welcome the government move to introduce a curriculum of Mandarin and Tamil languages in national schools. At least it helps the Malay Muslims in control of the language, although probably not sepandai those at the national-type schools.
The question is, sometimes the government began to open and look forward, what is the position of Malay in national-type schools?
Is it wise for Malay as the national language is taught only three times a week with a syllabus that is easy compared to the national school syllabus? Any additional time learning the Malay language and the standardization of the syllabus are considered a burden and threaten the native language. What will exist after this situation, the Malays can not speak Malay, while those at the national-type schools are located in the notch or maybe how long?
This is the dilemma to be faced and haunt the education system in our country. While the whole world is aware that the education system based on the history of the national language is integral to building a nation.
Further more the subject of history 'Malaysia My country' wanted to be a subject in every school to produce a spirit of patriotism and pride. This subject has also categorically rejected the national type schools unless they are taught in the native language. While we know the history-based education is about the future of the country.
How to be born blind patriotism if our history? Some of the nation is its history, it must be preserved as a legacy of future generations, unless we want to delete the history and create new history as the country attempts ultra kiasu south of our country.
Their trial is successful so far. Rejecting the history means that we reject our origins and our beloved country. Through the comments in blogs and blog ultra kiasu me about the article last week titled Should memorial Tan Cheng Lock?, It appears this group of ultra kiasu look so angry when I called for us to appreciate the history as the basis for the life of nation. My blog is not struck and digodam polite and civilized, even though I did not invite them access. Stop reading if deemed contrary to instinct. There is no compulsion.
What I have try to understand history. In them, history is not important because it has passed. Remembering the past will be lost and we move back. What is more important is the future of the country. We will not in any deals with the past.
Their thinking is so shallow. This is the ultra kiasu I always thought that we care. How can we be confronting the present and future if there is no past?
What is the agenda for this historic turn or spin-belitkannya? Any nation in the world is not able to escape from history. History is the basis and pillar of national strength. History is compulsory in the basic subjects that must be learned like it or not.
They must pass this subject than we are making history as the subject of choice. At the primary level, the history is not taught directly. What is the appearance of his ultra kiasu today because they do not understand or ignore history?
I believe this problem arises because of our historical blindness or maybe we intentionally blind. By definition, we do not try to understand other people or other nations. If there was an attempt to strengthen the history, we feel threatened, when we know that if you want to camp, history is the basis pemerkasaannya.
Hard head
We want to be in his own world that eventually become a hard head, do not want to give in and feel yourself just right, the other all wrong.
If we open up the past, we will see events that happen to people, could be the biggest factor to raise demands and develop the spirit. Not surprising if any scholars who say that history is the army of God on earth. There is no man that can fight history.
According to Peter N Stearns, the Association of American History, history should be studied because it is essential to individuals and to society, and because it harbors beauty. In his history is a testimony and never cheat. History can avoid misunderstanding and conflicts among people and make our lives better.
With the history we learn about the future, because past history of driving future. Man who never learn from history will not have the inspiration and spirit to create and fight. Muslims should be able to take many lessons from history to re-create the glory of what was achieved previously. Let the pumpkin ultra kiasu-labunya. Tembelangnya sure someday be broken.
Even the commander of the war and strategic analysts, learn from the history of the war to the war, both on the political, tactical, food, culture and its enemies, even to the small things are taken into account, as well as the strength of the enemy.
So we must learn the importance of history. Jewish people who were arrogant as to learn from history. Should we Muslims have more to learn from history because we have a history of greatness and glory that does not compare with a standard.
What a sad day, Muslims do not learn from history. History as a tool for revenge. They are being used rather than cooperation among people of religion.
It seems that trying the experiment of ultra kiasu keep Muslims out of the successful history. They shift our thinking to the history of other civilizations that have been modified, such as the history of West and East, the industrial revolution, world war and the struggle for independence, colonialism orientalis, socialists and others.
They pretend to close the eyes and, if possible, not to mention the least civilization and indigenous struggle and Islam. They only civilized, others do not. If there was an attempt to reveal the history of Islam, it is misleading to try to Muslims hate and embarrassed to learn the history of Islam. Attempts to replicate the style of the reign of Umar Abdul Aziz only to dilute our own.
Do we remember the small country of Japan were once able to give in the country of Russia? Then, Japan was shaken by the defeat in the Second World War with the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Why Japanese can come through the destruction? I am confident that Japan learn from the history of his victory over Russia.
In contrast to the ultra kiasu in our country. They tried to brain wash us by saying, "We will not progress if we always look backwards." While we know the developed countries like the United States (U.S.) always require people to learn from history. Their defeat in the Vietnam War to the impact of these arrogant people even though they dominate the technology of war and chemical weapons.
History can not be deleted, and always engraved in their minds. Film character Rambo was an attempt to raise their image.
Let us think why the U.S. is not alone in their attack Muslim countries see the small and poor as Afghanistan and Iraq? Iran may be next. The U.S. often involve European countries and some Asian countries to work together to attack the country. Actually, if viewed in terms of military strength and weapons, they can do alone?
This is the strategy of today's ultra kiasu, we try to further their interests. They know, if acting alone, so difficult to bear fruit.
Hence, various strategies used to find partners and melt hearts with their good show as if seen sincere, even before they are enemies of Islam expressly rejected the blanket.
A handful of people they want to be respected. They do not want our society to return the historical struggle of the past. What more if associated with the Malays and Islam. If possible, they want to say this country's history is multi-ethnic nature. None of the original owner. Lord of Aboriginal origin only.
Remember you all are ultra kiasu brother, is the history lesson about our past. As we learn more about the history of our own. The success of past generations can be learned and our passion for creating success today.
The failure of past generations may also be lessons and example that we do not repeat the same mistakes.
It is human nature, they are more concerned about is future than the past. While learning the history of the past. Why do we want to busy-busy in the past when it does not happen again.
In Islam, God wants us to learn and teaching, especially to those who see.
History of non-specialist surgeons, specialist roads or crime prevention specialist. Because people look to their complacency. History is actually more difficult than engineering and medical science. It can not be viewed by generations who do not pass over the design and creation.
History contains information about the people and communities and their behavior. If history does not matter why the ancestors become so important. Up there saying, heritage properties can be searched, but fathers can not be sold to purchase.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Should the memorial Tan Cheng Lock?
According to the statement the leaders of MCA, the National Archives have agreed to build a memorial Tan Cheng Lock, next to the Memorial Tunku Abdul Rahman. Extension of the first Parliament building in Jalan Dato 'Onn in Kuala Lumpur, will be converted into a memorial, which cost about RM10 million, starting next year.According to the MCA, the memorial service to commemorate an important national figure who is also their first president.
If so, my memory to the National Archives, in order to reflect back. I do not forbid, do not support. But remember, Malaysian politics is based on racial politics. Enough with the memorial a number of national leaders. I fear that soon, all the ethnic parties in the country, including Sabah and Sarawak also wanted the memorial built to commemorate their leader, no less deserving, according to the time traveled. Let alone in terms of rights, they are entitled, because they are indigenous.
We need to understand, all leaders in different epochs. It is less offensive if we said that history is an important moment of its independence only in assessing the contribution of one of the country.All the history of the struggle to defend the homeland from invasion traveled our country, is important. My question, what is the index (KPI) used in evaluating the contribution of a person, the actual history? historical truth? history of deliberate or extended for specific purposes?
In understanding the politics of Malaysia, we always play belitkan and history to narrow the scope of self-interest, people and party. No other purpose, that we or our nation's leaders looked great. Services not only remember a moment when the country achieved independence by August 31, 1957, until we forget the figures are more meritorious before it? Why are we evaluating shallow and appreciate the history?
Remember, not only the history of the Malay-started in 1940, but the history of the struggle for independence had begun since the start of Malaya 'occupied'. I was not comfortable using the word 'occupied'.Malaya did not invade directly in the context of the real for the institution of Malay rulers still existed, except the states of the Straits. Meaning, the history of the struggle began before the independent homeland for hundreds of years ago, far more important, because many lives lost and blood spilled to worship the earth.
In short, against the colonial history began before the mass migration occurs. The Malays, Islam has a long rise, but still managed to drive the full occupation, but their sacrifice is not a standard compare. To me, they are more deserving than others. Take a look at the background I have some figures, such as Tok Beard, Dato Maharaja lela, Mat Salleh, Dato 'Bahaman, Mat Kilau and many others before it.Why call only if the country's independence history, then the head of our minds is the stereotypical faces every year?
By independence leaders equally as Dato Onn Jaafar, Dr Burhanuddin Helmi, Ahmad Boestamam, Mustapha Hussein, and many more rarely mentioned. To me, they are also entitled to set up a memorial, because they were defending their lives. While the moment of independence is a negotiation process occurs after the pressure, demands and struggles before. Let us review the historical moments between 1940-1948, who is actually a freedom fighter? Who is against the Malayan Union? Is the Muslim Malay, Malayan People's Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA), MCA, MIC or the Communist Party of Malaya?
Sometimes I do not know whether those at the National Archives knew or responsibilities and scope their work.
Remember the figures are not necessarily to build the memorial.Many other methods can be used. Prior to that, I would think, write and understand the past history of the Malay well. Do not also political. Hearts of the people who study the history of due care and literacy as well.
After this I fear there are those who claim that the memorial Lim Chong Eu (Movement), Tan Siew Sin (MCA) followed by subsequent leaders. Do not look at people their own fun. 1Malaysia idea, we want to see and care for other people. The first movement leaders like Syed Hussien Al-Atas, the contribution is rarely mentioned. I suggest magnified Memorial Tunku Abdul Rahman and download all the contributions of all the characters in a memorial, the memorial built for the memorial on specific names.
Enough with the memorial of the Malayan People's Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA), which was erected without the consent of the state and central, but will also set up which has become the center of worship in the Garden of Remembrance value, although disputed by historical figures before, the role of MPAJA in the fight for independence. MPAJA claimed by some as a freedom fighter, wal actual case. MPAJA is a wing of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) is ambitious for control of Malaya when the Japanese surrendered.The existence of this left-wing parties due to their hostility to Japan is not about freeing the Malay Peninsula.
We must remember that every figure has a legend of their own because they live in different times. We can not equate the role of Tunku the role of Mahathir, for example because they struggle at different times. If that is the valuations, I would say Mahathir's services more than Tunku services, as Mahathir became PM later than the Tunku. Certainly contributed more time to lead the country.Kitapun been able to see the results today. What we will build the memorial each PM and the leaders of the party? I fear that after this country is filled with memorials.
I think it's time we plan to build the future by ensuring that people understand the real history of the talks to build a memorial. By increasing our memorial will be more patriotic. What is more important is organizing agenda to instill patriotism among the people.Make sure they mencinta country more than love people, love the national language more than language itself, the school loved all over the school itself. Caring for a leader who died because too many sacrifices from the leaders who have sacrificed, but not killed.
To me, all the leaders in his honor entitled to be remembered, because they are privileged to be elected a leader. But we are not too aware of, and thus said: "If there is no Tunku, Cheng Lock and Sambhantan independent nation will not." Leaders come and go. Grow lost Patah changed. Some of the leaders have their own legend and his honor. World and the country will continue to move and rotate over time. Coating and are not to be served afterwards.
Who is the rule, the struggle must continue. Countries will continue to develop. We can not be static and rigid. North Korea continued to fear the world even if we assume that their leader is not democratic and outdated with the understanding komunisnya. True, the people and relatively poor country, but they are happy and proud of the power of nuclear technologies and their defense to frighten the West.Will it have less campurnya? Weak there, loud here. The purpose, there are advantages and disadvantages. Leaders they served, even though the world may condemn.
Hitler is said to be cruel and wrong is still served in his time. Most do not, at least to remind Hitler and the Jews who realize we really?Remember we are the words of Hitler why he was acting to kill the Jews in his book 'Mein Kampf'? He said: "I can kill all Jews when I was in charge. But I left a little to you. Why? that you recognize the Jews, and find the answer why I kill the Jews. "
Hitler's words are a great means for us to learn and study the Jewish psiki. Why this Jew can become a powerful nation despite the very small numbers. Jews were not pentingkan individual services, but the Jews are concerned about the country and the future and survival of their nation. Strength properties that make this very prominent, especially in information technology and defense. Why do we think to that?
I study a little arrogant nation psiki this. When they successfully stepped in Palestine, Jews and defense technology to develop them first. These properties are also copied by the ultra kiasu south of the country. Once they are really strong, then they develop other sources.Today Israel has proven to be a successful world power. Although the country is just as much as ants, but feared the country of elephants.Israel captured the whole world is watching the ship humanitarian aid mission to Gaza. Who dare to reprove Israel? Israel has become too strong to be difficult to penetrate. This little country has become too strong to be difficult to overcome in the event of war.
So as we see them as brave, including the country's ultra kiasu.Everyday we hear they are invading the air space and sovereignty of our country. What can we do? We can only give a warning for the warning. But are ignored? Our brave fire fighters of their ship after clear invading our sovereignty? I think we will be bold if we force than or equal to this small Jewish. But our strength with the Jews is very much smaller in terms of armament and defense technology. They are rarely damaged the submarine, while the new submarines we buy are damaged. That's not including the jet engine was missing. Imagine when the war actually happened, when jet fighters want to move, suddenly the engine can not be turned on, look, we know how it looks new jet can not fly because the engine is missing. Can we survive then?
Dr. Mohd Ridhuan Tee Abdullah, Politics Research Group and the Islamic civilization, UPNM cum Secretary General of the Malaysian Islamic Chamber of Commerce. Writing is a personal opinion writers
If so, my memory to the National Archives, in order to reflect back. I do not forbid, do not support. But remember, Malaysian politics is based on racial politics. Enough with the memorial a number of national leaders. I fear that soon, all the ethnic parties in the country, including Sabah and Sarawak also wanted the memorial built to commemorate their leader, no less deserving, according to the time traveled. Let alone in terms of rights, they are entitled, because they are indigenous.
We need to understand, all leaders in different epochs. It is less offensive if we said that history is an important moment of its independence only in assessing the contribution of one of the country.All the history of the struggle to defend the homeland from invasion traveled our country, is important. My question, what is the index (KPI) used in evaluating the contribution of a person, the actual history? historical truth? history of deliberate or extended for specific purposes?
In understanding the politics of Malaysia, we always play belitkan and history to narrow the scope of self-interest, people and party. No other purpose, that we or our nation's leaders looked great. Services not only remember a moment when the country achieved independence by August 31, 1957, until we forget the figures are more meritorious before it? Why are we evaluating shallow and appreciate the history?
Remember, not only the history of the Malay-started in 1940, but the history of the struggle for independence had begun since the start of Malaya 'occupied'. I was not comfortable using the word 'occupied'.Malaya did not invade directly in the context of the real for the institution of Malay rulers still existed, except the states of the Straits. Meaning, the history of the struggle began before the independent homeland for hundreds of years ago, far more important, because many lives lost and blood spilled to worship the earth.
In short, against the colonial history began before the mass migration occurs. The Malays, Islam has a long rise, but still managed to drive the full occupation, but their sacrifice is not a standard compare. To me, they are more deserving than others. Take a look at the background I have some figures, such as Tok Beard, Dato Maharaja lela, Mat Salleh, Dato 'Bahaman, Mat Kilau and many others before it.Why call only if the country's independence history, then the head of our minds is the stereotypical faces every year?
By independence leaders equally as Dato Onn Jaafar, Dr Burhanuddin Helmi, Ahmad Boestamam, Mustapha Hussein, and many more rarely mentioned. To me, they are also entitled to set up a memorial, because they were defending their lives. While the moment of independence is a negotiation process occurs after the pressure, demands and struggles before. Let us review the historical moments between 1940-1948, who is actually a freedom fighter? Who is against the Malayan Union? Is the Muslim Malay, Malayan People's Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA), MCA, MIC or the Communist Party of Malaya?
Sometimes I do not know whether those at the National Archives knew or responsibilities and scope their work.
Remember the figures are not necessarily to build the memorial.Many other methods can be used. Prior to that, I would think, write and understand the past history of the Malay well. Do not also political. Hearts of the people who study the history of due care and literacy as well.
After this I fear there are those who claim that the memorial Lim Chong Eu (Movement), Tan Siew Sin (MCA) followed by subsequent leaders. Do not look at people their own fun. 1Malaysia idea, we want to see and care for other people. The first movement leaders like Syed Hussien Al-Atas, the contribution is rarely mentioned. I suggest magnified Memorial Tunku Abdul Rahman and download all the contributions of all the characters in a memorial, the memorial built for the memorial on specific names.
Enough with the memorial of the Malayan People's Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA), which was erected without the consent of the state and central, but will also set up which has become the center of worship in the Garden of Remembrance value, although disputed by historical figures before, the role of MPAJA in the fight for independence. MPAJA claimed by some as a freedom fighter, wal actual case. MPAJA is a wing of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) is ambitious for control of Malaya when the Japanese surrendered.The existence of this left-wing parties due to their hostility to Japan is not about freeing the Malay Peninsula.
We must remember that every figure has a legend of their own because they live in different times. We can not equate the role of Tunku the role of Mahathir, for example because they struggle at different times. If that is the valuations, I would say Mahathir's services more than Tunku services, as Mahathir became PM later than the Tunku. Certainly contributed more time to lead the country.Kitapun been able to see the results today. What we will build the memorial each PM and the leaders of the party? I fear that after this country is filled with memorials.
I think it's time we plan to build the future by ensuring that people understand the real history of the talks to build a memorial. By increasing our memorial will be more patriotic. What is more important is organizing agenda to instill patriotism among the people.Make sure they mencinta country more than love people, love the national language more than language itself, the school loved all over the school itself. Caring for a leader who died because too many sacrifices from the leaders who have sacrificed, but not killed.
To me, all the leaders in his honor entitled to be remembered, because they are privileged to be elected a leader. But we are not too aware of, and thus said: "If there is no Tunku, Cheng Lock and Sambhantan independent nation will not." Leaders come and go. Grow lost Patah changed. Some of the leaders have their own legend and his honor. World and the country will continue to move and rotate over time. Coating and are not to be served afterwards.
Who is the rule, the struggle must continue. Countries will continue to develop. We can not be static and rigid. North Korea continued to fear the world even if we assume that their leader is not democratic and outdated with the understanding komunisnya. True, the people and relatively poor country, but they are happy and proud of the power of nuclear technologies and their defense to frighten the West.Will it have less campurnya? Weak there, loud here. The purpose, there are advantages and disadvantages. Leaders they served, even though the world may condemn.
Hitler is said to be cruel and wrong is still served in his time. Most do not, at least to remind Hitler and the Jews who realize we really?Remember we are the words of Hitler why he was acting to kill the Jews in his book 'Mein Kampf'? He said: "I can kill all Jews when I was in charge. But I left a little to you. Why? that you recognize the Jews, and find the answer why I kill the Jews. "
Hitler's words are a great means for us to learn and study the Jewish psiki. Why this Jew can become a powerful nation despite the very small numbers. Jews were not pentingkan individual services, but the Jews are concerned about the country and the future and survival of their nation. Strength properties that make this very prominent, especially in information technology and defense. Why do we think to that?
I study a little arrogant nation psiki this. When they successfully stepped in Palestine, Jews and defense technology to develop them first. These properties are also copied by the ultra kiasu south of the country. Once they are really strong, then they develop other sources.Today Israel has proven to be a successful world power. Although the country is just as much as ants, but feared the country of elephants.Israel captured the whole world is watching the ship humanitarian aid mission to Gaza. Who dare to reprove Israel? Israel has become too strong to be difficult to penetrate. This little country has become too strong to be difficult to overcome in the event of war.
So as we see them as brave, including the country's ultra kiasu.Everyday we hear they are invading the air space and sovereignty of our country. What can we do? We can only give a warning for the warning. But are ignored? Our brave fire fighters of their ship after clear invading our sovereignty? I think we will be bold if we force than or equal to this small Jewish. But our strength with the Jews is very much smaller in terms of armament and defense technology. They are rarely damaged the submarine, while the new submarines we buy are damaged. That's not including the jet engine was missing. Imagine when the war actually happened, when jet fighters want to move, suddenly the engine can not be turned on, look, we know how it looks new jet can not fly because the engine is missing. Can we survive then?
Dr. Mohd Ridhuan Tee Abdullah, Politics Research Group and the Islamic civilization, UPNM cum Secretary General of the Malaysian Islamic Chamber of Commerce. Writing is a personal opinion writers
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Venue: Bankers’ Club, Kuala Lumpur.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Thank you for your invitation for me to speak today. When I accepted your kind offer, I was ‘party-less’. But things have now changed. I have drawn my line in the sand. And I have chosen sides. Today, I am a proud member of Parti Keadilan Rakyat.
Today I am persuaded by the argument that for Malaysia to have democracy and the Rule of Law, we must have a new government; a viable inclusive government of the people; a government for all Malaysians. Today I am dedicated to the cause of securing the success of Parti Keadilan and Pakatan Rakyat, and ensuring that it galvanises the best talents and ideas to form a robust alternative Malaysian political force to lead the nation, to deliver true integration and nationhood.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
This country was established as a secular multicultural and multi-religious democracy ala the Westminster model. The Constitution however provides for a special position for the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak. They unfortunately omitted to include the Orang Asli in this special category, although they were naturally the first original inhabitants of this country. All they got was a Jabatan Orang Asli. The special provisions for Bumiputras under Article 153 do not make them more special than other citizens, for the fighters of independence did not envisage an Orwellian society where some are more equal than others. The acceptance of equality of rights as citizens is central to the success of our Malaysian journey.
When the PM announced his 1 Malaysia slogan, I asked if that meant he would make a declaration that all Malaysians are equal. The answer was not forthcoming till today. All he said was rights must be understood in the context of responsibilities. Another fuzzy reply. When critics asked if 1 Malaysia meant that the cultural characteristics of the diverse racial groups would be assimilated to a new design called 1 Malaysia, he quickly denied that it was an assimilation plan. So therefore I assume that 1 Malaysia is an affirmation of the rights of ALL the citizens under the Constitution, an affirmation of the multicultural and multi- religious nature of our country; and that the principles of Rukun Negara will continue to be the mainstay of our society.
My detractors say that my views are fodder for the egos and insecurities of those who detest the constitutional position of the Malays. They say I work too hard at being a Malaysian and by doing so, have forgotten my roots and responsibilities to the Malays. And that no right thinking Malay, who truly understands what is at stake, would ever support me. I know my heritage, I know my humble beginnings, and I know my roots and my responsibilities as a Malay. They are wrong. To them, let me say this.
UMNO — being hidden in a cave for so long and concealed from the real world — have almost abandoned the idea of a shared and common nationhood. They believe that for so long as the MCA and the MIC remain with them as partners of convenience, that is sufficient to build a nation. They think it’s sufficient to forge a new nation by electoral arrangements. The MCA and the MIC also think it’s sufficient for nationhood if they remain business partners of UMNO.
A new united Malaysia can only come true when UMNO changes and abandons racial politics and the politics of racial hegemony. Or, when the Malays can be made to understand that patronage, authoritarianism and nationalist extremism, which underpins UMNO’s style of leadership, does more harm to the community and the country than good. That Malays themselves must break from the shackles of narrow nationalism so that they may realise self-actualisation and emancipation. The first is difficult to achieve but I take it as my responsibility to try and achieve the second.
Let me now get into the subject of the speech by giving you an understanding about how UMNO ticks. This, to me, is critical in order for you to appreciate what hope we have for the preservation of the Rule of Law and Democracy in Malaysia.
At the heart of UMNO’s philosophy on leadership is a conviction that there is an inherent, almost ‘divine’ right to retain power at all costs. This is so for two reasons: Firstly, because they assume that they are the only political force, by way of Barisan Nasional, to offer a workable power-sharing leadership of this nation.
And secondly, because they believe that the Malay hegemony that UMNO maintains is necessary to prevent the Malays from becoming marginalised. It is these beliefs that are at the centre of UMNO’s self-indulgent sense of indispensability and self-importance that is today causing them to steer the nation to an authoritarian rule. It is this sense of self-importance that is accountable for the authoritarianism in leadership and government. It is this that has helped justify in their minds their right to quell anyone who threatens the status quo, whether it be a group of politicians or activists protesting against abuses in government, or a group of Indians protesting against their treatment and lack of opportunities, or a previous deputy prime-minister who was no longer in step with the ‘Big Boss’. It does not matter. Self-preservation demands expedience at all costs to resolve any impending threat.
But there is more. Since the hegemony is protected by policies that benefit the elites and other powerful forces, this sense of self-importance becomes even more dangerous. Because it justifies why real checks and balances against governmental abuses can be done away with. It justifies trampling on fundamental safeguards in the Federal Constitution in the last 20 years.
But there is more. If you are on the cause of preserving the rights of the elites, the oligarchs, then it brings you no shame to have a former UMNO lawyer as Chief Justice; in fact, you become proud of that achievement. Even if the Attorney General had committed many errors in the discharge of his functions and duties, a well-known fact amongst the legal fraternity, you will not change him; nor would you change the Chief Of Police despite so many reports of transgressions committed by him. All for the ‘Malay cause’ they would say! And if you are on the Bench writing your judgement on the Perak fiasco; you can tailor it to suit your master’s political interests, and you will be lauded for that. The ‘Malay Cause’ is everything. The Constitution can wait; sound legal reasoning can wait, justice can wait.
But there is more.
Many in UMNO see the hegemony as a ‘be all and end all’, with the power sharing between component parties as being a means to an end. Ketuanan Melayu, a mantra of Malay supremacy, has gained ground instead of receding over time. More accurately it is Ketuanan Elit Melayu as the majority of the Malays have found out to their dismay.
What is the price that we ultimately pay as a nation, if this pernicious doctrine is embraced by many? Clearly to start with, we would continue to be cursed with a non-transparent government without the capability of functioning in a way that respects the rule of law. We will be cursed by having laws that oppress, that curtail and suffocate the basic freedoms of the people. We now have a set of rules for the elites and one for the rakyat, one for Barisan Nasional and one for Pakatan Rakyat.
If the public believes that the government is not beholden to a set of commonly revered values and principles, and its actions are tainted by racial biases, there will continue to be physical and emotional segregation of communities, regardless of how may times we change the slogans to break such divisiveness. The notion of creating a free and democratic Malaysia therefore becomes unachievable.
The ultimate price that the country suffers from the present political culture is that the Malays and non-Malays will continue to be denied a sense of ownership of Malaysia’s nation-building journey. And instead of become partners in this voyage to mature nationhood they continue to bicker and remain suspicious and distrustful of one another. Because of this segregation, the government is unable to set a new direction of the country. Because of racial polarization the people are not ready to accept a multiracial dimension of this country. As a result, we are not able to enact or even discuss comprehensive national policies whether it is regarding the police, education or judicial and civil service reforms .The distrust of the communities will prevent objective appraisals and solutions to the problems. Ethnic interests take precedence over national interests. National interests become a strange and fearful concept. And there will continue to be a brain drain of Malaysian talents who would have decided that they would rather make their home elsewhere. This is a high price that the country can ill-afford to pay given the increasingly challenging global outlook.
Authoritarianism, patronage, and nationalist extremism from any quarter destroy the key ingredients necessary for the Malaysian community to really build on and retain that wealth and knowledge. Competitiveness and true economic and scholastic success, is a function of instilling in the hearts and minds of beneficiaries a set of new behaviours, around the capacity and desire to take personal accountability, to trust one another, to be achievement oriented, to develop a sense of curiousity, a sense a solidarity that go beyond your own ethnic clans and groups; so that together, we are to be able to build this country. We must do away with unprincipled politics, with Machiavellian methods, but instead seek to change with reforms that encourage the development of a viable democracy and a prosperous country for all.
The government says it hopes to amend up to 33 laws, which involve discretionary powers to the Home minister, beginning with the controversial Internal Security Act (ISA), in the next Parliament session. Let’s hope and see if this will bear fruit. Authoritarianism in government will continue albeit in a different guise, unless the whole of the ISA, Official Secrets Act, The Sedition Act and similar such laws are abolished. This would be an example of good governance. However, authoritarian policies will most likely continue while corruption is rampant, when the elites need protection from their misdeeds. Najib will not be able to change any of these.
Perak State Government
The whole cloak and dagger story of intrigue about the overthrow of the Pakatan Rakyat government gave rise to much suspicion about Najib’s style, well before he took office. He could have allayed the fears that he would not be one to resort to under-the-belt tactics in his leadership, by calling for fresh elections. Najib’s unwillingness to dissolve the Perak Assembly has gotten the country deeper into a political quagmire. By doing so he will also help the Federal Court judges from having to come up with a convoluted legal reasoning, like that of the Court of Appeal, to please the Prime Minister.
Malay Unity Talk
This is again Najib’s idea to strengthen himself. If PAS were to support UMNO under the guise of a unity government, a viable alternative to Barisan Nasional at the next elections will be seriously undermined. Najib wanted the internal difficulties between Pakatan Rakyat parties to continue and fester as the mainstream media went full steam ahead to ensure Pakatan’s demise. Let me assure you that that such a scenario will not happen. Pakatan will only get stronger. Pakatan has its weaknesses but we do not have the culture of hegemony. We do not suppress dissent. Hence you will hear of occasional disagreements. You will hear of occasional flare-ups; but PAS, Keadilan and DAP are committed to finding ways to strengthen their partnership. They will not break up. Instead, they will form a formidable coalition that will be ready to provide an alternative government to the people.
Today, Malaysians are suffering the deleterious effect of a stagnating world economy, and the GDP will contract by 4.4 per cent according to the World Bank. FDI’s continue to fall, while talent is being lost. The standard of education and the skill sets, including the command of English, necessary for the work force to remain globally competitive continues to fall. Now after spending billions on teaching Science and Maths in English in the last 6 years, the Government has announced the reversal of the policy effective 2012. One wonders if the farcical National Service programme, which is neither a national service nor an educational programme will be scrapped too. .
Crimes and home security issues have increased since 2003 and these remain major concerns of the people. In the 1998 case of Anwar Ibrahim, allegations by the investigating officer himself of tampering with evidence by the IGP and the AG have not been answered satisfactorily. Of course the government had formed a certain panel comprising three ex-judges deliberating in a secret place. Not surprisingly the Panel cleared them. The findings of the Royal Commission in the Lingam case have not been acted upon in satisfactory manner. And many high profile cases reported to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) remain unattended. Such is the state of the Rule of Law in Malaysia. Will Najib attend to these issues? Certainly not.
All he can do is to announce the scrapping of some outdated policies that he had little choice but to do it anyway, as part of the demands of the international and ASEAN trade agreements. After decades of the NEP, the 30% equity requirement in companies listed amongst the 27 services sub-sectors are taken away. Also, the Foreign Investment Committee regulating investments in Malaysia, have been scrapped. The reasoning of the government, which is disputed by many Malays, is that the Bumiputra participation in the relevant services sub-sectors are satisfactory and hence the removal of the quota requirement. Whilst the move has made Najib popular in the short term, it will come back to haunt him. Economics and social justice require him to address the larger question of disparities in income of the rakyat. The plight and grievances of ordinary people will not be redressed by one or two populist policies.
On the question of the preservation of the Rule of Law and Democracy, he did nothing and probably will continue to do nothing. He should have acted as if he has only 100 days before his reign comes to an end. He should have embraced Roosevelt’s dictum, ‘There is nothing to fear but fear itself’, and embarked on far reaching policies to give back judicial power to the Courts, to give back integrity, trust and respectability to governmental institutions like the Police, the Attorney General’s Office, the Election Commission; that of which Malaysia desperately needs. In doing so he can show the people he was prepared to sacrifice his neck if that is required of him.
He should not have started the Perak debacle but since it had already got under way, he should have had the courage to win back the support of the people by allowing for the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly. Instead of embarking on the inane idea of UMNO-PAS unity — confirming the suspicion that he is like his Deputy who only understands UMNO-PAS unity at the expense of everything else — Najib should have called for a national debate amongst all leaders of major political parties for a serious discussion on key and core values for the country.
The problems in our country are not race or religion based, but BN has worked very hard to make them so. It’s always about the Rakyat against the elites or the powerful oligarchs that run and control the country’s institutions and wealth. The Rakyat, for too long have becomes pawns in this political game where the race and religious issues are being played out to divide them.
Najib should have started his administration with pushing through a Race Relations Act that will punish racism and racist speeches and writings from all quarters, even if it’s from leaders of his own party and from Utusan Malaysia. The single greatest impediment to Malaysians being united and working together for the common good, is racist politics in Malaysia. Racism here is not the same kind that the Anglo Saxon whites have over blacks and coloureds (or vice versa) for many years. It’s not the apartheid kind of racism where whites generally believe they are superior to blacks and coloureds in genetics and all spheres of life. Our racism is driven more by ethnic distrust and ethnic rivalry for the economic cake. They are mainly economic and cultural in nature, based on the fear that the wealth of the country will be taken away by the Chinese, and vice versa. But it’s just as divisive and dangerous. It refers to both institutionalised racism and those exhibited by individuals. Malaysia needs to combat this problem because it’s particularly acute. Because we have three major races that did not have the luxury of time for natural assimilation or the time to gel and live in harmony, we need legislation and governmental support to push through the unity factors and manage the divisive factors found in the community.
To bring about a truly united 1 Malaysia, our PM must not always refer to the deprivation of the Malays suffered under the British. No amount of wallowing of the past can change history, nor can we just tell the Chinese and the Indians how grateful they should be for events taking place 100 years ago. Equally, he cannot just be happy that he has the MCA and MIC taking care of the non-Malays. He has to do more to make sure the non-Malays are equally responsible and generous with the Malays. Will they open their businesses to the Malays? Will they give credit on the same terms they do to their own clans?
But at the same time the people, including the Malays, must be convinced that democracy and a functioning bureaucracy is good for them. That they have a better chance of realizing their potentials and benefiting from their rights and privileges under a government that respects just laws. They must resist corruption by all means at their disposal. The notion of Bangsa Malaysia will not detract or take away anything from them, but instead they become a part of a larger and more diverse community where they too can experience the generousity, beauty, strength, and richness of Malaysian cultures. They will benefit from the solidarity of people from all walks of life, and their worldview will change to make them stronger and more confident of themselves.
A PM of this country must not succumb to the idea that force and repression will prevail over the people’s will. The PM of this country must not suffer from the delusion that the Police, the Army, the Courts, the Election Commission and the Attorney General could strike fear in the hearts of the people to the extent that they will retreat. No leader in ancient and modern times has survived the outrage of the masses. Today we have witnessed a new sense of outrage; outrage against the abuse of power, against inequality, outrage against the continued persecution of Anwar Ibrahim, and outrage against the policies of divide and rule.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The winds of change have never blown so strong. Today, the rakyat has spoken and they want their voices heard. They want a new beginning, so that this country, which we all call home, will be transformed into a dynamic, open and vibrant democratic sanctuary. A sanctuary where we live without fear of police harassment, without fear of wearing black or yellow, without fear of detention without trial, without the nausea of reading newspapers whose editors have to toe the line to keep the papers alive. We will make this country such that we have room and space for all of us to have our dreams and hopes come true.
But the window of opportunity has opened for one central reason. And that is because the people now have a choice; between the establishment that has led the country over the last 50 years, or a viable alternative in Pakatan Rakyat that can inclusively carry the hopes and aspirations of all Malaysians, no matter they be Malay, Chinese or Indian. For without this alternative, the self indulgent and delusional sense of self-importance of UMNO and its cohorts in Barisan Nasional will continue to impose itself.
No doubt, Keadilan is a new party, and Pakatan Rakyat is in its infancy, and the coming together of different political parties to find a common thread with which to build meaningful solidarity to work together, is a long and arduous journey. Let us not kid ourselves. Many challenges lie ahead to make it a truly viable alternative political force to Barisan Nasional and acceptable choice to all Malaysians. And the traps and snares to trip up this fledgling alternative are being laid everywhere; the Unity talks being just one.
My colleagues and I in Pakatan Rakyat must be cautious, and yet courageous, patient yet purposeful, tolerant yet principled, to ensure that Pakatan Rakyat steers clear of these traps, and that we build a truly robust and secure alternative from which the electorate can choose to form government. We must desist from any temptation to go back to the ways of the past, in which opposition parties represent their own narrow factional interests, only to grant a walkover victory to the status quo.
At for Parti Keadilan Rakyat, it must soldier on come what may, as a party that will protect the people regardless of race and ethnicity. The Special position of the Bumiputras and Islam as mandated by the Constitution will be honoured but will do so in an open transparent manner; as a democratic multiracial party that observes the Rule of Law will be obliged to do. Keadilan will not champion racial politics and will not seek racial hegemony. We are a lot more humble than UMNO. But we will be fearless in the defence of the rights of the Rakyat against powerful oligarchs and vested interest groups. We will make the public institutions in this country respectable and full of integrity. These institutions will regain the respect and the trust of the people.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
We do not live in a world of black and white. We live in a world full of different colours, shades and textures. No truer is this than in Malaysia. I can stand here and tell you of my immense sense of pride and affection in being a Malaysian, just as I can do the same about being Malay. And I believe that we all are just as capable of feeling that way about being Malaysian, and yet similarly proud of being Malay, Chinese, Indian, Kadazan or Iban, no matter who we are.
And it is this mix of seemingly conflicting values, which when blended and tempered with courage, tolerance, good faith, and framed by universally held moral and civic values, that makes the canvas of Malaysia so rich, so powerful and so full of potential. Let us preserve this living piece of art, and ensure that it continues to beautify and enrich our personal lives, as private citizens.
For if we fail, then the providence with which we are blessed today to make a breakthrough change, will disappear as quickly as it came, and we will be back to square one. Our future and that of our children and their children, depends on our success. Failure is not an option. God favours the brave.
Thank You.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Anwar Ibrahim wins decisively with a 15,671 majority
www.malaysiakini.com
Official: Anwar gets BIGGER majority
August 26, 2008
Malaysiakini goes live today with the by-election coverage, giving updates on the voting and other happenings in this constituency. Please click ‘Refresh’ or ‘Reload’ in your browser for the latest reports from Permatang Pauh.
MCPX
[See map]
9.50pm: Official EC tally - Anwar got 31,195 votes, Arif Shah, 15,524, Hanafi, 92. Anwar won with a majority of 15,671.
Anwar’s wife, Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, won the seat with a 13,388 majority at the March 8 general elections.
The official voter turnout was 81.1 percent, or 47,410 out of 58,459 registered voters - which was much higher than what the EC had stated earlier. There were 599 spoilt votes.
Meanwhile, outside Tuanku Bainun Teaching Institute, thousands of jubilant PKR supporters have gathered to embrace their leader’s return to Parliament.
PKR vice-president Azmin Ali is already there to address the crowd numbering some 6,000. Other party leaders like R Sivarasa and Tian Chua are also there.
Anwar is expected to address this ecstatic group of supporters later as well. Tian said that the overwhelming victory showed that “the prime minister’s racial politics is bankrupt”.
The EC made the official announcement at 10.05pm. Only Anwar and Hanafi were present at the announcement.
Official: Anwar gets BIGGER majority
August 26, 2008
Malaysiakini goes live today with the by-election coverage, giving updates on the voting and other happenings in this constituency. Please click ‘Refresh’ or ‘Reload’ in your browser for the latest reports from Permatang Pauh.
MCPX
[See map]
9.50pm: Official EC tally - Anwar got 31,195 votes, Arif Shah, 15,524, Hanafi, 92. Anwar won with a majority of 15,671.
Anwar’s wife, Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, won the seat with a 13,388 majority at the March 8 general elections.
The official voter turnout was 81.1 percent, or 47,410 out of 58,459 registered voters - which was much higher than what the EC had stated earlier. There were 599 spoilt votes.
Meanwhile, outside Tuanku Bainun Teaching Institute, thousands of jubilant PKR supporters have gathered to embrace their leader’s return to Parliament.
PKR vice-president Azmin Ali is already there to address the crowd numbering some 6,000. Other party leaders like R Sivarasa and Tian Chua are also there.
Anwar is expected to address this ecstatic group of supporters later as well. Tian said that the overwhelming victory showed that “the prime minister’s racial politics is bankrupt”.
The EC made the official announcement at 10.05pm. Only Anwar and Hanafi were present at the announcement.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Permatang Pauh Election
The convoy of cars and SUVs which accompanied Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim and his wife, Datuk Seri Wan Azizah Ismail left his residence at Cherok Tok Kun, not far from Bukit Mertajam at 8.00 am sharp for the nomination center at the Tuanku Bainun Teachers College in Seberang Jaya.
By the time we arrived at the place 30 minites later, it was jam packed since very early morning with some 120,000 people from all walks of life, who have come from various parts of Malaysia as far as Sabah and Sarawak, to witness the official start of the by-election for the Parliamentary constituency of Permatang Pauh.
More than 95 per cent of those who braved the intense heat of the sun were KeADILan/Pakatan Rakyat supporters. They were energised by the sounds and beat of drums and percussion instruments of Indian and Chinese community and inspired by the winds of change which Anwar represents.
The UMNO-Barisan supporters were overwhelmed by the strong presence of “Anwar’s people”, a clear sign that public support for the ruling government was at an all time low. They were jeered by the crowd. The Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak was not spared as the crowd greeted him with shouts of “pembunuh”(murderer) and “Altantuya!, Altantuya!”. Shahrizat “Jihad” Abdul Jalil, Mukhriz Tun Mahathir and UMNO Treasurer Azim Zabidi, among other BN and UMNO leaders, too received uncomplimentary remarks from the crowd.
Pakatan Rakyat leaders Tok Guru Nik Aziz, Lim Kit Siang, Karpal Singh, MB Selangor Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, and Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng of Penang , however, were warmly greated by the crowd. Special cheers were given to hometown favorite, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim as his car entered the compound of the Teachers’ College.
Bloggers like Raja Petra and his wife Marina Abdullah, Sam Haris Ibrahim, Benard Khoo and members of Kuala Lumpur based civil society groups were present. They mingled in the crowd. The bulky and formidable Bala, a keen supporter of Nurul Izzah Anwar, our dynamic Member of Parliament for Lembah Pantai, was seen among a group of Makal Sakti/Hindraf supporters. Overall, it was a spectacle unseen before in the history of Malaysian elections.
To the credit of all concerned, especially the Officers and men of our Royal Malaysian Police and Federal Reserve Unit (FRU) and marshalls of PKR and Pakatan Raykat, the crowd was orderly and well disciplined.
There is no doubt in my mind that this by-elections would be for the Pakatan Rakyat to lose. But given the Pakatan election machinery, PKR grassroots organisation in Permatang Pauh, and election strategists led by Party Vice President Azmin Ali which went into full gear following Datuk Seri Wan Azizah’s resignation in late July to make way for Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, the outcome may be a foregone conclusion, that is, Dato Seri Anwar will be in Parliament on August 27.
That said, PKR party officials led by Vice President Azmin Ali and Penang Liaison Chief Dato Zahrain Mohammed Hashim, the Pakatan Rakyat election oganisation and their workers and volunteers were not taking anything for granted, given the clearly demonstrated capacity of UMNO-Barisan Nasional political machine and official agencies of the government to cheat and bribe voters and use dirty politics.
When the formalities were completed at noon, the returning officer announced that there would be a three-corned fight (see the Malaysiakini report). Ten minutes later, the rain came down.–Din Merican
By the time we arrived at the place 30 minites later, it was jam packed since very early morning with some 120,000 people from all walks of life, who have come from various parts of Malaysia as far as Sabah and Sarawak, to witness the official start of the by-election for the Parliamentary constituency of Permatang Pauh.
More than 95 per cent of those who braved the intense heat of the sun were KeADILan/Pakatan Rakyat supporters. They were energised by the sounds and beat of drums and percussion instruments of Indian and Chinese community and inspired by the winds of change which Anwar represents.
The UMNO-Barisan supporters were overwhelmed by the strong presence of “Anwar’s people”, a clear sign that public support for the ruling government was at an all time low. They were jeered by the crowd. The Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak was not spared as the crowd greeted him with shouts of “pembunuh”(murderer) and “Altantuya!, Altantuya!”. Shahrizat “Jihad” Abdul Jalil, Mukhriz Tun Mahathir and UMNO Treasurer Azim Zabidi, among other BN and UMNO leaders, too received uncomplimentary remarks from the crowd.
Pakatan Rakyat leaders Tok Guru Nik Aziz, Lim Kit Siang, Karpal Singh, MB Selangor Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, and Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng of Penang , however, were warmly greated by the crowd. Special cheers were given to hometown favorite, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim as his car entered the compound of the Teachers’ College.
Bloggers like Raja Petra and his wife Marina Abdullah, Sam Haris Ibrahim, Benard Khoo and members of Kuala Lumpur based civil society groups were present. They mingled in the crowd. The bulky and formidable Bala, a keen supporter of Nurul Izzah Anwar, our dynamic Member of Parliament for Lembah Pantai, was seen among a group of Makal Sakti/Hindraf supporters. Overall, it was a spectacle unseen before in the history of Malaysian elections.
To the credit of all concerned, especially the Officers and men of our Royal Malaysian Police and Federal Reserve Unit (FRU) and marshalls of PKR and Pakatan Raykat, the crowd was orderly and well disciplined.
There is no doubt in my mind that this by-elections would be for the Pakatan Rakyat to lose. But given the Pakatan election machinery, PKR grassroots organisation in Permatang Pauh, and election strategists led by Party Vice President Azmin Ali which went into full gear following Datuk Seri Wan Azizah’s resignation in late July to make way for Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, the outcome may be a foregone conclusion, that is, Dato Seri Anwar will be in Parliament on August 27.
That said, PKR party officials led by Vice President Azmin Ali and Penang Liaison Chief Dato Zahrain Mohammed Hashim, the Pakatan Rakyat election oganisation and their workers and volunteers were not taking anything for granted, given the clearly demonstrated capacity of UMNO-Barisan Nasional political machine and official agencies of the government to cheat and bribe voters and use dirty politics.
When the formalities were completed at noon, the returning officer announced that there would be a three-corned fight (see the Malaysiakini report). Ten minutes later, the rain came down.–Din Merican
Friday, June 6, 2008
THE TUN SALLEH SAGA
1. When the Government gave ex-gratia payments to the judges involved in the Tun Salleh Abas removal as the Lord President of Malaysian courts, the question that needs to be answered is whether it is because of Government regrets over something that happened not during the period this Government was in power or is it because of a desperate attempt to win support after the disastrous results of the election of 2008.
2. Had the present Government felt regret, it should have paid ex-gratia payment (for want of a better term) upon achieving power. But obviously it only felt regret lately, after its brand new de facto Minister of Law, who incidentally was suspended for money politics, suggested the move in order to win the approval of the Bar Council.
3. But what was at the back of this political feeling of guilt by this Government. Was it because of the injustice done? Or was something unfair and unlawful committed by the previous Government.
4. Most people know about Tun Salleh’s dismissal but few care to find out what really happened. Some believe that the action against Tun Salleh was because he had proposed a panel of 12 judges to hear the appeal against Judge Harun Hashim’s findings that UMNO was an illegal organisation. Others believe it was because he was biased against UMNO in his judgements.
5. None of these is true. Tun Salleh had not been biased against the Government. He dismissed the application by Lim Kit Siang in the case involving UEM and the Government, for an interim injunction made by a lower court in a lengthy judgement made by him as President of the Supreme Court. In numerous other cases his judgement favoured the Government. As to the panel to hear the appeal against Judge Harun Hashim’s findings, a bigger panel could actually be good for UMNO, which wanted nothing more than the validation of the election results making me President and Ghafar Baba Deputy President. Whether the panel rejects or approves Judge Harun’s decision, UMNO and UMNO Baru would not be affected.
6. The truth is that the case against Tun Salleh was triggered by his letters to the Yang di Pertuan Agong which were considered by the Agong as being highly improper and insulting to him.
7. In his first letter Tun Salleh had written to DYMM YDP Agong complaining about the noise made during some repair work at the Agong’s palace near Salleh’s house.
8. This alone can be considered as very improper. A man as senior as he was could have asked to see the Agong and verbally informed him about the noise.
9. But to compound the act of les majesté he sent copies of his letter to the other rulers. This implied that he did not have faith in the Agong and wanted the other Rulers to apply pressure on him.
10. This was followed by another letter to DYMM YDP Agong complaining about the behaviour of the executive i.e. the Prime Minister. Copies of this letter were also sent to the other Rulers.
11. In this letter Tun Salleh said inter alia, “All of us (the judges) are disappointed with the various comments and accusations made by the Prime Minister against the judiciary not only outside but inside Parliament.”
12. He went on to say in his letter “the accusations and comments have brought shame to all of us and left us mentally disturbed to the extent of being unable to discharge our functions orderly and properly.”
13. He asserted that he and all the judges “do not like to reply to the accusations publicly because such action is not compatible with our position as judges under the Constitution …. And as such it is only proper for us to be patient in the interest of the nation.”
14. This statement was obviously untrue as before the letter was sent, in a speech at the University of Malaya when he was receiving his honorary doctorate, he complained about “the judiciary being placed in the social service category” inferring that this was not in keeping with “the rule of law” and that the “priority of the courts should be altered so that freedom is guaranteed and work is not disturbed.”
15. He went on to say “the officers of the public service (i.e. judges) do not have a lesser role and function to play then the roles played by the politicians.”
16. Further he said, “This matter becomes aggravated if the rights involved in a decision made by an official are related to judicial matters because this will result in a very important question that is interference with the independence of the judiciary.”
17. Again when making a speech at the launching of a book “Law, Justice and the Judiciary, Transnational Trends” Tun Salleh had said, among other things, “The vital constitutional principle is so settled that no question should really arise concerning the position of the judiciary under the Constitution. But recently this guardianship has been made an issue and our independence appears to be under some kind of threat.” He added, “This is amply borne out by some of the comments made recently which embarrassed the judiciary a great deal. These remarks not only question our neutrality and independence but the very value of it as an institution ….. Our responsibility of deciding the case without fear or favour …. does not mean that the court decision should be in favour of the Government all the time…….”
18. “Apart from this,” he continued, “the problem of maintaining judicial independence is further complicated by the fact that the judiciary is the weakest of all the three branches of the Government.”
19. “What matters most in order to enable us to save the system from disastrous consequences is that we judges must act with responsibility and dignity and not be drawn or tempted into an impulsive action which could only result in aggravating the situation.”
20. These two speeches were delivered on 1st August 1987 and 12th January 1988 respectively. But Tun Salleh’s letter to the King was dated 26th March 1988. As I pointed out earlier it is not true that he did not speak about his accusations against the Government in public because he maintains that “such action is not compatible with our position as judges under the Constitution” and that “it is only proper for us to be patient in the interest of the nation.”
21. All his statements in these two speeches clearly contain his criticisms of the Prime Minister and the Government long before he wrote his letter to the King.
22. Another point raised in his letter to the Agong is that “the accusations and comments have brought shame to all of us (judges) and left us mentally disturbed to the extent of being unable to discharge our functions orderly and properly.”
23. In Section 125 of the Federal Constitution, under clause (3) the grounds for removing a judge, apart from misbehaviour include infirmity of body or mind or any other cause, properly to discharge the functions of his office.”
24. By his own admission Tun Salleh was not able “to discharge his functions orderly and properly.” He was therefore unfit to continue to be a judge.
25. Section 125, Clause 4 provides for “the Yang di Pertuan Agong to appoint a Tribunal …. and refer the representations to it, and may on the recommendation of the tribunal remove the judge from office.”
26. The two letters from Tun Salleh were regarded by the Agong as being highly improper and insulting particularly the copies sent to the other Rulers.
27. During one of my weekly meetings with the Agong, DYMM expressed his annoyance over the letters and simply requested that I dismiss Tun Salleh Abas from being the Lord President of the Malaysian Courts. He writes in his own handwriting his request on the margin of Tun Salleh’s first letter, regarding the noise made by the work on the Agong’s residence.
28. To the Agong it was a simple matter. He had appointed the Lord President and therefore he was entitled to remove him. I thought it was best for me to inform Cabinet and seek the advice of the Attorney-General.
29. I must admit that Tun Salleh’s complaints against me in his letter annoyed me. It is true that I had criticised the judges for interpreting the laws passed by Government not in accordance with the intention or objective of the laws. I did suggest that if the laws were interpreted differently from what the Government and the legislators intended, then we would amend the laws. During a cabinet meeting I had in jest quoted Shakespeare’s words, “The first thing we do we hang the lawyers.” Only a nitwit would think that I meant what I said literally. But apparently lawyers and judges took umbrage over what I said and regarded me as their enemy (about to hang them, I suppose).
30. I also criticised judges for making laws themselves through their interpretations and subsequently citing these as their authority. I believed that the separation of powers meant the Legislators make laws and the judiciary apply them. Of course if the laws made by the legislators breach the provisions of the constitution, the supreme law of the land, then judges can reject them.
31. Again some judges simply refused to hear cases involving the death penalty, pushing these unfairly on to other judges.
32. It is the view of most jurists that “It is not wrong for any member of the public or the administration to criticise the judiciary. “Justice is not a cloistered virtue.” (Peter Aldridge Williams QC).
33. The above writer quoted McKenna J “There is no difference between the judge and the Common Man except that one administers the law and the other endures it.”
34. Yet Tun Salleh took the view that I was subverting the independence of the judiciary when I expressed views on how judges frustrated the objectives of the legislators.
35. Through the grapevine I heard of the judges’ displeasure with me. But I did not take any action, certainly not to remove Tun Salleh. I only acted after the Agong complained about the two letters.
36. The Cabinet agreed that we must adhere strictly to the provisions of the Constitution. I therefore advised the Agong that Tun Salleh could not be removed unless the Agong appoints a Tribunal to hear the complaints against him and make recommendations to the Agong.
37. Upon the Agong agreeing, the Government selected six judges and former judges for His Majesty to consider. The members included foreign judges in the person of the Honourable the Justice K.A.P. Ranasinghe, Chief Justice Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and the Honourable Mr Justice T.S. Sinnathuray, Senior Judge of the Supreme Court of Singapore.
38. The Chairman was the Chief Judge (Malaya), Tan Sri Dato Abdul Hamid bin Hj Omar. The other members were Dato Sri Lee Hun Hoe, Chief Justice (Borneo), Tan Sri Abdul Aziz bin Zain, Retired Judge and Tan Sri Mohd Zahir bin Ismail, Retired Judge.
39. The inclusion of foreign judges was to make sure the Tribunal would not be biased.
40. It is unfortunate that Tun Salleh Abas refused to appear before the Tribunal. Instead he depended on his colleagues to try to prevent the findings of the Tribunal from reaching the Yang di Pertuan Agong.
41. What the five judges who were sympathetic to him did was certainly not in keeping with Tun Salleh’s expressed views in his talk during the launching of the book “Law, Justice and the Judiciary. Transnational Trend, “when he said “we as judges must act with responsibility and dignity and not be drawn or tempted into any impulsive action which could only result in aggravating the situation.”
42. The five judges had ignored rules and procedures and the requirement to get the approval of the (Acting) Lord President, as well as wait for the findings by Mr Justice Ajaib Singh on the same matter. Instead they cancelled courts sittings in Kota Bahru which were scheduled for the judges, and held a sitting of the Supreme Court in Kuala Lumpur to hear an application by Tun Salleh Abbas for prohibition proceedings to determine his position.
43. The Supreme Court of five judges with Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman presiding heard an ex parte oral application by Tun Salleh’s lawyer, retired for a few minutes, returned and unanimously made an order for stay restraining the Tribunal from submitting any recommendations, report or advice respecting the enquiry to His Majesty the Yang di Pertuan Agong until further order.
44. Subsequently the Acting Lord President, set up a Supreme Court of five judges which negated the decision of the Wan Suleiman Court.
45. I would like to repeat that despite public criticisms made against me by Tun Salleh, I did not take any action against him. I only did so after he insulted the Agong and the Agong requested me to have him removed. Of course some would still say I influenced the Agong. But throughout my 22 years I had never involved the rulers in politics or my personal problems. The records are there for all to see.
46. I was very concerned over the forcible removal of Tun Salleh. And so I tried to get Tun Salleh to resign on his own so as to avoid a scandal. He agreed at first but he withdrew the following day.
47. I then went about getting the Tribunal approved and set up. Naturally I had to consult the Attorney-General and others who were familiar with judges. Once the Tribunal was set up my involvement ended.
48. When Tun Salleh and the other judges had their services terminated, they should not be paid their pensions. But following appeals by Attorney-General I agreed that they should be paid their full pensions. They therefore did not suffer any financial loss and their pensions were computed from the time they left.
49. These are the facts relating to the dismissal of Tun Salleh. It was he and his fellow judges who brought disrepute to the judiciary.
50. I write this to record things as they happened. I do not expect my detractors to stop saying that I destroyed the judiciary. They are my prosecutors and they are also my judges. To them I will always be the Idi Amin of Malaysia as claimed in Tun Salleh’s book “May Day for Justice”. Sadly many who so readily condemn me were judges.
2. Had the present Government felt regret, it should have paid ex-gratia payment (for want of a better term) upon achieving power. But obviously it only felt regret lately, after its brand new de facto Minister of Law, who incidentally was suspended for money politics, suggested the move in order to win the approval of the Bar Council.
3. But what was at the back of this political feeling of guilt by this Government. Was it because of the injustice done? Or was something unfair and unlawful committed by the previous Government.
4. Most people know about Tun Salleh’s dismissal but few care to find out what really happened. Some believe that the action against Tun Salleh was because he had proposed a panel of 12 judges to hear the appeal against Judge Harun Hashim’s findings that UMNO was an illegal organisation. Others believe it was because he was biased against UMNO in his judgements.
5. None of these is true. Tun Salleh had not been biased against the Government. He dismissed the application by Lim Kit Siang in the case involving UEM and the Government, for an interim injunction made by a lower court in a lengthy judgement made by him as President of the Supreme Court. In numerous other cases his judgement favoured the Government. As to the panel to hear the appeal against Judge Harun Hashim’s findings, a bigger panel could actually be good for UMNO, which wanted nothing more than the validation of the election results making me President and Ghafar Baba Deputy President. Whether the panel rejects or approves Judge Harun’s decision, UMNO and UMNO Baru would not be affected.
6. The truth is that the case against Tun Salleh was triggered by his letters to the Yang di Pertuan Agong which were considered by the Agong as being highly improper and insulting to him.
7. In his first letter Tun Salleh had written to DYMM YDP Agong complaining about the noise made during some repair work at the Agong’s palace near Salleh’s house.
8. This alone can be considered as very improper. A man as senior as he was could have asked to see the Agong and verbally informed him about the noise.
9. But to compound the act of les majesté he sent copies of his letter to the other rulers. This implied that he did not have faith in the Agong and wanted the other Rulers to apply pressure on him.
10. This was followed by another letter to DYMM YDP Agong complaining about the behaviour of the executive i.e. the Prime Minister. Copies of this letter were also sent to the other Rulers.
11. In this letter Tun Salleh said inter alia, “All of us (the judges) are disappointed with the various comments and accusations made by the Prime Minister against the judiciary not only outside but inside Parliament.”
12. He went on to say in his letter “the accusations and comments have brought shame to all of us and left us mentally disturbed to the extent of being unable to discharge our functions orderly and properly.”
13. He asserted that he and all the judges “do not like to reply to the accusations publicly because such action is not compatible with our position as judges under the Constitution …. And as such it is only proper for us to be patient in the interest of the nation.”
14. This statement was obviously untrue as before the letter was sent, in a speech at the University of Malaya when he was receiving his honorary doctorate, he complained about “the judiciary being placed in the social service category” inferring that this was not in keeping with “the rule of law” and that the “priority of the courts should be altered so that freedom is guaranteed and work is not disturbed.”
15. He went on to say “the officers of the public service (i.e. judges) do not have a lesser role and function to play then the roles played by the politicians.”
16. Further he said, “This matter becomes aggravated if the rights involved in a decision made by an official are related to judicial matters because this will result in a very important question that is interference with the independence of the judiciary.”
17. Again when making a speech at the launching of a book “Law, Justice and the Judiciary, Transnational Trends” Tun Salleh had said, among other things, “The vital constitutional principle is so settled that no question should really arise concerning the position of the judiciary under the Constitution. But recently this guardianship has been made an issue and our independence appears to be under some kind of threat.” He added, “This is amply borne out by some of the comments made recently which embarrassed the judiciary a great deal. These remarks not only question our neutrality and independence but the very value of it as an institution ….. Our responsibility of deciding the case without fear or favour …. does not mean that the court decision should be in favour of the Government all the time…….”
18. “Apart from this,” he continued, “the problem of maintaining judicial independence is further complicated by the fact that the judiciary is the weakest of all the three branches of the Government.”
19. “What matters most in order to enable us to save the system from disastrous consequences is that we judges must act with responsibility and dignity and not be drawn or tempted into an impulsive action which could only result in aggravating the situation.”
20. These two speeches were delivered on 1st August 1987 and 12th January 1988 respectively. But Tun Salleh’s letter to the King was dated 26th March 1988. As I pointed out earlier it is not true that he did not speak about his accusations against the Government in public because he maintains that “such action is not compatible with our position as judges under the Constitution” and that “it is only proper for us to be patient in the interest of the nation.”
21. All his statements in these two speeches clearly contain his criticisms of the Prime Minister and the Government long before he wrote his letter to the King.
22. Another point raised in his letter to the Agong is that “the accusations and comments have brought shame to all of us (judges) and left us mentally disturbed to the extent of being unable to discharge our functions orderly and properly.”
23. In Section 125 of the Federal Constitution, under clause (3) the grounds for removing a judge, apart from misbehaviour include infirmity of body or mind or any other cause, properly to discharge the functions of his office.”
24. By his own admission Tun Salleh was not able “to discharge his functions orderly and properly.” He was therefore unfit to continue to be a judge.
25. Section 125, Clause 4 provides for “the Yang di Pertuan Agong to appoint a Tribunal …. and refer the representations to it, and may on the recommendation of the tribunal remove the judge from office.”
26. The two letters from Tun Salleh were regarded by the Agong as being highly improper and insulting particularly the copies sent to the other Rulers.
27. During one of my weekly meetings with the Agong, DYMM expressed his annoyance over the letters and simply requested that I dismiss Tun Salleh Abas from being the Lord President of the Malaysian Courts. He writes in his own handwriting his request on the margin of Tun Salleh’s first letter, regarding the noise made by the work on the Agong’s residence.
28. To the Agong it was a simple matter. He had appointed the Lord President and therefore he was entitled to remove him. I thought it was best for me to inform Cabinet and seek the advice of the Attorney-General.
29. I must admit that Tun Salleh’s complaints against me in his letter annoyed me. It is true that I had criticised the judges for interpreting the laws passed by Government not in accordance with the intention or objective of the laws. I did suggest that if the laws were interpreted differently from what the Government and the legislators intended, then we would amend the laws. During a cabinet meeting I had in jest quoted Shakespeare’s words, “The first thing we do we hang the lawyers.” Only a nitwit would think that I meant what I said literally. But apparently lawyers and judges took umbrage over what I said and regarded me as their enemy (about to hang them, I suppose).
30. I also criticised judges for making laws themselves through their interpretations and subsequently citing these as their authority. I believed that the separation of powers meant the Legislators make laws and the judiciary apply them. Of course if the laws made by the legislators breach the provisions of the constitution, the supreme law of the land, then judges can reject them.
31. Again some judges simply refused to hear cases involving the death penalty, pushing these unfairly on to other judges.
32. It is the view of most jurists that “It is not wrong for any member of the public or the administration to criticise the judiciary. “Justice is not a cloistered virtue.” (Peter Aldridge Williams QC).
33. The above writer quoted McKenna J “There is no difference between the judge and the Common Man except that one administers the law and the other endures it.”
34. Yet Tun Salleh took the view that I was subverting the independence of the judiciary when I expressed views on how judges frustrated the objectives of the legislators.
35. Through the grapevine I heard of the judges’ displeasure with me. But I did not take any action, certainly not to remove Tun Salleh. I only acted after the Agong complained about the two letters.
36. The Cabinet agreed that we must adhere strictly to the provisions of the Constitution. I therefore advised the Agong that Tun Salleh could not be removed unless the Agong appoints a Tribunal to hear the complaints against him and make recommendations to the Agong.
37. Upon the Agong agreeing, the Government selected six judges and former judges for His Majesty to consider. The members included foreign judges in the person of the Honourable the Justice K.A.P. Ranasinghe, Chief Justice Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and the Honourable Mr Justice T.S. Sinnathuray, Senior Judge of the Supreme Court of Singapore.
38. The Chairman was the Chief Judge (Malaya), Tan Sri Dato Abdul Hamid bin Hj Omar. The other members were Dato Sri Lee Hun Hoe, Chief Justice (Borneo), Tan Sri Abdul Aziz bin Zain, Retired Judge and Tan Sri Mohd Zahir bin Ismail, Retired Judge.
39. The inclusion of foreign judges was to make sure the Tribunal would not be biased.
40. It is unfortunate that Tun Salleh Abas refused to appear before the Tribunal. Instead he depended on his colleagues to try to prevent the findings of the Tribunal from reaching the Yang di Pertuan Agong.
41. What the five judges who were sympathetic to him did was certainly not in keeping with Tun Salleh’s expressed views in his talk during the launching of the book “Law, Justice and the Judiciary. Transnational Trend, “when he said “we as judges must act with responsibility and dignity and not be drawn or tempted into any impulsive action which could only result in aggravating the situation.”
42. The five judges had ignored rules and procedures and the requirement to get the approval of the (Acting) Lord President, as well as wait for the findings by Mr Justice Ajaib Singh on the same matter. Instead they cancelled courts sittings in Kota Bahru which were scheduled for the judges, and held a sitting of the Supreme Court in Kuala Lumpur to hear an application by Tun Salleh Abbas for prohibition proceedings to determine his position.
43. The Supreme Court of five judges with Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman presiding heard an ex parte oral application by Tun Salleh’s lawyer, retired for a few minutes, returned and unanimously made an order for stay restraining the Tribunal from submitting any recommendations, report or advice respecting the enquiry to His Majesty the Yang di Pertuan Agong until further order.
44. Subsequently the Acting Lord President, set up a Supreme Court of five judges which negated the decision of the Wan Suleiman Court.
45. I would like to repeat that despite public criticisms made against me by Tun Salleh, I did not take any action against him. I only did so after he insulted the Agong and the Agong requested me to have him removed. Of course some would still say I influenced the Agong. But throughout my 22 years I had never involved the rulers in politics or my personal problems. The records are there for all to see.
46. I was very concerned over the forcible removal of Tun Salleh. And so I tried to get Tun Salleh to resign on his own so as to avoid a scandal. He agreed at first but he withdrew the following day.
47. I then went about getting the Tribunal approved and set up. Naturally I had to consult the Attorney-General and others who were familiar with judges. Once the Tribunal was set up my involvement ended.
48. When Tun Salleh and the other judges had their services terminated, they should not be paid their pensions. But following appeals by Attorney-General I agreed that they should be paid their full pensions. They therefore did not suffer any financial loss and their pensions were computed from the time they left.
49. These are the facts relating to the dismissal of Tun Salleh. It was he and his fellow judges who brought disrepute to the judiciary.
50. I write this to record things as they happened. I do not expect my detractors to stop saying that I destroyed the judiciary. They are my prosecutors and they are also my judges. To them I will always be the Idi Amin of Malaysia as claimed in Tun Salleh’s book “May Day for Justice”. Sadly many who so readily condemn me were judges.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Oil Price
The price of crude oil has increased by 400 percent in the last three years. It follows that the price of products must increase, sooner or later. In other countries petrol prices had already increased. In the United Kingdom one litre of petrol sells for more than one pound sterling or RM7. In the United States it is about RM5.
That the price in neighbouring countries has gone up is shown by the rush to fill up by Thai and to a lesser extent Singapore vehicles.
The Government has now announced an increase in petrol price by 78 sen to RM2.70 per litre, an increase of more than 40 per cent.
I may be mistaken but there seems to be less vehicles on the road today. But obviously that is not all that will happen. All other consumer goods, services and luxury goods would increase in price.
The cost of living must go up. Put another way there will be inflation and the standard of living will go down.
Obviously our increase in petrol price is far less than in the United Kingdom or the United States. But our per capita income is about one-third of theirs. In purchasing power terms our increase is more than in the UK or the US.
The increase hurts but the pain is greater not just because of the increase percentage-wise is higher than in developed countries but because of the manner the increase is made.
A few days ago the Government decided to ban sale of petrol to foreign cars. It flipped. Now foreign cars can buy again. Flopped.
Knowing that in a few days it was going to raise the price and foreigners would be allowed to buy, why cannot the Government just wait instead of banning and unbanning.
But be that as it may what could the Government have done to lessen the burden on the people that results from the increase in petrol price.
In the first place the Government should not have floated the Ringgit. A floating rate creates uncertainties and we cannot gain anything from the strengthened Ringgit. Certainly the people have not exprienced any increase in their purchasing power because of the appreciation in the exchange rate between the US Dollar and the Ringgit.
Actually the Ringgit has increased by about 80 sen (from RM3.80 to RM3.08 to 1 US Dollar) per US Dollar, i.e. by more than 20 per cent. Had the Government retained the fixed rate system and increased the value of the Ringgit, say 10 per cent at a time, the cost of imports, in Ringgit terms can be monitored and reduced by 10 per cent. At 20 per cent appreciation the cost of imports should decrease by 20 per cent. But we know the prices of imported goods or services have not decreased at all. This means we are paying 20 per cent higher for our imports including the raw material and components for our industries.
Since oil prices are fixed in US Dollar, the increase in US Dollar prices of oil should also be mitigated by 20 per cent in Malaysian Ringgit.
But the Government wants to please the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and decided to float the Ringgit. As a result the strengthening of the Ringgit merely increased our cost of exports without giving our people the benefit of lower cost of imports.
This is not wisdom after the event. I had actually told a Government Minister not to float the Ringgit three years ago. But of course I am not an expert, certainly I know little about the international financial regimes.
I believe the people expect the increase of petrol price. But what they are angry about is the quantum and the suddenness. The Prime Minister was hinting at August but suddenly it came two months earlier, just after the ban on sale of petrol to foreigners.
If the increase had been more gradual, the people would not feel it so much. But of course this means that the Government would have to subsidise, though to a decreasing extent.
Can the Government subsidise? I am the “adviser” to Petronas but I know very little about it beyond what is published in its accounts. What I do know may not be very accurate but should be sufficient for me to draw certain conclusions.
Roughly Malaysia produces 650,000 barrels of crude per day. We consume 400,000 barrels leaving 250,000 barrels to be exported.
Three years ago the selling price of crude was about USD30 per barrel. Today it is USD130 – an increase of USD100. There is hardly any increase in the production cost so that the extra USD100 can be considered as pure profit.
Our 250,000 barrels of export should earn us 250,000 x 100 x 365 x 3 = RM27,375,000,000 (twenty seven billion Ringgit).
But Petronas made a profit of well over RM70 billion, all of which belong to the Government.
By all accounts the Government is flushed with money.
But besides petrol the prices of palm oil, rubber and tin have also increased by about 400 per cent. Plantation companies and banks now earn as much as RM3 billion in profits each. Taxes paid by them must have also increased greatly.
I feel sure that maintaining the subsidy and gradually decreasing it would not hurt the Government finances.
In the medium term ways and means must be found to reduce wasteful consumption and increase income. We may not be able to fix the minimum wage at a high level but certainly we can improve the minimum wage.
Actually our wages are high compared to some of our neighbours. The investors who come here are attracted not by cheap labour but by other factors, among which is the attitude of the Government towards the business community and the investors in particular.
From what I hear business friendliness is wanting in the present Government – so much so that even Malaysians are investing in other countries. There are rumblings about political affiliations influencing decisions. Generally Government politicians are said to be arrogant.
Malaysia is short of manpower. The labour intensive industries are not benefiting Malaysians. Foreign workers are remitting huge sums of money home.
The industrial policy must change so that high tech is promoted in order to give Malaysians higher wages to cope with rising costs of living.
The world is facing economic turmoil due to the depreciation of the US Dollar, the sub-prime loan crisis, rising oil and raw material prices, food shortages and the continued activities of the greedy hedge funds. The possibility of a US recession is real. In a way the US is already in recession. The world economy will be dragged down by it.
Malaysia will be affected by all these problems. I wonder whether the Government is prepared for this.
We cannot avoid all the negative effects but there must be ways to mitigate against them and to lessen the burden that must be borne by all Malaysians. I am sure the Government will not just pass all these problems to the people as the review of oil prices every month seem to suggest.
Source: Tun Mahathir
That the price in neighbouring countries has gone up is shown by the rush to fill up by Thai and to a lesser extent Singapore vehicles.
The Government has now announced an increase in petrol price by 78 sen to RM2.70 per litre, an increase of more than 40 per cent.
I may be mistaken but there seems to be less vehicles on the road today. But obviously that is not all that will happen. All other consumer goods, services and luxury goods would increase in price.
The cost of living must go up. Put another way there will be inflation and the standard of living will go down.
Obviously our increase in petrol price is far less than in the United Kingdom or the United States. But our per capita income is about one-third of theirs. In purchasing power terms our increase is more than in the UK or the US.
The increase hurts but the pain is greater not just because of the increase percentage-wise is higher than in developed countries but because of the manner the increase is made.
A few days ago the Government decided to ban sale of petrol to foreign cars. It flipped. Now foreign cars can buy again. Flopped.
Knowing that in a few days it was going to raise the price and foreigners would be allowed to buy, why cannot the Government just wait instead of banning and unbanning.
But be that as it may what could the Government have done to lessen the burden on the people that results from the increase in petrol price.
In the first place the Government should not have floated the Ringgit. A floating rate creates uncertainties and we cannot gain anything from the strengthened Ringgit. Certainly the people have not exprienced any increase in their purchasing power because of the appreciation in the exchange rate between the US Dollar and the Ringgit.
Actually the Ringgit has increased by about 80 sen (from RM3.80 to RM3.08 to 1 US Dollar) per US Dollar, i.e. by more than 20 per cent. Had the Government retained the fixed rate system and increased the value of the Ringgit, say 10 per cent at a time, the cost of imports, in Ringgit terms can be monitored and reduced by 10 per cent. At 20 per cent appreciation the cost of imports should decrease by 20 per cent. But we know the prices of imported goods or services have not decreased at all. This means we are paying 20 per cent higher for our imports including the raw material and components for our industries.
Since oil prices are fixed in US Dollar, the increase in US Dollar prices of oil should also be mitigated by 20 per cent in Malaysian Ringgit.
But the Government wants to please the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and decided to float the Ringgit. As a result the strengthening of the Ringgit merely increased our cost of exports without giving our people the benefit of lower cost of imports.
This is not wisdom after the event. I had actually told a Government Minister not to float the Ringgit three years ago. But of course I am not an expert, certainly I know little about the international financial regimes.
I believe the people expect the increase of petrol price. But what they are angry about is the quantum and the suddenness. The Prime Minister was hinting at August but suddenly it came two months earlier, just after the ban on sale of petrol to foreigners.
If the increase had been more gradual, the people would not feel it so much. But of course this means that the Government would have to subsidise, though to a decreasing extent.
Can the Government subsidise? I am the “adviser” to Petronas but I know very little about it beyond what is published in its accounts. What I do know may not be very accurate but should be sufficient for me to draw certain conclusions.
Roughly Malaysia produces 650,000 barrels of crude per day. We consume 400,000 barrels leaving 250,000 barrels to be exported.
Three years ago the selling price of crude was about USD30 per barrel. Today it is USD130 – an increase of USD100. There is hardly any increase in the production cost so that the extra USD100 can be considered as pure profit.
Our 250,000 barrels of export should earn us 250,000 x 100 x 365 x 3 = RM27,375,000,000 (twenty seven billion Ringgit).
But Petronas made a profit of well over RM70 billion, all of which belong to the Government.
By all accounts the Government is flushed with money.
But besides petrol the prices of palm oil, rubber and tin have also increased by about 400 per cent. Plantation companies and banks now earn as much as RM3 billion in profits each. Taxes paid by them must have also increased greatly.
I feel sure that maintaining the subsidy and gradually decreasing it would not hurt the Government finances.
In the medium term ways and means must be found to reduce wasteful consumption and increase income. We may not be able to fix the minimum wage at a high level but certainly we can improve the minimum wage.
Actually our wages are high compared to some of our neighbours. The investors who come here are attracted not by cheap labour but by other factors, among which is the attitude of the Government towards the business community and the investors in particular.
From what I hear business friendliness is wanting in the present Government – so much so that even Malaysians are investing in other countries. There are rumblings about political affiliations influencing decisions. Generally Government politicians are said to be arrogant.
Malaysia is short of manpower. The labour intensive industries are not benefiting Malaysians. Foreign workers are remitting huge sums of money home.
The industrial policy must change so that high tech is promoted in order to give Malaysians higher wages to cope with rising costs of living.
The world is facing economic turmoil due to the depreciation of the US Dollar, the sub-prime loan crisis, rising oil and raw material prices, food shortages and the continued activities of the greedy hedge funds. The possibility of a US recession is real. In a way the US is already in recession. The world economy will be dragged down by it.
Malaysia will be affected by all these problems. I wonder whether the Government is prepared for this.
We cannot avoid all the negative effects but there must be ways to mitigate against them and to lessen the burden that must be borne by all Malaysians. I am sure the Government will not just pass all these problems to the people as the review of oil prices every month seem to suggest.
Source: Tun Mahathir
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)