On 2015 Selangor Budget: MB Azmin Ali breaks new ground


November 25, 2014

MB Azmin Ali breaks new ground in Maiden Budget for Selangor

Commentary
by the Malaysian Insider@www.themalaysianinsider.com

Azmin AliIt might not seem much, but Selangor Menteri Besar Mohamed Azmin Ali broke new ground today when he proposed a RM200,000 allocation each for people-friendly programmes in opposition-held seats in the country’s wealthiest state.

His own Pakatan Rakyat (PR) assemblymen will each get RM700,000 for similar activities under the Program Mesra Rakyat as part of the move to improve local representative services to the people.

“I hope the federal government will get a clear message from Penang and Selangor that we respect the role of opposition members in the assemblies. They should reciprocate and respect the roles of MPs at the federal level,” Azmin said after tabling the state’s Budget 2015 proposals today.

Aside from Selangor, Penang provides allocations of RM40,000 to each of its opposition members for small-scale development projects. It really is not the amount that matters. It is the fact that a government realises that even their political foes represent the people and public funds are for all and not just for those who vote in the government.

For too long, Malaysians have been used to seeing a federal government that only allocates funds for its MPs while others get help through a “federal office”.

And public projects using public funds are labelled as a Barisan Nasional (BN) project – considering the fact that it is the only government known to most Malaysians throughout their lives since Merdeka.

What does it say then that in the past two elections, more Malaysians reject the BN candidate in favour of a PR candidate despite the plethora of BN projects from roads to hospitals to schools and other infrastructure.

What does it say then that it BN appears to punish those who vote in their foes while politicians such as Azmin and Lim Guan Eng have taken the high road and provide some funds for their respective state’s opposition BN lawmakers?

New politics? Populism? Or really, a government that realises the people should not suffer for the choice they have made. That the electorate will evaluate politicians by how sincere they are through the years rather than just during election campaigns.

What Azmin is doing for his Budget 2015 proposals for Selangor – be it a car for the state opposition leader and the proposed allocations for all lawmakers – is a step that must be praised.

The election campaign is over and he has whatever remains of PR’s mandate to run the state and provide for the people of Selangor, no matter whether they are PR or BN supporters.

Because, his government is a government of the people, by the people and for the people of Selangor. And all the funds he allocates are public funds, and not his government’s money.

Putrajaya can learn something from Azmin Ali and Lim Guan Eng, that it takes more than just slapping a label on a project to remind people which government is doing the job or that they should be grateful for the project. Fact is, it is the government that should be grateful it is elected to run a state or a country, and not the people.

Kudos to Azmin, for showing that politics is not a zero sum game and that rakyat’s interest always comes first. – November 24, 2014.

President Jokowi Gets on with His Job


November 24, 2014

President Jokowi Gets on with His Job: No Talk, Just Action

tansri-sherif

by Tan Sri Mohd Sheriff bin Mohd Kassim

Jokowi has barely stepped into office as the new President of Indonesia and he is already making waves.

He is coming into world prominence not by grabbing the microphone to makeGovernor of Jakarta thunderous speeches about race and religion or picking on the ethnic Chinese businessmen, foreigners and  western imperialists  as scapegoats for his country’s endemic corruption, inefficiencies and economic backwardness. Instead, he is getting admiration at home and abroad  by simply doing what his people expect from him –just be his humble self  and get on with the job he was elected for.

His bold move to cut down on  subsidies and make the people pay more for fuel  will not endear him to millions of  poor Indonesians but it is precisely the kind of action that is needed to show he means business in his promise to strengthen the economy and find the money to build roads, schools and hospitals for the masses. It is also a warning sign that he is not afraid to take the unpopular measures to stop the wastages and  abuses that have plagued this resource rich country for decades . A few years down the road, when the man on the street sees signs of progress all around him, he will thank his President for being  politically honest in doing what needs to be done.

The Muslim world can also look up to him to lead in the path of moderation and pragmatism.His brave statements condemning Islamic terrorism and extremism during the election campaign shows  that he is one who is unafraid to speak his mind for fear of losing  votes. Nor was he deterred when Islamic groups tried to stop him from appointing an ethnic Chinese to be Governor of Jakarta (above right). The silent majority will be cheering him for standing up to the racists and religious bigots and simply doing what is right.

I will not be surprised that in the near future, he will act on the blasphemy laws , which Amnesty International  has higlighted for the several cases of injustice inflicted on  non-Sunni religious minorities. Being a former businessman himself, Jokowi knows that Indonesia cannot let religious extremism and unfair Islamic  laws to fester because it will have a negative impact on the country’s investment climate. Without large doses of local and foreign investment, Indonesia cannot progress at the rate Jokowi has in mind.

Jokowi Widodo

Jokowi and his wife travelled to Singapore recently on economy class ticket to attend his son’s graduation from the Anglo-Chinese International University . By this simple act of self-discipline in not abusing his position to use his presidential plane for a private visit, he has sent volumes of signal to his countrymen that he is going  to be an honest and clean president. Cynics may dismiss this simple act of humility  as political showmanship but , to the ordinary millions of poor people who still remember the luxurious grandeur of their past presidents and their first ladies , they thank God that Indonesia is now changing for the better.

All the best to Indonesian President Jokowi as he leads the country with the largest Muslim population in the world towards economic progress and social stability and by so doing, make himself as an example for other Muslim leaders  to follow.

Anwar Ibrahim at Georgetown University, Washington DC


November 21, 2014

Anwar Ibrahim at Georgetown University, Washington D.C.

Desperate Times for Democracy in Malaysia

by James Giggacher, Asia Pacific Editor

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2014/11/07/sodomy-and-sedition-desperate-times-for-democracy-in-malaysia/

As Anwar Ibrahim’s fate hangs in the balance, Malaysia’s democratic chances are slipping further away, writes James Giggacher. 

Malaysia’s long-time Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim’s fate still hangs in the balance; his political future as tenuous as the sodomy charges brought against him.

Since October 27 he has been fighting a five-year jail sentence for allegedly sodomising an aide handed down by the nation’s Appeals Court in March – itself an overturning of an earlier acquittal by the High Court.

It’s the second time Anwar faced sodomy charges, the first being in 1998 during the failed ‘reformasi’ movement. If the Federal Court upholds this latest conviction, Anwar will also lose his status as an MP and not be allowed to engage in politics for years.

anwar_ibrahim2

Anwar rejected the idea of living in exile to stay in Malaysia and face the charges. It’s his final appeal. A bold, courageous move; maybe a stupid one born from his unfailing naivety about the prospects for political freedom in his homeland.

It’s not the ‘crime’ he is charged with, or the evidence given in this final courtroom charade (underpants and KY jelly have featured), that is truly sordid. Rather, it is what the whole sorry saga says about the declining prospects for democracy in Malaysia.

Many inside and outside the country see the charges as nothing more than politically motivated and trumped up – the latest shot in a long running war against the most powerful threat to ruling coalition, Barisan Nasional.

“The ‘sodomy’ charges against Anwar Ibrahim are a blatant attempt by the Malaysian authorities to silence and undermine a critical voice,” said Amnesty International in a statement the day the court case started. “If Anwar Ibrahim is jailed, Amnesty International will consider him a prisoner of conscience.”

Anwar and his Pakatan Rakyat (People’s Alliance) coalition took incumbent Prime Minister Najib Razak and Barisan Nasional to the line in last year’s general elections, winning 51 per cent of the popular vote, but only 40 per cent of seats in parliament. But while GE13 was billed as the democratic dawn many had longed for so long, Anwar once again found himself on the sidelines. With no one to take up the mantle, the 67-year-old still finds himself leader of Malaysia’s “rainbow” opposition.

The ‘gerrymandering’ of seats saw Barisan Nasional win the election by 133 seats to 89. The result, their narrowest parliamentary win and worst result ever, spooked those who have ruled Malaysia uninterrupted since independence in 1957 using a volatile mix of ethnic-based politics and emergency powers, all managed by the velvet glove of economic growth.

This was compounded by the election results of five years prior; Barisan’s eroding base is a trend which had begun in 2008, when it failed to win the ‘moral victory’ of a two-thirds majority in parliament. Yet, a general upswing in support since then, let alone winning the popular vote in 2013, wasn’t enough to see the opposition remove Barisan’s grip on power. It’s largely because the political deck is stacked in their favour.

While the elections were “partially” free, according to key regional think tanks, they were far from fair.

ANU political scientist Edward Aspinall points to gerrymandering, as well as the fuzzy line between the state and government as key reasons why Barisan held onto government despite losing the popular vote. More worrying, they are indicators of Malaysia’s increasingly less than democratic system.

His colleague Ross Tapsell has also highlighted how Barisan were able to maintain control and domination over the mainstream media during the elections, even in the face of apparent freedoms brought in by online and social media.

GE13 also saw widespread claims of electoral fraud and irregularities; particularly around the integrity of the electoral roll, postal and early votes, and polling – all pointed out by Bridget Welsh at the Center for East Asia Democratic Studies.

Instances of vote-buying and fly-in voters corralled to cast their ballots for Barisan were clear on the day. Meredith Weiss, a researcher from SUNY monitored the election campaign as part of a research project funded by ANU.

“Today has been punctuated most notably by calls of Bangladeshis, Indonesians, Filipinos, and other migrant workers, allegedly gifted with identity cards, then transported by the plane load to wherever their votes (for Barisan Nasional of course)  are most needed,” she wrote for New Mandala last May.

But it’s more than dirty politics at play; at the heart of the Anwar case is a Malaysia where political freedom is in freefall.

Human Rights Watch says that since his shaky victory in GE13, Najib Razak has ushered in an era of deteriorating rights – including new and revised laws permitting detention without trial, arrests of opposition activists for peaceful protests, and attempts to shut down human rights NGOs.

Then there is the archaic Sedition Act.Provisions of the sedition law are extremely wide-ranging, and as Human Rights Watch notes, the way the law is worded makes it almost impossible to refute in court.

“The Sedition Act prohibits vague offenses such as uttering ‘any seditious words’ without defining what constitutes ‘sedition’ or ‘seditious words’. It broadly outlaws any ‘seditious tendency’ that would ‘bring into hatred or contempt or excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government’,” reads an online statement.

Since May this year around 20 sedition charges have been laid or enquiries initiated, against opposition leaders, activists, university scholars, journalists and students – despite Prime Minister Najib Razak promising in July 2012 to repeal this catch-all act from a “bygone era”.

Legal proceedings are also still ongoing against two politicians and one NGO leader charged with sedition last year. Amnesty Intentional point to scores of others under investigation. Others say the number is as high as 40.

One of those is Rafizi Ramli – a 37-year-old politician from the opposition’s People’s Justice Party who has gained widespread prominence after a series of high-level corruption exposes.

Ramli is currently under investigation for writing about Anwar’s second sodomy case, and has also recently been charged under the Penal Code over a statement he made in February alleging political attempts to create racial and religious discord in Selangor.

In a recent interview with New Mandala Ramli pointed out the dire times for Malaysia’s democracy, opposition and Anwar. “Of course you have to be hopeful [for Anwar]. Being an opposition party that was born out of a personal tragedy that happened to him, we can only survive by remaining hopeful. So we remain hopeful that his ‘so-called’ legal problem orchestrated by the government will end very soon,” said Ramli.

“Yet at the same time we are very realistic that he will remain a galvanising figure against the ruling party, and so long as he is actively engaged with the public… we have to remain realistic that there is a high possibility he will be sent to prison again.”

Of course none of this touches on the economic stagnation that Malaysia is currently trying to beat off. Will the velvet glove finally slip? If Anwar and the broader opposition’s situation is anything to go by, it’s already been replaced by a clenched fist.

James Giggacher is Asia Pacific editor at the Australian National University’s College of Asia and the Pacific. His views do not represent the University’s or the College’s.

Chairman Lodin, come clean on 1MDB, figures don’t lie


November 19, 2014

Chairman Lodin, come clean on 1MDB, figures don’t lie

by Kharie Hishyam @www.kinibiz.com

Like a toddler learning to walk, controversial state investment fund 1Malaysia Development Bhd is slowly coming out to refute its critics. But proper explanations are yet to come and its latest public statement only spawns more questions.

Amid the burning fire of controversy over its questionable dealings, state investment fund 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) has come out and “assured” Malaysians that its investments were carefully made and professionally managed. Alas, the same characteristic of being professionally managed can also probably be said about many of the 23 public-listed companies in Bursa Malaysia’s PN17 list. But what’s in labels anyway?

In the corporate world results, not reputation, is what delivers and one wonders why 1MDB, with all the professionalism within its managerial ranks, has bled losses year after year with only paper gains papering over the red ink.

lodin-wok-kamaruddinA corporate figure once said that numbers tell a thousand stories and it is in 1MDB’s numbers that the story contradicts what its chairman, Lodin Wok Kamaruddin, said about 1MDB’s investments.

So what had 1MDB so prudently invested in? According to its audited accounts, 1MDB invested a total of RM13.4 billion for the financial year ended March 2014 (FY14) in various places globally. This figure includes the RM7.7 billion parked in a structured investment company called a Segregated Portfolio Company (SPC) based in the Cayman Islands, managed by Hong Kong-based Bridge Partners.

And for these investments, 1MDB gained dividend income of RM437 million, which represents a paltry return of 3.26% on its investments. Considering the point that 1MDB could have parked the money in fixed deposit or government bonds and still get similar return — with an added bonus of less foreign exchange risk — it begs the question of why 1MDB bothered to go overseas in the first place.

Of course there is an even uglier side to the investment story: 1MDB’s audited accounts reveal that the investment fund is earning a mere 0.68% interest on its cash pile of nearly RM4 billion.

On the other side of the coin is that 1MDB’s finance costs or interest rates range from roughly 5% up to as high as 18% per annum.In effect, 1MDB is earning much less with its money compared to how much it is paying to have that money in its coffers. Worse, a big chunk of its money is left idle after paying so much to borrow the money in the first place, earning next to nothing in interest.

Why? Simple logic dictates that to make profit, capital must be put to work such that it earns more money than it costs to acquire the capital in the first place. That’s how you earn profit.

1MDBLeaving the capital idle definitely does not qualify as “investing”, unless having idle cash qualifies as investment (a poor one if you have loan repayments to meet). Why incur borrowing costs for nothing?

No wonder 1MDB is finding it difficult to service its loan commitments. Speaking of which Lodin stated that the investment fund believes it can meet its financial commitments.

“Some of the loans are long-term in nature but we believe this financial commitment can be met,” Lodin was reported as saying by Bernama, adding that 1MDB is looking to restructure its short-term loans to match its longer-term investments. “We are also in the process of adding and unlocking value to the assets that we have acquired.”

Najib and 1MDB

Recall that 1MDB already extended its RM5.5 billion bridging loan, originally part of a RM6.2 billion loan from Maybank Investment Bank in 2012, multiple times, even delaying its power assets listing due to negotiations on its debt obligations.

Now this begs yet another question: why borrow on such short horizons if the capital is intended for long-term investments? Would it not make more sense to match the repayment timeline with when the returns on investment are expected to flow in?

And unlocking value to the assets 1MDB had acquired, of course, would not be too difficult. Its properties were acquired cheap from the government, after all, and from there it is simply a matter of bringing valuations up to market benchmarks.

As for its power assets, KiniBiz had previously examined why 1MDB grossly overpaid for them, even borrowing money to do so despite having much cash lying around. Now is this prudent investing as 1MDB Chairman Lodin so generously claimed? Hardly. Numbers don’t lie and in 1MDB’s case, red ink remains red however you call it otherwise.

Perhaps 1MDB is revolutionising investment before our very eyes. Maybe there is a deeper wisdom to its strange madness of borrowing at high cost and making low-return investments.

Or maybe, just maybe, 1MDB simply made poor investment choices and consequently lost some RM5 billion over the past few financial years bar paper gains from revaluing its properties.

In which case what 1MDB seems to be saying right now fits right into the first part of the Kübler-Ross’ five stages of grief: denial. And we have not even talked about its losses of up to RM4 billion from its bond mispricing yet…

 

 

Love Flows, President to President


November 19, 2014

Love Flows, President to President

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/books/41-george-w-bushs-portrait-of-george-h-w-bush.html?ref=books&_r=0

’41,’ George W. Bush’s Portrait of George H. W. Bush

Review by Michiko Kakutani@www.nytimes.com

Bush-Senior-and-JuniorThe relationship between George W. Bush and his father, George H. W. Bush, might just be the most dissected filial relationship in modern history — compared, variously, to Shakespearean history, Greek tragedy and opéra bouffe. In his new book, the 43rd president draws an affectionate portrait of the 41st president that’s short on factual revelations and long on emotion.

In “41,” Mr. Bush sheds little new light on his fateful decision to invade Iraq in 2003 or on other pivotal moments of his presidency, nor does he tell us much about his father’s tenure in the White House that we didn’t already know. Instead, he’s written what he calls a “love story” about his dad. At its best, the book has the qualities of the younger Mr. Bush’s recent and much-talked-about paintings: It’s folksy, sharply observed and surprisingly affecting, especially for someone not exactly known for introspection. At its worst, the book reads like a banquet-dinner-type testimonial about his father, with transparent efforts to spin or sidestep important questions about his own time in office.

Since George W. Bush stepped onto the national stage, journalists, other politicians and even family members have been comparing and contrasting father and son. Whereas Bush senior was famous for his self-effacing New England manners and quiet diplomacy, Bush junior became known as a proud, outspoken gut player, with Texas swagger. Whereas Bush senior’s policies were grounded in foreign policy realism and old-school Republican moderation, Bush junior’s tilted toward neoconservatism and a drive to export democracy and remake the world. Bush senior was not crazy about “the vision thing,” whereas Bush junior was big on big ideas.

“On everything from taxes to Iraq,” the New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote in 2002, “the son has tried to use his father’s failures in the eyes of conservatives as a reverse playbook.” When Bush 41 went to war against Saddam Hussein in 1991 (after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait), he made a decision not to go on to Baghdad and topple Iraq’s dictator, later explaining that if we had gone in and created “more instability in Iraq, I think it would have been very bad for the neighborhood.”

The younger Mr. Bush writes, somewhat defensively here, that in ordering the invasion of Iraq in 2003, he “was not trying ‘to finish what my father had begun,’ as some have suggested. My motivation was to protect the United States of America, as I had sworn an oath to do.”

He also elaborates on a surprising statement he once made to Bob Woodward — that he couldn’t remember consulting his father about his decision to go to war. In “41,” he says: “I never asked Dad what I should do. We both knew that this was a decision that only the president can make. We did talk about the issue, however. Over Christmas 2002, at Camp David, I gave Dad an update on our strategy.”

His father, he says, replied: “You know how tough war is, son, and you’ve got to try everything you can to avoid war. But if the man won’t comply, you don’t have any other choice.”

The oddly dysfunctional inability of father and son to discuss policyGeorge Bush Sr. and politics — out of fear, it seems, of meddling or stepping on each other’s toes — is a recurrent theme in this book. The younger Mr. Bush says his father did not directly caution him against running for Congress in the late ’70s, but instead sent him to talk with a friend who told him he couldn’t win. (He didn’t.)

For many concerned about the war drums beating within the younger Bush’s White House in 2002, something similar occurred when the elder Bush’s former national security adviser and close friend, Brent Scowcroft, wrote an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal warning that another attack on Saddam could “seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.”

George W. Bush also writes that his father had little to say, in 1993, about his decision to run for governor of Texas, and that he didn’t ask his father whether he should run for president in the 2000 election, adding, “I knew he would support whatever choice I made.”

Biographers and journalists have often observed that the young George W. Bush (whose hard-drinking, irresponsible youth had made him a black sheep in the family next to Jeb, the golden boy) frequently felt overshadowed by his father. And they have speculated that, as President, he was driven to outdo his dad by taking Saddam Hussein down for good, and by winning a second term — arguments the Bush family has dismissed as psychobabble.

In “41,” the younger Mr. Bush talks at length about his dad’s early success. (“Few could claim the trifecta of war hero, Phi Beta Kappa and captain of the baseball team” at Yale, he writes.) And there is certainly fodder for readers searching for clues to an Oedipal rivalry. Mr. Bush says that his father’s college dreams of a baseball career were foiled because “he didn’t have a big enough bat to make the major leagues,” and also frets about his well-mannered father looking “weak” in a debate against Ronald Reagan, recalling a press account that said he showed “the backbone of a jellyfish.”

He writes, however, that his dad gave him “unconditional love,” and that he and his siblings felt “there was no point in competing with our father — no point in rebelling against him — because he would love us no matter what.” He celebrates his father’s well-known generosity, his talent for friendship and his willingness to take risks (from enlisting at the age of 18, not long after Pearl Harbor, to moving to Texas after college, to diving into politics after a stint in the oil business).

Like many, 43 hails 41 for his diplomatic handling of the end of the Cold War, reaching out to the Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev and wisely refusing to gloat over the fall of the Berlin Wall. In some ways, the younger Mr. Bush says, his father was “like Winston Churchill, who had been tossed out of office in 1945 just months after prevailing in World War II.”

The most persuasive sections of this book deal not with the political, but with the personal. Mr. Bush’s writing doesn’t have the earnest charm of his father’s letters (“All the Best, George Bush“) or the literary gifts displayed by his wife, Laura, in her memoir, “Spoken From the Heart.” But unlike his earlier books (his perfunctory 1999 campaign memoir, “A Charge to Keep,” and his dogged 2010 autobiography, “Decision Points”), this volume comes close to capturing Mr. Bush’s distinctive voice — by turns jokey and sentimental, irreverent and sincere.

There is very little here about his other siblings (his brother Jeb, the potential presidential candidate, is mentioned only in brief asides), but the passages devoted to his younger sister Robin’s death from leukemia in 1953 are heartfelt and moving.

“In one of her final moments with my father,” Mr. Bush writes, “Robin looked up at him with her beautiful blue eyes and said, ‘I love you more than tongue can tell.’ Dad would repeat those words for the rest of his life.”

As for Mr. Bush’s descriptions of the West Texas world that greeted him and his parents in the 1950s, they are evocative in a way that attests to his painterly eye. “We lived briefly at a hotel and then moved into a new 847-square-foot house on the outskirts of town,” he recalls. “The neighborhood was called Easter Egg Row, because the developers had chosen vibrant paint colors to help residents tell the houses apart. Our Easter egg at 405 East Maple was bright blue.”

Although George senior’s failure to win a second term in the White House led to a sense of despondency, his son writes, he would find “something positive about his defeat in 1992 — it had given rise to the political careers of two people” (that is, the author and Jeb) “whom he had raised and loves.” Had his dad been re-elected that year, the younger Mr. Bush says, “I would not have run for governor” of Texas in 1994 — nor, presumably, run for president and ascended to the White House in the too-close-to-call election of 2000 that went to the Supreme Court. History works in strange ways.

Pakatan Rakyat in Tatters


November 17, 2014

Pakatan Rakyat in Tatters

by TK Chua@www.freemalaysiatoday.com

HadiI find some of the recent developments within Pakatan Rakyat (PR) very odd and weird. First, there was a request from the DAP Central Committee that PAS President Abdul Hadi Awang attend the PR leadership council meetings. The rationale is that if Hadi is absent, the decisions made at the council may not be accepted or endorsed by PAS.

The response from the PAS leader was equally perplexing. He said it was up to him to decide whether to attend PR leadership council meetings or not. “I don’t need to be asked,” he said. “If I want to attend, I will attend.”

Since when was there a need for one political party in a coalition to “mandate” the leader of another political party to attend the leadership meeting? Since when was there a need for the leader of a political party to be reminded of his responsibility to attend meetings deemed important to the coalition? Since when was attending an important meeting dependent on the personal whim of the leader concerned?

If we look at all these, I think we can say that PR is as good as dead. It now exists in name only, not in spirit, vision and ideals. If they have a common zeal, I believe the leaders would be very eager to meet to sort things out. If they have a common vision, I am sure the leaders would be ever willing to meet to chart the next course of action. If they have ideals bigger and higher than individuals and parties, I am sure they are ever willing to negotiate and compromise.

Malaysia's opposition leaders hold hands at the end of their People's Alliance conference in Shah AlamHeading towards Separation?

As I see it, the coalition partners now have irreconcilable differences. The leaders are too obstinate and parochial in their outlook and dispositions. They can’t move to the middle ground. Even though they have serious disagreements, they can’t even meet to thrash out their differences. But due to their own selfish and strategic reasons, they probably can’t go their separate ways either.

I believe PAS and DAP are now waiting for the other to make the first move – who will have the guts to leave the coalition or who will take the first step to kick the other out.

PR took a lot of time and plenty of efforts to come up with the common policy framework. The objective was to find common ground and to minimise differences in policies. It is obvious each individual party within the coalition is now attaching more importance to its own policies and ambitions than the common policy framework. It is time PAS, DAP and PKR accept the reality that each can never govern this country on its own.

UMNO is now trying to do it on its own, but I am urging PAS not to try to match it because it is not going to work. Please compete on good ideas for bringing this country forward, not on who is more parochial or more archaic. Please don’t compete on who can touch a dog or who has the first mini guillotine to amputate limbs. I believe even Muslims find all these ideas senseless and abhorrent.