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah revealed that there was penile penetration but it was uncorroborated by other evidence.

He said the court could not be 100% certain on the integrity of samples taken for DNA testing from Mohd Saiful as the samples could have been compromised before they reached the chemistry department for analysis.

-Bernama

‘Sugumar’s death being used for political mileage’

PKR vice-president N Surendran has been accused of using the post-mortem on Sugumar's death to stay in the limelight.

PETALING JAYA: MIC today urged PKR vice- president N Surendran to stop using security guard C Sugumar’s death as a tool to gain political mileage.

“Sugumar’s family is already devastated by his death and is enduring a lot of hardship,” said MIC Youth secretary, C Sivaraajh.

Yesterday, Surendran accused Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak of preventing Thai pathologist, Pornthip Rojanasunan from conducting a second post-mortem on Sugumar’s remains.

Citing an “impeccable source”, Surendran alleged that Najib had spoken to his counterpart in Thailand, Yingluck Shinawatra, about the matter.

“As a result, the Thai government decided that Pornthip should not perform the second autopsy in order not to undermine the relationship between the two countries,” Surendran was reported saying.

Sivaraajh, however, described the PKR leader’s accusation against Najib as illogical.

“If Surendran thinks that he is gaining Indian support by doing this, I’m afraid it’s having the opposite effect. Maybe that’s why he is trying to drag Najib’s name into this,” he said.

Sivaraajh added,” Even if Pornthip refuses to come here, we can always hire other private pathologists in Malaysia to do same the job.”

Extending an olive branch to Surendran, Sivaraajh said that he is willing to meet the PKR leader personally to find out what caused Sugumar’s death.

“Let’s meet up and share information. From there, we can work together to find a private pathologist to conduct autopsy on Sugumar. As promised, MIC will foot the bill for it,” he said.

“If there is foul play in the security guard’s death, lets’s bring justice to his family,” he said.

Federal Territories People’s Progressive Party (PPP) chief A Chandrakuman was more vocal in his criticism against Surendran, urging the latter to provide proof on Najib’s interference.

“Why would Najib want to stop the second autopsy? It was the prime minister who ordered for a report on Sugumar’s death during a Cabinet meeting,” he said.

Calling Surendran’s outbursts as politically motivated, Chandrakumanan said that the PKR leader is craving to be in the limelight, which is not helpful in this situation.

On Sivaraajh’s offer, Chandrakuman said, “Surendran should leave politics aside and work with MIC to resolve the matter.”

Hindraf Blueprint Needs Amendment

SUARAM has also been approached to endorse Hindraf’s blueprint. Now, while the blueprint has some good policy proposals, there are contradictions with its own professed “multi-ethnic paradigm” and human rights assertions. Consequently, Hindraf has neglected certain fundamental demands that we would have expected the movement to stress especially in the coming general election.

Dr Kua Kia Soong, SUARAM Adviser

I have all along been supportive of the Hindraf movement because I believe that Malaysian Indians are a marginalized minority and are victims of state racism, often resulting in their forming the majority in statistics on deaths in police custody and police shootings. The marginalized Indians in this country are a specially oppressed section of the working class - it is an oppression that has taken on a racist character through the years.

SUARAM has also been approached to endorse Hindraf’s blueprint. Now, while the blueprint has some good policy proposals, there are contradictions with its own professed “multi-ethnic paradigm” and human rights assertions. Consequently, Hindraf has neglected certain fundamental demands that we would have expected the movement to stress especially in the coming general election.

Racism or more specifically, “Bumiputeraism” has been the dominant ideology of the UMNO ruling class ever since May 13, 1969. It has been practiced under the guise of the “New Economic Policy” and that racism has been covertly disseminated through state institutions such as the Biro TataNegara and other “bumiputeras only” institutions all these years.

Thus, it is in the common interest of all communities at this 13th general election to call for an end to this institutional racism and Pakatan Rakyat must commit to this before they get our vote. In this day and age, affirmative action is not justifiable for any ethnic community which has undergone class differentiation. Thus, neither the Malay, Chinese, Indian, Kadazanmurut nor Iban communities can justify any affirmative action for their own community. The best non-racist approach to progress is still affirmative action based on class or sector. Thus, if the affirmative action is for the plantation poor, clearly the beneficiaries will be Malaysian Indians, and so on.



Eradicate Institutional Racism

Despite their efforts in recent years highlighting the entrenchment of racial discrimination in the Constitution, I am surprised that the Hindraf Blueprint does not call for the abolition of the “New Economic Policy”. Any corrective action in all economic and education policies must be based on need or sector or class and not on race with priority given to indigenous people, marginalised and poor communities. Since their blueprint extols human rights, Hindraf should put forward their demands for all minorities and not just the Indian community. Thus we find a gaping “disconnect” between Hindraf’s noble challenge to racial discrimination entrenched in the Constitution and their “Indians Only” proposals in the blueprint.

And to be consistent in their human rights stand, Hindraf should also call for:

· the repeal of Amendment (8A) of Article 153 that was passed during the state of emergency in 1971 and was not in the original 1957 federal constitution;

· institutionalizing means testing for any access to scholarships or other entitlements;

· implementing merit-based recruitment in civil & armed services;

· enacting an Equality Act to promote equality and non-discrimination irrespective of race, creed, religion, gender or disability with provision for an Equality & Human Rights Commission;

· institutionalising equality and human rights education at all decision-making levels, including state and non-state actors/ institutions;

· ratifying the Convention on the Eradication of Racial Discrimination (CERD).



Ministry of Minorities’ Affairs

Such a ministry is a good idea in a government that is committed to equality, justice and human rights. This point is not clear in Hindraf’s blueprint. At the moment, the Hindraf leadership is even contemplating talking with BN leaders while voicing impatience with PR. Do they believe UMNO will commit to such reforms before the 13GE? If they can allow an “Orang Asli Department” and “Ministry of Women’s Affairs”, why should another cosmetic “Ministry of Minorities’ Affairs” be a problem for them? And when they do, would Hindraf be prepared to accept a BN government?

The crucial question is: Which is the priority for Hindraf? Do they prioritise the demands for reforms or the demand for a ministry post? If it is the latter, then it is out and out opportunism of the elites in the movement which should be condemned by all progressive Malaysians.



Does Hindraf Believe in Consultation?

A critical principle in human rights and democracy is respect for others. The rights of minorities in any society mean just that – all minorities have rights and no minority group has more rights than others. That being the case, why does the Hindraf blueprint insist that the post of Minister of Minorities’ Affairs HAS to be filled by Hindraf? Surely, all the minorities in the country have to get together and decide who should be nominated for such a post? This is called consultation.


Hindraf must also work alongside other campaigns for justice, democracy and human rights. Besides “eradicating institutional racism”, Malaysian civil society has at least nineteen other demands in the 13GE for the political parties to commit to. The point is, we can only mobilize all the people if we fight on all fronts, against all oppressions and against the divisions within the masses. As the Black Panthers said in the sixties: “We do not fight racism with racism…We fight racism with solidarity”.

Who makes public policy in Malaysia?

Malaysia's top policymaker

(Asia Sentinel) Nobody seems to know or care
When Malaysia faced the Asian economic crisis back in 1997, the then Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed called on his old friend Daim Zainuddin to head the National Economic Action Council (NEAC) set up under the Economic Planning Unit (EPU) to find a solution through the National Economic Recovery Plan (NERP).

On the advice of the NEAC, the Malaysian Government pegged the ringgit at 3.8 to the US dollar, put in place a number of capital controls and undertook a number of bailouts of large firms.

Putting the individuals and controversies aside, the actions taken at that time were counter-intuitive to what every other country was doing, following IMF prescriptions.

The NEAC is an example of public policy making in Malaysia at a time of crisis. It was a top down process, formulated without any consultation, ending up favoring select groups, and it triggered vigorous debate about the merits of the action taken.

Just as the Genting Casino complex can be seen overlooking over much of Kuala Lumpur symbolizing gambling, public policy in Malaysia is also top down and often a gamble.

The Economy and Policy
The Malaysian economy is uniquely organized. The government is business friendly, but not necessarily market friendly, utilizing many quotas, subsidies, concessions, and licensing mechanisms to regulate business, and the economy. The policy process very closely resembles a centrally controlled economy, where detailed five-year plans spell out the current economic situation and outline in some detail the agenda for the next fve5 to 10 years. Government-linked companies control many sectors like palm oil, and state economic development corporations actively pursue new business opportunities, sometimes competing with the private sector.

Federal ministries tightly control their jurisdictions. For example the Ministry of Agriculture selects potential new industries to support as national priorities, independent of market forces. The relatively new Ministry of Higher Education exercises a lot of discretion over higher institutes of learning in areas of vice chancellor selection, course approval, the setting of KPIs, and many other matters related to day to day operations. Consequently very little university autonomy actually exists.

At state level, government is more concerned with how to implement national policy, rather than formulating any regional policies of their own. Federalism in Malaysia is skewed towards tight central control where the federal government controls taxation and budget allocations, giving the prime minister great personal control, at least in the states that his government controls.

In addition each prime minister brings his own agenda into public policy; Wawasan or Vision 2020 under Mahathir, the corridor development approach under former Premier Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, and Economic Transformation Program (ETP) under the current Premier Najib Razak.

There are in fact huge policy gaps in Malaysia today. For example, an electric motorcycle or car for that matter could not be registered to as a motor vehicle because there is currently no policy or regulations existing on the issue. Green bio-fuels are very difficult to develop as hydrocarbon fuels are heavily subsidized, acting as a disincentive to new bio-fuel development. Islamic banking cannot be diversified into communities through Muslim Savings Cooperatives because policies don't yet exist. Very little policy exists in the public forum concerning Malaysia's entry into the ASEAN Economic Community scheduled for 2015.

With an impending election due within the next couple of months, one would expect this to be a time where visions are extolled and explained by political party leaders. But if one scans the media, news and comment are almost totally focused upon scandal, who has or doesn't have the right to use the word "Allah," Islamic laws laws, and who should have citizenship, etc. Emotional issues emerge without much informed discussion. Both sides are campaigning hard, but without much, if any debate on public policy issues. At public meetings locally known as ceramahs, certain politicians are famous for what they say about their political adversaries and attract large crowds.

In parliament, the opposition tends to oppose government initiatives just because they are government initiatives rather than putting them under parliamentary scrutiny, like recent opposition to the Automated Enforcement System (AES) speed trap cameras.

Policy doesn't seem to be a major variable and if you go and ask supporters of both sides what their party stands for, very few people will actually be able to tell you the specific policies. Political parties as such are not known for being policy generating organizations.

Rather, the parties have developed sets of values, where the meaning in government is rather vague. Most often, pragmatic considerations influence the implementation of policy, rather than principles and doctrines.

Most street-side discussion focuses on personalities, scandals, corruption, and tactics. Most are interested in who will win the next election. The formation of public policy seems separated from the political process. Ministers are extremely busy dividing their time between party, constituency, parliamentary and ceremonial duties. A large percentage of a minister's time is dedicated to meeting with people, something embedded into Malaysian culture. So the time for a minister to be actually engaged in doing ministerial work would be very limited.

Most ministers with a few exceptions like Mustapa Mohamed, an experienced micro-managing technocrat, leave the running of their ministries to department heads.

Increasing Power of PM's Department
For years the public service has been the chief policymaker through the Economic Planning Unit (EPU) within the Prime Minister's Department. The PM's department accumulates up to date information on the economy to rival any ministry, dictating policy all around the country. It's a super-ministry centered in Putrajaya with offices in each state. Other ministries manage the details and fill in the gaps where the EPU doesn't outline any policy framework.

The power of other ministries has gradually been curtailed and subordinated. This began under Mahathir and continued under Badawi, where the PM's department became almost infamous, perceived to be controlled by the back room boys led by his son-in-law Khairy Jamaluddin. This led to criticism that policy was being formulated by faceless and unelected people, probably a contributing factor to Badawi's demise as Prime Minister not long after the 2008 election.

Rise of Outside Consultancies
Another trend during the Badawi era was the increasing use of outside consultants to make policy, with corridor policy statements formulated by consultants appointed by GLCs selected to oversee each corridor.

The Najib Administration has made policy almost the complete domain of consultants who undertake studies for the EPU, Corridor authorities, and the ETP. These consulting jobs are lucrative and many firms seek them out.

Although there is something positive about using outside consultants to break out of the public service mold and bring in fresh ideas, in practice many of these reports are undertaken by fresh graduate MBA types who rely on popular terms, cliches, and graphics to deliver ideas that may in some cases not be well thought out or practical. In most cases outcomes are forecast so far into the future - 15 years in the Malaysian Biotechnology Policy - they lose their realism and become wish lists that nobody is really responsible for achieving. This leaves many of these programs open to the criticism of being more public relations exercises and programs for "connected" businesses to get rich on. A number of scandals involving ministers like the National Feedlot Center over the last few years has undermined public confidence.

Very few of these consultants actually have direct experience or expertise in the areas they are developing reports about. For example, the Northern Corridor Economic Region (NCER) Master plan developed a few years ago recommended mini paddy estates run by large companies that would rent farmers' land and employ farmers back as general laborers, something reeking of feudalism to many. Worse still, some reports look like cut and paste jobs, while others are "sub-contracted" out to ghost writers.

Of greatest concern is the growing culture of political correctness today. People are restricted from saying what needs to be said out of fear that someone may be offended. There are many stories around the corridors of Putra Jaya where figures are manipulated to show scenarios in particular ways just to look good. Consequently many reports become feel good papers designed to give a glow about the future.

Most development policy is now in the hands of a corporatized organization called the Performance Management and Delivery Unit (Pemandu), also meaning "driver" in Bahasa Malaysia. The unit's head Idris Jala leads a dynamic group of technocrats who employ lots of consultants in the pursuit of transforming the economy and government.

What is also of concern today is so much public policy cannot be directly reviewed by parliament as it has been sub-contracted to corporations. There is a risk here that policy has thus become a commodity, and to some the policy is the end in itself. These consultants personally lobby ministers, the EPU, and Pemandu officials for lucrative contracts where little expertise matching, transparency or tendering procedures exist.

These reports are very rarely questioned in public and if they are, objections are ridden over roughshod, as the technocrat/consultants don't see the need for public opinion. Most often the terms of reference or TOR as it's known in the industry don't include public input into the report process.

Even the ruling parties have little practical input into these processes as policy comes out of the EPU and/or appointed consultants reports. The top Malaysian public servants and advisors are skilled in handling their ministers, who in most situations don't have the policy background to challenge and question what is put in front of them. Consequently most ministers act upon the advice of their public service advisors and reports presented to them.

In addition some ministries feel the need to make policy to justify their existence and performance. One such example is the Ministry of Higher Education, mentioned earlier in this article, where interference in day-to-day operations may actually be counterproductive to the national objective of developing world class universities.

Governance Stems from Sound Processes
Good public policy is the platform that good governance is built upon and this is an issue that has been almost totally ignored by those involved within the political process. Public policy needs to be built upon a shared vision, with input from all potential stakeholders, equitable, and transparent. An open process would negate the ability of sectional interest groups gaining benefits over others, a very much needed aspect in the process of public policy in Malaysia today.

Political parties too must put more effort into developing comprehensive policies so the people can give a mandate based on policy at election time. Policy substance is urgently needed. Otherwise public policy will be continually subject to political whims and contamination by outside parties.

The future prosperity of Malaysia will not be determined by who governs Malaysia but by how it is governed. Good governance should be based upon a transparent public policy process. It is time that the "top down" notion of public policy making be reviewed and changed to a more consultative process. Until proper evaluations and monitoring are made on proposed and existing public policies, these policies will be nothing more than a gamble, particularly with policies where the effects will not be felt in the community for years to come.

(Murray Hunter is an Australian academic teaching in a Malaysian university)

Rakyat Kena Bangkit Dan Tolak Kezaliman & Rasuah UMNO

22 questions for Dr M, again

QUESTION TIME I became a journalist at the Business Times, then a standalone newspaper, in 1978.

Three years later in 1981 Dr Mahathir Mohamad became prime minister of Malaysia, its fourth, succeeding Hussein Onn.

I have followed his career quite closely since and frankly I am not impressed. He started off with promise - and promised a lot - but fulfilled none if any.

In fact I would go so far as to say that he was positively the worst prime minister this country has ever had.

Through destruction of institutions such as an independent judiciary, running roughshod over civil servants, bringing his brand of power, patronage and poor economics into decision making, and making use of oppressive laws he used an iron fist to rule and in the process brought more harm to this country than any other person alive or dead.

Much of the problems of Malaysia can be traced back to him and he has made it difficult for his successors to make major changes going forward, much of which would involve unwinding processes and linkages he had put in place before.

Mahathir, after he stepped down, questioned decisions taken by his successor, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

True to form, he never stopped intervening and systematically undermining Abdullah's tenure by making disparaging comments and organising dissent against him.

Now he has admitted inflating voter rolls in Sabah during his tenure by giving citizenship to illegal migrants, justifying this by the independence agreement of 1957 which granted citizenship to migrant Chinese and Indians who came here during British rule.

And he has controversially called for the Barisan Nasional to be given two thirds majority in Parliament so that they can revoke the citizenship of Bersih leader Ambiga Sreenevasan, the clear implication being you can change the constitution of the country to take away citizenship of anyone at will, and presumably those who were given citizenship in 1957 and their descendants.

Questions to ponder on
In June 2006, three years after Mahathir stepped down, I wrote an article for The Edge, the weekly business newspaper where I worked then, titled '22 questions for Mahathir'.

This basically questioned Mahathir's leadership by asking 22 groups of questions for each of 22 years he held power as prime minister.

Considering all that Mahathir has said recently, here's a list of those 22 questions to ponder again - but the original unedited ones which were slightly different and with minor revisions to take into account recent developments.

You can judge for yourself what kind of prime minister he was and what kind of weight we should put on what he says.
1. On clean government. You came to power in 1981 and introduced the slogan 'bersih, cekap dan amanah' (clean, efficient and trustworthy) the following year. What did you do to further that?
Did you make the Anti-Corruption Agency more independent and effective? Did you ensure that the police did their job properly and reduce corruption in their ranks?
Did you ensure that ministers and chief ministers did not have income beyond their legal means?

Did you make the judicial system more effective? Did you do things transparently?
How many big guns were prosecuted for corruption offences during your long tenure? What happened to 'bersih cekap dan amanah.?

Tempurung of a different order
2. Press freedom. While your heavy criticism of the government under Abdullah and your ranting and ravings now get plenty of coverage in the local media, during your time criticisms against you by two former prime ministers - Tunku Abdul Rahman and Hussein Onn - were muted in the mainstream newspapers.

The other, Abdul Razak Hussein, current prime minister Najib Razak's father, had passed away then. Editors in Umno-linked newspapers, too, were removed during your time for not toeing the line.

What have you done to advance the cause of responsible press freedom? Is it a concept you believe in at all?

3. Proton. You went ahead with the national car project in 1983 despite a number of experts disagreeing with you, especially with respect to lack of economies of scale.

Why, especially when Proton's profit over the last 28 years came out of vastly higher prices that the Malaysian public pays, resulting in considerable hardship, especially to the poorer people who could not afford cars?

More lately, Proton has been taken over by one of your close associates Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary's DRB-Hicom. DRB-Hicom's lack of expertise and economies of scale in car production promises continued high prices for Proton cars which no doubt you will support as Proton adviser.

4. Heavy industries. Why did you push into heavy industries such as steel and cement in the eighties, ignoring studies which suggested developing resource-based industries instead?

They caused major problems and billions of ringgit in losses. The steel industry continues to be protected largely because of moves that you allowed during your tenure as prime minister.

Consequences of thoughtless action

5. Population. Why did you encourage a population of 70 million for Malaysia and change the name of the National Family Planning Board to the National Population Development Board?

How do you expect poor people to take care of five, six or more children? What kind of quality can they provide to their children?

Is this not now reflected in rural poverty and widening income gaps between the rich and the poor?

6. Immigration. Why did you allow hordes of people to immigrate, mainly from Indonesia, in such an unregulated way such that there are as many or more illegal immigrants than legal ones, now accounting for some two million or more people?

Did you not realise that this will cause serious social problems and depress the cost of Malaysian labour? Why did you give citizenship to thousands of them to tilt the balance of voting in Sabah? Where were your moral standards?

7. On his first deputy. Some five years after you came to power, there were serious rifts between you and your deputy Musa Hitam. What was the cause of these problems and is it because you were heavy-handed and did not consult your ministers?

8. On the first serious Umno split. When Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah and Musa took on you and Ghafar Baba at the Umno general assembly of 1987, it caused a serious split in Umno with you winning by a very narrow margin (761 to 718).

Why did you not seek to heal the rift in Umno post the elections? Instead you purged Umno and its successor Umno Baru of those who opposed you causing an unprecedented split in Malay unity.

In 1987 were you not the leader with the least amount of support that Umno had ever had? Were you not directly or indirectly responsible for the most serious split in Malay unity?

9. Operation Lalang. Why did you have to resort to this move in October 1987, when you used wide powers of detention under the Internal Security Act to detain over 100 people, close down four newspapers and cause a wave of fear throughout the country?

Was it to consolidate your tenuous hold on power then by using an oppressive law? You could have used your position as Barisan Nasional leader to defuse the racial tensions at the time over the appointment of non-Chinese educated headmasters to Chinese schools.

Ghost entity ruling the roost

10. Umno Baru. You are of course aware that Umno's correct name now is Umno Baru because the old Umno was declared illegal by the courts in 1988.

Why did you not take steps to legalise Umno? Is it because the formation of a new Umno Baru made it easier to keep out members who opposed you?

And why did you amend rules to make it extremely difficult to challenge the incumbent president and deputy president?

Was it to forestall any more challenges to you? Didn't Umno Baru become less democratic as a result? Did you put in place measures to prolong your rule?

11. Judiciary. What was your motive in taking action in 1988 to remove the Chief Justice and several Supreme Court judges from their positions under allegations of judicial misconduct, a move which was heavily criticised by the Bar Council and other bodies?

Is it because you needed more compliant judges whose rulings will not threaten your position of power in a number of cases in court?

Was this the first step in dismantling the judiciary's role as a check and balance against the legislature and the executive?

What have you to say to repeated assertions by many, including prominent ex-Chief Justices, who maintain that this led to the erosion of judicial independence and perceived abuse of power?

Why did you not take any action against a Chief Justice who had taken a holiday abroad with some lawyers?
Responsible for education decline?

12. Education. You presided over the education system at an important part of its transformation first as education minister in the seventies, then as prime minister.

Would it be correct to surmise therefore that you were responsible for its decline during those years?

Why did you not spend more money and resources to ensure that our education system was excellent and continued to improve but instead spent billions on other showpiece projects?

13. Former finance miniister Daim Zainuddin. Why did you give this one man so much power, allowing him to decide on the award of virtually all government projects and tenders, and other projects?

14. Cronyism and patronage. Did you not encourage cronyism and patronage by dishing out major projects to a few within the inner circle, and especially connected to Daim?

People such as Halim Saad (the Renong group - toll roads, telecommunications etc), Tajudin Ramli (mobile telephone TRI group and Malaysia Airlines), Amin Shah Omar (the failed PSC Industries - multi-billion ringgit naval dockyard contracts), Ting Pek Khiing (Ekran - the Bakun Dam) to mention just a few? Why did you not use open tenders and auctions?

15. Privatisation. Why did you allow privatisation to take place in such a manner that the most profitable parts of government operation were given away to cronies?

Toll roads had guaranteed toll increases and compensation in the event traffic projections were not met. Independent power producers had contracts that guaranteed them profits at the expense Tenaga Nasional.
No pals in politics holds true
16. Ghafar Baba. Although Ghafar had the highest number of votes among vice-presidents when Hussein Onn became prime minister in 1976, you, who got the lowest number of votes, were chosen as Hussein's deputy.

Yet when you called upon Ghafar to be your deputy in 1987, he obliged, helping you to win the Umno presidency.

But you did little to back him up when he was challenged for the deputy presidency in 1993 by Anwar Ibrahim. Can we say that you stabbed him in the back?

17. Anwar Ibrahim. Did you move against him because he was a threat to your position in 1998?

Did you use the entire government machinery at your disposal to get him sentenced under trumped up charges of sodomy? Do you think he got a fair trial? Don't you think the country suffered terribly because of this power struggle involving the two of you?

18. Bank Negara losses. How could you tacitly encourage the central bank, Bank Negara Malaysia to engage in speculative trades, using as an excuse the need to protect foreign exchange reserves?

Bank Negara lost some RM32 billion in 1993, according to some accounts, as a result of taking positions in the foreign exchange market. In current prices, using an average inflation rate of 3.2% a year, that amounts to nearly RM60 billion!

19. KL International Airport. Was it really necessary to spend RM10 billion on a showpiece airport at Sepang when the Subang airport could have been so easily extended?

The airport was operating way below capacity for years and it probably is today, 14 years later, judging by its emptiness at some times during the day. The RM130 million low-cost terminal carries more passengers that the main terminal!

20. Putrajaya. What is the justification for spending RM20 billion on a grandiose government city at a time when office space was available in Kuala Lumpur? Could not the money be put to better use such as improving educational resources?

21. Government-linked companies (GLCs). Why did you not make efforts to improve the performance of GLCs?

Why did you allow funds such as the Employees Provident Fund and Kumpulan Wang Amanah Pencen to take up dubious investments to basically help cronies out of their problems?

These have led to billions of ringgit in losses to these funds. Thankfully, there has been improvements in these areas after you left.

22. Don't you think you owe it to the nation and the people to offer explanations over your 22-year tenure which is replete with examples of incompetence, corruption and cronyism, mismanagement and misallocation in the billions of ringgit and which has set the country back years?

Don't you think, more than anyone else, you deserve to be branded as a traitor to this country for grossly abusing your position as prime minister?

---

P GUNASEGARAM is founding editor of business news portal KiniBiz, a joint-venture with Malaysiakini. He sees democracy as a systems of laws, institutions, checks and balances to ensure everyone's rights, not just elections every five years or so.

30 days' jail for insulting queen

The New Straits Times
by LOOI SUE-CHERN

REMORSEFUL: Man also fined RM8,000

BALIK PULAU: THE man who flashed his middle finger at  Raja Permaisuri Agong Tuanku Hajah Haminah has landed himself in jail for 30 days.

Leong Pei Koe, 29, was also fined RM8,000 yesterday after he pleaded guilty to making the obscene hand gesture.

The quantity surveyor from Subang Jaya, Selangor, was a picture of remorse before he was sentenced by magistrate Muhamad Hidayat Wahab yesterday afternoon.

Speaking in English, Leong who had no lawyer, said he was sincerely sorry for what he had done.

He apologised to the Raja Permaisuri Agong, police and also the people of Malaysia.

"I promise that I will not do it again," he said in a choked voice.

Leong faced two charges of committing obscene acts in public.

He was accused of committing the acts at 11.50am on Monday at the Penang International Airport.

The offence, under Section 294 (a) of the Penal Code, carries a maximum of three months jail, or fine or both.

He was first charged with showing the middle finger on his right hand at the Raja Permaisuri Agong when her car passed him near the Penang International Airport departure hall.

He was also charged with showing a different obscene gesture (hitting his clenched left fist on his right palm) at Superintendent Mohamad Fakhrudin Abdul Hamid.

Hidayat sentenced Leong to 30 days' jail and RM6,000 fine for the first offence and RM2,000 for the second offence.

He said a Malaysian citizen should heed the Rukun Negara and pledge loyalty to the king and country.

"This punishment will serve as a lesson to the accused and others as well."

Deputy public prosecutors Suhaimi Ibrahim and Charanjit Singh Mohinder Singh prosecuted.

Opposition's Felda Roadshow Nothing New - Mohd Isa

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 15 (Bernama) -- The opposition's endeavour to organise a nationwide Felda roadshow in view of the coming general election was not a departure from the norm, said Felda chairman Tan Sri Mohd Isa Abdul Samad.

"They know that Felda is a staunch Barisan Nasional (BN) supporter, that's why they try to create numerous issues to confuse the Felda community," he said when asked to comment on the political forums being held by the opposition in Felda settlements.

Speaking to reporters after signing a memorandum of understanding (MoU) between Felda Foundation and the National Cancer Council (Makna) here today, Mohd Isa said Felda would have no difficulty in countering issues raised by the opposition.

"We have prepared ourselves to respond to their claims. We (Felda) are on the right (path) as we stand by facts, while the opposition is relying on imagination and wild guesses to confuse the people," he said.

He was confident that the Felda community, including the young generation, would continue to support the leadership of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

On the MoU Friday, Mohd Isa said it was aimed at fulfilling Felda'corporate social responsibility to the community.

"It encompasses 24 cancer awareness programmes for this year. I hope the Felda community, including residents in nearby areas, would come for health examination and screening, obtain treatment and counselling by Makna," he added.

Mohd Isa said the foundation had set aside almost RM600,000, as well as logistics for Makna, to carry out the programmes in 24 selected Felda settlements nationwide.

Leaking of Hindraf-Pakatan discussions is sinister

COMMENT I refer to Terrence Netto's comment piece in Malaysiakini, dated Feb 14, 2013.

In making this clarification, I am cautious and take cognisance of the high level of confidential discussions that took place initially between PKR on Nov 1, 2013, and the subsequent meetings with the top Pakatan Rakyat leaders that are still continuing.

However, we are disappointed that those confidential discussions could be leaked and we believe there is a sinister motive behind this by irresponsible parties to break any possible co-operation between Hindraf and Pakatan.

On behalf of Hindraf, I made the proposal for Hindraf to contest against all MIC-held seats as part of our contribution to bringing about political and social change in Malaysia. This proposal was made from the very beginning of our meeting with Anwar Ibrahim.

We made it clear to him that this request for strategic partnership was made to cater to the voice of the poor and underclass Indian Malaysians, whose voice has never been heard in Parliament. It was agreed between the parties that further talks should be held on this electoral pact.

In the last general election, Hindraf was instrumental in bringing about the following:

1. Breaking the much acclaimed "fixed deposit" Indian votes and delivering that wholesale to the opposition candidates;
2. Contributing to the loss of job of a prime minister who unprecedentedly had to leave office as a result of BN's loss of its two-thirds mandate in Parliament;
3. Contributing to the unprecedented loss of the ruling government's two-thirds majority in Parliament; and
4. Being instrumental in the opposition coalition gaining an extra five states.

Our proposal to contest in seven Parliament and 10 state seats was made after consultation with various parties and in this we have the mandate of the Indian underclass that we represent. Their voices need to be heard in the legislative bodies. Their rights and interests have to be taken into account in formulating the various policies in this country.

It'll be the most bitterly fought election

This 13th general election is going to be the most bitterly fought election in Malaysian history and it is important for Hindraf to be part of that history.

In proposing to contest seven parliamentary and 10 state seats, we made it clear that it was negotiable and that we would never ask for any seat currently held by incumbent Pakatan leaders.

Our negotiations for seats were conditional upon Pakatan Rakyat endorsing the Hindraf blueprint. In the meeting with Pakatan leadership on Feb 6, we made it clear to the chair of the meeting that seat discussions were secondary and that our primary concern and goal were to get Pakatan to endorse our proposed blueprint.

However, we were willing to make any adjustment to the wordings, language or any matter in the blueprint that was of concern to the Pakatan leadership.

On Feb 9, 2013, we declared openly, through media statements, that we were willing to mobilise thousands of Hindraf volunteers to campaign for Pakatan should Pakatan endorse the Hindraf blueprint. Our main concern is to bring the marginalised Indians into the mainstream of national development.

We are probably in the last 30 days before the general election. Parliament may be dissolved anytime now.

Pakatan has to quickly make a decision as many grassroots Indians want to know its stand before making up their minds. Our nationwide roadshows are continuing and the Hindraf leaders in seven states are meeting thousands of people weekly.

---

P WAYTHA MOORTHY is chairperson of the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf).

'Pakatan will implement Hindraf plan in 100 days'

Should Pakatan Rakyat assume federal power, the Hindu Rights Action Force's (Hindraf) five-year blueprint on resolving the Indian community's woes will be implemented within 100 days, declared Pakatan supremo Anwar Ibrahim.

"I've even said that we will discuss it and resolve (the blueprint issues) within 100 days of Pakatan (taking over Putrajaya).

"What I mean is we have agreed on the blueprint," he told 1,500 Indian attendees at a two-hour question-and-answer session in Shah Alam last night.

The opposition leader was responding to a question raised by Semparuthi news portal editor Jiwi Kathaiah (left) on whether Pakatan would put its fingerprint on the Hindraf blueprint.

Aside from Semparuthi, the main organiser, four other Tamil newspapers, Tamil Nesan, Thinakural, Makkal Osai and Malaysia Nanban took part in the session.

Hindraf had warned before that Pakatan's "inordinate delay" in endorsing the blueprint may result the coalition losing the NGO's support in the coming election.

Hindraf blueprint spirit in Buku Jingga

It said that despite Pakatan's initial interest to engage with Hindraf, as seen by the number of meetings between the two parties since November 2012, including one with Anwar, "there is nothing to show in the form of progress".

However, Anwar (left) suggested that Hindraf and the NGOs "should not insist on us (Pakatan) signing" the blueprint.

He reiterated that the spirit of the blueprint has been incorporated in the Pakatan policy document, the Buku Jingga.

"We have read your (Hindraf) blueprint. But can't you also read our blueprint (Buku Jingga)?" he asked.

The PKR de facto leader said that his party's Indian leaders have been consistently addressing the other issues affecting their community.

These included stateless Indians, insufficient allocation for Tamil schools and death-in-custody issues.

"Look at the Kugan's case (he died in police custody in 2009), it wouldn't be national issue if we hadn't taken it up. I also asked PAS and DAP leaders to join me in visiting to Kugan's home."

Set up IPCMC, reiterates citizens' action group

Before a backdrop of 20 pictures and a litany of names of those recently killed or injured in police custody or during chases, a group of activists reignite the clarion call for the government to form the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) to watch over those who watch over us.

Some are well-known, like political aide Teoh Beng Hock, car repossesser A Kugan, teen Aminul Rasyid Amzah, and Customs officer Ahmad Sarbaini Mohamed, while others are less known and more obscure, but all have felt the steel-toed jackboots of law enforcers, and as the group claims, are but the tip of the iceberg that have titanically sunk the trust of Malaysians in the police.

The Stop State Violence Movement representing 42 non-governmental organisations stressed that the commission proposed by a royal commission of inquiry (RCI) on the police eight years ago must be formed soon, as more and more cases of alleged police violence and abuse of power surface.

"It’s easy, the IPCMC - we must have it now, for the police are having a field day. It boggles the mind.
"The people must be angry and hurt enough to rise up and demand for IPCMC now, as it can happen to any of us," urged elderly activist Annie Ooi, popularly known for her much publicised involvement in the Bersih pro-electoral reform rally.

'This is the time to push through the matter' 

Tenaganita director Irene Fernandez, who was also present, added that now is the time to push through the matter, not only in view of escalating cases of alleged police misconduct but also the added momentum of using it as an election issue, to demand prompt action.

Asked about their next step, since many calls for the IPCMC to be set up have been met with deaf ears from the government, group spokesperson R Thevarajan from Suaram did not discount the possibility of holding demonstrations to push their point across.

Other representatives from Lawyers For Liberty, Komas centre for community communications and the Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall echoed the same sentiments.

The group also reiterated their criticism of the ‘paper tiger’, the Enforcement Agencies’ Integrity Commission, which they stressed was a watered-down version of the IPCMC and could not hold the police accountable for their actions, since according to the admission of its own CEO, the body cannot prosecute but could only refer complaints to the originating enforcement body.

The IPCMC was recommended by a royal commission of inquiry on the police in 2005 to address mounting concerns over police accountability and abuse of power.

Between a BN rock and a Pakatan hard place

"If you dance with the devil, the devil don't change. The devil changes you" - Max California (8MM)

COMMENT Right-thinking Malaysians should be aware that there are two points of disagreement that the Hindraf leadership has - the first with Pakatan Rakyat and the seat allocation controversy and the second, with Malaysiakini's coverage on the breakdown of talks.

The first point with regard to Hindraf's ‘demands' that it be given seats as the cause of the breakdown of talks is rejected emphatically by P Waythamoorthy, whom I spoke to yesterday. According to the Hindraf leader, yes, there was talk of seats but it was never a pre-condition for Hindraf to support Pakatan.

The only condition or perhaps more accurately, the main condition, was Pakatan endorsing the Hindraf blueprint. As to the parliamentary seats in question, Hindraf made it very clear that it would not contest against Pakatan incumbents but would like a straight fight against MIC candidates.

Hindraf proposed that they should battle for four seats which were held by the MIC and the remaining three would be decided by Pakatan leadership. As for the 10 state seats, the same formula would apply. Hindraf is adamant that this was not a pre-condition to Hindraf supporting Pakatan and these were confidential talks between Pakatan and Hindraf, with nothing set in stone.

Right-thinking Malaysians should bear in mind that the idea that the talks between Hindraf and Pakatan are breaking down because Hindraf is demanding seats is political spin. The most important condition has always been the Hindraf blueprint.

Furthermore, Hindraf made it clear that it wanted no funds (from Pakatan) for its vast network of volunteers who were willing to work for Pakatan in the coming general election. This was a form of ABUism (Anything But Umnoism) at work.

Highly confidential talks

It is regrettable that Pakatan has chosen to spin these highly confidential talks to further demonise a prospective ally with the old canard that ‘Indians' are demanding and ungrateful.

Although I am on record as far as my belief that Hindraf should play the role of an activist lobby, I abhor the propaganda that attempts to vilify them and the breaking of confidence that is explicit in secret negotiations.

Any political operative will tell you that secrecy even amongst political opponents is a primary tool which facilitates compromise and should never be taken lightly.

The second point is the semantic disagreement between the Hindraf leadership and Malaysiakini with regards to the first paragraph of the its news report, 'Hindraf: Talks with Pakatan heading for breakdown'.

Hindraf in a text message to Malaysiakini said, "Steven, your 1st para on Hindraf news is misleading. Hindraf never said it would WITHDRAW support for the opposition coalition. I have doubled checked on the written statement of (P) Ramesh, the secretary. Let us not derail the opportunity to work together, please amend accordingly."

I gather this message was also texted to various Pakatan leaders.

I reproduce here the last two paragraphs of the press statement in its entirety to allow readers to judge for themselves if "warning" (a rather provocative description) in lieu of "cautious", is an appropriately neutral/objective description considering the ire Hindraf raises in their adversaries who consider them "racist".

"In the excitement of a general election, Hindraf will advise the Indian marginalised and poor that they should not forget their denied rights and expect magic to happen after the GE just on a regime change. We will advise that we have to analyse how the last 12 GEs have brought changes in our lives. Hindraf has become wary of selfish politicians who use the elections as a tool to excite people and make empty promises for their votes and after having got their votes, forget their promises. Hindraf is not about to let that happen. Promises must be kept.

"Hindraf will not waiver from its path of getting for the Indian poor what is their long due right. We will push along this path in spite of the many difficulties along the way. As for the upcoming GE, Hindraf will be cautious in directing the people in how to cast their votes."

Indeed, I agree with the description of the disingenuous nature of certain politicians from Pakatan (and I should add BN) in the press statement.

MIC to be blamed

However beyond this semantic mess (depending of course on how one views Hindraf) as a Pakatan and Hindraf supporter, I would like to make my stand clear. Engaging with BN in any way if talks with Pakatan breaks down is an unacceptable option for Hindraf.

The reason why there is a large disfranchised segment of the Indian community is because of BN. I do not blame Umno entirely for this sad state of affairs. I blame the MIC. After all, Umno dealt us our race cards and who else is to blame if the hand was played badly. The MCA may be considered by a majority of the Chinese community as outcast but they shepherded the interests of the Chinese community far better and with far more obvious gains than the MIC.

Umno has given no indication to the Indian community that it views them as anything more than expendable votes who are content with the occasional displays of largesse that in no way amounts to the same attention that is given to the other non-Malay community.

Systemic discrimination in the legal system and law enforcement has resulted in the perpetuation of the stereotype that Indians are the criminal underclass of Malaysian society, where even deaths in custody becomes political propaganda by the racialists within Pakatan to harangue for support of Pakatan.

If BN is not an option, what then? Hindraf should make it very clear that they reject the racist policies of BN but since Pakatan has no interest in reversing those polices in the context of the Hindraf blueprint, Hindraf will abstain from participating in the upcoming general elections.

Now for some this would not be such a big deal. Hindraf and the Indian community are mocked routinely in the alternative media, so their non-participation would be an insignificant event. Pakatan are convinced they have the Indian vote locked down and so does BN with the publication of numerous polls results crowing the return of the Indian vote to BN, thanks to the ‘efforts' of the MIC.

Both underestimate the disenfranchised of the Indian community. I have no doubt that Pakatan has locked down the middle class (or at least a significant majority) Indian vote who have drunk deeply from the kool aid well, but who are clueless of the reality Hindraf and the Human Rights Party shine a light on.

Why the delay in endorsing blueprint?

Umno, which has always taken the Indian vote for granted, believes that it has done enough for the community to rejoin the fold, but the truth may be far more disastrous for Pakatan than Umno.

The great misconception is that the disenfranchised of the Indian community are blind devotees of Hindraf. What people do not seem to understand is that Hindraf works hard for the support it receives. Abstaining from the political process is a very real option for the disenfranchised of the Indian community who have yet to see the practical benefits that Pakatan supporters claim they see under the Pakatan administrations they live under.

Recently Waythamoorthy and journalists from various Tamil language newspapers who were covering him on his fact-finding forays across Indian villages across Selangor were told that they (Indian villagers) would not support BN but they would abstain from voting if they felt their communities needs were not being addressed by Pakatan.

These "messages" were of course not reported in the mainstream Tamil press. However, it was very clear to Hindraf that in order for Hindraf to be effective facilitators of change, they would have to offer credible evidence that Pakatan was serious about addressing the concerns of the disenfranchised of the Indian community.

I have no idea why Pakatan does not want to drop the multiracial/cultural spin (because I can cite plenty of evidence to the contrary) and engage in some old fashion realpolitik. The perception that this is a Chinese versus Umno election is a meme, which is either willfully ignored or dismissed, in the alternative media. Marginalising a group like Hindraf merely adds to this perception.

Hindraf is accused of being "stubborn". However, has Hindraf not refined its original demands and made a compromise in the form of the blueprint that has been endorsed by like-minded oppositional personalities and groups? Has not Hindraf acknowledged that Anwar Ibrahim as the "prime minister in waiting"? Has not Hindraf publicly said it would campaign for Pakatan with its cadre of committed grassroots activists?

Why the delay in endorsing the blueprint? If as some Pakatan leaders have told me that the "demands" are similar to Pakatan's own goals, then why not agree to them in principle in writing or get back to Hindraf who have publicly stated that they would consider whatever amendments that Pakatan feels is necessary?

The answer is simple. Pakatan feels that it does not need Hindraf and they have the Indian vote locked down. The Kampung Buah Pala fiasco may be a non-issue as far Pakatan is concerned, but Waytha has made it clear that he would be willing to debate any Pakatan representative with the goal of establishing another narrative besides the one propagated by Pakatan.

Psy blunder may help Umno

Moreover, if Pakatan thinks that the recent Psy games boosted its stock amongst undecided voters, I say think again.

The Chinese community may have made their stand and a certain section may be gulping down schadenfreude over Prime Minister Najib Razak's blunder, but anyone with an ounce of political practical understanding would know that the longer this election foreplay drags on, the more likely the ground-level sentiment might change.

Take this Umno MP, who gleefully told me that the constant attacks by the "Chinese dominated alternative media" especially about the Psy blunder might actually be working in favour of Umno.

Undecided Malay voters, who see that the Najib administration is bending over backwards to accommodate the Chinese community, whether in matters of education (according to the Malay Mail, Najib will attend the Dong Zong open house), religion (the ‘Allah' controversy which the DAP relit) and generally pandering to the Chinese community which is mocked as "demeaning", may just get tired of this nonsense and vote Umno.

Concerning Dong Zong, the standards are different. A hardline Chinese education group consorting with an Umno PM is not considered treacherous behaviour but the same does not apply to Indian rights groups. That is fair play for you from Pakatan supporters.

These undecided Malay voters are not Umno stooges like the Pakatan kool-aid drinkers and DAP apparatchiks like to portray them but rather middle-of-the-road types who are appalled by the way how politicians from both sides of the divide behave.

These voters will retreat to their communal cages, especially when they see that the same old race game is played and that their values, be it religious or cultural are constantly mocked. Why switch teams when on the surface the devil you know is showing signs of compromise?

This election is going to be one of the most bitterly fought elections in Malaysian history. For Pakatan, up against an Umno state that has stacked the deck, every vote counts. It would be a shame if a significant section of the Indian community abstained from voting or worse voted for Umno because the Pakatan leadership refused to see the big real politick picture.

For Hindraf, the painful lesson is that being on the cutting edge of racial politics sometimes means you bleed.

---

S THAYAPARAN is Commander (rtd) of the Royal Malaysian Navy.

The future of Subang cannot be gambled – Prakash Rao – Video Clip

Barisan Nasional Subang Cordinator Prakash Rao yesterday called on the people of Subang to give their full mandate to the Barisan Nasional government and Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak for another five-year term to secure a better future for people of Subang, Indian Communities and the country.

“The future of Subang and Malaysian Indian cannot be gambled away and vote for BN is for a better, secure and prosperous future,” he said in his speech when officiate Pertubuhan Kesenian dan Kebudayaan India Malaysia Subang Branch monthly meeting.

Prakash Rao also mention that Najib’s ever readiness to engage and solving on key issues and the offer of widening opportunities for the Indian community in education, development programmes and civil services as the reasons for him to win over the Indian voters in the forthcoming general elections .

According to Prakash Rao also almost RM1bil has been spent on solving the Indians’ problems since 2009, when Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak took over as Prime Minister and started a transformation of society.

Above all, our Prime Minister has been paying great attention to Indian festivals and ceremonies and giving generously to our temples and schools, he said