The NST, Professor Emeritus Khoo Kay Kim and History
www.nst.com.my
The NST Editorial
Hang Tuah in History
“There should be no question that we should pursue the truth”–The NST
REWRITING or resetting history can be a tricky business, akin to traversing fields dotted with landmines, especially if it threatens to interfere with cherished memories. So, when historian Tan Sri Professor Emeritus Khoo Kay Kim said there was no written record that the 15th century Malay warrior Hang Tuah, his friend Hang Jebat, or the princess Hang Li Po, existed, the response to this astonishing assertion was not predominantly academic curiosity.
Rather, various parties hastened to debunk Khoo’s theory by contributing their own assertions of why they believed that Hang Tuah and his friends existed. Malaysian Archaeologists’ Association president Datuk Professor Emeritus Dr Nik Hassan Shuhaimi Nik Abdul Rahman opined that even though the exact era in which Hang Tuah is thought to exist is not really known, that the 15th century tomb attributed to him did not have a specific name on it, and that Hang Tuah and his friends might be mythical figures, this did not mean that studies concerning them could not still continue.
In some ways, although coming from opposing camps, Nik Hassan’s opinion partly echoes Khoo’s, who said that Hang Tuah and company could still be studied, but as mythical figures rather than historical ones. The issue has arisen from work being done by the Education Ministry’s History Review Committee, of which Khoo is a member. The panel was appointed to analyse and review the History curriculum. Khoo opined that school History textbooks should be rewritten so that they contained historical facts and not myths or legends, and that hearsay should not be presented as historical fact.
Although the matter may take some while to resolve, the Hang Tuah debacle is a perfect platform upon which to test how much we value history; more specifically, whether we dare to risk possibly having to give up our sentimental memories for the sake of pursuing and obtaining an accurate and authentic history. From the intellectual perspective, there should be no question that we should pursue the truth.
And, Islamic scholarly culture places the highest value on academic honesty; the complex and technical mechanism for authenticating hadiths (sayings of Prophet Muhammad) are the clearest example of the importance of accurate referencing — a single questionable link in the chain of authenticity automatically excludes a hadith from being declared sahih (authentic). Ibn Khaldun, a 14th century Muslim philosopher and historiographer, was widely respected for establishing mechanisms by which to authenticate history. In teaching schoolchildren History therefore, we should strive to cultivate in them a scholarly culture that places a premium on honesty and accuracy.
Emeritus Professor Khoo Kay Kim’s Interview
Don’t Ignore Real Heroes
Tan Sri Prof Emeritus Khoo Kay Kim provoked a storm of controversy when he said that there was no evidence that legendary warrior Hang Tuah ever existed. Malaysian Archaeologists Association president Datuk Prof Emeritus Dr Nik Hassan Shuhaimi Nik Abdul Rahman has refuted this claim, saying the tomb of Hang Tuah in Malacca proves the legendary warrior’s existence. Literary figure Dr Kassim Ahmad, who compiled the Hikayat Hang Tuah, also stressed that Hang Tuah was a real person. So did he exist or not?
Arman Ahmad sits down with Khoo to find out.Professor Emeritus Tan Sri Khoo Kay Kim says there’s a lot about our history that we don’t know about.
Question: Can you tell us how this issue first came about?
Answer: During a talk at a local university, I posed a question to the audience.I asked why in our country today we tend to play up mythical figures instead of people who really contributed a lot to our country.
Very often, when I ask people who was the first Malay to be absorbed into the civil service, they will say they don’t know. Nobody remembers who was the first Malay doctor, too, for example. Many of these real role models are forgotten. Western society remembers its historical figures and separates legend and history. Unfortunately, the same can’t be said here.
Question: There has been tremendous hue and cry from the public after you said that Hang Tuah may have been a myth. Many people disagree with you. How do you feel about this? What caused you to speak up?
Answer: Hang Tuah was made popular through the Bangsawan theatre during the pre-war era. There is no doubt that he was very popular. But at the end of the day, what do you want to learn about in school as part of history? Myth or fact?
It is a bit upsetting that around Kuala Lumpur, you can find streets named after Hang Jebat and Hang Tuah but not named after real historical figures of the past. There is a street name Jalan Maharajalela, but was it named after the man accused of murdering J.W.W. Birch? That man’s name was Maharajalela Pandak Lam. Maharajalela was just an honorific title.
We all know Jalan Raja Chulan, but do we know who Raja Chulan was? The whole point is there is a lot of history that people don’t know about.
Question: You are an academic, but you now have to deal with a very politically charged topic. How are you handling all this?
Answer: Times have changed. Once, our society was very particular about the truth, and whenever people make statements, they have to be able to back up their statement with facts. Today, you can say anything you like in public. You can read the writing of bloggers online and they say anything they like.
In the academic field, you are not allowed to do that . When someone writes a thesis, he is not allowed to say anything he likes. He has to back up his statement with facts. Unfortunately, some people have begun to attack me.
I even learnt that someone asked (Malay rights group) Perkasa to report to the police that I insulted royalty, which is rather absurd really.
The great tradition underlying the Malay monarchy was how they could trace their lineage back to Iskandar Dzulkarnain (Alexander the Great). Hang Tuah was just a “Laksamana” and had nothing to do with royalty.
This is also the first time I’m being attacked by Dr Syed Husin Ali, but he is not a historian . He was never trained in history.
Question: The Sejarah Melayu (Malay Annals), which is the primary record of history during the Malacca Sultanate, did mention Hang Tuah. How accurate is it in recording history?
Answer: The Sejarah Melayu is not precise historiography.It is a historical document if you want to know how people used to think in those days. But we cannot confirm how much of it is fact, and how much of it is pure fable. It does not record dates, and has characters that we cannot confirm existed.
For example, it does not tell us when Malacca was first founded or when a ruler ascended the throne or passed away. We have no knowledge when Hang Jebat died. History cannot be like that. It has to be very precise.
On the other hand, Ming records from China are very precise. They recorded the names of the first ruler, second ruler of Malacca, along with the dates of their reign. These facts were recorded at that particular time, and not some time after the incident.
We know from these records that in 1414, Megat Iskandar Shah came to China to report the death of his father, Parameswara. China had close ties and protected Malacca at the time. It is recorded that their first envoy to Malacca left in 1403 and arrived there in 1404.Ming Dynasty records are the best documents on history.
Question: In Ming records, was Hang Li Po ever mentioned?
Answer: Hang Li Po was not mentioned in the Ming records. Sejarah Melayu is not considered historiography. It is a literary text. Hang Tuah was never mentioned in the Ming records.
Question: What does Hang — as in Hang Tuah or Hang Li Po — signify? Is it an honorary title?
Answer: This still can’t be concluded from our current body of knowledge.
Question: Could Hang Tuah and his band of men have been Chinese like some people claim?
Answer: How can we justify that Kasturi is a Chinese name when it’s a common Indian name?
Question: If Hang Tuah did not exist, then why is there a tomb that supposedly holds his body in Malacca? Malacca state recognises this as Hang Tuah’s tomb.
Answer: How come there is a tomb when he did not come back from the mountain (Gunung Ledang)? How come they accept part of the story and not accept the other part?
Question: Malacca State Museums Department Director Datuk Khamis Abas said Hang Tuah was a legendary Malay warrior and this was proven in the research. What do you have to say about this?
Answer: He used the word “legendary”, right?
Question: Heroes like Hang Tuah, King Arthur, Robin Hood or even Braveheart, despite doubts over their historical integrity, have a tremendous impact in uplifting a nation’s spirit. Do you feel bad about deconstructing a national hero?
Answer: From the time I started studying history seriously in 1956, we never talked about legends.We were always trying our best to find primary sources to write the history of Malaya.
Today, we have great bodies of knowledge at our disposal. There are hundreds of theses written by university students. Most of them are unpublished and in our libraries. Good articles can also be found in contemporary newspapers.
You have to be diligent in going through these sources. We do not encourage historians to sit on a comfortable chair and imagine things. If you are a man of letters, then you can do as you like.
Question:What other historical figures or facts in Malaysia are myths as well?
Answer: Not many. But at one time there was a big controversy about whether Mat Kilau was still living.We have British contemporary records that showed he died a long time ago. Then I heard stories, which could not be confirmed, that said this man was actually a Bangsawan actor from Singapore.
Question: What direction will the new history curriculum take after this?
Answer: It’s not ready yet. They are still discussing it. They have actually dropped him from the school textbooks for some time. In the last four, five years, we have not seen him in school textbooks.
Question: What other heroes have we forgotten but could be part of the school syllabus?
Answer: Panglima Awang. He was taken to Portugal from Malacca and actually sailed with Ferdinand Magellan’s fleet. When they came back to Malacca, he had completed the journey around the world. He was the first man to sail around the world.
This is a real hero and his story is proven and recorded in history. It’s worthwhile to bring this back to the school syllabus.Another example is the first Malay doctor, Dr Abdul Latiff Abdul Razak, from Selangor. In the old P. Ramlee films, you might notice that the doctor is always named Dr Latiff.
Question: As a work of literature, do you think Hang Tuah the hero was a good role model?
Answer: When Tuah lost his weapon, Jebat allowed him to pick it up again. When Jebat lost his weapon, Tuah took advantage.If you want to teach nilai murni (good values), who is the real hero?But, at the end of the day, it is up to society to decide, not me.
Of course, for the Malay Muslims, the Quran will give you the right answer for every situation.Still, Hang Tuah had his good values. But while praising him, it is important that we don’t neglect the real Malaysian heroes of history.
If you have a hero, then a hero must be able to cope with any kind of questions society may ask.Surely, the younger generation, with a scientific mind, must ask many things. You cannot tell them, don’t worry about whether he is real, just accept these values that we put across to you.
Question: Our people have been very poor recorders of history in the past. Do you think something drastic needs to be done so that we not only record history but correctly interpret it in the future?
Answer: History in this country has been so neglected. Our history is a jumble that has not been properly verified by professional and well- trained historians.Our schools must educate the children properly about history. Children must know about their own society as well as country.
Malay history tends to be mixed together with fables. English and even Chinese history had tendencies to build up epics as well.But once they entered the modern age, science and technology became important. It is crucial that young people looked logically and critically at things. A lot of questions need to be answered.
You cannot give answers based on fables. The young people, when they lose confidence, won’t respect their own society.
Question: How do we verify the facts of history?
Answer: We always have to rely on empirical evidence. You can speculate whatever you like, but at the end of the day, you have to admit that it is purely speculation.
In the past, they did not make a distinction between legend and myth when they recorded history. You also have to consider the fact that these hikayat were discovered very much later.
They were not available to the public in those days. One of the first people to collect Malay manuscripts was Sir Stamford Raffles when he came to Singapore in 1819. If you take Sejarah Melayu, there are no less than about 20 versions.
Question: Dr Kassim Ahmad (left) said that Hang Tuah must have been based on some real person. What is your opinion on this?
Answer: We have no evidence of any kind. That’s the whole trouble. The modern study of history is almost considered a science — you must have proof — without proof how do you draw the conclusions?
Question: As a historian since the 1950s, do you think Malaysians appreciate history?
Answer: It is only beginning to be taught in the universities. Universiti Malaya was founded in 1949. The history department was very strong and very concerned about writing history from a Malayan perspective.
Before that, our history concentrated on what British officials did, and neglected the locals. The department of history began to write the first Malayan-centric history.
Question: There are some people who don’t care whether Hang Tuah existed or not. They just want someone who represents their value sets and aspirations. What would you say to them?
Answer: If we are concerned about studying the values of that period, then it’s a different discipline.
For example, it is very important that Sejarah Melayu and Hikayat Hang Tuah be part of Malay classical literature because they teach the value sets, but we should not confuse them with history.
The article in The Star by Tan Sri Mohd Radzi Abd Rahman (below) is shallow and it shows his lack of understanding of what Wisma Putra should be about. That is disappointing since he is the Secretary-General whose job is to provide much needed strategic thinking in the shaping of Malaysian foreign policy and the conduct of our diplomacy.
The consular service is a minor aspect of the Malaysian Foreign Office. As a former Foreign Service Officer under the Late (Tun) Ghazalie Shafie, I know that Wisma Putra is about the serious business of public diplomacy and projecting and representing Malaysia’s interest to the rest of the world. Certainly, it is not a travel agency specialising in the care of traveling VIPs and the issuing visas for visitors to Malaysia!
When I was living in Phnom Penh in the early 1990s, I was privileged to witness how Malaysian diplomats under our Ambassador Dato’ Deva Mohd. Ridzam’s leadership worked to represent our interests in Cambodia. Our mission was involved in advising Malaysian business investors, and helping then the fragile government in capacity building, providing invaluable intelligence to the Malaysian Government on political and economic developments in the host country, and networking with host country leaders and officials and members of the political opposition.
The Malaysians visiting Cambodia sought useful advice from our Ambassador and his senior staff. I was a witness to instances when Dato Deva intervened to ensure that Malaysians who got on the wrong side of the Cambodian law were given a fair treatment. I am, therefore, surprised to read that “many Malaysians abroad do not see the need to contact the embassy unless they are in trouble”.
Does this Secretary-General not understand that Malaysians do contact embassy officials when they are confident that they can get good commercial and personal advice, not because it has a “wander-ful service for travelers.” If Malaysians avoid the embassy, it is because they do not believe that the mission can help them.
Maybe, Tan Sri Radzi is now confirming the reality that Wisma Putra is now reduced to a consular office, post office and a VIP travel agency, all rolled into one composite whole, staffed by over paid, mediocre and incompetent personnel. And that is indeed a great pity.
The article also reflects the intellectual quality of this top Wisma Putra official. I have yet to see a serious article from him about our foreign policy or listen to or hear of him talking at any public forum on Malaysia’s diplomacy. That is not surprising either since all he can do is to write an article on consular administration, which should posted on the Wisma Putra website, or given to BERNAMA for wide coverage.
I have also not heard our Foreign Minister, Anifah Aman, speaking in Parliament even with prepared answers on foreign policy issues. It is, in fact, an open secret that the Foreign Minister is afraid to face his adversaries in Dewan Rakyat. It is indeed regrettable that Wisma Putra is no longer what it was when the Late Tun Ghazalie Shafie was the Permanent Secretary, and Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Today, in public diplomacy, Malaysia is punching below its weight. Our diplomats can neither write nor talk English, the language of international diplomacy and commerce. During the 1960′s, our diplomats were well read and articulate. They were respected by their colleagues in the region and elsewhere for their ability to draft treaties, communiques. and press releases.–Din Merican
www.thestar.com.my
A ‘wander-ful’ service for Travelers
AT YOUR SERVICE
By Tan Sri Mohd Radzi Abd Rahman
Although many Malaysians abroad do not see the need to contact the embassy unless they are in trouble, the Foreign Ministry’s consular service is always ready to help.
THE public face of the Foreign Affairs Ministry is the consular service. This is an important arm of the ministry that Malaysians are familiar with.In the past year alone, around 15 to 25 million people entered and left the country. With the increasing number of Malaysians travelling abroad and foreign expatriates making Malaysia their temporary home, consular achievement has now become one of the yardsticks to measure the effectiveness of the Foreign Service delivery system.
Unlike the economic, political, bilateral and multilateral diplomacy the Malaysian diplomat is familiar with, consular service is the “citizen service” that deals directly with the ordinary people, who are treated as important clients.
The function of the consular office at Wisma Putra, or at the 21 Malaysian consulates and 81 embassies abroad, is guided by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963.
The consular functions include notary duties, attestation of documents, processing certificates of good conduct, birth registration, extending assistance to vessels and aircraft, and issuing of passports, travel documents and visas to persons wishing to travel to Malaysia.
Paramount among these functions is assisting its nationals within limits permitted by international law.
To many Malaysian diasporas, tourists and students studying abroad, the embassy is the consular office, and nothing more. The other functions of the embassy that deal with the privileged entities such as the palace, president’s office, ministries or people holding high appointments are hardly known to them.
In fact, Malaysians traveling or living abroad do not see the importance of coming in contact with the embassy unless out of necessity – such as to register a newborn, the renewal of passports, or when requiring emergency assistance such as during a tsunami, the Bali bombings, 9/11, the SARS epidemic crisis of 2003 or the 2010 volcanic eruption in Iceland that put air travel throughout Europe at a standstill.
A good number of Malaysians also appear at the consulate or the embassy when they are in distress, in cases where their passports, air tickets and money are stolen or lost and they are stranded with no change of clothes.
When this happens, one has to agree with Paul Theroux that travel is glamorous only in retrospect. Losing a passport through theft, negligence or disasters is one of the inconveniences for Malaysians when abroad.
In the case of a lost passport, the consulate or embassy is not authorised to issue a new passport to replace a lost one; it can issue an emergency certificate, a temporary, one-way travel document enabling one to travel home, but not valid to be used to travel to other countries.
All Malaysian embassies and consulates can facilitate the renewal of a Malaysian passport, but not all of them can issue a new Malaysian passport.
Where it is necessary for the embassy or consulate to forward an application for renewal or for a new Malaysian passport back to the Immigration Department in Malaysia, the process will inevitably take longer.
Within the boundaries of the consular functions, those who come for assistance are expected to be served with the highest level of professionalism.
The consular office can assist in notifying next-of-kin in the event the Malaysian is injured, arrested or detained.
It can communicate with the family or friends to request for emergency repatriation funds or arrange for the return of the remains of a deceased to Malaysia.
The consular officer also identifies bodies at the mortuary, visits those detained or imprisoned should there be a request from them to do so and ensure that due process of the law is accorded to them in the country they are arrested or detained.
To the Malaysian embassies abroad, the contact with Malaysian nationals is a pleasant experience. Especially at the embassies which are located where hardly any Malaysian travels, it is a delight for the Malaysian diplomat to meet another fellow citizen.
With the Government’s diaspora policy in place, a friendly contact with Malaysians working abroad is also useful. These individuals relate stories of their businesses, their expertise and the fascinating researches they are tasked to carry out at their new place of work.
With affordable travel, the world has become a smaller place.This means the consular offices have to be an effective problem-solver. In carrying out this task, the Malaysian diplomat is sometimes swayed by sympathy rather than logic.
On one occasion, a stranded Malaysian girl who was back-packing around Europe was “adopted” by the embassy staff with each one taking turns to provide her with food while waiting for her family to send over money for her return ticket home.
Upon reaching home, she sent a postcard to the embassy thanking them for the “five-star hotel” service and the excellent meals and warm clothes. Such instances are an exception rather than a rule.
There is only so much a consular office can do. Some consular offices are under-staffed and when unable to meet the expectations of the clients, they are sternly criticised and sometimes unfortunate stories get to the press.
What is helpful for the Malaysian traveler is to know what it takes to be in another country. They should come prepared, take pains to know whether a visa is required to enter the country, ensure that their passports exceed the six-month validity, bring sufficient money, have a travel and medical insurance ready, check websites of embassies and consulates in the country they are traveling and — as a precaution in case of emergency or natural disaster — register themselves at the embassy either by e-mail or in person.
The poet Saadi is apt when he said that a traveller without observation is a bird without wings. As a significant contributor to public diplomacy, the consular office assumes an important role in current-day diplomacy but when Malaysians work in tandem with them, the end-product benefits not only themselves but also their country – and not all those who wander are lost (J.R.R. Tolkien).
“This will be a never-ending game of race and religion orchestrated by UMNO. And you can add in the Hang Tuah card, too, unless the rakyat will put a stop to all these unethical abuse of cards in the coming 13th general election. As it is now, the cards are heavily stacked against Pakatan.”
If both Hang Tuah and Hang Jebat were alive today (alas, they are mere mythical characters!), it would be easy to tell which political party they will support, going by the statements they have made.
This is Hang Tuah’s statement: “Takkan Melayu hilang di dunia” (the Malays will never vanish from the face of the earth). And this is Hang Jebat’s statement: “Aku Jebat, rakyat biasa. Pangkat aku untuk kepentingan rakyat. Bergerak aku untuk membuat jasa kepada rakyat dan aku rela mati untuk rakyat kerana aku mahu keadilan, keadilan. Keadilan!” (I am Jebat, an ordinary citizen. My rank is for the people’s well-being. I work for the good of the people and I am willing to die for the people because I want justice, justice. Justice!)
No doubt about it. UMNO glorifies Hang Tuah in order to cement firmly the support of the Malays to the party as UMNO is all about Ketuanan Melayu or Malay supremacy. And this is clearly epitomised in Hang Tuah. This is the reason why Hang Tuah is glorified in our history textbooks – to imbue young Malay minds to worship Hang Tuah so that these children will grow up thinking that the Malay is the greatest race on earth. This then is the Hang Tuah card played by UMNO.
UMNO and Ketuanan Melayu are Siamese twins. Malay supremacy is the lifeblood of UMNO. Gluing the Malays to the concept of Ketuanan Melayu is UMNO’s trump card and there is no way Pakatan Rakyat can break this stranglehold.
The battle ground is now for the votes of the Malays, especially the rural Malays. But the Malays have always been taught to fear the Chinese while the Chinese have been taught to fear a repeat of an incident which occurred in 1969. The Barisan Nasional federal government thus controls the citizens by using fear as a weapon and what a mighty weapon it is.
Together with the weapon of fear is the weapon of Malay supremacy. So strong are these weapons that even PAS as an Islamic party has failed to counter them. The Malay support for PAS is only about 36 to 38 percent. And not many Malays support PKR either because they think that Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim has given too much leeway to the Chinese and the Indians.
Has UMNO programmed the Malays to be selfish and to only look after their own interests at all costs? There is no way the Malays will let go of Ketuanan Melayu and opt for Ketuanan Rakyat which is all encompassing and all inclusive. And this is also the reason why Pakatan will never win the general election. It is because the concept of Malay supremacy has locked up the Malay votes for UMNO.
Due to Ketuanan Melayu, the Malays tend to view DAP with suspicion and this has led to them to ostracise DAP. MCA does not suffer such a fate in BN as MCA is merely UMNO’s lackey while DAP is on an equal footing with PAS and PKR in the Pakatan coalition. UMNO’s bogeyman
UMNO uses Ketuanan Melayu to frighten the Malays into thinking that the DAP is a threat to the Malays. This is, of course, untrue as has been proven in Penang but the rural Malays are unaware of this because they only have access to the mainstream media which is controlled by BN. Therefore, DAP is always used by UMNO as a bogeyman to scare the Malays.
Not only does UMNO play the race card against DAP, MCA does it too. And that is why MCA has been labelled as worthless eunuchs by the Chinese. In addition to the race card, both UMNO and MCA also play the religion card against DAP but in opposite methods. UMNO says DAP is anti-Islam while MCA says DAP supports hudud law. The religion card is used against DAP but played differently to different audiences.
To sum up, this is the way UMNO and MCA woo their respective race groups:
UMNO says this to the Malays: by supporting PAS, you will make DAP very powerful; and
MCA says this to the Chinese: by supporting DAP, you will make PAS very powerful.
Looks as if UMNO and MCA are still sticking to the old ways of communal politics – back to pre-Merdeka era style of doing things. With the existence of these types of political parties such as UMNO and MCA, how is Malaysia ever going to achieve a clean, vibrant and matured democracy? Therefore it goes without saying that BN must be booted out to put an end to the era of communal politics.
However, as the Malay votes are the deciding factor, UMNO is cunning in cornering the Malay mindset. OF course there are goodies for MCA and MIC too in order for them to toe UMNO’s line and get the votes of their respective communities, all for the benefit of UMNO. UMNO channels these goodies to MCA and MIC to keep them quiet.
This will be a never-ending game of race and religion orchestrated by UMNO. And you can add in the Hang Tuah card, too, unless the rakyat will put a stop to all these abuse of cards in the coming 13th General Election. As it is now, the cards are heavily stacked against Pakatan.
TIME International Editor Jim Frederick hosts a panel discussion on the future of capitalism: Can a system that came of age in the 20th century serve the needs of 21st? Joining Frederick tackling this question is:
Sharan Burrow, General Secretary, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), Brussels; Global Agenda Council on Employment & Social Protection
Brian T. Moynihan, Chief Executive Officer, Bank of America
Raghuram G. Rajan, Eric J. Gleacher Distinguished Service Professor of Finance, Booth School of Business, University of Chicago
David M. Rubenstein, Co-Founder and Managing Director, Carlyle Group, USA
Ben J. Verwaayen, Chief Executive Officer, Alcatel-Lucent
There will be no entertainment this weekend. In stead, I have chosen to post some serious stuff for our reflection about life and personalities of great intellect.
Here I present to you Noam Chomsky’s Lecture in honour of his friend, and renown public intellectual and scholar, the late Edward Said of Columbia University.–Din Merican
I have posted a number of Prof. A.C. Grayling’s articles on the blog in the past. He is my favorite Philosopher of our generation. In keeping with that, I thought it would be a good idea if we listen to his lecture on Darwin, Humanism and Science. Below is some background that may be useful for us to understand his speech:
A.C. Grayling explores the idea of Humanism informed by Science
Humanism is a positive view of life that roots itself in the natural world and celebrates freedom, cooperation, understanding, creativity and compassion. It is a philosophy that allows people to affirm that they are responsible, ethical members of society, and justify it in a way that is compatible with modern science.
Most Humanists reject supernatural explanations for everything, including the most puzzling and seemingly unexplainable phenomena. We don’t, however, dismiss that some things that have traditionally been in the realm of theology deserve an explanation. Some of these important things include: The origins of the universe, ethics and morality, consciousness, emotion, and purpose. The project that is Humanism is to assemble natural explanations for all of these things into a view of the world that is logical, defensible, and most importantly: awe inspiring.
Doubt, Critical Thinking and the Scientific Method
“Take no one’s word for it”
One of the most core values of modern day Humanism is that it advocates the use of critical thinking and the scientific method in every aspect of a person’s life. Doubt is a feeling that is cherished by a Humanist because it has proven to be the great engine of innovation and progress.
Many say that one of the most important discoveries ever made by humanity was the scientific method. Since it has been adopted, the human species has been lifted out of millenia of dark ages and stagnation, and into a brand new world of understanding and discovery.
The scientific method is a self correcting process used for uncovering the nature of our world. Humanists believe that we are far from understanding the anything in it’s entirety, and only by subjecting all of our ideas to deep scrutiny and experiment will we ever get any closer. To a Humanist, nothing is beyond scrutiny and inquiry, not even the principles of Humanism! The fact that we are always open to being wrong, or not quite right is what allows us to move forward and grow.
Freedom, Cooperation, and Responsibility
“Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.”
Take a moment, and try to imagine your life as a hermit with absolutely no interaction with other human beings on a day to day basis. Think of everything that you would be responsible for, and think of how barren a life in isolation would be emotionally. It is a dark thought, but on the bright side, it would be next to impossible to realize in our modern day world.
There are billions of humans on this planet, and millenia ago we had the collective realization that it would be much better for everyone if we organized ourselves and cooperated in societies. Today we have no choice but to play a contributory role in this massive human adventure. Humanists not only accept this fact but realize that respecting our roles as members of society is crucial in maintaining and bettering it.
Unfortunately we have not yet been able to level the playing field for everyone born into this world, and to do so is a mammoth yet extremely admirable goal to which we strive. Humanists value systems of organization and government that encourage peace, freedom, prosperity, diversity, and sustainability.
And how about Richard Dawkins? He lectures on Charles Dawin and Evolution at The Humanist Society of the United Kingdom:
China-dependent Asia could be catching an Economic Cold
by Laura Tyson (12-19-11)
As 2011 draws to a close, there are growing signs that Asia is becoming caught up in the global slowdown, dashing hopes that the region’s economies would “decouple” from the prolonged recession in Europe and America’s lackluster recovery.
China’s export growth is slipping, owing to faltering demand in Europe, which has surpassed the United States as China’s largest foreign market. Indeed, China’s manufacturing activity is contracting for the first time in almost three years. Reverberations are already evident in other emerging Asian economies that depend on exports both to China-based manufacturers and to the US and Europe.
Decoupling did not occur in 2008, when exports accounted for about 45% of pan-Asian GDP (excluding Japan) and every emerging country in the region experienced a sharp contraction in growth as world trade plummeted. Nor is decoupling likely today, because exports still account for about the same share of the region’s GDP, and about 50% of these exports are still headed to developed countries.
So the idea of decoupling appears to be a chimera. Even if the euro crisis is resolved, austerity in Europe, along with anemic growth or worse in the US, will mean a slowdown in export-dependent Asia. But Asia’s economies can still grow much faster than the developed West if they respond to prolonged stagnation by rebalancing their growth toward internal demand, especially household consumption. The good news is that these economies have substantial room for such rebalancing, as well as the policy flexibility to accomplish it.
The share of consumption in GDP in these economies fell from more than 60% in the early 1980’s to less than 50% today. In China, it is less than 40% – far below the norm for the world’s major economies and for other Asian economies at a comparable stage of development – despite nearly 7% annual average growth in China’s per capita consumption in recent years.
The Asian economies are home to 3.5 billion consumers, but their share in global consumption remains small – much smaller than their share in global GDP. China alone accounts for 20% of the world’s population, nearly 11% of global GDP, but only 3% of global consumption.
China and most of the other emerging Asian economies have strong government balance sheets – the GDP shares of their budget deficits and public debt are relatively small. As a result, they have the fiscal firepower to boost consumption in order to mitigate the effects of declining exports.
True, many local governments in China are saddled with debt, some of which may need to be restructured. But the central government enjoyed a 28% increase in revenues over the last year, and has more than $3 trillion in foreign-exchange reserves. In addition, the moderation of inflationary pressure as a result of slower growth and cooling global commodity markets will allow Chinese and other Asian policymakers to shift their focus from containing economic overheating to rebalancing growth. In China, where inflation is falling sharply, monetary policy has already begun to ease.
Even with significant policy support, however, most of the smaller Asian economies – Taiwan, Thailand, Singapore, and even South Korea – will not be able to replace external demand with internal demand to the same extent that China can. So, even with rebalancing, exports will remain a significant determinant of their growth, and China is already their major export market.
That is whyChina’s rebalancing is so important not only for its own economy, but for all of China-centric Asia. Intra-regional trade flows have surged during the last decade, but they have been concentrated in parts and components that go into finished products assembled in China for export to developed countries. With depressed markets in the developed world, intra-regional trade in the future will depend more on exports to satisfy Chinese domestic demand. Again, there is cause for optimism: China’s imports from Asia have been growing faster than China’s exports to the US for the last several years.
China responded to the 2009 global slowdown with dramatic fiscal and monetary stimulus, which fueled a rapid investment-led recovery at home and throughout Asia. Investment, mainly by local governments and state-owned companies with easy access to bank financing, soared to more than 45% of GDP, and, consistent with China’s long-run urbanization strategy, was concentrated in infrastructure and property-development projects.
Over time, much of the expansion in capacity will be absorbed, as an estimated 15 million people move from rural to urban areas each year over the next decade. But, for now, many investment projects are not yet generating enough income to service their debts (some of them never will), and there is significant spare capacity.
Confronted with another global slowdown that could depress its export markets for years, China needs to boost consumption even as it cools investment. And it needs to so in ways that do not rely on excessive credit expansion.
China’s 12th Five-Year Plan, which will take effect in 2012, recognizes these policy imperatives and calls for several measures to fulfill them, including wage increases for urban workers; income support for rural households; enhanced access to capital for small businesses, especially in the underbuilt services sector; and more generous social-welfare programs, which would reduce Chinese households’ high levels of precautionary saving. All of these measures are already underway, and Chinese leaders appear committed to embracing a new growth strategy that will benefit both China’s population and Asia as a whole.
The Asian economies should not count on being able to decouple from the economic woes of Europe and the US in the short run. But there are promising signs that, over time, the advanced countries’ difficulties will trigger a healthy, if belated, shift in Asia’s development strategy, with China leading the way.
Laura Tyson, a former chair of the US President’s Council of Economic Advisers, is a professor at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley. She is now with the London Business School as Dean
A Very Good Morning to you. Listen to Tim Harford’s presentation on the Value of Trial and Error. This video is dedicated to politicians including the Great One (Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad) and others in Malaysia with “God Complex”, who think they have answers to everything. God Forbid, if they should populate and rule the world. We have seen many of these characters throughout history like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Idi Amin in the 20th century.–Din Merican
”When a politician stands up, campaigning for elected office and says I want to fix our education system, our health care system, I have no idea how to do it. I have half-a-dozen ideas; we’re gonna test them out; they’ll probably all fail; then we’ll test some other ideas out; we’ll find some that work; we’ll build on those; we’ll get rid of the one’s that don’t. When a politician campaigns on that platform, and more important, when voters like you and me are willing to vote for that kind of politician, then I will admit that it is obvious that trial and error works…”–Tim Harford
Tim Harford (born 1973) is an Englisheconomist and journalist, residing in London. He is the author of four economics books (Adapt, Dear UndercoverEconomist, The Logic of Life and The Undercover Economist) , presenter of BBC television series Trust Me, I’m an Economist, and writer of a humorous weekly column called “Dear Economist” for The Financial Times, in which he uses economic theory to attempt to solve readers’ personal problems. His other FT column, “The Undercover Economist“, is syndicated in Slate magazine.
Harford studied at Aylesbury Grammar School and then at the University of Oxford, gaining a BA and then an MPhil in Economics in 1998. He joined the Financial Times in 2003 on a fellowship in commemoration of the business columnist Peter Martin. He continued to write his column after joining the International Finance Corporation in 2004, and re-joined the Financial Times as economics leader writer in April 2006. He is also a member of the newspaper’s editorial board.
India’s Indira Gandhi, Sri Lanka’s Sirimavo Bandaranaike, Pakistan’s Benazir Bhutto, Sheikh Hasina of Bangladesh, Corazon Aquino of the Philippines, and Megawati Sukarnoputri of Indonesia – these women leaders dominated South and South East Asia for much of the past four decades.
When first elected, none of these women had any serious professional or political qualifications. For some, this “shortcoming” was seen as an advantage, enabling some of them to project an image of innocence and purity, even martyrdom, as they stood in the place of their deceased husbands or fathers. None was particularly focused on a women’s agenda (at least not in their first terms in office), and studies show that rural women did not fare particularly well under their rule.
But something very different emerged in Asia in 2011. We still have women leaders who came to power at least partly because of their family ties. But they now seem to use their positions with far more confidence in putting women and their concerns squarely at the center of their agendas. And perhaps more importantly, a growing number of women are reaching for the highest political echelons in their countries by dint of their political talents alone.
Sonia Gandhi (left), the Italian-born wife of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and daughter-in-law of the late Indira Gandhi, became India’s most powerful woman for dynastic reasons but she has consistently demonstrated that she is a shrewd behind-the-scenes political operator. For her, the main task at hand is to strengthen the Congress Party, which in early 2011 she was elected to lead for an unprecedented fourth term. But she has also expended considerable energy on promoting women, particularly their representation in politics. Indeed, she pushed hard in backing Pratibha Patil to become India’s first woman president.
Similarly Sheikh Hasina, Bangladesh’s prime minister, who carries the mantle of her assassinated father, has become a keen advocate of development issues, with a special emphasis on women and their needs. That agenda, missing in her first term, has dominated her current period in office.
In East Asia, too, women are on the rise politically. Park Geun-hye (right), daughter of Park Chung-hee, President of South Korea from 1961 to 1979, is now one of the two likely candidates to succeed President Lee Myung-bak. While Park derives some of her power from her family pedigree, she has proven to be an astute and seasoned politician – one who climbed the Grand National Party’s leadership ladder over the last two decades to emerge as a national figure. Her role in championing an inclusive agenda for women provides a new lens through which to assess the power of Asia’s new leaders.
Compare Park to Corazon Aquino, who, when elected President of the Philippines, famously remarked that she was simply a housewife, not a professional politician or an experienced leader. It was clear that voters elected her because she was the widow of the slain opposition hero Benigno Aquino. By contrast, no one would deny Park’s professional credentials. She is taken seriously more for her own experience and political power than for her family connections.
Even in Japan, a similar change is in the air, but with no hint of dynastic trappings. Yuriko Koike (left), a former defense minister and national-security adviser, is one of the country’s most powerful figures; indeed, she could become Japan’s next prime minister.
Unlike many other leaders of her Liberal Democratic Party, Koike has no real family connection to any major political figure. Instead, her standing reflects her unique political talents: an academic background in Arabic studies (she studied at Cairo University) and fluency in English, which give her a global perspective that most of her male colleagues lack. Koike is not the only Asian woman without family ties forging a political career that may lead to the top.
Indonesia’s SriMulyani Indrawati, a former finance minister and currently a managing director of the World Bank, is often mentioned as a leading presidential candidate in her country. Indeed, a party has been formed specifically to entice her to run for president in 2014.
In Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen, is making a sustained and powerful challenge to the incumbent president in the election due in January 2012. Having helped to draft Taiwan’s special state-to-state act that regulates relations with China, and then having headed the country’s Ministry for Mainland Affairs Council, she is well positioned to manage the thorniest issue any Taiwanese leader will face: the relationship with China.
Another newcomer to political leadership is Yingluck Shinawatra (right), Thailand’s Prime Minister. Clearly, one reason she swept to power this year were her ties to her brother, exiled former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who controls the country’s strongest political party. But she made it clear during the campaign that she is her own person, a seasoned business leader with appropriate professional degrees.
Then, of course, there is the Burmese Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi. The daughter of the founder of independent Burma, Suu Kyi is now engaged in perhaps the most delicate task of her remarkable political career – trying to engineer a true democratic transition from decades of military dictatorship.
Unlike the first generation of Asian women leaders, who gained power primarily because of their familial connections, the emerging crop are strong, confident, and ready to take on the challenge of leading their nations on their own terms. Their followers appear to see in them harbingers, unjaded by history, of the change for which their societies are clamoring.
At a time when, despite economic growth in Asia, there is much social and income inequality, as well uncertainty about the durability of peace in the region, the desire to find fresh solutions to problems has given a powerful boost to women leaders. They are poised to take their seats at the top table – and perhaps to change its shape.
Vishakha Desai is President and CEO of Asia Society, which will host the Women Leaders of New Asia Summit in Zhenjiang, China, April 19 – 21, 2012.
NFC: A Case of Greed, Corruption and Sheer Financial Imbecility
by Nawawi Mohamad, Wong Choon Mei, Malaysia Chronicle
Since PKR leaders Rafizi Ramli and Zuraida Kamaruddin blew the lid off the RM250mil NFC debacle with their well-timed series of expose’ and revelations of greed, corruption and sheer financial imbecility, the scandal has morphed from being a mess into a quagmire for UMNO.
Make no mistake, the UMNO elite are watching this case a very wary eye because NFC is also the gateway to UMNO’s Pandora box. If not careful, it can provide arch rival Anwar Ibrahim’s Pakatan Rakyat coalition with a political weapon of mass destruction for the 13th general election.
But scream and shout it may, UMNO has no one to blame but itself, its own greed and its own infighting for this very critical situation. What a blunder of fireworks for a grand finale of destruction for UMNO!
Even Houdini or David Copperfield could never make NFC and the spectre of the Shahrizat clan, their cows, condos and Super-class Mercedes Benz disappear from the people’s minds! Sad to say, the two magicians could never make the whole RM250mil government soft loan reappear for the people either!
‘Safest’ solution
Firstly, the UMNO elite have not been able to resolve the debacle amicably as they have been able to with past cases. Why? Two main reasons – the 13th general election and UMNO’s own internal polls later this year. Yes, instead of compromising and helping to cover up for each other, different factions are using the NFC debacle as leverage to defeat each other.
The ‘final’ decision – for now that is – is to whitewash the debacle. In other words, let Shahrizat and family squirm away, while Raja Nong Chik (right)- blamed for instigating the scandal because he allegedly coveted Shahrizat’s Lembah Pantai parliamentary seat – may have to wait a while more to get his wish. This is deemed the ‘safest’ solution – again, for now that is!
The whitewash ordered by the UMNO elite is actually what Youth Chief Khairy Jamaluddin had initially planned – which is to deny all wrongdoing and to distance themselves from the debacle. Of course, they would lose credibility and the confidence of everyone. But for the disgraceful UMNO, this is not, and will not be the last time.
So regardless of how flimsy is the explanation, how obvious the lies they produce, Khairy and the NFC other stars including Prime Minister Najib Razak, DPM Muhyiddin Yassin, Agriculture Minister Noh Omar will just brazen it out – like the Shahrizats. Anyone who asks will be told that everything is alright and there is nothing to be concerned about.
Obviously, Shahrizat – the Wanita chief – too likes the ‘whitewash’ option. She had been alarmed when former premier Mahathir Mohamad told her to quit before she was chased out of the party. But of course, Khairy will win her everlasting gratitude for taking her side and trying to clarify and justify the alleged wrongdoings. Even so, will the latest plan work?
Salleh and Datuk Fix-it
Salleh Ismail, the NFC boss, had tried to keep cool and stay quiet for as long as he could. But when the luxury condos in Bangsar, followed by another one in Singapore – which worse still was registered to their personal names – started to splash all over the newspapers, he could not keep quiet anymore.
Shahrizat too tried to disassociate herself totally from the debacle, saying NFC was her family’s concern and nothing to do with her. But to no avail because even her own UMNO women said that would be impossible. Salleh is her husband and she is his wife, and there is bound to be lots of pillow talk shared between the two – like any normal couple.
Then the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission raided the NFC offices, a tad too dramatically, prompting many to accuse the commission of helping to destroy rather than find evidence. As for the police, from initially saying it found no elements of “criminal breach of trust”, the cops U-turned and suddenly found there could be some basis for the Attorney General to prosecute after all.
The next Jack-in-Box to pop out was the unfortunate “Datuk Fix-it”. Initially, speculation was rife that Salleh had been arrested but it turned out to be another real ‘Datuk’, someone who mingles well with the high-and-mighty and does their dirty work for them. This “Datuk Fix-it” could be most fortunate if he plays his cards right.
In the NFC case, he was detained for trying to bribe several Police investigators, offering some RM1.7mil purportedly received from Salleh so as to get the officers onto his side. Of course, the Datuk Fix-it will not be a willing scapegoat for nothing. The Shahrizat-NFC debacle is so hot, many top people could get burnt easily.
RM250million went into NFCorp: How was the money spent?
Unfortunately, Datuk Fix-it was not able to resolve the next PKR bombshell on the credit cards spending binge by the Shahrizats, which amounted to some RM600,000 in 2009 alone. The Malaysian public went livid when they saw the news reports of Shahrizat’s twenty-something-year-old kids drawing huge 5-figure salaries and who were also given similar-sized monthly credit card limits to utilize.
Shahrizat had no choice to to take 3-weeks leave. But instead of cooling off, she roped in PERKASA chief Ibrahim Ali and several Malay NGOs to help defend her and win the sympathy of the Malays. Ibrahim Ali’s trademark racism immediately ruffled feathers when he insisted NFC was “in order” and the whole commotion was due to a disgruntled non-Malay staff who blew the whistle on the project.
Then in true UMNO prime-time drama style, Salleh dutifully telephoned home from Mecca, insisting that it was all a mistake! To Salleh, the Auditor-General audited only the books of the government-owned National Feedlot Centre in Gemas, which is a 2,000 acre ranch and not NFCorp, which is his family-controlled firm that was awarded the job of overseeing the NFC project. According to Salleh, the ranch is is managed by the government itself via the Ministry of Agriculture! But of course, this turned out to be inaccurate.
Apart from extending a most generous RM250 million soft loan, the only government help seen at the NFC in Gemas was the abattoir facility it provided. Additionally, Salleh is involved in both NFCorp and overseeing the state-owned NFC, which is headed by his son and controlled by two other siblings.
NFCorp was also granted a loan by the Badawi administration to run the NFC. So to simply point out the difference in NFCorp and NFC makes no sense at all. Whatever it is, public money in the form of the government loan may have been improperly used, and this must be investigated thoroughly without fear or favor.
Burning questions
Left with no other option, UMNO is now splitting hairs. Like Houdini and Copperfield, they have to yell ‘KAZAM’ to deflect public attention. But sorry to say, no one is blinking.
UMNO is now worse off than before. Its leaders, from Najib to Muhyiddin, to Mahathir to Khairy, are seen as crooks willing to condone corruption, willing even to ‘racialize’ corruption just to get UMNO off the NFC hook.
Salleh has shown himself to be incompetent from the start and he should resign to make way for a probe for negligence and CBT; for not being alert about the set-up and organizational structure of a project entrusted to him to manage; and lastly, for letting the debacle occur right under his own nose. No wonder the RM250 million loan is in a mess, with huge chunks spent on non-cattle related items.
How much is left, how was it spent, how much can be recouped? These are the burning questions but neither Najib nor the Shahrizats will be keen to provide the answers. It looks like NFC is turning more and more into a total disaster by the day. UMNO deputy president Muhyiddin Yassin who awarded the project to Salleh’s NFCorp must also be investigated as to why he selected such an inexperienced person to manage a RM250 million fund.
But the most important questions to ask are why is UMNO taking so long to solve the debacle; why is UMNO working so hard to distance itself from the fallout; and why is it trying to white wash the debacle even though it must know that such a move will leave a huge and ugly scar that can never heal or be hidden?
Even if a private auditor is appointed by the government to probe into NFC, the people will be suspicious, given that the terms and reference of the audit may be skewed to favor certain UMNO parties.
No easy way out – a lesson UMNO can never learn
Be that as it may, the most likely reason for the whitewash is that UMNO does not really have a solution to this debacle.There are just too many inter-connections and to severe some of these may create repercussions that could rock the elite. Yet, by trying to insist everything is fine is equivalent to leaving a time bomb behind and waiting for it to explode, taking UMNO down with it.
The only way to diffuse the political weapon of mass destruction that Khairy, Muhyiddin, Shahrizat, Najib and Nong Chik have built is actually to go in the direction that they are now turning away from.
To save UMNO, corruption must be punished and the perpetrators not allowed to escape. But given UMNO’s record, it is highly unlikely that it can ever bring itself to do this. What next then? Put it this way, whatever new shenanigan UMNO decides on, it will never work unless UMNO owns up.
The market economy is the most successful mechanism for creating prosperity humanity knows. Allied to modern science, it has done more than transform the world economy; it has transformed the world. For the first time in history, the world’s principal states rely on the market economy to develop their economies. Almost as important, they rely on a global market economy. Contemporary states are destined to co-operate with one another if they are to prosper.
Yet the market economy is not as unchangeable as the laws of the Medes and the Persians in the book of Daniel. It is successful not because it stays the same, but because it does not. The driving force is the desire of all human beings to work for the betterment of themselves and their families. The mechanism is the equally natural search for a better deal. But institutional settings and relationships with political institutions have always been open to change. This very adaptability has ensured the survival of market economies.
Two centuries ago there was no limited liability, no personal bankruptcy, little central banking, no environmental regulation and no unemployment insurance. All these changes occurred in response to economic or political pressures. All brought with them new solutions and new challenges. At a time of ongoing financial shocks, this need for adaptation has not ended. On the contrary, it is as important as ever.
What, then, are the challenges that matter today? The libertarian movement in the US, whose standard-bearer is Ron Paul, is clear about the answer: abolish nearly all of these policy innovations and go back, as far as possible, to the capitalism of the late 19th century. Outside the US this current of opinion holds little sway. Even inside the US, it is merely a component of the Republican coalition. It is more than a mere curiosity – but it is not going to shape the future.
More relevant is asking how far the resurgent capitalism that emerged in the 1980s, under the leadership of Ronald Reagan in the US and Margaret Thatcher in the UK, now needs to be reformed. The answer is that it must be, for it has proved not just unstable, but, in important respects, unjust. The result has not only been a devastating crisis, but also a sense that the achievement of extraordinary wealth may not reflect exceptional merit. In societies that rely on consent, this is politically corrosive.
At the heart of the renewed debate are three issues: finance, corporate governance, and taxation. These are the questions raised by the “occupy” movements, which, for all their intellectual incoherence, have altered the terms of the political debate.
The financial sector grew too big, partly because risks were misunderstood and partly because it was encouraged by policymakers to expand. It will need to be better constrained in future, partly by ensuring the risks it creates are internalised. Again, corporate management has too often rigged executive compensation in its own interests, rather than that of shareholders. Finally, a plethora of incentives have allowed many of the most successful people to escape taxation. In all these respects, the modern economy needs reform, to become both fairer and more efficient.
Beyond such reforms, the debate over macroeconomic stabilisation that goes back to the 1930s has been renewed. In the years up to the crisis, the broad consensus was that a monetary policy targeted at inflation was enough. This view has been exploded. After the extended period of desperate improvisation now under way, a new synthesis will be required, one that takes proper account of asset prices, leverage and the role of central banks as lenders of last resort.
Capitalism will endure, by changing. That is the lesson of the past. It is just as relevant today.
Public Accounts Committee delays its deliberations on NFC: Azmi Khalid answers Lim Kit Siang
Public Accounts Committee (PAC) chief Azmi Khalid justified the parliamentary body’s decision to delay investigation into problems revolving around the National Feedlot Centre.
Azmi (left with his Deputy who is from DAP) agreed that it was his opinion that the PAC should pause its proceedings until the Police and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), which also initiated investigations at about the same time, to wrap up their probe.
“It is quite normal for PAC to delay inquiries until other relevant agencies had completed their jobs, since it involves the same people and documentation,” he said, in a statement today.
“But it does not mean that we are closing the case…whatever that is being recommended by the PAC to the enquiry, is to the police and the MACC, because we don’t have the forensics facility to go through every document one by one,” elaborated Azmi when contacted by Malaysiakini.
The veteran Padang Besar UMNO MP clarified that there have been cases where witnesses had refrained from giving information on the advice of their lawyers, for fear of being subjudice.
“In any case this code is not cast in stone as any member of PAC can request a hearing by making a simple request to the chairperson,” he said. Azmi was responding to calls from Ipoh Timur DAP parliamentarian Lim Kit Siang, who demanded the former’s resignation for holding back PAC’s investigations.Urging Azmi to “not be an obstacle”, Lim insisted that PAC should resume its probe and complete its report in time for Dewan Rakyat’s sitting in March.
‘PAC has never been partisan’
However, Azmi refused to counter Lim on a “political level”, emphasising that PAC “has never been partisan either in its deliberations or conclusions”. He proudly stated that the powerful committee comprises parliamentarians who are “professional” in their conduct and fair in their “conclusions”.
PAC had interviewed several agriculture and agro-based industries ministry officers on the weaknesses in the multi-million ringgit cattle farming project, raised in the 2010 Audit Report presented in parliament last November.
Azmi complained then that the government loan was given to the company even before the agreement was signed. Lim, however, raised the issue of conflict of interest as Azmi was the natural resources and environment minister in 2006, when the cabinet was deliberating the project.
He retorted today that Lim had similarly asked him to step down as the PAC chief when the committee was hearing witnesses in relation to Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal.
At the end of the PKFZ probe, PAC recommended, after an inquiry, the persons involved be investigated for criminal breach of trust, an offence that carries a maximum 20-year jail sentence, with whipping and a fine.
“I do not think I need to say more on this as evidenced by the PKFZ case ,and I leave it to the rakyat to judge me in my capacity as the PAC chairperson,” said Azmi.
Likewise, Azmi said that although he was part of the Cabinet in 2006, he “cannot remember the case”. “As far as I am concerned, there is no question of conflict of interest, let alone be a hindrance to any function that is duty-bound on any parliamentarian,” he said.
The grounds of written judgment of Anwar Ibrahim’s acquittal, on a charge of sodomising his former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, are not yet ready.
Anwar’s lead counsel Karpal Singh said he was informed by the trial judge’s secretary that the judgment is not yet ready. He said this to reporters after checking on the judgment with High Court Judge Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah’s secretary at the Jalan Duta Court Complex in Kuala Lumpur today.
He, however, said that a trial judge was obliged to provide a grounds of written judgment within eight weeks from the day a notice of appeal was filed, as provided under the Chief Justice’s circular.
On January 20, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had filed the Notice of Appeal against Anwar’s acquittal from the sodomy charge. The notice which was signed by Solicitor-General Idrus Harun was filed at the Kuala Lumpur High Court Criminal Registry.
Karpal also said the A-G’s Chambers had the power not to proceed with the appeal after perusing with the grounds of written judgment by the trial judge.
Karpal said it was still open to the A-G’s Chambers not to prosecute the appeal further, after reading and being satisfied with the written judgment which contained the exhibits, notes of proceedings and the written judgment.
“We have done it (not to appeal) in other cases. When I get the Petition of Appeal, I found the grounds were not worth to proceed with the appeal,” said Karpal.
He said the A-G’s Chambers had 10 days to file the petition of appeal under the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, upon receiving the record of appeal and if the 10-day period had lapsed, it was deemed to be withdrawn (the petition of appeal).
The party who had filed the notice of appeal at the High Court registry would have to file the petition of appeal at the Court of Appeal Registry, if they wanted to pursue the appeal, upon receiving a complete record of appeal.
On January 9, Justice Mohamad Zabidin acquitted and discharged Anwar after the court found that it could not be 100 percent certain that the integrity of the DNA samples had not been compromised and that it was reluctant to convict Anwar based solely on the uncorroborated evidence of Mohd Saiful.
Anwar, 64, had been charged with sodomising Mohd Saiful, 26, at a Desa Damansara condominium unit in Bukit Damansara here between 3.10pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008.He was charged under Section 377B of the Penal Code which carries a sentence of up to 20 years’ jail and whipping, upon conviction.
The remarkable thing about financing entrepreneurs and small businesses is that individually and in the aggregate, they would cost very little. The default rate for loans to small business and individual entrepreneurs very low, as demonstrated by the experience of Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. But the most important benefit of such a scheme is that it would encourage trade among ordinary Malays and teach them the value of business and free enterprise. This would help eradicate the ingrained mindset of forever waiting for the government or someone else to provide them with a pay cheque.
Once we have succeeded in producing such low level entrepreneurs then we could move up the ladder, to professionals and sub-professionals like accountants, lawyers, and engineers. From there, the government could then target the bigger contractors and major players. And with involvement at each level, the government would have better experience in assessing the risks and viability of the various individuals and proposals.
The difference between my plan and the government’s present strategy is that I let the market decide who should get the benefit of government help, not some all-knowing civil servant back in Kuala Lumpur. Further my plan is considerably cheaper and impacts many more people, in contrast to the present where billions are being lavishly squandered on the few. Lastly my plan will produce real entrepreneurs, not the armchair types that the Malay community currently have in abundance.
The remarkable observation about many successful companies of today is that they all started small. HP and Apple Computer were both started by engineers tinkering in their garages. No Washington official earmarked them for success.
Grooming entrepreneurs from below would prove more enduring and successful, in contrast to the present strategy of starting at the top.
My point is, we do not know where the next spark will come from. What is important is that we must create the conditions whereby should that spark ignite, it would start a chain of reactions far and beyond. This notion that some high and mighty bureaucrat or esteemed leader sitting in his air-conditioned office in Kuala Lumpur could pick industry winners, is pure bunk. And their track record proves it. The sooner Malaysian leaders disabuse themselves of this delusion the better it would be the nation.
One of the lessons of history is that no society that values order above everything else will encourage creativity among its citizenry. Such societies will be orderly all right, but they will not be creative or blazing new trails. The reverse is equally true, that is, without some degree of order, creativity will disappear.
The Chinese of the 15th Century had all the necessary ingredients that could lead them and the world into greater heights and to launch their own Industrial Revolution. They already had blast furnaces and piston bellows for making steel, discovered and used gunpowder, compass, paper and printing. But a mighty emperor ruled them; his edict was law and it could not be challenged. In his wisdom he declared that those were useless inventions and ordered their activities stopped. Being an orderly society, the Chinese meekly complied. Four hundred years later the Europeans would reinvent what the Chinese were doing routinely centuries earlier.
Unlike the Chinese, these enterprising Europeans, unrestrained by a God-like emperor, were able to tinker with their inventions and collectively they ushered Europe into the Industrial Revolution.
Consider the polar opposite of China: Russia immediately preceding the Bolshevik Revolution. The chaos of a dying empire produced a slew of luminaries in both the arts and sciences. In the world of music and arts there were Stravinsky, Tchaikovsky, and Kasimir; in literature Tolstoy, Dostoevski, and Chekov; and science Mendeleyev (periodic table) and Pavlov (physiology). Living in the chaos of a dying empire and unable to revolt against the powerful Czar, they bravely challenged orthodoxies in their own fields.
Had there been order and the Czar maintained his tight grip, he could have easily squashed these super achievers with their brash new ideas and creations. Creativity thrives in chaos but without some semblance of order, those Russians could not translate their brilliant innovations into a successful economy.
“To advance and use knowledge,” writes Lester Thurow, “a society needs the right combination of chaos and order.” Too much order (China) and you have stagnation; too much chaos (Pre Bolshevik Russia) and you would not be able to capitalise on those inventions. A contemporary example would be Japan (too much order that it stifles creativity) that now remains stagnant after a brief period of advancement, and America that thrives as it has found the right combination of chaos (freedom) and order.
What is true of economic and scientific activities is also true for the arts and other creative endeavours. As noted by my favourite poet Chairil Anwar, “In Art, vitality is the chaotic state; beauty the cosmic final state.”
These same dynamics between order and chaos also operate on the level of the individual: the tension between tradition and rebellion. Einstein’s early life had all the characteristics of a drop out: he quit school, renounced his citizenship, lived at the margins of society, and indeed regarded himself as a gypsy. Those early chaotic days belied his later genius.
His General Theory of Relativity, a unitarian concept, ironically brings order to the apparent chaos that is the universe.
Chairil Anwar thrived in the chaotic days of pre-independent Indonesia. His most well known poem “Aku” (Me!) reeks with this fearless expression of rugged individualism and irrepressible yearning for freedom. To quote:
Aku ini binatang jalang (I am but a wild animal)
Dari kumpulannya terbuang (Cut from its kind)
Dan aku akan lebih tidak perduli (and I should care even less)
Aku mahu hidup seribu tahun lagi!( I want to live for a thousand years!)
If there is indeed a Malaysian Chairil Anwar out there today, he would more likely have been kicked out of school; or if he ended up at the local university, he would have been long ago been detained under the ISA. But had he been born in America today, he would have earned millions writing lyrics for some hip hop groups or be lauded as the nation’s poet laureate.
It is for this reason (too much order) that I worry about young Malays attending religious schools. The emphasis there is on blindly following what is already established, with no room for critical thinking and independent thought. Any streak of independence is quickly stamped out. I do not expect to find future agents for change in Malay society to emerge from the present religious institutions.
Malaysia, and the Malay community in particular, has its fair share of the talented and enterprising. In their preoccupation for order and emphasis on conformity, Malaysian leaders are inadvertently snuffing out the independent spirits of their citizens.
Progress depends on those daring to challenge the existing order and push the envelope beyond. Malaysian leaders must not only tolerate diversity and differences in opinions among the citizens but also more importantly, encourage and celebrate those differences. We must encourage divergent viewpoints, as we will never know which one will prove to be right. Sadly the leaders confuse unity with unanimity. Malay unity does not and should not mean Malay unanimity.
I look askance at the control freaks currently in charge in Malaysia. They have a penchant for controlling everything and everyone. They would prefer that their followers be like sheep, bleeping to their every command and following them blindly.
It is a tribute to the enduring qualities of ordinary Malaysians that they are resisting to the best of their ability to maintain their spirit of merdeka (independence). Some openly rebel and end up being punished; others pay mere lip service to obedience, yet others affect embarrassing obsequiousness to the powers that be.
Events are with the people, not the leaders. With globalization and the spread of capitalism, the pace of these changes will hasten. It is for these reasons that I urge Malaysia to embrace free enterprise enthusiastically. But as Margaret Thatcher wisely observed in her book, Statecraft, there is a difference between doing something for pragmatic reasons (because they work) and doing so out of conviction. Mrs.Thatcher was driven by convictions that enabled her to transform Britain into a modern industrial state.
Capitalism has proven itself to be the best system to bring the greatest prosperity to the largest number of people. It is also compatible and consistent with our Islamic traditions. Islam began around free markets, and it is time we return to our roots. And do so with great conviction and enthusiasm.
The Auditor-General: Audit was on the National Feedlot Centre Project
By NSTOnline, Masami Mustaza
The Auditor-General said today the audit it conducted was on the National Feedlot Centre project, and not the company National Feedlot Corporation Sdn Bhd (NFCorp).
The Auditor-General, Tan Sri Ambrin Buang
In a statement released on its website, Auditor-General Tan Sri Ambrin Buang also said nowhere in the report did it refer to the NFC as being “in a mess”, adding that those words were used by other parties.
He also clarified that the audit analysis found that the objectives of the NFC were not fully realised due to several factors which have been explained in the Auditor-General’s Report 2010. Among them, based on a implementation agreement signed in March 2010, the production target for NFC of 38,600 cattle for 2010 could not be achieved as the Entrepreneur Development Programme (EDP) which involves 130 satelite farm operators were yet to be implemented.
“If there are any elements of misappropriation in the implementation of the project, this should be revealed in the investigation of the authorities such as the Royal Malaysian Police and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission,” he said.
Highlights of the Auditor-General statement:
audit was on National Feedlot Centre’s performance, not NFCorp the company.
audit analysis found that NFCentre had not fully met its objectives.
the Auditor-General’s report did not meantion chaos, “in a mess” or misappropriation. These words were used by other parties and should not be attributed to the Auditor-General.
from an audit perspective, there were weaknesses in the project’s implementation.
the audit on NFCentre project was done in an independent and professional manner, without prejudice to any parties.
Below is the full statement from the Auditor-General (in Bahasa):
KENYATAAN AKHBAR OLEH KETUA AUDIT NEGARA PUSAT FIDLOT NASIONAL
Ekoran laporan media mengenai beberapa isu yang menghubungkaitkan Jabatan Audit Negara (JAN) dengan projek fidlot di Gemas, Jabatan Audit Negara ingin memberi penjelasan seperti berikut:
2. Perkara yang menjadi fokus utama pengauditan prestasi yang dijalankan oleh JAN ialah pencapaian projek Pusat Fidlot Nasional (PFN) sejak penubuhannya pada tahun 2006 dan bukannya National Feedlot Corporation Sdn. Bhd. (NFCorp.) sebagai sebuah syarikat. NFCorp. adalah syarikat yang berdaftar di bawah Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia di mana Kementerian Kewangan Diperbadankan memegang satu golden share bernilai RM1.
Manakala modal berbayar berjumlah RM1.11 juta telah disumbangkan oleh Agroscience Industries Sdn. Bhd. Projek ini diaudit memandangkan ia penting dari segi pengeluaran makanan negara yang mana Kerajaan Malaysia telah memperuntukkan sejumlah wang yang besar berupa:
i) Peruntukan di bawah Kementerian Pertanian Dan Industri Asas Tani (KPIAT) berjumlah RM73.64 juta di bawah RMKe-9 bagi menampung kos pembangunan dan pengoperasian. Daripada peruntukan ini, sejumlah RM48.71 juta telah dibelanjakan setakat akhir tahun 2010 oleh KPIAT untuk menyediakan tapak seluas 5,000 ekar bagi projek ini. Kawasan ini kemudiannya dikurangkan kepada 2,000 ekar sahaja.
ii) Geran pelancaran untuk penyediaan infrastruktur berjumlah RM13 juta diluluskan kepada NFCorp. pada bulan September 2007 dan setakat akhir tahun 2010 sejumlah RM6.52 juta telah dibayar kepada NFCorp. untuk syarikat ini menyediakan infrastruktur seperti kandang dan jalan ladang.
iii) Pinjaman mudah (soft loan) juga telah diluluskan kepada NFCorp. yang berjumlah RM250 juta menerusi satu perjanjian pinjaman yang telah ditandatangani pada Disember 2007.
Setakat Mac 2010, sejumlah RM134.7 juta telah dikeluarkan kepada NFCorp. berdasarkan kepada tuntutan yang dibuat kepada Kementerian Kewangan.
3. Tujuan pengauditan dilaksanakan adalah untuk menilai sama ada projek PFN telah dirancang dan dilaksanakan dengan teratur dan berhemat serta mencapai objektif yang ditetapkan. Pengauditan ini melibatkan semakan terhadap maklumat yang diperolehi daripada beberapa agensi Kerajaan seperti KPIAT, Kementerian Kewangan, Jabatan Perkhidmatan Veterinar dan juga daripada pegawai-pegawai NFCorp. semasa lawatan tapak dilakukan pada bulan Mac 2011. Berdasarkan analisis audit yang bersandarkan kepada maklumat tersebut, pemerhatian-pemerhatian audit telah dibuat secara bertulis untuk mendapatkan pengesahan dan maklum balas daripada pihak-pihak ini. Selain itu, perbincangan menerusi Exit Conference telah dibuat dengan wakil-wakil KPIAT sebagai Kementerian yang bertanggungjawab ke atas pelaksanaan projek ini sebelum laporan audit dimuktamadkan untuk dimuatkan ke dalam Laporan Ketua Audit Negara (LKAN) 2010.
4. Analisis audit mendapati objektif projek PFN masih belum dicapai sepenuhnya. Ini disebabkan berbagai faktor yang dihuraikan dalam LKAN 2010. Antaranya, mengikut perjanjian pelaksanaan yang ditandatangani pada bulan Mac 2010, sasaran pengeluaran PFN iaitu 38,600 ekor lembu untuk tahun 2010 belum dicapai kerana Entreprenuer Development Program (EDP) yang melibatkan 130 pengusaha ladang satelit belum dilaksanakan lagi.
5. Jika dibaca keseluruhan LKAN 2010 itu, tidak ada pun disebut perkataan-perkataan seperti kucar kacir, ‘in a mess’ atau pun penyelewengan. Perkataan-perkataan ini telah digunakan oleh pihak-pihak lain dan JAN tidak sepatutnya dipertanggungjawabkan. Pada pendapat JAN, sama ada terdapat unsur-unsur penyelewengan dalam pelaksanaan projek ini terpulanglah kepada penyiasatan pihak berkuasa seperti Polis Diraja Malaysia dan Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia.
6. Pada perspektif audit, sememangnya terdapat beberapa kelemahan dalam pelaksanaan projek ini. Jikalau tidak, mengapa pada bulan Mei 2009 (sebelum pengauditan dijalankan), Kerajaan perlu menangguhkan pelaksanaan PFN sehingga satu kajian viability and business model (model perniagaan) dijalankan bagi projek ini?. Perkara ini ada dinyatakan dalam LKAN 2010. Ianya membayangkan Kerajaan Malaysia sememangnya sedar akan kelemahan-kelemahan dalam pelaksanaan projek ini dan telah pun mengambil tindakan untuk menentukan hala tuju projek ini.
7. JAN ingin menjelaskan bahawa pengauditan terhadap projek PFN ini telah dibuat secara bebas dan profesional tanpa sebarang prejudis kepada mana-mana pihak. Sebarang kenyataan yang mempertikaikan kewibawaan dan integriti juruaudit JAN adalah dikesali.
President Barack Obama’s 2012 State of the Union Address
Obama at Congress- The State of the Union Address
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:
Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq. Together, we offered a final, proud salute to the colors under which more than a million of our fellow citizens fought – and several thousand gave their lives.
We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world. For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq. For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country. Most of al Qaeda’s top lieutenants have been defeated. The Taliban’s momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.
These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness, and teamwork of America’s Armed Forces. At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They’re not consumed with personal ambition. They don’t obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together.
Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example. Think about the America within our reach: A country that leads the world in educating its people. An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs. A future where we’re in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren’t so tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.
We can do this. I know we can, because we’ve done it before. At the end of World War II, when another generation of heroes returned home from combat, they built the strongest economy and middle class the world has ever known. My grandfather, a veteran of Patton’s Army, got the chance to go to college on the GI Bill. My grandmother, who worked on a bomber assembly line, was part of a workforce that turned out the best products on Earth.
The two of them shared the optimism of a Nation that had triumphed over a depression and fascism. They understood they were part of something larger; that they were contributing to a story of success that every American had a chance to share – the basic American promise that if you worked hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement.
The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. What’s at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. We have to reclaim them.
Let’s remember how we got here. Long before the recession, jobs and manufacturing began leaving our shores. Technology made businesses more efficient, but also made some jobs obsolete. Folks at the top saw their incomes rise like never before, but most hardworking Americans struggled with costs that were growing, paychecks that weren’t, and personal debt that kept piling up.
In 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn’t afford or understand them. Banks had made huge bets and bonuses with other people’s money. Regulators had looked the other way, or didn’t have the authority to stop the bad behavior.
It was wrong. It was irresponsible. And it plunged our economy into a crisis that put millions out of work, saddled us with more debt, and left innocent, hard-working Americans holding the bag. In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly four million jobs. And we lost another four million before our policies were in full effect.
Those are the facts. But so are these. In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005. American manufacturers are hiring again, creating jobs for the first time since the late 1990s. Together, we’ve agreed to cut the deficit by more than $2 trillion. And we’ve put in place new rules to hold Wall Street accountable, so a crisis like that never happens again.
The state of our Union is getting stronger. And we’ve come too far to turn back now. As long as I’m President, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum. But I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place.
No, we will not go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, bad debt, and phony financial profits. Tonight, I want to speak about how we move forward, and lay out a blueprint for an economy that’s built to last – an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, and a renewal of American values.
This blueprint begins with American manufacturing. On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the world’s number one automaker. Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs.
We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back. What’s happening in Detroit can happen in other industries. It can happen in Cleveland and Pittsburgh and Raleigh. We can’t bring back every job that’s left our shores. But right now, it’s getting more expensive to do business in places like China. Meanwhile, America is more productive. A few weeks ago, the CEO of Master Lock told me that it now makes business sense for him to bring jobs back home. Today, for the first time in fifteen years, Master Lock’s unionized plant in Milwaukee is running at full capacity.
So we have a huge opportunity, at this moment, to bring manufacturing back. But we have to seize it. Tonight, my message to business leaders is simple: Ask yourselves what you can do to bring jobs back to your country, and your country will do everything we can to help you succeed.
We should start with our tax code. Right now, companies get tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas. Meanwhile, companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and everyone knows it.
So let’s change it. First, if you’re a business that wants to outsource jobs, you shouldn’t get a tax deduction for doing it. That money should be used to cover moving expenses for companies like Master Lock that decide to bring jobs home.
Second, no American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas. From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax. And every penny should go towards lowering taxes for companies that choose to stay here and hire here.
Third, if you’re an American manufacturer, you should get a bigger tax cut. If you’re a high-tech manufacturer, we should double the tax deduction you get for making products here. And if you want to relocate in a community that was hit hard when a factory left town, you should get help financing a new plant, equipment, or training for new workers.
My message is simple. It’s time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America. Send me these tax reforms, and I’ll sign them right away.
We’re also making it easier for American businesses to sell products all over the world. Two years ago, I set a goal of doubling U.S. exports over five years. With the bipartisan trade agreements I signed into law, we are on track to meet that goal – ahead of schedule. Soon, there will be millions of new customers for American goods in Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. Soon, there will be new cars on the streets of Seoul imported from Detroit, and Toledo, and Chicago.
I will go anywhere in the world to open new markets for American products. And I will not stand by when our competitors don’t play by the rules. We’ve brought trade cases against China at nearly twice the rate as the last administration – and it’s made a difference. Over a thousand Americans are working today because we stopped a surge in Chinese tires. But we need to do more. It’s not right when another country lets our movies, music, and software be pirated. It’s not fair when foreign manufacturers have a leg up on ours only because they’re heavily subsidized.
Tonight, I’m announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trade practices in countries like China. There will be more inspections to prevent counterfeit or unsafe goods from crossing our borders. And this Congress should make sure that no foreign company has an advantage over American manufacturing when it comes to accessing finance or new markets like Russia. Our workers are the most productive on Earth, and if the playing field is level, I promise you – America will always win.
I also hear from many business leaders who want to hire in the United States but can’t find workers with the right skills. Growing industries in science and technology have twice as many openings as we have workers who can do the job. Think about that – openings at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work.
That’s inexcusable. And we know how to fix it. Jackie Bray is a single mom from North Carolina who was laid off from her job as a mechanic. Then Siemens opened a gas turbine factory in Charlotte, and formed a partnership with Central Piedmont Community College. The company helped the college design courses in laser and robotics training. It paid Jackie’s tuition, then hired her to help operate their plant.
I want every American looking for work to have the same opportunity as Jackie did. Join me in a national commitment to train two million Americans with skills that will lead directly to a job. My Administration has already lined up more companies that want to help. Model partnerships between businesses like Siemens and community colleges in places like Charlotte, Orlando, and Louisville are up and running. Now you need to give more community colleges the resources they need to become community career centers – places that teach people skills that local businesses are looking for right now, from data management to high-tech manufacturing.
And I want to cut through the maze of confusing training programs, so that from now on, people like Jackie have one program, one website, and one place to go for all the information and help they need. It’s time to turn our unemployment system into a reemployment system that puts people to work.
These reforms will help people get jobs that are open today. But to prepare for the jobs of tomorrow, our commitment to skills and education has to start earlier.
For less than one percent of what our Nation spends on education each year, we’ve convinced nearly every State in the country to raise their standards for teaching and learning – the first time that’s happened in a generation.
But challenges remain. And we know how to solve them. At a time when other countries are doubling down on education, tight budgets have forced States to lay off thousands of teachers. We know a good teacher can increase the lifetime income of a classroom by over $250,000. A great teacher can offer an escape from poverty to the child who dreams beyond his circumstance. Every person in this chamber can point to a teacher who changed the trajectory of their lives. Most teachers work tirelessly, with modest pay, sometimes digging into their own pocket for school supplies – just to make a difference.
Teachers matter. So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let’s offer schools a deal. Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones. In return, grant schools flexibility: To teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren’t helping kids learn.
We also know that when students aren’t allowed to walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma. So tonight, I call on every State to require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn eighteen.
When kids do graduate, the most daunting challenge can be the cost of college. At a time when Americans owe more in tuition debt than credit card debt, this Congress needs to stop the interest rates on student loans from doubling in July. Extend the tuition tax credit we started that saves middle-class families thousands of dollars. And give more young people the chance to earn their way through college by doubling the number of work-study jobs in the next five years.
Of course, it’s not enough for us to increase student aid. We can’t just keep subsidizing skyrocketing tuition; we’ll run out of money. States also need to do their part, by making higher education a higher priority in their budgets. And colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down. Recently, I spoke with a group of college presidents who’ve done just that. Some schools re-design courses to help students finish more quickly. Some use better technology. The point is, it’s possible. So let me put colleges and universities on notice: If you can’t stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down. Higher education can’t be a luxury – it’s an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford.
Let’s also remember that hundreds of thousands of talented, hardworking students in this country face another challenge: The fact that they aren’t yet American citizens. Many were brought here as small children, are American through and through, yet they live every day with the threat of deportation. Others came more recently, to study business and science and engineering, but as soon as they get their degree, we send them home to invent new products and create new jobs somewhere else.
That doesn’t make sense. I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration. That’s why my Administration has put more boots on the border than ever before. That’s why there are fewer illegal crossings than when I took office.
The opponents of action are out of excuses. We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now. But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let’s at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, and defend this country. Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship. I will sign it right away.
You see, an economy built to last is one where we encourage the talent and ingenuity of every person in this country. That means women should earn equal pay for equal work. It means we should support everyone who’s willing to work; and every risk-taker and entrepreneur who aspires to become the next Steve Jobs.
After all, innovation is what America has always been about. Most new jobs are created in start-ups and small businesses. So let’s pass an agenda that helps them succeed. Tear down regulations that prevent aspiring entrepreneurs from getting the financing to grow. Expand tax relief to small businesses that are raising wages and creating good jobs. Both parties agree on these ideas. So put them in a bill, and get it on my desk this year.
Innovation also demands basic research. Today, the discoveries taking place in our federally-financed labs and universities could lead to new treatments that kill cancer cells but leave healthy ones untouched. New lightweight vests for cops and soldiers that can stop any bullet. Don’t gut these investments in our budget. Don’t let other countries win the race for the future. Support the same kind of research and innovation that led to the computer chip and the Internet; to new American jobs and new American industries.
Nowhere is the promise of innovation greater than in American-made energy. Over the last three years, we’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I’m directing my Administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources. Right now, American oil production is the highest that it’s been in eight years. That’s right – eight years. Not only that – last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past sixteen years.
But with only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, oil isn’t enough. This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy – a strategy that’s cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.
We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly one hundred years, and my Administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. And I’m requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use. America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.
The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don’t have to choose between our environment and our economy. And by the way, it was public research dollars, over the course of thirty years, that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock – reminding us that Government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground.
What’s true for natural gas is true for clean energy. In three years, our partnership with the private sector has already positioned America to be the world’s leading manufacturer of high-tech batteries. Because of federal investments, renewable energy use has nearly doubled. And thousands of Americans have jobs because of it.
When Bryan Ritterby was laid off from his job making furniture, he said he worried that at 55, no one would give him a second chance. But he found work at Energetx, a wind turbine manufacturer in Michigan. Before the recession, the factory only made luxury yachts. Today, it’s hiring workers like Bryan, who said, “I’m proud to be working in the industry of the future.”
Our experience with shale gas shows us that the payoffs on these public investments don’t always come right away. Some technologies don’t pan out; some companies fail. But I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy. I will not walk away from workers like Bryan. I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here. We have subsidized oil companies for a century. That’s long enough. It’s time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s rarely been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising. Pass clean energy tax credits and create these jobs.
We can also spur energy innovation with new incentives. The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change. But there’s no reason why Congress shouldn’t at least set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation. So far, you haven’t acted. Well tonight, I will. I’m directing my Administration to allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power three million homes. And I’m proud to announce that the Department of Defense, the world’s largest consumer of energy, will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history – with the Navy purchasing enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year.
Of course, the easiest way to save money is to waste less energy. So here’s another proposal: Help manufacturers eliminate energy waste in their factories and give businesses incentives to upgrade their buildings. Their energy bills will be $100 billion lower over the next decade, and America will have less pollution, more manufacturing, and more jobs for construction workers who need them. Send me a bill that creates these jobs.
Building this new energy future should be just one part of a broader agenda to repair America’s infrastructure. So much of America needs to be rebuilt. We’ve got crumbling roads and bridges. A power grid that wastes too much energy. An incomplete high-speed broadband network that prevents a small business owner in rural America from selling her products all over the world.
During the Great Depression, America built the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge. After World War II, we connected our States with a system of highways. Democratic and Republican administrations invested in great projects that benefited everybody, from the workers who built them to the businesses that still use them today.
In the next few weeks, I will sign an Executive Order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects. But you need to fund these projects. Take the money we’re no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home.
There’s never been a better time to build, especially since the construction industry was one of the hardest-hit when the housing bubble burst. Of course, construction workers weren’t the only ones hurt. So were millions of innocent Americans who’ve seen their home values decline. And while Government can’t fix the problem on its own, responsible homeowners shouldn’t have to sit and wait for the housing market to hit bottom to get some relief.
That’s why I’m sending this Congress a plan that gives every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage, by refinancing at historically low interest rates. No more red tape. No more runaround from the banks. A small fee on the largest financial institutions will ensure that it won’t add to the deficit, and will give banks that were rescued by taxpayers a chance to repay a deficit of trust.
Let’s never forget: Millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a Government and a financial system that do the same. It’s time to apply the same rules from top to bottom: No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts. An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody.
We’ve all paid the price for lenders who sold mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them, and buyers who knew they couldn’t afford them. That’s why we need smart regulations to prevent irresponsible behavior. Rules to prevent financial fraud, or toxic dumping, or faulty medical devices, don’t destroy the free market. They make the free market work better.
There is no question that some regulations are outdated, unnecessary, or too costly. In fact, I’ve approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his. I’ve ordered every federal agency to eliminate rules that don’t make sense. We’ve already announced over 500 reforms, and just a fraction of them will save business and citizens more than $10 billion over the next five years. We got rid of one rule from 40 years ago that could have forced some dairy farmers to spend $10,000 a year proving that they could contain a spill – because milk was somehow classified as an oil. With a rule like that, I guess it was worth crying over spilled milk.
I’m confident a farmer can contain a milk spill without a federal agency looking over his shoulder. But I will not back down from making sure an oil company can contain the kind of oil spill we saw in the Gulf two years ago. I will not back down from protecting our kids from mercury pollution, or making sure that our food is safe and our water is clean. I will not go back to the days when health insurance companies had unchecked power to cancel your policy, deny you coverage, or charge women differently from men.
And I will not go back to the days when Wall Street was allowed to play by its own set of rules. The new rules we passed restore what should be any financial system’s core purpose: Getting funding to entrepreneurs with the best ideas, and getting loans to responsible families who want to buy a home, start a business, or send a kid to college.
So if you’re a big bank or financial institution, you are no longer allowed to make risky bets with your customers’ deposits. You’re required to write out a “living will” that details exactly how you’ll pay the bills if you fail – because the rest of us aren’t bailing you out ever again. And if you’re a mortgage lender or a payday lender or a credit card company, the days of signing people up for products they can’t afford with confusing forms and deceptive practices are over. Today, American consumers finally have a watchdog in Richard Cordray with one job: To look out for them.
We will also establish a Financial Crimes Unit of highly trained investigators to crack down on large-scale fraud and protect people’s investments. Some financial firms violate major anti-fraud laws because there’s no real penalty for being a repeat offender. That’s bad for consumers, and it’s bad for the vast majority of bankers and financial service professionals who do the right thing. So pass legislation that makes the penalties for fraud count.
And tonight, I am asking my Attorney General to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorneys general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis. This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans.
A return to the American values of fair play and shared responsibility will help us protect our people and our economy. But it should also guide us as we look to pay down our debt and invest in our future.
Right now, our most immediate priority is stopping a tax hike on 160 million working Americans while the recovery is still fragile. People cannot afford losing $40 out of each paycheck this year. There are plenty of ways to get this done. So let’s agree right here, right now: No side issues. No drama. Pass the payroll tax cut without delay.
When it comes to the deficit, we’ve already agreed to more than $2 trillion in cuts and savings. But we need to do more, and that means making choices. Right now, we’re poised to spend nearly $1 trillion more on what was supposed to be a temporary tax break for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households. Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.
Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else – like education and medical research; a strong military and care for our veterans? Because if we’re serious about paying down our debt, we can’t do both.
The American people know what the right choice is. So do I. As I told the Speaker this summer, I’m prepared to make more reforms that rein in the long term costs of Medicare and Medicaid, and strengthen Social Security, so long as those programs remain a guarantee of security for seniors.
But in return, we need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of Members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes. Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes. And my Republican friend Tom Coburn is right: Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires. In fact, if you’re earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn’t get special tax subsidies or deductions. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year, like 98 percent of American families, your taxes shouldn’t go up. You’re the ones struggling with rising costs and stagnant wages. You’re the ones who need relief.
Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.
We don’t begrudge financial success in this country. We admire it. When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it’s not because they envy the rich. It’s because they understand that when I get tax breaks I don’t need and the country can’t afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference – like a senior on a fixed income; or a student trying to get through school; or a family trying to make ends meet.
That’s not right. Americans know it’s not right. They know that this generation’s success is only possible because past generations felt a responsibility to each other, and to their country’s future, and they know our way of life will only endure if we feel that same sense of shared responsibility. That’s how we’ll reduce our deficit. That’s an America built to last.
I recognize that people watching tonight have differing views about taxes and debt; energy and health care. But no matter what party they belong to, I bet most Americans are thinking the same thing right now: Nothing will get done this year, or next year, or maybe even the year after that, because Washington is broken.
Can you blame them for feeling a little cynical? The greatest blow to confidence in our economy last year didn’t come from events beyond our control. It came from a debate in Washington over whether the United States would pay its bills or not. Who benefited from that fiasco?
I’ve talked tonight about the deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street. But the divide between this city and the rest of the country is at least as bad – and it seems to get worse every year.
Some of this has to do with the corrosive influence of money in politics. So together, let’s take some steps to fix that. Send me a bill that bans insider trading by Members of Congress, and I will sign it tomorrow. Let’s limit any elected official from owning stocks in industries they impact. Let’s make sure people who bundle campaign contributions for Congress can’t lobby Congress, and vice versa – an idea that has bipartisan support, at least outside of Washington.
Some of what’s broken has to do with the way Congress does its business these days. A simple majority is no longer enough to get anything – even routine business – passed through the Senate. Neither party has been blameless in these tactics. Now both parties should put an end to it. For starters, I ask the Senate to pass a rule that all judicial and public service nominations receive a simple up or down vote within 90 days.
The executive branch also needs to change. Too often, it’s inefficient, outdated and remote. That’s why I’ve asked this Congress to grant me the authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy so that our Government is leaner, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the American people.
Finally, none of these reforms can happen unless we also lower the temperature in this town. We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign of mutual destruction; that politics is about clinging to rigid ideologies instead of building consensus around common sense ideas.
I’m a Democrat. But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That Government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more. That’s why my education reform offers more competition, and more control for schools and States. That’s why we’re getting rid of regulations that don’t work. That’s why our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a Government program.
On the other hand, even my Republican friends who complain the most about Government spending have supported federally-financed roads, and clean energy projects, and federal offices for the folks back home.
The point is, we should all want a smarter, more effective Government. And while we may not be able to bridge our biggest philosophical differences this year, we can make real progress. With or without this Congress, I will keep taking actions that help the economy grow. But I can do a whole lot more with your help. Because when we act together, there is nothing the United States of America can’t achieve.
That is the lesson we’ve learned from our actions abroad over the last few years. Ending the Iraq war has allowed us to strike decisive blows against our enemies. From Pakistan to Yemen, the al Qaeda operatives who remain are scrambling, knowing that they can’t escape the reach of the United States of America.
From this position of strength, we’ve begun to wind down the war in Afghanistan. Ten thousand of our troops have come home. Twenty-three thousand more will leave by the end of this summer. This transition to Afghan lead will continue, and we will build an enduring partnership with Afghanistan, so that it is never again a source of attacks against America.
As the tide of war recedes, a wave of change has washed across the Middle East and North Africa, from Tunis to Cairo; from Sana’a to Tripoli. A year ago, Qadhafi was one of the world’s longest-serving dictators – a murderer with American blood on his hands. Today, he is gone. And in Syria, I have no doubt that the Assad regime will soon discover that the forces of change can’t be reversed, and that human dignity can’t be denied.
How this incredible transformation will end remains uncertain. But we have a huge stake in the outcome. And while it is ultimately up to the people of the region to decide their fate, we will advocate for those values that have served our own country so well. We will stand against violence and intimidation. We will stand for the rights and dignity of all human beings – men and women; Christians, Muslims, and Jews. We will support policies that lead to strong and stable democracies and open markets, because tyranny is no match for liberty.
And we will safeguard America’s own security against those who threaten our citizens, our friends, and our interests. Look at Iran. Through the power of our diplomacy, a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program now stands as one. The regime is more isolated than ever before; its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions, and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent.
Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal. But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.
The renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe. Our oldest alliances in Europe and Asia are stronger than ever. Our ties to the Americas are deeper. Our iron-clad commitment to Israel’s security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history. We’ve made it clear that America is a Pacific power, and a new beginning in Burma has lit a new hope. From the coalitions we’ve built to secure nuclear materials, to the missions we’ve led against hunger and disease; from the blows we’ve dealt to our enemies; to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back.
Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about. That’s not the message we get from leaders around the world, all of whom are eager to work with us. That’s not how people feel from Tokyo to Berlin; from Cape Town to Rio; where opinions of America are higher than they’ve been in years. Yes, the world is changing; no, we can’t control every event. But America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs – and as long as I’m President, I intend to keep it that way.
That’s why, working with our military leaders, I have proposed a new defense strategy that ensures we maintain the finest military in the world, while saving nearly half a trillion dollars in our budget. To stay one step ahead of our adversaries, I have already sent this Congress legislation that will secure our country from the growing danger of cyber-threats.
Above all, our freedom endures because of the men and women in uniform who defend it. As they come home, we must serve them as well as they served us. That includes giving them the care and benefits they have earned – which is why we’ve increased annual VA spending every year I’ve been President. And it means enlisting our veterans in the work of rebuilding our Nation.
With the bipartisan support of this Congress, we are providing new tax credits to companies that hire vets. Michelle and Jill Biden have worked with American businesses to secure a pledge of 135,000 jobs for veterans and their families. And tonight, I’m proposing a Veterans Job Corps that will help our communities hire veterans as cops and firefighters, so that America is as strong as those who defend her.
Which brings me back to where I began. Those of us who’ve been sent here to serve can learn from the service of our troops. When you put on that uniform, it doesn’t matter if you’re black or white; Asian or Latino; conservative or liberal; rich or poor; gay or straight. When you’re marching into battle, you look out for the person next to you, or the mission fails. When you’re in the thick of the fight, you rise or fall as one unit, serving one Nation, leaving no one behind.
One of my proudest possessions is the flag that the SEAL Team took with them on the mission to get bin Laden. On it are each of their names. Some may be Democrats. Some may be Republicans. But that doesn’t matter. Just like it didn’t matter that day in the Situation Room, when I sat next to Bob Gates – a man who was George Bush’s defense secretary; and Hillary Clinton, a woman who ran against me for president.
All that mattered that day was the mission. No one thought about politics. No one thought about themselves. One of the young men involved in the raid later told me that he didn’t deserve credit for the mission. It only succeeded, he said, because every single member of that unit did their job – the pilot who landed the helicopter that spun out of control; the translator who kept others from entering the compound; the troops who separated the women and children from the fight; the SEALs who charged up the stairs. More than that, the mission only succeeded because every member of that unit trusted each other – because you can’t charge up those stairs, into darkness and danger, unless you know that there’s someone behind you, watching your back.
So it is with America. Each time I look at that flag, I’m reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those fifty stars and those thirteen stripes. No one built this country on their own. This Nation is great because we built it together. This Nation is great because we worked as a team. This Nation is great because we get each other’s backs. And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard. As long as we’re joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, our future is hopeful, and the state of our Union will always be strong.
Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.
The Republican’s Response to Obama’s State of the Union Address, 2012
Below is the transcript of Dr Catherine Lim’s acceptance speech on being awarded the ‘Lifetime Achievement Award’ by the Online Citizen on the occasion of its 5th Anniversary, on January 13, 2012.
Following the shock results of the General Election of 2011 (GE 2011) there was, as expected, a flurry of commentaries analyzing the causes. But the analyses omitted what could turn out to be the most interesting and intriguing one of all. Thus while they examined, with forensic thoroughness, the people’s anger against the unpopular PAP policies related to foreign workers and the ministerial salaries, while they scrutinized the resentment against PAP arrogance, they paid little attention to what I have rather facetiously called PAP Fatigue , that is, an overwhelming sense of weariness with a ruling party that has been around for far too long.
The weariness would appear to be part of human nature, a natural disposition to react negatively to an imposed environment of oppressive sameness and uniformity, the reaction being all the stronger when there is no prospect of change.
For nearly 50 years, Singaporeans had never known any form of government except the one-party rule of the PAP, had never been exposed to any but the authoritarian and peremptory PAP style, had never experienced democracy except the carefully edited PAP version.
Some years ago, on the occasion of the 40th Anniversary of the party’s rule, then Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew declared that since the PAP government was the best, it should be around for the next 40 years. If he had his wish, it would mean that Singaporeans would have to live permanently with PAP fatigue.
Yet into the twenty first century, conditions in Singapore were already ripe for political change. For the society was arguably among the most technologically advanced and globally connected in the world, and the most aggressively capitalistic. This meant that Singaporeans were well exposed to other forms of government, to examples of properly functioning, two-way government-people relationships, examples of robust civic societies.
Why then, for nearly half a century, did the Singapore electorate choose to endure PAP Fatigue? The reason must lie in the special compact between the PAP government and the people, which though only implicit, was nevertheless strong and binding. According to this compact, the government would provide the people with the highest possible level of material prosperity, political stability and social orderliness , and the people, in return, would show full co-operation and support for whatever decisions the government made and whatever policies it chose to enforce.
So under a rule far longer than any seen in other countries, during which the PAP exerted control in virtually every domain of life, the fatigue factor, because it was not allowed free expression, simply settled into a general docility and conformity of thinking, feeling and behaving. If it dared rouse itself into political agitation, it was quickly smacked down by that fearful instrument of control, the Internal Security Act or ISA, by which activists could be detained without trial. And there was also that equally feared instrument, the defamation suit by which political critics could be financially crippled for life.
Through it all, the people must have constantly reminded themselves that it was still a very worthwhile trade-off, for they were enjoying a degree of prosperity unmatched in the region. In any case, even if they wanted an alternative government, there was simply no prospect of any, since the existing opposition parties were just so pitifully small, weak and helpless. Taking into account all these factors, Singaporeans must have come to the conclusion that their lot, though somewhat complicated, was by no means a bad one.
Hence, it did not matter that outsiders were making unflattering observations of us, for instance, that Singaporeans had become a nation of unquestioning and compliant subjects, incapable of acting on their own, with no interests beyond bread-and-butter concerns and the famous 5Cs of social success. Singaporean students might perform brilliantly in exams but were woefully lacking in independent thinking, creative expression and social skills. The Singapore media and other public institutions were predictably, boringly pro-Establishment. Most of all, there was no identifiable Singapore culture beyond the ubiquitous food centres and shopping malls.
If in a general election, PAP Fatigue managed to surface in little pockets of angry voting, it made no difference whatsoever to the general state of affairs. This was true of all the previous 11 elections; after each one, the antagonism duly subsided, the people went back to their accustomed acquiescence and the government to its accustomed strongman methods. It was business as usual.
So what happened in the 12th election to make GE 2011 so different as to be called a defining election, a watershed, after which things could never be the same ? Had the fatigue factor finally reached the stage of ‘enough is enough’, and struck back as a retaliatory force that took by surprise even the supremely confident PAP? Had it managed to link up with the other causes of voter discontent, to form one huge, super anti-PAP force that actually did the unimaginable, that is, compel the PAP leaders, led by the Prime Minister himself, to offer public apologies in an amazing display of contrition, humility and earnestness never seen before?
And did this extraordinary outpouring imply something that was just too good to be true: that in future the government would think twice before ramming through one unpopular policy after another, such as the deplorable one of the ministerial salaries?
Indeed, it may be said that what the people accomplished in GE 2011 was nothing less than historic – putting an end to fifty years of political apathy, fifty years of a losing compact with the government.
At this stage of my deliberations, a very pertinent question may be asked: Is this a true picture of GE 2011 and its outcomes? Or it is somewhat exaggerated, overly optimistic? We’ll see. Going further in the deliberations, I am now going to suggest that the main reason for the obvious effectiveness of the fatigue factor was the concurrence of two special happenings, unique to GE 2011, which interacted to produce an effect that neither on its own could have achieved.
The first was the emergence of a group of voters who, by virtue of a natural restlessness and impatience were the most likely group to turn PAP Fatigue into an active fighting force . These were the young voters, in their twenties and thirties, many of them first-time voters, with the natural tendency of youth to get easily bored and start clamouring for change.
Thus even the mere fact of the PAP’s very long presence in the political scene would have been enough for the fatigue factor to kick in and make a difference in votes. But what seriously aggravated this fact was the perception of the young voters, accompanied by strong resentment, that the PAP government had become totally indifferent to their needs and aspirations.
They were, in the typical language of youth, ‘pissed off’ by certain well-known attributes of the PAP which, though generally detestable, were especially repugnant to the young.
These included the overbearing, intolerant and patronizing approach that was so stifling to their vibrant and creative energies; the elitism, superiority and highhandedness that offended their youthful ideals of equality and fair play; the inflexibility, stiffness, and formality that were at odds with the casual, spontaneous, friendly manner that they favoured.
If additionally, this group shared the overall voter perception that the PAP, despite its claims of high standards of leadership, was becoming too lax, complacent and arrogant , and losing touch with the common people, then the hostility would have been that much greater.
The second mentioned special happening in GE 2011 was the emergence of a force which provided exactly the hope that these disaffected young voters needed, exactly the channel for their blocked and frustrated energies. This was the amazingly revitalized Workers’ Party, the clear star of the opposition.
It quickly came to represent for them all that the PAP lacked: a simple, casual, unassuming style that dispensed with pomp and ceremony ( there was a post-election picture in the newspapers showing the party chairman in a Hawaiian shirt riding a bicycle and another one of him conferring with his new constituents in a Spartan setting of basic furniture set up in an HDB void deck); a bold, creative flair for new ideas, as seen in the party slogan of ‘A First World Parliament’ that clearly resonated with these young voters ; a calm dignity throughout the hurly burly of the hustings, which must have impressed them deeply because it contrasted so sharply with the shocking display of vindictive a
Perhaps the most attractive attribute of the Workers’ Party for these young Singaporeans was something that the PAP had routinely and contemptuously dismissed as irrelevant in leadership, but which the young, in their media-saturated world, prize highly – charisma. A newcomer in the Workers’ Party, was quickly seen to embody this quality: he had not only the dazzling credentials of a top academic, entrepreneur and CEO, but also the glamorous good looks of a star ( A female newspaper columnist wrote gushingly about his choice of a certain style of shirt, showing him in three pictures smiling like a true celebrity basking in the adulation of fans)
In short, these young voters saw the PAP as old , dull and stale, belonging to the past, and the Worker’s Party as new, bright and hip, pointing to the future. The prominence of this group of voters on the electoral stage may irritate some PAP sympathisers and provoke this question: Why bother about them when they do not, after all, comprise the majority, and, in any case, will soon outgrow the immaturity of youth?
The conclusion which the PAP leaders have probably already reached is this : this group of voters cannot be ignored; on the contrary, they must be singled out for special attention and wooing, for numerous compelling reasons.
Firstly, they will be active voters for a long time to come, and must therefore be quickly weaned from their present hostility. Secondly, they are the young citizens, in an ageing population, whom the government will have to depend on for the country’s future development, and who must therefore not feel alienated enough to want to leave the country and emigrate. Thirdly, they belong to the increasingly powerful world of the Internet and the social media, which no government in the world can afford to ignore. Fourthly, because in GE 2011, they clearly had the support of a large number of older voters who could easily identify with them, they might be setting a dangerous precedent – starting a trend of strong general election.
Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, the exuberance, boldness and defiance of the young voters, operating in the new media world of instant, dazzling communication, could be infectious enough to have an unstoppable snowball effect, engulfing other groups of voters, including even those normally sympathetic towards the PAP. In fact, something like this could already have happened, as may be inferred by the 40% vote against the PAP in the General Election swelling to an alarming 65% vote against the PAP-endorsed candidate in the Presidential Election some months later.
In short, possibly for the first time in Singapore’s electoral history, a small core of young voters had provided the sparks that started a fire that could set off a whole conflagration if not stopped.
Thus it was not surprising that the PAP quickly swung into a massive campaign of damage control, repair and rebuilding. The Prime Minister announced, almost immediately after GE 2011, that the PAP would ‘re-invent’ itself in order to win back the people’s trust. The term is a much stronger one than ‘self-renewal’, used to describe an on-going exercise in which young potential leaders are systematically recruited and trained to replace the older leaders, to prevent complacency and carelessness from ever setting in.
‘Re-invention’ implies much more than self-renewal – it means a complete overhaul, a transformation, a born-again PAP that has an entirely new compact with the people. As if to convince the people of his utter sincerity, the Prime Minister used another, even more impressive-sounding word : he told the nation that from now onwards, he and his team would be ‘servant-leaders’ (I remember gasping at the use of the word). ‘Servant-leaders’ – the ultimate oxymoron that must have made many people sit up and ask: did I hear right? Never had a prime minister so earnestly pledged so drastic a change of leadership style , so soon after an election.
At this point, I have to come in as a skeptic, and show the other side of the GE 2011 picture, which I fear is not at all pretty. I believe that the PAP is incapable of re-inventing itself, because true re-invention would require the opening up of one crucial area, that the PAP seems determined to keep under control at all cost. This is the area of political liberties – open debate and criticism, independence of the media, public assemblies and street demonstrations for a cause,etc., all of which are taken for granted in practising democracies.
Over the years, the government had reluctantly made small concessions, such as allowing a Speakers’ Corner, relaxing some censorship laws, tweaking a rule here, tinkering with another there, never going beyond these small, meager offerings that Singaporeans had no choice but to accept because there was nothing better.
In this regard, PAP Fatigue has an additional meaning for political critics like myself– a frustrating, exhausting weariness with the PAP government, not because it has been around too long, but because during this long period of rule, it has not seen fit to nurture the people politically, and has failed to provide the proper environment for political education and growth. This right of the people is so basic and fundamental that no amount of material wealth can compensate for its denial or loss.
Still, assuming that the Prime Minister is sincere in his pledge and that he understands the mood of high expectancy in what may be described as Singapore’s version of the Arab Spring, the following questions are pertinent. Just what can the PAP government do to win the people’s trust , and once and for all, establish a proper basis for a working government-people relationship? To match the watershed expectations generated by GE 2011, what watershed act of re-invention is it prepared to undertake? With special reference to the by now obvious threat of the PAP Fatigue phenomenon, what can the government do
Some months ago, a group of 16 ex-political detainees jointly petitioned the government to set up a commission of inquiry to look into the allegations against them. The petition was promptly dismissed; the government later issued a terse statement to say that since all the proper procedures about the matter had already been taken, no further action was needed.
I was acutely disappointed. For I thought that the PAP had missed a fantastic opportunity to prove to the people that it had the honesty and courage to face up to its past excesses and take responsibility for them, or, as the case might be, that it had the strength and dignity to stand by the principles on which it had acted. Either way, it would have won the respect and regard of the people. Moreover, it had also missed the chance to show Singaporeans what is surely the noblest quality to come out of any conflict – the grace and magnanimity to reach out to former foes in reconciliation and new amity.
Indeed, a Commission of Inquiry with its urgency of purpose, potency of authority and high public visibility, would have been the ideal combination of powerful symbolism on the one hand and political will in real action, on the other, to bring about the event needed to signal the dawn of a new era. In one fell stroke, it would have banished that long-standing affective divide between the government and the people, an emotional estrangement that neither side wants. In the practical language of Singaporeans, it would have been a win-win situation for all – the government, the ex-detainees, the people, the entire society, even future generations. If only. If only.
The unfortunate truth is that the PAP remains adamant on keeping a tight lid on political and civic liberties. While it takes a generous and liberal stance in the opening up of all other areas – education, the arts, entertainment, lifestyle – it has built a firewall around the political domain. While it has readily agreed to commissions of inquiry for national mishaps such as the Nicoll Highway collapse, the escape of top terrorist Mas Selamat, and more recently, the major breakdowns in the MRT, it draws a line at matters that might engulf the whole nation in political questioning and debate, for which it has the strongest antipathy.
Indeed, so averse is the PAP to the subject that, as many of us may have noticed, it even shies away from using words such as ‘democracy’, ‘human rights,’ ‘political reform’. And yet these are matters at the core of a government-people relationship if it is to be based on transparency, respect and trust.
I will maintain that as long as there is no real political opening up ( two weeks ago, in his New Year message, the Prime Minister spoke about a ‘political transition’ but I don’t think he can ever bring himself to talk about ‘a political opening up’, or ‘political reform’) and as long as political dissidents feel they may be punished in one way or another, for instance, by new and subtle uses of the ISA which the government has made clear it has no intention of repealing, the so-called transformation after GE 2011 ,will, at best, be a partial one only, and at worst, a travesty of all the noble promises that had been made. What a pity. Once again, the ‘if only’ sigh of wistful longing!
If only, to their very substantial material achievements , the PAP could add the non-material, but equally important achievement of enabling the society to move steadily towards political liberty! I am not talking about the disruptive, wild excesses of democracy seen in some countries; I am talking about a sensible, responsible exercise of democratic rights that surely Singaporeans are capable of, at this stage in the development of our society.
The skeptic in me wants so much to be an optimist. I am terrified that if nothing comes out of GE 20111, nothing ever will, out of any future election. It will be business as usual, in the most hideously fatalistic sense of the word.
My best hope lies in the young Singaporeans I have been so enthusiastically talking about, those young voters who, in GE 2011, converted the fatigue factor into a voice that the PAP government was forced to listen to. Over the years, as they continue to be exposed to the outside world, as they become more discerning, more critical, more engaged , I hope that they will continue to use PAP Fatigue as a tool for change, always constructively and wisely, always with the well-being of the society in mind.
Most of all, they must persevere in nudging forward, respectfully but relentlessly,an exasperatingly resistant PAP government that prefers, if at all, to take such painfully slow, such painfully small steps along the path of political reform. Reform there must be. For only then can Singapore come into its own, only then can it claim to be a successful society in every sense of the word, and take a proud place among other societies in the world.
REWRITING or resetting history can be a tricky business, akin to traversing fields dotted with landmines, especially if it threatens to interfere with cherished memories. So, when historian Tan Sri Professor Emeritus Khoo Kay Kim said there was no written record that the 15th century Malay warrior Hang Tuah, his friend Hang Jebat, or the princess Hang Li Po, existed, the response to this astonishing assertion was not predominantly academic curiosity.
platform upon which to test how much we value history; more specifically, whether we dare to risk possibly having to give up our sentimental memories for the sake of pursuing and obtaining an accurate and authentic history. From the intellectual perspective, there should be no question that we should pursue the truth.
Tan Sri Prof Emeritus Khoo Kay Kim provoked a storm of controversy when he said that there was no evidence that legendary warrior Hang Tuah ever existed. Malaysian Archaeologists Association president Datuk Prof Emeritus Dr Nik Hassan Shuhaimi Nik Abdul Rahman has refuted this claim, saying the tomb of Hang Tuah in Malacca proves the legendary warrior’s existence. Literary figure Dr Kassim Ahmad, who compiled the Hikayat Hang Tuah, also stressed that Hang Tuah was a real person. So did he exist or not?
not considered historiography. It is a literary text. Hang Tuah was never mentioned in the Ming records.
Question: Dr Kassim Ahmad (left) said that Hang Tuah must have been based on some real person. What is your opinion on this?
