Malaysiakini: Our lost decade.... by Neil Khor

Our lost decade

Neil Khor
Dec 21, 2010
4:29pm

COMMENT The end of 2010 brings to a close our first decade in the new millennium. It might be profitable to reflect on the last 12 months and see what we have achieved.

More importantly, what were the opportunities that we missed? The focus is in the realm of politics, the economy, environment, culture and society.

Politics remain at the top of everyone's mind. Politicians, almost all opinion polls show, are still distrusted. There has been little attempt to forge a middle path.

In 2009, after the now legendary routing of the BN and the resignation of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi as premier, all types of provocations were thrown at the Malaysian public. We have been very fortunate as Malaysians ignored ethnic and religious baiting.

In 2010, the voices of discord have become so shrill that with each passing article, the sales of newspapers plummet to new depths. In cyber-space, opinions of all hues continue to pervade with social networking tools like Facebook and Twitter the main instruments of alternative political messages.

Whilst government supporters are now better organised, the battle for hearts and minds continue to favour contrarians. Will this translate into votes? Nobody knows and nobody wants to take chances.

The monopoly on information by traditional media is gone but it remains to be seen how effective the alternative media is in the semi-rural and rural areas. In short, polarisation continues to intensify in the political arena.

The missed opportunities in the political arena is that we do not have leaders who dare to be different; who can bridge the great divide and provide leadership on a national-scale.

Najib Abdul Razak is trying very hard and to his credit is gaining ground in his personal likeability index but this does not necessarily mean votes for the ruling coalition. Anwar Ibrahim although charismatic is now so wounded that it would be surprising if he can reprise his role as a unifying figure.

There is little indication of credible second and third liners. In short, we are politically screwed. With no middle ground there can be no possibility of proper parliamentary debate; instead there is increasing pettiness and obsession with self-preservation.

Nation of acronyms

On the economic front, we continue to bleed capital and talent. We are now a nation of acronyms. There are so many acronyms representing diverse development strategies that this writer will be very surprised if the average Malaysian understands what these policies are and why we need them.

The government is trying very hard to be everything to everyone. The New Economic Model will be race-blind when it comes to eradicating poverty, especially of the bottom 40 percent yet the NEP is still relevant.

The reality is one the government is unable to articulate: our institutions including the civil service has decayed for so long that national policies need to be validated by consultants.

The government is concerned enough about Malaysia's future to acknowledge that we are in dire need of new economic strategies.

Whilst we are all agreed that a more equitable Malaysia is a common goal, there does not appear to be any consensus on how to achieve it. The BN's strategy is to grow the pie bigger but we have had that for 53 years and we are still a rather unequal society.

The opposition wants to crown the rakyat,advocating a rakyat-based economic strategy. 

Like governmental acronyms, the opposition has not shown us the cards in their hands. If the BN's policies are not working, what is the alternative?

We now have a group of people who call themselves the 'Third Force', some even aspiring to be the Liberal Democrats of Malaysia. 

Fine, but please someone tell us what should be our economic strategy to attract talent and capital to drive economic growth that is sustainable and as equitable as possible?

Un-sexy issues

Malaysians are also growing very uneasy about the environment. Floods in Kedah are a clear indication that global warming is having very real effects on the ground. We have not spent nearly enough attention to prepare for the full-effects associated with climate change.

So much attention is focused on politics that a very important conference on renewable energy was hardly registered. In the meantime, we have literally mountains of waste to manage. 

The government is suggesting nuclear power as an option for our future energy needs and a lot of attention is given to it.

But what we've not focused upon is the continued degradation of our natural resources owing to commercial agriculture resulting in the loss of 1m of top-soil over the last century or that we are now building dams because we want to get at the valuable timber.

Culture and society are also subjects that are not 'sexy' and only come up if it is associated with a political statement. Interlinked with these two subjects is education.

Now, what sort of country needs to revise its history syallabus every time there is a political debate?

What kind of society kills women and children; where the crime rate is so high that even the homes of retired police officers are not safe?

As we mull over politics, do we even ask ourselves what is the point of it all? These questions, which cannot be quantified, are irrelevant. It is as though we have lost touch with our own gut-feeling; our internal moral compass.

In the next week there might still be some interesting political fireworks. Whilst we obsess about who will win the next general election, the world continues to march. Some will say the human race is marching towards its own extinction whilst others feel that we are being left behind by the van of progress.

Whatever your view, it cannot be good if we are unable to think nationally about education, healthcare, the economy, culture and society without being coloured by politics.

Some see Malaysia's problems as indications that we are the sick man of Southeast Asia. It is more correct to say that Malaysia is a nation in transition. It is our duty as citizens to make sure that we transition to become a better nation.

Happy New Year.

NEIL KHOR completed his PhD at Cambridge University and now writes occasionally on matters that he thinks requires better historical treatment. He is quietly optimistic about Malaysia's future.

Malaysiakini: 1Choice for Malaysia... by Mariam Mokhtar

1Choice for Malaysia

Malaysiakini
Mariam Mokhtar
Dec 20, 2010

Malaysia’s upcoming general election offers the country its most significant choice for several decades.

The political tsunami of 2008 was an eye-opener. At the second Pakatan Rakyat convention in Kepala Batas, PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang acknowledged the weaknesses in the opposition pact and urged party member to unite and remain focused.

The nation faces enormous challenges in the years to come. The economic demands are tremendous.

The next government needs to stabilise the economy and stimulate growth in the private sector. It has to deal with its burgeoning debt, cut subsidies and rein in borrowings if it does not want to risk bankruptcy.

Our problems are not just economic. We are faced with a rising tide of extremism from Malay groups, borders which are porous, a rise in Islamic fundamentalism, a rise in racist incidents, problems in our schools and hospitals, the destruction of the police and judiciary, babies being abandoned, high levels of corruption and a weakening of civic society.

These problems demand a robust solution and a strong government to tackle them. The burning question is: Which party is best suited to lead us out of this quagmire?

PKR recently held elections, whilst BN and the other component parties have deferred theirs. DAP and Gerakan have followed suit. This is indicative of the pressures these political parties face. All want to mount a strong challenge when the country goes to the polls.

The parties have resolved to capture the imagination of the voters and the differences between them are obvious. BN believes that only it can solve the country’s economic and social ills. Its slogan 1Malaysia remains just that – a slogan because in practice, certain races are held back by an invisible wall – the ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy) concept.

In contrast, the Pakatan coalition believes that it can do a better job. It realises that the public mindset is changing. Race-based politics is a thing of the past. It is convinced that Malaysia is an increasing enlightened nation which believes in justice, the recognition of the rights of everyone regardless of race and that each Malaysian desires to be a part of the nation and be able to contribute towards its future.

The future of Malaysia, according to the BN administration, is to capitalise on mega-projects to boost the economy, just as during the Mahathir era.

In his Budget 2011 debate, Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim said the BN’s obsession with “grandeur” will presage its fall.

He said: “This rush for symbolic mega-projects, supposedly to portray pride for the country, is being repeated now under the present prime minister. Here I would like to question the wisdom of Permodalan Nasional Bhd’s order from the government to involve itself in mega projects.”

One of these is the 100-storey Warisan Merdeka skyscraper which is expected to cost over RM5 billion. When completed, it will be the tallest building in Malaysia.

Risky strategy
PM Najib Abdul Razak’s plans for mega-projects to stimulate the economy is risky as it fails to consider the country’s current economic standing and the need to lower the budget deficit and improve competitiveness.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Idris Jala has said that Malaysia’s debt would rise to 100 percent of GDP by 2019 from the current 54% if the government does not cut subsidies.

He said: “We do not want to be another Greece. We do not want to end up like Greece with a total debt of EUR300 billion. Our deficit rose to record high of RM47 billion last year.”

Malaysia’s foreign direct investment (FDI), he said, dropped 81 per cent from RM23.47 billion in 2008 to RM4.43 billion in 2009, in comparison with Thailand which recorded an FDI of RM19.01 billion and Indonesia with RM19.08 billion.

Pakatan has warned of an economic crisis due to crony capitalism and corruption; a social crisis due to narrow racial policies; and a political crisis due to democratic fatigue arising from the BN’s abuses of power.

Corrupt practices only bring benefits to cronies and hefty losses to the people. Malaysia’s failure to attract foreign investment shows a desperate need for change in the management of the economy. Both good governance and a need to improve its competitive edge are vital.

Pakatan has decided to uphold a joint policy and welfare programme to defend the people based on four basic principles:

• A transparent and real democracy
• A high and stable economic performance
• Social justice and human development
• A close relationship between state-federal and international policies

Armed with these principles, Pakatan is determined to make Malaysia a better place. The three parties may have their roots in different ideologies – PAS (Islamic credentials), DAP (social ideology) and PKR (liberal ideals).

Perhaps you would prefer to have a government which relies on the Internal Security Act to stifle criticism, one in which corruption goes unchecked and where the judiciary and police are mere stooges of the state.

In order to make the necessary changes to this country, Anwar and his coalition must have a clear mandate to govern.

The best choice for Malaysia is in your hands. Vote wisely! May all your wishes come true – Happy Christmas!

MARIAM MOKHTAR is a non-conformist traditionalist from Perak, a bucket chemist and an armchair eco-warrior. In ‘real-speak’, this translates into that she comes from Ipoh, values change but respects culture, is a petroleum chemist and also an environmental pollution-control scientist.

Malaysiakini: Pakatan Rakyat ready to rule? by Azly Rahman

Pakatan Rakyat ready to rule?

- by Azly Rahman
Malaysiakini: Dec 20, 2010

Just do it.” – Nike slogan.

As a disinterested and apolitical analyst of Malaysian politics I believe that for the good of all Malaysians, democracy needs renewal, either through evolution or revolution all through its inevitable march towards its final solution. It is not political philosophy that is at issue here but the people that translates it into practice.

Except for the allegedly orchestrated bloody racial riots of May 13 1969, Malaysia is fortunate to have seen peaceful stages of evolution although her prime ministers hailed from the bourgeoisie-class of hybridised Malays helming the race-based party that has no clear ideology; a party that is losing its effect in rallying the Malay electorate due to its own poor understanding of the meaning of nationalism and cosmopolitanism in an age of cybernetics and globalisation.

Is the death of Malaysia’s National Front or the Barisan Nasional near? Can Malaysian politics be “gentlemanly” or borrowing Kung Fu Tze’s word for gentleman, “Chuan tze” enough for the 50-year race-based coalition regime to give way for a coalition of multiculturalists such as Pakatan Rakyat to rule for the next 50 years? Are Malaysians ready enough for this gentlemanly act that will give meaning to the evolutionary democracy Malaysian-styled?

Perhaps the nation is ready. An era awaits no nation. It only needs to be cemented by political will.

A historical juncture
We have come to a historical juncture in which the debate between the hegemonising nationalism of one race is giving way for an emerging amalgamated cosmopolitanism of many races. America of the 100-years-ago Teddy Roosevelt era gave way to the America of Barack Obama; the idea of a WASP (white anglo-saxon protestant) America has succumbed to the global hip-hop Obama’s America in which the hyphenated, hybridised, and heteroglossic form of Americanism is prevailing.

While the current regime of the National Front continues to insist on its Machiavellian hypocrisy in its push for a Malay-centric Malaysia amidst trumpeting its 1Malayisa slogan, the voices of the subaltern of a generation of hyphenated and hybridised Malaysians fed up by cliché, slogans, and double-speak are coming out in the open voicing their support for a Malaysian Malaysia that demands for all the rights accorded them in the constitution.

While the intensity of the hypocrisy of the ultra-nationalist sentimentality intensifies, in the form of ideologically-ridiculous village/kampong-Malay type of organisations such Perkasa and Pekida continue to make headline news in ultra-Malay nationalistic-tabloidic publications, voices of multicultural reason calling for political change becomes louder.

The younger generation are Malaysia’s global hip-hop Obama generation of the salad bowl/rojak bowl Malaysia, wanting to make changes so that their generation will not become victim to race-based discrimination left as a truncated historical legacy and so that they will not have to become a victim of the sins of their grandfathers.

Enter the Pakatan Rakyat as an emerging powerful force not only as a check and balance to Malaysia’s outdatedly-ideologised and romanticised race-based coalition party, with the waning of the effects of Mahathirism and Samy-Velluism or Ling Liong Sik-ism – a tripartite of truncated political-tribalism.

Enter Pakatan Rakyat as a viable force for the most exciting general election Malaysia will ever see; a coalition of the willing in the Malaysian political scene that will willing to be scrutinised for its transparency, efficiency, and accountability by the public fed-up of 50 years of governmental secrecy and massive corruption.

Un-allowables to be allowed?
As the general election approaches, Malaysians must choose wisely.

Do they want a government that will continue to build useless world’s tallest towers, allow fascistic NGOs spewing hatred to be left unreprimanded, allow corruption left un-chemotherapied, allow university students with enquiring minds to be stupefied, allow prices of basic necessities to rise uncontrollably, allow every by-election to be a fiesta of gift-giving and a beggar’s banquet of the already-corrupted voters, and a host of other un-allowables in a democratic society to be allowed?
Or do they want a fresh mandate and be able to keep the new-ly elected regime on its toes and free to boot it out when it fails to deliver or fails to be truthful in its act?

Philologically and semantically the word “National Front” contains both a falsehood and a truth. It is false as a claim of a “national” derived from “nation” derived from the French “nation” since Malaysia is not a nation. It is a salad bowl of diverse cultures and peoples who have surrendered their natural rights to the general will called the state; so that they may enjoy the rights as a citizens.

The truth of the “National Front” lies in the word “front” of which the 1955-born Alliance Party has been putting a “front” or a “façade” of democracy whilst abusing the ideological state apparatuses in pursuit of a corporate-capitalist-cronyistic developmentalist agenda. The slogans employed since its inception as that coalition have become bricks in the “fronting” wall of the National Front.

Are Malaysians ready to start a brand new day? Will they give Pakatan Rakyat a mandate? This is a question of survival – of a gentlemanly nature.

WikiLeaks and 9/11: What if? by Coleen Rowley & Bogdan Dzakovic

WikiLeaks and 9/11: What if?

Frustrated investigators might have chosen to leak information that their superiors bottled up, perhaps averting the terrorism attacks.

LA TIMES, October 15, 2010| By Coleen Rowley and Bogdan Dzakovic

If WikiLeaks had been around in 2001, could the events of 9/11 have been prevented? The idea is worth considering.

The organization has drawn both high praise and searing criticism for its mission of publishing leaked documents without revealing their source, but we suspect the world hasn't yet fully seen its potential.

Let us explain.

There were a lot of us in the run-up to Sept. 11 who had seen warning signs that something devastating might be in the planning stages. But we worked for ossified bureaucracies incapable of acting quickly and decisively. Lately, the two of us have been wondering how things might have been different if there had been a quick, confidential way to get information out.

One of us, Coleen Rowley, was a special agent/legal counsel at the FBI's Minneapolis division and worked closely with those who arrested would-be terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui on an immigration violation less than a month before the World Trade Center was destroyed.

Following up on a tip from flight school instructors who had become suspicious of the French Moroccan who claimed to want to fly a jet as an "ego boost," Special Agent Harry Samit and an INS colleague had detained Moussaoui. A foreign intelligence service promptly reported that he had connections with a foreign terrorist group, but FBI officials in Washington inexplicably turned down
Samit's request for authority to search Moussaoui's laptop computer and personal effects.

Those same officials stonewalled Samit's supervisor, who pleaded with them in late August 2001 that he was "trying to keep someone from taking a plane and crashing into the World Trade Center." (Yes, he was that explicit.) Later, testifying at Moussaoui's trial, Samit testified that he believed the behavior of his FBI superiors in Washington constituted "criminal negligence."

The 9/11 Commission ultimately concluded that Moussaoui was most likely being primed as a Sept. 11 replacement pilot and that the hijackers probably would have postponed their strike if information about his arrest had been announced.

WikiLeaks might have provided a pressure valve for those agents who were terribly worried about what might happen and frustrated by their superiors' seeming indifference. They were indeed stuck in a perplexing, no-win ethical dilemma as time ticked away. Their bosses issued continual warnings against "talking to the media" and frowned on whistle-blowing, yet the agents felt a strong need to protect the public.

The other one of us writing this piece, Federal Air Marshal Bogdan Dzakovic, once co-led the Federal Aviation Administration's Red Team to probe for vulnerabilities in airport security. He also has a story of how warnings were ignored in the run-up to Sept. 11. In repeated tests of security, his team found weaknesses nine out of 10 times that would make it possible for hijackers to smuggle weapons aboard and seize control of airplanes. But the team's reports were ignored and suppressed, and the team was shut down entirely after 9/11.

In testimony to the 9/11 Commission, Dzakovic summed up his experience this way: "The Red Team was extraordinarily successful in killing large numbers of innocent people in the simulated attacks …[and yet] we were ordered not to write up our reports and not to retest airports where we found particularly egregious vulnerabilities.... Finally, the FAA started providing advance notification of when we would be conducting our 'undercover' tests and what we would be checking."

Why I'm Posting Bail Money for Julian Assange (A statement from Michael Moore)

Why I'm Posting Bail Money for Julian Assange
(A statement from Michael Moore)
Tuesday, December 14th, 2010

Friends,
Yesterday, in the Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the lawyers for WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange presented to the judge a document from me stating that I have put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail.

Furthermore, I am publicly offering the assistance of my website, my servers, my domain names and anything else I can do to keep WikiLeaks alive and thriving as it continues its work to expose the crimes that were concocted in secret and carried out in our name and with our tax dollars.

We were taken to war in Iraq on a lie. Hundreds of thousands are now dead. Just imagine if the men who planned this war crime back in 2002 had had a WikiLeaks to deal with. They might not have been able to pull it off. The only reason they thought they could get away with it was because they had a guaranteed cloak of secrecy. That guarantee has now been ripped from them, and I hope they are never able to operate in secret again.

So why is WikiLeaks, after performing such an important public service, under such vicious attack? Because they have outed and embarrassed those who have covered up the truth. The assault on them has been over the top:

**Sen. Joe Lieberman says WikiLeaks "has violated the Espionage Act."

**The New Yorker's George Packer calls Assange "super-secretive, thin-skinned, [and] megalomaniacal."

**Sarah Palin claims he's "an anti-American operative with blood on his hands" whom we should pursue "with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders."

**Democrat Bob Beckel (Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign manager) said about Assange on Fox: "A dead man can't leak stuff ... there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch."

**Republican Mary Matalin says "he's a psychopath, a sociopath ... He's a terrorist."

**Rep. Peter A. King calls WikiLeaks a "terrorist organization."

And indeed they are! They exist to terrorize the liars and warmongers who have brought ruin to our nation and to others. Perhaps the next war won't be so easy because the tables have been turned -- and now it's Big Brother who's being watched ... by us!

WikiLeaks deserves our thanks for shining a huge spotlight on all this. But some in the corporate-owned press have dismissed the importance of WikiLeaks ("they've released little that's new!") or have painted them as simple anarchists ("WikiLeaks just releases everything without any editorial control!"). WikiLeaks exists, in part, because the mainstream media has failed to live up to its responsibility. The corporate owners have decimated newsrooms, making it impossible for good journalists to do their job. There's no time or money anymore for investigative journalism. Simply put, investors don't want those stories exposed. They like their secrets kept ... as secrets.

I ask you to imagine how much different our world would be if WikiLeaks had existed 10 years ago. Take a look at this photo. That's Mr. Bush about to be handed a "secret" document on August 6th, 2001. Its heading read: "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." And on those pages it said the FBI had discovered "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings." Mr. Bush decided to ignore it and went fishing for the next four weeks.

But if that document had been leaked, how would you or I have reacted? What would Congress or the FAA have done? Was there not a greater chance that someone, somewhere would have done something if all of us knew about bin Laden's impending attack using hijacked planes?

But back then only a few people had access to that document. Because the secret was kept, a flight school instructor in San Diego who noticed that two Saudi students took no interest in takeoffs or landings, did nothing. Had he read about the bin Laden threat in the paper, might he have called the FBI? (Please read this essay by former FBI Agent Coleen Rowley, Time's 2002 co-Person of the Year, about her belief that had WikiLeaks been around in 2001, 9/11 might have been prevented.)

Or what if the public in 2003 had been able to read "secret" memos from Dick Cheney as he pressured
the CIA to give him the "facts" he wanted in order to build his false case for war? If a WikiLeaks had revealed at that time that there were, in fact, no weapons of mass destruction, do you think that the war would have been launched -- or rather, wouldn't there have been calls for Cheney's arrest?

Openness, transparency -- these are among the few weapons the citizenry has to protect itself from the powerful and the corrupt. What if within days of August 4th, 1964 -- after the Pentagon had made up the lie that our ship was attacked by the North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin -- there had been a WikiLeaks to tell the American people that the whole thing was made up? I guess 58,000 of our soldiers (and 2 million Vietnamese) might be alive today.

Instead, secrets killed them.

For those of you who think it's wrong to support Julian Assange because of the sexual assault allegations he's being held for, all I ask is that you not be naive about how the government works when it decides to go after its prey. Please -- never, ever believe the "official story." And regardless of Assange's guilt or innocence (see the strange nature of the allegations here), this man has the right to have bail posted and to defend himself. I have joined with filmmakers Ken Loach and John Pilger and writer Jemima Khan in putting up the bail money -- and we hope the judge will accept this and grant his release today.

Might WikiLeaks cause some unintended harm to diplomatic negotiations and U.S. interests around the world? Perhaps. But that's the price you pay when you and your government take us into a war based on a lie. Your punishment for misbehaving is that someone has to turn on all the lights in the room so that we can see what you're up to. You simply can't be trusted. So every cable, every email you write is now fair game. Sorry, but you brought this upon yourself. No one can hide from the truth now. No one can plot the next Big Lie if they know that they might be exposed.

And that is the best thing that WikiLeaks has done. WikiLeaks, God bless them, will save lives as a result of their actions. And any of you who join me in supporting them are committing a true act of patriotism. Period.

I stand today in absentia with Julian Assange in London and I ask the judge to grant him his release. I am willing to guarantee his return to court with the bail money I have wired to said court. I will not allow this injustice to continue unchallenged.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com
P.S. You can read the statement I filed today in the London court here.

CPI: History syllabus furthering political interests... by Lim Teck Ghee

History syllabus furthering political interests

by Lim Teck Ghee
malaysiakini, Dec 16, 2010, 3:32pm

A few days ago, two senior academicians involved in the writing of history textbooks emerged from the shadows, saying that the history textbooks in the country are biased and littered with errors.

According to one of them, Dr Ranjit Singh Malhi, "secondary (school) textbooks have been used to promote political interests".

The other concerned author, Ng How Kuen, expressed the fear that making history a compulsory pass subject in Sijil Perlajaran Malaysia (SPM) would mean that students would have to subscribe to the official version of events or risk failing the entire examination.

It is said that history is written by the victors, but it is also true that we get the history we deserve. The disclosure that the teaching of history in schools has been skewed and has a political agenda - besides suffering from distortions and errors - is not the first time this issue has been brought to public attention.Earlier attempts to highlight the issue of what constitutes the true history of Malaysia and what is being passed off as officially-sanctioned history in the schooling and larger public system, such as the BTN courses, may have begun with a bang - but they have all ended with a whimper.

Forcefeeding the 'four diseases'

If we go by previous experience we can expect the following responses:

• Bureaucratic foot-dragging and feigned ignorance on the issue;

• Justification and cover-up of the existing history textbook and syllabus system and attempts to prevent any public discussion and reform;

• Use of the mask of impartiality and superior knowledge to deflect criticism;

• Attacks on the credibility of whistleblowers; and

• Deafening silence from key stakeholders, including the academic community, political parties and professional organisations.

Why is the great majority of our Malaysian public not concerned about the version of history that is being propagated in the schools?

Why do the people close their eyes and their minds to the distorted history that is being taught to their children and grandchildren?

Do they not realise the consequences of the victory of a history that is radically different from the history that they themselves learnt when they were in school not so long ago? Was the history that they studied so wrong that it needs to be substantially changed in emphasis, content and scope?

Why are they silent on the development of a propagandistic and truncated history that is increasingly infiltrated by the forces of Islamisation and crass nationalism, and where the four major diseases that afflict BN - delusion, amnesia, inertia and arrogance - are prominently evident and force-fed to the young minds of the country?

The answers are complex, but they essentially boil down to apathy and lack of concern, especially among the educated and elite groups of our society on these important issues that are crucial to our future as a rational and thinking society.

Underscoring this 'tidak apa' attitude is the dominant factor of self-interest and self-preservation.

Those involved with writing history text books and who are in the know about the deplorable and compromised standards of their peer group want to protect their lucrative side-employment.

Others, such as academicians or teachers of the subject in the schools, do not dare to speak out for fear of being labelled as 'anti-national', or as in the case of those in the public universities, for fear of running foul of the Universities and Universities Colleges Act, which will be selectively enforced on them should they write or speak publicly on issues that are out of line with the official position.

Academics BN sycophants

It is no coincidence that academicians and opinion writers who are regularly trotted out in the mainstream media are those who seek to justify or reinforce the current status quo. These sycophants have not only academic or intellectual immunity but they also enjoy perks akin to those enjoyed by the business cronies of the BN.

If there is any reaction from the academic community to the two whistleblowers, we can expect their comments to come from those who will toe and reinforce the official position and circumvent from the main issue of the Islamisation and politicisation of the Malaysian history school syllabus.

Dissenters, on the other hand, have to face the possibility of lost or delayed promotions and other forms of punishment not easily discernible to the public eye.

"Shut up, mind your own business" and cari makan (even though this may be through rent-seeking, queue-jumping, plagiarism and other unethical practices) have been the credo of the great majority of the professional elite in Malaysia. It is a culture that has served them well personally, but at what cost to the nation?

Malaysian history must be based on facts and the scrupulous depiction of historical reality. The writing of textbooks should not be left to those who regard it as a business or their political agenda and are prepared to bend the truth so that it meets with the vision of an Islamic and Umno-dominant Malaysia.

Unless we are prepared to fight for a scholarly, reliable and representative history, we will end up with a future - as well as a past - that reflects the dominant ethnic and religious culture and community, and marginalises or erases the contributions of other cultures and communities.

Dr Lim Teck Ghee is director of the Centre for Policy Initiatives.

Free Malaysian Today: Keeping March 8 alive.... by Stephanie Sta Maria

Keeping March 8 alive

by Stephanie Sta Maria
Free Malaysia Today
Tue, 14 Dec 2010

FMT EXCLUSIVE The day had not begun particularly well for Kee Thuan Chye. A friend – once a staunch supporter of political change – had confided that he was contemplating reverting to the “devil he knew” in the next general election.

“I was very upset,” Kee said. “After staying for so long on the track of change, he is giving up because he has lost faith in Pakatan Rakyat’s ability to get its act together to govern this country.”

It was the sort of sentiment that the former journalist found deeply troubling as it preyed on a simmering disquiet that the tide behind the March 8 tsunami may be turning again, this time in favour of the ruling party. And that, in Kee’s view, would spell imminent political tragedy for Malaysia.


March 8 is a historic date that Kee holds close to his heart. Two years ago he paid tribute to it with a book entitled “March 8: The Day Malaysia Woke Up”, an anthology of the voices that believed in and voted for change.

Now a second edition of that volume has hit the shelves. Only this time it bears the title “March 8: Time For Real Change”.

“The new title is apt for these times and besides, the publisher liked it!” he said, the corners of his eye crinkling. “But seriously, the next general election is approaching and there is an urgency now to talk about real change. There is also a need to assess all that has happened in the past two and half years.”

“The real purpose of a second edition is, of course, to keep the March 8 spirit alive. That is extremely important because Malaysia has not been the same since that day.”

Defining moment
There is a marked distinction between the spirit of March 8 and that of reformasi (the basis upon which PKR was formed). In drawing a line between the two, Kee declared that the former was much bigger in that it involved the country’s future while the latter was intertwined with the “Anwar personality”.

“March 8 was the defining moment when Malaysians realised that they had been taken for a ride for decades and that it was time for change,” he added. “It was a very important watershed which has to be commemorated.”

“Our spirit is different now and we must maintain it because with it comes the spirit of standing up for our rights. Of defying with a cause and of even showing healthy disrespect for authority when it is necessary. We have been docile and unquestioning for far too long. March 8 changed all that.”

Some 60% of the second edition is new material that was cobbled together within an impressive five months. But if the earlier sentiment of Kee’s friend is any indicator of a waning adrenaline, then it begs the question of whether this new volume is a boon or a bane. Kee already knows the answer.

“I think the enthusiasm is still there though it may be flagging a little now,” he said quietly. “I asked someone the other day whether a book like this would still sell and he said that people are a little tired of March 8 because of all the politicking that followed it.”

Nevertheless, he forged ahead in fierce determination to do his bit in keeping the enthusiasm pulsing.
To keep fanning that spirit that pushed people to raise and debate issues, exercise their rights and lobby for change.
 
“There are some very good and even brilliant ideas in this edition,” he promised. “And good advice for the next general election. There are good assessments of the chicanery that has been going on since March 8, and good summaries of how we have come to where we are now. The book will also remind people to think hard about their vote at the next general election.”

This hard thinking, unfortunately, may be sparked less by Barisan Nasional’s gaffes than by PKR’s recent antics. Even Kee voiced alarm over the less than savoury image that the BN is painting of the opposition coalition.

“Pakatan is losing ground and public confidence,” he noted. “Perception is so important in politics. DAP and PAS are very solid. PKR is the only weak link and it really has to buck up fast. There’s not much time left. It has to go to the ground to convince the people, especially the fence-sitters, that the opposition is still a viable option.”

Irrelevant concern
Many have questioned whether Pakatan is ready to take over the government but to Kee, this is an irrelevant concern. He believes that if one is thrown into the deep end of the pool, one will learn to swim. He also believes in giving the underdogs a chance.

“There is never a time when one is ready,” he asserted. “You have to approach the moment and when the moment arises you have to rise to the occasion. You have to give people a chance.”

“If it doesn’t work out there will be another election five years later. But it’s always worthwhile to take that chance because if you don’t, the change may never happen or it will happen too slowly.”

The most pressing need, according to Kee, is to remove a coalition that has been in power for 53 years so it knows what it is like to wear the other shoe. In the best-case scenario, that newly minted opposition will be forced to reform itself and the people would be presented with two stronger choices in the next general election. And in his opinion, two choices are enough.

“We don’t need a Third Force,” he said plainly. “It would be better for those who want to be part of this Third Force to offer themselves as candidates to Pakatan instead.”

“The Third Force here won’t be like the Tea Party in America. They had two years to build their profile and were very active and well organised. And even then quite a number didn’t get elected. Frankly I don’t know if the Third Force will do well because many of them will be unknown.”

Kee pointed out that many of the Third Force candidates would also be greenhorns in the political arena with only integrity for their sword and shield.

While he acknowledged that this would lessen the likelihood of defections, he warned that being person of integrity and a politician were two different matters altogether.

“It isn’t enough to just have integrity,” he reasoned. “You also have to be politically savvy. A person with integrity alone will get disillusioned very quickly. But if they want to continue with this Third Force, then they should make a pact with Pakatan. Even if it doesn’t win the next election at least we have a strong opposition.”

And if Pakatan stays on a losing streak? Kee, who has long refused to migrate, laughed.

“I’m still hoping that if there is a new government then perhaps the political reform can happen. But if there is still no change, I should really pack my bags and leave.”

Centre for Policy Initiatives: May 13 more accurately ‘genocidal’ than racial riots... by CT Wong

May 13 more accurately ‘genocidal’ than racial riots

Written by CT Wong

Centre for Policy Initiatives: Tuesday, 14 December 2010 14:11

The deputy Utusan editor-in-chief Zaini Hassan (left) had recently written that May 13 should be celebrated as ‘tarikh keramat’ -- an auspicious and sacred day. He opined that May 13 is a blessing in disguise and without May 13 the Malays would not have enjoyed the benefits as what they are enjoying today. From the Oxford Fajar bilingual dictionary, ‘keramat’ means “place or object that is (believed to be) sacred with supernatural or magical powers.” The powers refer to the special ability to cure sickness or to provide protection. So far, May 13 has not cured the malignant sickness of racism dating from colonial times – colonialism is a form of racism. Neither do the citizens feel more protected from its relapse. What we witnessed was not supernatural powers, but authoritarian powers that destroy the very foundation of democracy – separation of powers of the executive, the judiciary and the legislative. I find it difficult to understand how May 13 might wish to be celebrated as sacred, as spiritual. The predators become heroes and idols. Where is the sacredness? When unarmed Malaysians who were non-combatants were sacrificed by those in the deadly pursuit of power and wealth, God or gods were also sacrificed. In fact, civilisation, if not God, abandoned us during those dark days. To the Germans who are proud of their Einstein, Beethoven and Sigmund Freud, these names are forever linked to Auschwitz in the land of Germany. To many a Malaysian, ‘Islamic’ civilisation and the ‘Malays’ are eternally linked to the May 13 genocide. The Germans do not celebrate the Holocaust, but to create a museum right in the centre of the SS headquarters and exposing all the crimes against humanity of Hitler and the Nazi party, lest the future generations forget. In this land of Malaysia, the ethnic minorities are repeatedly reminded of “May 13 or equality!”, lest they forget. We can always look for a silver lining in our tragedies if we want to. However, the Utusan editor seemed to find the smell of death quite sweet and fragrant. This brings me back to the times how I lived through the days of May 13. May 13 to me I was an adolescent living in a rather isolated Chinese-owned rubber-holding up north. Just a mile away was a formerly foreign-owned rubber estate with mostly Indian rubber tappers. And a few miles away was a Malay kampung. When the news or rumours of 'racial riots' in KL reached us, we were shocked not only by the killings but the way it was carried out. On May 13, life and death depended on skin colour; the skin that protects us as a biological organism suddenly becomes a death sentence and our vaguely friendly Malay neighbour could suddenly be a murderer. Such fearful thoughts disturbed me for quite a number of days. My family and I had been forced to move to the nearest small town to stay just in case we happened to be the victims. As times went on, the traumatic memories and the rawness of receiving a rude shock out of the deep slumber of racial accommodation slowly faded. I moved on with my life. But, time and again, non-Malays like me are being reminded of May 13. What is May 13 then? And why call it racial riots? Social contract destroyed To me, May 13 means that the Alliance government of the day failed to protect its citizens. It means that the social contract between the state and citizens was deliberately broken. May 13 means the killing of civilians. It cannot be justified by any rules of war. May 13 means the extension of politics by an unjust and immoral war. The use of the phrase ‘May 13 racial riots’ is constantly being circulated and recycled in all our narratives, including that from the opposition parties. It is understandable if we use euphemistic terms to describe something awful so that we can cushion off the emotional overwhelm. But the phrases ‘racial riots’ or ‘racial clash’ or "May 13 incident" only serve the purpose of bleaching the mass atrocities, the mass murders of May 13. Dissecting the label The word ‘racial’ is quite a harmless term. You can use it for ‘racial harmony’ also. It does not bring out the sense of cruelty embedded in racism. When killing based on race is so ruthless, you don't call it ‘racial’ anymore. It would be more appropriate to use ‘genocidal’ instead. From etymology of the word, ‘geno’ refers to race and ‘cide’ refers to killing (e.g. homicide, suicide, patricide, etc). From a definition by the United Nations, genocide refers to the destruction in part or whole of an ethnic group based on religion, ethnicity and racial identity. It does not need to be total as the Final Solution of the Nazis; neither does it need to be deaths in the magnitude of the hundreds of thousands or millions as in the Rwanda genocide. S.A. Budd, the British High Commissioner to Malaysia in 1969 was quoted as saying "...that of 77 corpses in the morgue of the General Hospital on 14 May, at least 60 were Chinese..." (Kua Kia Soong, 2007). The demography of ethnic identities is obvious. Gregory Stanton, the President of Genocide Watch, argued that “The motive of the killer to take the victim’s property or to politically dominate the victim’s group does not remove genocidal intent if the victim is chosen because of his ethnic, national, racial or religious group.” The intent was clearly genocidal in the case of May 13. So, May 13 may be more accurately redefined as the May 13 genocidal mass killing, or May 13 genocidal massacre, or genocidal mass atrocity, or if we retain the ‘riots’ terminology, at least May 13 genocidal riots, lest we celebrate the historical events for the wrong reasons. Riots as we understand it from the experience of the United States, Britain and Europe is that of an expressive act of hostility by the aggrieved and subordinate group or class. The American blacks, for example, were so marginalized economically and culturally that violence was used as a counterbalance against power inequalities. Rioting is often used defensively by the ethnic minorities to confront the authorities who are from the dominant group, in particular the police, to bring them to the negotiating table. Riot is not usually an instrument employed by the state. May 13 was not perpetrated by the skinheads or a Chinese secret society. It was "a planned coup d'etat by the ascendant state capitalist class against the Tunku-led aristocracy." (Kua, 2007). In other words, it was state-sponsored, or at least state-tolerated with deliberate and conscious planning. Nothing sacred to celebrate Without the green light from the top and Malay power elites, the scale and magnitude of the destruction would not be possible within a mere few days. The Malaysian official statistics of casualties as of May 21, 1969 were: “137 killed -- 18 Malays, 342 injured, 109 vehicles burned, 118 buildings destroyed, 2,912 persons arrested, mostly curfew breakers.”(Kua, 2007). TIME magazine (May 23, 1969) cited Western diplomatic sources as believing the death toll was closer to 600, with most of the victims Chinese. It also wrote that "...By the time the four days of race war and strife had run their course, the General Hospital's morgue was so crowded that bodies were put into plastic bags and hung on hooks." Hence, May 13 may be re-conceptualised as the 1969 Malaysian Genocide, of which there is nothing sacred to celebrate. We, whatever our race and religion, would like to die with dignity in a spiritual or cultural sense. This desire is a human norm as only men bury our dead. The violent deaths of May 13 were otherwise than dignified. I could still remember those days when the adults were talking excitedly, at times with horror, under the rubber trees about the deadly slaughter happening hundreds of miles away in Kuala Lumpur. There were the stories of the Chinese secret societies which were viewed as a nuisance in peaceful times but during May 13 becoming the protector of community. Also, I heard that there were courageous soldiers who refused to be willing executioners. The truth, be it from the perspective of the perpetrators or of the massacre survivors or the conscientious objectors, is yet to be openly told. Ian Ward of the London Daily Telegraph reported on May 23, 1969 that “The initial stages of the government crackdown produced glaring discrimination against the Chinese.” (Kua, 2007). Minorities vulnerable to violence I would celebrate May 13 if an anti-genocide standby unit is formed today in the armed forces or the police forces specifically trained and dedicated to handle racist malignant conflicts. It is risky to pray for heroes to emerge or to hope that soldiers would act professionally rather than become willing executioners in ugly and brutalizing times. On May 13, there were some heroes and some soldiers who valued professionalism. But we have a better chance of saving more lives if the prevention of massacres is taken as a professional duty of the armed forces. Gregory Stanton in his “8 Stages of Genocide” proposed that genocide is also a cultural question. He wrote that “… A plan for genocide doesn’t need to be written out. An act of genocide may arise in a culture that considers members of another group less than human, where killing members of that group is not considered murder. This is the culture of impunity characteristic of genocidal societies.” Those who use genocidal threats of May 13 are in fact operating in a cultural environment that condones or affirms a new moral code of behaviour: Killing is not murder. Killing is repulsive to many a human. Once it is rationalised, the normal moral restraint is removed. Police could kill suspects when they believe or justify that they are killing crime, and not criminals, real or imagined. Or a soldier could kill old people, women or children if he believes that he is killing ideological enemies and not human beings. And the intelligentsia would have no qualms about justifying mass murders. Brutalizing ideology can kill Of course gun or machete kills. But it is the justifying words of a destructive racist ideology that direct the brain to give green light to the fingers to pull the trigger. Hence, ideology kills, be it in the print or electronic media. Being conditioned by a coercive and brutalizing ideology, the power elites rationalise unequal and oppressive treatment of the others when perceiving themselves as the victims due to historical injustices. This sows the seeds of genocide and waters its growth. The threat of repeat of May 13 is to suppress the raising of civil rights issues. May 13 is in actual fact democide, a mass killing because of democratic demands by the ethnic minorities. Genocide is justified because democratic demands pose a threat of the loss of power of the dominant race or rather the power elites. May 13 is state-tolerated genocidal violence deeply rooted in cultural and social conditions. May 13 is an unjust and immoral war against the ethnic minorities asking for legitimate democratic demands. The threat of its repeat is being used to legitimise social inequalities and to deprive citizens the freedom of thought and discussion. The intelligentsia class is often guilty of complicity in mass murders. Our own intelligentsia class urgently needs critical self-examination and self-reflection, not celebration and not bleaching of mass murders. Reference Kua Kia Soong, 2007, May 13 Declassified Documents on the Malaysian Riots of 1969, Petaling Jaya, Suaram Komunikasi.

malaysiakini: Entrenching Malaysian History with 'Ketuanan Melayu' dogma?

Ibrahim Ali and Muhyiddin, partners in history?

AB Sulaiman
Dec 11, 2010, 2:04pm

COMMENT So, Ibrahim Ali is back after a medical sojourn ('Ketuanan Melayu in the words of Ibrahim Ali' Dec 2) . For his first public statement he sounded like an old record played and replayed over and over again: he has to harp at the special rights of the Malays. I suppose some things or some people don't change for the better, but to regress for the worse.

He mentioned this 'special rights' case in his speech with the title 'Man must have history, for without history man is nothing.' The connotation is that he wished for ketuanan Melayu to be embraced by all as a matter of course, and its credibility to be understood by its critics within the context of history.

Let me support my contention; let's examine the facts.

For one, Ibrahim Ali said that ketuanan Melayu was a slogan coined to unite the Malays during the struggle for independence.

Secondly, he further said, "The justification of ketuanan Melayu becomes a 'right' when it (is) further stipulated and enshrined in our constitution. Ketuanan Melayu was not just plucked out from the heavenly sky but had (been) demonstrated in the historical evolution of our nation.”

I quite disagree on both counts.

I happened to be a young student during the immediate pre- and post-independent period. From experience I know that the favourite slogan used by the emerging political leaders like Tunku Abdul Rahman was just 'Merdeka!' repeatedly.

Lesser leaders would exclaim “hidup Melayu” and “untuk bangsa, agama dan negara” and when independence was achieved, it was 'untuk pembangunan negara' (for national economic development). For the life of me I do not recall 'ketuanan Melayu' being bandied about.

So 'ketuanan Melayu' had not yet been coined during the independence era.

Special position not right

As for the principles behind the phrase 'special position' I remember our founding fathers (e.g. Tunku Abdul Rahman again) taking note of the economic situation of the Malays. Apparently the Malays were economically backward with their participation in the economic wealth creating activity at about a meagre one or two percent. They obviously needed a boost if they were to play any meaningful part in the country's subsequent economic developments.

The founding fathers then established government-based development agencies like Mara, Felda, Fama, and many others principally to help Malays be more involved in mainly in agriculture, fishing, and education.

This was what the 'special position' of the Malays originally was intended to mean. It has been addressed by our founders and yes, enshrined in the constitution. To this extent I'd say Ibrahim's second point has validity.

But this is within the context of the phrase special 'position', not 'right'. To me 'position' relates to privilege, but 'right' relates to entitlement. They are totally different so to make one similar to the other would amount to misrepresentation and dishonesty.

What then is the difference between them? 'Privilege' in this context refers to the feeling of empathy and concern over the emotional plight of the Malays at that time. So a special emphatic treatment was thought out by the founding fathers again by providing assistance and support to the Malay community.

The important point to note though, is that the treatment is entirely voluntary, emphatic and humanitarian in nature.

Position, privilege vs rights, entitlement

Now I have to go back to history to see where or how the term 'special position' has developed into a 'right' and an 'entitlement'.

Since the creation of the institutions catering for the special Malay position (and thus privileges) Malay economic advancement was not spectacular in the ensuing years after independence. By 1969 there was this unfortunate May 13 incident that many had thought has been partly economic in nature, between the Malay have nots versus the non-Malay (mainly Chinese) haves.

Tun Abdul Razak saw this Malay plight as a collective loss of face, a big no-no to Malay pride.

So thinking that desperate time required desperate measures, he devised and introduced a radical public policy boosting the government's effort to assist Malays rise up the modern economic ladder. Thus giving birth to the New Economic Policy with a specific target and timeframe: thirty percent of Malay involvement in the economy within twenty years, i.e. by 1990.

But unlike the voluntary 'special position', this new ruling has the element of entitlement, of 'right'; it's a virtual decree saying that the Malays have the right to get thirty percent of the economic cake; that the country owes them this right; that the country must deliver this to them; all within twenty years. This has not been enshrined in the constitution at all.

In any case Tun Razak was having the perception that Malay economic backwardness was caused by lack of opportunity and could be solved by economic policies and within a period of time.

Mental prerequisite for progress missing

On looking back he was right, but had missed or overlooked another equally potent factor, namely the psychology of the Malays, used to the traditional rural agrarian life, and not privy or motivated to the challenges of an emerging new economy.

Could they rise to the challenge of mastering, controlling and managing the economy from one (or two) to thirty percent within twenty years only with copious government help but without any psychological preparedness?

The mental preparedness comes in many forms, like having technical knowledge, awareness of change, preparedness to accept change, and capital availability.

It also involves the willingness to dump old habits, work extra hard, have a lot of perseverance, and develop a presence of mind to make sacrifices today in the interest of a better tomorrow.

History has shown that they could not.

Most unfortunately Tun Razak (right) passed away hardly a fifth into the NEP implementation period. His successors Tun Hussein Onn and later Dr Mahathir Mohamad virtually institutionalised the NEP not only by way of continuing to propagate it by ignoring the coercive thirty percent 'quota' and twenty-year limit.

When 1990 came by the Malays were still no way near the target (at least based on official figures). Again, Malay prestige (or 'mertabat') was at stake. Again, desperate time required desperate measures. Very subtly the Malay-led government ignored the twenty-year period and continued with the NEP, albeit in different nomenclature.

Most unfortunately the Malays ignored or refused to acknowledge the mental prerequisite mentioned above. On the contrary the Malay 'special position' had been hijacked to become a full blown 'right'. The lesson offered by history was lost.

Regretfully all successors to the NEP (e.g the National Development Plan, Malaysian Mission, Vision 2020) were still addressing Malay economic backwardness, but ignoring any possible psychological hang-ups on their part.

People like Ibrahim Ali should be aware of this subtle omission although he might choose to ignore or be blind to it. In the event he is being intellectually dishonest and deceitful.

And skip this “man has history and without history man is nothing” crap. To me this is one badly thought-of script masquerading as God-sent wisdom. Perhaps Ibrahim Ali should have cleared it first with his favourite ulama (like Harussani Zakaria for example). The ulama might find it distasteful for he would rather hear Ibrahim saying something like “man has religion (i.e. Islam) and without religion man is nothing”.

Indoctrinating ketuanan in schools

Meanwhile Muhyiddin Yasin the Minister of Education announced at the last Umno general assembly the proposal to make History a 'must pass' subject in schools. Could there be a link between Ibrahim's Malay rights and Muhyiddin's compulsory history exams?

Could it be that they are conniving to plug the possible loophole on ketuanan Melayu I have suggested above, and justify its credibility by projecting Ibrahim's perception into the history books for our younger generations to internalise?

Again to me this is intellectual dishonesty and deception, but nonetheless a real possibility.

But public opinion quickly reacted negatively to it. Public concern surrounding this proposal seem to centre on two points: one, what kind of history, and two, who writes it.

One, which history. Will it be the history of the ancients (e.g. the Srivijaya and Majapahit eras followed by the Malacca Sultanate)? Or will it be that of the modern world (e.g. from period of the British colonial rule to independence); or of current history (e.g. from 1957 to the present day)? The possibilities are endless.

My bet though is that the government is conniving to record for posterity ketuanan Melayu as perceived or understood by people like Ibrahim Ali.

Then comes the writers of the history. History is written by the victors, which should be different from that written by the vanquished. In this case it may well be history written by government-sponsored historians or writers.

From the nation's current experience history written by government writers would hyperbolically project Islamic and Malay experiences and accomplishments.

Current history text-books would give ample evidence to this observation. They are full of insular ethno-theological superlatives, namely that the world is beholden to Islamic and Arabic civilisation, that Malay is a lucky race for being Muslim.

Ingraining mediocrity

My regret is that there will be no mention of the strings of inglorious things that have happened since the Umno-led coalition governed the country since independence. I'd mention below some of them that would find little chance of mention in the Ibrahim-Muhyiddin history syllabus:

First of course is the country's string of failed economic plans; of its regression when compared to others like Singapore, Korea, China, Hong Kong.

Second is the breaking down of infrastructure especially education and judiciary; the breaking down of democracy.

In the meantime the racial schism will widen, the broken public institutions will continue to decline, local investors will run away, foreign investors will not come.

Human resource planners will find it difficult to increase the productivity of (Malay) workers.

In a nutshell history as taught by the government does not enhance student maturity, nor does it boost any intellectual growth. It is a perfect vehicle for students to go round and round in the loop of mediocrity.

Ibrahim Ali's re-emergence bandying ketuanan Melayu and possible linkage with Muhyiddin Yassin (above) particularly on the question of Malaysian history is good news only to racists and theologians.

And to politicians depending on racism and theology to ensure their political survival. That's so very sad for the country.

AB SULAIMAN is an observer of human traits and foibles, especially within the context of religion and culture. As a liberal, he marvels at the way orthodoxy fights to maintain its credibility in a devilishly fast-changing world. He hopes to provide some understanding to the issues at hand and wherever possible, suggest some solutions. He holds a Bachelor in Social Sciences (Leicester, UK) and a Diploma in Public Administration, Universiti Malaya.

Lawyers For Liberty announces its Top 10 Enemies of the Administration of Justice

LFL announces its Top 10 Enemies of the Administration of Justice

10/12/2010

Press Release:
How do we explain the persistent and blatant injustices that are done in the name of law and order?

How do we pretend there are still integrity, justice and fairness in the courts, the AG’s Chambers and the police force?

In order to put the abysmal state of affairs in perspective, LFL has compiled a Top 10 list of Enemies of the Administration of Justice:

1. Hishammuddin Hussein, Home Minister
2. Abdul Gani Patail, Attorney-General
3. Musa Hassan and Ismail Omar, former and current Inspector-General of Police
4. Mohd Bakri Zinin, Federal CID director
5. Yusof Zainal Abiden, Solicitor General II, chief prosecutor in Anwar’s case
6. Zaki bin Azmi, Chief Justice and former UMNO legal adviser
7. Mohd Zabidin Mohd Diah, High Court Judge in Anwar’s case
8. The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission
9. Corrupt and unprincipled “doctors” like Siew Sheue Feng and Razali Ibrahim of HKL (Anwar’s case) and Abdul Karim Tajuddin of Serdang Hospital (A.Kugan’s case) who work hand in glove with the AG’s Chambers and the police to manipulate evidence including medical and post-mortem reports.
10. The Lembaga Penasihat under the PM’s Department that acts as a “special court” for cases under the ISA, Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance and Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act. The Lembaga Penasihat is therefore responsible for perpetuating the detention without trial of thousands of detainees.

The best explanation that perhaps sums up the continuing perversion of justice is from Franz Kafka:

“Whatever impression he makes on us, he is the servant of the Law. 

He belongs to the Law and is not answerable to human judgment.”

Released by:
Eric Paulsen
Lawyers for Liberty

(Statement released in conjunction with World Human Rights Day, 10 December 2010)

TMI: Moving to the next level.... By Jema Khan

Moving to the next level

By Jema Khan

TMI: December 06, 2010

DEC 6 — The four key strategic thrusts of the New Economic Model (NEM) are continued economic liberalisation, a social safety net for employees, bureaucratic reforms and ensuring social cohesion and inclusiveness. These are all noble ideas but they will remain so unless we can effectively implement what we plan.

To do this, we will need human talent more than anything else and that unfortunately we sorely lack. At the same time, we are driving many of our best and brightest away because we are unable to provide them with an environment that they can feel comfortable in.

We actually turn people off. I list below some of the major things that we as a nation should not be doing:

1. We should not cane women.

2. We should not discriminate based on a person’s sexual preference.

3. We cannot tell people what they should call their own God.

4. We do not say or insinuate that our own people are foreigners when they are clearly not: especially when derogatory words are used.

5. We cannot allow people to abuse the religion of Islam, just so they can get custody of their children when things don’t work out with their wife whom they married under a different religion.

6. We do not abuse other people’s religion by damaging their places of worship.

7. We cannot allow our children to have sub-par education when we know what the world requires of us.

8. We cannot accept that corruption is a way of life.

9. We cannot accept that by being lazy and doing nothing: we have a right because of race, to the wealth of this nation.

10. We cannot be expected to listen to idiots with so-called positions when we are clearly way smarter than they are.

The whole world is chasing talent and many countries are able to provide much better pay, better working conditions as well as a liberal social environment. We can, of course, live in denial and make all sorts of claims about how good and great we are, but if that is the case, we will not be making much progress in attracting talent.

It is really a catch-22 situation with the NEM. For it to succeed we need to have the talent in place but to attract the talent we need for the NEM to be already working. We need companies and institutions that can train our best and brightest to a world class standard and that I fear we sorely lack.

What we need are teams of talented people with some experience abroad to take over the running of our major companies and institutions so that they will be able to change the work culture in these organisations and bring them up to the mark.

Too often, when only one talented person enters a senior position in an organisation to change its culture, it is that person that bends to the existing culture in the organisation and not the other way around. So I advocate a team of talented people going in, having full control of both management and the board of directors, with a clear view to change the organisational culture.

Resistance to change is practically the default setting in most mediocre organisations so there will always be conflicts but so long as those coming in are honest, hardworking and intelligent, they will be able to make the change for the better.

As an example, if we want to better the education system in Malaysia, we do not ask the teachers what they can teach. We tell them what to teach to bring up our standards. If they are unable, we retrain them: if they are still unable, we remove them. The most important stakeholders in this example are the children and their parents: it is their interests and future that are paramount.

We plan to move to the next level up but if we are not realistic in our dire need for the best talent, don’t be surprised if we remain static or even worse move down a level.

malaysiakini: Shot dead by cops: Nameless no more

Shot dead by cops: Nameless no more

Dec 4, 10 5:05pm

It has long been known that of those shot dead by police, ethnic Indians made up a disproportionate number of the fatalities. Based on the recently released statistics by the police, that is true.

But for the first time, details such as the age, ethnicity and nationality of almost all 279 people - citizens as well as foreign nationals - who have been killed by the police from 2000 to 2009 were today revealed by human rights groups.

Malaysiakini has earlier reported that since 2001, there had been a 17-fold surge in fatal police shootings up to 2009, when as many as 88 persons were killed by police as compared to five in 2001.

According to statistics provided by police at the sedition trial of Hindraf chief P Uthayakumar earlier this week, there were a shocking 82 cases of fatal police shootings in 2008, followed by 88 such incidences in 2009.

Revealing the statistics today were Lawyers For Liberty (LFL), Suaram and opposition political party PKR, where it was pointed out that of the 279 persons shot dead, 21.8 percent (61 deaths) were ethnic Indians.

Malays and Chinese, on the other hand, made up 15 percent (42) and 18.6 (52) percent respectively.

Shooting deaths according to ethnicity

2000: Malays (4); Chinese (2) Indians (0)
2001: Malays (0); Chinese (1) Indians (3)
2002: Malays (6); Chinese (12); Indians (6)
2003: Malays (2); Chinese (4); Indians (7)
2004: Malays (2); Chinese (7); Indians (1)
2005: Malays (1); Chinese (4); Indians (4)
2006: Malays (2); Chinese (0); Indians (3)
2007: Malays (3); Chinese (4); Indians (4)
2008: Malays (7); Chinese (9); Indians (11)
2009: Malays (15); Chinese (9); Indians (23)

Total: Malays (42); Chinese (52); Indians (61)

A culture of impunity

Included in the statistics issued by the police on Nov 29 were Vikines Vesuanathan who at 19 in 2003 was shot dead in Nilai, Negeri Sembilan; Muhamad Nir Oth (sic) who was 19 when he was shot three years later in Kepong, Kuala Lumpur; and Mohd Arifudin Mohamad who was 19 when he was shot dead in Kuantan, Pahang, two years ago.

Among the more recent fatalities include 19-year-old Rames Raman who was shot in 2008 in Kulim, Kedah, as well as the April 26 shooting of 14-year-old Aminulrasyid Amzah, Mohd Shamil Hafiz Shafie, 16, Mohd Khairul Nizam Tuah, 20, and Mohd Hanafi Omar, 22, by the police on Nov 20 in Shah Alam.

Pinning the blame squarely on the police and the Home Ministry for the tragic deaths of these youths, LFL member N Surendran said the only reason these yet unaccounted killings have occurred - and many more will occur - is the unwillingness of the authorities to deal with the culture of impunity and 'trigger-happy' elements in police force.

Wording it more bluntly, Surendran said: “Aminulrasyid was seven years old and in primary school, when Vikines was killed in 2003. If the authorities had taken action to prevent these extrajudicial killings since then, Aminulrasyid might be alive today.

“If they don't put a stop to these killings happening now, children who are in kindergarten this year may in just a few years down the road will end up dead from being shot by police,” the lawyer added.

Surendran was speaking to reporters after speaking at a press conference on the matter with Suaram coordinator Lucas Yap Heng Lung, PKR's Subang Jaya MP R Sivarasa and LFL member Fadiah Nadwa Fikri at the KL-Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall in Kuala Lumpur.

Almost half of those killed were foreigners

Also revealed by the rights groups today was the large number of foreign nationals shot dead by police whose cases rarely see the light of day in newspaper reports, if at all their identities are made known.

Almost half of those killed by the police in the last decade were foreign nationals - a total 121 or 43 percent.

Of these, slightly more than 40 percent (113) were Indonesians. The largest number of such fatalities took place in 2008 when 54 Indonesians (up from two in 2007) were shot dead by police.

Unlike the case with the Malaysians, the majority of the Indonesians killed, or about 60 percent, were not properly identified other than by their nationality. Those unidentified are without names and age.

“In short, human beings are being shot, being bundled up, and buried somewhere without even their identities being discovered. This shows that what has taken root in the police force is lawlessness,” said Surendran.

Other nationalities who have been killed over the last 10 years, according to the statistics, are Vietnamese (5), Filipinos (1), Thai (1), and 1 black-African (categorised as 'Negro' in the police statistics).

Need to set up IPCMC now

Comparing the numbers to the incidence of police shootings in other countries, Sivarasa said the lack of an independent body in Malaysia to investigate complaints against the police and police misconduct have resulted in the rot.

In New Zealand, for example, which has a population of only four million, there had been only 22 persons killed in police shootings over 70 years since 1941, said Sivarasa.

In UK, which has almost twice the population as Malaysia, there have been 48 deaths from police shootings over a period of 22 years, between 1985-2007, he added.

Sivarasah said the issue stems from the culture of impunity that has set into the institution of the police whereby a shoot-to-kill policy appears to have the consent, if not encouragement, of the upper levels of the force as well as the ruling politicians.

“This means that the police officers on the ground feel they can do whatever they want because they know they will not be held to account. Shoot, kill, and there will be no questions, no probe, so they continue.

“The inspector-general of police, the people responsible for the PDRM, will not raise these issues, and the politicians in charge - the home minister - will also not question them,” lamented the PKR leader.

He was referring to the denial by Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein that there had been a surge in police shooting fatalities when asked about it earlier this week.

On the lack of transparency on the issue, Sivarasa noted that the statistics were released by deputy director of the Criminal Investigations Department Acryl Sani Abdullah Sani at Uthayakumar's trial only after constant pressure from the latter's lawyers and a directive from the court itself.

Sivarasa said he and the opposition Pakatan Rakyat coalition will be raising the issue and will increase pressure on the government to put in place the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC), which was recommended by a royal commission in 2005.

Lawyers for Liberty: Top 10 facts from the PDRM fatal shootings statistics (2000 – 2009)

06/12/2010

1. Lowest number of deaths: 5 (2001);
2. Second lowest number of deaths: 9 (2000);
3. Highest number of deaths: 88 (2009);
4. Second highest number of deaths: 82 (2008);
5. Total number of deaths from 2000 to 2009: 279 persons;
6. The increase from the lowest number of deaths at 5 (2001) to 88 (2009) is 17-fold;
7. Fatality percentages/ numbers according to race/ nationality:  Indonesians: 40.5% (113 deaths); Indians: 21.8% (61 deaths); Chinese: 18.6% (52 deaths); and Malays: 15% (42 deaths);
8. So Uthayakumar was right to say that Indians are disproportionate victims of fatal police shootings;
9. The number of deaths without proper identification: 80 victims;
10. A Liberian UNHCR registered refugee/ asylum seeker was killed in 2008, and classified under “Negro”!

TMI: Police shot dead 88 in 2009.... by Melissa Chi

Police shot dead 88 in 2009, lawyers reveal

By Melissa Chi

December 04, 2010

The Lawyers for Liberty group revealed the breakdown of fatal shootings from 2000 to 2009, as well as the identity of the victims, which they said was obtained from a reluctant Bukit Aman CID deputy director Datuk Acryl Sani Abdullah Sani.

The senior police officer was a witness at the P. Uthayakumar sedition case last Monday where he revealed the data, which included details of race, nationalities, names and age. The most was 88 in 2009 with the least being five in 2001.

There was a slight fluctuation in numbers between five to 27 deaths prior to the year 2008. Out of the 279 suspects who were fatally shot in the last decade, 81 of them were unidentified.

One of them, a Liberian, classified under “Negro”, David Saah, was a refugee under UNHCER, United Nations’ refugee agency, one of the 82 recorded fatal shootings in 2008.

Lawyer for Liberty group member N. Surendran claimed the data proves that the police are above the law, in this country.

“This shows that what has taken root in the police force is a lawless tendency,” he said, calling it a threat to Malaysians and to the public order.

Subang MP R. Sivarasa, who was also at the press conference, called it a “culture of impunity”.

“It means that they feel that they can do as they wish and they won’t be held accountable... they can shoot, kill, and there won’t be any questions asked, there won’t be any investigations and that they can continue doing so,” he said.

The PKR lawmaker also claimed that the Home Minister was at the forefront of blindly defending the police force before any investigations were done.

Sivarasa attributed the high number of fatalities to the reluctance of the federal leaders to set up an efficient Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC).

The Malaysian Bar council had been calling to set up such independent body to “keep the police in check”.

Lucas Yap, a coordinator for Suaram, alleged that most of the police involved in the shootings were not in uniforms and did not fire warning shots, before fatally shooting the suspects.

Sivarasa highlighted that in many countries such as the UK, every shot fired by the police will automatically be investigated by the department. The officers would need to explain at length to its superior and file paperwork to justify his or her actions. The the shots had led to injuries or deaths, there will be a public inquest, which is a full court hearing.

“In Malaysia ... inquests are only mandatory for death in custody, that means you have to die in the lockup first,” he said bluntly. The most recent example of a public inquest is the one ongoing, on Teoh Beng Hock’s death under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) custody, last year.

As for the fatal police shootings, the most recent case involved Muhammad Hanafi Omar, 22, Muhammad Shamil Hafiz Shapiei, 15, and Hairul Nizam Tuah, 20, who were gunned down by the police after a reported high-speed car chase in the early morning of November 13 in Glenmarie, Shah Alam.

Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Ismail Omar had defended the police involved and said that they have responded well in foiling the bid of the gang from robbing a petrol station.

“As you can see, even before there is an investigation, the IGP has exonerated his men. So there is no intention of carrying out a proper investigation, there is no intention of finding out whether those shootings were done, are unlawful killing or murder, or was it actually done in self-defence. So this is why police feel they are able to go around shooting people and killing them in cold blood because immediately the highest police officer comes out defending them.

“They know they can commit murder without being called into account and that is a tremendous power to put in the hands of a human being to tell him that go ahead, commit murder, we will protect you,” Surendran said.

Prior to the trio’s deaths by shooting, 15-year-old Aminulrasyid Amzah’s fatal shooting in April this year grabbed nationwide headlines and sparked a new public interest in such police shootings.

Besides Aminulrasyid, a second case involving the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Mohd Afham Arin in Johor Baru on October 20 last year has also surfaced after the victim’s mother recently demanded an independent commission to investigate the case.

Sivarasa said the current guidelines for the usage of firearms is under the Inspector-General of Police’s Standing Order and the document is classified.

Former Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan had said that it will not be a problem to make the document public and that the public will no longer blindly blame the police of abuse, although the Home Minister was reported as saying that he had not received any proposal from the special task force overseeing police investigations into the fatal shooting of teenage Aminulrasyid to do so.

Fadia Nadwa Fikri from Lawyers for Liberty claimed that Suhakam, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, had asked the police to reveal the IGSO contents, but the request was rejected.

“It is shocking and they are not prepared to answer to the public what they have been doing all these while,” she said. Sivarasa said the only option now is for the public to put pressure on the political authorities responsible for Polis Di Raja Malaysia (PDRM).

“I’ve given up on PDRM. The only hope now is the political masters who are ultimately responsible to the rakyat and I think this is where the rakyat must demand accountability,” he said, pointing specifically to the Home Minister.

“The rakyat will ultimately hold him accountable,” he warned.

He accused the police involved in the shootings of viewing themselves as the “judge, jury and executioner”, calling it an “extrajudicial killing”.

“It is what you call a desperate response to an ineffective police force,” he said.

TMI: Malay supremacy unIslamic, suggests chosen race, says Asri... By Clara Chooi

Malay supremacy unIslamic, suggests chosen race, says Asri

By Clara Chooi

TMI December 04, 2010

KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 4 — A renowned Islamic scholar silenced arguments today over the controversial “Malay supremacy” concept, charging that it was un-Islamic and akin to the Jewish’s “ chosen race” claim.

Former Perlis Mufti Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin wrote today that the act of placing the Malay race as more supreme than the others was against the teachings of Islam, which preaches tolerance and the equality of all races.

“If someone considers himself more noble simply because of race or ethnicity factors, or considers others lower than himself because they are not of the same race, such belief is wrong and goes against the teachings of Islam.

“Should this be the case, it can be likened to the Jewish claim that they are the 'chosen race',” he said.
The outspoken scholar added that such “pride” was rejected by Islam.

Dr Mohd Asri's view on the contentious concept is a direct blow to Malay rights group Perkasa, whose leaders have been blaring the “Malay supremacy” rhetoric to push for Malay rights.

In recent days, Perkasa clashed head-on with PKR leaders on the issue, with the latter group arguing that “Malay supremacy” or “ketuanan Melayu” was undemocratic, irrelevant and should be replaced by a more inclusive concept of “ketuanan rakyat” (people's supremacy).

PKR leaders, like its de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, his wife party president Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail and deputy president Azmin Ali have openly rejected “Malay supremacy”, interpreting it to mean the supremacy of the Malay race above the others.

But Perkasa leaders shot back with a biting insult on Dr Wan Azizah and called her a “political prostitute” for rejecting the concept, claiming that it was tantamount to showing disrespect to the Malay Rulers and the Federal Constitution.

The right-wing leaders have argued that the concept of “Malay supremacy” was provided for in the Constitution as it referred to the special positions of the Malays as well as the Malay Rulers.

Today however, Dr Mohd Asri appeared to back PKR's view on the topic, pointing out that while there was no clear definition on the “ketuanan Melayu” terminology, the concept was also not formally expressed in the Federal Constitution.

“Hence it is strange for any party to attempt to defend such a fuzzy concept, whose meaning remains unclear,” he said.

Despite this, Dr Mohd Asri described the concept as one that propagated the supremacy of the Malay race above others, explaining that ultimately, the word “ketuanan” was derived from the word “tuan” in Bahasa Malaysia.

Its English equivalent, the scholar claimed, was “supremacy”.

“It refers to the root word 'tuan' and when combined with 'Melayu', it means that the Malays are in the status of 'tuan' or in Arabic, it is called 'siyadah' (supremacy).

“If you refer to the meaning according to the language, it means that the Malays are always on top, are more supreme and more noble if compared to the non-Malays,” he said.

A clearer definition, added Dr Mohd Asri, would mean that the “Malay race is supreme and most noble”.

He continued to assert that such a belief was un-Islamic and cited several verses in the Quran to back his claim.

As an example, Dr Mohd Asri pointed out that Allah himself had declared in Surah al-Hujarat verse 13, “Oh mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other, not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sigh of Allah, the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well-acquainted (with all things).”

“This verse explains that human dignity comes from one's core values, which is noble faith and morals that is defined as righteousness,” he said.

Dr Mohd Asri added that Islamic teachings also preached principles in assessing man without looking at his skin colour or race but at the moral values that he possesses.

“If a race should be viewed as noble, this nobility must be proven in how they lead their lives. The Malays or the other races can achieve this through their efforts towards upholding dignity, and not just by relying on their races or different ethnicities,” he said.