The Vanishing of a Vision July 24, 2008
Posted by rahulian in Current Affairs, Malaysia, Politics.1 comment so far
The grave situation that the country is experiencing is not just the mismanagement of government funds by the present government.
It stems out from a culture where money has been channelled to many parties over previous administrations. There has never been a proper concept of open tender for all government projects.
If only all had practised this simple concept, the people would have saved billions of dollars. This of course would have helped our bottom line thus increasing our reserves and consolidated funds which would help strengthen our ringgit.
The new administration of Abdullah seems to blame the old administration of Dr. Mahathir for the problems the nation is facing now. The old master, Dr. Mahathir and his select crew have been defending their previous decisions and blame the present administration for the woes that the nation is facing.
Clearly this signals that there is a massive crack in UMNO in particular and Barisan National in general. There will be more than fifteen people contesting the vice presidents’ posts during the next UMNO elections. This provides evidence that given the opportunity, all of them in UMNO want to contest but previously, contesting without the approval of the UMNO cabinet would have been taboo.
This is a good change but the top two posts remains uncontested as there is an agreement that the transition of power will end in 2010 when Najib Tun Razak becomes the head of UMNO. Depending on whether the Barisan Nasional is still the ruling coalition at that time, Najib would also automatically become the Prime Minister of Malaysia. Is this power transition still relevant today? Does it really ensure stability? One must wonder whether the electorate is still relevant in Malaysia when the Prime Minister is being appointed rather than being elected.
However, there is the argument that a vote of no confidence can be brought against the new Prime Minister if the Lower house collectively wants to. The keyword here is collective. With the whip system that we practise, all the Barisan MPs must vote for the interest of Barisan not their constituents.
Even in Britain, when Tony Blair left, there was a transition of power from him to Gordon Brown. However, as soon as Brown took over, he had many problems within his government and the opposition being very strong, they put considerable pressure upon him. They practise the system of vote of no confidence because they understand why it is important and that they are accountable to the people not to their political allegiance.
We do not practise such a system here as the opposition is getting stronger but still not strong enough and political allegiance is seen as far more important than what the constituents have in mind.
Even in MCA we can see unprecedented changes with many divisions having contest for their chairman’s post. Chua Jui Meng is contesting in a three cornered fight for the Bakri division. Chua Soi Lek on the other hand, will be Batu Pahat chairman uncontested.
The MIC are rebranding themselves so the Indians will trust the party more and vote for Barisan in time to come. The former youth head, Vickneswaran unceremoniesly left the party saying he has no confidence in the leadership of Samy Vellu. Some people followed in his footsteps. Since Samy Vellu took over, there has been many casualties in the war to control MIC. These would include S. Subramaniam, Pandithan and Pathmanaban who all tried to challenge him but failed.
The real rebranding the party needs is the removal of its top leader as this is the only way forward for the party. The party has been beaten by the public so it can regain its senses of what the party was really built for. No one would have imagined such turn of events if not for the results of the last general elections. The people must exercise the power that they have.
These may seem like a healthy trend but it also exposes Barisan for the political party that it is. The love of patronising those who are close to you regardless of their capabilities and capacity to do the job properly has caused Barisan to crack and if Anwar Ibrahim does form a new government, then even bigger cracks will come out of Barisan.
The talk all over town about the Anwar sodomy – Najib Mongolia issue seems to be the same – people are fed up with all this drama and want those we elected from whichever side to get on with their jobs and help us reduce our financial burdens. The government defends the rise in fuel costs by attributing it to rising world fuel prices and that Petronas has given all its dues to the government.
There are two major problems here. The first is that unlike many countries around the world, we are an oil producing nation. Since Petronas first made money was through oil, the government can now tap the entire group funds to help subsidies our petrol problem. Secondly, we do not have a comprehensive public transport system like the ones in UK or Singapore. People would complain less if they have alternatives. The government does not provide alternatives; instead they build bigger highways charging bigger toll prices.
The average Malaysian spends almost 25% of his/her wages on fuel and toll. The fuel and toll prices would affect the select few who made money through closed government tenders as they have our money as their reserves. It affects people like you and me who struggle to make a living in a country that is full of resources. Malaysia has everything any nation in the world would desire for except a regime corrupted by funds from big business empires. These business empires want to keep corrupting the regime as well so their well will never dry up. The common man’s well has become non-existent.
If things continue to be as they are with rising inflation and lack of governance, unemployment will hit roof high and at time, Vision 2020 will be Vanished 2020.
Merdeka – A Critical Evaluation September 5, 2007
Posted by rahulian in Free Press, Malaysia, Politics.1 comment so far
Last Friday, Malaysia celebrated its independence from the British colonial rule with grandeur and in spectacular fashion. Though history suggests that only the Federation of Malaya gained independence in 1957, the government of the day seemed to have overlooked it.
Malaysia was formed on 16th September 1963 and from that day the Federation of Malaya ceased to exist and a new nation was born out of Malaysia Act 1963 and the Malaysia Agreement between Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak, Singapore and the United Kingdom. It was very gracious of the Sabahans to join in the Merdeka celebrations in the spirit of togetherness but for the whole country (I mean Malaysia not Malaya) to celebrate, then 16th September would be the appropriate day.
The British left in 1957 and Malaysia has come a long way since then. We have achieved a lot in all kinds of industries ranging from agriculture to manufacturing. We are now one of the most popular tourist destinations in the world. Thus, the celebration of Independence from the shackles of the old colonial masters seems justified. However, a critical evaluation of the situation here in Malaysia would suggest all is not as rosy as it seems or sounds.
The first issue that has not been resolved is the special privileges or what we commonly call the Bumiputera rights. Because of the so called social contract that our former leaders had agreed upon, we as Malaysians have become too tolerant to the extent that we do not want to even discuss the issue openly. Whether the privileges are a good thing or not for the Bumiputera population is open to debate. Even now, being a Malaysian of Indian origin, I am already treading dangerous waters when I bring up such sensitive issues. However, I am a strong believer in reasoning and the ability of all Malaysians to reason.
Instead of allowing people from all races and walks of life sit and discuss the issue, the powers that may be is quick to raise the racial card and curb the voice of those who want to discuss the future direction of this country. We Malaysians are tolerant, reasonable and intelligent people. We are not thugs who need to carry arms to get ourselves heard. No one is asking for the removal of the rights but people want to know who really has benefited from these rights. Has every single Bumiputera benefited from these rights?
I would like to quote an example. When buying houses, there is a 5% discount for the purchase by a Bumiputera. That is fine with all of us but who can exercise that 5% discount? Only those who can afford to buy these houses. What about all those Bumiputeras who are homeless or those who live in rented properties and in squatter areas. They need housing but they cannot afford. So only the affordable ones are enjoying these privileges. Since a person can afford to have a house, should it not seem right if they are not given that 5% discount and the developer uses that money to build low cost housing for the poor and underprivileged.
Please do not think that people of other races are upset over these rights. If it is given to those who are in real need (the idea behind its creation in 1957), well and good. It is when the powers that may be and the rich uses it enrich to themselves even more that it becomes a sad state of affairs. Thus it is important for the people themselves to know and evaluate the situation and the open voice of the media is needed for that.
The media in this country has been curbed by various measures and the famous ones are the Internal Security Act, the Seditions Act, the Publications Act and the Emergency Ordinance. If what the powers that may be are doing is not wrong, then why are they so worried about the media. In effect, the media could even be used to bolster their political aspirations. The internet has now opened a doorway that is difficult to be regulated. However, there are many people especially in the rural areas that are not connected to the net. They too need to know the truth thus the print media still plays a major role in the distribution of information.
An important question to ask after all these years of self-rule is whether we really have a rule of law. This is not a simple question to answer as there are many complex issues that needs to be addressed. The first is the power and scope of the Internal Security Act or more precisely the power it bestows on a minister that cannot be judicially reviewed. If a decision of the executive cannot be judicially reviewed i.e. the legality of that decision cannot be checked, then we have moved backwards since 1957. When the British left, the Courts had the powers to keep the balance of power in check but these have dramatically changed over the decades.
The Courts are also caught in a tight spot when issues of inter-faith affecting the Syariah Courts are brought upon it. The powers that may be have simply not helped the judiciary in determining the just outcome of these matters. As I have written in my previous blogs, we must sit and have a dialogue as to whether we live in an Islamic country or not. Having two legal systems side by side might not be the best possible solution and sweeping the issue under the carpet could have far reaching consequences. In order for the rule of law to prevail, the people must know what the law is regardless of whether it is the Constitution or Syariah. The emphasis here is on certainty.
The third issue is that of ‘policy’. It has now come to a point that when you go to a public office and enquire why certain things are done in a certain way, the answer you get is that it the policy of that department to do things that way. What we should now ask is where are these policies derived from? Is that the law that governs us or has the policies been derived from the laws of our nation? The word ‘policy’ seems to be a convenient way of saying that we will do things the way we like it not the way it is suppose to be. I believe this too should be judicially reviewed.
Do the people of Malaysia really know their full rights and protection under our Federal Constitution (the highest law of our nation)? Where is the education on the Constitution? It is vital and important that every student in our schools is taught the Constitution at an early age so they know their rights and cannot be taken for a ride by the politically motivated factions. Thus, on a question of rule of law, we are still in the darkness even after all these decades of independence.
The next issue is education. Malaysia wants to compete with other nations as a centre for education. This is very commendable as the revenue from this sector had helped finance many universities in England when they did the same drive in the 1990s. However, we must maintain the standards of our universities in order to compete with other countries. We must produce graduates of high calibre and quality, not mere quantity that will eventually clog up our employment system or the civil service.
The University of Malaya, the most prestigious university in Malaysia has been dropping down the rankings in the last few years. Our own students are denied places in our universities and we want to encourage foreigners to study here. It still beats me why only one Indian student got into the medical faculty in University Malaya last year when the Indian population in Malaysia in about 1.8 million people. It is the fault of the people? Definitely not. The real fault lies with the politicians who use the racial card to garner support from those who are not aware of the real things that happen behind the scenes.
The rich are getting very much richer in this country. The savings that people put in the banks are used by the rich to even enrich themselves. Their loans are sanctioned so easily that they can invest and if they are a crony, they can even afford to make a mistake. The powers that may be will be there to bail them out. The gap between the rich and poor keeps becoming bigger and bigger.
Has anyone thought about the man on the street? Let us take a man who lives in Kuala Lumpur with his wife and two kids. Say he earns RM3000.00 a month and the wife is a housewife while the children are in school. Can this man survive? Yes, but barely. The mortgage would cost five hundred a month, the car another four hundred a month, hundred fifty for personal allowance, seven hundred fifty for food, ninety for children school allowance, groceries another three hundred and the list does not even include bills and satellite television. Where is this poor man’s savings? What about the children’s education as it is not guaranteed under our education system?
The price of goods these days are ridiculous. Inflation is high. Pay is low and increments are at such a pitiful state. The average Joe is really living just to make money for the selected few i.e. the rich and the cronies. The government has increased fuel prices by cutting down the subsidy. The rationale behind it is that Petronas pays corporate taxes. Where are these taxes being channelled to or how are they being used?
Is the money being used to improve the environment that is damaged by the use of petrol fuelled vehicles? The rich or the cronies would not feel the rise in petrol prices but the average is directly affected by it. By the time the savings in tax is utilised for the average Joe, he might not be around to enjoy those benefits.
Let us look at our healthcare and the national health service. The best place to witness the seriousness of the problem is in the state general hospitals. The waiting time in the accident and emergency is very long and the wards are full until the corridors are sometimes overflowing with people on beds. There is a serious shortage of doctors in the government service as those who leave overseas do not want to come back to the hospitals here. Please do not say they are not patriotic enough and all that unnecessary ridicule. Would you take a 500% pay cut to join the government hospitals here when in the U.K they pay you much more? I thought not.
We have to increase their pay so they will be happy to work and the service will improve. The police too are susceptible to bribes because their pay is too low. The average Joe above who earns RM3000.00 a month seems to be struggling, imagine the plight of a police constable. Everyone is quick to blame the civil service because of corruption but if the pay is so different from the scale in the private sector, then the urge to take will always be there.
What the future holds for this beautiful country is in the hands of the people of this country. As citizens, we must exercise our right to vote. Who we vote is up to the individual but more people must register and go to the polls if they want good things to happen here. Only the people can change the fate that awaits them and if you do not vote, you lose the right to decide what is best for your country.
There is no place like home and Malaysia is our home. In our house, we decorate the interior and plant flowers in our gardens. We water the plants and paint the house. The same goes to the beautiful Malaysia that I love. We must attend to her with the same tender loving care that she has given us over the years.
These questions need to be addressed as I do not want to see my beautiful Malaysia going back to the times when my grandfather made guns for the British during the Japanese occupation or when my father fought the communists in the jungles of Sarawak during the emergency. All I want is a peaceful place for young Rasyidi, Phing Thuan and Ragu to play together for years to come and feel as one proud people, the people of Malaysia.
A Real Constitution August 6, 2007
Posted by rahulian in Human Rights, Malaysia, Politics.add a comment
It is great to hear leaders and rulers like Raja Nazrin are still out there trying to make the masses and the government understand and respect the Constitution for what it is….the SUPREME law of this country.
The Constitution that was made and envisaged by the leaders during the independence struggle has been changed a lot directly or indirectly. The Constitution’s provisions for a change in that very constitution seem to have been the problem. A two-third majority in the Dewan Rakyat effectively changes the constitution. The state of cause controls the majority through its ‘Whip’ i.e. follow party lines system.
Maybe it is about time we change that provision as the abuses of that provision can be rampantly seen being used by the present and previous regimes. The Constitution should not be changed without the approval of the country. Have a referendum and let the people themselves decide on what’s best for them.The other problem is the phrases like ‘ in accordance with law’. This can be seen clearly in Art 5(1) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia which reads, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law”. This seems to indicate that any laws passed by Parliament, whether in compliance or not with international human rights laws or morality itself will be greater than the provision of Art 5(1). The ambiguity of the provisions can be easily manipulated by the state since the majority in Parliament is controlled by the state through the ‘whip’ system. The check and balances here seems to be inadequate.
There are also certain provisions like in the Internal Security Act where there is no room for the judicial review of an executive i.e. state decision. This in itself is a major violation of our Constitutional rights. It is a blatant disregard for the spirit of the Constitution as a whole.
If the government is responsible enough and govern the country to the high standards that we expect from our representatives in Parliament, then provisions like the Internal Security Act would not be a problem. If the provisions were used to stop terrorists and communists, then fair enough. It is when it is used to crack down political dissent that it becomes a major problem.
It begins to become dangerous for the nation when the rakyat starts to say things like, “want to be rich, then join politics.’ True martyrs will be lost and unscrupulous politicians will be left. The only way the country can be saved from its ethnic-socio problems is when there are more transparency and efficiency in a responsible government.
Is Democracy Still A Reality June 7, 2007
Posted by rahulian in Asia, Free Press, Human Rights, Malaysia, Politics.add a comment
There was a time of kings and knights, a time of myths and legends and a time when ordinary people were unable to defend themselves. Democracy was a creature born out of the frustration that the people had to go through and the sufferings that they had to endure.
The concept of democracy has evolved from the time of the Roman ‘Republic’ to the very heart and nature of the Constitution and the Constitutional Monarchy of recent democracies. The world has seen claims by these very nations and many around the world that democracy exists and it is very alive today in the modern world we live in.
Do we really believe this is true? The only thing that seems to be true is that on one hand, the same nations talk about peace, poverty and global warming and on the other they suppress other nations, violate the most basic of human rights and some even sell arms to keep the world in check under their influence.
The longer these atrocities in countries like Sri Lanka, Palestine and Iraq keep taking place, the longer it will take the world to recover from terrorism. We must realise that terrorism is a global problem with a local identity. By its very nature, it can be seen that the tactics employed are very dangerous and many lives have been lost due to these kinds of activities.
However, the invasion of another country, or the interrogation tactics used by many nations of the developed world would not render them far away of tactics that are similar to these terrorists. These terrorists are the creation of the very nations that are trying to suppress it.
When the terrorists can be used for the benefits of the foreign policies of these controlling nations, they will be called allies in the fight against terror. Once they are of no use, they are labelled terrorists and the military machinery is set against them. Do these governments really believe people are so naïve?
The use of deadly tactics by the terrorists is unacceptable but at the same time what the controlling forces do is also unacceptable. The underlying problem must be addressed. The conflict can be solved only when there is a compromise. No one seems to care about the compromise. All that seems important is for their own bargain to stand. The only thing that will stand if this continues is a stale mate.
The United Nations by its very nature and literal translation suggest that it is the best forum for reform. However, the independence of the United Nations from the influence of certain member nations plays an important role in its ability to be un-bias and just. The world must truly believe that the United Nations is not just a tool for the powerful few but it is a real organisation with a real purpose. Its independent authority and its role as the sole mediator must be asserted. I am still wondering why the is a convention or an understanding that the head of the World Bank is to be from one specific block and the head of the International Monetary Fund is to be from another economic block. What happen to the best candidate gets the job in the democracy adage?
Without the independent authority of the most important independent democratic organisation of all, the world will not be able to be administered in the true form of democracy that our forefathers intended.
From a local point of view, the so called democracies have invested too much of power in the hands of the supreme leader. The concept and the notion of the separation of powers that was the cornerstone of democracy seem to be eroding with lightning speed. The fundamental importance that the executive, the legislature and the judiciary be separated cannot be taken lightly by any nation.
When the powers vested with the few becomes intolerable, a revolution will start as the people can no longer sustain the pain and suffering that they endure. History bears witness to that. Is the world waiting for another revolution before it makes some amends to improve the rights that have been wronged?
Like the United Nations in a global context, the Parliament of a nation can change things in the local context. A vote against an unjust government might just help tilt the fight between what is just and right, and what is extremism. People’s power must mean something or else we would be stuck in a vacuum where only the politically connected will succeed and the rest will be slave driven the modern way.
The Parliament is there in order to not only make laws, but to also hold the executive i.e. the Cabinet responsible for its actions. The select committees must be utilised to gain insights in to the operation of the governments. The judiciary, without its most powerful tool, the judicial review, or with the limited and controlled version of judicial review, will never be able to check on the government. How is a country going to be able to progress if the executive controls the legislature and the judiciary rendering the nation at its mercy?
The conclusion of all this is that the world will keep evolving whether we like it or not. Thus, we must also comprehend that without the necessary changes, the nation will be stuck in a vacuum for a long time and when they do decide to come out, it might be too late to save the last threads of democracy that has binded the nation together and naturally an economic freefall will take place.
Lawmakers Must Step In And Find Solution June 6, 2007
Posted by rahulian in Human Rights, Politics.add a comment
As appeared in The Star Newspaper on Tuesday April 3, 2007
The Court of Appeal in asking a non-Muslim woman to seek recourse in the Syariah Court has created some confusion on what is actually the Supreme law of Malaysia. It is important to point out that we have a unique legal system in that there are two systems operating side by side. One is operating under the Federal Constitution and the other under the rules governed by Syariah law.
There have been previous cases of such nature and the first two that comes to mind are that of climber, Moorthi, after his death and S. Shamala who took her children and fled the country. It is not easy for the Courts to deal and decide on such matters as these matters are sensitive especially when living in a multiracial country.
In Pakistan, the law is to be read in consistent with Syariah law. Thus, the problems above would not arise. However, there are no specific provisions to suggest the above in our legal system. If there are no such provisions, then the judges of the Civil Courts are bound to follow the Federal Constitution.
The problem here cannot be solved by the Judiciary. This is a matter for the Parliament to decide. The root of the problem here is quite straight forward. Is Malaysia an Islamic country or a secular country? This is not a question that can be answered in terms of culture or politics. It is a serious legal question that has far reaching consequences. It is about time we, as responsible and prudent adults discuss this problem in a comprehensive and coherent way so as to find a just solution for all Malaysians.
It is not suggested that one system is better than the other. What is fundamental is that there should be no confusion. The law must be clear. We operate our entire lives under the legal sphere. Thus it is important that we know what we can and cannot do.
The longer we push the issue away, the bigger the problem becomes. We have come along way since our independence almost fifty years ago. Thus, it is urged that the legislature, who represents us, by consultation with the necessary parties, come up with a solution to this issue. A Parliamentary Select Committee would be a good place to start.
Parliamentary Priviledges June 6, 2007
Posted by rahulian in Politics.add a comment
13 September 2006
Though many of us sit and discuss politics and matters of governance often when we meet, many of us are still not fully aware of what can be said by members in or out of Parliament.
If Members of Parliament (MP) are not allowed to speak their mind in Parliament, then the voice of the very people they represent will not be heard. Thus it is acceptable that no libel suits should be brought against an MP for speaking in Parliament.
However, there are many MPs who give statements and speak to the press at the lobby of the Parliament building. This lobby may be in the Parliament building but one would think that it is not a part of the House i.e. debates take place inside the hall. The question arises, should the statements made here be allowed absolute privilege?
Being people of rational thinking and competent behaviour, we ought to be careful about what we say about others outside the designated areas. Why should anyone be different from everyone else? If I were to say something about you to a third person, then I should be responsible enough to take due care and be sure of the facts of what I am talking before I say anything. This should apply to all as the law is impartial and our liberties are protected and enshrined in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.
It is not an easy task being an MP. However, like all of us out there, they should be responsible also for what they say outside the scope of the Parliament. If the Houses have already had a certain code of conduct for the behaviour of MPs outside Parliament, then well and good. If there isn’t, maybe it is time one is drawn up.
As Parliament is a forum for the voice of the people, its members should have absolute privilege as long as it is within the Houses of Parliament thus ensuring the liberties protected under the Constitution stay protected.
18 May 2007
Though absolute privilege is important inside Parliament, the behaviour of the two MPs recently making sexist remarks is appalling. The MPs should be given stern punishments not only because they were sexist, but also to show the world that we Malaysians do not condone such behaviour. The MPs must not forget that they represent all of us, regardless whether we are black, white, green, female or male.
Rape Within Marriage Should Be A Crime June 6, 2007
Posted by rahulian in Human Rights, Politics.add a comment
10th July 2006
The debate on the amendments to the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code has brought up some excellent issues that reflect the changes in today’s society. All parties involved have debated the issues with great depth and mutual respect. Congratulations to the Parliamentary Select Committee and the NGOs.
Reference to the article ‘When rape within marriage is not a crime’, Sunday Star, 9th July 2006. Whenever we talk about the rape issue, we must always bear in mind that most cases are unreported as the wives are too scared to come forward. Without a deterrent and lengthy sentence, the fear of the perpetrator being released too early would constantly play on the minds of the wives.
As pointed out, the exception to the clause 375 of the Penal Code, which states, ‘sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife by a marriage which is valid under any written law for the time being in force, or is recognized in the Federation as valid, is not rape’ should be deleted.
The English Courts in R v R [1992] 1 A.C. 599, House of Lords have accepted that there could be rape within a marriage. Many other countries too have changed their laws to adapt to the changes in their societies. By virtue of being a statutory provision, the exception to the clause 375 would bind all judges as they must give effect to the will of the Parliament. This would tie their hands down and they might not be able to dispense justice as it may be fit. It is suggested that the ceiling for sentencing could be placed in the hands of Parliament, but judges should be given some flexibility in deciding and defining marital rape cases.
It took countries like England many years to change their laws and recognise gender issues like marital rape and ‘battered wife syndrome’. However, it has also been more than fifteen years since the decision in R v R was given. The Parliamentary Select Committee must reflect on this and suggest a solution to Parliament. Society must accord protection to the wives in cases of marital rape as any kind of rape is a heinous crime.
