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.