malaysiakini: A sustainability-oriented social charter for Malaysia... by M Nadarajah

A sustainability-oriented social charter for Malaysia

M Nadarajah
Feb 28, 2011, 11:37am

 

COMMENT Social charters have become necessary social instruments in today's complex and highly differentiated world to consolidate, strengthen and redefine the terms of local, national and global social relationships, carefully crafted with a vision of a better future.

These days, the way forward does not seem clear without an issue-based or comprehensive social charter.

The widespread abuse of power by modern states and of position by politicians and corporate leaders is patent today; blind and runaway materialistic desires animate our uncontrolled consumption behaviour globally; unbridled selfishness and insensitivity dominate society; and ill-considered growth policies promote exclusive, not inclusive, growth.

Given these realities, we need to unambiguously and transparently re-state the terms of our relationships as a society and the assumptions they are based on.

There have been some inspiring attempts to propose rights-based social charters for Malaysia. My intention here is to contribute towards imagining a sustainability-oriented social charter for our country.

First, a word of clarification.

The word 'sustainability' is used here in a wider context than its normal reference to environmental or ecological (read nature) sustainability. I would include cultural, social, economic, technological and environmental sustainability under its conceptual territory. This provides for a comprehensive, conceptually integrated, all-round ecological understanding of the notion and practice of 'sustainability', encompassing both society and nature.

The conception is important because if we do not “design” a fundamentally sustainable social arrangement nationally and globally, there cannot be any environmental sustainability. It allows to part journey with “business-as-usual” notion and practice of sustainability.

Why do we need a sustainability-oriented social charter for Malaysia?

Multi-cultural, multi-ethnic Malaysia, seduced by neo-liberalist economic ideas, may certainly be considered to have progressed over the last few decades, but the trend has largely been down the
glittering, blinding road to all-round unsustainability.

For verification, we just have to examine global indicators such as the corruption perceptions index, cumulative illicit financial outflows estimates, press freedom index, etc. Malaysia today is in every sense unsustainable as a long-term national or human development project.

All of us are implicated in one way or another in the fate of Mother Malaysia.

Key institutions deformed or almost destroyed

Those we elected to manage our nation in the post-independence period have certainly grown Malaysia. We have a Multimedia Super Corridor, the Twin Towers, Astro, many mega-temples of consumption… but all these at what cost? Key institutions that would have matured our fledgling democracy were pushed to a back burner, deformed or almost destroyed.

We were, and continue to be, handicapped by political disenfranchisement, subject to casual public accountability, affected by wholesale and retail corruption, punished by gross misuse of the judicial process (as reflected in writings and debates of the daughters and sons of Malaysia), and paralysed by ISA-induced 'systemic fear'. This is our legacy of democracy…for the future
generations to follow!

Political and economic practices that should have improved our quality of life, enriched our everyday experience and spread happiness have largely led to the polarising of society and increasing hardship for the lower social strata and the indigenous communities.

They have increasingly “fine-tuned” ethnic sectarianism through material and spiritual corruption and consistently presented immense institutional and cultural hindrances for taking on the government for lapses in its promises and accountability, while a patriarchical system silently weighs down on women and children.

Our main cultural debates and strategies and religious shortsightedness grossly limit dialogue/multilogue and dialogical/multilogical spaces, continue to destroy a mindful,
inter-dependent living culture and contribute to worsening polarisation that stunts or destroys feelings of belonging to a nation.

One feels sad (and angry) to read some of the messages that are now circulating in the web space. How can this nation be sustainable as an idea and a practice with painful emotions captured in such messages?

Why should people build a home in such a mindless, unsustainable Present that seems to have very little sustainable prospects for the Future?

Ask the movers and they will tell you that once only expatriates moved their belongings from country to country but they see more Malaysians doing so now... “Flight” is in progress. Besides calling these people unpatriotic, what have we done to make them feel at home?

So again, how do we imagine a sustainability-based social charter in Malaysia?

First things first... the Principle orientation.

All of us are born free and equal

Fundamental to the concept of citizenship today is the notion of equality based on the modern secular Faith that all of us - regardless of sex, religion, race, social origin, language, property
ownership or any other social status - are born free and equal. (We must believe these are not given to us by governments though they like to make us think so.)

As equal citizens, we are entitled to civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights within an institutionalised, sustainable context. Because we live in a finite world, a society that espouses these features should ideally stop blindly growing materially but focus on the development of a deep cultural ethos built on “Being rather than Having”.

Sustainability in this context should be articulated in our pursuit of 'development'. This should be seen as a comprehensive economic, technological, political, social and cultural process that aims at continuous but sustainable improvement in the well-being and “gross national happiness” of the society, nurturing both individuals as well as socially and ethnically diverse groups.

Well-being and happiness in a finite world involves aspiration to “de-materialise”. Such a development process needs to be based on the free and meaningful participation of citizens. It must also have a just distribution of national and global material benefits, keeping in mind a 'culture of limits' to consumption of natural resources and a culture of social balance based on equality and equity.

To make an all-round New Sustainable Malaysia possible as a long-term humane project, we certainly need a lot of re-thinking, re-orientation, closure and rebuilding of institutions to do. All systems, processes, social groupings, indeed everything, need to be re-examined and re-framed within a sustainability framework. We need nothing less than a dynamic renaissance, a creative regeneration, guided by principles of sustainability.

We have to get material (and spiritual) corruption out of the way. We have to fight our way out of all kinds of sectarianism and exclusivism. We have to consciously move away from political and religious shortsightedness - the legacies of the old regime.

We have to rebuild our relationships and expectations, between ourselves and between nature and us. We have to strengthen our interconnectedness and mindfulness. We need to re-orient business to be governed by corporate social responsibility and to be compliant to the triple bottomline framework.

Transparent and accountable political culture

We need a political culture that is totally transparent and accountable and one that encourages mature political succession planning that is good for the nation and nature and not any one political party (with its limited agenda). We need to re-build citizens' trust and faith. We need citizens with a high sense of belonging and attachment to Mother Malaysia, not a convenient arrangement.

Maturity in our local and national dealings is crucial. 'Letting go' of past orientations and mistakes to make room for the new and the novel to re-build a New Malaysia is wanting and urgently needed. We show great levels of immaturity and in the process victimise our common Future.

Spent forces of the old regime are always an obstacle and a nuisance but they will have to eventually go, making way for the young and the novel, i.e. those who passionately believe that a New Sustainable Malaysia, based-on all-round sustainability principles, can be imagined and built.

It also means that the new forces that are growing on our national political horizon have a lot of changing to do themselves. In the immediate term, they have the task of presenting themselves with one unfaltering voice as the rightful owners of a Malaysia-in-transition.

Then, there is the mammoth task of creatively re-inventing and/or steadfastly implementing socially and environmentally sustainable national institutions that can help, significantly and symbolically, change the everyday experience of young Malaysians. This is a difficult responsibility but until it is put in process, we will inherit and continue to be influenced by the institutional ethos of the old and unsustainable Malaysia.

As much as the new forces are trying to shape a New Malaysia, they must also, in a concerted and creative manner, change the institutions of the status quo that have contributed to the sustained destruction of a Malaysia for all Malaysians... a governance logos and ethos based on sustainability is the need of the hour.

A minimum sustainability-oriented social charter acceptable by all the diverse new forces - possibly, even reluctantly acceptable by the old - would certainly help.

DR M NADARAJAH is a sociologist by training. He belongs to the Asian Public Intellectuals (API) Community, comprising filmmakers, social researchers, theatre people, songwriters, poets, activists and academics working for a sustainable global society and Asia. His work focuses on cultural and sustainability issues. The article reflects his personal views.

Professionals and top execs set for huge increments... By JOSHUA FOONG

Professionals and top execs set for huge increments

By JOSHUA FOONG
joshuafoong@thestar.com.my

The Star, Monday February 28, 2011

PETALING JAYA: Professionals from the information and communication technology (ICT) sector, accounting and finance industry, banking, logistics and sales have a lot to cheer about this year – their salaries are set to rise by as much as 30% compared with last year.

The Robert Walters Global Salary Survey 2011 for Malaysia has revealed that a wage increase of between 5% and 30% would sweep across these industries this year, partially influenced by inflation rates and market conditions.

The take-home salaries could, in fact, be much higher as these figures are exclusive of bonuses, other benefits and allowances.

Highly-qualified employees with five to 10 years’ experience are expected to benefit from this salary increase as firms in these industries are scrambling to hire and retain the best talents.

“The job market has gradually moved to become more employee-driven. Some firms are even willing to offer premiums to attract good local and foreign talent with niche skills,” Robert Walters country manager Sally Raj told The Star yesterday.

“Salary reviews can range from 5% to 15% depending on market conditions.

“The real jump in salary scale can be seen among sought-after talent – going from 10% to 30%,” she said.

For example, a 29-year-old top investment banker with some six years of working experience can earn up to RM180,000 per annum on his basic salary, she added.

Robert Walters, which has a presence in 20 countries, is among the world’s major professional recruitment consultancies.

It is to release the findings of the survey today.

According to the survey, the banking sector will see the biggest salary boom as the wage bracket for investment bankers with five to eight years of work experience increased from RM180,000 to RM288,000 per annum this year, compared with RM157,000 to RM240,000 last year.

Private equity bankers with the same number of years in work experience also saw their salaries upped from RM160,000 to RM264,000, compared with RM126,000 to RM240,000 last year.

In the ICT industry, software, voice and network engineers are expected to see up to a RM5,000 increase in their annual earnings and business application specialists, up to RM10,000 this year.

In the accounting and finance sector, cost controllers and auditors may stand to earn up to RM10,000 more while wages for account managers in charge of taxation and pricing may make some RM20,000 more.

Malaysian Employers Federation executive director Shamsuddin Bardan said while the average wage increment was expected to be around 5.5%, sectoral increases would be evident as these key industries had been given emphasis by the Government.

“Talents, especially in the 12 National Key Economic Areas (NKEA), will be in demand,” he said.
National ICT Association of Malaysia (Pikom) chairman Wei Chuan Beng said the ICT sector, which is one of the NKEAs, would see expansion with demand for highly-qualified and experienced talents to grow rapidly.

The Malaysian Institute of Accountants (MIA) estimates that about 2,500 locally-recognised accounting graduates with an estimated 1,200 members of professional accountancy bodies recognised by the Accountants Act will join the workforce this year.

“Present development which is taking place in various industries, especially changes and development in corporate governance, tightening of accounting regulations, pressure of globalisation and technology advancement across industries are contributing factors towards this trend of expansion,” the MIA said in a statement.

MySinChew: Getting fed up with all the politicking — by Lim Sue Goan

Getting fed up with all the politicking — Lim Sue Goan

February 22, 2011

FEB 22 — Sometimes, I do really hope that the next general election will be held soon so that the increasingly worsening politicisation phenomenon would end too.

There have been no end to political controversies over the last two years, the major ones being the mysterious death of DAP political aide Teoh Beng Hock, the controversy over the Port Klang state assembly seat, the current university campus elections, the debate over a proposal to set up an auxiliary police force in Selangor, the interfaith issue and the related non-Muslim affairs portfolio set up in Penang, and the setting up of the Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) campus in Serendah, Selangor.

After a long inquest, coroner Azmil Muntapha declared an open verdict for Teoh’s death. A six-member royal commission of inquiry (CI) was then set up by the prime minister. However, the Attorney-General has filed an application for a revision of the coroner’s verdict and Teoh’s family withdrew from participating in the RCI after their requests were dismissed.

Who is right and who is wrong? In addition to the loss of a precious young life, Teoh’s demise also involves the questions on the investigative procedures of the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and human rights. How unfortunate it is to be politicised with the focus being shifted.

Selangor state assembly Speaker Datuk Teng Chang Khim had declared that the Port Klang state seat vacant after assemblyman Badrul Hisham Abdullah had not attended sittings for six months. However, the High Court ruled that the seat is not vacant and Badrul Hisham remains the Port Klang member.

It is not the first time the court has overturned a state assembly speaker’s decision. When former Perak state assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar declared three state seats vacant following the decision of the three constituency’s representatives to withdraw from the Pakatan Rakyat, the Federal Court had, on April 9, 2009, ruled that the Speaker had no power to declare the seats vacant as it was the right of the Election Commission (EC) to confirm whether or not they are vacant.

As political dogfights continue, the check and balance mechanism of executive, legislative and judiciary is shaken and questions on whether the judiciary should intervene in the legislative have been brought up. Such events are not good for a country marching towards democracy.

It is good for the Selangor state government to suggest an auxiliary police force to maintain law and order. Unfortunately, just like the water supply issue, once it has been politicised, it can hardly be implemented.

Meanwhile, why are they quarrelling over the non-Muslim affairs portfolio in Penang since it is the state government’s right to set it up?

Even worse, the campus elections have also been affected. Campus elections are held to allow students elect their representatives to express their views in the student representative council. It is a simple election but some people have made it complicated.

The campus elections this year are full of events, including the outbreak of physical conflicts during the UM Pro-Mahasiswa press conference when a security guard actually covered the mouth of a student to prohibit him from speaking. Later, the pro-Mahasiswa accused the pro-Aspirasi of requesting funds from the MCA and Gerakan, pro-Mahasiswa candidates claimed to have received disturbing SMSes, and election campaign banners were burned while vehicles were spashed with paint. Also, a female candidate “mysteriously” went missing on the eve of the polling day and was “mysteriously” found in a mosque the next day.

It is an academic misfortune when politics penetrates into campuses. Why can’t they just leave the campus elections alone?

In short, politics should not turn out as a vulgar game in which players attack their opponents with all kinds of dirty means, including lying, slandering and bringing in national institutions. It will only repeatedly damage the country’s image.

Pan-politicisation will never stop as long as the next general election is not being held. Hence, it is good to have an early general election, isn’t it? — mysinchew.com

Sunday Star: Season of goodwill.... By Raja Zarith Idris

Season of goodwill

MIND MATTER
By Raja Zarith Idris
 
Sunday Star
Sunday January 9, 2011

If Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Isa (Jesus), a prophet respected and revered in Islam, is it so wrong to wish a blessed day for those who celebrate it?

DURING the days before Christmas last year, I wished my friends who were celebrating it “Merry Christmas” in much the same way they would wish me “Selamat Hari Raya” or “Happy Eid”.

I find it rather sad that such a simple greeting – one which I grew up with and which I have never regarded as something that would compromise or de-value my own faith – is now regarded as something so religiously incorrect for us Malaysian Muslims.

When I was at boarding school in England, I had to go to church every Sunday because it was part of the rules. My father advised me to consider it as part of my “education” and he had no doubt that the experience would strengthen rather than weaken my own faith.

I was able to see the similarities and differences between Christianity and Islam. I learned more than the average Malaysian Muslim would about Christianity. I learnt that just as we Muslims categorise ourselves according to the four different schools of thoughts of the four Imams (Imam Malik, Imam Al Shafi, Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Ahmad Abn Hambal) and are either Sunnis or Shias, so Christians too are divided into different sects or churches.

Going to church did not make me less of a Muslim when I was a young girl, and neither does saying “Merry Christmas” make me less of a Muslim now. My faith has not been shaken just because I wished some friends a time of joy with their families. Neither will I suddenly suffer from amnesia and forget what my religion is.

What I do not wish to forget, however, is that there are good, kind people who are not of the same faith as me.

As Harun Yahya, the Turkish writer (he was selected last year as one of the 500 most influential Muslims in the world by the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre of Jordan) noted: “Islam is a religion of peace, love and tolerance.

Today, however, some circles have been presenting a false image of Islam, as if there were conflict between Islam and the adherents of the two other monotheistic religions. Yet Islam’s view of Jews and Christians, who are named ‘the People of the Book’ in the Quran, is very friendly and tolerant.

“This attitude towards the People of the Book developed during the years of the birth of Islam. At that time, Muslims were a minority, struggling to protect their faith and suffering oppression and torture from the pagans of the city of Mecca. Due to this persecution, some Muslims decided to flee Mecca and shelter in a safe country with a just ruler. The Prophet Muhammad told them to take refuge with King Negus, the Christian king of Ethiopia. The Muslims who followed this advice found a very fair administration that embraced them with love and respect when they went to Ethiopia. King Negus refused the demands of the pagan messengers who asked him to surrender the Muslims to them, and announced that Muslims could live freely in his country.

“Such attitudes of Christian people that are based on the concepts of compassion, mercy, modesty and justice, constitute a fact that God has pointed out in the Quran.”

I do not wish to be a self-centred Muslim who expects friends of other faiths to wish me Selamat Hari Raya or, for those who are not Malaysians and therefore do not know about Hari Raya, a Happy Eid and yet do not return their goodwill when it is Christmas, Chinese New Year, Deepavali or Vesak Day.

Every year, friends who are Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs or those without any faith come to our home to celebrate Hari Raya with us. They do so with sincerity and as a mark of respect for one of the most important days in the Muslim calendar. Why should we not reciprocate their kindness, show them the same mark of respect for their religion and wish them the same joy on their holy days of celebration?

An Islamic scholar and lecturer also reminded me that as Muslims we must remember the importance of both the five Pillars of Islam and in the six Pillars of Iman (Faith), which are:

> Belief in Allah;

> Belief in the angels;

> Belief in the revealed Books (which include the Bible, the Torah and the Holy Quran);

> Belief in the Prophets (May Peace be Upon Them);

> Belief in the Resurrection and the events of Kiamah, the Day of Judgement; and

> Belief in the predestination (Qada’ and Qadar) by Allah in all things.

The prophets include not just Muhammad (May Peace Be Upon Him) as the last prophet and as the Messenger of Islam, but also in the 24 earlier ones who are mentioned in both the Bible and the Quran. Four of them are Ibrahim (Abraham), Musa (Moses), Daud (David), and Isa (Jesus).

So, if Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Isa (Jesus), a prophet respected and revered in Islam, is it so wrong to wish a blessed day for those who celebrate it?

We are now in the second decade of the 21st century. Surely, we should, now more than ever, be far more enlightened at a time when information of any sort and of all kinds are so readily available to us.

What is most important is that we regard one another as fellow citizens and treat each other with respect, regardless of our race or religion.

The writer is Royal Fellow, School of Language Studies and Linguistics, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), and holds a BA (Honours) degree in Chinese Studies, University of Oxford.

Caste System - Blame history for the 'divisions' .... by (Sanatan Dharam Sabha Kuala Lumpur)

Friday February 11, 2011 NEW STRAITS TIMES (NST) - LETTERS Pg 19

Caste System - Blame history for the 'divisions'

I REFER to the article "Who are the 'Paraiyars', really?" by Universiti Sains Malaysia vice-chancellor Professor Tan Sri Dzulkifli Abdul Razak (NST, Feb 6). 

He shed new light on the "Paraiyars", after making references to a book by Abbe Dubois. It was a good attempt to explain the issue but, as a history lover, I found the article slightly misleading.

All those who had argued about this subject, whether Indians or non-Indians, have not explained it clearly enough for the nation to understand this issue of "Paraiyars". Many are not clear about the caste system where the word "pariah" is said to originate.

One would be surprised to know that the caste system does not exist in Hinduism. In Hinduism, there is a system known as the "varnashrama", which divides society into four natural groups -- Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra -- depending on individual characteristics and disposition.

Every human has certain tendencies by natural inclination and choice. These are divided into four divisions known as "varna" (colour). It does not relate to skin colour but to a person's aura or consciousness.

After reading a student's aura and his tendencies, the master would decide which job would suit him most, where it would allow the student to serve society in a harmonious way and not frustrate him.
A student is placed in the varnashrama of either the Brahmana also known as Brahmins (intellectuals, academics, priests), or Kshatriya (rulers, administrators, soldiers) or Vaishya (businessmen, farmers, bankers, those engaged in commerce) or Shudra (ordinary workers, those engaged in physical labour, dancers, singers).

It was never a condition that birth determines a student's division. This was a system of self-discovery and development in assisting a person to find his place in society, where he could contribute to it by doing a job in accordance to his nature.

This system is sanctioned by a book that no one commenting on the issue had referred to, namely the Bhagavad Gita, where Sri Krishna talks to the warrior Arjuna at the battlefield of Kurusethra.
It states: "According to the three modes of material nature and the work ascribed to them, the four divisions of human society were created by Me" (4.13).

"By following his qualities of work, every man can become perfect... By worship of the Lord, who is the source of all beings and who is all pervading, man can, in the performance of his own duty or occupation, attain perfection" (18.45-6).

Clearly, no one is forced into the work he dislikes. Neither is birth a criterion for determining the division he would enter for work purposes. The underlining principle in Hinduism is that work is worship and one is allowed to change the division one is in.

For example, if a soldier has had enough of battles and wants to become a priest, he will leave his Kshatriya division and enter the Brahmin division. It's as simple and flexible as that. This system allowed everyone to work according to his nature and bring happiness to himself and society. It was never meant to divide society according to materialistic divisions. The sole object was to unite people in a cooperative society in the service of God. Every individual in the divisions had equal rights.

From the above verses, there is no mention of "pariah". So what happened then?

As time went on, the varnashrama system was abused by the Brahmins, who made it a condition that those born of a parent who worked in a particular division would remain there. Switching from one division to another was not permitted. In that way, the Brahmins gained control over power and money.

This new condition was against the teachings of Hinduism. Some Brahmins and Kshatriyas opposed these new conditions. However, by this time, India was invaded.

These invaders not only massacred people, but burnt down great libraries that contained most of the information regarding the varnashrama.

A new materialistic caste system was born. When the British arrived in India, they saw the system as an opportunity to divide society further to suit their interest and twisted it with a view of converting the Hindus.

The British then created another theory -- the Aryan theory -- which stated that European nomads came by chariots and conquered India and later composed the Vedas.

Dzulkifli touched on the origin of the word Brahmin, but it was misleading. First, the Brahmins are not followers of Brahma. They, and all other Hindus, pray to the one supreme God known to them as "Brahman". Brahma and Brahman are different entities.

Second, he said the Aryan Brahmins carried out "conversion" and those who refused to convert were "cast out". This is misleading.

Scientifically speaking, there are no Aryan or Paraiyar races. The three primary races are Caucasians, Mongoloid and Negroid.

Both the so-called "Aryan Brahmin" and "Paraiyars" are related branches of the Caucasian race, which is in the same Mediterranean sub-branch. Biologically, they are of the Caucasian race.

"Aryan", or its correct term "arya", was discovered in the Vedas of the Hindus. The term "arya" means noble or spiritual and it never meant a race of people. Those who followed the noble Vedic way of life or arya dharma may be termed as arya. It is a term of respect, something similar to a "datuk".

During the 19th century, many Europeans believed that they belonged to a superior race and their religion was the best. With the racial theory of man in vogue, they thought that the fair-skinned Indians were different from the dark-skinned Indians.

At that period, similarities were discovered in Sanskrit and the European languages. Therefore, they thought that since Sanskrit was related to their languages, it must have come from a white race and not the darker-skinned Indians (compared with the Europeans).

It was a linguistic theory adopted by the British to hold power. They began interpreting the Vedas in the same racial manner. The forces of light against darkness were interpreted as white race against dark race.

Hence, their theory of an Aryan race from Europe that invaded India and gave them the Vedas. Terms were mistranslated to suit the British objective, which was to convert Hindus and to justify their rule.

Many archaeologists and researchers forwarded theories of the location of this Aryan homeland but it kept changing. An exact time period when the so-called Aryans came to India was never established.

This was also because, to the Europeans, the world was created at 9am on Oct 23, 4004 B.C. The great flood of Noah occurred in 2500B.C. So the philologist Max Muller and the rest gave the Aryan invasion date at 1500 B.C. In short, everything was mere speculation which, unfortunately, became part of Indian history.

New archaeological and scientific studies indicate that the Indus civilisation that preceded the Aryans, was Vedic and centred, not on the Indus, but on the banks of the Saraswati river and its language was Sanskrit.

The Rig Veda praises the Saraswati river in its hymns. The river dried up around 1900 B.C., which means Hinduism and those who composed the Rig Veda were there before 1900 B.C. and if the Aryans arrived in India about 1500 B.C., how did they know about this river and build their culture on its banks if the river did not exist any more?

The latest studies also indicate that the Indus sites were wiped out not by war or invasion but by a drought. The skeletons unearthed there showed no signs of injuries caused by war but by starvation or dehydration. This was the drought that wiped out civilisations in Sumeria and Mesopotamia.

Similarly, in Mohenjo-Daro, there was an absence of any signs of war, like extensive burning or weapons or any remains of armour-clad soldiers. Interestingly, evidence of temples and seals of Shiva and Vishnu exist which mean that the Vedic religion had been part of these people and not brought by any Aryan Brahmins.

In short, scholars are rejecting the invasion theory based on this emerging evidence.

Coming back to the "Paraiyars", they were indeed once land owners who lost their land, advisers to the kings, farmers, musicians, singers and members of the manual workforce who were suppressed by the British in the light of their divide-and-rule policy.

They were exploited by the British and later, "Paraiyars" was mispronounced as "paria" just like Singapura became Singapore, Pulau Pinang became Penang, Mumbai became Bombay and orang utan became rang a teng.

The term "pariah" signifies colonial oppression of farmers, musicians, singers and the manual workforce.

ARIFF SHAH R.K.

Penang

for and on behalf of
The Management Committee of
Shree Lakshmi Narayan Mandir
(Sanatan Dharam Sabha Kuala Lumpur)
68 & 69 Jalan Kasipillay, off Jalan Ipoh
51200 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: 603-40412993, Fax: 603-40455857
Mobile: 012-3979776
Email: mandir@sdskl.com
FaceBook: http://www.facebook.com/sdskl

Malaysia’s GDP up 7.2pc, now equal to Singapore

Malaysia’s GDP up 7.2pc, now equal to Singapore

UPDATED @ 10:12:20 PM 18-02-2011

TMI By Lee Wei Lian

February 18, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 18 — The Malaysian economy is now roughly the same size as Singapore’s after it expanded 7.2 per cent in 2010, half the rate of Singapore’s 14.5 per cent.
At today’s exchange rates, Malaysia edges Singapore by a whisker — US$239.96 billion (RM728.62 billion) compared to US$239.33 billion.

The resource rich nation was largely saved the blushes of being surpassed by the tiny city state in 2010 by the strength of the ringgit versus the US dollar when it appreciated by about 12 per cent over the last 12 months, the most of any Asian currency except for the Japanese yen.

The former 14th state’s growth has seen it catch up and now threaten to displace Malaysia from its long held its position as the third most valuable economy in the region behind Indonesia and Thailand.

The contest for third place will be equally tight this year with Malaysia projected to grow between 5 and 5.5 per cent in 2011 which is comparable to Singapore’s forecast of between 4 and 6 per cent.

The ringgit is expected to keep its upward trend this year, appreciating about 4.7 per cent according to Barclays Plc.

Since Malaysia and Singapore, two former British colonies, parted ways under acrimonious circumstances in 1965, the tiny island nation has surpassed its bigger neighbour in numerous global rankings such as universities, liveability and economic competitiveness.

Malaysia only managed to grow its per capita GDP 20 times from US$335 in 1965 to US$6,975 in 2009  compared with Singapore which grew its per capita GDP 71 times from US$512 in 1965 to US$36,537 in 2009, leading to widespread complaints that Malaysia’s economy has been badly mismanaged.

The Najib administration recently launched reforms in an attempt to make the economy more developed and competitive such as the Economic Transformation Programme (ETP) and the New Economic Model (NEM).

It is still too early to tell, however, how effective the reform attempts will be.

Bank Negara said today that higher private and public sector spending contributed to the expansion in domestic demand in Malaysia in the fourth quarter but that slower growth in the global economy had led to weaker external demand.

Domestic demand strengthened by 5.7 per cent in the fourth quarter due mostly to the strong expansion in private consumption and capital spending which saw private consumption increase by 6.5 per cent.

Public consumption however fell 0.3 per cent due to lower expenditure on supplies and services.

Inflation which has become a key concern increased by 2 per cent in the fourth quarter attributable mainly to higher price of food and non-alcoholic beverages which rose by 2.9 per cent and the removal of fuel subsidies by the Government which resulted in an upward adjustment of 5 sen/litre for RON95 petrol and diesel prices.

Malaysia’s trade surplus widened by RM3 billion to RM25.5 billion in the fourth quarter on the back of 3.7 per cent growth in exports while net inflows of foreign direct investment doubled to RM8.3 billion from RM4.4 billion in the third quarter.

Direct investment abroad by Malaysian companies meanwhile fell to RM3.2 billion from RM5.4 billion in the fourth quarter reflecting lower net extensions of inter-company loans to subsidiaries abroad.

AmResearch senior economist Manokaran Mottain told newswire Reuters that he expects government spending to pick up after June due to the implementation of the ETP with exports also recovering and private consumption remaining steady.

The Edge: Sustained and Inclusive Growth, Governance and Conflict.... by Datuk Dr. Zainal Aznam Yusof

Sustained and Inclusive Growth, Governance and Conflict

by Datuk Dr. Zainal Aznam Yusof, The Edge 

The near-Middle East is on fire. The recent conflicts in the region highlight the dangers of bad governance. Conflicts and demands for changes to the governments that started from Tunisia have spread to Algeria, Egypt, Yemen, Jordan and Sudan. Libya and Morocco could be next in line and the conflicts might even spread to the heart of the Middle East to Saudi Arabia and then beyond to the smaller Muslim states.

For us in East and Southeast Asia, the worst that can happen is to say, smugly, that we are different and that it could never happen here; that is a wrong and dangerous attitude. There have been demonstration in China and Thailand (the capital and in the south). There is no end to conflicts in the southern islands of the Philippines.

Military skirmishes between Thailand and Cambodia have resurfaced. Myanmar (Burma to some) continues to be a state governed by suppression. Running and meshing through to these conflicts are those generated by terrorists. A contagion of conflict is always a possibility; no country can say that it is immune to its virus.

Ethnic Fragmentation and Polarisation
Many countries have a long history of many conflicts; they can recur. The May 1969 racial riots in Malaysia were seminal conflicts. But there is nothing now to show that we are immune from racial conflicts; they are just shimmering below the surface.

The burning of churches and temples, insulting behaviour towards sensitive religious symbols, a lack of sensitivity to sensitive-load words, unhappiness over opaque religious conversions, the demarcation of of the powers of the syariah and civil courts, and insults to historical experiences are just disguised and quasi-forms of suppressed conflicts. Ethnic fragmentation and polarisation have become endemic and pervasive, and they are fertilisers for conflicts.

We are also not short of irresponsible politicians who stir and stoke the sensitive parts of the national psyche, edging people towards conflicts and acting as paid handmaidens of violence. The template for politicians in ethnically diverse societies like ours is to generate animosities (and exploit ethnic insecurities and deep seated prejudices) and conflicts is well established.

There are no clear and effective counter-measures to check these politicians on both sides of the political divide. Our arsenal of conflict-enhancing behaviour is alive and well.

After more than 50 years of independent growth, we are no closer to being racially blind. Food, shelter, security, economic opportunties and fairness are necessary conditions for blunting ethnic conflicts, but they are not sufficient. Economic growth, so far, has not really helped inter-ethnic integration.

While the poor are still with us, their size has been reduced. Current and future conflicts in Malaysia will be fueled more by an outraged sense of inequality and unfairness in economic opportunities, and by dangerous politicians on both sides of the political divide.

Sustained , Inclusive and Environmentally Friendly Growth is crucial
Still, it appears that growth is a crucial element in keeping conflicts and violence at bay. Economic growth provides jobs and offer opportunities. Rising income is the glue of stability and help security, but we know that growth alone is not enough.

The inequality of income (the income gap between urbanites and rural folks, for example) that accompanies growth must not be so huge and worsening if the goof things that growth brings are not to be swamped. Inequality by itself can be bad for growth.

Policies matter
As the economy advances to the high income stage, there is some hope that conflict and violence can be muted. At lower income levels, it seems inequality in income can be bad but at higher levels of income, the adverse effects of inequality can be contained.

But there is no guarantee that these expectations will always materialise and fall like manna from the heavens; these hopes are grounded on probabilities. Policies of the right sort do matter. Conflicts and violence can come from sources other than income inequality.

Institutions of Governance
Institutions and their governance will matter a great deal too in containing grievances and latent conflicts from erupting. The list of grievances from the failures of these institutions is very long and growing. The reformation of legislative, executive and judicial institutions must take precedence and accorded top priority; reformation must also be continuous to adapt to changing circumstances.

The post-2008 general phase has shown up many shortcomings of the Federal and state constitutions. They have slumbered long enough and efforts must now be taken to resolve these constitutional matters, including the role and power of constitutional agents. We should welcome the contestations between the federal and state governments because they throw up the lacunae of the constitutional provisions.

Sweeping the many problems relating to the constitution(s) under the carpet will simply encourage more grievances. The pace of institutional reforms is slacking and there is great reluctance to try out new institutions; for example the Equal Opportunities Commission that was proposed in the New Economic Model has been dropped.

Limit Tenure of Holders of Power
Although power corrupts, it is a universal rule that no one gives up power willingly (for example, Mubarak in Egypt). But, the longer those in power cling to their posts, the greater the lure of corruption. All holders of power, especially autocrats and dictators, tend to see themselves as indispensable.

One way is to amend the constitution, or pass a separate law, that limits the tenure of power holders for a fixed period; but this is not foolproof; that is still the direction that Malaysia should take. If there is a much shorter tenure, maybe violence will cease to be an option to change leadership that has outlived its usefulness.

From the rulers to the ruled, from the legislators to the enforcers, the rule of law must prevail. If conflict is part of the natural order, and if it unavoidable, then efforts must be made to mitigate its impact, spread and duration. Sustained, inclusive and environmentally friendly economic growth and good governance can do their part, but they have their limits.

*Datuk Dr. Zainal Aznam Yusof is an economist and policy consultant. Previously with ISIS Malaysia, he is a council member of the National Economic Advisory Council.

Malaysia Chronicle Malaysia: Now, a gap between image and reality by Wong Choon Mei

Malaysia: Now, a gap between image and reality

by Wong Choon Mei, Malaysia Chronicle

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW Former U.S. ambassador John Malott created a major stink here with a recent opinion-editorial entitled The price of Malaysia’s racism published in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week.

Not only did Malaysia's famous cyber community come out in full force to either praise or criticise his article, but the BN government and its support groups also rushed in to counter what they called his "spin".

No less than Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin ran him down, as did Perkasa chief Ibrahim Ali. The government-controlled mainstream press did what they could to damage-control and the New Straits Timeseven ran an op-ed of its own hotly, refuting Malott's views and accusing him of being a stooge for Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim.

Malaysia Chronicle decided to seek some answers and sent off several questions to him, which he has kindly taken the trouble to reply to. The Q&A is published below without editing changes to any of his answers.

In his reply, Malott reveals that he had offered to write an exclusive op-ed for NST to explain his stand. He suggested the title “There Once Was a Dream Called Malaysia”but does not think the paper will accept his offer.

The former ambassador sees the Pakatan Rakyat as a credible opposition but declines to predict who will win the next General Election. He also believes Malaysians are a "patient lot" and this is why a Tunisian or Egyptian scenario is unlikely to play out here.

Very tellingly, he complains that Malaysia is now overly about image these days and what you see may not be what you get. He counter-accuses the Najib administration of "spinning", "condoning and even provoking" racial and religious tensions.
 
"If anyone is spinning today, it is the Malaysian Government. There are few foreign experts on Malaysia, and it is rare for the foreign press to report on Malaysian developments. I thought it was important for people outside Malaysia to know that there is a real gap between the image they are trying to convey overseas and the reality on the ground."

"There are religious and racial tensions in every country, but I wanted people to know that in the case of Malaysia, the Government itself is condoning and even provoking those tensions."

Appended below is the full text of the Q&A conducted through email:
(1) Chronicle: You have been accused of writing your WSJ op-ed for ulterior purposes - spinning was the word DPM Muhyiddin used. Is this true and why?

Malott: I had no ulterior motive. I have been thinking about this subject for a long time, and I wrote the article out of growing concern for Malaysia’s future. I don’t think I was spinning anything.  I tried hard to keep it factual. Years ago, when I wrote speeches and memos for the State Department, I learned that you will be challenged, so be sure that you are accurate and can prove everything you say. It is interesting that people say I was spinning or had my facts wrong, but no one has pointed out anything that was incorrect. People can disagree with the analysis and my conclusions, but the examples and statistics I gave are all documented.

It is not at all unusual in the US for former government officials to write or comment on their areas of expertise. When you watch CNN today, there are plenty of former US Ambassadors and State Department officials talking about the situation in Egypt, for example. There is no ulterior motive. They just want to help people to be better informed.

(2) Chronicle: Both the DPM and Ibrahim Ali have accused you of having links or being sponsored by Anwar Ibrahim. Is this true? If not, why do you think they made such conclusions?

Malott: I am not sponsored by Anwar, I do not lobby for him, I am not his advisor, he does not tell me what to think and say, and no one pays me to do what I do. I never consult with him or anyone else before I write about Malaysia. He sees my articles when everyone else does.

My wife and I became close to Anwar’s family after I left the State Department, during the time that Anwar was in jail.  We stayed in touch by phone and email, but it was all personal and not political. We wanted them to know that someone cared and that they were not forgotten. I am sure that the Special Branch was monitoring Azizah’s phone and emails, so we would never talk politics. I did not want to put her in a difficult position. We would call up the daughters on their birthdays and send cards and so on. My wife even wrote a book about Azizah, called “Struggle for Justice.”

As most people know, I was very vocal in those days, supporting the call for Anwar’s freedom. As the Ambassador at the time he was arrested and beaten up, I knew what the truth was, and when I became a private citizen in 1999, I decided that I would speak out. To my mind, Anwar was a political prisoner, and I knew that a great injustice had been done. I was not going to remain silent, especially at a time when so many others were afraid to speak up. Nobody could arrest me, because I was in America. I would tell people that my goal was Anwar’s freedom, but it was up to the people of Malaysia what his political future would be.

When I was Ambassador, I knew Anwar only on a professional and official basis, just like the other Ambassadors did. When he came to Washington to be a visiting professor at Johns Hopkins and Georgetown, it was the first time that I got to know him personally. Anwar was traveling a lot in those days, making speeches, so we did not see him as much as we did the family. Sometimes the girls would come over and we would barbeque chicken together, or Hiroko would teach them how to make sushi.

Anwar refers to Hiroko and me as “family friends.” But we have no professional or official relationship with each other. Since some people in Malaysia like to call him an American agent, I think the last thing he would want is to be connected to me in other than a personal way. We are friends, but I do think we share a common vision of Malaysia’s future and the kind of country it could be.   
   
(3) Chronicle: What was the real motivation for your article? Given the responses so far, do you think you have achieved your objective? Did you have an objective when you wrote the story?

Malott: As I said earlier, I am very concerned about developments in Malaysia. The growing racial and religious tensions are one part of that. I had something that I wanted to say, and I said it. I also think that the Malaysian economy should be growing faster than it is, that its competitiveness is declining, and it is losing its attractiveness for foreign investors.

If anyone is spinning today, it is the Malaysian Government. There are few foreign experts on Malaysia, and it is rare for the foreign press to report on Malaysian developments. I thought it was important for people outside Malaysia to know that there is a real gap between the image they are trying to convey overseas and the reality on the ground. There are religious and racial tensions in every country, but I wanted people to know that in the case of Malaysia, the Government itself is condoning and even provoking those tensions.  Even today I read that the Government’s Islamic Affairs Department wants to ban Valentine’s Day because it is a Christian celebration. I don’t know any Christian who thinks that Valentine’s Day – exchanging cards or giving someone chocolate -- is a religious ritual.

I have been surprised by the positive reaction to the article. It has gotten more attention than anything I have ever written. And I am very pleased to see so many Malaysians engage in a good discussion of the issues in the comments sections. Of course there are a few cybertroopers who are bashing me, but just like Ibrahim Ali, they just rant and rave and call names, but they don’t have anything to say about the substance of the issue, and they can’t point out anything that is incorrect.

(4) Chronicle: Some commentators have said you wrote from the point of view of only the non-Malays and did not take into account the sensitivities and struggles of the Malays? Do you think there is some basis to this view and why?

Malott: I agree with criticism that I did not focus on the attitudes that some Chinese and Indians have towards Malays. But that is all at the private level. We cannot stop people from believing what they believe. But what I was talking about, and the examples I gave, were the words and actions of the Government and its senior officials. They were not speaking as individuals or like a “man on the street.” They are the Government. In addition, the government, as a matter of policy, has institutionalized some forms of discrimination, like the two examples I gave -- the 30% set-aside for stock and housing discounts.

Toward the end of the article, I pointed out that there are now two clear and different visions of Malaysia’s future – are we a Malaysian country or a Malay country. Those differing views are also held within the Malay community. In a way Mahathir represents both views. Years ago he was Mr. Bangsa Malaysia, and now he talks about Tanah Melayu.

When I read the comments on the different websites, I saw that there were many Malays who wanted me to know that it was not just Chinese and Indians who are leaving the country, but also Malays who feel that their personal future is bleak. But I don’t know whether that is because of the economic slowdown, or because getting ahead is still all about connections and who you know rather than what you know, or because they side with the opposition and not the Government.

As for the struggle and sensitivities of the Malays, I have been following that discussion. But it seems that just as not everyone can agree on Malaysia’s future, people also cannot agree on Malaysia’s past. I don’t think I could contribute much by jumping into that kind of internal discussion. I am not an expert on that part of Malaysia’s history.

(5) Chronicle: Given the feedback that you have received in the past two days, do you still stand by your story and would you retract any particular part or make any amendments?

Malott: No, I am very happy with the article. I would not take out or change anything. Like any op-ed, there is a limit on the number of words you can write. In some places I wish I could have said more, but there wasn’t enough space.

I saw that the New Straits Times had an op-ed criticising what I wrote. I read it three times but still don’t understand what the writer was trying to say. But I did send an email to them saying I would be happy to write an op-ed for them, explaining my views. Of course, I am sure they will never agree.  But I do feel like I would like to say something more on this subject, at the right time. I already have a title in mind – “There Once Was a Dream Called Malaysia” – that’s a takeoff from the movie “The Gladiator.” But the editors always write the titles, not the author. The editor at the AWSJ wrote the title over my op-ed. I thought he summed up the article very well. There will be a price to pay if the Government doesn’t change its actions.

(6) Chronicle: You spent several years in Malaysia and we understand you keep very close contact with the country and the developments in the neighboring nations as well. What sort of immediate political future do you see for Malaysia when the next GE takes place? Who do you think will win? Also, a lot of people have predicted Egypt and Tunisia scenarios happening here, do you think so?

Malott: There is an American baseball player, Yogi Berra, who is famous for saying, “I never make predictions, especially about the future.”  There also is another saying, “a week is a lifetime in politics,” meaning that things can change very rapidly. So I really don’t want to predict the outcome.

I think that BN and PR present very clear alternatives for Malaysia’s future. Even between the two Malay parties, UMNO and PAS, I think there is a clear difference. All Malays are Muslims, but I think UMNO is more about race and being Malay, and PAS is more about being Muslim. Race is the starting point for UMNO, while Islam is the starting point for PAS.

Malaysia now has a credible opposition for the first time in its history. I think the Malaysian people will be given a real choice about their country’s direction.  It is up to the Malaysian people to choose.

As an outsider, my concern is that the elections should be fair. I have seen and studied elections in many countries. I think it is hard for the opposition in Malaysia, because they have to campaign with one hand tied behind their back. The Government controls the airwaves, and opposition newspapers cannot be sold to the general public. The police can deny permits or harass political gatherings, as we have seen.  The Election Commission is not truly independent, and so on.

I don’t see a Tunisia or Egypt scenario playing out in Malaysia. In general I think Malaysians are a very patient lot, and other than 1969 there is no real history of political violence. If anything starts to happen, I think the RMP would not hesitate to crack down, as they have in the past.

(7) Chronicle: Lastly, could you tell us if you hold any official role currently?

Malott: No, I do not hold any official government position. I left the State Department in 1999, and I don’t have any intention or desire to return to government. I am happy with what I am doing today.

MRT a rush job, needs more study, says group

By Clara Chooi

TMI: February 14, 2011

 

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 14 — Putrajaya may have rushed through the RM36.6 billion mass rapid transit (MRT) for the Klang Valley without considering issues such as the traffic congestion it hopes to reduce or the increased congestion at the stations, a research group said today.
S. Piarapakaran, of the Association of Water and Energy Research Malaysia (AWER), told The Malaysian Insider that responses from MRT regulators yesterday showed they had not considered all aspects of the multibillion ringgit project before announcing it to the public.

He said regulators should be aware that by creating such a facility, they were likely to attract more crowds to the MRT access points which could in turn increase congestion on the roads instead of reducing it.

Land Public Transport Commission (SPAD) chief executive officer Mohd Nur Ismail Mohamed Kamal conceded at a press conference yesterday that the government had not researched the possibility of commuters having to fork out extra money for fuel usage in their travel to and from their homes and the MRT stations.

AWER had earlier claimed that a cautious estimate from its financial modelling study on the MRT showed that commuters would likely spend an additional RM403.5 million in fuel cost within the first five years of using the facility.

“We have not done a specific research on that, but to be honest, I cannot see how driving to the station would be more expensive than going to Bukit Bintang (for example) in my car,” Mohd Nur Ismail said.
Piarapakaran said Mohd Nur Ismail’s statement showed that SPAD had not taken all factors into consideration before embarking on the MRT project.

“Based on his answer, it creates more doubt. Question — Why are you putting an MRT? Answer — I want to reduce traffic congestion.

“Question — How much are you planning to reduce? Answer — I have not studied that.

“That sort of answer should not come from a regulator,” he pointed out.

Piarapakaran said SPAD could easily formulate a study to ascertain the likely reduction in traffic congestion with the MRT, which would then determine if commuters would have to fork out extra in fuel cost or save money.

The parameters that SPAD could use for its study, he suggested, were passenger flow rate, parking spaces, inter-connectivity of access roads to the station and a supporting public transport system like feeder buses.

“From these parameters, they should be able to come up with targets that they want to project. You must be able to project flow of passengers in each station and its impact in the locality,” he said.

Piarapakaran also defended AWER’s study on the project, denying that it had never assumed that nothing would be done to improve the MRT’s supporting infrastructure.

“We did put the possibility of feeder buses and so on. We assumed a number of people will take public transport to the station and the others will drive to it.

“From that number, you have to project those who do not use the MRT services at all as well. All of them are on the same road, that is a fact,” he said.

In AWER’s study, Piarapakaran had earlier explained that it had considered the government’s estimate that about 20 per cent of commuters use public transport while 80 per cent use their own vehicles.

The study had also included parameters like an estimated twice-daily traffic congestion (morning and evening) with 30 minutes of peak traffic, rate of passenger flow in an hour, 40 weeks of five working days for a year, RON 95 fuel cost (RM1.90 now and 10 per cent increase per year) and statistics of public transportation usage (20 per cent use public transport).

Piarapakaran said the likelihood that the project estimate of RM36.6 billion was for the MRT system alone and not its supporting infrastructure.

He added that it was also probable that the government had no plans to expand roads in order to reduce congestion at MRT access points or build multi-level overhead bridges.

“Structurally, we have road systems that have design flaws, it simply promotes congestion. More often than not, our systems just pluck traffic from one location and dump it in another.

“If you are used to taking the LDP and the Federal Highway, you will know what I am talking about. So how are they going to put more than 50 per cent of MRT users in feeder buses? What is the plan?” he said.
Mohd Nur Ismail said yesterday that the MRT aims to have 50 per cent of an estimated 18 million trips by about 10 million commuters in the Klang Valley to be via public transport.

He also revealed that one MRT carriage could carry 300 people, which is the equivalent to the average passenger load of three buses or 177 cars.

Piarapakaran told SPAD to study human behaviour before assuming that commuters would opt for its feeder system as if this was inconvenient to access, this was not likely to happen.

“SPAD needs to know more about how people behave... we are not equipment that runs on assembly lines. We think, we decide and then we make changes,” he said.

He urged the public to study the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report on the MRT project, which is said to be ready today and will be up for public viewing at all Department of Environment office as well as several public libraries.

On AWER’s part, he said a review session on the EIA would be held on Wednesday.

“If the SPAD CEO is very confident in what they are doing, we should congratulate SPAD for their utmost dedication to their duty. Therefore, he should also take full responsibility over the outcome of the MRT project as well,” he said.

According to the Klang Valley MRT website, the ambitious project will have 35 stations along its 51km line that stretches from Sungai Buloh to Kajang, with 13 proposed park-and-ride stations and four interchanges.

Eight of the stations will be underground as 9.5km of the line will be built under the capital city. Groundwork for the MRT is due to start this July 16 and will be completed in 2016.

The MRT is an entry-point project identified for the Greater Kuala Lumpur/Klang Valley National Key Economic Area under the Economic Transformation Programme.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak said last December that the implementation of the project is expected to generate a gross national income (GNI) of between RM3 billion and RM4 billion beginning in 2011 until 2020.

He had said that between RM8 billion and RM12 billion was expected to be generated in terms of spin-offs from the construction of the MRT project.

The proposed alignment map for the Kajang-Sungai Buloh line, the first of three proposed lines under the MRT, is up for public viewing from today until May 14 at seven locations across the city.

They are Kuala Lumpur City Hall, Petaling Jaya City Council, Shah Alam City Council, Selayang Municipal Council, Kajang Municipal Council as well as the Bangsar LRT station and the SPAD office in Menara Dayabumi.

The public can provide their feedback on the project via email to feedback@kvmrt.com.my or through the SPAD toll free line at 1-800-82-6868.

Of Sin, Siti and small-minded men without sagacity.... By Martin Jalleh

Of Sin, Siti and small-minded men without sagacity

By Martin Jalleh

Siti Nor Bahyah Mahamood is a well-known Islamic motivator on local television and a popular TV personality, with Semanis Kurma on TV9 and Astro being her biggest hit.

As a famous personality, one would expect her to have all the facts on her fingertips in her efforts to educate, motivate and even propagate her faith! Surely her experience as a professional motivator would teach her that you can’t motivate people by humiliating others!

Recently, she decided to discourage Muslim youth from celebrating Valentine’s Day. It is actually quite a noble effort. I too do not believe in V’s Day (Catholic though I be) and I think it is tragic to have to say “I love you” only once a year and with a blooming rose that costs a bomb!

But I have no problem with the rest of the world who are caught up by the commercialization of love and romance (though now its extended to more than just a celebration of lovebirds) and are ready to pay a crazy and costly sum, probably to make up for their neglect of 364 days in the year!

V’s Day has become a day when, love is blind, the florists flourish, and hotels and restaurants reap roaring profits by holding the ridiculous! It has no religious significance whatsoever! As for those who wish to unleash their lust on V Day, VD (a different kind of rose) might await them!

Sadly, Siti’s ignorance showed when she, in an RTM programme last week, linked V’s Day to Christianity and immoral activities. She said “immoral activities, partying and unmarried couples associating in private are traditions of the Christian community”!

Surprisingly, as a motivator, Siti is glaringly show of understanding. V’s Day is not a Christian tradition and all Christian traditions and tenets do not condone, in fact abhor “immoral activities”, and “unmarried couples associating in private”.

If only Siti would sit quietly and ponder she will realize that vice and virtue lie in the adherents of every faith and there is really no need of making a scapegoat of other religions and insulting them for the sins of the people of her own faithful!

A Christian Conspiracy to Corrupt Muslims?
The Malaysian Insider reported on 11 Feb. 2011 that both the KL Islamic Department (Jawi) and Selangor Islamic Department (Jais) have banned Muslims from celebrating V’s Day, calling it “a Christian tradition” in a Friday sermon delivered in mosques on that day.

Alas, if Jawi, Jais or Jakim want to reduce themselves into one big Joke, it is really none of our business, but claiming that V’s Day is a Christian tradition and inferring that it is part of a Christian conspiracy to “corrupt” Muslims, is to say but the least, a jaundiced view…very unislamic indeed!

The sermon continued with its slanderous spree: “Remember that the Jews and Christians would continue to deceive Muslims. They will do everything to undermine the Muslims’ belief and personality”!

Prepared by the Selangor’s Islamic authority, the sermon also said that V’s Day “is celebrated in many ways, starting with greeting cards, flowers and dance parties. In fact some celebrate it with a date which would eventually lead to illicit sex”!

What about the illicit sex that takes place on non-Valentine Days? Who is to be blamed? What about the sex scandals committed by Members of Parliament, Ministers and a host of people in high places….were they all committed on V”s Day? Were they the result of a conspiracy by the Jews and Christians?

Jais caused quite a jolt when it pointed out that there were 257,411 births out of wedlock between 2000 and 2008 and blamed V’s Day celebrations as one of the causes. You mean to say nine V’s Days could produce 257, 411 births? Is this what Najib’s model of moderate Islam is all about?

Not only are they insulting the Christians but they are so condescending in how they view the Muslims in Bolehland – who have in recent times been portrayed as people who are so very easily confused, convinced, converted and corrupted! But then again, we are told that is none of our business.

It appears that Siti, Jawi, Jais and Jakim need to do a lot of soul searching. Surely the strength of Islam does not lie in creating a “siege mentality” and in their ignorance, insulting other religions.

The different faiths in this country are often faced with many similar challenges which could be more easily overcome if we were to synergise our earnest efforts rather than creating slurs and suspicions on the supposed salacious conspiracies of other religions to turn young Muslims into sex fiends!

May I wish Jawi, Jais and Jakim Happy Anti-Valentine’s Day! And to those who celebrate it in a big way, Happy Valentine’s Day – whatever it means!

To PAS Youth, instead of conducting “immorality checks” on V’s Day in opposition-ruled states, why not take a break from politics and be romantic enough to spend precious time with your beloved under the moon, always conscious that God is watching you from a distance!

To the Muslims who really want to celebrate V’s Day but cannot as a result of the recent ban, please do not be angry but in keeping with the spirit of the day, send a rose to Siti, Jawi, Jais and Jakim – unless the rose is deemed by them as a Christian flower used to seduce Muslims into immorality!
(13 Feb. 2011)

Interview: Tariq Ramadan on Tunisia and Egypt

Interview: Tariq Ramadan on Tunisia and Egypt


February 11, 2011


by Dr. Dzul










The system in Egypt is corrupt, there is no democracy and the difficulty for the next election is posed by Mubarak’s role and his son’s succession, and not just that – says the influential Swiss-Egyptian philosopher, teacher and writer TARIQ RAMADAN.




Were the Tunisian events a pleasant surprise for you too? What kind of developments will there be?

I have stood against the regime for almost fifteen years. What is happening is great. But we still have to be very cautious. Even if the dictator is out, the system is still in place and we are in a transitional period. Some of his people are still around, and we are in a very tricky situation. In this transitory period the reformers must show moderation. At the same time, the whole system should be dismantled; the fact that the dictator is out is not enough. We still have to be very cautious about the “true” results of this situation. It is clear that there will be no going back; we are moving towards a more democratic system, but this democratic system should be truly democratic, with transparent elections and all the rest.




Now, would you expect similar upheavals in other countries in the area?

Change is the hope we all have. In Tunisia, we saw people being killed, killing themselves just to try to create, to provoke something… but, so far, nothing similar has taken place in other countries and I don’t think that over the short term anything will happen. It will be a long process. All countries are worried, that is certain.




Is it going to happen in Egypt?

The system in Egypt is corrupt, there is no democracy and the difficulty for the next election is posed by Mubarak’s role and his son’s succession, and not just that. The problem is posed by powerful and influential people and the whole authoritarian system that is supporting this regime. Ben Ali’s regime was powerful too. You ask me if something similar to like Tunisia could happen in Egypt? I would not exclude this. I have heard that they want to organize large demonstrations.



Do you think the Egyptian regime could reveal itself as weak as the Tunisian one?

I wouldn’t say that the Tunisian regime was weak. I think it was powerful, but there was a critical moment when all powers, including the army, decided not to remain on the dictator’s side. I am not sure whether the Egyptian army would act the same way. Still, I would not totally exclude the army’s refusal to support the regime, because it is very corrupt.




By “weak” I meant weak in consensus, in other words unpopular.

Yes, there is indeed no support for the Egyptian regime. It is very unpopular, the people are suffering and they are against what is happening. Demonstrations or other events that symbolize something new, something bigger, might trigger some change, but honestly, I don’t really see this happening, because the Egyptian regime has totally taken control of the country for the last ten years. The American administration and supporters of the current Egyptian regime are far more scared here, I think, than they are in the case of Tunisia. Egypt is too critical.




What is happening to the entire region in terms of the involvement of the Islam and political religious movements? Are Islamists important in this situations? The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt should play a more relevant role than it has in Tunisia.

I think that in Tunisia the Muslim Brotherhood has decided not to be visible, not to become really involved and just support change. What happened there did not come from Islamists, it came from the people. It would have been wrong for them to be seen as a driving force. They want to be acknowledged as a player within the system, and this is happening. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is more like a force of resistance, especially since the last elections, when they withdrew after the first round. They play a critical role. If anything happens in Egypt, they will join, like in the Kefaya, the ‘enough is enough’ movement, (a grass roots movement against Mubarak’s regime, editor’s note.).




They are all involved in that, and they have a lot of support. It is not a majority support, and the Islamists know that. But they also know that they will play a role. Things are different in Tunisia; no one can say the Islamists are part of the process of change, because this is not true. But if something happened in Egypt, it would be labelled as a turning point towards Islamism, and that could be used by Mubarak.




Do you think that, after having been excluded from the political process in Egypt, the movement inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood will be more or less radical, more or less democratic?

I think that if you look at what the Muslim Brotherhood has been saying over the last twenty years, it has already changed a lot. They were against democracy, now they are for democracy, for the involvement of the movement. They are changing. They have not reached a “Turkish” level yet. There still is a gap between the Turkish Islamists and the Egyptians. The current Muslim Brotherhood leadership is quite old, closer to Erbakan (old Turkish Islamist leader and Prime Minister, removed from power by a 1997 Army coup, editor’s note.) than to Erdogan (today’s PM and AKP leader, editor’s note.). Strictly speaking I don’t think there will be a revolution. I would rather say that today they will remain legalists, by trying to play the game at the grassroots level.




Are Egyptian and Tunisian Islamists – part of the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups – very different from each other? And are there different approaches to democracy and human rights?

This is a critical question. The West should understand that there are many kinds of Islamists, even in Tunisia. For example, Rachid Ghannouchi comes from the Muslim Brotherhood, but in the sixties and seventies he was the only one in this group to say that democracy is the right thing, while the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was saying no. He did not have a problem with democracy. He had a far more liberal and advanced view, even in what he wrote about women, compared to other members of the Muslim Brotherhood, even from within this group! So there was a debate. In Tunisia you also have different trends arising from those who are much more Salafite, literalists.




So there is an internal debate. But who is stronger, who will prevail?

I think that today the mainstream reference in Tunisia is much more advanced. And I would say, that between Ghannouchi and Erdogan, for example, you can see many mirroring positions on democracy, dealing with the West and dialogue. I think they are going the same way. In Egypt it is different. Here, once again, it is not a question of trends, but a question of generations. In the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood “to be younger” means to be sixty! It was not like in the 40s. There is an internal struggle between generations and between trends, and I think that there is no monolithic reality of Islamism today.




In comparing the two countries, one can see that the driving force in Tunisia is much more advanced in dealing with democracy or with women. This is very important. A movement like Kefaya would have been impossible twenty years ago in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood had refused to deal with other political views, such as those of communists, “leftists” or atheists, but they changed, because they understood that you cannot resist the Mubarak dictatorship if you are isolated.




If we don’t want to buy what dictators are saying, “it’s us or them” – meaning the Islamists –, and if we want to get a better sense about what the opposition could be, we need to get a better sense of what these trends within Islamism are. There are people who are moving, changing, and others who are resisting and who are more traditionalist, and sometimes even violent.

When Democracy Weakens.... By BOB HERBERT, NYT

When Democracy Weakens

By BOB HERBERT, NY Times, Published: February 11, 2011

As the throngs celebrated in Cairo, I couldn’t help wondering about what is happening to democracy here in the United States. I think it’s on the ropes. We’re in serious danger of becoming a democracy in name only.

While millions of ordinary Americans are struggling with unemployment and declining standards of living, the levers of real power have been all but completely commandeered by the financial and corporate elite. It doesn’t really matter what ordinary people want. The wealthy call the tune, and the politicians dance.

So what we get in this democracy of ours are astounding and increasingly obscene tax breaks and other windfall benefits for the wealthiest, while the bought-and-paid-for politicians hack away at essential public services and the social safety net, saying we can’t afford them. One state after another is reporting that it cannot pay its bills. Public employees across the country are walking the plank by the tens of thousands. Camden, N.J., a stricken city with a serious crime problem, laid off nearly half of its police force. Medicaid, the program that provides health benefits to the poor, is under savage assault from nearly all quarters.

The poor, who are suffering from an all-out depression, are never heard from. In terms of their clout, they might as well not exist. The Obama forces reportedly want to raise a billion dollars or more for the president’s re-election bid. Politicians in search of that kind of cash won’t be talking much about the wants and needs of the poor. They’ll be genuflecting before the very rich.

In an Op-Ed article in The Times at the end of January, Senator John Kerry said that the Egyptian people “have made clear they will settle for nothing less than greater democracy and more economic opportunities.” Americans are being asked to swallow exactly the opposite. In the mad rush to privatization over the past few decades, democracy itself was put up for sale, and the rich were the only ones who could afford it.

The corporate and financial elites threw astounding sums of money into campaign contributions and high-priced lobbyists and think tanks and media buys and anything else they could think of. They wined and dined powerful leaders of both parties. They flew them on private jets and wooed them with golf outings and lavish vacations and gave them high-paying jobs as lobbyists the moment they left the government. All that money was well spent. The investments paid off big time.

As Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson wrote in their book, “Winner-Take-All Politics”: “Step by step and debate by debate, America’s public officials have rewritten the rules of American politics and the American economy in ways that have benefited the few at the expense of the many.”

As if the corporate stranglehold on American democracy were not tight enough, the Supreme Court strengthened it immeasurably with its Citizens United decision, which greatly enhanced the already overwhelming power of corporate money in politics. Ordinary Americans have no real access to the corridors of power, but you can bet your last Lotto ticket that your elected officials are listening when the corporate money speaks.

When the game is rigged in your favor, you win. So despite the worst economic downturn since the Depression, the big corporations are sitting on mountains of cash, the stock markets are up and all is well among the plutocrats. The endlessly egregious Koch brothers, David and Charles, are worth an estimated $35 billion. Yet they seem to feel as though society has treated them unfairly.

As Jane Mayer pointed out in her celebrated New Yorker article, “The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry — especially environmental regulation.” (A good hard look at their air-pollution record would make you sick.)

It’s a perversion of democracy, indeed, when individuals like the Kochs have so much clout while the many millions of ordinary Americans have so little. What the Kochs want is coming to pass. Extend the tax cuts for the rich? No problem. Cut services to the poor, the sick, the young and the disabled? Check. Can we get you anything else, gentlemen?

The Egyptians want to establish a viable democracy, and that’s a long, hard road. Americans are in the mind-bogglingly self-destructive process of letting a real democracy slip away.

I had lunch with the historian Howard Zinn just a few weeks before he died in January 2010. He was chagrined about the state of affairs in the U.S. but not at all daunted. “If there is going to be change,” he said, “real change, it will have to work its way from the bottom up, from the people themselves.”

I thought of that as I watched the coverage of the ecstatic celebrations in the streets of Cairo.

Malay Mail: Angkasa taken to court.... By Frankie D'Cruz and Nadirah H. Rodzi,

Angkasa taken to court

Posted on 11 February 2011
By Frankie D'Cruz and Nadirah H. Rodzi, The Malay Mail

KUALA LUMPUR: Crisis-ridden apex cooperative movement Angkatan Koperasi Malaysia (Angkasa) — with a membership of close to eight million — has been slammed with a suit by five cooperatives alleging criminal breach of trust, mismanagement, misappropriation and abuse of power by eight key officials.

The five cooperatives have alleged the officials of Angkasa had cost the national cooperative organisation of Malaysia, that has 7,688 cooperatives under its wings, to suffer losses running into millions of ringgit.

The suit was filed amid a claim this morning by the Adviser to the Cooperative Union of Malaysia, Thuraisingham Shun, that 75 per cent of civil servants were in debt with financial institutions over various loans.

He said the figure, suggested by a Universiti Malaya economist, was a further indicator that Angkasa was in shambles and that today’s suit was a move to revamp the body.

Shun said Angkasa’s operations should be suspended and the accounts frozen until the court has made a decision. The officials implicated are Angkasa president Prof Datuk Mohd Ali Bahrum, Datuk Fatah Abdullah (deputy president), Armi Zainuddin Mutadho Bahri, Jamal Abdullah (all vice-presidents), chief executive officer Nasir Khan Yahya, executive secretary Mohd Zamri Yaakob and chief accountant Suresh Kumar.

The plaintiffs are Koperasi Rangkaian Sahabat Dungun Bhd, Koperasi Insan Bantu Insan Kuala Lumpur Bhd, Koperasi Konsortium Kontraktor Bumiputera Bhd, Koperasi Pembangunan Melayu Raub Berhad and Koperasi Pengurusan Tanah Malaysia Bhd.

The cooperatives filed an originating summons with the Kuala Lumpur High Court (Appellate and Special Powers) this morning seeking a declaration to suspend the officials for allegedly:

● taking more than a million ringgit in allowances for attending board meetings from 2007-2009. The president was accused of taking RM155,118 in 2008.

● failing in their fiduciary responsibilities in the purchase of a land in Kelana Jaya and causing a loss of RM6.5 million in the deal with Malaysian Association of Productivity.

● approving and spending RM500,000 for a delegates’ conference, including allowances, in 2009 in violation of by-laws.

● spending RM1.27 million to buy seven Toyota Camry for their personal use just before Hari Raya last year while only RM400,000 was authorised for that purpose.

● approving and spending RM500,000 over and above the sanctioned budget of RM1.5 million in 2009 without permission.

● abusing their powers in suspending three members of the State liaison committee for three years.

● paying unauthorised allowances to officials of the Malaysian Cooperative Societies Commission, and other government officials who attended several board meetings. These payments were viewed as corruption.

● making false media statements that Angkasa had made a profit of RM2 billion for the financial year ending 30th June 2010.

Fatah and Muhtadho were also said to have failed to relinquish their positions at the ensuing annual general meeting after they were appointed to fill the vacant position of vice-president temporarily following the demise of the former president Datuk Rahim Bakar in 2009.

In the supporting affidavit, a director of Koperasi Rangkaian Sahabat Dungun, Datuk Seri Noor Zainan Zainul, said despite reports to the police, Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission and the Malaysian Cooperative Societies Commission, no action had been taken by the defendants to resolve the issues.

The cooperatives, through their lawyers, applied to the court to suspend the entire board and requested for a court administrator to manage the affairs of Angkasa.

They also sought a forensic audit to ascertain the true financial situation in Angkasa and refer the findings to a special general meeting.

Noor Zainan led four representatives of the other cooperatives to file the affidavit through their lawyer Moghan Muthiah at 10.30am.

Shun later told reporters the five cooperatives would file a certificate of urgency for speedy hearing of the matter.

He said the affected co-operatives had sent a letter to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak on Jan 31 and were hoping to meet him to address the state of cooperatives in the country.

Angkasa, registered in May 1971, is recognised by the government as the national apex body of cooperative organisations.