Friday, February 24, 2012

TMI: A plea for unity — by Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah


A plea for unity — Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah

TMI: February 24, 2012
FEB 24 — I am indeed honoured to have been invited to speak to all of you gathered here this morning on a subject of great importance for the continued preservation and survival of our nation.
As all of you are aware, our nation became free from the fetters of colonial domination about five-and-a-half decades ago.
Sadly and strangely, after 55 years of independence, I think we are farther apart now than we have ever been before.
On August 31, 1957 our freedom from the shackles of a colonial past was greeted with euphoria by the different races who came together on the basis of a common vision for a shared future.
We then had a prime minister who believed that the purpose of independence was the pursuit of happiness for the different races in the country, and our success in that pursuit was to him the ultimate test of our success as a nation.
Tunkuʼs vision for the newly independent nation was based on the “greatest happiness principle”, a subject of intense political discourse in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Europe.
Like the enlightened political philosophers in the western world, our father of independence believed that governments existed to provide for the happiness of the people, and nothing more.
“For us in the Alliance we have no dogma other than to ensure happiness for the people,” the Tunku once said.
Tunku recognised that individual happiness was tied up with collective happiness, and that sometimes we needed to sacrifice our own comforts willingly so that people from another community were not deprived of happiness.
Like Jeremy Bentham, the great English philosopher would have it, Tunku therefore favoured policies that would bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number of Malaysians.
In his words, “what I gave to one, I also gave to others. In this way, we made everybody happy. This has always been my aim.”
In fact, according to him, “that is what I live for, to ensure peace, happiness and prosperity for our Malaya which we all love so well.”
Tunkuʼs policies were tied up with the golden rule that we must have respect for one another and treat others just as we wish others to treat us.
This golden rule was an important principle in an interdependent, multi-ethnic society such as ours.
Tunkuʼs basic concept of happiness is best expressed in his favourite maxim, “live and let live”.
It is a maxim that calls for acceptance of people as they are, although they may have a different way of life. Tunku applied the maxim in the public domain.
Tunku was a real father to the nation, as expressed in these words, “… I am a happy prime minister and I have cause to be so. I can feel the pulse of this nation; I am not the prime minister of this nation, but the father to all the peoples who live here.”
If Tunku had boasted that he was the happiest prime minister in the world, it was only because the people were happy. In Tunkuʼs words at that time, “I pray and hope that this happy state of affairs will continue for all times.”
Unfortunately, however, Tunkuʼs dreams were dashed to dust by the events of May 13, 1969.
This once happiest prime minister expressed the pain he felt as Father of Merdeka as he relived those traumatic moments:
“I have often wondered why God made me live long enough to have witnessed my beloved Malays and Chinese citizens killing each other.”
Such was the man that Tunku was. He was the moving spirit of the nation.
Tunku has long gone, and today his premiership is a distant memory. Since the time he left, inter-ethnic relations have taken a turn for the worse on all fronts.
Today, we have a regime that promotes the concept of 1 Malaysia with all its contradictions.
We have an official document that explains the 1 Malaysia concept as a nation where every Malaysian perceives himself as Malaysian first, and by race second.
However, we have a leader who openly transgresses his own official policy by declaring that he is “Malay first” and “Malaysian second”.
The statement comes as a severe blow not just to the concept of 1 Malaysia, but also as a nullification of Jiwa Malaysia or the National Spirit that Tunku was trying hard to inculcate.
No wonder that people can no longer recognise the jiwa — they just donʼt feel as though they are fully Malaysian.
It is strange that after 55 years of freedom, we have not learnt the simple art of living together as brothers and sisters.
The countryʼs source of strength is unity, and this source of strength has been slowly whittled away over the years.
We have become a nation of strangers, as evidenced in the fields of politics, the economy, education and the civil service.
The strong presence of communal political parties in the country is chiefly to be blamed for the sad state of race relations in the country. These political parties invariably support racial policies and imbibe racial sentiments among the people whom they represent.
In their day-to-day administration of the country, the powers that be often give scant regard to the constitutional provision contained in Article 8(1) which states that “all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law”; and Article 8(2) which states that “there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment”.
One major sore point in the area of race relations is the New Economic Policy, whose original intention to create unity has been subverted to become a major source of disunity not only between the various races but also among the Malays and Bumiputeras in general.
The New Economic Policy, which was conceived in 1971 not long after the Tunku had retired as prime minister, was primarily created to address poverty, and to raise the level of Malay participation in the economy.
It was intended for all Malaysians, and not just for the Malays or Bumiputeras.
As a former finance minister, let me emphasise that it was never the intention of the NEP to create an incubated class of Malay capitalists.
If we visit the government departments or universities, we wonder where all the non-Malays have gone.
After 1969, suddenly there was this attempt to recruit mostly Malays into the civil service.
It is tragic that the civil service does not reflect the racial composition of the Malaysian population, as the predominant presence of only one race tends to engender a sub-culture that is antithetical to the evolution of a dynamic and efficient civil administration in the country.
Our school system is not as it used to be. The non-Malays prefer to send their children to vernacular schools, as the national schools have assumed an exclusively Malay character.
Needless to say, national schools have become even less attractive to the non-Malays as English is no longer used in the teaching of mathematics and science.
The situation will be very different if all discriminatory practices in the education system were to be abolished, and a common system of education for all is adopted.
National unity is the one area that we cannot afford to ignore, and the real genesis of national unity, I submit, is from an unlikely source: Parliament, warts and all.
It is the Parliament that has the final say in charting the direction the country is heading to.
We must have a strong and resolute government which recognises the needs of all Malaysians, and formulates the right policies for the propagation of a cohesive and integrated society.
If Parliament enacts policies that are just and fair for all Malaysians based on meritocracy and need, more than half the battle for national unity would be won.
In this respect, the rakyat as voters must realise that in the ultimate they alone hold the key to the future of this country.
* This is the text of the speech by Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah at the Breakfast Meeting at the Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre organised by Paddy Schubert Sdn Bhd on February 24, 2012.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Malaysian Chronicle: Selangor records best financial result in 28 years


Selangor records best financial result in 28 years 
Written by Malaysia Chronicle 

Selangor                                                           records best                                                           financial                                                           result in 28                                                           years

Selangor state assembly was told that the state government's revenue increased by RM200 million during the first six months of this year. 

To a question by Sekinchan state assemblyman Ng Swee Lim, Mentri Besar Abdul Khalid Ibrahim (left) said that the state's cash reserve stood at RM918 million at the end of 2010, RM1,100 million at June 30, 2011.

“The investment has increased by RM557 million as at June 30, 2011 compared to RM668 million at December 31, 2010. With the two sources combined it will be RM1,760 million compared to RM1,580 million for the same period in 2010. 
 

"In six months, the state government has managed to increase the state revenue by RM200 million and this is the best financial record over the last 28 years,” he said. 
 

Khalid stressed that the state not only achieved revenue increase but also good financial management which has been Pakatan Rakyat's battle cry before it wrested the state from Barisan Nasional in March 2008. He said the state Micro Credit programme had distributed RM50 million to the people with sources generated from debt collection and the amount could be grouped under the Mentri Besar Consolidated Account.
 

Khalid thanked the state civil service for efficient management of the state revenue, including digitally documenting details of debtors. 
 

“The state government does not give up ‘brooms’ to those who fail to perform, instead the Pakatan Rakyat state government gives gift in the form of technology to its officers," added Khalid, referring to his predecessor Mohammad Khir Toyo whose public handing out of brooms as symbol of failure of municipal council officers in collecting debts had invited condemnation from the civil servants.
Khalid said the state government had now digitalised its filing system.
 

"Almost 2 million records have been digitized and the cost came from the debt collection,” he said. 
- Harakah daily


http://naturallyadvanced.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/thumbs_up_large.png

Penang new Government out-performed the previous administration.
Selangor new Government shown that they have done better than the previous blood suckers.
Now...who do you want for your next Government in your States?
Use your vote wisely!! 

BN will try to block this type of news from reaching the rakyat.  
 It is now up to you to spread this piece of good news.

TMI: Do Malays have rights and privileges? — by Hussaini Abdul Karim


Do Malays have rights and privileges? — Hussaini Abdul Karim

TMI: February 14, 2012
FEB 14 — Malays (Malay: Melayu Jawi: ملايو) are an ethnic group of Austronesian people predominantly inhabiting the Malay peninsula including the southernmost parts of Thailand and island of Singapore, coastal Indonesian including east of Sumatra, coastal Borneo, including Brunei, coastal Sarawak and Sabah, and the smaller islands which lie between these locations. These locations today are part of the modern nations of Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, southern Thailand and western Indonesia.
Article 160 of the Constitution of Malaysia defines various terms used in the Constitution. It has an important impact on Islam in Malaysia and the Malay people due to its definition of a Malay person under clause 2. It took effect after August 31, 1957 (“Merdeka Day” or “Independence Day”) in West Malaysia, and took effect in Singapore and East Malaysia when they merged with Malaya in 1963. The article no longer applies to Singapore, as it declared independence from Malaysia in 1965; however, it does affect the legal status of Malay Singaporeans when they enter Malaysia.
Definition of a Malay
The article defines a Malay as a Malaysian citizen born to a Malaysian citizen who professes to be a Muslim, habitually speaks the Malay language, adheres to Malay customs, and is domiciled in Malaysia or Singapore. As a result, Malay citizens who convert out of Islam are no longer considered Malay under the law. Hence, the Bumiputera privileges afforded to Malays under Article 153 of the Constitution, the New Economic Policy (NEP), etc, are forfeit for such converts.
Likewise, a non-Malay Malaysian who converts to Islam can lay claim to Bumiputera privileges provided he meets the other conditions.
In Mingguan Malaysia yesterday (February 12, 2012), Tan Sri Mazlan Nordin wrote: “In old maps of the Malay Archipelago names like Aceh, Minangkabau, Rawa, Makasar, Kerinci, Madura, Jambi, Palembang, Bidayuh, Kampar, Sulawesi, Maluku, Pekan Baru, Sumatera, Jawa Borneo, etc, appear.
He further said: “Profesor Anthony Milner dari Universiti Kebangsaan Australia also contributed towards some historical records and among others he wrote that the role of the Governor of Singapore, Sir Stamford Raffles, changed the name of Malay History (Sejarah Melayu) to give prominence to common Malays who were not from the royal families.”
He further stated: “Whenever he (Raffles) made a speech or he wrote he said ‘Malays’ and ‘the Malay race’ and he influenced the writer/historian Abdullah Munshi.”
In another document, Abdullah Munshi, who was from another race, considered himself a Malay. The Malay language became the language of his choice and he was acknowledged as an expert in Malay culture and the Malay language.
Milner, in his inference, among others, wrote about the separation aspect and how the Malayan independence was achieved — Malaysia (West and East), Indonesia, Brunei, etc.
Also mentioned was the migration of the Malay people to Sri Lanka and South Africa.
Malays as a racial identity and the Malay language in the Far East comprised people of various groups. Malays, therefore, were not a tribe.
In Malaysia, there are people from different races and tribes (communities), especially in Sabah and Sarawak, as follows:
1. Malays
2. Chinese
3. Indians
4. Babas and Nyonyas
5. Kadazandusun
6. Bajaus
7. Muruts
8. Momogun Rungus
9. Brunei Malays
10. Bisayas
11. Iranuns
12. Suluks
13. Idahans
14. Tidongs
15. Tombonuos
16. Kedayan
17. Bagahaks
18. Lundayehs
19. Ibans
20. Melanaus
21. Bidayuhs
22. Kenyahs
23. Kayans
24. Penans
25. Klemantans
26. Lu Bawang, etc.
The Orang Asli communities in Malaysia comprise the following: Negrito, Kensius, Kintaks, Lanohs, Jahais, Mendriqs, Bateqs, Senois, Temiars, Semais, Semoq Beris, Jah Huts, Mahmeris, Che Wong, Melayu Proto, Orang Kuala, Orang Kanaq, Orang Seletar, Jakuns, Semelais, Temuans.
I believe if the people from the various communities above such as 1, 5 – 19 and the Orang Asli communities, if they profess to be Muslims, habitually speak the Malay language, adhere to Malay customs, they are Malays, as per the definition of “Malays” as stated in the Malaysian Constitution.
They are also Bumiputeras and Bumiputeras have rights and privileges. So, Malays have rights and privileges as Bumiputeras. But do Malays by themselves have rights and privileges? The rights and privileges of Malays are not stated anywhere!
If a person who is a Malay renounces Islam and becomes an apostate, besides remaining a Malaysian, though he remains a Bumiputera, what race does he belong to?
* Hussaini Abdul Karim reads The Malaysian Insider.

Friday, January 27, 2012

TMI: Najib is made Optimus Prime by Michael’s Decepticons — by Sakmongkol AK47


Najib is made Optimus Prime by Michael’s Decepticons — Sakmongkol AK47

January 27, 2012
JAN 27 — Datuk Seri Najib Razak was crowned the “Father of Moderation and Transformation” by the World Chinese Economic Forum (WCEF), which said the prime minister’s “fair and just leadership” had benefited the Chinese community “tremendously”. WCEF chairman Datuk Michael Yeoh said in his speech at the conferment ceremony today.
This was the major news item of the day. WCEF is a gathering of Chinese hongs and towkays eager to seek business favours from the PM. How does Michael Yeoh come by his assessment?
Among others, Yeoh praised Najib’s 1 Malaysia platform, his administration’s decision to increase allocation to Chinese schools and the introduction of tax exemptions for churches and temples, saying the initiatives were proof of the prime minister’s commitment to “fairness and justice”.
Fuyoh! I had to pinch myself. Never have I heard such outpouring of boot-licking averments which Michael sought to prove by stating the material I placed in italics above.
Let me steal the thunder from Michael’s shameless sycophantic offerings.
Two weeks ago, I sat down with Dr Richard Cockett, SEA correspondent for The Economist.Also present was Wan Saiful Wan Jan, head of IDEAS. Richard posted the question to me as to whether Najib will succeed in his transformation ideas.
He will not succeed, I said. But let me say some nice things about Najib. Najib is a personable fellow and if you get close enough to him, you will have to be a black-hearted person NOT to like him. But that is as far as I can go. He is a nice and a personable fellow.
He has his heart at the right place, but as I wrote some time back, he is a political invertebrate. He doesn’t have the political will and personal strength to push through his programmes. I was ready to concede later that Najib, on account of his exterior rhetoric, may indeed have a backbone but still, I find difficulty to locate where on his anatomy.
Take the case of his New Economic Model. Nowadays we hardly hear about it. At the 2011 Umno General Assembly, Najib did not even mention it. Instead he devoted much of his speech sounding very combative and full of vehemence. What he has done was to actually retrograde to Umno cavemen politics. You disagree with us, we bash you in the heads with our swing sticks.
Ask yourself. How will Najib, for instance, push through his economic agenda? Answer: He will revert to the tested ways of selecting cronies, of giving direct negotiated projects masked by seemingly transparent methods to the chosen few. Those chosen few too will be recommended by the Man who can walk on water. He will continue with the patronage system instead of pushing his transforming ideas through.
The only transforming sensation that Najib will achieve is perhaps playing with his Transformers toys and watching the film starring Shia LaBeouf. His eyes will probably focus more on Megan Fox.
At the 2010 Umno General Assembly, for instance, all his big ideas were rejected and thwarted by Umno delegates, obviously mirroring the general objection to Najib’s adventurist ideas which were his alone and, most probably, scripted by expensively paid consultants. His idea of 1 Malaysia with the hazy notions of inclusiveness and outward readiness to “We must pool our collective talents in the interests of our nation so that together, we will win out.” Fulamak!
That to be read as: we must pakat pakat to swipe clean the country’s wealth and make hay while the sun shines. We will carry out the agenda of guatolonglu-lutolonggua win-win policies.
The delegates at that assembly immediately rejected Najib’s 1 Malaysia by insisting on Malay-first policies on everything. So what 1 Malaysia is Najib talking about?
His plans to transform the economy and especially that of the Malay economy through his NEM founded on the equally hazy notions of affirmative policies based on free market economics and affirmative policies based on merits were met with howls from delegates insisting on the continuation of NEP-like policies.
In the end, Najib could only muster his last trump card — to claim that after all he is the son of Tun Razak. That, no one can dispute. Genetically he is, but culturally, he isn’t. He doesn’t have the leadership qualities of Tun Razak.
How can he push his liberalist economic agenda through a mindset accustomed to patronage? Will the Umno warlords, who have only known survival through the patronage system of Umno, allow some anointed successor, albeit the son of Tun Razak, dismantle a system that has provided them with succour? That would be suicidal.
Najib will be sacrificed rather than allow a system that has spawn hordes of tenderpreneurs being replaced by an adventurist Najib Razak with a blasphemous idea.
In short, Najib faces a brick wall and he has nowhere to go. Either he faces the Umno firing squad or capitulate. At the 2011 Umno assembly, he has done that exactly — retreated shamelessly. That gutless and shameless position was effectively masked by his recalcitrant and combative rhetoric.
How will he push his transformation programmes through a sea of stubborn tenderpreneurs and obstinate rent-seekers?
So in answer to Richard Cockett, Najib can’t transform. He can only dream of becoming Optimus Prime. — sakmongkol.blogspot.com
* Sakmongkol AK47 is the nom de plume of Datuk Mohd Ariff Sabri Abdul Aziz. He was Pulau Manis assemblyman (2004-2008).

TMI: Race and Malaysian ‘exceptionalism’ — by Clive Kessler


Race and Malaysian ‘exceptionalism’ — Clive Kessler

TMI: January 27, 2012
JAN 27 — “The world has admitted that multiracial Malaysia grew faster than other developing nations that did not have the problem of race to consider,” Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has recently remarked (“Dr M: Scrapping race-based policies will lead to chaos”, The Malaysian Insider, January 26).
Yet most nations and national communities these days are culturally pluralistic, not monolithic. Those, such as Japan, that are largely homogeneous are the exceptions, not the norm.
So, on the claimed grounds of its diversity, Malaysia is no exception.
If Malaysia is exceptional, it is not because — like so many other modern nations — it is culturally pluralistic and socially diverse but because official government policy has been erected upon the idea that such diversity is not simply ineradicable but both abnormal and dangerous.
Government in Malaysia stands upon the “enshrining” of the idea of the fundamental, inescapable and eternal political salience of that diversity — and, however benign the intentions of its greatest statesmen may be, upon its necessarily “sectional” and hence ultimately divisive official management.
If Malaysia has a “race problem” it is not because of a malign historical fate but because Malaysian governments have offered and justified themselves over the years since independence as the authoritative manager of racial divisions and antagonisms.
The Malaysian government has always presented itself as the wise manager, and as the sole available broker and arbiter, of a basic dichotomy which it says it wishes to overcome but upon which, and upon whose continuing power, it remains dependent.
That is its political basis and rationale.
This idea of the fundamental nature of such cultural differences and of their inescapably conflictual character has been established and elevated as the “ultimate political truth.” It is the central doctrine, or credo, of the reigning “national political theology.”
Malaysia, as it is now established and has been managed, especially since 1970, rests upon, presumes and requires that particular form of “racial” difference, separation and antagonism which the government yet continually pleads it wishes to overcome.
A strange, contradictory, even silly idea, really.
It is a silly idea precisely because it is contradictory — and no coherent, sustainable policy may be built upon an evident contradiction.
But where would BN be without it?
The question answers itself.
Yes, Malaysia does have an unusual “racial” problem.
Malaysia’s is decidedly a “racial” problem — provided one recognises, as modern social theory does, that “race” denotes not mundane cultural diversity and social pluralism themselves but their antagonistic political, ideological and doctrinal “sanctification” as the ultimate or core human reality.
To see that human diversity as irreconcilable, and as the basis of inevitable antagonism rather than as a source of creativity and engagement and hope, is a political choice.
It is a fact, or the dubious gift, not of insuperable past events but of contemporary and continuing human choice, of ideological and political preferences.
* Clive Kessler is Emeritus Professor of Sociology and Anthropology at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.