NAJIB CAN'T BE PM

Zaid Ibrahim | Mar 18, 09 1:51pm
Malaysiakini

The following is the hard-hitting speech by former law minister Zaid Ibrahim at the Royal Rotary Club of Kuala Lumpur today.

This is the second time I have been invited to address a Rotary Club. Thank you for the honour. Given the times we live in, perhaps it might be appropriate for me to speak about the leadership transition that has been foisted upon us Malaysians.

I say ‘foisted’ because neither me nor anyone in this room had any role or say in the choice of the person who will lead Malaysia next. We were mere bystanders in a political chess game. And yet the transition is a subject of great consequence to the nation, one I would say is of great national interest.

Leadership is definitive; the individual who assumes the mantle of leadership of this nation, whomever that may be, is one who for better or worse will leave his mark on us. His will be the hand who guides us to greater success, or possibly gut-wrenching disaster.

Save for the dawn of Merdeka, never in the history of this country has the choice of prime minister been so crucial: Malaysia is in crisis. We are facing tremendous economic challenges with unavoidably harsh socio-political consequences. Our much undermined democracy is once again being assailed by those who would prefer a more autocratic form of governance.

Our public institutions are hollowed out caricatures, unable to distinguish vested party interests from national ones, unable to offer the man in the street refuge from the powerful and connected.
Our social fabric that took us from colony to an independent nation and on through the obstacles of nation building has reached a point where it sometimes feel like we are hanging on by a thread. This is the Malaysia we live in.

PM’s resignation ill-fated

This is the Malaysia which Abdullah Ahmad Badawi leaves behind. Our prime minister will resign later this month - an ill-fated decision. I say ill-fated not because he has been a great prime minister and we would lose irreplaceable leadership, that is regrettably not the case as all things said and done, Abdullah could have done much more for Malaysia.

Rather, I say that his resignation is ill-fated because his departure will expose the country to forces which may take us down the road of perdition faster than ever. Much has been said of Pak Lah being a weak leader. However, what his critics have not adequately addressed are the consequences of replacing him as prime minister with the anticipated incoming president of Umno, Najib (Abdul) Razak.

It is an undeniable truth that the average Malaysian is anxious about the anticipated transition. Many would prefer it did not happen.

There are two reasons why this is so. The first has to do with the reasoning underlying Umno's demand for the transition itself. The second has to do with Najib personally.

We must recall that after the 2008 general election - a great success for the nation but a fiasco for Umno – one of the chief complaints by the powers-that-be within Umno was that Abdullah’s feeble leadership led to the concept of Ketuanan Melayu being challenged and ultimately undermined.

His critics also lashed out at him for the latitude given to civil society, a move which they believed weakened a key aspect of Umno's political leverage. It followed in Umno's mind that in order to regain lost ground, it was necessary to reassert its ideology with greater strength.

There was nostalgia for Mahathir's heavy-handed style of leadership and a return to the times when the party cowed many into subservience and submission.The conservatives in Umno yearned for a return to Mahathirism, hoping that it would become a cornerstone of the leadership transition plan. There has been much speculation and punditry on whether a return to the Mahathir era would be good for Malaysia.

Difference between then and now

Let me offer some of my own insight to this debate. The major difference between then and now is this: in most instances, Mahathir was harsh and dictatorial if he believed it was good for the country. But an authoritarian style of government under anyone else would be dictated by the need for self preservation and very little about the country’s interest.

The evidence is all around us. After March 8, (2008) when the prime minister ceased being the home minister, the threats of reprisal have escalated and a climate of fear re-cultivated. The detention of Raja Petra Kamarudin, Teresa Kok and Tan Hoong Cheng exemplify this turn for the worse, this appetite to use the sledgehammer.

The shameful power grab in Perak and wanton disregard for public opinion over how BN wrested control of the silver state make many people shudder at the prospect of a return to the dark days. If that was not depressing enough, we have had to bear witness to the police and the newly-minted Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) displaying their allegiance and support to the BN when all we needed and craved for were honest brokers.

It stands to reason that in the mind of the average Malaysian, having suffered a significant loss last March, Umno is on a rampage to regain what it lost by any method available and the man who is expected to lead it to victory is the man who succeeds Abdullah: Najib (Abdul) Razak.

A prime minister must have the confidence of the majority of the rakyat. In order for this to be the case, his integrity must be beyond question; not only must he be such a person character, he must be seen to be such a person. The office of prime minister is one of great trust, he who holds that office cradles the nation in his palms.

For this to be the case, there cannot be anything in the mind of the greater public that, correctly or otherwise, associates him with matters of criminality, wrongful action, improper conduct or abuses of power. In short, he must be beyond reproach in his dealings both official and private.

Without intending any accusation, it is regrettable that in the collective mind of the rakyat, Najib is not such a person. If a referendum were to be conducted on the subject or if the prime minister was to be elected directly by the rakyat, I do not think Najib would succeed. The reason for this is obvious: the rakyat has doubts, fuelled by the unanswered allegations against him and his unwillingness to confront these allegations.

It is not a mere trifle in the minds of the rakyat that despite a direct challenge from a member of parliament in the august House recently, the deputy prime minister remained silent, not even denying the implicit accusation made against him and demanding that it be repeated outside the chamber in the tried and tested method of refutation employed by parliamentarians throughout the world.

It has not assisted the cause of the incoming prime minister that the MP concerned was suspended for a year on a motion tabled by a fellow minister without the member having been afforded an opportunity to defend his position.

Evidence of SMS text-messages

Consider this. Commissions were paid to an agent for the procurement of submarines through the Defence Ministry, Najib (then) being the defence minister. It is unthinkable that he had no knowledge that the agent was his adviser and aide, Abdul Razak Baginda. The commission paid out was exceedingly large, in excess of RM400 million.

The defence minister was dutybound to direct enquiries to see if there had been any impropriety in the way the contracts were awarded when news of the commission surfaced; after all the price of the submarines would be considerably lower without the need for such commissions.

Taxpayers, you and I, have paid for those submarines at a price that in all probability factored in the commission. Taxpayers are yet to be told of an inquiry let alone the result of such an inquiry.
Consider the Altantuya Shaariibuu affair. A young woman was brutally murdered, her corpse destroyed by explosives.

These explosives are not the usual type of explosives, yet no inquiry was held to determine how they were available to these killers. Those accused of her murder are police officers serving in the Unit Tindakan Khas, a highly specialised unit who amongst other things serve as bodyguards to the prime minister and the deputy prime minister.

Amidst evidence that the accused were employed to protect the PM and the DPM, they were directed to (Abdul) Razak Baginda through the aide of the deputy prime minister. Amongst other things, we have heard of the senior investigating officer admitting that the deputy prime minister was an important witness and yet no statement was taken.

It is not unreasonable to think that this is irregular, more so when evidence of SMS text-messages from the deputy prime minister concerning material matters have surfaced. The text-messages cannot be ignored, proverbially swept under the carpet.

Even if they do not establish - or are not capable of establishing - any culpability on the part of Najib, these issues must be addressed.

The air must be cleared, it is thick with accusations and doubts which can only undermine the office of the prime minister if he were to assume it. The deputy prime minister's cause has not been aided by the fact that charges were preferred against (Abdul) Razak Baginda only after public outcry, the manner in which the prosecution was conducted and the decision of the High Court acquitting (Abdul) Razak Baginda not having been appealed.

Power grab an unmitigated disaster

The Perak affair was an unmitigated disaster for the nation. It is no secret that Najib led the charge there and is still overseeing matters.

In the minds of Malaysians, Perak is synonymous with the deputy prime minister. They now equate him with the high-handed tactics that were employed to seize power, tactics that included the disappearances of the three crucial assemblypersons and the blockading of the legislative assembly by the police.

In doing so, they equate the DPM with the hijacking of democracy, the only persons saying otherwise being those persons who have associations with Umno. In their minds, no responsible leader would allow for the undermining of the institutions of state and the constitution of this nation.

They ask, rightly so, whether this is the kind of leadership that Malaysians can expect from Najib when he becomes the prime minister.

With all of this, and more, how are we not to feel anxious? How are we to sleep peacefully at night? I know that I cannot. The situation is desperate and the air is pregnant with tension. We need the state of affairs to be resolved in a way that is in the best interests of the nation and the rakyat.

To an extent, this is a matter for the Barisan Nasional. I urge its members to put politics aside and think things through. We all want a better future, a safer and more prosperous life for our children, all of them, a Malaysia where our children can reach for the stars with the certainty that there is nothing to stop them from being the Malaysians they want to be.

Let the king be kingmaker

I do not believe that the Barisan Nasional will do what is necessary. Politics has a tendency of making those who embrace it cynical. The answer lies elsewhere, with His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

In this case, His Majesty plays the role of ‘kingmaker’. The discretion to appoint the prime minister who succeeds Abdullah lies with His Majesty. Though His Majesty is required under the constitution to appoint the person who commands the confidence of the majority of the members of parliament, it is a matter for His Majesty's judgment.
Never before has such a heavy burden being laid on His Majesty to make a brave and correct choice.

For King and country, I urge His Majesty to take into consideration the prerequisites to appointment and the concerns of the rakyat. There is no constitutional obligation on His Majesty to appoint the president of Umno as the prime minister. There are still well qualified members of parliament from Umno who can be appointed PM to bring us back from the brink.

Malaysia needs someone who the rakyat can throw their weight behind without reservation. Someone they can trust and respect. Someone who has no scandal to distract him and thereby gain respect from the international community.

These are difficult times and be prepared for worst times to visit us. Malaysia needs a leader who will unite the country in the face of the adversity. Divided, we are weak. I am loath to say it, but for the reasons I have set out am compelled to say that Najib will most certainly divide us and in doing so, will nudge us closer to the edge.

Some of you may say that all efforts to promote the national interest are at this stage an exercise in futility. If truth be told, I am tempted to slip into cynical hopelessness too. I am fighting the temptation to give up for one simple reason: Malaysia and all that it represents. This is a blessed country, a country too valuable for us to turn our backs on.

Teo Kok Seong: Rakyat Perlu Menguasai Bahasa Melayu

This is a good discussion on Bahasa Melayu. I like it because it is answered by a Chinese Malaysian - Dr Teo Kok Seong, professor sosiolinguistic of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). In this series on how the national language is perceived by non-Malays....

Teo Kok Seong: ...Kata mereka, kita tidak boleh kata bahawa orang cina yang tidak boleh berbahasa melayu ini tidak patriotik.

Saya tak kata mereka tidak patriotik. Cuma saya kata agak pelik. Ini kerana hal ini tidak semestinya berlaku. Sebab bagi saya, seorang warganegara Malaysia mesti mempunyai pengetahuan bahasa melayu yang mencukupi. Sikit-sikitpun tidak mengapa. Sedangkan kita tengok ada yang sepatah pun tak tahu. Jadi macamana?
More...

So do you agree that to be a Malaysian, one needs to at least know Malay?

I have met some Chinese Malaysian who don't know how to speak Malay, or they speak it so badly you want to ask them to shut up. These people just hang out with Chinese their whole lives and never want to venture out of their own language community. They study in Chinese schools, they do business with Chinese, and they eat Chinese food. I want to ask them, hey are you Malaysian or China Chinese?

What Environment? It's Occupation and Terrorism

I watched What Rainforest? and immediately felt that it should not be called an "environmental" documentary. But it's seemingly environmental sounding name belies the cruel reality of the story.

At the Freedom Film Fest where it debuted, it was put under the category "Native Rights and Conservation" and many like me would be wont to expect an environmental film. But how wrong was I.

As environmental issues become mainstream, its messages becomes simplified and stereotyped…. and boring. Add the indigenous people, and the hollywood theme of Guardian of the Rainforest gets even more tiresome.

Here goes – Primitive but wise with the way of the jungle, the indigenous people fight a losing battle against modern development to protect their way of life and identity. How heroic. How sad. Period.

I think it's time to move on. Because if you sing this refrain over and over, people stop caring. And it gives ammunition to those who don't give two hoots about the environment or native rights to respond: Hey, wake up man. We have to develop. We have hungry stomachs to fill. Why should we be sorry for cutting down a few trees? The West finished cutting their trees and now wants to stop us?! And those lazy natives, why are you so anti-development? You want to be uneducated, poor and hungry ah? (as if they were offered any choices).

That's the typical answer politicians in Sarawak love to give when you present them facts about illegal logging. Nevermind the criminal element of illegal logging, they will bring out that tiresome narrative about development vs environment.

The 36 minute documentary What Rainforest? by Chi Too and Hilary Chiew is a different sort of film albeit with an environmental sounding name. It made me sit up. It made me burn. It's not about development vs environment with pretty pictures of virgin rainforests and its denizens thrown in.

It's really about occupation and terrorism. Much akin to what the Palestinians are facing in their homeland. Driven out of their land and occupied by others while the rest of the world looks on.

Except that in this case, it is perpetuated not by foreign enemies but done with the aggressive support of the state using our tax dollars backed by dubious sections of the law. So in effect, it's state terrorism.

Ok, I'd say the Palestinians have it much worse, but the fact of the matter is that Occupation and Terrorism is happening in the Land of the Hornbills. Occupation - people's land are being occupied illegally. Terrorism - people are being threatened and even beaten if they refuse to leave, if they put up blockades, or if they're organising their people. There have been cases of mysterious disappearences and deaths of activists. Recently, Penan women and girls claimed that they were raped and sexually abused by loggers. All these are terrorism tactics to cow a people into submission so they abandon their claim to the land.

If the same events were to be transplanted into Peninsular Malaysia middle-class life, there would be lawsuits, and rolling heads. No, it wouldn't even happen to begin with. If it did, the closest thing that can bring that kind of outrage is the demolition of places of worship. It would bring no less than a Hindraf Makkal Sakti kind of respond.

When handbags get snatched, when houses get burglarized, especially when it's a politician's wife and a minister's house, they get frontpaged. When someone's land in Sarawak is being grabbed in broad daylight, and the owners terrorized by gangsters and police stand and watch, it's either too sensitive or too complicating to report. Let me just put it simply.

Imagine someone coming into your house and cart all your furniture out. Then, they put their own furniture inside your house and tell you, get out, this house belongs to us now. You go to the police. They do nothing. Ok now, put yourself in the native's shoes, or bare feet. Those bulldozers and loggers come, and they plunder your trees – trees that give shade, wood and fronds to build homes, herbs and roots for medicine, trees that shelter animals so you can hunt them for food, and strong roots to keep soil in place so you have water to drink and wash from clean rivers– in short, everything you need to survive. No need to venture into global warming talk or critters at the brink of extinction.

The greedy loggers don't care about any of that. They show you their license to log with Sarawak Chief Minister Taib's signature on it and laugh in your face. While you're slogging out in court moving at a snail's pace to prove that the land belongs to you because your ancestors were there first, they flout court decrees and start logging anyway. Before the judge can postpone the next trial date, they start planting oil palm. Then they claim the land is theirs because instead of leaving the land "idle", they cultivate it. Next they apply ownership papers to justify it.

What do you do? You'd better start planting oil palm before they come. Forget about your old life of living in harmony with nature. Forget about your cultural identity and traditional way of life, and least of all, the environment. Log the trees, sell the timber and with the money, plant oil palm. Lots of them. Then you can prove that the land is yours. Beat the greedy companies in their own game ha ha. That's what the last man standing did, Segan anak Degon. Hmm, tidak Segan sama sekali, brave man.
Hell, that's what I'll do if I were in his place.

To watch What Rainforest? Here


(Note to future film fest organizers interested in showing this film: This film should be put under the category: Occupation and Terrorism and shown with other films of this nature, such as the Palestinian conflict, and the War against Terrorism. Not under Environment.)

ANCAMAN KEPADA MELAYU

"UTUSAN MALAYSIA: Sekarang ini ada pula Melayu liberal yang juga mahu supaya diwujudkan kesamarataan?

DR. SHAM RAHAYU: Kelompok ini yang menjadi racun, saya sebut ini adalah Melayu yang makan Melayu, Melayu yang menjadi racun kepada Perlembagaan.

Tidak mustahil mereka yang mencetuskan semua ini.

Mereka yang nak jadi juara memperjuangkan hak sama rata, tanpa memahami sejarah Perlembagaan secara semangatnya.

Mereka melihat Perkara 153 itu seolah-olah membawa pandangan buruk kepada Melayu, mereka rasa keistimewaan itu macam bantuan kepada orang cacat, benda yang buruk kepada orang Melayu.

Ini menjadikan orang memijak Perlembagaan.

Mereka ini tali barut yang menjadikan Perkara 153 dan orang Melayu sendiri bencikan keistimewaan Melayu.

Kita tidak menafikan perkembangan mutakhir ini menunjukkan wujud dua Melayu iaitu Melayu liberal dan Melayu Perlembagaan. [Mingguan Malaysia]"

Media independence: Don't just leave it to the journalists

I refer to Mirror, Mirror by A. Asohan on StarMag June 15.

I was at the National Press Club when de facto Law minister Zaid Ibrahim gave a disingenuous speech to a roomful of journalists, bloggers and activists who work for press freedom.

He seemed to be the appropriate person from the government to be invited to speak in the Walk for Press Freedom event on June 1st. Firstly, because he seemed like a progressive fella with his talk and action on reforming the judiciary.

Secondly, because he is the de facto law minister, he would perhaps do something about the oppressive laws that continue to muzzle the media.

I think his speech was not only condescending, but showed his lack of understanding of the issues at stake. He started off by saying that he was not there to support press freedom nor was he the right person for that matter to be addressed to. Then he lectured the retinue of journalists and activists that they should blame themselves for the lack of media freedom, and NOT the government.

I think if we were more self-respectable, we would’ve just walked out. Luckily, some of us boo-ed and jeer-ed him. Afterall, we didn’t go there to be lectured by some politician about media freedom. We want to see if this government after March 8 is committed to media freedom, as it seems to be, about the state of the judiciary.

A media of integrity, a fair and balanced media, is not just the prerogative of journalists. It is in the interest of everyone – it is the right of the citizens in a democratic country. It should provide a fair and balance view of issues important for the people, and to be the voice of the voiceless, rather than a mouthpiece of the government.

After Operasi Lallang in 1987, the government under the former Prime Minister effectively brought all mainstream media under its control either directly, or indirectly. Newspapers were bought over by political parties and laws like the Printing and Publication Act, the Official Secrets Act and the Sedition Act instill fear and self-censorship among its senior editors and working journalists.

In this climate of fear, the lack of critical journalism is precisely what’s driving people online to get their news. The explosion of bloggers and online news and the millions of hits they get show the people’s hunger for REAL NEWS and VIEWS that matter. That power is now accorded some respect after the fallout of the recent general election. Good. Now let’s hope something is done to lift those laws that curtail the independence of mainstream media.

If we leave it to the current batch of working journalists and senior editors to revamp the state of the media, with those laws still hanging over their heads like a Damocles’ sword, we won’t get anywhere. After all, their bread and butter depend on retaining the status quo.

In the same way, let me ask Zaid, why didn’t he tell the judges to clean the judiciary up? Can we leave it to the judges to clean themselves up, when some of them are implicated as beneficiaries of executive interference? Why talk about an independent commission to elect judges, why bother when judges themselves haven’t said anything about overhauling the justice system?

A strong, independent media is an integral institution of a functioning democracy. Like an effective, independent judiciary – those two pillars of democracy should not just be left just to working judges or working journalists. They are too important.

And this time I agree with Asohan - the press, the powers-that-be and the public – are stakeholders here. It is in the interest of the Malaysian public to be served news that is fair and balanced and that reflects their needs and aspirations. If you believe that you deserve to know the truth and make informed decision, make it known by signing on this petition http://benar.org/

Come on, take that first step.

FOOD CRISIS: IS THE ANSWER MORE TECHNOLOGY, MORE FREE TRADE? Burma's numbers don't lie

---
I came across some startling numbers in Newsweek while taking my usual lrt train to work in downtown KL. "By the Numbers" is my favourite section in the magazine because it makes you double back and think again. This time it's about Burma and food.

Since the media broke stories about the food crisis and rising food prices, I've been trying to get my head around this new global life threatening issue. Food shortage due to climate change and biofuel taking away land for food crops are among the things that have been blamed. And the solutions - I've read that we need another green revolution, we need more genetic modified seeds, we need to modernise and corporatise agriculture, and we need more free trade.

But are those the answers? Or are they the very reasons why we're facing the food crisis now.

These numbers from a very "backward" country confirms my suspicion about the mis-conceptions and mis-information about the global food crisis.

By the Numbers (reprint from Newsweek May 25 - June 2)

Burma is a land of agricultural bounty - its rice yield ranks as one
of the highest in Southeast Asia. This richness has cushioned the
ruling junta from the food riots that are starting to plague
neighbouring states.

206 - number of kilograms of rice per person per year consumed in
Burma, the highest in the region.

3.8 - number of tons per hectare of Burma's rice yield - 44 percent
higher than that of neighboring Thailand.

2,912 - average number of daily calories consumed by Burma's citizens,
the highest in Southeast Asia

6% - of Burma's people who are malnourished, as opposed to 20 % of
Thais and 19 % of Vietnamese.

Now for those of you who have little idea about the wealth disparity of these South East Asian nations, here are their GDPs per capita.

Burma USD 1,800
Thailand USD 9,200
Malaysia USD 12,200
Indonesia USD 3,900
Philipines USD 5,000

Thailand's GDP per capita is more than FOUR times that of Burma, and Malaysia's is almost SEVEN times that of Burma. If you walk in downtown Bangkok or Kuala Lumpur, and then in Rangoon, you'd think that you've been transported 50 years back. Yet there are more malnourished people in Thailand than Burma.

I am amazed that whatever we think about the Burmese, as being oppressed and starved by their fat military rulers, they are amazingly self-sufficient. Left to their own devices, left to their antiquated agricultural tools and their traditional way of farming, Burma's rice yield per hectar is 44% higher than Thailand, which has an export oriented agriculture and has embraced all kinds of new technologies, modern chemical fertilisers and pesticides.

That leads me to ask: Is modern farming depleting the richness of soil and thus, reducing the capacity of land to produce? Is the corporatisation of food decreasing food sustainability and food security?

I want you to read Vandana Shiva's interview with ALTER net. She is a world-renowned environmental activist, physicist, and authour of 300 papers in leading scientific and technical journals. Here she explains how corporation-friendly economic schemes got us into this mess in the first place.


Vandana Shiva: Why We Face Both Food and Water Crises

--