The Real Nose Newsreel

Big Picture Time: What Sodomy 2.0 Means for Malaysia

2012-01-10T05:35:00.000-08:00

Well, if there's a reason to emerge from a year-long haitus, this would be it.

Predictably, the airwaves and the blogosphere were on fire with the surprise verdict of Anwar's acquittal in what has become known as Sodomy 2.0. The opposition parties are making as much as they can on the political significance of having their standard bearer fully on at the helm, while the ruling coalition is claiming this as proof of an independent judiciary. Statements by the big guns on both sides occupy the headlines, hiding in their highlights some more thoughtful considerations on the impact not only of the verdict, but on the case. The most intelligent views were arguably - but unsurprisingly - by those on the Bar Council, as reported in the sidelined article 'Court decision part of natural justice'.

The article noted the views of Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee:

Saying Anwar’s prosecution was based on an archaic provision of the Penal Code that criminalises consensual sexual relations between adults, he said the case had “unnecessarily taken up judicial time and public funds”.

In addition, it noted the following:

Human Rights Watch welcomed the acquittal and urged for Malaysia to “revoke its colonial-era law criminalising consensual same-sex relations”.

“Anwar was acquitted on a charge that should have never been brought in the first place,” said its deputy Asia director Phil Robertson.

Perhaps even more so than whether the ruling coalition uses the judiciary in selective prosecution, the larger picture is that we have laws that do not make any sense in this day and age - and some which never made sense at all. And the continual reticence of the final arm of government receiving no media attention at the moment is probably the largest long-term threat: a legislature content to sit on a pile of old school legal weapons.

At least we have some progress with the Internal Security Act, intended for the era of militant communism. But a core issue is that the state of emergency declared in 1947, while effectively over in 1960 to this writer's understanding has yet to be officially lifted, providing the legal cover for draconian measures against activist members of the public.

Following the verdict, Anwar was interviewed by Al-Jazeera and asked whether the verdict showed that there was no conspiracy after all, to which he replied in the negative, citing that it was wrong for unfounded charges to be levied in the first place. This paints the Barisan Nasional's claims of judicial independence along the lines of a bully punching someone, and then saying, "But I didn't kick him!"

And it is an understandable position not only for Anwar but his family, for whom this has been a two-year battle that they had expected would end up one way or another with him losing his freedom. And he was behind those same bars for six years before the original sodomy conviction was overturned. That's not even adding in getting punched by the Inspector General of Police while blindfolded and handcuffed.

But the application of these particular charges served more than simply victimising a political opponent; they allowed a draconian law to remain as a firm weed in Malaysian society by pushing Anwar to not only deny the charges, but describing such behaviour as immoral. It was a political move, countering what was quite possibly an attempt to discredit the Opposition Leader in the eyes of Malaysian Muslims. In that sense, perhaps we might understand his actions.

But Anwar's answer was more along the lines of John McCain responding to a supporter at a rally saying that she would not vote for Obama because he was a Muslim. And while McCain clarified that Obama was not a Muslim, he missed the main point, which was articulated clearly by Colin Powell on Meet the Press, even though he politely placed McCain out of the line of fire:

"I am troubled by - not what Senator McCain says but what members of the party say and it is permitted to be said. Such things as 'Well, you know that Mr Obama is a Moslem.' Well the correct answer is, 'He is not a Moslem; he's a Christian, he's always been a Christian.' But the really right answer is, "What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Moslem in this country?"

It would seem that Malaysia may be a step ahead by having a judiciary that people can at least start to believe in, but it remains far away in providing the really right answers for disenfranchised segments of society.

So, Malaysian Politicians Are Incompetent. Who knew?

2010-12-17T18:11:00.000-08:00

Or as they say here, really-ah?

When WikiLeaks put it out there that Malaysian politicians are "incompetent", there was much brouhaha from the said politicians, naturally, but amongst the actual people of the country the mood was more along the lines of tell-me-something-I-don't-know. Perhaps more revealing was the description of Anwar Ibrahim being set-up for for charges of sodomy, but having walked into it nonetheless. If we ever needed the reminder, here it was: that it's not just that bozos are in power, but bozos of a different stripe who would like to be in power.

If anything, the recent chaos in government underlined how dilute Malaysian politics lie. The ridiculous Speaker called for an oral vote amidst sheer pandemonium, and could somehow still discern that there were more votes in one direction than the other, suggesting either that he's confusing cameras in Parliament for an audition at a B-grade Bollywood flick, or he's got Superman's hearing abilities. The police - under the watchful eye of the government - had the audacity to arrest people marching to the Human Rights Commission, which sort of did the job of the protesters in half the time.

But at the end of the day, the real point has gone missing: so what if the "1 Malaysia" concept was created by the public relations company that made "1 Israel"? To equate a company with the foreign policy of a client is a silly attempt at scoring political points from - if successful - an equally silly public. The result really at the end of the day is not to show that Najib and Co. are on the side of Israel (whatever that means), but to show that we don't have a 1 Malaysia at all, and the real losers at the end of that is the Malaysian people.

Kee Thuan Chye wrote of The Day Malaysia Woke Up. Unfortunately, it looks like it woke up with a bit of a hangover, and it'll take some time for it to get sober.

From Hero to Zero: Someone knows the cameras are running

2010-06-06T04:14:00.000-07:00

As a rule of thumb, I think that anyone who says that they aren't really heroes are none-too-subtly hoping that they'll appear both heroic and modest. When in actual fact they are neither. Especially the ones where the first time you heard anyone calling them heroes is themselves saying that they're not really heroes.

Take for example, the Malaysian delegation of people who decided that they had extra time on their hands to get involved in the boat ride to Palestine:

Now, after the bla bla for the first four minutes or so, he finally gets to the I'm not really a hero bit. After which he calls out his fellow team-mates and talks about how, well, heroic they are. It doesn't take a semiologist to see that the message is here are these brave people, and I'm their leader.

I realize of course that international opinion is that the Israelis at best overreacted to the situation, and in the end there's unlikely ever to be a real agreement over who was right or wrong in 1967, and for that matter who is right or wrong today. I remember sometime back reading that usually everyone's at least somewhat at fault - otherwise arguments wouldn't last as long as they do.

My argument about the matter is that the people most vocal about these matters either:
1. Don't know anything more than what they choose to read
(like some dumbasses in Western-world protests)
2. Have vested interests unrelated to what's right or wrong in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
(like the Jewish-based interests forming the basis of the US support)
3. Are bound by a religious connection that has an equal amount (i.e. zero) of relationship to what's right or wrong in the Middle East.
(Muslim communities in Malaysia being the current example)

On the last point, all you have to do is have a look at Dr Mahathir's posting on the subject (link here). He mentions that "Incidentally, the Rachel Corrie is named after a brave 23 year old American girl who stood in front of a bulldozer which was about to destroy a Palestinian house. The Israeli operator of the bulldozer simply ran over her and killed her." Heart-wrenching, right? That is, until you don't take Dr Mahathir at face value and do the most basic of background reading (link here).

However all these very complicated strands of self-interests and self-delusions play out, I can't see why Malaysians decided to promote their kaypohness to land up on a boat asking for trouble. At the end of the day you've got these people who firmly believe that Israelis are international terrorists, but if Hamas flings a bomb over the border and blows up Israeli children, then that's just self protection.

Which is a rather shaky position. The responsible thing for anyone to do before going before a camera, or on a boat, is to ask yourself whether you're impartial enough to open your mouth - and secretly pat yourself on the back. For now though, you say you're not a hero, and I'll readily take your word for it.

Mean What You Say

2010-03-24T02:54:00.000-07:00

You may not say what you mean, but darn it, mean what you say!

Politics is politics, and oftentimes the guy in the limelight with a dozen microphones in his face can't always say exactly what he thinks... unless you're Joe Biden and throw the consequences to the wind. But for all our sakes, if you're going to say something, but better know what you're saying.

Republican Senator Jon Kyl should have thought twice about using poll numbers by CNN... when talking to CNN. Especially when it's Wolf Blitzer on the other side of the line. When you use poll numbers as the basis for your argument, you sign up to having poll numbers used as the same qualifying criterion.

And when someone calls you out on this, you can't just say now you don't believe the numbers. At the end of the day, everyone has to play by the rules - at the very least the rules you yourself make up.

Who's God - or Whose God?

2010-01-03T05:29:00.001-08:00

Roaring into 2010 is the case of the use of "Allah" by Catholics in their weekly publication, The Herald, putting the issues of religion front and centre.

Most cultures find problems when they face irreconcilable differences. In the spirit of Malaysia Boleh, we have shown that we can find problems when faced with irreconcilable similarities.

The main question is framed as: why the change to use "Allah" instead of "Tuhan"? This is a relevant enough question - and the historical approach employed by the church in its stance that won the case in the High Court is that its usage dates back to the early 1800s. An example is shown here in a Malay Bible from 1818. The usage in The Herald's Malay section caters primarily for those from East Malaysia, for whom the usage of "Tuhan" instead would be the change - not the other way around.

That being said, the similarities are obvious - at some point in history the two religions shared something in common. That's something to be celebrated and it is either that there are few who recognize it, or few who are brave enough to embrace it. A surprise it was then that it is a member of PAS who has risen to the challenge, as quoted by the Malaysian Insider:

"To me, I see this as an opportunity to bring all of us closer together despite our religious differences and submit to the God Almighty. We all believe in God and we call God Allah. There is most certainly plurality in Islam. Islam accepts and recognises the fact that there are different religions out there in the world. Even though all these religions may not be united, we all believe we worship God Almighty." - Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad.

In the end we're talking about ownership of a word - does any religion "own" exclusive terminology? And how do we determine who owns what? Because if we really go down this path, it's likely Christians and Muslims would face a stiff challenge from the much older religion of Judaism. The issue of ownership itself, is however, crucial - when you own something, it's not free for use, and that's where freedom of religion comes in. Beyond just one word is the issue of whether people get to practice their beliefs in the way that they believe, and whether the use of "Allah" in Christianity threatens or changes Islam. One could argue it does not, just as the use of Nabi Isa does not affect Yesus Kristus - are they competing for a definition of who's God, or is the question rather whose God are you referring to?

In the end though, it is likely this matter of "confusion" amongst rural Muslims, which seems to a side issue but is the crux of the problem. It seems somehow more probable that the use a term so recognizably part of Islam would send Catholics away - not the other way around. If it is simply a question of seeing a threat where none exists, Marina Mahathir put it succinctly in that Confident People Do Not Get Confused.

It seems hinted by some politicians, however, that it is not the question whether people would get confused... but whether there is an active move to convert and confuse Muslims simply by using the word "Allah". If this really is the problem, then opponents should bring it up honestly as the issue that it is, and prove in a court of law that the Church is going about spreading its religion dishonestly. If not, then one should hold one's peace and go in peace.

That being said, one can understand that there is a suspicion simply because it seems like a new issue when discussed on the Peninsula. The Church's position, again, is that the Malay section of its publication is geared towards the large number of Catholics that live in East Malaysia, for whom it is matter of maintaining a tradition and continuing one's way of practicing their religion. The position of various opponents, most obviously the political ones, is that there is something else up the Church's sleeves.

The question that faces all Malaysians is whether we trust each other despite our differences - and similarities - of religion.

Malaysian unity and the image of our country in the eyes of the world in the end lies in whether we can take that leap of faith.

The Election Commision's Wearing the Emperor's New Clothes

2009-11-23T08:02:00.000-08:00

Photo credit: Shirley Hughes, Cambridge Book & Print Gallery.

There's a certain level of idiocy when one looks at something black and says it's white. Then there's an additional level of incredulity when one really expects everyone to swallow it whole. It brings to mind the story of the Emperor's New Clothes, except here, the emperor's not just strutting in the nude, he's trying to sell his fashion line as well.

First of all you have this Datuk Abdul Hasan Sarif, a Kedah assemblyman, who couldn't be bothered showing up for the state assembly. You're called an assemblyman - the job is to go to the assembly!

And then, on the grounds that it cost too much, the Election Commission tries, and fails, to not hold an election. You're called an election commission - the job is to commission elections!

Beyond the obvious contradictions, the real crime here is having a public institution like the Election Commission fight for a specific party, when the highest call of its duty is to be an impartial body. In a country with too many who are too jaded, or too willing to sit and back and watch, one won't hear a strong enough chorus for the resignation of the EC's clearly biased officials. Officials, who in a more robust society, in a more robust time, would be tarred and feathered by now.

Amidst all this though, some small reasons for hope. First, the high court judge who had the sense not only to rule without fear nor favour. Second, last year's elections, which showed that while some might not ride to the front lines, they don't exactly have as short memories as they used to.

In neighbouring Perak, the strategy seems to be to keep these memories refreshed. With the Election Commission's New Clothes coming after us, another reminder to keep our eyes truly open for those who would commit daylight robbery.

Too Late to Exhume Reputations of Local Pathologists

2009-10-22T00:10:00.000-07:00

Respected pathologist Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand, director-general of Thailand’s Ministry of Justices Central Institute of Forensic Science, provided medical confirmation to what seems to be in the arena of common sense to many Malaysians: that Teoh Beng Hock's death was most likely murder.

And all she had to work with were pictures reports of our local pathologists, which was enough to put a nail in the coffin of their professional reputations. The Star's report mentioned that "She added that there was a need to cut open the skin to check for internal bleeding to determine whether Teoh had been tortured. (Both the pathologists who had conducted the postmortem on Teoh had not done so.)"

The Malaysian Insider report included a further contradiction:

"She rejected the idea that the anus was penetrated by a bone fragment, which had been put forward by local pathologist, Dr Khairul Aznam Ibrahim from the Hospital Tengku Rahimah Ampuan in Klang. She reasoned that if that had happened, the force would have punctured the area opposite its entry and not as what was shown in the autopsy photos taken."

The two local pathologists - Dr Khairul and Dr Prashant Samberkar of the Universiti Malaya Medical Centre - failed likewise on the level of medicine and common sense. Medically by coming to conclusions without any reasonable basis and having an incomplete autopsy, and not having the common sense to know that it would be only a matter of time before a real expert would be well able to point out the inaccuracies.

With the possibility of a second post-mortem in the air, they may be in for a second round of shame. The credibility of these pathologists, who seemed too eager to take away any possibility of MACC responsibility, seemed to smell from the start. It seems that even now, their reputations will be far too late to exhume.

From King-Makers to King-Takers: The Chaos Theory of the MCA

2009-10-11T00:41:00.000-07:00

The Malaysian Insider was quick to call the situation in the MCA as being "chaos" while the MCA-owned Star was not surprisingly more cautious, calling the situation that of "uncertainty". One thing is certain though, that is that there is a strange thread of logic in any bit of chaos.

To see how this works we need to recap the election results. From the Star:

The resolutions

1) Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek That the members of the general assembly have no confidence in the leadership of Ong
ADOPT: 1155 REJECT: 1141 SPOILT: 8

2) That the presidential council’s decision on Aug 26 in accepting the recommendation of the disciplinary board and the subsequent decision of the central committee (if any) to expel or suspend Dr Chua is annulled
ADOPT: 1204 REJECT: 1095 SPOILT: 5

3) That Dr Chua be rightfully restored as MCA deputy president
ADOPT: 1110 REJECT: 1184 SPOILT: 10

In summing up the results, the Malaysian Insider said that:

"In the process, MCA’s delegates rejected the leadership of both Datuk Seri Ong and deputy president Chua Soi Lek.

With both the No. 1 and No. 2 men sidelined, the MCA will have no figure of authority in charge for the first time in its 60-year history, and the results pleased nobody."

Well, that's not entirely accurate - while it certainly is true that neither the Ong Tee Keat and Chua Soi Lek camps were given a victory, a particularly small number of central delegates who snubbed both had their way. And when other elections may have their king-makers, here we have instead king-takers.

Perhaps the EGM showed a kind of democracy that few other elections, whether in Malaysia or abroad have - the kind that not only allows people to support a candidate, but to vote against a candidate without having to support his opponent.

So how indeed do the numbers play out? It is hard to say for sure the voters' intentions, but here are two ways one can look at it.

1. Obviously each camp has its core supporters. Let's take Chua Soi Lek - with 1155 people voting against his nemesis, 1204 to annul the disciplinary action against him, and 1110 to reinstate him as deputy president.

Analysis:

there were 1110 delegates who voted for him on all counts - core supporters
45 delegates who did not care to support him at all but did not think Ong Tee Keat acted well either
94 delegates who thought the disciplinary action against him was too much but who did not support him as deputy president. Out of these, 49 candidates chided Ong Tee Keat for his overbearing actions, but didn't think it enough to kick him out.

2. On the other hand, Ong Tee Keat had 1141 supporting his continuation as president, 1095 supporting his actions against his deputy, and 1184 against his archrival.

Analysis:

1095 delegates supported him fully, supporting him on all counts, including his actions against Chua Soi Lek
46 continued to support his presidency, though they used the occasion to overturn the particular actions against his deputy
89 delegates voted against Chua Soi Lek - but also did not support Ong Tee Keat.

So, we have between 45 to 89 delegates out of over two thousand whose double punch ruled the day... and who have proven why my lack of ability to make the numbers tally is a reminder that I would never have done well as an accountant.

At the end of the day, however, it is perhaps not these numbers but a variation of the old Malay adage that describes it best: gajah sama gajah berjuang, pelanduk tembak dari tengah-tengah.

Lagu Kampung Buah Pala

2009-09-02T23:23:00.000-07:00

Sung to the tune of "Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur".

Janganlah tamak Kampung Buah Pala
Cari masalah... don't push your luck lah.
Janganlah tamak Kampung Buah Pala
Ini bukan cara Satu Malaysia.

Sudah lama dah pergi ke ma-kah-mah
Hakim kata, pergi sajalalah
Anda cabar dengan guna tahi lembu
Apa ini? Cadangan Samy Vellu?

Janganlah tamak Kampung Buah Pala
Cari masalah... don't push your luck lah.
Saya tahu kau punya grouse
Tapi saya pun tak milik double storey house.

The Cost of a Flighty Ong Tee Keat

2009-08-14T22:55:00.000-07:00

The costs of four flights made by Ong Tee Keat could buy you - at the very least - twenty-one trips around the world.

In The Malaysian Insider's article entitled KDSB calls Tee Keat a 'freeloader' with their jets:

"Asked about the costs to make a trip on a private jet, Faizal replied that it was between RM10,500 to RM17,500 per hour, excluding landing charges and crew allowances.

He estimated that the total cost for the four trips made by Ong amounted to between RM105,000 and RM140,000.

He also confirmed that there were other politicians, including from MCA, who had used Wijaya Baru jets but stressed that Ong was the only one who had not paid."

A round-trip flight to the United States - halfway around the world, and back - costs less than RM4,000 if you know how to book your tickets. Even at the higher estimate of RM5K - and not taking into account frequent flyer miles - and the lowest estimate of Ong's flight costs, that's 21 times around the globe. If he can afford that out of his own pocket, I'd ask how he got that wealthy. If he's (literally) passing the buck, well, I'd ask if the definition of Transport Minister means that he costs the most to transport.

Readers of this blog may have noticed that I've been rather critical of Penang's new chief minister Lim Guan Eng in issues of Kampung Buah Pala and Lee Kuan Yew... nonetheless, one can't help but draw a particular comparison...

...when one remembers he flys commercial, economy-class.

Do You Know How to Squeeze a Little Buah Pala Juice?

2009-08-10T22:38:00.000-07:00

Well, it does seem that some people know how to squeeze a watermelon out of a nutmeg.

Alright, let's get some misconceptions sorted out. These aren't exactly the hardcore poor we're talking about, no matter what their bullock-cart protests may imply. Anyone able to keep an official website isn't doing that badly, methinks.

And a quick look at their Facebook group has this as their description:

"The village is on the Penang Island and as a heritage village, it is almost 200 years old.

In mid-2008, George Town was awarded by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site. But the irony is that developers Nusmetro Ventures (P) Sdn Bhd want to destroy Kampung Buah Pala, and rob the Island of its beautiful heritage and culture!"

A "heritage village"? What the heck? Did UNESCO come to tour Kampung Buah Pala? I can hear them going: we were just going to award Malacca, but when we saw Kampung Buah Pala we knew we had to add in Penang... the stunning architecture reminiscent of... um, well, the bullock! Oh yes, we like to award places which are really full of bull.

And did either the previous or current state governments list Kampung Buah Pala on the list of things tourists should visit? Are we taking sufficient steps by both the State Exco for Culture as well as Tourism Malaysia to make sure that everyone knows that a visit to Penang's cultural sites is never complete without a visit to Kampung Buah Pala? Hellllllllllo???

To imply that the developer wants to "rob the Island of its beautiful heritage and culture"... come on. It's a developer. Like all developers, it wants to make a profit, plain and simple.

Was there a land scam? Maybe yes, maybe no, and it's a valid question. But one which is by far unassociated to the fact these so-called victims never owned the land on which they resided, and should be grateful that they received free space for all the two hundred years they claim to have been there. As we near Merdeka Day, it is rather shameful that the ingenuity of Malaysians is showing how we turn a land scam into a bigger land scam.

The only squatters' rights, in this author's opinion, is the one you get when you go to the loo - two hundred years ago to today: a heritage squat, you might say.

The Perfect Anti-ISA Protest Idea

2009-07-21T11:03:00.000-07:00

Though it wasn't originally for that purpose, I can't think of a better way of organizing a protest... the anti-ISA people should keep it in mind. First of all, it's a little harder to arrest people as a group (Malaysia not having the freedom to congregate) if they're all 1) individually 2) doing nothing. Second, by the time the cops arrive, they've all blended into the public. All they need is a slogan, like "We stop so they will. ISA: it halts our way of life."

From Kuan Yew... to Kiasu

2009-06-17T08:24:00.000-07:00

When the dust clears, one has to wonder, to whom indeed is Lee Kuan Yew the mentor of, like the wise old guru on the top of some sacred hill. In recent days, that hill is Penang Hill. The former Singaporean Prime Minister, on a lightning tour of Peninsula Malaysia, provides a negative comment on the development level of Penang, and all hell breaks loose.

As James Chin wrote, "His comments about crumbling infrastructure in Penang compared to Ipoh sparked off a war of words between DAP and Gerakan over who is responsible for Penang’s decay. Why do Malaysians take his words, in this case just a side remark, so seriously?"

Answering his own question, he continued, "I suspect the reason why Malaysians, especially the Chinese press, take his comments so seriously is in part based on historical sentiment, and another part based on Singapore’s economic performance."

The real question, in my opinion, is the rhetorical one: why do we need his approval? Mahathir may have been snide in calling him "The Little Emperor", but as least he was more supportive of his own country than the likes of the DAP and Gerakan, who seem like bickering children hungry for a smile from Grandfather Lee.

Food for thought is also if Penangites would really want to rub a magic lamp and have a Minister Genie transform the island into Singapore? The modern infrastructure will no doubt be useful, not to mention real social development with meritocracy at its core. But everything comes with opportunity cost and suddenly the focus will be your personal infrastructure when Penangites will have to work longer and harder to own their own houses. Houses, you say? Think again.

Essentially what people like our current and former chief ministers have done is paint a poor picture of Penang and its people as not having enough faith in, and pride in, the uniqueness of our state... warts and all.

Ultimately we're having a guest, not an auditor, and the proper response to Lee Kuan Yew is: sorry sir, in this country we learn that the first lesson of being a good guest is to not insult our hosts. And that, perhaps, sets us apart a little more than infrastructure ever will.

Courting Trouble Fast, by Appealing for Common Sense

2009-05-26T10:28:00.000-07:00

When faced with criticisms both within and beyond, the Malaysian government has always been quick to respond that proof of democracy here is that we hold free elections. When someone from the United States once pointed out that by that yardstick even Hitler had elections, there was a great hue and cry that Malaysia's sovereignty was insulted when the Nazi dictator and this country were uttered "in the same breath".

Even by the government's shallow breadth of democracy, the state of Perak falls rather short, with calls for a new mandate falling on deaf ears. Even Mahathir has mentioned that elections would see BN losing - in essence admitting that while the courts may be in their corner, and perhaps even a legislative vote of no confidence with the aid of self-serving frogs, the confidence of the people of Perak is a different story entirely.

Zambry is of course trying to maximize the decision of the Appellate Court as much as he was trying to minimize (with record breaking judicial speeds from a stay to a hearing to a decision) the judgment of the High Court. Once again, however, he has fallen on his own sword, a victim of sad irony. First, there was his little statement comparing himself to Gandhi - while the Pakatan Rakyat face the police when they try a simple fast. There were the calls from BN leaders asking the PR people to respect and accept the new court decision - contrasted to the previous decision when Najib said he would "solve the problem."

And now, a very large foot in a very large mouth appears for Zambry - as the Malaysian Insider reports:

"The people should not be fearful or apprehensive in bringing up problems related to illegal settlement and land to the state government, said Perak Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir."

By risking mentioning the obvious, how about the illegal settlement OF the state government?

Or at least, in the next breath, an immoral one?

A Page Turns in Perak and Najib Tries to "Solve the Problem"

2009-05-11T07:56:00.000-07:00

It really shouldn't be such a surprise that the system of justice in our country affirmed what the fair-minded already know to be true. But the concept of due process, of checks and balances has been so usurped, so tainted with scandal that many did not have the faith that there would be a fair day in court. The Malaysian Insider reported that even Nizar, who never gave up in the face of adversity, was stunned by the decision. So yes, this is a moment for celebration for the truly democratic. But in the much larger picture, it is a time for us to work towards a day when courting true justice is not a gamble, but a guarantee.

The Barisan's Options

It seems, however, that the Barisan Nasional is not ready to throw in the towel. It has two major options, and it is likely it will travel both paths simultaneously.

One is to challenge the High Court decision, and place a request to stay its execution pending appeal. The Barisan-linked mainstream media has been quick to place this right next to Nizar's victory, with UMNO-connected TV3 unbelievably making the headline news Najib's assertion that the BN has a solid case for appeal, instead of the actual court decision.

The other option comes back to the Perak monarchy, which in the absence of Sultan Azlan Shah away in the United States places Raja Nazrin, the Regent, in the limelight. Early Tuesday morning he will grant an audience to the rightful MB, and if he does not consent to a dissolution of the state assembly he could instead instruct a sitting of the assembly to table a vote of no-confidence against Nizar. On a legally technical level, Zambry would then be legitimized as the new MB.

The Pakatan's Options

The Pakatan Rakyat has several options in its favour as well. At this point, the royal household has a chance to regain some trust of the people, and more importantly restore rule of law in the state. Should the Regent chose to call for a sitting instead of a dissolution, the argument could be put forward that the sitting under the Tree of Democracy is now considered valid. This would also imply that the decision of the state assembly to dissolve was valid, and it is purely awaiting an already much-delayed execution.

Second, is that not only has Nizar defeated Zambry in a court of law - but Sivakumar is the rightful Speaker of the House, not Ganesan. Further, the decision also affirms the rasionale for suspending Zambry and his "Exco", since the judge declared the process of taking over the Perak government undemocratic. Without those barred from the assembly, the Barisan cannot claim a majority.

Even if the Barisan somehow claim a majority supporting a vote of no confidence, it is hard to imagine Zambry gaining the trust of the public after being essentially declared by the High Court as an illegitimate MB.

Quotes of the Day

Najib: “We will solve the problem.”

Ironically, the only way to "solve" the problem is to DISsolve the assembly.

A rather long, but worthwhile read by the young John Lee, including this comparitive account of history:

In the 17th century, England was ruled by King Charles I — a firm believer in the principle that might makes right, and that the executive reigns supreme. Parliament increasingly refused to go along with his oppressive taxes and repressive policies.

Infuriated, Charles led a band of armed men to Parliament to arrest his opponents, violently entering the House of Commons.

Finding that the MPs had fled, the King displaced Speaker William Lenthall from his chair, and demanded to know where they had gone.

Lenthall’s words, much like former Perak MB Nizar Jamaluddin’s “Patik mohon derhaka,” have gone down in history as a brave defence of the right of elected legislatures to deliberate in peace, without heed for the executive’s wishes: “May it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here.”

But first prize goes to the Star Online, for - probably inadvertantly - letting a snide side remark getting posted on one of the sub-headings:

Somehow it brings to mind the ancient Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times."

That we do, indeed.

Perak Aftermath: In Some Circles They Would Call This Talking Out of Your...

2009-05-08T05:43:00.000-07:00

...well, I'll leave that to your imagination. Let's just say Christina Aguilera would have an inkling.

If you thought that it was something to see the gall in trying to legitimize a BN-run Perak government, all you had to to was wait a day to hear the pathetic excuses for their actions.

The Malaysian Insider noted Zambry's comments:

Zambry agreed the police were not supposed to be in the chambers but added the BN-elected speaker Datuk R Ganesan had the power under the standing orders to call in the police.
“Ganesan had no choice but to ask the police to help control the dewan. Let the people decide on the actions of the Pakatan assemblymen today,” said Zambry.

Whoever works as Zambry's PR guy could best advise the purported Mentri Besar to leave out the words "let the people decide" out of his speeches. For that is exactly what he is preventing.

The next case of foot-in-mouth came from Hee Yit Foong, who said of her former DAP colleagues: "Hati mereka ada hantu." Never mind that every kid in every school who hears this will laugh their heads off. And add it to their toilet grafitti.

And then the PM decides to open up another can of worms in today's Malaysian Insider:

Speaking to reporters today, Najib, who is also Umno president, brushed aside PR claims that the takeover in Perak was unconstitutional.
He cited Winston Churchill, the former British prime minister, as an example of a politician who had changed parties.

Churchill you say? The words of Churchill himself are the best rebuttal of our Prime Minister:

"He is one of those orators of whom it was well said, 'Before they get up, they do not know what they are are going to say; when they are speaking, they do not know what they are saying; and when they have sat down, they do not know what they have said.'" ~ Winston Churchill.

Fashion Police

2009-05-06T22:47:00.000-07:00

When it comes whatever extent of a democracy Malaysia has, one thing is certain - we like to keep things literal. When it came to throwing the book, Karpal Singh famously took it one step further in Parliament by throwing his shoe. When it came to branches of government, the legitimate Perak government took it one step further by turning to the Tree of Democracy. And now police have arrested Wong Chin Huat for sedition for suggesting that people wear black today in protest of the Barisan Nasional's hostile takeover of the Perak government - bringing a special new stench to the words "fashion police." Plus, the undemocratic nature of Barisan Nasional's "power-grab" is certified with the physical removal of Perak Speaker Sivakumar from his seat.

Photo sourced from Lim Kit Siang, showing the forced removal of Sivakumar

Ultimately, people will remember the words of people like Najib and Muhiyiddin falsely accusing the Pakatan Rakyat of forcing unnecessary by-elections (which in itself makes no sense), when in Perak these very politicians are doing their best to avoid what is a necessary state-wide election.

All this while Dr Mahathir maintains his classic independent streak (despite all the show of solidarity at the UMNO General Assembly) by commenting again on the validity of the removal of Perak Mentri Besar Nizar:

As far as I know, the federal constitution states very clearly that a monarch cannot remove a prime minister. He can refuse to appoint a prime minister, but once appointed you cannot remove him until there's a vote of no-confidence made against him. - Dr Mahathir, as reported by mysinchew

Once upon a time, Malaysia received a black eye in international standing when more literally Anwar Ibrahim received a black eye while in police custody, hit - while handcuffed - by none other than the top man in the police force. Today, the police have decided to give themselves a black eye, going against not the power of black shirts, but the strength of ideals and ideas of conscience, due process and the true quality of one's democracy.

Perhaps even more importantly, they have failed to protect the people of Perak - including their democratically elected Speaker - from those who would usurp their right to decide.

Dollars and Sense

2009-04-18T06:00:00.000-07:00

As the Malaysian expression goes: so clever. Najib has actually found a way to attack his opponents before the Penanti by-election is announced - by saying that by-elections cost money. As the Star reported Najib as saying:

"It is different if an elected representative dies but resignations are political decisions which can also be regarded as a political ploy," he said.

Now, if this had been in regards to the Permatang Pauh by-election I would see the logic in that. (Though Anwar could of course put forward the argument that he should have been eligible in March 2008 to begin with.) But that was months ago... and it would take a true dumbass to believe that Fairus or PKR is engineering a political ploy, for the whole issue is not doing the Pakatan Rakyat any favours.

Speaking at a press conference... he said the people resent by-elections that were held deliberately.

If the people truly do resent these by-elections, apparently they resent the Barisan Nasional even more, with the Bukit Selambau and Permatang Pauh by-elections showing a larger majority for the Pakatan Rakyat victory.

Also in the Star:

When asked if Mohammad Fairus had betrayed his constituents with his resignation, he said it was up to the people to judge was had transpired.

"The people are smart now and can make up their own minds," he added.

Well, the people of Kuala Terengganu, Bukit Gantang, Bukit Selambau and Permatang Pauh certainly made up their own minds. And smart they were.

If one would like to save up some money from by-elections, I suspect that those who were sprayed with water from the police could suggest ways to be more efficient with costs.

At the end of the day this smacks of a smokescreen, diverting our attention from what is truly important: that while by-elections may be costly in currency, the denial of people's right to choose in the cases of three Perak party-hoppers is far more costly to our democracy.

*April 19 update: ...or a smokescreen for not fielding a candidate towards certain defeat!

One Malaysian's One Track Mind

2009-04-15T08:50:00.000-07:00

The Malaysian Insider reported on new PM Najib's explanation of his "One Malaysia" concept.

And it seems that Samy Vellu's little tantrum on not getting his minister's post back has not gone unnoticed:

“The MIC should have been thankful to the government for freeing the 13 and not only focus on the two Hindraf members released.

“If we freed two Hindraf members, don’t forget there were 11 others. Don’t think about Hindraf alone,” he said.

Wait a second. The MIC should be thankful to the government? Isn't the MIC, as part of the Barisan Nasional, part of the government? So - in other words, the One Malaysia concept is about dividing the ruling coalition and telling which factions should be more greatful? Hmm...

Not surprisingly, between the lines, a One Malaysia promoted by these folks end up being Umno-centric:

He said under the One Malaysia concept, if it concerned poverty eradication, it should encompass all races irrespective of whether they were from urban or rural areas, estates, new villages or aboriginal settlements.

“It (One Malaysia) does not mean the policy to help the bumiputras is sidelined, in fact it will give implementation of the policy greater impetus so as to ensure that eligible bumiputras get their due consideration,” he said.

Further impetus - on a programme that takes out certain Malaysians and considers them as "special" compared to the rest. If that is Najib's concept of a One Malaysia, then it's clear which Ones he has in mind.

Spin, spin, spin!

2009-04-08T01:02:00.000-07:00

It was, to say the least, a tough spin. Bernama TV had guest panelists who were quick to say that the BN's defeat at the hands of Mohd. Nizar Jamaluddin was not reflective of the overall sentiment of Perak. They transfered their broadcast to Muhyiddin Yassin's press conference - right until the very moment a reporter asked if the BN loss was due to (now contested) Perak government takeover.

Extrapolating results apparently is not possible when the BN loses... but it's a different case when the BN wins. The New Straits Times website put the Batang Ai win by BN as showing that there was "no room for PKR" in Sarawak. If this were the case, wouldn't it just as easily show that the Perak win was a referendum on Najib's engineered Perak party-hopping coup?

Bernama TV even had a caller who voiced his opinion that the reason for the BN loss in Perak was not because the BN wasn't strong but the people didn't know how to "use their wisdom". And the favoured phrase seems to be that Nizar obtained "sympathy votes". Which, instead of indicating the sentiments of the people, is used to paint the voters as irrationally emotional. Somehow I doubt that will go down well the next time these same voters go back to the ballot box.

Let's recap the things the BN fellas - whether rightly or shadily - had running for them:

The elections were held on a day that conveniently avoided the UMNO elections - and provided a boost media-wise for the party event (not to mention the Hindraf ISA releases soon after)
The elections were held on the same day - helpful for the larger BN machinery
The PR people were slapped with a ban on discussing certain issues - including the Altantunya court case
Dr Mahathir's return to the fold and to the campaign trail

And that's not even taking into account the regular advantages of "instant noodle" development and media coverage. So far since the "political tsunami" one year ago (and many BN "post-mortem"s to boot) the score is PR:4 to BN:1.

At the end of all this, what is the BN response?

"Maybe the people are undecided, so we will have to work harder to convince them."
- newly minted Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin.

This, immediately following the by-election results with a high voter turnout and leading majorities for both PR wins - showing exactly how confidently the people had decided.

Like I said, for the Barisan it was a tough spin. And even a harder sell.

The Irony, Oh The Irony

2009-03-22T01:23:00.000-07:00

Muhyiddin Yassin, the UMNO veep with his eyes on the deputy president's post, has apparently decided to show how good he'd be as a bulldog No. 2. In The Star today, his comments on the resignation of Penang Deputy CM Mohammad Fairus Khairuddin:

“The crisis shows a shaky government and proves they are incapable. They wanted to hide it at first, but now it has become a crisis,” he said.

I get a feeling that he thinks that Ali Rustam's ungraceful exit from the upcoming UMNO elections makes him seem like the cleaner candidate. But he is forgetting the larger picture that Ali Rustam is still in the same party, a party that decided to retain him as Chief Minister of Melacca - a position higher than that of Fairus.

To add to add, Ali has been found guilty of money politics, when at worst Fairus has been accused of being a poor performer. In the mangled words of media today, I believe readers wil agrees that I just "rubbished" Muhyiddin's assertions.

Irony works both ways though, as this article shows that the vandalism of the Democracy Plaque has turned in the Pakatan's favour.

Prosecution Asks Court to Shoot Legal Profession in the Foot

2009-03-17T23:20:00.000-07:00

There's a disturbing trend for trying to lock up people who, in all respects, are doing their jobs.

First, there was the case of the Sin Chew reporter who published the racist remarks uttered by Ahmad Ismail. She ended up under the ISA, a move so politically disastrous that the Home Minister had to backtrack, saying that it was for her own protection. Ahmad Ismail on the other hand got a slap on the wrist, and was welcomed as a hero in his own UMNO branch, indicating the apparent UMNO philosophy that calling fellow citizens “penumpang” is really something you should just say a little quieter.

Now this with Karpal Singh, being charged under the Sedition Act for recommending a avenue of appeal is entirely legal. Here’s news to the powers-that-be: he’s a lawyer, and he was talking about the law. To top it off, he’s not talking about a technicality or a hypothetical case – he’s actually filed suits against royalty before. Not to mention that the law was actually put in place by UMNO’s former president, and signed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong of the day.

Now the court has a rather distasteful matter in front of it. The prosecution, has already shot the legal profession in one foot, and is asking the court to finish the job of judicial suicide. They are being asked, in the home of the system of justice in our country designed to enforce the law of the land, to convict a person for speaking about what that law actually is all about.

If the Malaysian public can’t see the extent of idiocy in this act of lunacy, then the courts don’t have much left to shoot.

Homing in on the 'Even More' Unintelligent

2009-03-14T07:30:00.000-07:00

In the article in today's Star, 'Teresa Kok files suit over detention under ISA', Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar is quoted as saying:

"I have faced many legal suits before. I will carry out my duty even more diligently despite the suit."
~ Syed Hamid Albar

Even more diligently? The way I see it, this has one of the following implications:

1. That before he was sued, he was well, somewhat less diligent.

2. Whenever the Home Minister faces a legal suit, it has the tendency to hinder his diligence.

3. If the suit was not filed, the Home Minister would carry out his duties less diligently.

In the meantime, Najib's wife, commenting on the DPM's soon-to-be promotion, is apparently hearing the voice of the Almighty:

"If God says it is his turn, it is his turn." ~ Rosmah Mansor

That, I must say, is a new one. After all in politics, it's more often "the Devil made me do it".

What’s In Your Handphone?

2009-03-01T20:04:00.000-08:00

Here’s a radical thought: invest not in your government. In any government. Vote for the ones you think best serve the people, the ideals, the rights, the equality upon which democracy rests, all this to be sure. But place your real investments, your rallies, your vigils, your microscope on those institutions which are intended to keep your government in check.

Your courts.

Your media. Including the computer screen in front of you.

Your election commission.

Your police.

Your anti-corruption agency, in whatever name it brands itself tomorrow.

Governments will come and go, and some will be better than others, but these, these are the barometers of democracy. These are what define our democracy, and be it the truth that I believe it is, our report card isn’t too flashy.

The mainstream media brands the man who stands up to protect his wheelchair-bound father from street thugs akin to one convicted of road rage. The Election Commission places by-elections in a place particularly convenient for the Umno elections. The riot police charge peaceful demonstrations – including one in the middle of singing the national anthem.

And the anti-corruption agency? The Star reports on the chief commisioner of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission:

“Ahmad Said has been attacked in blogs and via e-mail over the issue of his son bringing child pornographic material into Australia. His son, a pilot, pleaded guilty and paid a fine for the offence.

Ahmad Said vehemently denied that it was child pornography. He said that the titles of the video clips found in his son’s laptop computer were misleading.

‘I can bet with you that it’s something that you will find on most men’s handphones,’ he said.”

Now it is true that his son’s actions need not reflect on the Ahmad Said as the chief commissioner. What it reflect is he as a father.

What does reflect badly on him as chief commissioner is that he supports his son pleading guilty to a crime that according to him is “misleading”. Mind me asking, since it is apparently not child pornography, what else it could be that one would risk one’s reputation pleading guilty to child pornography? Who are these ‘most men’ that Ahmad Said knows, and here’s the obvious: is he himself one of them?

Is it any wonder that there is public scepticism. To which he replies: “This is an issue of perception. We will prove our consistency by our actions.”

In the challenge of Ahmad Said: I’ll bet.

Barbarians at the Gate

2009-02-26T19:49:00.000-08:00

Umno Youth members block wheelchair-bound Member of Parliament Karpal Singh in the Parliament compound. Karpal's son as well as other MPs come to his defence, including Lim Lip Eng and Fong Po Kuan. The Star reported:

"Lim's tie and coat had been pulled by the men in full view of Parliament security.

During the commotion, Fong shouted: 'Where is security? Where is security?' and a reply was heard: 'We only jaga (look after) inside (Parliament), not outside.'"

Apparently, the partial Parliament security take good care to jaga who butters their bread, whether it be inside or out.

To roll back the political impact, an 8-man team headed by Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri Aziz will "take appropriate action against those responsible."

That really shouldn't be difficult: after all, the media have taken extensive photography and video of the barbarians... which then can easily be crossed-checked with the police. Unless there was an easier way to find out who they are. Oh wait, there is: Umno Youth records.

As easy as it may be to protect the integrity of Parliament from hooligans, what you wanna bet this gets swept under the carpet? I'll bet Ahmad Ismail is having a grand old laugh right now.

Holy cow! Selangor now?

2009-02-22T09:39:00.000-08:00

After a coup in Perak, the Mentri Besar of Selangor has been investigated by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) for abuse of power in regards to the servicing of a car and the purchase of sacrificial goats.

The MACC states that it has evidence, and even before the Attorney-General decides whether to prosecute, it's makes the headlines. TV3 actually regarded as "news" a question to Tan Sri Khalid about whether he is now going to resign due to the allegations. And the poor fella hasn't even been charged with a crime.

The alleged cow-purchase was apparently around 10 thousand ringgit.

Let's put this into a little perspective. If Khalid is guilty of wrongly misusing power, well, he must be a real idiot not to really raid the kitty. Not to mention that he used it to buy things which are, by definition, sacrificed.

The last I recall, the Prime Minister's monthly entertainment allowance is around 15 thousand ringgit... a month. Never mind the allegations that bribes of up to 60 MILLION were offered to realize the Perak coup. Or the very the convenient donations to mosques during the Permatang Pauh election by our dear Deputy PM. Or the 15 million someone necessary, apparently, for the police to run the Kuala Terengganu by-election. Both of which, as if we needed reminding, the Barisan lost, nonetheless.

As someone mentioned to me, at best it isn't corruption. It's cowruption. In the Year of the Ox, it seems that we're headed for a lot more bull.

A Grim Silver Lining to a Mess Called Perak

2009-02-06T06:03:00.000-08:00

To paraphrase from Hamlet: there’s something rotten in the state of Perak.

The quote of the day comes from The Star:

“Just as Barisan Nasional had accepted the results of last year’s general election, Pakatan Rakyat must now accept a new government in Perak, said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.”

The problem with that statement being that in last year’s general election the people of Perak booted out the Barisan Nasional. The same rakyat whom it seems the B.N. is wary of allowing back at the voting booths.

Despite the freakshow in Perak, in the larger picture there are cases when a resignation or crossing parties has a certain legitimacy. People tend to forget that national-level defections were the plan of Sept 18, 2008, or that former defacto law minister Zaid Ibrahim quit his post and began being an iconic face at Pakatan Rakyat events. Recent events don’t change the morality that one shouldn’t be suddenly investigated for corruption for no reason other than that of crossing over to another party.

That being said, doublecrossing within 10 days, makes you wonder how you could have left out of principle and then gone back without sacrificing those same principles. Unless principles weren’t the real motivation. Or whether it is pure coincidence the two assemblymen from PKR who resigned were the same two – and the only two – being charged with corruption. And as far as backstabbing is concerned, let’s remember that in support of them, MB Nizar publicly stated that one is innocent until proven guilty. That’s not even getting into the constitutionality of the Election Commision overriding the Speaker of the state legislature, or the question of if the Agong could decide against the advice of a Prime Minister in dissolving Parliament.

When such doubts linger, as well as allegations of attempted bribes of up to RM60 million for defections, and when the official count is 28 for Pakatan Rakyat and 28 for Barisan Nasional, how the Sultan of Perak could not allow his rakyat to provide a new mandate is more than a little surprising.

A friend of mine put it best when he noted that these defectors were the very ones whom the Sultan himself had insisted on a check of their loyalty to MB Nizar before nodding on the Pakatan Rakyat government.

The result of the turmoil is that the people, denied access to the voting booth, have taken to the streets and to prayer, with moment-to-moment updates being made by Anil Netto.

As with all storms, there are silver linings, though the ones from this debacle are grim in their own right. We have, for the first time, the legislative head of a state government challenging the constitutionality of a ruler’s decision. As the Malaysian Insider noted, this is the start of a much larger debate as to the role of Malaysian royalty and its relation to the democratic rights of the citizens. Most importantly however, the Pakatan Rakyat now know who in their ranks were real bozos – including the double-defecting Bota assemblyman whom they should not have taken in at the very start. The larger lesson – regardless of whether an anti-hopping law is created – is that no matter how good your party platform, you really cheat the people when those who bear your party standard, are really of no standard at all.

Leap-frogging

2009-02-04T07:06:00.000-08:00

Just the shortest thought: now that our dear Bota assemblyman has jumped ship once again, will he be charged twice with corruption?

While we're on that subject, finally Dr M says something of sense.

Of Defects and Defections

2009-01-30T22:21:00.001-08:00

The Bota state assemblyman ditches Umno for PKR. And soon after the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission announces that it'll investigate if there were elements of corruption in the defection.

I suppose in the end it comes down to public perception. There is a genuine beef (sorry, I'm still in a keong hei fatt choy mood) if corruption is the reason for a defection, and there is a real concern if a particular elected representative no longer represents the voters' choice.

It boils down to two things: first whether the voters voted for a party or a person. I would argue that voters should vote for the person, because, well, if they registered a donkey with a party emblem, would one vote for the donkey? Party affiliation is important and part of the identity of the candidate, but my first concern is, well, whether you can walk on two legs and not bray incessantly. If an assemblyman honestly feels he can serve his community better under a different party, then so be it really. If an assemblyman is given an post because his talents are better respected and put to use, then fine. If the post is purely as a bribe, well, then not-so-fine.

The second is whether you believe that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission acts fairly. Plain and simple. If you do, then in all interest of fairness, well they should investigate all allegations, and no one - not the Bota assemblyman, or for that matter, the Umno supreme council member who was arrested for money politics - is to be presumed guilty, or tainted with the hint of guilt, until the full legal process has its day.

According to The Star, the MACC's chief commissioner Datuk Seri Ahmad Said Hamdan said: "At the moment I can't say if any report has been made or not in Perak but if there are elements of corruption, we will investigate."

First of all, if there ARE elements of corruption, you should CHARGE the culprit. If there MIGHT be elements of corruption, you should INVESTIGATE.

Second is that I saw the original comments (in Malay) on the midnight news, and - here I could be mistaken - I heard the addition of: "maybe (there are elements of corruption)... we will see." Which, if I heard correctly, treads rather ambigiously over the line of the presumption of guilt.

In any civilized society it is important to have a system of accountability, of which a trusted and impartial anti-corruption organization is important. A battle of innuendo, of 'maybe he's corrupt now that he's defected'... how civilized that is, is a different matter entirely.

Cue Foot in Mouth

2009-01-17T09:00:00.000-08:00

And now a word from our Prime Minister:

"Abdullah also urged the people not to view the Government as being unfair to any community based on statements by individuals who were members of any Barisan Nasional component party." The Star, 17 January 2009.

Meaning, if we say something you like to hear, please vote for us. If we say something you don't like to hear, pretend you didn't hear it, and um, vote for us. A startlingly effective strategy proven by the results of the Kuala Terengganu by-election of course.

"He said views with extreme or racial undertones expressed did not represent the Government or party leaders."

Instead, showing the utter inability for the Government or party leaders to do anything about those who, to paraphrase a particularly colourful choice of words of Rafidah Aziz once upon a time, open their mouth and put a big foot in it.

So Much For An Incoming PM of ALL the people

2009-01-13T02:39:00.000-08:00

It almost went by unnoticed. Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, soon to be the Prime Minister, commented on how some might not choose to join the boycott of American and Israeli products.

"Some of the American products are in the franchise system. Some of the franchises here are Malaysian companies and even bumiputera companies."

EVEN bumiputera companies. Which basically means that it's less of an issue if the people who were hurt in the boycott were our own ethnic Chinese, or Indians. An omnious preview of the person likely to take the helm.

Help Malaysia Save Face: Drink a Coke Today

2009-01-09T02:19:00.000-08:00

It sounds like a bad joke.

"The Malaysian Muslim Consumers Association will spearhead the nationwide boycott of US-made products after Friday's prayers at the National Mosque.
Secretary-general Datuk Dr Maamor Osman said the products that were targeted included cola soft drinks, gourmet coffee and cosmetics." The Star, Jan 8.

Inspired and amplified by Dr Mahathir, no less. Let's call it for what it is: to mix business with pleasure is none to smart. To mix business with politics is downright moronic.

First of all, it's Israel, not the Americans that these people have a beef with. And it's not as if we're boycotting products that actually come from the US government. It's not as if you see this rolling around the place:

Businesses should be politically neutral, or they will end up being judged politically as well. This shown by the effective boycott of nasi kandar shops earlier this year when people wearing their uniforms went on an unpopular - and it is rumoured, paid - protest against the new Penang government.

"The operators of Muslim restaurants would also stop selling cola drinks at their premises, he added."

Never mind that the places selling the other two targeted products - gourmet coffee and cosmetics - hire Malaysians to work there, not Americans. In the unlikely event that the boycott works, does Dr Maamor really think that these companies would continue to hire our citizens to work at a store that doesn't sell anything? In this global economic downturn, will Dr Maamor guarantee that anyone who loses a job because of this boycott will be given an equal replacement under the Malaysian Muslim Consumers Association?

"Dr Maamor said Malaysians should support the boycott, which would show that consumer power was an effective weapon against the US states and its close ally Israel."

Things like this really get me in the mood for rethorical questions. The "US states"? What does that even mean? Does he think that Kentucky Fried Chicken - a certifiably halal place, by the way - is run by the Kentucky National Guard? Where does he think the chicken comes from? Tel Aviv?

And that phrase - "consumer power" - seems familiar. It was the same phrase that our Prime Minister used when confronted with a higher cost of living across the land after the global price of oil went down: that we the people should use our "consumer power" to force prices back down. The prices kept up by people like those Dr Maamor leads. If Malaysians could not even win against their own Malaysian bullies, why are we picking a fight with the biggest superpower in the world, which has nothing to do with you to begin with?

If Dr Maamor's doctorate was in any way related to business, I think the institution granting his degree should be questioned, in the same way that people say to errant drivers, "Where the heck did you learn how to drive?"

In the meantime, help Malaysia save face. Drink a Coke today.

Tallying the Bets in Kuala Terengganu

2009-01-07T08:00:00.000-08:00

Sometimes I think the real bet in any election is that of how gullible they think voters are. All the following are from just one day's reporting: The Star, Jan. 7.

"Najib said the Barisan's candidate was the best man for the job because he has already been guaranteed a deputy minister's post if he won."

First of all, a deputy minister is in charge of FEDERAL affairs, an MP is charge of LOCAL interests. One would think that the DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER would know this... or is he suggesting that one use his FEDERAL role to siphon money to ensure his LOCAL constituents don't ever vote him out of office?

The bet: people will vote someone in as an MP not knowing anything the role of an MP.

Then, note that Najib takes the reigns of the campaign:

"'I have already told the Barisan machinery to explain to the voters that if they vote for PAS, their representative will never become a deputy minister,' he said."

and yet:

"'This is not a referendum on me, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi or Mentri Besar Datuk Ahmad Said,' (Najib) told a press conference after the close of nominations here yesterday."

not to mention:

"To (Najib), winning Kuala Terengganu is important to Umno 'to reclaim the party's dignity after losing Permatang Pauh', not to mention countering the drubbing it suffered in the 2008 general election." - Suhaini Aznam.

The bet: that readers have the attention span of a goldfish.

The biggest eye-opener, however is:

"He said the Barisan would use a people-friendly approach, with 'Barisan Is People Friendly' as the campaign theme."

The best campaign slogans tend to be about goals, little reminders about how we're all united or we have to work towards a stronger economy or something of the sort. When you have something like "Barisan Is People Friendly", it's like, we've always been people friendly... it's just that the people haven't been reminded that we're people friendly.

The bet: the only reason why people don't realize we are people-friendly is that we didn't have a campaign slogan before. People love campaign slogans.

Sometimes when I read the papers, I don't read what other people think. I read about how stupid other people think I could possibly be, which makes me further convinced how stupid they really are to think I wouldn't notice. And that's why in many ways, politicians would do well to realize that the newspaper is truly a mirror.

But that's just my bet. And it hinges entirely on my fellow readers.

Five Good Things for Malaysians to Ponder for 2009

2008-12-31T15:49:00.000-08:00

1. Media. Interestingly enough, it's a plural of "medium", as in the thing in which something is processed. Therefore, it's a noun but that's rather misleading, since it essentially provides a function - it doesn't just deliver the world to your door, it provides a perspective, an opinion, an emphasis on one side or the other. All the media do this, whether it's mainstream or alternative, and yes, even the words you read right now. People tend to say that the quality of a democracy is the freedom of the media which is an aspect of that democracy, and that has a certain truth to it. But the real essence of a democracy is whether you have a people who want to have a plurality of ideas, and whether they can sift through a variety of opinions before making up their own.

2. Melting pot. Malaysia used to advertise this quite a bit in the early '90s - that Malaysia is a cultural melting pot, a cornucopia of cultures, a blend of races living in harmony. That's where we get the "Malaysia, Truly Asia" slogan. These days when this comes up it seems to be a stern reminder when trouble brews rather than a badge of pride. As in, don't forget that cultural harmony is what a Malaysian strength. Or, we should keep in mind that racial harmony is what others have always envied about Malaysians. Thankfully yoga isn't one of our cultural products, yes?

3. Social contract. Somewhere, someone noted on the American Constitution, far enshrined by its people, was not a statement of what already is, but a set of goals to achieve. Here, and now, Malaysians would do well to understand that the historical context of our social contract was to provide eventual equality, where everyone would be on the same playing field - not provide dominance of one race over the other... which would be, ironically, the absolute opposite of equality.

4. Bloggers. There's a tendency for certain words to gain a meaning it never had. There's also a tendency to make certain words gain either a negative or positive slant by people with ulterior motives to do so. The term "bloggers" doesn't denote either good or bad people, like everything else, including "politicians", there are the good, the bad, and the ugly.

5. Security. As in the Internal Security Act. Let's think about the opposite of security: insecurity. When someone gets arrested under the guise of our security (or in the case of a certain journalist, her apparent "security"), do we really feel insecure about what that person says or does? It is perfectly acceptable to feel a certain insecurity if the person is about to, say, blow up a bus, but if only words can create insecurity, then well, we must really have an insecurity complex. Do we advertise our maturity as a people to the world, or a certain immaturity?

If I could add a more upbeat bonus:

Boleh. Just like "bloggers", this term has gained a certain notoriety, as in "Bolehland" denoting where anything goes in this country. But much like the rise of "Yes We Can" halfway across the globe, Malaysians can regain a sense of positive energy not merely asking whether we can, but indeed whether we will.

Happy new year everyone, and happy new year, Malaysia.

Whatever Happened to Rafidah Aziz?

2008-12-03T10:06:00.000-08:00

I was never much of a fan of the Barisan Nasional, no surprise there. But early on I rather liked Rafidah – or perhaps I liked the idea of Rafidah, the persona she wore. The UM economics lecturer turned International Trade Minister plus the no-nonsense attitude: it made it seem cool to have a person who actually knew a thing or two about the job instead of just someone who could bluff his way through a speech.

Then came the whole AP thing. The pakai tudung when it’s useful thing. The whole then-magnanimous speech about being thankful for a long career after being dropped from the Cabinet… and then needing to hang on to a position for another six months after elections. Almost makes me think that the best politicians are the ones who die in office before they have a chance to let you down.

Recently of course, it’s the whole Sharizat versus Rafidah brouhaha.

“Barisan Nasional component parties have been told not to wash their dirty laundry in public.
BN Wanita head Tan Sri Rafidah Aziz reminded them to settle all internal issues within the coalition and not use the media to publish their grouses.”
– “‘Keep feuds within the family’”, The New Straits Times, Dec. 3, 2008.

Now this would be all fine and dandy if she were providing grandmotherly advice to, say, infighting in the MIC. But it is instead an ill-disguised barb against her opponent, who was sitting right next to her when she was at the press conference. The grand irony and the height of hypocrisy is that this wasn’t a speech to delegates or members of BN – this was in a press conference, the very channel she said one should avoid.

"'If you have something to raise, then do through a memo or raise it in a meeting. What is the problem?"
- Rafidah Aziz, ibid.

Let's look at the problem, then. I don’t know a thing about Sharizat’s policies and have no idea if she’d make a better Wanita head. But in all fairness, it should be noted that Sharizat’s explanation for going to the media was that she couldn’t get word in edgeways in the meeting, and that she was bullied into compliance. Rafidah would have had a point if Sharizat had a fair hearing in the meeting, agreed without undue pressure and then did a turn around the next day. So far, Sharizat’s account of how the meeting was conducted has not been contested. Close-door meetings - that's the problem.

And to add to it, she said that the purpose of the press conference as to talk about the BN, and that she was so focused on it that she she actually “forgot” person she was contesting was sitting right next to her.

That’s a lot to swallow, when the person saying it should really be eating humble pie. Apparently you can say a lot of nonsense in a no-nonsense voice.

All Gaga over Yoga

2008-11-28T08:49:00.000-08:00

“Missed a bullet, somehow, I sense.”

First it was a ban on yoga for Muslims because of what apparently were Hindu elements – though yoga didn’t seem to bother the most conservative of other religious groups, even the ones who taught that Harry Potter was the Antichrist. Then it seems that the National Fatwa Council may have stepped into the territory of the Sultans, and one can only guess if the advice from the Raja Muda of Perak to take time to study matters in order to avoid hasty decisions may suggest that the ban was indeed hasty.

On one hand, non-Muslims aren’t practically affected by this whole brouhaha on yoga. We’ve been chugging down beer (still legal in Selangor!) and chomping on piggy meat as happily as Muslims have been munching on beef burgers (better not tell the powers-that-be that the cow is a sacred animal to Hindus or they just may make that haram too).

But there was this thing about the Information Ministry getting involved, and the Prime Minster declaring that yoga is alright minus the chanting as “I believe that Muslims are not easily swayed into polytheism." (The Star, 27 November) – I’m not polytheistic myself but I did find that it carried a disrespectful tone to Hindus. Something like if Buddhists were told that attending Hari Raya open houses was okay because they are faithful enough not to be swayed into monotheism.

And of course if Mahathir has to remind us not to make it into a religious issue (and what kind of issue was it then? An economic one?) then we have to think twice about it. It’s like the guy who may have just accidentally spat in front you on purpose. It may have been pure coincidence, but when he says, “Now, don’t take that personally,” you may just start to wonder.

Somehow we’re losing the idea that unity in this country will always be founded on diversity. That we should embrace the idea that there is a form of exercise – more so than tai-chi or chi-gong – that actually brings together people of all races. That it just might be another area of common ground, of conversational currency, when Muslims visit their friends during Chinese New Year.

The one time a government official made any sense in these sorts of decisions was in regards to Shanon Ahmad’s controversial political parody, Shit. After rumours of whether it was bad taste or free speech and the idea of banning a book by Sasterawan Negara, a decision was made that ignoring it was the wiser option than making it an even bigger deal. In this light, the final irony may indeed be that the popularity of yoga may actually increase – if not for the critical opposition to the idea that yoga has religious implications from progressive Muslims like Marina Mahathir and Azmi Sharom, then certainly the idea that you hide things that are on some level, at the very least, interesting.

Malaysia: as one chooses to see it, or as one chooses to believe in it

2008-11-18T20:47:00.000-08:00

The way the world is, is often the way we choose to see it – and that is the crux of racial politics in Malaysia.

Former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed, soon after saying that a Malaysian of any descent can rise to lead the country, pessimistically blogged that racial politics are far from over. Predictably he hit out on both sides of the aisle. His old adversaries on the Opposition bench were described as: “…PAS, a very Malay Muslim party, and DAP, a Chinese dominated party. Even the Keadilan is made up of violently racist Hindraf Indians, Chinese dissatisfied with the MCA's representation of the Chinese in BN and self-serving Malays who could not find a place in the other Malay parties.” In a clever uppercut, Mahathir’s new opponents in the Barisan Nasional were chastised as having failed to live up to their responsibilities, which in his opinion was the cause of the March 2008 election results – and not racial politics.

It sounds convincing, a long-time premier selflessly imparting his wisdom of leadership to a people who are naïve daydreamers. But just perhaps it is, instead, a cynical icon living in a past he created, resistant of change, who chooses to see only the world as he always has, where he is right and everyone else is wrong.

Parties cannot change their histories – whether it is PAS’s connection to theology or DAP’s old connections to the PAP. And while we’re on history, Malaysians have a great tendency to have a very selective history. Like viewing Hang Tuah a little differently when one finds out he was ethnic Chinese, or wayang kulit once we realize it has Hindu links. Or putting Datuk Tan Lian Hoe on the frying pan.

What anyone can do is instead to learn from it to better affect the present, including forming a non-Muslim wing to PAS, electing a Malay to the upper ranks of the DAP, and the leader of Keadilan choosing a “ketuanan rakyat” stance when campaigning for office in Permatang Pauh– a strategy that proved triumphant against an Umno stance which included a characterization of the Chinese in this country as “squatters”. At the initial protest rally after the arrest of reporter Tan Hoon Cheng who brought that comment to print, a major highlight was the arrival and support of representatives of PAS, the so-called “very Malay Muslim party”.

Eventually even the Barisan Nasional had to concede a realization of the way the wind was blowing, seen in proposals to include direct, non-racial entry into the BN, and opinions from various quarters in Gerakan considering a departure from the coalition.

Mahathir’s view fits his ideal just a little too well. His old enemies are wrong as always, and if only the Barisan allows him to be the Lee Kuan Yew-type backseat driver, all would be well. How sad then that even well into retirement our so-called Bapa Wawasan looks to the past, rather than the longer term vision of what potential lies in our people.

He writes: “When the Barisan Nasional did badly in the March 2008 General Election, foreign observers and many in this country were jubilant because they claim that it marked the demise of racial politics and racial parties in Malaysia.
I did not agree with this simplistic view and I had put my thoughts on this blog. I believed that it was rather protest against the failures of the Abdullah Government that caused many Barisan Nasional members and supporters to vote for the opposition.”

My dear Dr M, of course it was a protest against the Abdullah Government which, one might point out, could not have been there without your initial support. But why on earth could it not also finally be a start – a good, healthy Malaysia Boleh start – away from racial politics?

Malaysia Mudah Lupa?

2008-11-05T03:17:00.000-08:00

You have to give that RPK some 'respek', man. Never mind that he was willing to languish in Kamunting - and that he knew it was coming and kept on rollin'. Never mind that he hitched his luck to someone who wasn't exactly a sure bet.

You have to salute him, and those like him, who were willing to be martyrs for a cause. Just because the cause was worthy, and not necessarily because the people whom the cause battles were really as worthy as the battle.

We've not entirely worthless as patriotism goes, but we're - how shall I put it - rabbit hopping on a high jump event. The bar is always high (and for that matter, the Malaysian Bar was a test of strength as well) and it's supposed to be. If it weren't, the value of the win wouldn't be as worthy either. We'll have the heat-of-the-moment rallies when a new political party is born, or when elections come along. Heck, we might even deny a two-thirds victory and send some states over the other side and call it a 'tsunami'. But chances are that when it's just about civil liberties and human rights, and not about the price of wan tan mee doubling, Mahathir had the right idea. Malaysia mudah lupa.

How so, you say? Well, Umno has decided to put into the line of succession one whom RPK's wife said would "throw away the key" and leave her husband in detention the rest of his life. So much for the voice of dissent, the cries for reform from within. Anwar, on whom RPK publicly placed his own fate, has waffled on his takeover plans, and with it, RPK's freedom. And as time passes by, even the man himself has worried that Malaysians would forget about him.

Abdullah Badawi insulted the public recently saying that the real way to combat high prices would be to not buy at high prices. Never mind that it's his fault we have those prices to begin with. Ironically enough, the only people who unwillingly fit his plan are those who are fed on less than five ringgit a month. Those under the ISA.

I was never that crazy about Malaysia Today, to be honest. But I recognize that it was for all of us, even if in a slightly caffeinated state. And for that, I say to all who read these letters, jangan mudah lupa.

Here's to you, RPK.

As Others See Us

2008-10-18T23:30:00.000-07:00

Excepts from Race to Judgment by Zoher Abdoolcarim, in Time, Oct. 20, 2008.

Asia’s vast ethnic diversity means we are forced to confront many real differences – cultural, political, economic – that exist among us. Sometimes those differences erupt in violence. At least half of the world’s armed conflicts are in Asia, nearly all ethnic-based. But the bigger reason Asians do not focus on commonality is because their societies do not encourage it.

In many countries, ethnic divisions are institutionalized, with strict laws governing what one race can and cannot do. In Malaysia, an affirmative-action program gives preference to Malays over the country’s sizable Chinese and Indian populations in everything from university places to government contracts.

The world has already gained from the Obama candidacy. In one sense, and one sense alone, his skin color does matter. In Asia (with the exception, perhaps, of India), it is virtually unthinkable that an individual from a minority could rise to become a serious national leader. Whatever we may think of the U.S., of its hardly stellar handling of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, of its lack of oversight, restraint and thrift over the financial meltdown, the fact that a Barack Obama can overcome the disadvantages associated with being black and have a shot at the highest office in the land speaks volumes about the possibility of hope in America.

Baik juga jika Zul say bye-bye...

2008-10-13T08:06:00.000-07:00

From The Malaysian Insider:

"Zulkifli's likely defection will be a setback for opposition icon Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim who has been talking about BN lawmakers joining him in an attempt to unseat the BN federal government."

This is the guy who protested against a Bar Council forum aimed at clarifying matters of law that dealt with religion - a completely peacefully organized event aimed at dialogue and discussion. In other words, this guy is a diluted form of Ahmad Ismail, on the wrong side of the fence.

If anything, the presence of PKR's Zulkifli at the unruly protest made it impossible for critics to decry it as another example of Umno's inherent racism - since by saying so, it would also imply that racism is just as evident in some members of the opposition, even those who have made it to Parliament. Anwar Ibrahim, in an earlier interview with Malaysiakini has said that some sort of action has to be taken, but in order to save an already damaged face of PKR, declined to elaborate. An exit to BN may mean one seat less, but would solidify the impression of racism and which side of the political spectrum it seems to be attracted to.

"A PKR source told The Malaysian Insider that the party was in the dark as Zulkifli had not informed the leadership if he was leaving the party or if Umno had even been courting him."

If PKR themselves cannot say with assurance where this guy's allegiance in, what the heck are they doing having him around? Is this what is hampering the touted takeover of the government - because you may "have the numbers" but can't keep track of them? Like that, better they stay away and you be the best Opposition you can be, and make an example of your state governments rather than be a government completely tied down by members who aren't truly loyal to anyone.

"She [the anonymous PKR source] also dismissed the rumours as unlikely, saying the BN could not afford to get involved in another by-election so soon as the tide of the popular vote from the rakyat were currently against them."

It's a bit odd that the PKR source cannot comment on what her own fellow PKR member thinks or what he plans, but can speculate on what the BN thinks and plans.

I hope that they do get into another by-election. And that Pakatan Rakyat will be smart enough to continue their "ketuanan rakyat" stance that helped them win Permatang Pauh. If they should lose, it would mean that those constituents support having a lawmaker who prohibits peaceful, law-abiding citizens from contributing to the clarfications of laws in this country. And they can take that kind of loss as a badge of honour - a willingness to have a political sacrifice for an ethical stance. If they should win, it means that it is another blow to racism in this country and the recent efforts to play the race card do not work.

"Most commentators told Zulkifli that his dissatisfaction with PKR should not push him to join Umno. Instead they asked him to consider joining Pas, a PKR ally in the Pakatan Rakyat.

'Daripada join UMNO baik join PAS. kalu bro join UMNO lu hilang respect dari gua,' wrote commentator Anglagestifung."

Aduhai. As if PAS doesn't have enough problems fitting their Islamic State goal in the more multiracial and secular progressive Pakatan Rakyat. Angla, pikir sikit. 'Bro' hilang respect lama dah.

It may be true that one seat in Parliament matters a great deal. But at the end of the day the confidence and trust of millions who see no place of racism even - especially - in the parties we support must surely matter more.

Rumah Terbuka, Telinga Tertutup

2008-10-06T22:53:00.000-07:00

Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi commented that the members of Hindraf who visited his open house did not greet the federal ministers and were only interested in relaying their views.

“Abdullah said he was gracious enough to allow them in as he thought they wanted to wish him and the other ministers but was disappointed that their intention was not so.” (The Star: ‘Hindraf did not greet ministers at Raya open house’, October 7, 2008)

There’s a word to reply to this sort of thinking. And the word is: haiyo.

It really must be party time in Lala Land when you don’t realize that these people have on their minds the suffering of those under ISA. Not the buffet lines at your open house, which I hope is coming out of your RM15,000+ monthly entertainment allowance, but the two eggs they get in Kamunting. The point is that you made somebody's hari less selamat and raya, not that someone didn't wish you selamat Hari Raya.

Plus, it’s not as if they makan your food and don’t say thank you. They’re not there to eat, they are there to see if your ears are as open as your house. And the result was hardly surprising.

Our dear Home Minister added his two cents (lowest devaluation possible).

“Syed Hamid Albar as reported in Utusan Malaysia as saying that Hindraf’s action was a form of provocation and intimidation.” (Ibid.)

Hamid, oh Hamid, what are you smoking? If a peaceful, verbal message is provocation and intimidation what should we make of detention without trial?

It brings to mind the now well worn statement that the last elections were simply about sending a message. And the message was received, and so there is no need to change the government.

Something tells me the Hindraf supporters would somewhat disagree that people like Abdullah Badawi have truly gotten the message. The answer to it would likely be: “Um… no.”

What’s the phrase? Maaf zahir dan batin? Somebody please pass our PM a Kamus Dewan.

Sorting Out The "Garbage"

2008-09-23T00:12:00.000-07:00

The use of the Internal Security Act against Raja Petra has been formalized – signed by Syed Hamid Albar. Yes, the same minister who said he should not interfere in case it be seen as a politically motivated action, and that it was entirely a police action. One wonders whether he might retry his “for your own protection” story, when members of his own Barisan Nasional found that excuse unacceptable.

NGOs, bloggers, and more importantly the multitude of readers that make blogs such a credible threat to the powers that be have come out in support for Raja Petra’s release, some focusing not just on the individual but on the repeal of the ISA. Suddenly the word “draconian” has become household lingo, and Penang Chief Minister has called it “historical garbage”.

The depth of our understanding of laws like the Internal Security Act goes as far as knowing that it was originally intended for communists and armed insurgents. However, until we completely try to get our hands around the rationale of its conception and its use, we won’t really see how ludicrous it is that Raja Petra has been detained.

I remember how the appearance of the Patriot Act in the United States during the Mahathir era was proclaimed as vindication of the ISA. It was a “even our critics use it” attitude – not credible rationale as much as convenient rationalization. I never quite got the logic of the comparison, since Mahathir was vehemently against the West in general, and yet their actions were being used to justify that of our government.

In the end it comes down to why communists here and terrorists there at some point in our histories made detention without trial a necessary evil. The logic of it is basically that the devious nature of criminals at this level ensure that the manipulation of “innocent until proven guilty” can cost the lives of more innocents if they are let off the hook. On one hand it is the immediacy of the threat and the level of concealment that requires more time for formal charges to be brought. But on the other it is also admission that law enforcement is inadequate, that it is not yet efficient to get the information and evidence enough for a trial within the regular time requirements.

Laws like the Patriot Act and the ISA are ones which by their very nature must hurt the credibility of their enforcers. This ensures that the court of public opinion has its turn in deciding whether the cases were extreme enough to allow a little leeway for the enforement agencies to do their work. Also, the threat of public discontent is logically meant to ensure that it is truly a necessary and not a casual, convenient evil.

It is in this context that Raja Petra’s role as a blogger – for which he now stands under detention without trial – is clearly antithetical to the use of the ISA:

1. RPK is clearly not an armed threat and thus does not threaten lives
2. There is no level of concealment since the very nature of blogs is one of public consumption
3. The only way one can justify inadequate abilities of law enforcement in not bringing RPK to trial is thus if they are downright illiterate
4. RPK’s role is to articulate public discontent already present – which is ironic since his arrest has only proven to amplify that very discontent for which he is being wrongly held accountable.

And so, a person who deals with words has been arrested under a law meant for armed terrorists. Again, ironically – and moronically in the case of our Home Minister – the use of the ISA has proven true the old adage that Raja Petra’s blog pen is indeed mightier than the sword.

"Um... no."

2008-09-14T04:35:00.000-07:00

In the backlash of the backfire of the arrest of Sin Chew reporter Tan Choon Cheng, Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar unknowingly indicated the double standard at work.

From today's Star article, 'Reporter's life was threatened':

"Asked if he thought the police action was justified, Syed Hamid said, 'If I start to interfere with the administration of enforcement then it's difficult.'
'I am a minister. I am a politician. If I start to interfere, then people will say I have a political motive. It will send the wrong signals. I cannot interfere,' he said."

And from the same article:

"On why Ahmad (Ismail) was not detained for making racist comments, he explained that Umno had already punished him by suspending him for three years and stripping him of his party posts."

So, essentially, it will provide "wrong signals" to say that the detention of Tan Hoon Cheng was unjustified, because ministers and politicians are out of the picture.

But at the same time, Syed Hamid actually believes that it doesn't give "wrong signals" when he says that the police shouldn't act against Ahmad Ismail? Further, that the police should sit on their hands because of a purely political reason?

There are clearly wrong signals at home.

Is there a valid logic to this? The answer is simple:

"Um... no."

In Pictures: Candlelight Vigil

2008-09-13T02:23:00.001-07:00

Notwithstanding her release the day after, the arrest under the ISA of the award-winning journalist Tan Hoon Cheng who reported on Ahmad Ismail, is being questioned by political leaders, NGOs, and members of the public. The subsequent explanations of keeping her for personal safety concerns are somewhat dubious for the following reasons:

1. Timing: she was held in a series of arrests including Raja Petra and Teresa Kok.

2. Communication: her own family was not informed that she was being 'protected', not to mention Member of Parliament Chong Eng who talked to police at the gate of IPK.

3. Setting: there was no reason to move her from one police station to another.

The candlelight vigil was held by members of Suaram and alumni of Universiti Sains Malaysia. A highlight was the participation of PAS members, who stated that this was "not a racial issue". A large number of the press converged to show their solidarity. Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng, members of the DAP, Gerakan, MCA and PKR, as well as Datuk Dr. Toh Kin Woon, were also present.

It occasionally helps to listen to what you’re saying

2008-09-10T09:16:00.000-07:00

Much has been said about the whole Ahmad Ismail affair, and rather than to add to a healthy chorus, I’d like to point out a couple of points that may have gone unnoticed.

Ahmad Ismail called for the removal of Dr Koh Tsu Koon as Penang Barisan chairman, saying that the position should be given to the MCA. Oddly enough Gerakan, of which Dr Koh is acting president, is a multi-racial party, whereas the MCA is dedicated to those Ahmad Ismail considers “squatters”.
Tan Sri Rafidah Aziz on the DPM’s earlier apology:

“I think nobody should belittle his apology.
It is not easy for a Deputy Prime
Minister to do that.”
(The Star, Sept 10: “‘Don’t belittle Najib’s apology’”)

First of all, does it mean that the higher up one goes in office, the harder it is to take responsibility for errant actions? And secondly, we don’t belittle him for his apology – what is belittling how little it mattered to a lowly Umno division chief. So in a sense it’s ironic that indeed a “nobody” did indeed “belittle his apology”. And we haven’t even talked about the PM’s original statement that he “didn’t mean it” and that he would “tell him not to say it again”.
I really want someone to ask Ahmad Ismail if he think that the Indians are “squatters” too. And then pass him a large photo of Samyvellu.
“The Barisan Nasional supreme council meeting yesterday was more open and sincere compared to previous meetings as component party leaders discussed the Datuk Ahmad Ismail issue that threatened the coalitions unity,
said PPP president Datuk M. Kayveas.”
(The Star, Sept. 10: “Kayveas: Everyone spoke up”)

So in which circumstances and with which topics are meetings less open and sincere? Say, petrol prices? The Budget? Bar Council forums?
On a similar note to Kayveas’s statement, let’s take a brief excursion to our DPM’s comment on the ethics of sending MPs to Taiwan. For agriculture, kononnya – let’s just pause a moment to think about that. Taiwan. And agriculture.

“What is more immoral is trying to buy them over. It is subverting the principles of parliamentary democracy.”
Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak (The Star, Sept. 10: "Najib: Expenses borne by BBC".)

“More” immoral? So… sending them to Taiwan is only slightly, or somewhat, immoral?
The three year suspension of Ahmad Ismail is a move meant to placate uneasy associations – especially BN component parties. The question is what happens after those three years (which incidentally would end right before the next general election). If Ahmad Ismail is still stubbornly the flag bearer of racist sentiments, would Umno then take him back? And what of the other Penang Umno division heads who condoned and supported those same racist positions? Jeff Ooi's Screenshots mentions something along these lines and (quite rightly) calling for law enforcement to take over now, not three years from now.

Nevertheless, on a positive front, the reaction from certain quarters has been interesting – showing that this is a time for moderate, progressive Malays to make their presence felt. Take Jeneral Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Zainal for example: “I would like to propose to the Government to take stern action against those who raise racial issues.” (The Star, Sept. 10: “Jen: Act against those who raise racial issues.”) While I think the point is that it’s those who raise racist and not just racial issues, the more important message is that the general is asking the Government to allow the enforcement arms – like the police and the army – to take action. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think the general was asking permission to shoot a particular person who’s shooting his mouth off.

Metaphorically speaking, of course...

The True Test of Patriotism?

2008-08-31T07:45:00.000-07:00

From The Star, 31 August 2008 article We can prevail, says Abdullah

“The true test of a country depends on how its people react to trying times, said Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in his National Day message.”

True enough. If it’s a question of when life throws you lemons, then by all means go squeeze out a limau ais. But if it’s your government throws you lemons, well, then people tend to squeeze out something quite different at the ballot box. As we’ve seen very recently. That is about as literal as one can get about the test of a country – the leaders its people select.

“We will continue to combat the problem of rising prices and inflation in the best possible way. The Government is always concerned about the burden of the people, especially those who are poor and those who are less fortunate.”

How has raising the price of petrol seen as combating rising prices and inflation? If you’re talking about the subsequent reduction, a person walking his pet in the park doesn’t get points for cleaning up his own dog’s poo. Or just some of it, in this case. I think there might be some confusion with the words “combating” and “causing”. And unless you have a government-paid vehicle, you are less fortunate today than the day before the price of petrol went up 30 plus percent. Apologies to you if a small portion of one day spent realizing how lousy public transport can be is not seen by some as particularly significant.

“He said the Government had also focused on improving noble values such as integrity, a more open media, and strengthening institutions like the Parliament, judiciary, the Anti-Corruption Agency, the police and civil service.”

All right, let’s go through this bit by bit.

1. “A more open media”: hallo? By attempting to ban Malaysia Today?

2. “Strengthening institutions like the Parliament…”: Ironically this brought to mind Samy’s leaking roof.

3. And as far as strengthening the ACA, well, you may have loosened the leash on that particular bulldog, but only when it goes biting targets far from home. I think it was an editorial in the Sun that pointed out that it’s hard not to notice that while the ACA goes after Perak assemblymen, it has yet to go after the one who told officials to “close one eye.” Making them seem to be – again, ironically – closing more than one eye.

Happy Hari Merdeka everyone. It brings to mind what someone once said about voicing dissent being unjustly viewed as unpatriotic: “I love my country, and am not just infatuated with it.”

Three Days of Coincidences – a Case of Barisan Bollywood

2008-08-22T06:21:00.000-07:00

Even putting aside the timing of the sodomy accusations and Saiful’s swearing on the Quran and the use of this in Umno centers in Permatang Pauh, just a glance at the past three days worth of news is enough to spot a smelly trend.

On the DNA Bill and the upcoming court case of Anwar Ibrahim:

“If at this moment it coincides with the problems related to talks about the case, it is just a coincidence and should not be politicised.” – Abdullah Badawi, The Star, Aug. 20.

On the arrest of Perak executive councillors:

“Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi brushed off commens by some PKR people who questioned the timing of the arrest coming during the Permatang Pauh by-election campaign, and said it was mere coincidence.” – The Star, Aug. 21.

On the welcoming ceremony for Lee Chong Wei, who was presented with his incentive prizes with a backdrop of BN election posters:

“Barisan Nasional candidate Arif Shah Omar denied talk that the coalition was capitalizing on Lee’s fame to fish for votes.
‘It’s just a coincidence that he came back during the by-election.’” – The Star, Aug. 22.

And in his column, Down2Earth, Terence Fernandez writes on the ACA arrests, which perhaps fits into the larger picture:

“They [critics] rightly or wrongly assume that the plot has been stolen from a Tamil movie, where in many an instance, the coincidences are too many which lead ordinary men and women to think that the script writer has gone overboard.” The Sun, Aug. 22.

Shaking Things Up

2008-08-12T09:58:00.000-07:00

When things get shaken up, we really see where the chips fall.

Najib and Abdullah end up supporting two concepts: that Malaysians just aren't civilized enough to sit and discuss things freely, and that the Bar Council is somehow responsible for offending the feelings of bigots and racists. Sad, but not exactly surprising.

The real change is that progressive Malays are able and willing to stand out from a silent majority, like Karim Raslan. It's a brave stance to take, but if I could add a little something on the idea of "Malay supremacy" that keeps getting placed in the picture. People who are confident in their "supremacy" tend to be confident enough not to be threatened by free speech. A farmer with enough cows doesn't worry if his neighbour has fatter cows, ok?

Speaking of livestock, Farid A. Noor came up with an interesting piece of satire, focusing on the racial slur "Babi... balik Cina" ("Pig... go back to China). The amusing side of the whole pathetic affair is that while the forum had little to do with discouraging conversion to Islam, the protest will end up having backfired. Think about it - the next time someone of Chinese ethnicity is put in a position to decide on whether to convert to Islam, he or she will remember where "Babi... balik Cina" came from - a extremist and extremely vocal part of the Islamic community whose views and actions are supported by our dear PM and DPM.

People like Ong Ka Ting and Chua Ju Meng are going to get a few political points for being able to break away from their Umno counterparts on this issue. It remains to be seen whether this is the start of some real independence within the Barisan Nasional ranks, and whether their voices will still ring out if the Home Ministry acts against the Bar Council.

On the other side of the political fence, it also remains to be seen whether Anwar will suffer from sitting on the fence on this issue. After all, he has so many of us roused up with his "angkat Melayu, angkat India, angkat Cina" (raise the Malays, raise the ethnic Indians, raise the ethnic Chinese) theme, and his lukewarm response on this thus far leaves much to be desired. He may save some of the votes in his upcoming by-election in a predominantly Malay constituency, but perhaps at the risk of losing some confidence of voters in the larger picture. Eyes will also be on whether voices like those of Lim Kit Siang's will be sufficiently influential to ensure that the stance of the Pakatan Rakyat as a whole remains faithful to their large non-Bumi support.

Disaffirmative Reaction

2008-08-06T21:05:00.000-07:00

Dr Mahathir recently wrote on his blog on justifying the NEP:

I came in for virulent attacks because some Malays actually did well in business. They were all labelled my cronies whether they were indeed my cronies or not. Anyone who succeeded was immediately defined as my crony. Many close friends, relatives and members of my family who failed in business would not be called cronies.

Well, that's a valid point. The point, that is, that not everyone in your family or your close circle of friends were cronies. Which, sad to say, does not rule out that some may have been. The point really is that cronyism has to be proven, and the only proof is whether the people who receive contracts actually deserve them - since the concept of meritocracy is the litmus test of fairness, one's very choice of using the NEP invites claims of cronyism which by the nature of the NEP cannot be convincingly proven as false.

As head of the Government I had to ensure the success of the NEP objective of reducing the disparities between the bumiputeras and the non-bumis. This reduction must be achieved at all levels, not excluding the rich and the very rich. It wouldn't do to have parity among the low income and middle income only, while big businesses are all in the hands of the non-Bumiputera millionaires.

Fine. But don't forget that not all of the non-Bumis are millionaires. Or that all of us - both Bumis and non-Bumis - suffer when anyone gets millions for nothing.

The number of successful Bumiputera businessmen slowly increased. Angry that the NEP had actually succeeded in throwing up capable bumiputera businessmen and reducing racial imbalances the Western press and local opponents of the NEP began to label all the successful Bumiputera businessmen as cronies of the Prime Minister. It does not matter if the PM had never known these people, but if they succeed then they must be the cronies of the PM.

It would seem that the only way to avoid being accused of cronyism is to ensure that all Bumiputeras fail in business. Better still the NEP should be made to fail completely.

Things really depend on your perspective at this point. You provide certain people with contracts and all they have to do is fulfill their obligations and responsibilities to "succeed". There's literally no competition, no even ground, and no sense of having excellence as the yardstick to success. Pass is enough, no need to get A, is basically the message. And at the cost of many who not only don't have automatic contracts, but no equal opportunity to compete for them. Here's an idea: instead of giving contracts, give skills! Which, by the way, they are already doing at our universities. Then put everyone on a fair playing ground and those who truly succeed can feel that it's earned. This is beneficial for truly industrious Bumiputeras as well - that their success will be seen for what it is: hard work.

The continuing disparities between the Bumiputeras and the non-Bumiputeras which these will cause would then produce inter-racial tension and political instability. Then the Western journalists can say that these "natives" really should not be given independence. Look at the mess they are making of their country.

I have yet to have heard a Western journalist say that we should not have been given independence, and I think that one should substantiate that with proof. Plus, it's not to say that the NEP doesn't cause inter-racial tension, it's just that it creates a different kind of tension.

But the NEP was more successful in the field of education... In my class of 1947 at the Medical College there were only seven Malay students out of a class of 77. Even in the arts faculties the percentage was very small... The results of all these efforts is very satisfying... They have also gone into management, obtaining MBAs from well known universities such as Harvard and Philadelphia. Armed with these qualifications they have been employed as management executives at all levels. Some actually head multinational companies.

In the education field the NEP has been very successful. It has helped to correct the imbalances not only in the professions but also in business. Strangely Malays have become very successful bankers.

Again, fair point. So long as the recognition of our degrees is the same relative to other institutions as yours of the class of 1947. It is nice to point out those who have taken advantage of educational opportunities and correcting imbalances in that respect - so long as it is not at the expense of creating imbalances elsewhere. Like allowing thousands to enter and graduate who don't work hard to earn their local-university degrees, and thus lowering the respect of that degree for all those who put in some effort. Which, again, detriment anyone who works hard - non-Bumis and Bumis alike.

Tun, since you mentioned the idea of management, let me summarize this by putting forward a basic economic concept: it's not just about opportunity... it's about opportunity cost.

The Day After the Debate

2008-07-16T00:08:00.000-07:00

Anwar may have been the winner of the debate - but Shabery won the expectations game. The question now is how the two balance out... and whether it was in BN's best interest not to put a bigger pit bull like Nazri or even Najib.

Marina Mahathir made some interesting comments on her blog. On the observation that no ties were worn I might add that a while back CNN did a piece on the psychology of it - youthfulness, casual demeanor, that sort of thing. Sort of like the Peron-era taking-off-your-suit to be with the working class idea. CNN noted two interesting personalities hat did that: Barack Obama, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I also like her parting comment that further debates would be interesting... though I get a feeling her father, Tun Dr. Mahathir wouldn't mind being on prime time again.

Personally, I think that you can't have it both ways about Petronas. Either you think it's a part of the government or you don't - and thus if it's doing well, it's true that it is a credit to the Barisan. You can say that the earnings are not used to the people's benefit, but you have to acknowledge the success. On the other hand, what's the point of an entity well managed by the government that doesn't benefit the people the government is meant to serve? Petronas is really a double-edged kris.

Quote of the evening:

"Naik minyak mendadak, inflasi tidak akan naik: itu teori ekonomi siapa yang ajar begitu?"
Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim

Faux pas of the evening:

"Kita tidak perlu berarak di jalan raya... atau membuat konsert yang tidak senonoh seperti baru-baru ini." Datuk Shabery Cheek
Tuan Menteri... tak kan pengajur konsert sengaja buat tu. Tambah juga, ingat sikit siapa yang buat pergerakan tidak senonoh di Parlimen.

"Kita dalam pemerintahan ini nak jaga siapa - nak jaga tauke besar dan kroni atau nak jaga rakyat? Kita jaga semua." Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim
Maaf, Datuk Seri - cukuplah jaga rakyat, biar tauke besar dan kroni jaga sendiri...

The Big Picture is Sometimes Smaller

2008-07-07T13:24:00.000-07:00

Have a look at this article from the Star:

Remember di bangku sekolah we suka highlight textbooks? Well, sometimes bila kita highlight, rumusan itu menunjukkan ramuan tertentu:

Si Monyet kata:

"Konteks itu penting juga."

Siapa Buka Durian?

2008-07-04T02:21:00.000-07:00

Meaning, what's that smell, not why so sedap.

I've started this blog because I want to complain sikit. The difference between me and some other bloggers is that I admit it. The shared similarity is that I say I complain sikit, but I end up complaining banyak. What to do. Malaysia boleh, wat.

Everyone is talking about this Saiful fella. Whether he did whatever with Anwar. Why he took a picture in front of Najib's office. Anwar's side says he works for Najib. Anwar's side shows pictures. Najib's side says he took a photo at the DPM's office when he was going for a scholarship, and he was a student leader.

My favourite monkey is going to go off the beaten track.

Si Monyet kata:

"Saiful got a government scholarship, from Deputy Prime Minister summore. Saiful was a student leader. And Saiful dropped out of uni. Siapa punya orang yang kita bagi biasiswa?!"

In other words: siapa buka durian?