Thursday 25 October 2012
Unity - Never Seen Before
One of the very good initiative in Pakatan Rakyat…Hope we can see more of these kind of prayer for peace together…
A delegation of about a dozen Pas representatives made a courtesy call to new Penang Diocese Bishop Sebastian Francis at his office at the Cathedral of the Holy Spirit yesterday to congratulate him on his recent appointment.
Penang Pas ulamak chief Soib Mohd Amin saying a prayer of peace together with Bishop Sebastian Francis inside the bishop’s office at the Cathedral
The Pas delegation comprising mainly Penang Pas representatives was led by Parit Buntar MP Mujahid Yusof Rawa.
Also present were College General seminary rector Fr Gerard Theraviam and Cathedral parish priest Fr Bernard Paul.
Ustaz Soib Mohd Amin said a prayer for peace and for closer Muslim-Christian relations while Bishop Sebastian reciprocated by saying the Bapa Kami (Our Father) as a prayer for the nation. The new bishop also stressed the importance of cultivating a deep spirituality – an aspiration shared by people of other faiths – in forging closer Muslim-Christian ties.
Both sides pointed to their common Abrahamic heritage, which could serve as a foundation to promote better interreligious understanding.
The Pas delegation then presented the Bishop with a book and a specially baked ‘good luck’ cake.
congratulatory cake from pas to new penang bishop sebastian francis
Bishop Sebastian Francis flanked by Mujahid Yusof Rawa (left) and Tasik Gelugor Pas information chief Abdul Rahman Kassim
Bishop Sebastian then hosted tea and refreshments for the visitors.
The meeting yesterday was initiated by Mujahid and Pas representatives, who had sent a letter to the Bishop informing him of their wish to make a courtesy call.
Oxford relies on interviews to pick students
LONDON: Explain why many animals have stripes. Why do humans have two eyes?
Teenagers who can give convincing answers to these posers when they are interviewed for a place at Oxford could be just who the university is looking for, it was revealed yesterday.
Tutors at Oxford lifted the lid on the interview process to explode some of the myths about what is seen as the most nerve-racking aspect of admissions.
“Discuss JK Rowling’s transition from Harry Potter to writing for adults” is an example of one of the questions students are asked in the Oxford examinations.
The university has increasingly come to rely on interviews to identify high-fliers because public exams fail to discriminate between the bright and the exceptional.
Oxford said interviews give candidates the chance to show their “real ability and potential”.
One English literature don said pupils were more likely to be asked about Harry Potter than Shakespeare, at least in initial questioning.
“No all candidates might have the same access to a wide range of literature.” said Lucinda Rumsey, of Mansfield College.
“If I start with Harry Potter, everyone at least has a starting point of recognition.”
History applicants might be asked to imagine how much about the past they could find out simply from historical records of sport.
Applicants for experimental psychology who are asked why humans have two eyes might be expected to discuss the reasons in terms of three dimensional vision.
And the question about striped animals might be thrown at applicants for biological sciences. Martin Speight, of St Anne’s College, said: “There are no right or wrong specific answers – I’m interested in candidates’ speculations about the advantages of having stripes.”
Mike Nicholson, director of admissions at Oxford, said: “The interviews are designed to push students to think, not recite specific facts or answers.” DM
Teenagers who can give convincing answers to these posers when they are interviewed for a place at Oxford could be just who the university is looking for, it was revealed yesterday.
Tutors at Oxford lifted the lid on the interview process to explode some of the myths about what is seen as the most nerve-racking aspect of admissions.
“Discuss JK Rowling’s transition from Harry Potter to writing for adults” is an example of one of the questions students are asked in the Oxford examinations.
The university has increasingly come to rely on interviews to identify high-fliers because public exams fail to discriminate between the bright and the exceptional.
Oxford said interviews give candidates the chance to show their “real ability and potential”.
One English literature don said pupils were more likely to be asked about Harry Potter than Shakespeare, at least in initial questioning.
“No all candidates might have the same access to a wide range of literature.” said Lucinda Rumsey, of Mansfield College.
“If I start with Harry Potter, everyone at least has a starting point of recognition.”
History applicants might be asked to imagine how much about the past they could find out simply from historical records of sport.
Applicants for experimental psychology who are asked why humans have two eyes might be expected to discuss the reasons in terms of three dimensional vision.
And the question about striped animals might be thrown at applicants for biological sciences. Martin Speight, of St Anne’s College, said: “There are no right or wrong specific answers – I’m interested in candidates’ speculations about the advantages of having stripes.”
Mike Nicholson, director of admissions at Oxford, said: “The interviews are designed to push students to think, not recite specific facts or answers.” DM
Tuesday 16 October 2012
AG report: Top marks to Pakatan states
Author: Syed Jaymal Zahiid
Source : http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/
October 15, 2012
The 2011 Auditor-General's report showed that apart from a few minor glitches, all four states showed good financial standing.
KUALA LUMPUR: The 2011 Auditor-General’s report indicates good fiscal management by all four Pakatan Rakyat-controlled states with revenues improving.
DAP-held Penang led the way in terms of revenue collection, recording a RM192.19 million or 46.8% increase compared with the RM410.70 million made in 2010 while Selangor, Malaysia’s richest state, increased by RM62.50 million or 4% for the same period.
Kedah, on the other hand, saw its surplus drop when it recorded an increase in operating expenditures despite boosting its revenue, but the report noted that the PAS-led state government had more or less maintained a “satisfactory” balance sheet.
But the rice-bowl state, considered as one of the country’s poorest, is still far from achieving its debt target, said the report.
“The state government’s commitment to the remaining public debt now stands at RM2.60 billion compared with RM2.61 billion in 2010; it is still high,” it read, adding that Kedah must do more to improve its revenue collection.
Oil-rich Kelantan, too, was rated satisfactory due to the increase in its consolidated fund by RM86.17 million or 58.1% to RM234.47 million as compared with the RM148.30 million recorded in 2010.
The PAS-conrolled-state also saw investments in 2011 increase by RM95 million from RM16.33 million in 2010 to RM111.33 million in 2011.
The state’s overall financial performance statement, whereby revenue as compared to total management and development expenditures for 2011, recorded an increase from total deficit of RM171.70 million in 2010 to RM141.53 million in 2011.
But the AG report highlighted poor debt management by Kelantan.
“Public debts increased by RM27.85 million from RM1.11 billion in 2010 to RM1.14 billion in 2011. The arrears of debts repayment to the federal government also increased from RM121.57 million in 2010 to RM179.81 million in 2011″.
Meanwhile, the report noted marked improvements in the performance of state agencies with most rated “excellent” compared to 2010, although it recommended Kelantan and Kedah to provide more training for its officers to improve.
Selangor and Penang were praised for their initiatives to bolster their financial management performance.
Also read:
AG report: Govt agencies improved in 2011
Nazri praises Pakatan led states
Monday 15 October 2012
Budget 2013: Federal government subsidies go up in flames while poor Malaysians watch
By Teh Chi-Chang, CFA
Executive Director
REFSA (Research for Social Advancement)
Friday, 12 October 2012
We write to rebut Dr Lim Teck Ghee’s assertion that “There is little empirical research to back up what has become an increasingly popular line of argument” that blanket subsidies such as for cheap petrol and sugar “benefit upper-class Malaysians who consume much more than their poorer cousins[1]”.
These are the basic facts:
1. The federal government subsidy bill is expected to exceed RM42 billion this year.
2. If we can agree that subsidies should go only to the poor, and we define the poor as the bottom 1/3rd of households, there will be 2.3 million households or nearly 10 million Malaysians[2] who will get subsidies.
3. RM42 billion is enough to give these bottom 1/3rd of households RM1,650 per month – which will more than double their current incomes of RM1,500 per month!
Quite clearly, federal government subsidies are not going where they should. RM42 billion is enough to give the poorest 1 of 3 households RM550 every 10 days, as opposed to the occasional RM500 BR1M payment. Note that in addition to the RM42 billion federal government subsidies, Petronas bears another RM20 billion or so per year in supplying cheap gas to the independent power producers and other industries.
Let’s not fritter away resources on unnecessary ivory-tower analysis. The simple truth is that the bulk of the subsidies goes to cheap fuel which is burnt, and the rich man burns more than the poor. Just ask the average man on a small motorbike how much he spends on petrol and contrast that to what a man driving a gleaming new BMW spends.
Figure 1: Who uses more petrol?
Figure 2: And who takes more sugar?
Cartoons from UMNO-Nomics: the Dark Side of the Budget, Teh Chi-Chang & Johnny Ong, REFSA, July 2012.
Dr Lim also says these subsidies are a “necessary burden” in a “highly skewed capitalist economy like Malaysia”. We would highlight that income inequality in Malaysia remains high [3] despite the quadrupling of subsidies under Dato’ Sri Najib’s administration. The subsidy bill has soared from RM10 billion in 2007 to over RM42 billion today [4].
The massive 4-fold increase in subsidies has clearly not been effective. In their current form, the massive amount spent on subsidies is literally going up in flames, while the vast majority of Malaysians remain lowly-skilled and poorly-paid. 77% of our work-force has SPM-level qualifications, at best; and the bottom 40% of our households survive on RM50 per day [5].
It is in this context that IDEAS (Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs) and REFSA issued a joint-statement [6] expressing shock at the ballooning federal government subsidy bill [7] and calling for blanket subsidies such as for cheap petrol and sugar to be restructured so that the poor rather than the rich would benefit. REFSA calls for a constructive national discourse on restructuring our subsidy policies. This discourse should centre around 3 main issues:
1. Who should receive subsidies? All Malaysians? Or just the poor and marginalised and other selected groups?
2. How much should they get? Should all Malaysians get the same amount each? Or should the amount be calibrated according to need?
3. In what form should the subsidies be given and should there be a time limit? Should it all be in cash? Or should it be in the form of an enhanced social safety net that includes, for example, housing, child-care, educational, skills-training and micro-financing support? And should there be a time limit for some or all of these subsidies?
It is obvious the existing subsidies are poorly delivered. Even the currently ‘targeted’ subsidies, such as cheap fuel for fishermen are misused as some fishermen choose to sell the fuel and make an immediate profit instead of actually going out to fish [8].
We believe subsidies should be directed towards the most disadvantaged segments of the community, including single parents and the disabled. Let’s work together to identify the disadvantaged groups that require support and craft subsidy policies that meet their needs, with the aim of ultimately lifting as many Malaysians as possible from the need for welfare.
______
[1] REFSA and IDEA’s misplaced focus on critiquing subsidies in the budget. Dr Lim Teck Ghee, 1 Oct 2012. Available at http://english.cpiasia.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2419&catid=118&Itemid=162 Retrieved 6 Oct 2012.
[2] Number of households data from Endnote 17 of UMNO-Nomics: the Dark Side of the Budget. Teh Chi-Chang and Johnny Ong, REFSA, July 2012.
[3] Data from the 2009 Household Income Survey shows the Gini coefficient (a measure of income inequality) rising slightly to 0.441 in 2009 from 0.440 in 2007. It is little changed from 0.443 in 1999.
[4] Subsidies have increased dramatically under Dato’ Sri Najib Razak’s administration. Federal government subsidies were just RM10.5 billion in 2007. In 2010, that had doubled to RM23.8 billion; and in 2012 are now more than quadrupled to RM42.4 billion. The federal government projects the subsidy bill to fall to RM37.6 billion in 2013, but this is on the expectation of lower global oil prices rather than due to subsidy reform.
[5] As discussed in Sections 1.7 and 4.3 of UMNO-Nomics: the Dark Side of the Budget.
[6] Budget 2012: The shocking explosion of federal government subsidies. Wan Saiful and Teh Chi-Chang, 28 Oct 2012. Available at www.refsa.org.
[7] The original amount budgeted for subsidies in 2012, as stated in the Economic Report 2011/2012 released last year, was RM33.2 billion. In the latest Economic Report 2012/2013, it is now estimated that the subsidy bill will hit RM42.4 billion in 2012.
[8] For example, fishermen near Sepang buy subsidised petrol at RM1.30 per litre and then sell it at RM1.80. Reported in Fishermen selling subsidised diesel and petrol to others.
Stuart Michael, Star Metro, 15 Feb 2012.
Available at www.thestar.com.my. Retrived on 8 Oct 2012.
Malaysia’s elections: Should the international community care?
— Ambiga Sreenevasan
The Malaysian Insider
Oct 15, 2012
OCT 15 — Those in the international community may be forgiven for saying, “Is there a problem with the democratic process in Malaysia?”
In the international arena, our leaders portray Malaysia as a moderate Islamic nation that is built on the democratic principles that are enshrined in our Federal Constitution. The fundamental rights of freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, the right to life and a fair electoral process, are indeed guaranteed under our Federal Constitution.
The reality is, however, far less idyllic. There are serious questions whether these rights are respected and upheld by those in power.
Since before the 1990’s, Malaysians have been pushing for a reform of the system of governance. There has been growing discontent over issues like rampant corruption, abuse of power, deaths in custody and selective prosecution (or persecution), to name but a few of the grouses.
We are increasingly alarmed by the use of race and religion by politicians to divide the people for political gain, with no regard whatsoever for the possible long term consequences of this conduct.
We note with disgust our mainstream media descending to the lowest depths of junk journalism. We are appalled at the growing instances of political violence.
In the clearest example of how low we have sunk, human rights defenders and civil society who are seen as opposing the government are facing ruthless attacks by the government of the day. SUARAM, established in 1989 and who has in the past year been exposing possible corruption by Malaysians in high places in the purchase of Scorpene submarines from France, is suddenly facing investigation by several government agencies.
The mainstream media is once again playing its role in showing no regard whatsoever for presenting the whole truth. In a front page news story, preposterous claims were made that NGOs like SUARAM and BERSIH were funded by organisations like National Democratic Institute (NDI) and Open Society Institute (OSI) for the purpose of overthrowing the government. Directors of SUARAM have been hauled up by enforcement agencies for their expose on the corruption, yet our anti- corruption agency fails to even begin to investigate the claims of SUARAM that a huge commission of RM500 million had been received by a Malaysian entity in the Scorpene deal.
Civil society is now continuously portrayed in the media as the enemy who is seeking to overthrow the government at the behest of foreign powers. These accusations have also been hurled at BERSIH, more so since July last year when we had a successful rally of more than 50,000 people on the streets of KL, clamouring for clean and fair elections. Another rally was held in April this year when more than 200,000 people were on the streets, again asking for electoral reform.
Malaysians do not easily take to the streets. The numbers must mean that there were good reasons why they did.
I will not go into more details of the attacks that human rights defenders have had to face by those in authority or those who had the tacit approval of the authorities. Suffice it to say they have been sustained and relentless.
When asked, our leaders will say that this government is reforming because of the replacement of many oppressive laws, and the apparent move to greater democracy. They will say that after the BERSIH rally last year, a parliamentary select committee for electoral reform was set up and a report issued.
What they don’t go on to explain is what replaces these oppressive laws and what they are doing to effectively implement the PSC recommendations. In my view, the new legislation just does not go far enough, and the important recommendations of the PSC report are largely ignored or poorly implemented.
BERSIH also continues to receive reports of electoral malpractices and the integrity of the electoral roll leaves much to be desired. Our Election Commission does not enjoy public confidence and is not seen by many as independent. This together with all the other issues that plague our system of governance leads to the inevitable conclusion that the next crucial general elections will be seriously flawed.
All the so-called reforms are like attempting to varnish a table that is ridden with termites. It is difficult to fix a system that is fundamentally flawed by building on the same rotten foundation. That is, even if there is real political will to reform.
The Global Commission on Elections, Democracy and Security which is headed by Mr. Kofi Annan and which has many distinguished members including H.E Dr Ernesto Zedillo former President of Mexico, Dr Madeleine K. Albright and Professor Amartya Sen, issued a ground-breaking report on clean and fair elections dated September 2012.
In his foreword, Kofi Annan states, “The spread of democracy across the world has been one of the most dramatic changes I have witnessed over the course of my career. In country after country, people have risked their lives to call for free elections, democratic accountability, the rule of law and respect for human rights. Elections are the indispensable root of democracy…..”
I make no apologies for quoting from this report at length for I cannot say it better. The report clearly outlines that clean and fair elections are not just about choosing leaders, but are about building a solid framework for a democracy that works for the people. After studies, the following were some of the conclusions arrived at:
1. “Elections with integrity are important to values that we hold dear — human rights and democratic principles. Elections give life to rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and association, the right to take part in the government of one’s country through freely elected representatives, the right of equal access to public service in one’s country, and the recognition that the authority of government derives from the will of the people, expressed in “genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot.
2. Elections are fundamental to the ethos and principles of democracy…..
3. Citizens lose confidence in democratic processes when elections are not inclusive, transparent, and accountable. When elections have integrity, they bolster democracy, respect fundamental rights, and produce elected officials who are more likely to represent their citizens’ interests.
4. But in addition to promoting democratic values and human rights, elections with integrity can also yield other tangible benefits for citizens. Evidence from around the world suggests that elections with integrity matter for empowering women, fighting corruption, delivering services to the poor, improving governance, and ending civil wars…….
5. Electoral accountability, in turn, is associated with lessening government corruption…….
6. Electoral accountability, in turn, has direct benefits for improving representation of the poor……..
7. Even in countries emerging from civil wars — the most difficult of contexts for building democracy — research now shows that when the termination of the war is accompanied by elections in which former combatants run for office and campaign for votes, countries are less likely to revert to civil war. At the same time, however, other studies note that fraudulent elections are correlated with societal violence and political instability…….”
In an interview after the presentation of the report, Stephen Stedman, director of the Global Commission and a political scientist from Stanford was asked what the motivation was for the report.
In speaking of the chairman Kofi Annan, he said that Annan was “driven by his experience of having to deal with several elections in Africa that had become violent and had gone off the rails. And there is a frustration he feels about how little attention had been paid to those places before they blew up”. (The emphasis is mine)
Let us be clear. Malaysia is not facing the problems or the hopelessness that gave rise to the Arab Spring. We are blessed with an abundance of resources and talent. But to assume that all is well and that there is no need to scrutinise the democratic processes, would be a mistake.
We want change before things do blow up in our faces. We do not want an Arab Spring. We want to choose our leaders in clean and fair elections. If there is to be change, we want to do it through the ballot box.
If the government is willing to overlook, and in fact tacitly support, corruption and abuse of power, and promote racism and religious bigotry for its own ends, how can we trust that the elections will be clean and fair?
There is even an admission of malpractices in the past. A Royal Commission of Inquiry has been set up by the government in the state of Sabah in respect of a large number of foreigners having been given citizenships in exchange for votes for more than 20 years. BERSIH has received reports that this practice continues and even in West Malaysia.
Why is this happening? It is because the party that has been in power for 55 years is now feeling vulnerable. As Aung Sang Suu Kyi has famously said, “It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.”
So why should one country be bothered about electoral processes in another?
We know that if any such suggestion is made, the immediate diplomatic response is that there will be no interference by one country into such domestic matters of another country. Not that this is entirely true in fact.
As observed of the international community in the commission report “While their rhetorical support for elections with integrity may be constant, their record of responding to flawed elections is not. In some cases, their interest lies in bolstering a preferred candidate, not in an election with integrity per se.
Too often, democratic governments have turned a blind eye to electoral malpractice by regimes and incumbents with whom they have friendly relations”.
And the best answer to why everyone should be interested in clean and fair elections everywhere is stated in the report thus:
“We still live in a world in which states act on their strategic interests. The key lies in reminding democratic governments that their strategic interest is best served by supporting elections with integrity. Not only do democratic governments share an interest in the spread of democracy as a bulwark for international peace, but they must also learn that their bilateral relations are strengthened when their partners have democratic legitimacy earned through genuine elections.”
Malaysia is a member of many important regional and international organisations and appears to enjoy the confidence of its neighbours. We can set valuable examples in the region. We have what it takes to be a role model.
But we can only be that if the example we set is one of a truly democratic system of governance borne out of clean and fair elections. And if we are to be valuable contributors to the global community, then it is in everyone’s interests that our elections are clean and fair.
Wednesday 10 October 2012
What’s keeping Malaysia’s Opposition together?
— Bridget Welsh
The Malaysian Insider
Oct 10, 2012
Oct 10 — What keeps the Malaysian opposition Pakatan Rakyat (People’s Alliance) together? The quick answer often given is the common search of political power.
While power frames the relationships between three disparate political parties – Islamist PAS, secular-committed Democratic Action Party and the umbrella reform-oriented PKR of Mr Anwar Ibrahim – it is not the glue of the opposition alliance. Were this the case, PAS would have left the coalition when UMNO floated the offer of joining the government in 2008 and intense jockeying took place within PAS.
The answer lies in the three parties’ shared moral compact. Pakatan Rakyat is an alliance of profoundly different backgrounds, with secularists, theocrats, conservatives and progressives working together. In a world wracked with tensions over religion and misunderstandings, Malaysia’s opposition stands out in bucking international trends of difference.
CORRUPTION IN EVERYDAY LIFE
Three common principles bind the Opposition together. The first is deep concern with endemic corruption.
The problem of corruption is not new, and while Malaysia’s practices are assessed above many in Asia, including Indonesia, what has become increasingly apparent is that it has crossed the line of acceptability for many Malaysians. Survey results show that an overwhelming majority view their officials as corrupt and believe that their officials do not abide by the law.
Scandal after scandal, from the National Feedlot Corporation and Scorpene, to the recent revelations about the extension of the Ampang LRT, has inundated citizens. While there are many civil servants who work hard to deliver services, there are pressures within the system to conform to predatory practices.
Malaysian corruption was initially concentrated among the elite through the practice of “money politics”. But more and more, it is extending into everyday issues such as school fees, crime prevention and service provision.
Most basic food items, such as sugar and rice, are tied to non-transparent deals of politically-aligned businessmen, as are bigger items such as cars through Approved Permit licence allocations.
These weaknesses in governance share a common moral thread – a privileged minority using the system to their advantage, and this is hurting the majority and widening inequality.
FAIRNESS AND THE PLAYING FIELD
This leads to the second shared principle – fairness. The three political parties each have a different take on what is fair, but there are areas of similarity: Namely, everyone should have a seat at the table; everyone should be treated fairly in a court of law; and social and economic inequalities should be minimised.
This shared view of fairness extends into the outrage over unfair legal decisions and deep-seated concerns about poverty and displacement of many Malaysians. Pakatan’s conception of citizenship has evolved into one in which all Malaysians are exactly that — Malaysians. It is a modern view of citizenship, in which everyone has rights and the government is to respond to the people, not the other way round.
The Opposition’s moral compact is also driven by a mutual interest in expanding democratic governance to level the political playing field.
Calls for the removal of the Internal Security Act (which was suspended and replaced by the more benign but less tested Security Offences Act earlier this year), electoral reform, freedoms of assembly, religion and speech, among other things, all fall under the umbrella of expanding political space and rights.
Ever since the reformasi movement of 1999, opposition activists have joined forces in highlighting democratic deficits and showcasing reasons for an expansion of democracy. Each protest and political crisis has brought the opposition together – from Bersih 1.0 in 2007, to the defections and subsequent takeover of the Perak state government in 2009. The bonds forged by protesting together are strong.
Since 2008, there have been significant efforts to rupture the Opposition’s moral compact on multiple fronts. The charges of sodomy and corruption have been tied to attempts to discredit opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim and raise doubts about his moral calibre to lead. The introduction of issues such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual (LGBT) rights puts pressure on the relationship between the liberals and others within the Pakatan Rakyat.
The sensitive “Allah” issue that rose to the fore in 2010 tested the Islamists’ position. The push for Malay rights under the rubric “Ketuanan Melayu” reflects efforts to reinforce ethnic supremacy over shared humanity and equality, to reimpose the social contract of the past.
Each of these issues has not broken the ties between the opposition actors, and it is in part due to the prominence of the underlying principles that bring them together.
THE PROBLEM OF HUDUD
This is not a moral compact without problems, however. The biggest challenge for the Opposition lies within. It has to do with an issue being negotiated throughout the Muslim world: The place and form of Islamic law, notably hudud.
Globally, Islamist political parties from AKP in Turkey to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt are grappling with how to bring about Islamic governance while maintaining rights. For liberals, the introduction of measures such as hudud violates the shared democratic ideals, as there remains deep mistrust of Islamists in office.
For secularists, hudud violates their view of governance. Doubts persist in some quarters about whether the Islamists will continue to hold to the ideals in office, respect different religious rights and, importantly, tolerate difference within their own community.
Detractors point to Algeria and Iran as testimony to a potential violation of trust. Others more open-minded highlight the negotiated paths of Turkey and Morocco.
For Malaysia, the hudud issue remains on the agenda, unresolved and unlikely to be so before polls. In public remarks, Mr Anwar has stressed the centrality of dialogue and principle of consensus. There appears to be a working agreement to agree to disagree.
Among Islamists there has been a global trend towards greater accommodation of difference and an appreciation of constitutional frameworks for governance. Many in the PAS old guard, nevertheless, are tied to the vision of a religious theocracy that is increasingly becoming outmoded, even in Egypt where the President comes from one of the historically strongest advocates of these measures, the Muslim Brotherhood.
Islamists the world over are having to reprioritise their principles in order to govern societies, and PAS will have to as well. What is important is that it will need to do this on its own terms, rather than respond to ultimatums from allies and opponents alike.
Hudud will remain salient to this campaign, because at its core, it puts pressure on Malaysia’s Opposition to reassess, reaffirm and reinforce their common moral priorities. It is this common ground however, that is Pakatan’s moral compact — and for now it is on firm ground. — Today
The Malaysian Insider
Oct 10, 2012
Oct 10 — What keeps the Malaysian opposition Pakatan Rakyat (People’s Alliance) together? The quick answer often given is the common search of political power.
While power frames the relationships between three disparate political parties – Islamist PAS, secular-committed Democratic Action Party and the umbrella reform-oriented PKR of Mr Anwar Ibrahim – it is not the glue of the opposition alliance. Were this the case, PAS would have left the coalition when UMNO floated the offer of joining the government in 2008 and intense jockeying took place within PAS.
The answer lies in the three parties’ shared moral compact. Pakatan Rakyat is an alliance of profoundly different backgrounds, with secularists, theocrats, conservatives and progressives working together. In a world wracked with tensions over religion and misunderstandings, Malaysia’s opposition stands out in bucking international trends of difference.
CORRUPTION IN EVERYDAY LIFE
Three common principles bind the Opposition together. The first is deep concern with endemic corruption.
The problem of corruption is not new, and while Malaysia’s practices are assessed above many in Asia, including Indonesia, what has become increasingly apparent is that it has crossed the line of acceptability for many Malaysians. Survey results show that an overwhelming majority view their officials as corrupt and believe that their officials do not abide by the law.
Scandal after scandal, from the National Feedlot Corporation and Scorpene, to the recent revelations about the extension of the Ampang LRT, has inundated citizens. While there are many civil servants who work hard to deliver services, there are pressures within the system to conform to predatory practices.
Malaysian corruption was initially concentrated among the elite through the practice of “money politics”. But more and more, it is extending into everyday issues such as school fees, crime prevention and service provision.
Most basic food items, such as sugar and rice, are tied to non-transparent deals of politically-aligned businessmen, as are bigger items such as cars through Approved Permit licence allocations.
These weaknesses in governance share a common moral thread – a privileged minority using the system to their advantage, and this is hurting the majority and widening inequality.
FAIRNESS AND THE PLAYING FIELD
This leads to the second shared principle – fairness. The three political parties each have a different take on what is fair, but there are areas of similarity: Namely, everyone should have a seat at the table; everyone should be treated fairly in a court of law; and social and economic inequalities should be minimised.
This shared view of fairness extends into the outrage over unfair legal decisions and deep-seated concerns about poverty and displacement of many Malaysians. Pakatan’s conception of citizenship has evolved into one in which all Malaysians are exactly that — Malaysians. It is a modern view of citizenship, in which everyone has rights and the government is to respond to the people, not the other way round.
The Opposition’s moral compact is also driven by a mutual interest in expanding democratic governance to level the political playing field.
Calls for the removal of the Internal Security Act (which was suspended and replaced by the more benign but less tested Security Offences Act earlier this year), electoral reform, freedoms of assembly, religion and speech, among other things, all fall under the umbrella of expanding political space and rights.
Ever since the reformasi movement of 1999, opposition activists have joined forces in highlighting democratic deficits and showcasing reasons for an expansion of democracy. Each protest and political crisis has brought the opposition together – from Bersih 1.0 in 2007, to the defections and subsequent takeover of the Perak state government in 2009. The bonds forged by protesting together are strong.
Since 2008, there have been significant efforts to rupture the Opposition’s moral compact on multiple fronts. The charges of sodomy and corruption have been tied to attempts to discredit opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim and raise doubts about his moral calibre to lead. The introduction of issues such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual (LGBT) rights puts pressure on the relationship between the liberals and others within the Pakatan Rakyat.
The sensitive “Allah” issue that rose to the fore in 2010 tested the Islamists’ position. The push for Malay rights under the rubric “Ketuanan Melayu” reflects efforts to reinforce ethnic supremacy over shared humanity and equality, to reimpose the social contract of the past.
Each of these issues has not broken the ties between the opposition actors, and it is in part due to the prominence of the underlying principles that bring them together.
THE PROBLEM OF HUDUD
This is not a moral compact without problems, however. The biggest challenge for the Opposition lies within. It has to do with an issue being negotiated throughout the Muslim world: The place and form of Islamic law, notably hudud.
Globally, Islamist political parties from AKP in Turkey to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt are grappling with how to bring about Islamic governance while maintaining rights. For liberals, the introduction of measures such as hudud violates the shared democratic ideals, as there remains deep mistrust of Islamists in office.
For secularists, hudud violates their view of governance. Doubts persist in some quarters about whether the Islamists will continue to hold to the ideals in office, respect different religious rights and, importantly, tolerate difference within their own community.
Detractors point to Algeria and Iran as testimony to a potential violation of trust. Others more open-minded highlight the negotiated paths of Turkey and Morocco.
For Malaysia, the hudud issue remains on the agenda, unresolved and unlikely to be so before polls. In public remarks, Mr Anwar has stressed the centrality of dialogue and principle of consensus. There appears to be a working agreement to agree to disagree.
Among Islamists there has been a global trend towards greater accommodation of difference and an appreciation of constitutional frameworks for governance. Many in the PAS old guard, nevertheless, are tied to the vision of a religious theocracy that is increasingly becoming outmoded, even in Egypt where the President comes from one of the historically strongest advocates of these measures, the Muslim Brotherhood.
Islamists the world over are having to reprioritise their principles in order to govern societies, and PAS will have to as well. What is important is that it will need to do this on its own terms, rather than respond to ultimatums from allies and opponents alike.
Hudud will remain salient to this campaign, because at its core, it puts pressure on Malaysia’s Opposition to reassess, reaffirm and reinforce their common moral priorities. It is this common ground however, that is Pakatan’s moral compact — and for now it is on firm ground. — Today
Friday 5 October 2012
Budget Fails To Address Cronyism, Monopolies
Source by Malaysiakini
The Budget 2013 offers “small doses” of election goodies and fails to address basic structural problems such as cronyism and monopolies, said Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim.
In an immediate reaction to Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s budget speech this evening, Anwar said the budget contained elements of gimmick that was “over the top”.
However, said the Permatang Pauh MP, it is a budget that is not based on domestic capabilities and international scenarios, joining the chorus of doubt on the freshly-unveiled budget’s ability to tackle the country’s economic situation.
Here is what Anwar and other MPs have to say about today’s revelations:
Anwar Ibrahim, Opposition Leader
It fails to address the international economic scenario, which is traditionally addressed in the national budget. Secondly, there is the unrealistic position in reference to the domestic capacity
as alluded by Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng (in his comments, see below).
Both of these elements are not touched upon but instead we have a few political gimmicks that are over the top.
The announcement for the public in general seems attractive, with small doses for the elections.
But basic structural problems in this country where the rich cronies and their family members amass billions of ringgit of profit through improper means and fraudulent process is kept unchecked. That includes the monopolies, the independent power producers (IPP) and also the other related agencies.
We have seen massive announcements … but (Najib) has failed – he has no courage to address the issues …
Najib’s reference to Pakatan Rakyat’s stand on) PTPTN is an irresponsible statement… we defend our stand on this and on several others – Najib did not take into consideration the economic situation and the ballooning budget deficit (that Pakatan aims to tackle to afford its promises).
There are conflicting figures that we will review tonight (at the Pakatan dinner) and at the event on Monday.
Najib dares to attack the opposition but does not dare to debate. I was prepared to sit down and listen to his criticisms, but I want him to attend my speech on Monday 11.30am. He calls himself a democrat, so let’s see.
Abdul Khalid Ibrahim, Bandar Tun Razak MP
BN’s budget is very Putrajaya-centric, where the bulk of the allocation is spent to maintain ongoing government activities, programmes and policies. Consequently, only a small portion trickles down to benefit the rakyat.
Pakatan’s budget prioritises the rakyat. We want to unwind the very activities that BN is maintaining.
We are talking about unwinding the approved permits (AP) policy, unwinding the privatisation of government-linked companies (GLCs) and unwinding 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB).
The federal government is responsible to ensure that the rentier class does not bleed the resources of the people.
They must stop giving such a high profit margin to contractors as this will only encourage them to lobby for a business contract at a high cost.
Abdul Hadi Awang, Marang MP
The budget appears to be just numbers and billions of ringgit for projects, and not about fixing fundamentals and its implementations to benefit the masses.
The large-scale projects, meanwhile, are used to siphon profits for the Umnoputeras. After decades of this sort of budget, the rakyat needs to understand that it is about billions of the nation’s wealth down the drain.
Lim Guan Eng, Bagan MP
This is clearly an election budget that does not take into account the fiscal and financial position of the country.
Last year the government overspent by RM20 billion.
The budget will also benefit cronies through projects, so this will be problematic if Pakatan takes over next year.
But I am certain Pakatan, under Anwar’s leadership, will be able to fulfill the Buku Jingga promises without pawning things out to cronies.
Noh Omar, Agriculture Minister
It is a good budget. This is the first time the government has introduced insurance for padi farming. If the farmers’ crops are ruined by floods or disease, they will have insurance.
Liew Chin Tong, Bukit Bendera MP
There are no new policy ideas in this budget. It repeats existing policies and gives money here and there to buy votes.
I hope Malaysians know this is their own money. It may help Najib’s personal popularity (especially) among the poorer households, but people have been talking about it for a whole year already.
We are proposing fundamental re-thinking of (tackling) monopoly as a way to improve income, so we can give more cash to the hands of ordinary Malaysians.
Giving money to Rela and residents’ associations for crime prevention is like giving money to students for private tuition instead of improving education quality.
It is the same in the police budget, which allocates RM1.7 billion for internal security but RM530 million for the Criminal Investigation Department.
Nasharuddin Mat Isa, Bachok MP
Looking at the incentives offered, it is quite impressive but I question… whether it can be implemented or not, because we are almost reaching the maximum (term) of our session.
There are a few incentives that benefit the people, like the RM250 book vouchers for university students, whom we know really need assistance.
Both Pakatan and the government have offered quite impressive budgets for the rakyat so it is up to the rakyat to decide.
(The speech attacking the opposition) is something we have never seen in a budget presentation, but we understand that the election is close, so each side will use every opportunity to showcase their agenda, and the PM will have an advantage in this front.
Anthony Loke, Rasah MP
(The budget) is to buy off many sectors of voters.
One very clear goodie to first-time voters is the RM200 to buy smartphones – it is a very clear target at first-time voters, and the book vouchers and so on.
And also (to woo) civil servants with the one and a half month bonus. This is the first time ever the bonus for civil servants has increased to one and a half months. The timing is to win their support in the election.
In the budget, there are not much changes to the direction of the economy.
Salahuddin Ayub, Kubang Kerian MP
Pakatan’s commitments are more fundamental, for example free education, and the abolition of the National Higher Education Fund Corporation (PTPTN) through a staggered plan over the next 15 years.
This, and the move to improve the incomes of various states through oil royalty payments is more important. This area was touched on too lightly by the Budget 2013, through the reduction in liquefied natural gas prices.
That is not a holistic approach, when our objective is to solve the problems faced by the people and this requires true commitment.
Facebook
The Budget 2013 offers “small doses” of election goodies and fails to address basic structural problems such as cronyism and monopolies, said Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim.
In an immediate reaction to Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s budget speech this evening, Anwar said the budget contained elements of gimmick that was “over the top”.
However, said the Permatang Pauh MP, it is a budget that is not based on domestic capabilities and international scenarios, joining the chorus of doubt on the freshly-unveiled budget’s ability to tackle the country’s economic situation.
Here is what Anwar and other MPs have to say about today’s revelations:
Anwar Ibrahim, Opposition Leader
It fails to address the international economic scenario, which is traditionally addressed in the national budget. Secondly, there is the unrealistic position in reference to the domestic capacity
as alluded by Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng (in his comments, see below).
Both of these elements are not touched upon but instead we have a few political gimmicks that are over the top.
The announcement for the public in general seems attractive, with small doses for the elections.
But basic structural problems in this country where the rich cronies and their family members amass billions of ringgit of profit through improper means and fraudulent process is kept unchecked. That includes the monopolies, the independent power producers (IPP) and also the other related agencies.
We have seen massive announcements … but (Najib) has failed – he has no courage to address the issues …
Najib’s reference to Pakatan Rakyat’s stand on) PTPTN is an irresponsible statement… we defend our stand on this and on several others – Najib did not take into consideration the economic situation and the ballooning budget deficit (that Pakatan aims to tackle to afford its promises).
There are conflicting figures that we will review tonight (at the Pakatan dinner) and at the event on Monday.
Najib dares to attack the opposition but does not dare to debate. I was prepared to sit down and listen to his criticisms, but I want him to attend my speech on Monday 11.30am. He calls himself a democrat, so let’s see.
Abdul Khalid Ibrahim, Bandar Tun Razak MP
BN’s budget is very Putrajaya-centric, where the bulk of the allocation is spent to maintain ongoing government activities, programmes and policies. Consequently, only a small portion trickles down to benefit the rakyat.
Pakatan’s budget prioritises the rakyat. We want to unwind the very activities that BN is maintaining.
We are talking about unwinding the approved permits (AP) policy, unwinding the privatisation of government-linked companies (GLCs) and unwinding 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB).
The federal government is responsible to ensure that the rentier class does not bleed the resources of the people.
They must stop giving such a high profit margin to contractors as this will only encourage them to lobby for a business contract at a high cost.
Abdul Hadi Awang, Marang MP
The budget appears to be just numbers and billions of ringgit for projects, and not about fixing fundamentals and its implementations to benefit the masses.
The large-scale projects, meanwhile, are used to siphon profits for the Umnoputeras. After decades of this sort of budget, the rakyat needs to understand that it is about billions of the nation’s wealth down the drain.
Lim Guan Eng, Bagan MP
This is clearly an election budget that does not take into account the fiscal and financial position of the country.
Last year the government overspent by RM20 billion.
The budget will also benefit cronies through projects, so this will be problematic if Pakatan takes over next year.
But I am certain Pakatan, under Anwar’s leadership, will be able to fulfill the Buku Jingga promises without pawning things out to cronies.
Noh Omar, Agriculture Minister
It is a good budget. This is the first time the government has introduced insurance for padi farming. If the farmers’ crops are ruined by floods or disease, they will have insurance.
Liew Chin Tong, Bukit Bendera MP
There are no new policy ideas in this budget. It repeats existing policies and gives money here and there to buy votes.
I hope Malaysians know this is their own money. It may help Najib’s personal popularity (especially) among the poorer households, but people have been talking about it for a whole year already.
We are proposing fundamental re-thinking of (tackling) monopoly as a way to improve income, so we can give more cash to the hands of ordinary Malaysians.
Giving money to Rela and residents’ associations for crime prevention is like giving money to students for private tuition instead of improving education quality.
It is the same in the police budget, which allocates RM1.7 billion for internal security but RM530 million for the Criminal Investigation Department.
Nasharuddin Mat Isa, Bachok MP
Looking at the incentives offered, it is quite impressive but I question… whether it can be implemented or not, because we are almost reaching the maximum (term) of our session.
There are a few incentives that benefit the people, like the RM250 book vouchers for university students, whom we know really need assistance.
Both Pakatan and the government have offered quite impressive budgets for the rakyat so it is up to the rakyat to decide.
(The speech attacking the opposition) is something we have never seen in a budget presentation, but we understand that the election is close, so each side will use every opportunity to showcase their agenda, and the PM will have an advantage in this front.
Anthony Loke, Rasah MP
(The budget) is to buy off many sectors of voters.
One very clear goodie to first-time voters is the RM200 to buy smartphones – it is a very clear target at first-time voters, and the book vouchers and so on.
And also (to woo) civil servants with the one and a half month bonus. This is the first time ever the bonus for civil servants has increased to one and a half months. The timing is to win their support in the election.
In the budget, there are not much changes to the direction of the economy.
Salahuddin Ayub, Kubang Kerian MP
Pakatan’s commitments are more fundamental, for example free education, and the abolition of the National Higher Education Fund Corporation (PTPTN) through a staggered plan over the next 15 years.
This, and the move to improve the incomes of various states through oil royalty payments is more important. This area was touched on too lightly by the Budget 2013, through the reduction in liquefied natural gas prices.
That is not a holistic approach, when our objective is to solve the problems faced by the people and this requires true commitment.
Video
Dari @anwaribrahim
Tag
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)