Obama Gets Tough on the Banks

by Harold Meyerson@www.washingtonpost.com

A week ago Tuesday, seven hours before President Obama began delivering his State of the Union address, the White House released the names of the people who’d be sitting that night in the first lady’s box. Besides Michelle Obama, there were 23 people on the list. But when the President began to speak, a 24th guest, whose name hadn’t been on the list, was also seated in the box: New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. And therein lies a tale.

Schneiderman’s appearance was the visual accompaniment to the President’s State of the Union announcement that he would pursue a large-scale civil and criminal investigation of the banks, mortgage vendors, securities bundlers and other financial actors who inflated the last decade’s housing bubble and nearly blew up the economy when it burst. The announcement signaled a clear shift in the president’s position. And the fact that New York’s attorney general had not been on the guest list as late as 1:30 that afternoon suggests that the administration’s negotiations with Schneiderman (right), who has been the leading proponent of what he calls “a full inquiry into the financial irregularities and misconduct that brought down the American economy,” went down to the wire.

Elected attorney general in November 2010, Schneiderman discovered upon taking office that the Obama administration was avidly promoting a proposed settlement among five mega-lenders — Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo and Ally Financial — and the 50 state attorneys general and the federal government. In return for the banks coughing up $25 billion in payments and mortgage relief to present and former homeowners, as compensation for robo-signing abuses during the banks’ foreclosure frenzy from 2008 to 2011, the feds and the state A-Gs would grant the banks immunity for not just any further robo-signing misdeeds but for all illegal conduct that had led to the 2008 collapse.

Misrepresenting the terms of mortgages to buyers, pushing mortgages on people who lacked the wherewithal to pay them, packaging the dubious mortgages into securities that were anything but secure and selling them to unsuspecting investors — the banks would be free and clear of any state or federal prosecution for these offenses. Indeed, with no agency of government able to bring legal action, there would be no serious investigation of whether and how the banks broke the law.

When Schneiderman learned of the proposed settlement, he said no. He was not willing to let the banks walk, uninvestigated. Not only did he refuse to endorse the deal, he formed a team of 15 attorneys to look into possible financial fraud. Without the signature of the attorney general from the state that’s home to Wall Street, there was no deal. And over the course of 2011, Schneiderman convinced attorneys general from other key states, as well as community organizations and unions, to join him in demanding a different deal — one that explicitly does not hold the banks harmless for illegalities in the run-up to the crisis, and that commits the federal government to employ its considerable resources to running down those illegalities.

For three years, the Obama administration had not wished to pursue such a course. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner (left with the President) did not want to subject Wall Street to this kind of poking around through its records, much less to prosecutions that could compel major banks to be restructured. But over the past year, as Schneiderman hung tough, the political winds shifted. Thanks in part to Occupy Wall Street, the fundamental fairness of the U.S. economy became a leading public concern — a concern to which Obama has now responded with his emphasis on rewriting the tax code and investigating American finance.

With just 15 lawyers at his disposal, Schneiderman couldn’t have waged a far-reaching investigation anyway. He’s now secured commitments of much greater resources from the Justice Department, the FBI, the Internal Revenue Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and various U.S. attorneys and other state attorneys general. There will be several hundred investigators, as well as state and federal statutes under which alleged lawbreakers can be charged. All of this means that the government will be able to commit resources comparable to those that a mega-bank can bring to its defense.

“We have to get accountability,” Schneiderman told me this week. “We have to get substantial relief for homeowners and investors. And we have to get the story told clearly and factually, so the history doesn’t get rewritten. If you listen to the presidential debates, you hear the same supply-side and deregulatory nonsense that got us into this crisis. If we don’t uncover the facts and put them out there, it will happen again.”

meyersonh@washpost.com Obama gets tough on banks

www.nst.com.my

Regionalism on the rise

by W. Scott Thompson

WITH a lot happening in the world this past week, from Syria to Davos to Addis Ababa and those awful Greeks again, only one thing caught my eye.

Commentators from the United Nations, usually well-informed, and noting the inevitable block by Russia of any concerted effort to stop the carnage in Syria, argued that  Russia will continue to do that until there’s a stronger and clearer signal from the Arab group itself.

In other words, though clearly the Syrian conflict has tipped into civil war, for Russia in its calculus of supporting Assad in exchange for strategic access, the gains of regime support still outweigh the costs of opposition.

So, the voice of the Arab League is now what matters! And an American spokesman put the American view all too clearly — in pretending a sort of neutrality, one official noted that the White House was waiting for a Libyan outcome “on the slow” as Damascus suburbs and liberation forces link up, notably with Arab support, for “regime change”. Almost all trust is going to the region itself.

In Addis Ababa, the African Union met for its 49th anniversary in a gleaming US$200 million (RM600 million)  new headquarters, a Chinese gift. The union and its antecedents have waxed and waned, but it’s now on a roll. Long the region where one routinely added to world analyses, “except in Africa” or “leaving out Africa, the world’s growth was unprecedented in the past year”, Africa is with us.

Not just because of US$120 billion in Chinese investment, but because of growing internal security links, rapid growth fairly well distributed throughout the continent, and even some democratic successions to boast of.

How well I recall being in Addis Ababa 48 years ago roaming the shabby original OAU (Organisation of African Unity) antecedent headquarters, able to pick up documents at will for scholarly purposes, and absolutely bedazzled by African beliefs that words would make it so (or, as the French said of Africa, la parole est creatrice). Now reality is creating.

We’re not talking about an evenly distributed march toward order through regional association. We’re first of all noting that all the old structures are exhausted of blueprint capability, from International Monetary Fund to UN. “World order” isn’t on for the nonce. Nor is the exhaustive decade, 9/11 to now, confusing us with new “parameters”, imagined almost daily. No more Lehman Brothers meltdown, no more Twin Towers going the same way, no more spectaculars.

Secondly, we’re not talking about parallel institutional development across regions. Vladimir Putin’s new “region” with the forever dominated “near abroad” looks much like France and its former colonies in their new incarnation, in 1960, of a French-speaking union. For all its catastrophes lately, the European Union shows just how highly structured and advanced that one is, beyond all others.

But as my friend Steve Clemons (along with Ian Bremmer, two of America’s most thoughtful commentators) wrote last week centrally about the passing of “Davos Man” as a world model: “In response to the global power vacuum, we’ll see a return to geography as a primary organising principle, where a country’s placement will determine its friends and enemies, trading partners, and foreign policy focus to an outsized degree.

“Countries are already coming together in new ways on a regional level, filling the void left by global institutions with smaller-scale governance within limited spheres of influence. We will see new institutions, organised geographically, that promote and reflect regional interests, and new trends exposing the ascendancy of neighbourhoods in a G-Zero world.”

We certainly feel it in Southeast Asia, which was happening on its own anyway, but Beijing is speeding it up through its claims on the South China Sea.

ASEAN is hardly likely to reach its set goals for 2015, but everyone feels the growing sama-sama in the region, especially with Myanmar opening up.

True, regionalism and world order theorists come and go. Joe Nye, the distinguished Harvard University expert on “soft power”, started his career with a fine study of the ill-fated East African federation, expanded in a book with studies of parallel attempts elsewhere, published as Peace in Paris in 1971.

Oddly, the failure of the wave of extreme regionalism then (Gamal Nasser’s various “unions”) led to far more ambitious “world order” theories, but this earth wasn’t ready. We fell back on what we had — from the post-World War period. That wasn’t and isn’t enough. Here’s hoping the present regionalism keeps us going for a while.

February 1, 2012

www.themalaysianinsider.com

When political elites lack a sense of crisis — Donny Syofyan

It is really shocking to see the dramatic pictures of students risking their lives to get to their school in Sanghiang Tanjung after three suspension bridges in Lebak regency, Banten province, collapsed due to flooding recently. It is not wrong to say that such kids are more daring than Indiana Jones, a famous Hollywood hero, judging by their numbers and ages. This story has been covered by various global media outlets such as Reuters and several international newspapers.

www.awsj.com

Israel Dominates the Debate in Malaysia – Again

By Shibani Mahtani (01-31-12)

Recent comments by Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim have demonstrated yet again how issues related to Israel continue to divide this majority-Muslim country – and could influence the country’s next national election.

In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Anwar responded to the question of whether he would open diplomatic ties with Israel by stating his “support” for “efforts to protect the security of the state of Israel,” while at the same time backing the “legitimate rights of the Palestinians.” He stopped short of saying he would establish diplomatic relations between the two states – what he describes as a “tricky” issue – and stated that any change to the status quo would remain contingent on Israel recognizing the aspirations of the Palestinians.

Malaysia is one of three Southeast Asian nations including Indonesia and Brunei that does not have diplomatic relations with Israel, though limited economic ties exist between private companies in both countries.

“Some refuse to recognize the state of Israel,” he said, “but I think our policy should be clear – protect the security [of Israel] but you must be as firm in protecting the legitimate interests of the Palestinians.”

The comments triggered a storm of debate and criticism, with members of the ruling United Malays National Organization (UMNO) and other groups accusing the leader of abandoning the Palestinian cause – an emotive cause long-supported in the majority-Muslim Southeast Asian nation.

Lawmakers called on Mr. Anwar’s opposition coalition to release an official statement on the issue, while president of the right-wing Malay group PERKASA Ibrahim Ali said he would raise the issue in Parliament.

Mr. Anwar responded by saying he supported a “two-state solution” with Palestine, a policy he said was no different from the official stance adopted by the United Nations and Malaysia itself.

“I am issuing a stern warning to anyone trying to twist my statement just so that they can say that I have betrayed the aspirations of the Palestinian people,” he said in a statement to the press. His party’s stand “is to defend the rights of whoever it is that has been victimised,” the statement said.

Though an ethnically-diverse nation that practices freedom of religion, Malaysia has declared Islam as its state religion and tensions over Israel-Palestine issues often boil over. A large percentage of the country’s population supports the Palestinian cause, and jumped to criticize Israel after it launched raids on Gaza in December 2008 and stormed a flotilla in May 2010 that was carrying activists and humanitarian aid to Gaza.

Tensions over the issue are even more on edge now, as Malaysia gears up for its next general election, which must be called by early next year, giving politicians more incentive to argue their views in the press than usual.

“The issue is tied in with Malaysia being an Islamic country,” and the idea that “therefore it should support Palestine,” said James Chin, a professor at the Malaysian branch of Australia’s Monash University. He added the caveat that support for the Palestinians became a much larger issue in Malaysian politics after the era of former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who has been accused by world leaders of holding anti-Semitic views, which he disputes.

In a statement to the local press, Malaysian Foreign Minister Anifah Aman, a member of the ruling UMNO, disputed Mr. Anwar’s claim that Malaysia’s current policy on Israel is the same as his own. Although Malaysia officially supports a “two-state solution” in settling the Israel-Palestinian conflict, it has also sharply criticized actions taken by Israeli forces in the past, which the foreign minister indicated means Malaysia isn’t supporting “all steps” to protect Israeli security.

“[Anwar’s comments] show a blanket support for anything Israel does,” said Khairy Jamaluddin, the chief of UMNO’s youth wing, who disputed any suggestion Malaysia’s ruling party was trying to politicize the issue ahead of an election. “The issue of Palestine is a top foreign policy priority for my party, it would be an issue during the election year or otherwise… timing doesn’t matter.”

In 2010, Mr. Anwar – who in the past has been described as the face of liberal democracy in Malaysia – found himself on the other side of the argument after he lambasted UMNO for its relationship with a public relations firm called APCO. In Parliament, he said the firm was “controlled by Zionists” and working on behalf of the American government to influence Malaysian government policy – a charge denied by both the government and the public relations firm.

At the time, American-Jewish groups such as B’nai B’rith accused the opposition leader of “anti-Jewish” and “anti-Israel” slanders, and called on American officials to suspend their ties with Mr. Anwar.

Still, many analysts believe the latest kerfuffle is largely electioneering on the part of the ruling coalition, preoccupied with the looming possibility that the next election will be the hardest-fought yet.

“They’re just using it as a weapon to bring (Mr. Anwar) down,” said Mr. Chin at Monash University.

– Celine Fernandez contributed to this article

Quo Vadis, Wisma Putra: A Message to Foreign Minister Anifah Aman and His Secretary-General

By Din Merican

I am simply overwhelmed by the unprecedented number of comments from readers on my Blog over the article in The STAR newspaper by Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Secretary General, Tan Sri Radzi Abdul Rahman on the Ministry’s Consular Service, as if this work is the  core business of our Foreign Ministry.

As I have said earlier and now repeat it, the article ought to have been signed off by the Desk officer concerned. Consular matters at the Ministry and at our Overseas Missions are handled by Executive Officers’ and clerks.That made some commenters unhappy.

In fact, I incurred the wrath of some surrogates in Wisma Putra who commented, rather foolishly I thought, under the cloak of pseudo-names. In stead of trying to react positively to my views, they chose self denial by ignoring reality.

Instead of taking steps to deal with the sad state of their Ministry, they chose to become very defensive of the status quo. These are the carma (cari makan) types who now populate the Foreign Ministry. Time ot fix this problem of a serious lack of professionalism.

The Malaysian public expects Wisma Putra’s Secretary General to pen articles which reflect strategic thinking and deal with vital issues that affect Malaysia’s national interest and our conduct of diplomacy.

In my comments, I also made reference to Wisma Putra’s glory days under the leadership of (Tun) Muhammad Ghazali bin Shafie (affectionately known to his staff as “King Ghaz”) in the early years of our country’s history.

It is appropriate that I should quote this wonderful leader of the forgotten men and women of the Malaysian Foreign Service of 1960s and 1970s who served their country with honour and dignity. These were his last words on the subject of our diplomacy, which is the main job of Wisma Putra. 

He said:

“We want to make friends with everybody. That was our style from the birth of the Foreign Ministry, until today. This does not mean that we do not make a stand, we do, just look at our firm stand on the question of Palestine all these years. But we make friends, and it works…

We built this ministry out of nothing. We had no model upon which to base ourselves, no guide as to how to build it. Just imagine you are a builder with some useful tools but no architectural plans, where do you start? So we learnt on the job. I found that our boys in the Foreign Ministry matured very fast compared to those in other ministries, because whereas they had their laws and regulations, we just had our experience to rely on…

So ambassadors today, as before, must have honour and courage. Of course, they must be intelligent, must analyse things. You do not go into a country just to enjoy, you go there to observe, to see what they are doing. Then you report back to the home country. They must be accurate and up to date. Yes ,diplomats can be trained, but they must be fighters…I have no regrets looking back, no regrets all. So it remains.We should keep making friends–it works.”– (Recollections by Muhammad Ghazali bin Shafie in Number One Wisma Putra, edited by Fauziah Mohamad Taib, 2006, Institute of Diplomacy and Foreign Relations, pp 12, 13,and 14)

These were the last words of King Ghaz for his successors like Anifah Aman, our Foreign Minister, to remember and act upon. Wisma Putra is a serious place because the job of diplomacy is both challenging and demanding of those who now occupy Number One Wisma Putra.

The message in my Blog is clear – our public has become discerning and more demanding. Wisma Putra might think that Malaysians have only modest knowledge of international affairs, but readers of this Blog have shown they possess an impressive grasp of world affairs and its complexities and have sophisticated views on a broad range of international issues. Don’t underestimate our people and my readers.

Aside this, officers at Wisma Putra know very well that Radzi is not an avid reader, yet in this STAR article he quotes an obscure poet. He is also fond of telling his colleagues and friends  who intimate to him about complaints against Wisma Putra that he had not heard any.

My point is that the responses of readers to the Blog represent a cross-section of the silent majority of the Malaysian public, who yearn to be informed on foreign policy issues and diplomacy and how they impact on Malaysia’s image, well-being and security (national interest).

Radzi’s shallow article in The Star  only worsens public perception of a serious decline in the Ministry’s intellectual capital and leadership.

I am made to understand that Wisma Putra has recently created a “Special Speech Writing Committee” comprising of 27 officers. If Radzi’s article and the Foreign Minister recent speech are the products of this committee, then the rot is really deeply embedded indeed.

And  what about FM Anifah speech! It is a fifth grader stuff which he put to the diplomatic corps on January 5 this year in Kuala Lumpur. He talked of the importance of our neighbours and ASEAN. What substantively has the Minister done in that direction, I wonder? As I far as I know, Indonesia and Singapore with top flight Foreign Ministers are providing the much needed thinking on ASEAN, while we remain content to play along.

Since we often say that ASEAN is the cornerstone of our foreign policy, the Foreign Minister could have used the opportunity to go beyond general and banal statements about our support for ASEAN Community, and go into some details how our public and the world can benefit from further ASEAN integration in terms of the regional economy, business, education, culture, etc. Similarly, the Foreign Minister could have chosen any number of issues affecting the country and the region and how the government was dealing with them so as to ensure the our interest of our  country and the region are protected.

Malaysians are seriously concerned that our country has fallen off the international radar. Gone are the days when Malaysia was at the forefront. In October last year, the University of Cambodia and the Singapore Foreign Ministry organized a Roundtable in Phnom Penh to brainstorm on Cambodia’s 2012 chairmanship of ASEAN. Singapore’s FM Shanmugan and its Ambassador there participate in the discussion. They were both articulate, engaging and impressive.

And now we read of the first ever official visit of President Thein Sein of Myanmar to Singapore to seek out the city state’s considerable expertise on national development, including banking and finance. Worse still, President Aquino has yet to pay an official visit to Malaysia. Why? What have our Ambassadors in Phnom Penh, Yangon and Manila, let alone Wisma Putra been doing?

There have also been complaints from readers on the recruitment of diplomats and their proficiency in English. I must concede that the comment is a valid one. This problem, however, goes back to the days when  Tun Ahmad Sarji (left), who was the Chief Secretary  to the Government during the Mahathir era.

Going back to the old Wisma Putra, whose career diplomats were asked to fill up the posts of Secretaries General of the Ministries of Finance (Tan Sri Zain Azahari) and Youth and Sports (Datuk Jamaluddin Abu Bakar), (Tun) Ahmad Sarji, probably with the best of intentions, sent to Wisma Putra scores and scores of half-baked UKM and USM graduates in the late 197os and 1980s to shore up the ranks of our diplomats.

Secondly, today, there is yet another big complaint among officers is that everything must be written in Malay, reports, minutes, and so on. Wisma Putra officers since the 1970s write in Malay to outside agencies. This new development is apparently as a result of a no-brainer directive from the current Chief Secretary to the Government, Tan Sri Sidek.

Internal reports, minutes, minutes, record of conversations and other forms of communications are essential tools of the diplomat. By depriving them the chance to hone in their skills to use English, the language of diplomacy and business, how can we expect to perform them well when it comes to representing the country in the real world? It is like asking our solders to train with plastic rifles and expect them to fight effectively using real weapons in a war.

Another reader,  “Ir.Somdol”, probably a surrogate,  tried to defend Radzi by claiming that no one at Wisma Putra has ever heard of ‘Din Merican’, implying that I was talking out of my hat. Never mind, Samdol could only have gone to my web page to know more about me. Again, I am not the issue here. The rapid and almost unstoppable deterioration in the standards of professionalism in Wisma Putra is.

Just for Samdol’s further information, Khalil Yaacob (now Tun and Governor of Malacca), Tan Sri Kamil Jaafar, Tan Sri Razali Ismail, Dato Majid Mohamad, and Tan Sri Mohamed Khatib and a host of others and I used to live at 272 Jalan Brickfields, Kuala Lumpur when we were all at Wisma Putra in the early 1960s. They had distinguished careers in Wisma Putra, while I left for the private sector.

All the above matters are indeed worrying, prompting me to pen this article for the attention of both Foreign Minister Anifah Aman and the Secretary General Radzi Abdul Rahman.

The Foreign Minister and the Secretary -General must be concerned with crafting foreign policy that secures Malaysia’s interests in the world, that is, making and winning friends.

And  my readers want to hear more on Wisma Putra’s core business – foreign policy, our involvement in ASEAN and relations with major actors in international affairs.

The Secretary General’s and the Minister’s speech stand out as evidence of the absence of strategic thinking at Wisma Putra. It is regrettable the Prime Minister is apparently unconcerned about the rot that has set in Wisma Putra. It is, however, more likely that Najib has no confidence in the Foreign Ministry, relying in stead on the advice of former diplomats, and his own Foreign Policy team on the Fourth Floor, Prime Minister’s Department, Putrjaya. So Wisma Putra is just a Post Office with overpaid workers.

In  my view, the Prime Minister is entitled to the best policy advice that a good Foreign Office can provide. The means that Wisma Putra must be totally revamped and staffed by qualified, carefully chosen and well trained professionals with a passion for international affairs and diplomacy.

Wisma Putra  cannot be the place for johnny come lately types. Maybe it is time to reconsider a separate service for our diplomats. We also must stop appointing politicians, retired civil servants, former top ranking military and police officers as ambassadors. Just leave diplomacy to the professionals.

www.malaysiakini.com

Mariam Mokhtar on the Khairy-Rafizi debate in London

“Khairy was good, but Rafizi was better” was the considered opinion of various members of the audience when asked to comment on the dynamic battle of wits between UMNO Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin (left) and PKR’s strategic director Rafizi Ramli.

What a shame that Malaysians at home missed a lively, stimulating and exciting debate because this is what intellectual discourse is all about. No slanging matches. No name-calling atypical of the usual parliamentary exchanges across the floor of the Dewan Rakyat.

The lively banter between Khairy and Rafizi, was an inspiration for Malaysia’s youth and debates like this should be replicated in Malaysia. Both are products of British universities and the civility that they showed, with the enthusiastic crowd egging them on, should prove to the old guard in UMNO that debates in the public realm are healthy and not to be feared. Although not in the Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich league, for Malaysia it was a brilliant first attempt.

The two contenders presented their arguments at the first event of 2012 organised by the United Kingdom and Eire Council for Malaysian Students. Their topic was ‘Public Policy: Vision 2020 – Is Malaysia moving towards the right direction?’

It was not the debate Rafizi wanted. His proposal was to discuss the National Feedlot Centre (NFC) controversy. The first unofficial request to Khairy, went via the media, on November 14, followed by the formal invitation a week later. These fell through, but the London event was its alternative.

Students had sacrificed their Sunday to hear the other speakers, Rafidah Aziz, Marina Mahathir, Pang Khee Teik, Yunis Raiss, Karim Raslan, Zainah Anwar (right), Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad and Dr Carool Kersten.

Without doubt the star-attraction was the ‘Khairy and Rafizi’ segment. Attendance was low in the morning but by the time their session was due, the conference hall was full and spilled over into an adjoining room.

The rivals were like chalk and cheese. The gregarious and gung-ho Khairy looked smart and businesslike in his bespoke suit. Tall and dark, he presented a start contrast to the affable and accommodating Rafizi, whose electric blue jumper, the colours of Keadilan, sent out subtle subliminal messages.

If Khairy seemed like the ‘Action Man’ figure (as in the boy’s action figure toy), Rafizi (left) presented an image of a methodical and thorough person, a testament to his accountancy background.

If Khairy looked like he was a notch above the crowd, Rafizi in his smart casual attire, appeared more assured and approachable, displaying neither aloofness, nor pretence.

Many familiar with Khairy’s previous talks, opined that he would probably be the better orator in both Malay and English, and doubted if Rafizi could match the UMNO Youth leader’s debating skills. They were proven wrong.

Speaking from the heart

Throughout the debate, Khairy failed to gain any advantage over Rafizi. Khairy appeared to be trying too hard. He probably expected a thrashing on the Shahrizat Abdul Jalil debacle and was disorientated when Rafizi ignored issues like the NFC.

Rafizi secured an early impact by acknowledging the role played by former PM Dr Mahathir Mohamed, who he credited with giving the nation a sense of direction. Rafizi  summarised the state of the economy and said that if Vision 2020 were to be achieved, the target set for the annual rate of economic growth should have been maintained since 1990, but that this was unsustainable. Moreover, the economic target had been missed.

Rafizi’s talk was sprinkled with facts which were easily grasped because they related to the man in the street.He spoke about the disparity of wealth, and that 40 percent of the nation, with a monthly income of RM1,500 or less, were mostly bumiputeras.

He contrasted this with the obscenely wealthy people in the top echelons of society who made up a small fraction of the community. He connected facts with the people’s anger.

Khairy failed to downplay Rafizi’s bleak assessment of the economy and bombarded the crowd at dizzying speed, with figures and acronyms like the ETP, FDI, the Human Development Index and the Asian financial crisis.

Was this deliberate? Was his intention to confuse or had he made a mistake? There was too much to absorb in one go. It was hard to verify and difficult to relate to the average struggling Malaysian.

Acknowledging that he was speaking from the heart, Rafizi’s arguments came in easily digestible portions whereas Khairy’s use of statistics appeared to be blinding us with science and made him appear wooden, as if his speech was scripted.

The UMNO Youth leader repeatedly challenged the Rafizi on unity in Pakatan Rakyat and quipped: “How solid is the union of PR?”

Using Kedah, Khairy attacked the Menteri Besar’s stance on the Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA), his treatment of students and the inconsistencies within Pakatan. Nevertheless, there were many points of agreement. Khairy praised some bits of the Buku Jingga, and agreed with the opposition on the necessity for the declaration of assets.

Khairy endorsed Rafizi’s assertion that Malaysia always manages to bounce back in times of hardship only because of the resilience of its people. Rafizi’s contention was: “….we have to trust you, the society….” and that political parties must “engage with the people”.

Khairy stressed that his was the voice of reform within UMNO. He disagreed with the “parallel lives” perpetuated by our schools, and the politics of Perkasa and Ibrahim Ali.

Rafizi presented Pakatan’s solid written policies and constitution. He was disparaging of BN, which could only manage a loosely jumbled list of achievements built on the country’s 50 years of development, instead of a constitution.

Khairy defended his government and featured Najib’s reforms, the ISA repeal, the proposed amendment to UUCA, Malaysia’s liberal society and the fact that his party was committed to free and fair elections.

The men played to their perceived political strengths but Rafizi had the edge over Khairy. At least twice during their exchanges, Rafizi praised Khairy’s popularity, especially among the students, many of who are Kelab UMNO members. At one time he even dubbed Khairy a “national asset”. However, he added that in spite of this, Khairy’s popularity could not translate into influencing the Cabinet or the Prime Minister.

Rafizi hoped that Khairy would become Home Minister and later teased him about the possibility of becoming an Education Minister to help push through the various reforms which he had mentioned. At one point, he even tried to entice the UMNO Youth leader to consider joining the opposition, because of their similarities and shared views.

One political observer said: “Rafizi won on style and substance. Khairy was squashed”. A student said, “Rafizi 1, Khairy 0.” If this was a contest between the lightweights, we should look forward to a match of the decade between the heavyweights, Anwar Ibrahim vs Najib.

We will see if Khairy can convince Najib, to take on Anwar in ‘the rumble in the jungle’. But for now, it’s game, set and match to Pakatan.

Robert Phang reminds MACC of its Duty: Fight Corruption

PRESS STATEMENT BY:

TAN SRI DATUK ROBERT PHANG MIOW SIN
Justice of Peace
Chairman – Social Care Foundation

SOME BN LEADERS AFRAID TO MAKE OPEN DECLARATION

In the last few weeks, I have openly condemned the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency (MACC)’s inaction over the NFC scandal and the blazen shameless admission of acceptance of gratification by Awang Adek. Since then, Malaysians have witnessed another “rejected” Minister, Azalina Othman Said (left), making a similar admission.

It seems that instead of being embarrassed, apologetic and standing down from public office, these BN ministers are being emboldened to use the propaganda tools of their party and the mainstream media to make their misconducts look innocent. Like most Malaysians, I am appalled and find this most repulsive.

My call for Shahrizat and Awang Adek (below right)to resign from all posts in the party and the government is exactly to prevent what is happening now. I knew they would use all their resources to spin fabulous stories of how they have been victimized, and how the whole fiasco is a misunderstanding.

You can clearly see that happening when PERKASA’s Ibrahim Ali comes to Shahrizat’s defence and tries to make the Auditor-General a political  scapegoat. You then see Minister Nazri Aziz explaining why there cannot be a public declaration of assets by those holding high public office.

To make it appear that the Chinese community also share this “aspiration” for secrecy, Nazri’s deputy, VK Liew, echoes his boss’s sentiments by saying that that it is inappropriate for the MACC to keep records of properties of ministers and deputy ministers.

That to me amounts to abusing the 1Malaysia concept to cover up for wrongdoings by government leaders. That is against the Islamic principles of “Amr Ma’aruf Nahy Mungkar” i.e. encourage righteousness and discourage evil. That it is done by the highest echelons of our government leaders is public display of arrogance of the highest order.

Let us remind ourselves that Teoh Beng Hock died over allegations of a mere RM 2,400. Ahmad Sarbaini died because of similar minor allegations, and these until today have remain unanswered. Yet, when the riches of the powerful are involved, the MACC either drag its feet or behave like eunuchs emasculated of all their powers. I ask the MACC – why the discrimination?

But I cannot stomach it if so called Chinese leaders like VK Liew speaks with a forked tongue just to please his political masters. 

It is on record and for reasons best known to MACC, they had acted in a very high handed manner against Lawyer Rosli Dahlan in asking him to declare his assets whereas he had never even served in any public office. He had been a private practitioner all along and despite his innocence, he was humiliated, abused and charged just because he acted professionally to defend his client.  We now have a senior UMNO Minister and his Chinese Deputy saying that MACC cannot be entitled to keep records of Ministers’ wealth. What is it that these UMNO and BN Chinese leaders are so afraid of in making an open declaration of their wealth, if all their accumulated wealth are legitimate?

I wish to remind VK Liew (left) that he is elected by the people to serve in public office and his salary comes from law-abiding taxpayers.The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) President is therefore accountable to the people at all times and can be made answerable the MACC when needed. If you have nothing to hide or what the Chinese would say, “Something that cannot see the daylight”, then what is there to fear?

As a former MACC advisory panel member, I fully support MACC Advisory Panel Chairman, Zaitun Zawiyah Puteh, over the commission’s proposal to the government as follows:

a) to obtain a copy of the declaration of assets of Cabinet members and their spouses and other family members;

b) that a copy of the declaration of assets of all members of the federal administration be given to the commission;

c) that their spouses and other family members be required to disclose their assets through a statutory declaration and a record of it be kept by the MACC.

It is most appropriate for MACC to know the assets of all who hold high public office. That is what accountability and transparency is about in the public sector. Liew is, therefore, seriously flawed in his argument that MACC’s main role is only to receive and investigate complaints on corruption in the country.

To be an effective enforcement agency, the MACC must have reliable records to enable it to gather reliable and solid evidence for a successful prosecution. If Liew, cannot understand such basic logic in the fight against corruption, it is time for him to step down or for the people to elect another more intelligent leader.

“HUMBLENESS IS GOOD VIRTUE, ARROGANCE SHALL FALL, THE MEEK WILL RULE THE WORLD”.

Tan Sri Datuk Robert Phang Miow Sin
Justice of Peace

The Fault, dear Najib, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves

by Terence Netto@www.malaysiakini.com

COMMENT Really, there appears to be no such thing as a good time for Prime Minister Najib Razak to call for snap polls. By ‘a good time’, it meant conditions where positive factors outweigh negative ones for the re-election of the UMNO-BN government.

Najib has been trying to formulate and implement policies for this excess of positives over negatives since taking charge in April 2009.But every time he feels he has a surplus of good vibes over bad ones, his government is upset by gremlins that have the effect of stalling the recourse to a new mandate as every new PM who desires validity for his reforms is impelled to.

The latest instance of this imp of misfortune dogging him is the attorney-general’s filing of intent to appeal the High Court’s January 9 decision to acquit Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim on a charge of sodomy.

Najib had begun capitalising on that acquittal the day it was delivered, citing it as a demonstration of the liberal reforms he had initiated under his government.

Ironically, this credit-taking had the effect of confirming that the judiciary had indeed been subject to the whims of the executive. But the opposition was not going to protest this indirect confirmation of their suspicions for obvious reasons: Anwar’s acquittal on a case that was filled with unconscionable gaps was right and fitting.

More expediency than conviction

But the sequel for the credit-taking Najib began to turn sour almost immediately. Right-wingers in his party, already angry that the Police had allowed Pakatan Rakyat supporters to gather in numbers at the judgment’s delivery, now clamoured that the decision be appealed.

When the A-G’s Chambers filed its notice of intent to appeal, the PM decided that not only would he have his cake – take credit for the acquittal, he would eat it too – absolve himself of responsibility for the appeal.

It would have been better if Najib had signaled his displeasure with the A-G’s decision. It would have suggested there was more conviction than expediency to his reforms.

But the PM is not a man of conviction so much as convenience. Talk of reform and transformation of the economy and polity trips easily off his tongue.

The jargon of progressive management drips from his government’s public relations vents but because there is no conviction behind it, the exploitative convenience behind the cupcake soon enough becomes detectable.

It would be wishful thinking for the PM to hope for luck with the good fairies of electoral timing. Thus far it appears these good fairies have frowned more than fawned on him. Because of this, the PM has had to resort to munificent measures his deficit-battling government can ill afford, such as the RM500 handout to citizens earning less than RM3,000 a month, to keep on the credit side of the ledger by which, supposedly, the electorate evaluates its leaders.

But even these inducements cannot dispel the fumes emitted by the scandals that almost continually occur on the PM’s watch.

Less than rosy prognosis

The cattle-rearing project undertaken by the Wanita UMNO leader Shahrizat Abdul Jalil is only the most sensational of the lot in that it contains details lurid enough to sustain the buzz among the chattering classes. As if all this were not bad enough, details of his wife’s sybaritic shopping expedition in Sydney on a recent vacation only serve to keep the embers of controversy glowing.

Furthermore, with the economic indices – stemming mainly from the glitz outlooks for the United States and Europe – pointing to a less than rosy prognosis for 2012 than that painted by the government, Najib must be wondering what would it take to create a favourable time for an election.

“I can call spirits from the vasty deep?” says a character in Shakespeare’s Henry the Fourth.To which the protagonist replies, “Why, so can I, so can any man. But will they come when you do call for them?”

Besieged leaders seeking a mandate must wonder at the elusiveness of a propitious time in which to summon electoral spirits from the “vasty deep.” With the clock winding down on his inherited (from predecessor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s) mandate, with the downward draft exerted by recurrent scandals on his watch, and with the glitz of his reforms getting plainer by the month, can Najib avoid the musings of Cassius to Brutus in another of Shakespeare’s plays (Julius Caesar): “The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves.”

Many years ago, in 1986 or ‘87, I can’t remember the exact year, I had the pleasure of meeting you in a private family dinner. You were the guest of honour and I was a very young boy, excited to be in the vicinity of your towering presence. I had many things I wanted to say to you and when I walked up to where you were seated I could only manage one rhetorical question.

You were very kind. Although in the midst of conversation with my uncles, you stopped and gave me, a little boy, a few minutes of your time. I spoke to the prime minister. It was my two minutes of fame.

For the better part of my life you have been the Prime Minister of Malaysia. In all those years, I saw you as the best Prime Minister Malaysia has ever had. Sadly, I’m not so sure anymore. I don’t despise you or loathe you but I question your rationale for a good many things.

There are so many issues that I would like to raise with you. It is near impossible to cover everything here but let me start with your latest blog post titled “Kaitan Bangsa Dengan Bisnes”. The Malaysian Insider reported this with the headline, “Dr M: Scrapping race-based policies will lead to chaos.”

I find it hard to believe that scrapping race-based policies will lead to chaos. The status quo is more detrimental to the country in the long run. The existing race-based policies have done little to improve the plight of the Malays. In fact it has created a class divide between the Malay haves and have-nots. This WILL split the Malays because severe class inequalities have caused revolutions, even in singular nations.

You believe not everyone has equal capabilities and some people must be given special consideration in business and other areas based on their race. This is an argument that neither makes sense nor justifies special considerations. Let me elaborate. Would you allow an aspiring surgeon to become one via special considerations, even if he is inherently bad at it? And would you trust your life under the knife with this person? This is what you propose.

Allow me to provide a further example. UiTM was founded in 1956 (as Dewan Latihan Rida) to facilitate the creation of Bumiputera professionals. Fifty-six years later, it ranks among the last in the QS World University Rankings. While it is the largest university in Malaysia, and has admittedly created many graduates, it has done little to create world-class professionals.

The IITs of India were created with similar ideals to UiTM. The first IIT was conceived in 1950, a mere six years before UiTM. In the same QS World University Rankings, IIT Delhi ranks in the top 200. The IITs are internationally recognised for engineering and technology with entrance exams that are so tough, candidates use Ivy League universities as a fall back in case they don’t make the cut. Bill Gates has been quoted as saying: “And it’s hard to think of anything like IIT anywhere in the world. It is a very unique institution.”

This happens when you pursue meritocracy. In your blog post you ask if it is true that race consideration in business vis-a-vis the NEP has stifled economic growth. My answer is, yes it has. The NEP’s original intention was noble but it has become a tool to justify and facilitate nepotism, cronyism and, contrary to its original purpose, inequality. The nation’s resources have been unscrupulously plundered to benefit cronies NOT the common man, be he Bumiputera or not. Yes, we’ve had a good run under your stewardship but our fundamentals have been hindering us from the type of progress that Singapore enjoys. In short, a system that does not promote and reward performance is inherently flawed. If you need proof, look at Malaysia Airlines.

I quote the book “Winning in Asia” by Peter J. Williamson (Harvard Business Press):

“Those Bumiputera companies with a continued reliance on preferential treatment and local connections and without a broader set of competitive advantages have been unable to successfully expand internationally. To grow, they have therefore diversified across industries within their home country, often resulting in a loss of focus and an inability to build deep operational competence in particular businesses.”

And so again, yes, the NEP has stifled economic growth. You say that when the distribution of wealth is disparate between the races, there is a high probability of enmity between the poorer and richer races. After 40 years of implementation, and devoid of significant success, don’t you think there is a serious problem with the NEP as a tool to bridge the economic gap? Furthermore, the Malays, Chinese, and Indians have not been at each other’s throats during this period. In fact, it is the ruling coalition that regularly stokes racial fire. The race card has been played to the hilt and it is now a misnomer for economic and social stability. I wish you had more faith in us and our ability to co-exist.

Progress is hindered by fear. It is the fear of change, fear of each other, fear of betrayal, fear of riots, fear of racial tension and fear of so many other things that keep us from progressing. Amplifying our fears by attributing wrong causes to effects is not going to help with nation building. I believe that the socio-economic divide can be closed through prudent management of the economy, a world-class education system, observance of the Rule of Law, and nation-building policies. I ask that you use your influence to condemn corruption, nepotism and cronyism. This is the real problem that undermines Malaysia and stifles its growth. — malaysia-today.net

Wrong to admire Hang Tuah, says Mahathir

by Aidila Razak@www.malaysiakini.com (01-30-12)