Pakatan leaders prefer BM or English?

Again the flip-flop and blame games; judge these 2 press statements:

Anwar: Scrap use of English for Science and Maths
Monday, 29 June 2009 08:18am
©The Star

PETALING JAYA: Scrap the policy of teaching Science and Mathematics in English and bring back Bahasa Melayu as the medium of instruction in the education system, said Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

He also called for the return of Bahasa Melayu’s status as the supreme language, which includes using it as the medium to teach Science and Maths in national schools and also strengthening its usage in Chinese and Tamil schools.

“This issue has become a controversy for far too long. We consider this policy a betrayal of Bahasa Melayu as our official language,” he told a press conference yesterday.

Anwar, however, conceded that it was important to master English and agreed that there should be constructive steps taken to improve the usage and understanding of the language.

“But how we do it should be decided by educationists and with consideration towards the national education policy.

“This includes not forcing our children to pass English as a compulsory subject in the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) as this will result in many students, especially in rural areas, to fail,” added Anwar.

On another matter, Anwar questioned Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak’s sincerity when announcing the government’s plan to introduce a new category of Public Service Department (PSD) scholarships which would be based purely on merit.

“The last time when I suggested the plan, I was called a Chinese agent and a traitor to the Malays,” he said.

Anwar also lauded PAS spiritual leader Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat’s proposal to have a debate with Najib.

He said an open debate would be the best way to clear up the accusations against the Kelantan Mentri Besar.

______________________________________
OK now, read this from MI:

KUALA LUMPUR, July 9 — Pakatan Rakyat (PR) continued its attacks today against the government’s decision yesterday to scrap the policy of teaching science and mathematics in English introduced six years ago.

DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng said parents of children in urban national schools should be given the option of learning the two subjects in English because of the existence of better teaching facilities.

“If a sufficient number of parents want to continue in English it should be continued in English,” Lim told a press conference.

He hoped that his recommendation would prevent a confrontation between Datuk Seri Najib Razak and Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad who said yesterday he was saddened by the Cabinet’s decision to scrap the policy introduced during his administration.

Meanwhile, PKR asked the government to immediately scrap the policy.

“We are of the view that the decision falls short of expectation and is a disappointment. It deliberately delays what ought to be implemented early,” said its deputy president Dr Syed Husin Ali.

“What is disappointing is that the Cabinet decided that the termination of this unwise policy should take effect only from 2012 and not immediately next year,” he added.

Yesterday Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin announced the scrapping of the teaching of mathematics and science in English in all primary and secondary schools effective 2012, citing failure to achieve its objectives as intended.

But Muhyiddin, who is also the education minister, said the government would also implement several new measures to improve the teaching of English in schools in an attempt to improve proficiency in the language.

The Blame Game

Kg Buah Pala problems in Penang, water issues in Selangor, defection in Perak, undeveloped Kelantan, high crime rates etc; whose fault? BN governmentlah! Sounds familiar? Luckily the adjournment of Sodomy II trial is due to Anwar’s counsel health condition as well as the decision to abolish English language for Maths/Science (as Anwar insisted on BM a few days back); otherwise the integrity of the judiciary and education ministry will be criticised again.

It is easy and convenient for some people to blame and criticise whenever something goes wrong. Blame it on Najib’s administration or Koh Tsu Koon or BN as a whole. Is that what we want?

Recently (or since 308) most political problems we see, we’ll find that our nation’s political parties are trying hard to attract the masses. Every party is busy in accusing its opposition and trying to show that it is better than the latter.

Amid all this commotion, politicians lose no time in bringing the faults of their competitors to the fore. After raising decade-old issues, one thing is clear and transparent, that all this hard work is being done to increase vote. While taking the oath, people say, “Malaysia is my country, all are Malaysians, Bangsa Malaysia or 1Malaysia”. However, does this really make a difference to politicians?

I believe that there must be some sort of eligibility in order to be able to contest elections, otherwise more and more inadequate people will contest them and hamper the image of our country in the eyes of the world.

In the midst of the ‘blame game’, issues like poverty, employment and development of the country are lagging behind. But PR leaders are actually least bothered about these developmental issue; they are just busy in finding flaws in BN.

Thus, the question arises: should we vote for politicians for whom nothing is more important than winning election or position; even more important than the country and its people and their interests? Think of the people, find a worthy and constructive solution. Serve The People!

Opposition, please deliver…

This morning, I was impressed with a writer’s feedback at the comments column of the Sun. The writer complains that the oppositions have been blaming the past government for almost every problems encountered by the rakyats. This is especially so in the state of Penang. I can’t agree more with the content not because I am a member in a component party of BN but as a voter. Most of us agree that without 2/3 majority, the government should perform better and more efficient. While the respective state opposition is there to monitor the performance of the state government, it is discouraging to see that all those political parties are not putting the people’s interest first. For that, I must say that both BN and PR as state and federal oppositions have so far failed to be a constructive opposition. In fact any opposition that is not constructive is labeled “destructive” (SM Lee Kuan Yew). As the saying goes: “by the people, of the people, for the people”. Be that as it may, if an opposition does not voice out constructively, they might as well forget about winning the next election. Criterias such as proposing alternative ideas in policies instead of just criticising, calling for reform instead of pretending like they are operating in a democracy, speaking up on important issues and not being dormant in between elections are important for the oppostions to function effectively.

Talk about being dormant, such behaviour happens not only by the opposition but also politicians. Many were on a specific agenda and aggressively participated in every activities of his or her constituency during the election but when the results are not in their favour, back to sleep. As a result, many supports and contacts may have become redundant. The candidate would lie dormant until the next attempt. Similarly within a party, there are also some members of the same plight. The potential candidate of the party election will start contacting the delegates and prepare the menu (’cai dan’) just before the election. The root of such problem lies in the nature of the party itself, that breed opportunists.

Whether it is to contest a party or general election, some believe in lobbying strong grassroot supports while others believe in individual skills such as intellectual capability, publicity or the most despicable ones are those who believe in currying favour with the top leaders. Such phenomenon does not occur only in Gerakan but in most political parties. Although it can be a political strategy, to me, it is not justifiable that he or she deserves a vote particularly if it is obvious that their faces are back in action only months before the election or by support of certain quarters’ dominance.

No doubt political rights, freedoms, internal squabbles and strategy are part of the game, without consistency, credibility and clearest demonstration of commitment, no one can truly excel in his or her political life. Nothing in the world of politics has ever been accomplished without passion, sincerity and integrity.

ISA should go…

Judging from every angles of politics, rights, fairness, equality and democracy principles, the government should sensibly abolish the ISA. In essence if a related law is required, perhaps a similar UK Terrorism Act would be an ideal one to replace ISA.

HIMPUNAN MANSUH ISA AKAN DIADAKAN PADA 1 OGOS 2009

1. Sekretariat Himpunan MANSUH sebagai penganjur Himpunan MANSUH ditubuhkan khas bagi menggerakkan rakyat menyatakan sikap terhadap akta zalim, Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri (ISA) melalui perhimpunan secara aman.

2. Sekretariat diwakili oleh wakil-wakil daripada anggota Gabungan Gerakan Mansuhkan ISA (GMI) terdiri daripada badan bukan kerajaan (NGO), parti-parti politik dan mahasiswa. Jawatankuasa Pepandu Himpunan MANSUH diwakili oleh pimpinan parti-parti politik dan NGO.

3. Hari ini Sekretariat Himpunan MANSUH ingin memaklumkan secara rasminya tarikh Himpunan Besar-besaran Mansuhkan ISA iaitu pada hari Sabtu, 1 Ogos 2009.

4. Tarikh 1 Ogos 2009 dipilih sempena 49 tahun ISA yang digubal pada 1 Ogos 1960. Selama 49 tahun negara dinaungi kezaliman ISA. Masa yang terlalu lama untuk negara dibiarkan diselubungi dengan akta yang empunya kuasa amat luas menahan tanpa bicara, menghukum tanpa bukti dan memenjarakan tanpa tempoh menentu. Sudah tiba masanya akta usang itu bukan sahaja dikajisemula tetapi dimansuhkan sama sekali.

5. Himpunan MANSUH dianjurkan dengan hasrat untuk rakyat menzahirkan sikapnya secara jelas dan lantang dengan membuat tiga tuntutan:
a. Bebaskan semua tahanan ISA
b. Mansuhkan ISA
c. Tutup Kem Kamunting – Kem ’Guantanamo’ Malaysia

6. Pada 3 April 2009, sebaik menjadi Perdana Menteri ke-6, Dato’ Seri Najib telah membebaskan 13 orang tahanan ISA (termasuk dua orang tahanan Hindraf) dan mengumumkan untuk mengkajisemula ISA. Satu tindakan yang dikatakan bukan populis. Empat hari kemudian pada 7 April, Pilihanraya Kecil 2 Bukit 1 Batang berlangsung.

7. Pada 8 Mei 2009, 13 orang lagi tahanan dibebaskan termasuk tiga orang lagi tahanan Hindraf. Sekali lagi ini dikatakan bukan tindakan populis sedangkan sehari sebelumnya berlaku titik hitam di Perak.

8. Dalam pada pembebasan diumumkan, secara senyap-senyap empat orang tahanan baru ditahan sekitar bulan April termasuk Mas Selamat Kastari yang dilaporkan lari daripada ISA Singapura. Bahkan sebenarnya di Kem Kamunting masih terdapat seramai 14 orang tahanan ISA seperti yang dilaporkan GMI. Tiga orang daripadanya telah ditahan lebih daripada 7 tahun.

9. Cadangan untuk kajisemula ISA pula dibuat sejak 3 April 2009, lebih dari 2 bulan yang lalu. Tetapi sehingga kini, tiada sesiapa tahu bila sebenarnya kajian tersebut akan siap. Suhakam sudah mengesyorkan ISA dimansuhkan sejak 2003 lagi. Pada masa yang sama, sudah ada peruntukan undang-undang sediada yang mencukupi untuk menangani keganasan.

10. ISA memusnahkan konsep asas undang-undang berperlembagaan. Ia mencemar asas pengasingan kuasa. Ia membenarkan kuasa eksekutif melangkaui kehakiman dengan menahan seseorang tanpa waran, tanpa bicara dan tanpa hak peguam. ISA telah menghapuskan apa juga semakan undang-undang yang disyorkan perlembagaan. ISA juga membenarkan kuasa yang luas, arbitrari dan tidak boleh dicabar mahkamah yang menyebabkan berlakunya penyeksaan fizikal dan mental.

11. Kemuncak asas-asas ISA ialah elemen mengancam, mengugut dan mewujudkan rasa takut dan gerun…”climate of fear”…”under siege mentality”… sehingga merencatkan daya fikir dan teguran berani serta fitrah manusia yang bebas.

12. Atas sebab keadaan ini, atas sebab kezaliman berterusan dengan penahanan tanpa bicara, arbitrari, tanpa pembelaan dan tanpa diketahui bilakah dibebaskan, penganiayaan ke atas isteri, anak dan keluarga dan atas tuntut keadilan, maka rakyat perlu zahirkan kebenciannya terhadap ISA dan mendesak Kerajaan bertindak segera mansuhkan ISA. Tindakan populis dan berlengah-lengah oleh Kerajaan mesti dihentikan. Rakyat tidak harus terpedaya dan membenarkan amalan begini berterusan.

13. Himpunan MANSUH dianjurkan sebagai kesinambungan pelbagai usaha Gerakan Mansuhkan ISA (GMI) selama ini dalam membawa kesedaran tentang kezaliman ISA, membela nasib tahanan dan keluarga, membongkar kezaliman ISA dan mendesak Kerajaan untuk membebaskan tahanan, memansuhkan ISA dan menutup Kem Kamunting sehinggalah membawa kepada pembebasan ramai tahanan ISA dan janji kerajaan untuk mengkajisemula ISA.

14. Beberapa program akan dianjurkan menjelang Himpunan tersebut. Antaranya jelajah ceramah seluruh negara, pengedaran risalah, pertunjukan seni, forum, pengumpulan tandatangan, petisyen on-line dan sebagainya.

15. Himpunan MANSUH menganjurkan Himpunan besar-besaran bagi menyeru dan menggembleng seluruh warganegara Malaysia daripada pelbagai lapisan masyarakat, budaya, bangsa dan agama yang cintakan keadilan, kebenaran dan keamanan rakyat untuk turut serta berhimpun pada 1 Ogos 2009 bagi menyatakan sikap tegas kita terhadap ISA. Bersama memansuhkan ISA dan membebaskan bumi Malaysia daripada kezaliman!

Mansuhkan ISA!
Bebaskan Tahanan!
Tutup Kemta – Kem Guantanamo Malaysia!

Presiden GMI

Fiesta

Eco-friendly Politics?

While environmental issues have come to the forefront of election campaigns in some western countries, this is yet to happen in Malaysia. More and more locals aware and understand the importance to protect the environment nowadays. This is proven during my stay in one of jungle trip recently. It was my first experience to feel the thrill and exposure of 4WD off-roads adventure. Most of the comrades enjoyed the quality time spent together. We were advised not to be litterbugs and taught why is forest environment is such a significant area to protect. Among others I can understand it is crucial to prevent the rivers, livelihood of tribals (orang asli), trees and wildlife from pollution or being destroyed. It is also important to link environment protection issues with issues of sustainable development so that concerns of farmers, forest-produce gathers, fishermen and pastoral people can be taken up.

So particularly if the sustainability aspects are kept in mind, then environment protection issues become issues on which mass mobilisation is possible. Whether we talk of environment protection getting the due place in elections, then in fact we ought to be talking about environment protection plus sustainable livelihoods. And once we do that, it becomes difficult for politicians to ignore these issues. It will be a challenge for democracy how such issues can get an important place in our local politics contradicting the money factor. Are Malaysians prepare to accept such potential issue, recognising the need of it? Would it also be an interest to political parties and candidates (for instance Gerakan) to attract support and votes if such schemes can be in the forefront of election campaigns? Nay, I doubt so, we are yet to be educated in understanding the long term effect instead of material needs. Nonetheless I do hope in the near future, there will be politicians out there interested to think constructively on issues of sustainable development and environmental protection.

PM: No more Bumi quota, no need FIC approval

It is encouraging to hear what PM Dato Seri Najib Razak said this morning especially when he mentioned:

“It is not a time for sentiment of half measures but to renew our courage and pragmatism to take the necessary bold measure to advance the national interests for the long term benefit of all Malaysians…We will help the best and the good in business. We want to be fair to all communities. No one must feel marginalized…It is a tricky balancing act but it is doable”.

Basically in line with the 1Malaysia concept, the PM has announced that 30 per cent Bumi equity for firms seeking public listing is no longer required. However they need to offer 50 per cent of the public shareholding spread to the Bumis. In addition he also lifted the requirement of FIC approval for properties below RM20 million purchased by non-Bumis or foreigners. The latter may not seems to make much of a difference considering it only works as a technical change. But what about the getting rid of the Bumi quotas? Such changes are likely to have an impact in the economy and excite the wealthy non-Bumis. Conversely will the Bumis or UMNO napoleans/cronies accept the decision with an open heart? Is there a catch somewhere? I am sure PM will be pressurised by these people whereas Lim Kit Siang, Anwar Ibrahim and others will start analysing it before throwing out their criticisms. Anyway it is also understood that (from a reliable source) PM will form another body similar to Danaharta, to monitor any major acquisition of the Bumi shares so that a merger and acquisition plan can be initiated. To me, whether it is a political strategy or for the people, economically it is heading the right direction. After this it will be ideal if PM can think constructively to deal with issues such as prevention of crimes and corruption, then sustainable development and confidence is well on track. Ultimately what is really required is not only the implementation but execution and consistency.

DNA Act to nail Anwar?

DNA = Don’t Nail Anwar?

The DNA Bill was passed in Parliament recently amid protest by the Opposition. Pakatan fears that the law would provide ammunition to send Anwar back to jail again. Could that be the reason why PKR has Zaid Ibrahim as ’substitute’ now? Politics aside, we all know there is an advantage of collecting DNA samples and test; using it to identify criminals. Popular crime series such as “CSI” and “Law and Order” make solving crimes look easy – particularly with DNA evidence. In reality judges, prosecutors and defence counsels sometimes gloss over the possibility of lab mistakes and mixed evidence, which can lead to false positives and land innocent people in prison.

Although there are privacy issues need to resolve, I do not see what public harm is if DNA records are kept. Perhaps a question of how safe and reliable is the databank or the possibility of any inaccuracy. Some critics say analogies to a genetic fingerprint are misleading. Therefore the argument by Sivarasa that DNA evidence should not be a conclusive evidence but a corroborative one, can be considered if there is genuine allegation of fabrication.

To me, at the end of the day, it is not so much a question of whether the law is fair or not or rather one understands the technicality but how to interpret reported matches – beyond reasonable doubt.

Gerakan Vice Presidents

There are 8 veeps in Parti Gerakan, some are elected while others are appointed by the central committee (in reality the President) or by virtue of the constitution (ie youth and wanita chiefs). So far one died, one goes into oblivion, and now one suspended. Is it a bad omen position or what? Not really, as currently the remaining vice-presidents in the party are in great shape. Although some are of ‘yes-men’, invited outsider, or a mere puppet veep, such leaders are still required to set an exemplary to the members of the party. Regardless of their age, political experience, loyalty, educational and professional qualifications, except for the title, a veep play almost no role in the party. So, what is the responsibility of a veep in Gerakan?

In the context of a corporation, a veep usually report to the board of directors or the CEO. A run in the mill veep executes everything the CEO asks for but makes decision on the relatively small tasks that the CEO usually doesn’t bother with. Nothing in the party’s constitution states clearly of their formal powers and role except in Article 63, where it is stated that a veep ’shall assist the President and the Deputy and shall when authorised by the President, in the absence of the Deputy exercise any of the powers of the President’. To me, it is more proper to consider their function as proposers, confidants and envoys to the President but often they rather speak in agreement and nod their heads – prefer to enjoy the patronage while preserving their self-interest. Although a veep can be perceived as an obedient follower, there are also others who are willing to take harderline stands on issues to ensure support of the grassroots while deflecting partisan criticsm away from the President. (Am I talking about Huan? Yalah, one of them…). Of course, a veep needs not always blow the trumpet as if the President makes wrong decision all the times or just to prove his/her capability.

Nonetheless many will expect as vice-presidents, they are asked not only to lead within their capacity but to be ready in the event something happens. Therefore to those who have the ability to sublimate their own views and attitudes, about somethings to some extent, is a remarkable attribute. Whatever it is, intra democracy should be the way to move forward for the party. The party is not only about the adviser or the president but the whole family. Maybe not but at the very least, members’ contributions and efforts must be appreciated and worthwhile with the support of the top leaderships. Again my same old story: there are many routes leading to the same destination, just ensure that it is worth the journey.

Is Gerakan playing the political patronage game?

A senior lawyer posed me a question in court this morning: is your party President doing a good job? I did not answer him precisely although we talked and laughed over a cup of teh-tarik. So is the party actually relevant to the public? Of course, with our representatives in the government and Penang’s comrades activism, our voices are heard. One may asks why only in Penang? This is a separate issue of which I have discussed it in my previous postings.

Looking at a different angle, the reason why Gerakan still has a role to play in our political system today is the very fact of the incentives given to the party activists and elites, in exchange for party loyalty. As a result party patronage may helps Gerakan to develop clientelistic networks as a means of maintaining electoral support. This is not a new phenomenon, of course. Many political parties around the world have used this strategy. As Gerakan become more entwined within the system and coalition, and as we have lost our traditional grounding in Penang, patronage can become a key resource in anchoring the party presence within the political system and in controlling flow of communication. Through patronage, and through the appointment of party members/leaders to key ministries and institutions, Gerakan can hope to gain an oversight of the likely demands posed to the political leaders, as well as of the likely policies that are needed to meet these demands. Patronage in this sense might compensate for otherwise decaying party networks or relevance.

Ultimately Gerakan must constantly examine the party’s ability and people’s (voters) mentality towards BN over time, and the extent to which party patronage is exercised as a privilege or we shared it proportionately across the spectrum of other component parties. In short we have to access the strength and impact of party patronage across time and space, after all it is nothing illegitimate about it.

The Legal Position of a Web Advertisement

A few days ago I was asked to teach as a replacement lecturer for the subject Contract Law. The last time I taught in that same college was about one and a half years ago. So I had to read up the related textbooks and past notes. Among others, while reading some of the updated journals and periodicals, I discovered an interesting case analysis. If an advertisement in a newspaper, billboard, catalogues and display is accepted as an invitation to treat, wouldn’t it make sense the same applies to web advertisement? I am wrong. By the way ‘an invitation to treat’ simply means that the vendor/seller is inviting an offer from the purchaser, thus making vendor as the acceptor if there is a deal ie legally binding contract.

In a landmark case of Digiland in Singapore, the court deliberated that web advertisement trading services is a case of an offer, mainly due to the irrelevance of the limited stock argument. That is to say if I advertise something to sell in the internet (an offer), once there is a buyer accepted and agreed with the price and condition, there will be a binding contract. I will be liable if I failed to provide the said goods to the prospective buyer. The court asserted that the risks of web contracting, ie the limited stock and price error are to be addressed by vendors. In practice vendors can protect themselves either through the use of qualification in their ad or by using the necessary technical mechanisms, such as stock control.

I beg to differ from the above decision. There is no reason why the law should not treat vendors of web advertisement and vendors of tv or paper advertsiement equally. The approach of requiring web vendors to protect themselves presents potential danger in situation where vendors fail to put up the qualification, which may occur out of negligence or ignorance. Such will also expose the web vendor to the risk of unlimited liability. It is also unreasonable to expect them to use technical mechanism in stock control of their goods advertised. In short, I view that web vendors are not making an offer in their ad but merely an invitation to treat.

It is not clear what will be the precise position in Malaysia as there is yet to be such similar case decided in court. Nonetheless, the issue is quite adequately covered by section 2(a) of the Contracts Act 1950 that defines the meaning of an offer (proposal) which extends to web communication. It reads “when one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining assent of that other to such act or abstinence he is said to make a proposal (offer)”. Hence without an indication of a binding intention, a web ad can be considered as a case of invitation to treat. Can I make an offer in this blog?

Politicians: Raise Your Game!

Idealism and pragmatism. This is what I like to answer to most political questions asked by my friends.

Political parties are the cornerstone of a democratic society and serve a function unlike any other institution in a democracy. Parties should aggregate and represent social interests and provide a structure for political participation. They train and allow political leaders who will assume a role in governing society and contest, and win, elections to seek a measure of control of government institutions. We should promote responsible and reasoned debate, thereby enrich greater maturity and develop an integrity in our democratic process. In our democracy, many parties have little experience in organising their activities in parliament, which greatly affect the public’s perceptions of a party and thus its effectiveness.

In non-election periods, it is common for the parliamentary parties to become the public face of their political parties. In Malaysia, political parties (or its MP) are often either too weak, too personalistic, too constrained by oppressive governments or too corrupt and out of touch to earn the respect and support of the public. Our current performance in the parliament or state assembly need no further elaboration. It is perfectly realistic to expect a party to strengthen the culture of democracy within itself. It can limit the distorting influence of money, be open and transparent in our governance and promote participation and representation of women and youth. In fact the democratisation of a political party must be a priority in the efforts to restore public confidence in parties and the democratic process as a whole.

Anas Zubedy recently suggested that, in future, the public should vote for the individual candidate who have the calibre and capability instead of the parties. Hence the parties or government must provide the necessary resources, information and access to the required need of the constituent so that their MP or potential candidate is able to discharge his/her duty effectively. Unless the politics of democracy results in greater transparency and increased acceptance of quality and partnership politics, representative politics will be undermined.

In my last posting, it was argued that political parties, both those who govern and those who aspire to govern, must find constructive ways for working together while articulating their disagreements. To achieve this, the choice of candidacy is crucial not only one is good by the books but also with the people. It is then our democratic government will be strenghtened and bear fruit.

As for Gerakan, my plea is for all aspirants to commit themselves to the reform and renewal. That means personal development and active commitment not to the party as they are today but as they can and should be. We all know that Gerakan can do much more, for instance, to show that they are in touch, to demonstrate the relevance of politics to the lives of ordinary people and in particular to make democratic politics interesting for all Malaysians. Gerakan just cannot afford to remain or be perceived as stagnant anymore.

Pakatan oh Pakatan…

As the Parliament commenced its session today, the anticipated troublemakers are at show again. This time several of their MPs were in black headbands and chanting ‘Hidup rakyat’. Since the last general election, opposition parties have, in good faith, cooperated with other stakholders, particularly NGOs, professional bodies and university/college students, in an effort to condemn BN government. They want their voice to be heard so that BN will be washed out by next election. However, some of the Pakatan leaders have increasingly consider their socially unacceptable behaviour as part of the business to champion their struggle. In my previous posting of “BN: Do not be fooled by Pakatan”, I have warned that more of such unwarranted act to come, hence BN shall not dance to their tune or fall into the trap. Some say one has to misbehave when dealing with BN government. Is that what the rakyats want?

In spite of all the loudness, demonstrations, accusations, protests, vigils and cyber-spinnings, our country enjoys remarkable political stability. Pakatan wants to see the rakyats shake the stability but failed. No doubt the duty of the opposition is to oppose. Its very existence adds to the legitimacy of the government and therefore to the stability of the country. No opposition will confer legitimacy on the government of the day and the other institutions of state, or make for greater national stability, if it is not an opposition that is loyal to the interests of the state and of the nation. And it cannot be a loyal opposition if its manner of opposing is utterly unprincipled or if it seeks to couple constitutionalism with a readiness to exploit unconstitutional means to gain power.

My message to them is to be constructive and serve the professional way – contribute ideas and provide solutions for the betterment of their respective states and the nation as a whole. Each ruling parties and oppositions have equal roles in their service to the rakyats. That is what I consider as ‘ketuanan rakyat’.

Empathical Politics.

I have lost count of the number of times I have heard about political (and parliamentary) debates, discussions and speeches. Whether it is BN or Pakatan, most of the times the politicians have no clue how and what their precise role is. They bow meekly to a powerful executive. All they know (from smses or emails) the whips want them to do this or that; and so they shuffle obediently, with a factuous sense of a job done and a public served. In short these wakil rakyats or ministers/deputies have vaguest understanding why they are elected and appointed. All they know is to influence and maintain voters and party support.

A serious flaw in our constitutions; state and federal, fails to take into account that democracy can only exist on a two-way basis. Inordinate faith is placed that the ears of elected officials are tuned to the voices of the voters. They aren’t. There is a semblance of listening at campaign time but it fades quickly. As individuals, voters have no power over candidates after they are elected. That power is gone, replaced by huge campaign contributions and the votes won through media. No comprehensive programs are required, only local, frequently empty, promises and clichés.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it require that officeholders do what their constituents ask. Worse, there is no requirement that promises be honored, that high-sounding pledges be kept nor long-standing principles be continued. If election and by-election is the only measure of an officeholder’s success then that fact supersedes responsiveness to any but the most egregious failings in areas of direct responsibility. Only then do voters notice.

Deals were struck with these and hundreds of other groups and individuals who might have a specific goal of their own or just liked the whiff of the general package. These deals were formalized in what became known as party platforms; very different instruments than the vain papers pumped out today. You vote for me, they said, and I’ll do that. Or to the reformist and pro-oppostion activists, the only way for Malaysia to change is to vote BN out. To me, such politics is outdated. Parties are only an entity in our society’s structure. Different people, different interpretation of a case. Lawyers are fond of doing that. Do not be too emotional and irrational. Have an open heart and mind. The rakyats of all walks of life must be able to judge and evaluate, not merely influenced by the media and cyberworld.

Gerakan Dilemma 2

Is Gerakan’s future bleaking? Lately, I must say that some party leaders and insiders revealed that they are losing confidence and vision in the party. No one is contented with the rate the party is moving now. Previously before officially elected, President Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon announced that he will be concentrating on rebuliding the party and will not stay more than two terms. Generally the public view Gerakan as a sinking ship particularly after losing its political force in Penang. Regrettably most youth members are doubtful that Gerakan can return to its glorious days in the next 5 years or so. Everyone knows that there is a need to rebuild or revamp the party, thus the strength of the leaders to influence is inevitable to ensure unity and fighting spirit of that common struggles. Does the party has a common goals, ideals and objectives among the members now? Is it worth the struggles? Although the ideology and objectives are expressly stated, members do not seem to understand, just like the 1Malaysia concept voiced by some people. The truth is support is eroding unless one interprets that a party is all about that few people or is now a platform to satisfy personal interest. One may ask: isn’t that has been the way the game played all this while? As a result, the respective party leaders of different divisions and states are there to mind their own business. After all each of them do have their own base with various supports. Eventually it is a superficial appearance by having divisions/branches nationwide just to show that Gerakan is a national party. So, what is exactly the problem? Is it due to lack of funds, leadership quality or wavering vision of the members? It is a combination of factors. Some people think that where there is a vacuum, there is an opportunity. My main concern is how can Gerakan excel and be effective again.

We need to look at a larger and overall picture to understand such dilemma.

I am inclined to agree that there is no carte blanche for the party to move forward effectively in the near future. I am also quite sceptical that Gerakan could continue to be BN’s conscience. This is due to the reality that Gerakan has lost its base in Penang, there is no more bargaining power on hand. Other states, although the party still have a few seats, such can hardly draw strong public support. People know, politics is all about power and in those states, no matter how good the party can perform, it would easily sidelined by UMNO or MCA. Talk about funds, I do not think every states outside of Penang require millions of ringgits to be relevant. It is definitely within the party’s availability if constructive and purposeful spending is required. A leader even told me that it is a question of who brought in and control the funds of the party.

Yesterday another leader commented that the President is someone who hardly understand the needs of the grassroots, therefore some are fearful that he may not last for another term (if there is a challenger). With the President’s current portfolios in the Ministry, party and Penang BN, it is obviously an uphill task for him to focus on rejuvenating the members of the party. Of course in any organisation, it is never easy to please everyone, that is the fact. Nevertheless grassroots support play an important factor, many are the stalwarts of the party. One must not forget that the President has the discretion to delay the party election until the next general election and if Gerakan can excel, it will be a different ball game again. Any position given in the party will not guarantee a strong grassroot support, it is again the leadership ability.

There is a need to balance the senior and youth members. Talks about giving the opportunity to the young leaders to move up in the party hierarchy should be supported. After all, one day the youth will take over. To mould or train future capable leaders is another difficult task. Undoubtedly I have to disagree that academic qualification is not an important criteria in any political party. It was once DAP’s main agenda to recruit skillful and capable intellectuals from various backgrounds. It is all about leadership quality, while having the ability to speak effectively, to debate on policy; it is also inextricable to have that skills to understand and motivate the grassroots.

Now, tell me at current situation, who is more qualified to lead the party other than Tan Sri Dr. Koh? Is Dato’ Chang Ko Youn or Dato’ Mah Siew Keong capable of making any difference? Perhaps would Dato’ Seri Chia Kwang Chye makes a comeback to transform the party? Is Penang the only state Gerakan can regain its trump card? A political analyst proposed to me that it will be ideal if the youth can organise a roadshow or rally around the country, explaining to the people the true meaning of bangsa Malaysia or 1Malaysia, ensuring the party’s relevance remain intact. I aver that if the party does not create and foster a common goals or objectives for its members to fight the good cause, it will remain stagnant (or into oblivion) until the day someone is there to shake it.

The more we focus on the good, the more we will be able to inspire people to do their best. Gerakan may be reaching their lowest ebb again, sincere fellowmen will not give up if they keep a firm, clear vision of their goodness. Satu hati!

The Art of Politics

While flipping a magazine last night, I read the following statement by a very old philosopher: “When I have laid bait for deer, I don’t shoot at the first doe that comes to sniff, but wait until the whole herd has gathered around.” I pondered, hmmm very interesting…

Separately this week I had a discussion with 2 political pals, sharing views on the game of politics. How often do we see in a political party, an aggressive leader initiates a series of bold moves that begin by bringing him the position wanted. Gradually such person may lose support and direction in the party. Why? Perhaps he is never in full control from day one.

I talked about the importance of ‘personal touch’, making the others feel wanted. A good warrior make others come to him. In the realm of power, one must be able to judge his moves by their long term effects on other people. By proving a point through position or self-indulgence may not have a positive support. People may appear to agree with him, but inside they may resent you. No matter who or what a leader quote to gain support can never be as persuasive as the actual feelings of being heard. Action and demonstration are much more powerful and meaningful. Eventually it does not matter in the long run whether the other person agrees with him as time will make them understand he is by their side and deserves to be a great leader. So indeed it is helpful to use bait when necessary and ought to be seen as a supportive and defensive leader of his team.

Infernal Affairs: Teng vs Huan

Over the weekend I was at Kampung Bahagia, an isolated village that required 40 minutes boat ride from Kuala Krai which is a small town in Kelantan. Personally I enjoyed the stay with a sense of appreciating my life in the city. The closeness to the nature of forest and simplicity of its people livelihood was an interesting exposure. Although there was no newspaper, mobile-phone coverage and tv, news about Teng and Huan were informed, thanks to the internet.

A tussle between decency and gungho, a state chairman against an elected national vice-president. Would the public interested to know what transpired in the recent Gerakan’s affair? Yes and no. It started due to the appointment of coordinators (’penyelaras’) in Penang (but some say since Teng took over the state chief). Previously again hours were squandered in a meeting with everyone listening and yawning over the their argument. It may not be a big deal after all, due to the party’s performance since 308. Nonetheless, it is perceived those who are selected would likely be the candidate of that constituency in the next election. It is the same old thing about position and power in any political parties.

A comrade asked: what has Teng achieves so far in Penang? For that it was also him and several quarters of the senior members who caused the clean-sweep. We can’t just blame everything on UMNO as if that is the benchmark of the swing. If one is really good and has been working hard to serve and gain support in his area, the voters are not blind. Some say it is time for the members and people to see that indeed there is a need to change certain leaderships of the party. The senior members need to realise that their time may be short lived and must learn to let go – this is what encourage the youth members.
Some still consider Huan as part of the youth, the VP will gain supports as he had done nothing wrong except for provoking Teng. Huan’s claim that he may leave the party along with 100 branches is a talking point too. Why 3 weeks? The Pemuda wants to investigate the true voice of the grassroots particularly among the youths. The public may perceives Gerakan is actively trying to revamp the party – a sign of democracy. On the other hand, the crucial question is whether what Huan did has a selfish agenda to promote his own cause, after all there had been implied records to prove his intention. Positively should the CWC decided to chop him off this time to prevent a floodgate or any similar threat, it would be a good move with the general election is still about 3 years to go. Actually would it makes any difference? What if that cause is for the benefit of the party as a whole?

Many have the answer of who is the President supporting. As for now whether a warning or a show cause is issued, we can expect some dramatic events in the coming weeks.

Such internal squabbling may even made it harder for Gerakan to rebuild itself (especially in Penang). Locals or DAP may be laughing over the matter with banner of criticism displayed openly. Would Teng leads Penang Gerakan to ‘Holland’ (message as in the banner) or is Huan doing it for selfish agendas? Perhaps I should rule out the issue of self-interest, after all it is part and parcel of the game. Above all, the party must realise Gerakan will have to revamp its tarnished reputation and cannot operate in its own space, ignoring the public perception.

BN: Don’t Be Fooled by Pakatan

While it is an unacceptable act by Pakatan to protest, vigil, strike or demonstrate, BN should be cautious not to dance in accordance to their tune. Whether it is a provocation or political struggle, BN should use the soft approach for the rakyats to justify those actions. The police force is suppose to be an independent body. The people would hate BN government more if they are acting harshly. Let the rakyat see how effective is the Pakatan government in ruling the respective states in such manner. Pakatan will spin the message that we are having an authoritarian government. BN need to play the game well to regain popularity. Issue such as demanding Chin Peng’s return should be considered as I really do not see any threat by such person at that old age. By allowing his return, it will more or less attracts some Chinese supports unless there is concrete evidence that MCP is still alive today, which is unlikely. I am sure Pakatan will provoke and stir more political problems in order to trap BN into unjustifiable arrest or unwise remarks so to maintain their support until the next election. In short the message required is nothing more important than having a fair and sensible government. Ultimately the government is to deal such predicament by understanding the voice of the people. Prioritise national interest – endure a truly united, successful and peaceful nation is the best solution.

Gerakan Dilemma

As our country changes and we face new challenges to sustainable growth and development, new political agenda’s surface allowing for new political objectives, strategies and leaderships. We all know public perception and support can be significant cause to decide the faith of a party.

Since Gerakan was ousted in Penang, over time, negative remarks and perception of the party is nothing new. Recently I again encountered the same but interestingly none of them who commented knew that I am from Gerakan. Words like “I see no future in Gerakan; by losing the political jewel of Penang, Gerakan is counting their D-day; Gerakan is going to be irrelevant and soon goes into oblivion; Gerakan is a mosquito party, no one actually bothers; Gerakan is a shadow of UMNO – can never stand up against UMNO; Gerakan’s claim of multi-racial and its quest to the consicence of BN is no more appealing; Gerakan’s emphasis on the Constitution and Rukun Negara has lost its value; Gerakan has lost in touch with the grounds and largely ignorant of public perception and as it is, unless there is some major transformation, Gerakan will remain stagnant if not get worst in the political arena; Gerakan is a sinking ship etc”…Wosh! aren’t these remarks discouraging?

Time flies, we are approaching the second half of the year. Some of the aspired and talented leaders have left or became dormant in the party. Many within the family are losing their steam to struggle for good cause and being uncertain with the party’s wavering vision. Several members who maintain a proactive attitude are there for the passion or ironic selfish agenda. Some are still ignorant of the reality. The rebranding and reform exercises has yet to lead the party anywhere fruitful. Although many meetings were conducted especially among the CCs, such time is squandered. Leaders prefer to keep quiet and compliant during the meetings and then voice or blog their objections to the whole world later. Some are in fear of the consequences of voicing ideas, opinions and taking actions that may be different from or against the President. Some have the fire but lack of support and resources. Some want the party to leave BN without understanding the repercussion of it. Some blame it on the president and demand a change, worrying that the latter is not championing the cause of the party as a whole. Generally most just wait and see, hoping for the best before they can restart their engine. Relatively all these are a legitimate concern and behaviour but we must be radically practical.

The above culture is definitely counter-productive and potentially destructive. Legitimacy is one thing, none of us (in the party) want to hear that had the party been able to achieve unity and common struggle for the same good cause, Gerakan could have acted more forcefully and cohesively in averting demise!

However one of the critics did mentioned that Gerakan is getting stronger in the federal cabinet and by having good relationships between the president and PM, it would not die easily. Others within the party are optimistic that with the present memberships, potential leaders, 6 representatives (state and federal) and assets, there is still a bright future as historically it is proven that our political scene fluctuates. Positively, like it or not, the party has a Minister and two Deputies, a wonderful HQ, a new website, a reorganised SEDAR and many are still actively serving and voicing out in the media. Thus Gerakan can still be relevant and become an effective party.

Now having said the above, I of course want to see Gerakan regaining the golden years instead of surviving the relegation battle (yalah still EPL mood). To do that, Gerakan must encourage a strong and united team – a sincere one. The culture of nodding heads attentively, verbal affirmations and praise, having sides and favouritism will be a negligence. Gerakan must realise that disagreement does not equate anarchy or disrespect. It starts from the top to instil such culture. This will be a great start. Some of the feedbacks I received within the party are the members have no clear objectives nor particular direction to motivate them to commit. A healthy organisation or political party is not about its committee members only. Although intellectual capability and educational background may be an important criteria to keep the party moving, one must not neglect the hardworking, committed, passionate, idealistic and faithful members of the party. Like it or not, by having such a vast experience, I am sure the President has a constructive plan and purpose in mind, it is only a question of execution.

As a whole, Gerakan knows the party need to regain its multiracial origin, although it will be an uphill task, the party need be different from PKR or DAP. After all non-sectarian party was initiated by Gerakan. But the truth is, in Malaysia, race matters. The party’s modus operandi and ideology need to be recalibrated if Gerakan wants to win back support from the rakyats, grassroots and component parties. The party learned from mistakes, losing touch with the grassroots and grounds, arrogance, contention and incompetence had cost Gerakan dearly. In essence, I see many potential and sincere members where everyone should draw their collective wisdom, knowledge, intelligence and experience, each being united and committed to the party. Gerakan must start moving. Yes, Gerakan will shine again.

BN’s solution

In a nutshell, so what Zambry is the rightful MB now? Is there any significance of all the courts’ decisions so far? Pakatan lawyers decided to appeal to the Federal Court. Pakatan assemblymen and its supporters will not accept the decision and remain defiant. They will still consider Nizar as the chief. Where do we go from here? Let the wave flows until the next general election? Indeed it is true, the imbroglio and uncertainty is never ending as there are different school of thoughts. Dissolve and call a fresh election to please Pakatan? Why would PM Najib wants to take a risk in holding power in the state knowing that it would be a burden? Is the intelligence doing groundworks to justify a favourable date?

Perhaps a fresh election is not a bad idea after all BUT BN must first re-educate the people on whatever transpired over the last few months was not mala fide or by fraud. The PM did a good job by explaining the situation but not many are convinced. The fundamental principles of democracy in any system of government must be stated clearly. The crossover and perceived electorate’s demand is a separate issue. Whether it was Anwar’s failed mission to justify the alleged Najib’s plot is very subjective, depending which side one supports. After the last general election, BN was the one gained majority in the state. The Sultan appointed MB Nizar after the opposition parties merged conveniently was never conducted in the state legislative assembly. The Sultan in Terengganu even had the prerogative to appoint another MB who was not nominated by BN. As Najib queried, would Anwar has been successful last September, will he dissolve the Parliament? In short the legitimacy of the take over must be proven and explained to the ground. Then BN can gentlemanly together with PR request the Sultan to dissolve the state assembly. Subsequently even if BN loses the election, at least there is an absolute position and BN will be able to admit defeat or release the burden gracefully.

Is Pakatan behaving like a Government?

Since last year to its own peril, BN may fail to read the political mood correctly and thereby exploit it to its own advantage. Actions such as the detention of lawyers, vigilants and erroneous statement by certain leaders need to be cautioned. Time and time again they fell into the Pakatan traps and danced to their tune.

So where are we heading? What is the expected role of opposition or government? Although Pakatan is the Opposition at federal level, many still perceive them as the traditional antagonist in all states. Some say Pakatan is still very much at infancy stage, the public, supporters and even Pakatan members themselves are in wonder and inadequate vision. Pakatan leaders are fond of organising demonstration, blogging, press-media attractions, protesting and candle-light vigilance in their own states! Did the electorate voted them in to shout aloud? Of all, it is apparent that only CM Lim Guan Eng realise the repercussion of maintaining such mindset after few months of taking over the state. Do the people realise that BN is the Opposition in Selangor and Penang? What are DAP representatives trying to prove by constant protest and vigilance in Selangor? Are the PKR young Chinese supporters in Bersih and Suaram truly understand their struggles? Can the Pakatan’s government justifies their action to have an effective administration for the sake of the states? I wonder if Pakatan takes over the federal government tomorrow, would the activists, NGOs, Bar Council and reformists switch over to support BN?

While being in power at federal, BN should be the one doing the shouting, protesting and criticising against the state governments of Pakatan. For this perhaps even BN has not come into realisation of the same. Umno especially at division levels are still dominated and driven by attitude that business opportunity and money play an important role in political life. Against the backdrop, the opposition parties did not seem to offer much particularly from PKR. Political parties from both coalitions should stop the spinning and destabilising the tone to strike a compromise. By not realising the significance, the country as well as the states will be facing more setbacks in their participation in the global order. Malaysians deserve closer scrutiny in understanding that the economy, peace, education, nationalism and unity is more important than all the talks about power, reforms and rights.

No man is above the law

In a globalised world, many decisions are dictated by transnational forces over which nations have no control. These are the realities everywhere; constitutional principles and the rule of law have to compete with a myriad of other dynamic forces that shape the direction of society. Not only the ordinary Malaysians, a principal characteristic of civil society is the commitment of the public authorities to observe the law not as a matter of discretion, but as a matter of necessity and commitment. The state’s moral legitimacy in enforcing the law lies in its obedience to the law. Adherence to the rule of law is central to that hypothesis.

Parliamentarians and state assemblymen are supposed to perform important matters of the nation and state. Looking at the 7/5 incident in Perak, one can say that the politicians are more concern with power rather than the respect for the law. The centre of gravity of the august house function seems to reside in the political leaders. Although the executive should have power to do what they seek to do, and where this is so, it is not the function of the courts to deny the power legitimately conferred. Executive power does not lie with the courts. While it is important that the courts develop our own public law jurisprudence, this development must be an informed one. Slandering, lies and accusation against the judiciary and political parties can never be justified for not obeying the law. The people of Malaysia must realise that even the King, Sultans, PM, MB, Speaker and Aduns in exercising their functions must be carried out in accordance with the law. It is high time for us to straighten the bended mindset of the system – the rule of law is supreme.

Can ’stay’ or not?

“I have been advised by my lawyer that a declaratory relief cannot be stayed” said Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin yesterday. As a result ‘MB Nizar’ is applying to set aside the stay order. A friend recently asked: “Apa itu ’stay’? ‘Stay at home’ I tahulah!”

Legally speaking when a stay is allowed, it simply means that the effect or operation of a judgment, order or decision of the court is suspended ie back to status quo. The expression ‘a stay of execution or proceeding’ refers to both the process of reaching a decision, including the decision itself, in so far the authority in question is susceptible to judicial review. An appeal does not operate as a stay of execution under the decision appealed from unless the High Court or Court of Appeal so orders. The fact that an appeal is going to be instituted does not operate as a ground for granting a stay.

Since the MB v MB case is of public interest and importance, there is nothing wrong for the court to hear its proceeding in such urgency and by a single Court of Appeal judge (YA Raus Sharif): sec.44 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, rule 13. Nothing bars a court, in appropriate circumstances, from exercising its inherent powers of granting a stay. With respect, I consider that there was ample materials and grounds for the Court of Appeal judge to have exercised his discretion by allowing the stay and his decision to do so was in no way contrary to earlier ruling of the High Court’s declaration. Thus whether a successful appeal to the MB would be rendered nugatory or academic by a refusal to stay execution, is a relevant consideration. (take note that I am not supporting the ‘musical chair’ in the legal battles of Perak but merely to express the legal standing of the situation).

What about a declaration or declaratory relief? Apa itu exactly? A few weeks back, a DAP lawyer claimed that a declaration by the court is not binding and of no force where parties cannot coerced to abide it – perhaps a definition I believe my learned friend quoted it from the dictionary to impress the media or in partisanship.

Legal purity would demand that a declaration as defined above was outside legal power are invalid or merely an opinion, but this does not lead to the conclusion that the decisions are for that reason not binding. The court make declaration on the rights of a party without provisions as to their enforcement. It has been noted that the remedy is available to ensure that an administrative board or other authority set up by Parliament makes its determination in accordance with the law. It should only be granted in respect of justiciable concerns. Previously there were decisions such as in Lim Kit Siang, Othman Saat and Nordin Salleh cases, involving declaration orders and was binding on the parties to the suit (as in sec 41 of the Specific Relief Act 1950).

As to the current situation, a unity government or a fresh election should be decided constructively considering Pakatan still maintain the support and sentiment in their favour since last election. To surrender? Well depending on the perspectives and it will be unwise to dance according to Pakatan’s tune. The crisis is an advantage for them to hold as a trump card for future election not only in Perak but nationwide. Perhaps a headline of “BN with the majority in the assembly gives in for the sake of the State” would creates an interesting history.

BN and PR to sort out Perak?

Over the past weeks, I encountered different arguments, for and against the situation in Perak, much depends on which side does one stand for. Not about siding? Unfortunately it seems to be the case, no matter how convincing and sensible your argument is. Most will not agree for the two to work out a solution even if the PM is sincere to cooperate. To them most of BN suggestions and actions are constantly ridiculed, demonised and disrespected. BN is doomed in Perak, a suicidal. Justified or not, the exco, speaker, police force, judiciary, financial institutions etc are often criticised in the heat of political scrimmages.

However there are also some who realised that no one gains from constant condemnation of the government. They insist to compromise, by allowing BN to change for the sake of stability and better life. To think about it, we are indeed heading to a healthy democracy. It is only a question of leadership on how to change the mindset of the civil servants. Our society is better served when the government from both BN and PR truly understand the concept of ‘wakil rakyat’, with check and balance base on equality and fairness, not merely doing it for political exigencies. It is encouraging to see Lim Kit Siang and Anwar Ibrahim agree to discuss on a solution with the PM. We Malaysians want a strong, loving, clean and supportive government.

[Latest: The rightful MB of Perak has no majority support in the assembly, indeed a constitutional crisis]

Double Peraks : Pakatan Should Be More Gentlemen

We have ‘two MBs and two Speakers’ in Perak’s standoff just now. Let us not complicate the whole ‘crisis’. Issues related to suspension, Speaker’s standing and subsequent courts’ decisions are secondary. The whole thing started due to the three Aduns.

No democracy in Malaysia? If this is the case, was it possible for Pakatan to win so many seats in the last general election? Were the pre-signed resignation letters, a democratic practice? Is the Speaker sitting next to Pakatan leaders a neutral and impartial party?

Why don’t the Sultan dissolve the state assembly and call for a snap-election in the name of people’s power? Why should HRH do it when Pakatan has clearly lost majority vote of confidence in the assembly? Were the three Aduns bought over by BN? Cut the crap and talk to Anwar Ibrahim, the one who started the cross-over game (even back in 1994 where he initiated the defection at Sabah). This is what democracy all about. In fact the three Aduns did not even join BN but as independents in support of BN.

Warzone or police state in Perak? Knowing that a group of people is going to stir trouble and cause public uproar at the state assembly, what can one expect the authority to do?

Pakatan in Penang has also banned newspapers that critised them. Pakatan in Selangor stated that they will not declassify local council documents which are to remain under OSA. Pakatan decided to use the Federal Court’s judgment (which they alleged of no force), for another MP to sue the Speaker of the Parliament.

Pakatan should has maintain their integrity and play according to the rules. Although the BN government in Perak now may not represent the voice of the electorate, Pakatan simply do not have the majority vote of confidence in the assembly. Pakatan should blame it on their choice of candidacy instead.

Whatever judgement (who is the rightful MB) to be decided by the High Court this Monday will serve no useful purpose. Why? If it is in favour of Pakatan, they will celebrate and praise the judiciary but BN will then appeal and commence a state assembly seating to motion a vote of no confidence. Conversely if the decision is against them, Pakatan will make all sort of accusations against the judiciary. Never ending story…

Gerakan to shine in Sabah?

Ok the rumour is confirmed, unsurprisingly Datuk Raymond Tan Shu Kah (along with YB Aw Kam Wah) is joining Gerakan. Both of them are the current Deputy Chief Minister and state assemblyman (Elopura) respectively. Last October over one hundred of them from Elopura consituency resigned from SAPP, including previous Deputy CM Datuk Tham Nyip Shen and political secretary Jimmy Wong. They chose to remain loyal to BN despite criticisms from SAPP supporters. Subsequently after about 2000 resignations from different SAPP branches, Datuk Raymond did not rule out the possibility of registering a new party.

Well, let me ponder for a while…ok, I welcome them into the family. Their sincere contribution and struggle will no doubt serve the party positively. But why Gerakan? Putting aside the reason of similar ideology or old friends among the leaderships, is there someone behind this decision? LDP, PBS and MCA tried to dislodge him from the Cabinet and not surprisingly he considers Gerakan as the best option. Yong Teck Lee must be annoyed with his decision to pull out from BN last 16 September hoping that his action is palatable to Anwar Ibrahim. Fortunately or unfortunately the alleged takeover did not occurred. The plot never varies and many are familiar with Yong’s intention by now.

It is still very early to predict what will be Gerakan’s future in the east. In the past Gerakan’s branch in Kota Kinabalu has been a pathetic one and I am sure with the two joinning in, we can expect changes. Whether the grassroot is happy with such decision and the question of strength or influence remain to be seen. I wonder in future election, will BN allows Gerakan to field in candidates of the constituencies similar to SAPP previously? Would the CM allow Raymond to hold the DCM post for long? Or are we deluding ourselves with the numbering game or a thumbscrew discovery?

What about the reaction of the comrades inside Gerakan? Is Raymond going to be the next President? Of course all these questions are mere guessing games but I am sure there are some quarters within the party may need to change their political strategy. Life in politics is a never-ending game that require constant vigilance and tactical thinking.

Koh Tsu Koon di Harakah

Selepas makan tengahari tadi, saya dimaklumkan bahawa muka Tan Sri Dr.Koh Tsu Koon bersama Datuk Chang Ko Youn disiarkan di muka hadapan akhbar Harakah hari ini. Tajuk besar dinyatakan sebagai: “KOH TSU KOON SETUJU HAPUSKAN ISA”.

Sedemikian berlaku disebabkan satu dialog yang dianjurkan oleh Parti Gerakan pada 23 April lalu. Tujuan utama dialog tersebut adalah untuk Gerakan lebih memahami dan meneliti kedudukan Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri (”ISA”) di kalangan orang ramai, sebelum menyediakan suatu memorandum dengan sewajarnya. Tidak ada seorang para media atau jurugambar luar dijemput. Pada sepanjang masa yang material, saya juga berada di dalam bilik perbincangan tersebut. Walaupun Tan Sri dengan rendah diri mempertimbangkan segala hujahan dan keluhan dari mereka yang hadir, saya percaya isu mengenai persetujuan bahawa ISA akan dimansuh salah ditafsirkan. Sememangnya adalah salah satu objektif Gerakan untuk meminda atau menghapuskan ISA tetapi Harakah tidak sepatutnya menyatakan tajuk sedemikian semata-mata Tan Sri yang kini berada di dalam Kabinet sengaja membantah kehendak PM untuk meminda akta tersebut. Pada hakikatnya beberapa ahli-ahli Gerakan yang hadir ada menyuarakan perlunya satu pertimbangan di antara penyalahgunaan kuasa, hak asasi manusia dan keselamatan negara jika ia benar-benar diancam oleh kumpulan ekstremis atau pengganas.

Diharap berita di muka depan Harakah itu tidak akan menjejaskan kedudukan Gerakan atau saudara Presiden memandangkan bahawa sayalah yang menjemput En. Syed Ibrahim dari GMI, En. Malik Imtiaz dari Hakam, Asoc Prof Azmi Sharom dari UM, En. Andrew Khoo, pegerusi Jawatankuasa Hak Asasi Manusia BC dan saudari/saudara dari Badan Peguam pada malam itu. Tak tahu siapakah di antara mereka yang menyerahkan gambar tersebut kepada Harakah. Sebenarnya kewujudan di akhbar tersebut tidak menjadi isu (yang mana akan disuarakan oleh segolongan pihak) tetapi Gerakan mempunyai pelan dan cara sendiri untuk melaksanakan sesuatu kausa demi kepentingan rakyat dan negara.

Pada keseluruhannya, pertemuan tersebut adalah amat informal di mana ia diakhiri dengan pengambilan gambar dan jamuan makan malam bersama Tan Sri.

What? Spanish Flu?

I read the other day about the spanish flu pandemic back in 1918 that killed millions of people worldwide. Now the so-called swine flu is understand to be emanated from the same deadly influenza A – H1N1. Is this the end of the world as prophesied? Nay, previous diseases and catastrophic claims proved otherwise. Yes, with such disease and the current economy and political uncertainty, the world is changing and often many storms in life are unpredictable. Leading and helping people move through change is important. Everywhere we hear the cry for leadership and yet, in practice, true leaders seem to be few in number. Much of it has to do with the emotional side of change. Sometimes to change and succeed is like politics, a long term struggle. The emphasis is on empowering people, instead of controlling them. It is through our own development and growth is true leadership. The common saying that the mind is an important element of our future is indeed very true to everyone, no matter what happens.

“Man is made by his beliefs. As he believes, so he is.” – Bhagavad Gita.

Progressive Politics

Countless commentators have been very sceptical to intone that BN or UMNO has to lose power, the control of the federal government by next election as they are facing political annihilation. It seems that regardless of whether BN fortunes are up or down in the near future, the negative perception is always the same in every aspects of the government machinery. People (esp urbanites and younger generation) are willing to take the risk in ‘overthrowing’ the present government regardless of what had been legitimately and successfully established. They just feel that Anwar is the man or maybe Hadi or Kit Siang or… It is easy to dismiss this stale conventional wisdom, but in the aftermath of the political tsunami many are legitimately wondering about the prospects of a progressive politics. In fact PAS has again hinted willingness to form a united government provided important portfolios such as finance and education are to be controlled by them.

There are also other Malaysians who want BN to govern fairly and to deal with the issues that are at the center of their lives. They yearn for a politics that speaks to and includes them – an affordable and efficient healthcare service, improved education, job security, lesser crimes, prosperous economy, independent and fair judiciary/MACC/EC, respect for the environment and human rights, and above all a peaceful nation.

One thing the last general election confirmed is that progressive politics can be winning politics. It is apparent that the government have been emphatically and empathically trying to touch the lives of many since the new prime minister took over. Progressive populism responds to the widespread awareness that large forces in our economy have too much power and ordinary have too little. The tsunami was indeed a protest not so much of exuberant support to Pakatan Rakyat. Subsequently it is inevitable that the opposition have managed to transform such mindset to the latter. The problem is that too often progressive have been better at denunciation than annunciation. We need both. People are interested in what BN is for as what they are against. The 1Malaysia concept and KPI system is a good start but are the leaders prepare to accept new ideas and challenge? Policy provides direction and an agenda for action, grassroots build a constituency to fight for a change. As important as new ideas are, a think tank or advisors not connected to local grassroots will not suffice – it will be a downsized politics. Therefore both are equally important. Building such a grassroot-based effort to advocate effectively for the progressive agenda, and to put more progressiveness in office at every level and across the country, is a goal worth fighting for. The issues of subservience and supremacy should be a history form now onwards. I am proud to stand with such behoves of Gerakan’s objectives where we shall go back to the founding vision as enshrined in the Constitution and Rukunegara.

It’s a scary world out there…

Everyday we read and heard about robbery, kidnapping, murder, rape etc. Not a single entity can guarantee your safety if your handbag is held loosely on the street. In fact all can assure that it is a matter of time before the ‘peragut’ (snatcher) attacks. Laptops and handphones hidden in the car is definitely not secure anymore. Installing CCTV at home is also no more an effective measure to curb crimes. No doubt our public security is deteriorating, machetes and guns are everywhere, it is a frightening thing!

When I was trapped in the traffic congestion at Bangsar yesterday, I tuned on the Light & Easy. The DJs posed a question: “do you feel safe nowadays?” All of the responses involved the callers’ encounter with different heart-wrecking experience. My friend Ryan shared that six out of seven females in his family were once victim to all sorts of crimes. A couple of weeks back, a lady lawyer was surreptitiously punched by a transvestite in a busy street of the town. A kindy boy was kidnapped at Bandar Utama recently in a broad daylight witnessed by parents and teachers. Some of the kidnappers were arrested yesterday, kudos to the police force.

While the government may say that our country is relatively safe by international standards, crime is on the rise as society grapples with a widening gap between rich and poor and other social ills. And we are not talking about the more serious crimes yet, none of us need to be reminded of 13/5 riot, 9/11 terrorist attack, Bali and Mumbai bombing and neither do we need to be persuaded of the imperative need to prevent any acts of terrorism/extremism against our nation. Putting aside the issue of abuse, I always like to quote Goethe’s: “To build and maintain a happy home serves mankind better than all the talks of man’s right”. However most if not all who attended the dialogue on ISA last night would likely to disagree with me. Nonetheless there must be a need to balance betwen a legitimate national security concern and our fundamental liberties. Offences that are covered under the parameter of other related laws will not safeguard the possibility of accessible instruction for any closed and covet activity. There is no point crying over spilt milk ie after the damage is done.

At the end of the day, whether as an individual or the country as a whole, we must be alert and not to take things for granted especially towards our loved ones. To remain strong and calm amidst upheavals is the greatest art of all, but of course prevention is better than cure.

Selangor Government on OSA: Yes or No?

Did the state government make promises in people’s interest or just for publicity? Unfortunately government agencies often tend to be more interested in developing and maintaining their autonomy than in the implementation of policy or promises.

It was reported last year that MB Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim wants to make Selangor free of Official Secrets Act (OSA). He wanted the State to be exempted from enforcing the Act so that people have the right to information on state management matters. He commented that it is “then, the people will know the efforts of the state administration, and we can have check and balance”.

Yesterday the Selangor government announced that they will not declassify the local council documents unless there is a need for it. This is confirmed by Exco Ronnie Liu and councilor/legal adviser Derek Fernandez. In fact the latter even said that he would make a police report under OSA against those who disclosed any related council matters. Surprisingly it is MP Loh Gwo Burne of PKR who was against the idea this time.

So, where are the promises made previously? It is obvious that some politicians are just misrepresenting the public for political gains. The public ought to be rational and question their motive whenever an issue is highlighted. The local council documents should not be considered as secret in the interest of the public. There is no threat nor any matter related to the national security whatsoever. Empty promises or double standard practice cannot be accepted to justify any government policies or decision regardless of the political affiliation of the party involved. It is high time for Malaysians to voice out and guard irresponsible administration of both the government and opposition.

[NST 24.4.2009]

Opening the Pandora’s Box

Recent matters of another possible by-election, income tax return dateline, 1Malaysia concept, increasing crime rates, resurrection of Dr. M etc do not really bother me. What pissed me off is a case whereby the tenant of a client shrewdly pretended to purchase the rented property in order to delay further payment. He then lodged a private caveat over the rented premises but refused to execute the sale & purchase agreement. When I applied to remove it, he withdrew the said caveat. Subsequently he again entered another one in respect of the same property and based on the same grounds. This clearly amounts to an abuse of the caveat procedure and to frustrate my client’s attempt to sell off the property. Although section 329(2) of the National Land Code prohibits such act, it is not exhaustive. This is because one can argue that by withdrawal of the first caveat was not caught by the 3 situations under sec.329(2) (ie court’s refusal, extension and removal by Registrar)

Although I did found out that my client can apply to prohibit the second caveat (s.326(3)), the Registrar will not entertain the same thus a lengthy court procedure is required. It is necessary to look at the mischief which the prohibition was meant to get at, perhaps to amend the NLC to be more exhautive and specific in the interest of innocent owners. In another words, subsequent entry must be refused even it is not caught by the prohibition in sec 329(2) upon determination there is an abuse. Therefore not only the Internal Security Act but also outdated or archaic laws like Official Secrets Act, Police Act, University and University Colleges Act, Penal Code, National Land Code, Printing Press and Publication Act, Law Reform (Marriages & Divorce) Act, Emergency (Public Order & Crime Prevention) Ordinance and Dangerous Drugs Act need to be reviewed meaningfully. I wonder what are the other 40 statutes said by the Home Minister required the same review in considering the significance of those I mentioned.

Is DAP above the law?

Perhaps I should put it as ignorant of the law. Being disappointed with the Federal Court decision yesterday, Perak DAP Ngeh Koo Ham who claimed to have 24 years of legal practice said that the political crisis is far from over. He commented “…the decision is a declaration. This in layman’s terms was only an expression of opinion without compulsive force on any parties concerned. So you are expressing an opinion on the legislative assembly while the legislative assembly has very clear rules governing themselves”.

What about the actual meaning of the legal term (instead of layman)? No wonder the term ‘lawyer burok’ exists.

Basically what Ngeh trying to say is: since the Federal Court decision is not in their favour ie suspension was null and void, they are not bound to follow it because it is only a declaratory judgment. Then why litigate in the first place if they consider the court order would be redundant. Anyway to clear the confusion (as lead counsel Hj. Sulaiman is considering whether to file for a review), a declaration or sometimes called as a declaratory judgment/relief is a conclusive and legally binding as to the present and future rights of the parties involved. The declaratory power of the court is particularly important in parliamentary or state legislative proceedings and matters. This is because prerogative remedies and injunctions are unsuitable, and almost certainly unavailable, to control the latter. In addition those rules mentioned by Ngeh are not an Act of Parliament and the Federal Court being the apex court has every rights to exercise its discretion. One need to realise that rules and resolutions are not laws. Therefore, if they are incompatible with the law or purport to alter it, they are of no legal effect, and so the courts have power to declare that this is the situation.

As far as I am concerned there is yet any local case laws of such scenario, thus the decision will set as a precedent.

[An edited version published in the NST dated 20.4.2009]

Tahi Fairus di Pulau Pinang Berbau Wangi

Pada tahun lepas segolongan rakyat Malaysia amat yakin bahawa pemerintahan Pakatan Rakyat akan berbeza seakan dengan kerajaan negeri di bawah naungan Barisan Nasional. Kerajaan Pulau Pinang telahpun menggunakan sistem berdasarkan kucing (CAT). Sehingga kini ramai penyokong masih sanggup mempercayai bahawa segala yang dilakukan oleh PR atau Anwar adalah benar, adil dan bersih. Sebenarnya sentimen sekarang adalah amat beremosi dan tersinggung perasaan; di mana jika wujudnya pemimpin PR berdosa atau melakukan sesuatu jenayah, ia sanggup diterima dan dianggap tidak bersalah. Disebaliknya, apa-apa yang dilakukan oleh pemimpin BN tidak kira betapa suci atau baik akan dihina dan dikutuk secara negatif.

Tidak lama lagi satu pilihanraya kecil akan diadakan di Penanti memandangkan bahawa Fairus telahpun meletak jawatannya sebagai Adun di kawasan tersebut. Alasannya adalah untuk membersihkan nama beliau ke atas segala tohmahan serta melanjutkan pelajaran. Betul ke ni? Sudah ada 2 ijazah Master masih tidak mencukupi?

Pasti betul, bohong pun boleh diterima, itulah persepsi rakyat terutamanya di bandar negeri-negeri PR. Keputusan dibuat tengahari tadi setelah begitu sukar bagi Ketua Menteri Lim Guan Eng memilih timbalannya. Alasan Lim bahawa PR merupakan gabungan yang saling hormat-menghormati, beliau terpaksa menunggu keputusan Anwar Ibrahim. Adakah PKR yang memerintah Pulau Pinang? Adakah Lim benar-benar tidak mengetahui latarbelakang tuduhan tersebut? Cukuplah. Apa yang baik harus digalakkan dan diterima dengan hati yang ikhlas. Segala tuduhan harus dibuktikan dan bukan setakat dihebohkan di dalam internet atau khabar angin. Kepujian kepada prestasi yang baik mesti diimbangkan kepada mana-mana pemimpin tak kira BN atau PR. Kerajaan Najib yang kini cuba berubah atas dasar 1Malaysia dan sistem KPI pun dikutuk, tak habis-habis dengki bukan sahaja terhadap kerajaan BN, malah kesemua institusi-institusi seperti kehakiman, polis dan SPR. Sedemikian tidak akan membawa keuntungan kepada masyarakat; apa yang penting adalah perhatian terhadap pembangunan, kemakmuran dan keamanan negara.

KPI = Kita Perlu Insaf

Knowledge in the Public Interest? Yes, PM and many know that now but are they sincere? As it is, let us move forward and keep cranking, regardless of the criticisms on this new portfolio. Indeed KPIs are essential tools for both monitoring and improving the quality of any organisations or ministries. While the use of performance indicators is now well established in many companies or government departments, the results or services may have lagged behind positive developments. This has been due, partly to the unavailability of suitable data, but more to the lack of consensus, accountability and transparency about how fundamental performance measurement concepts should be applied in our government system. In another word, one may say it is a question of willingness or attitude. Therefore in developing KPI for governmental ministries, it is important to have a team that is well-versed and be equipped with the skills to identify and develop useful KPI. It is my humble opinion such task will be a challenging one in time to come particularly with some leaders already commented that KPI is an administrative matter, thus should not be exposed.

Whatever it is, I hope the desired outcomes of the KPIs can ultimately develop an excellent, efficient and forward looking public service based on the principles of incorruptibility, meritocracy and impartiality. At the end of the day, Malaysia as a vibrant and unique country, with it resources, should be able to promote a knowledge-intensive, innovative, clean, fair and entrepreneurial economy.

ISA: To Review or Repeal?

In the years preceding the end of colonial rule in Malaysia, a communist insurgency arose than agitated for independence more aggressively than other nationalist forces then established in the country. The British colonial authorities responded with Emergency Regulations, the ISA’s precursor, that similarly provided for detention without trial. Subsequently our forefathers retained such practice and enacted the ISA, aimed at suppressing the insurgent militants who continue to mobilize, particularly along the borders. In a post 911 world, once thought principally to reflect Malaysia’s vulnerability to terrorist attacks of the kind suffered in New York (imagine our Petronas twin towers being crashed). Yet, paradoxically, the mere fact of their existence, serves to demonstrate that our country has so far successfully protected against threats of this kind.

The above topic is nothing new; it has been an ongoing concerned issue by many pressure groups, Bar Council, NGOs and international bodies. Recent events add urgency to reconsider the need of the ISA. Our Prime Minister recent release of the 13 detainees on 5 April 2009 and promise to review the law without a specific time frame comes into question. It was also made clear by the PM that abolishing the law will not be a reality yet. Over the last weekend the relevant articles and views are again published by concerned individuals (in Malay Mail: 11.4.2009 entitled ‘Finishing point’ by Malik Imtiaz and in the Star dated 12.4.2009: “Time to repeal the ISA”).

So, should we amend or abolish it? Although many are suspicious and will question everything the government does now, it is important for the people to see that the government’s action can match with their aspiration. There are two schools of thought in assessing the latter. Ultimately it is a question of justification. For simplicity sake, argument for the Act can be seen as a strong method to prevent extremism and terrorism, for the continued peace and stability (especially to avoid another racial riot). The Act provides for legitimate preventive detention during peacetime to enable the authorities to carry out their responsibilities effectively in countering activities prejudicial to national security, economic livelihood and maintenance of essential services. It is to be emphasized that the ISA has the necessary safeguards for legal recourse such as the concept of judicial review, wherein a detainee can apply for writ of habeas corpus. Further the detainee has a right to make representation to an Advisory Board, consistent with Art 151 of the Constitution. Failing this, the detained can appeal to His Majesty the King. Although there had been ridiculous arrests, one must know that ISA is applied only when peace and unity in the country is threatened. Peace and harmony are vital ingredients for the socio-economic development of our country. In another words, action can only been taken against persons who participate in unlawful acts against public order and in subversive activities. For practicality purpose it is not that the government refuses to prosecute an offender under the normal parameters of criminal laws. The very character of covert activities sometimes makes disclosure of intelligence (SB) collected as evidence in an open trial a threat to the sources of intelligence. In cases involving racial and religious extremism, the trial itself would provide the accused with a public forum to inflame communal violence and conflict.

Many of the opposition leaders and NGOs which are not accountable for the safety and welfare of citizens find it convenient to use the ISA to make baseless allegations merely to seek publicity. Similarly many of the government MPs are abusing their power and stirring unnecessary remarks for self agendas. I bet most of the MPs never even read the Act before.

On the other hand, in opposing the Act, many will justifiably state issues of violation of human rights (such as deprivation of civil liberty, freedoms guaranteed under the FC and principles of UDHR), draconian, inhumane, irrelevant in today’s modern society (outdated), abuse and unlawful arrest – arbitrary detention, disappearance and ‘brainwashing’, detention centre awful condition, authoritarian or Mahathirism and abused. More importantly is the government uses it as a tool to deter political freedom and freedom of expression. There are always other laws available such as the Penal Code, Sedition Act etc. The late R.Hickling, who drafted the ISA once wrote, “I could not imagine then that the time would come when the power of detention…would be used against political opponents, welfare workers and others dedicated to non-violent, peaceful activities.”

Last year Gerakan’s president proposed the setting up of a parliamentary select committee on ISA to prevent future abuse, as well as to protect national security. However no other than CM Lim Guan Eng opposed the idea as he prefers to repeal the whole Act. I am strongly against detention without trial indefinitely. Sometimes when we really study the Act, it may not be that bad after all so long as the family is in order, peaceful and united. Sadly many times, it is to suit the police or Home Ministry to gather evidence to make out a case against someone which is unjustifiable. It simply means that they are inefficient and abused their power to deny a human being his right to freedom for no good reasons.

Hopefully our PM really walks his talk and look into this matter constructively as it will touches the life of many Malaysians to have confidence in his pledge and 1Malaysia ideals.

To repeal or not to repeal, that is the question…

[published in the Sun dated 21.4.2009]