NST Online (www.nst.com.my)

July 14, 2009

Dr M gets a sharp reproof

Tun Dr. Mahathir

Former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, former inspector-general of police Tun Hanif Omar and former attorney-general Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman were described as “crooks” who had forgotten that they used to serve and defend the administration.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz said the three men were strong government supporters when they were in the government. “But the moment they left, they became the biggest critics.We know that dignitaries who have left the government service, they tend to forget. Once they are no longer in the government, they tend to criticise us, the institution and administration that served them”.

Tun Hanif Omar

“Now, these are all crooks,” he said after opening the Malaysian Technical Cooperation programme at the National Institute of Public Administration yesterday.

He said this when he was asked to respond to a statement by Abu Talib, the Suhakam chairman, who had criticised him for a remark he made in Parliament earlier this month. On July 2, Nazri had said that Abu Talib was unfit to sit as Suhakam chairman as he had commented on the Perak crisis when the matter was before the court.

Tan Sri Abu Talib

Abu Talib was quoted in newspapers as saying: “Perhaps the time has come for the people of Perak to be given the opportunity to exercise their right to choose again the government of their choice, which is a basic human right.” Yesterday, Nazri said as a lawyer Abu Talib should know his limits with regard to the Perak crisis.

“As a former A-G, he had prosecuted people in the past and he is one person who should know the law. He commented that elections should be called. It is none of his business especially at a time when the court was trying to decide on this.He should know better and he should realise how much clout he has on the poor judge who might be just a junior officer when he was the A-G,” Nazri said.

From Human Rights Watch(July 13, 2009)

Government Pre-Trial Maneuvers Show Political Motivations

This trial is a bald-faced attempt to permanently remove an opposition leader from Malaysian politics. The government is trying to manipulate the justice system for political purposes.

Elaine Pearson, deputy Asia director

The Malaysian government should immediately drop politically motivated criminal charges against opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, Human Rights Watch said today.

On July 15, 2009, the Kuala Lumpur High Court will hear Anwar’s application to strike out a sodomy charge against him, and an ongoing defense request for evidence it says is crucial to properly prepare for trial.

This is the second time Anwar has been charged with sodomy. He spent six years in prison before his previous conviction for sodomy was overturned in 2004.

Human Rights Watch said the current charge appears politically motivated and lacks credibility.

The government has failed to disclose key evidence to the defense, hastily sought to pass a DNA statute that aids the prosecution, and put Anwar at a disadvantage by unnecessarily moving the trial to the high court. In addition, the government allowed the attorney general, who is under investigation for misconduct in Anwar’s previous trial, to be involved in the current case.

“This trial is a bald-faced attempt to permanently remove an opposition leader from Malaysian politics,” said Elaine Pearson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The government is trying to manipulate the justice system for political purposes.”

The current charge against Anwar relates to allegations that on June 26, 2008, he had sexual relations with Mohd Saiful Bukhari bin Azlan, a 23-year-old male former volunteer aide to Anwar. Although initially filed as a non-consensual offense, prosecutors later changed the charge to consensual sodomy, though Saiful has never been charged. A conviction would force Anwar to vacate his seat in Parliament and effectively bar him from contesting in the next general election, expected before 2012.

Anwar’s July 15 court application to drop the sodomy charge rests on the basis of two medical reports. Three specialists from the public Kuala Lumpur Hospital endorsed a July 13, 2008 medical report regarding the complainant that found “no conclusive clinical findings suggestive of penetration to the anus and no significant defensive wound on the body of the patient.” A doctor at the private Pusrawi Hospital who examined Saiful on June 28, 2008, two days after the alleged incident, reported the anus as “normal.” The doctor later left Malaysia to escape what he said was persistent pressure to alter his report.

In addition, the defense will reiterate its January 2009 request for at least 10 documents it asserts are necessary for it to properly prepare Anwar’s defense at trial. They include the original closed-circuit television recordings from the alleged crime scene, original specimens from which DNA samples were allegedly obtained, chemist’s notes, witness statements including the complainant’s, and medical reports. To date, the Public Prosecutor’s office has denied it is withholding any documents it is mandated to share under the Malaysian Criminal Procedure Code.

“Providing the defendant with evidence crucial for preparing his defense is a basic requirement of a fair trial,” said Pearson. “The prosecution’s withholding of key evidence is a red flag of political shenanigans.”

Concerns about a fair trial were heightened on July 1 after the court dismissed Anwar’s appeal challenging Attorney General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail’s decision to move the trial to the High Court from the Sessions Court where it originated. Transfer to a high court reduces opportunities for a defense appeal to higher courts should Anwar be found guilty. Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi then stated publicly in July 2008 that Abdul Gani, who is also public prosecutor, would have no part in Anwar’s trial as he is under investigation by the Anti-Corruption Commission for allegedly falsifying evidence to protect those involved in an assault on Anwar in 1998 while he was in police custody during the earlier sodomy trial.

Sessions Court Judge Komathy Suppiah ruled in March that, “it is evident that any involvement by the AG [Gani] in this case would seriously undermine public confidence in the administration of criminal justice.” The High Court overruled Judge Komathy’s decision, stating that Gani was only acting administratively in approving the transfer and thus was not involved in the new trial.

DNA issues are also contentious in the case. On June 23, 2009, the lower house of Parliament quickly passed the Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Identification Act, which will go into effect after Senate and Royal assent. It would allow police to take DNA samples from criminal suspects and to use those samples to build a DNA databank. Anwar has repeatedly refused to submit DNA samples in this case on the grounds that current law does not require it and because of his reasonable concern for evidence tampering as happened in his 1998 trial.

The proposed DNA law includes a provision stating that “any existing DNA profile and any information in relation thereto kept and maintained by the Chemistry Department of Malaysia or Royal Malaysia Police, immediately before coming into operation of this Act shall … form part of the DNA Databank established under this Act.” Circumventing Anwar’s refusal to provide a new DNA sample, this would permit the manipulated samples from his previous trial to be used as evidence and manipulated again during the upcoming trial.

Other language in the bill raises fair-trial concerns. Article 24 reads: “Any information from the DNA Database shall be admissible as a conclusive proof of the DNA identification in any proceedings in any court.” Such decisive stipulations ignore well-known information that DNA databanks are not foolproof, and are often prone to tampering and mistakes in evidence collection and handling. As a safeguard, many courts around the world have determined that information gleaned from DNA cannot be conclusive and must always be corroborated. Those responsible for the collection of evidence must be professional, competent, and beyond the reach of any improper interference.

Serious concerns about fairness and impartial administration of justice, combined with heavy-handed police tactics at the time of Anwar’s arrest and intimidation of witnesses, are reminiscent of Anwar’s earlier, deeply marred sodomy trial, Human Rights Watch said. Given these concerns, Human Rights Watch renewed its call for the charge against Anwar to be dropped immediately.

“The Malaysian government should stop using the courts to pursue political vendettas,” said Pearson. “Unless it drops these dubious charges against Anwar, it risks giving its reputation another black eye.”

Sodomy (”committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature”), even when consensual, is punishable in Malaysia under Section 377B of the Penal Code by up to 20 years in prison and whipping. Human Rights Watch urges the Malaysian authorities to uphold international human rights standards by decriminalizing consensual homosexual conduct and replacing Section 377A with a gender-neutral rape law.

The Malaysian Insider

July 13, 2009

Najib’s Plots

by Liew Chin Tong — PR-DAP MP for Bukit Bendera.

The unexpectedly favourable approval rating for Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak is a timely reminder to those who labour hard to see the end of Barisan Nasional rule that public opinion, all the way to the next election, is neither static nor linear. With the resources available to the ruling coalition, it is not impossible that Najib would reverse the currently sliding fortunes of UMNO and Barisan Nasional.

In the latest Merdeka Center polls, 65 per cent of Malaysians answered positively to the question “How strongly are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way Najib Razak is performing his job as the Prime Minister?” Among Malays and Indians, the figure is even higher at 74 per cent while it was 48 per cent among Chinese.

Barely three months ago, 45 per cent answered the same question positively. Often, leaders in office gain a certain aura and approval rating, but a well-liked leader does not necessarily translate into votes for the party he leads. (I have been informed that the changes in voting pattern tilted in favour of Barisan Nasional minimally.)

And, an opinion poll is just a snapshot of public opinion at a certain point, which is constantly in a flux and changes according to the political actors or other conditions, internal or external to the political system. The poll during the tenure of former Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is a case in point, which dropped from the nineties to forties in a short period of five years.

While Najib has not achieved much substantially and the state of affairs (whether it be the health of democracy or the integrity of the government) continues to deteriorate, it is clear that, as a political opponent, Najib’s no Pak Lah and no push-over.

Najib publicly acknowledged that his father Tun Razak Hussein’s example of turning around the fortunes of the ruling coalition between the 1969 and 1974 elections is vividly remembered and hopefully repeated.

Razak’s series of moves, many of which were unprincipled and authoritarian to say the least, in the intervening years stabilised the government, muffled the opposition, and redefined the game with new rules (from a so-called consociational coalition of the Alliance Party to UMNO domination, from a laissez faire economy to one regulated by the New Economic Policy, and from Tunku’s pro-West stance to neutrality in foreign policy).

Najib tried to do a Razak in Perak in the form of a coup and still suffered from the public’s outcry. But some other moves were far better choreographed and visibly strategic, probably with the possible calling for an early election some time in 2010 in mind.

Political contestation in modern two-party democracies is often reduced to a choice of the better between the two contesting parties; not the best because they are not available. Or, more often than not, it is a Hobson’s choice of the lesser evil. (After all, they call politics the necessary evil.) It is akin to two men running from a hungry tiger. It is not about escaping the jungle, one just need to runs faster than the other.

While it is my fervent belief that the ultimate aim of politics is to uplift the community as a whole and to depart from the old politics of race, we must also admit that our opponents have all the resources at their disposal and the street-smartness to play their types of games.

Najib is using unity talks to win Malay support as many, especially those from the rural areas, are susceptible to the comfort zone of racial unity. Politics, since the last elections, especially portrayed in Utusan or, more vividly, TV3, has been chaotic. Nostalgia for authoritarian certainty is undoubtedly attractive to some.

The court case against opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, even if it doesn’t deprive his freedom, is aimed at distracting him from his effort to create a practical, electable alternative government. The prime minister is also hoping to win over ethnic Chinese fence-sitters through his liberalisation policies in the sphere of the economy.

On the ethnic Indian front, the Najib administration won some points by releasing HINDRAF leaders from ISA detention. The very visible hand of P. Uthayakumar in the Kampung Buah Pala controversy and his intention to form a new party of his own are likely to serve as an electoral spoiler in stealing away ethnic Indian support for Pakatan Rakyat.

For those who struggle to replace UMNO and Barisan Nasional, it is, admittedly, a difficult time. But it is also a time for us to reaffirm our faith in new politics, to fight injustice and to build a new democracy premised on a new and fairer economic deal.

posted by din merican–July 13, 2009

ANWAR IBRAHIM’s KEYNOTE ADDRESS ON ISLAM AND THE WEST AT COMMON WORLD INTERFAITH CONFERENCE IN PERTH, AUSTRALIA, JULY 11, 2009

Islam and the West – Democracy, Jihad and Complicity with Tyranny.

Throughout the last century, there have been attempts to create “a truly Islamic state”, its ultimate objective being the attainment of a just polity premised on the Qur’an and the Sunnah. However, being essentially a reaction to Western imperialism, these attempts invariably were linked to the concept of jihad and the multifarious connotations attached to the word.

To begin with, even though primarily jihad is a doctrine of sacrifice for the preservation of faith, it had traditionally been interpreted to sanction war against enemies of the religion and had provided a moral framework for regulating the ensuing conflicts. The orthodox view espoused by the establishment muftis, adopted a particular Hadith to justify the principle that if a ruler orders something that is contrary to the Shari’ah, Muslims were at liberty to rebel. This view was then extended to justify acts against all forms of oppression.

Today, jihad has been invoked by certain quarters to legitimize wanton acts of violence. And as the line between jihad and terrorism becomes blurred, it is imperative that reform minded Islamists address this problem with courage and conviction. Surely, tyranny and oppression cannot be the only way to stem the tide.

Nevertheless, it is true that the post-war experiments of Muslim countries with democratic institutions ended in unmitigated disaster, returning to power instead the regimes of tyranny and repression. Turkey was of course the exception to the rule.

We are familiar with the United States policy of ambivalence in the war on terror, particularly under the Bush administration, which supported autocrats in the Muslim world on the one hand, and championed the cause of freedom and democracy on the other. Pointing the finger at the United States for driving a wedge between reform-minded Islamists and Muslim autocrats may carry some degree of legitimacy but the ultimate culpability must be borne by Muslims themselves.

As Shaykh Muhammad al-Ghazali puts it, it is telling “to see how Muslims are treated in Muslim countries and under Muslim governments and how other countries, such as Israel or Britain or the United States for instance, treat their own citizens. Human life and the dignity of man appear to have a much lower value and command less respect in Muslim countries … it is difficult under current conditions, to see how Muslims can expect to earn God’s support and fulfill their task as leaders of mankind.”

The 1992 bloodbath in Algeria saw the banning of the FIS (Front Islamique de Salut) just as it was becoming certain that the Islamist party was about to be legitimately brought to power. Thousands are known to have been abducted by “eradicators” that is, the mukhabarat, the State apparatus for silencing dissent. And notwithstanding a protracted civil war, the oligarchs continue their stranglehold on power.

Other Muslim countries have likewise used the terrorism/Islamic fundamentalism bogey to resist political reform and the powers that be continue to brook no dissent. Undoubtedly the West has also to blame. It too has a long track record of supporting military dictatorships during the past half century. In the case of Iran, we have seen the case of Mossadegh who was legitimately elected but was removed in a CIA led coup in collaboration with Britain. Even in Lebanon and the Palestinian state not too long ago, the United States were complicit in the aggression against these two nascent Muslim democracies.

And today we still see how a substantial part of the Muslim population living in non-Muslim countries are being stigmatized and marginalized on account of democracy being eroded at their expense for the sins of terrorists. It must be said though that President Obama, having assumed office, has made some palpable initiatives towards ameliorating this situation.

But regardless of that, it cannot be denied that the West offers at least in theory freedom and democracy – fundamental liberties, civil society, and representative government. On the other hand, the same cannot be said of Muslim countries. There is Turkey of course, being the first and until recently the only Muslim nation with clear democratic institutions, a market economy and a free society, notwithstanding its ups and downs. Indonesia which has just seen the reelection of President Bambang Yudhoyono, has of course been a respectable second entrant into this arena.

The key issue to be noted here is that in the discourse on Islam and the West, freedom and democracy provides the main catalyst for convergence, not as mere philosophical constructs but as the foundation for giving dignity to the human spirit.

Within Islam, freedom is considered one of the higher objectives of the divine law in as much as the very same elements in a constitutional democracy become moral imperatives in Islam – freedom of conscience, freedom to speak out against tyranny, a call for reform and the right to property.

Democracy and freedom acquire greater significance around the presence of substantial Muslim communities in the West, whose democratic institutions are under attack all in the name of the war on terror. ‘National security’ has now ominously taken on the hue of political persecution even in established democracies, and there are legitimate concerns to be addressed as we see the increasing tendencies to allow the erosion of fundamental liberties, not just because they are occurring in places with the presence of significant Muslim minorities, but because they should not be condoned anywhere.

If the notion of the universalism of Islam is to mean anything, it would require that its values of justice, compassion and tolerance be practiced everywhere. Our condemnation of the violation of human rights must transcend race, colour or creed.

The heart of the Islamic message is first and foremost a message of love and understanding, of compassion and tolerance and of peace. It tells us to strive for justice, fight oppression and oppose tyranny. There are many tribes and communities, cultures and languages and all these will impinge directly on our worldview. Yet we must never lose sight of the fact that humankind is only one.

The Malaysian Insider

July 13, 2009

Possible Contract Extension for the Incumbent Inspector-General of Police

The IGP, Royal Malaysian Police

The Police Force Commission, which is constitutionally responsible for the appointment and emplacement of members of the police force, has backed a second extension of the service of Tan Sri Musa Hassan as the country’s Inspector-General of Police. The Malaysian Insider understands that the commission, whose members include top current and retired civil servants and the home minister, wants Musa to remain the country’s top cop when his current contract expires in September.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has still not given his nod yet, however, and is expected to have discussions soon with Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein and other stakeholders soon. So far it is understood that there is a strong sentiment within the administration for Musa’s term to be extended.

Another extension of Musa’s service is expected to draw political controversy. Over the weekend, the DAP’s Lim Kit Siang urged the home minister not to renew Musa’s contract as the crime rate continues to soar.

According to statistics provided by the veteran parliamentarian, there were 150,000 cases of crime in 2004. This figure ballooned to over 200,000 in both 2007 and 2008 despite Parliament tripling funds allocated to the police under the Ninth Malaysia Plan to RM8 billion.

Lim said that this shows the failure of the Musa to stem the tide of rising crime cases despite an increase in resources. Musa had reached retirement age two years ago and received a two-year extension of his term.

The original extension was also controversial as it came about after Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail ordered the then Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) to close investigations on graft accusations against Musa for allegedly being involved in the release of members of illegal betting syndicates.

Musa was also accused last year by Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim of being involved in a plot to fabricate evidence during the 1998 investigation of the former deputy prime minister’s black eye beating case.

Datuk Mat Zain Ibrahim, the police officer who investigated the black-eye beating in 1998, has also accused Gani and Musa of fabricating evidence in the assault. Mat Zain’s accusations, contained in a sworn affidavit, have been submitted as evidence in Anwar’s current Sodomy II trial.

Anwar is likely to use the alleged evidence of a previous conspiracy by Gani and Musa against him to back his claims that the current sodomy charge against him is politically motivated. The exposure in court of such allegations would be damaging to the authorities who are keen on showing impartiality in the prosecution. It is unclear if the prime minister will take these factors into consideration when he considers whether to give his nod to Musa’s extension.

Musa was first appointed to the post on Sept 12, 2006, succeeding Tan Sri Mohd Bakri Omar. Musa, a law graduate, joined the service as an inspector on November 11, 1969. Since then, he has held several important posts including as Malacca prosecuting officer in 1973, Bukit Aman Narcotics Division director in 1981 and Kuala Kubu Baru Police College lecturer in 1986.

Musa held the post of Bukit Aman prosecution/criminal law deputy assistant director in 1995 and Johor Chief Police Officer in 2003. In 1999, he headed the team which investigated the first Anwar sodomy case. In 2004, he was appointed Criminal Investigation Department director before being made Deputy Inspector-General of Police a year later and then as the Inspector-General of Police the following year.

July 13, 2009

Chaining The Children of the Poor

by Dr. M. Bakri Musa
Morgan-Hill, California

The ancient Chinese bound the feet of their baby daughters so they would grow up with deformed tiny feet, thus limiting their mobility and participation in life outside the little world of their homes.  These women would then be totally dependent on their men.

In rescinding the policy of teaching science and mathematics in English, the government is likewise binding the intellectual development of our children.  They and future generations of Malaysians would grow up with warped intellect. They would then be totally dependent on the government, just as ancient Chinese women with tiny feet were on their men.

My friend and fellow commentator Azly Rahman has a more apt and colorful local metaphor; we are condemning future generations to the Pekan Rabu economy, capable only of selling pirated versions of Michael Jackson albums.  That would be the extent of their entrepreneurial prowess and creative flair.  They are only subsistence entrepreneurs and ‘copy cat’ creators.

Make no mistake about it.  The government’s professed concerns for the poor and those from rural areas notwithstanding, reversing the current policy would adversely and disproportionately impact them.  The rich and those in the cities have a ready escape; the rich through private English classes, urban children from the already high levels of English in their community.

The most disadvantaged will be the poor kampong kids.  That means Malay children.  Thus we have the supreme irony if not perversity of the champions of Ketuanan Melayu actively pursuing a policy that would ensure Malay children be perpetually trapped economically and intellectually.  I thank Allah that I grew up at a time when the likes of  Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin were not in charge of our education system.  Otherwise I would have been trapped in my kampong.

The idiocy of the new move is best illustrated by this one startling example.  In 2012 when the new plan will be implemented, students in Form IV will be taught science and mathematics in Malay, after learning the two subjects in English for the past nine years.  Then two years later when they will be entering Sixth Form or the Matriculation stream, they will again have to revert to English.

Pupils in the vernacular schools would have it worse.  They would learn the two subjects in their mother tongue during their primary school years, then switch to Malay for the next five while in secondary school, and then switch again, this time to English, in Sixth Form and university!

Had these policymakers done their homework and diligent downstream analysis, such idiocies would not crop up.  Then again this is what we would expect from our civil servants.  They have been brought up with their minds bound up; they cannot think.  They have depended on others to do the thinking for them.

Najib Razak’s flip-flopping on this major national issue eerily reminds me of similar indecisiveness and lack of resolve of his immediate predecessor, Abdullah Badawi.  No wonder he supports Najib in this policy shift.  Najib should not take comfort in that, unless he expects a similar fate as Abdullah’s.  Abdullah was kicked out by his party; with Najib, it would be the voters who would be kicking him out.  Public sentiments are definitely against this policy switch.

Failure of Policy Versus Failure of Implementation

The cabinet reversed course because it deemed the policy did not produce the desired results.  However, in arriving at this pivotal decision the cabinet failed to address the fundamental question on whether the original policy was flawed or its implementation ineffective.

It just assumed the policy to be flawed. Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin  and his senior officers relied heavily on the 2005 UNESCO Report which suggests that “‘mother tongue first’ bilingual education” may (my emphasis) be the solution to the dilemma of members of minority linguistic groups in acquiring knowledge.

Muhyiddin and his advisers seriously misread the Report.  It was concerned primarily with the dilemma at the societal level of members of a linguistic minority having to learn the language of the majority (“national language”) versus the need to maintain linguistic diversity generally and minority languages specifically.  UNESCO was rightly concerned with the rapid disappearance of languages spoken by small minority groups.  The report was not addressing specifically the learning of science and mathematics.

Malay language is not at risk of disappearing; it is the native tongue of literally hundreds of millions.  To extrapolate the UNESCO recommendations for Malay language is a gross oversimplification and misreading of the report.

The UNESCO Report does not address the issue of when and how best to introduce children to bilingual education.  Later studies that focused specifically on the pedagogical and psychological aspects instead of the sociological and political have shown that children are quite capable of learning multiple languages at the same time.  Even more remarkable is that the earlier they are exposed to a second language the more facile they would be with that language.  They would also learn that second language much faster; hence second language even at preschool.

The acquisition of bilingual ability at an early age confers other significant cognitive advantages.  These have been documented by clinical studies with functional MRIs (imaging studies of the brain).   Malaysia should learn from these more modern studies and the experiences of more advanced societies, not from the UNESCO studies of backward tribes of Asia .

The other basis for the cabinet’s decision was ‘research’ by local half-baked and politically-oriented pseudo academics.  They should be embarrassed to append their names to such a sophomoric paper.  The quality is such that it will never appear in reputable journals.  As for the Ministry’s own internal ‘researchers,’ remember that they came out within months of the policy’s introduction in 2003 documenting the ‘impressive’ improvements in students’ achievements!

The one major entity that would be severely impacted by the cabinet’s decision is our universities.  Yet our Vice-Chancellors have remained quiet and detached in this important national debate.  They have not advised the cabinet nor led the public discussions.  Again that reflects the caliber of leadership of our major institutions.

Had the cabinet decided that the policy was essentially sound but that the flaws were with its implementations, then measures other than rescinding it would be the appropriate response.  This would include recruiting and training more English-speaking teachers and devoting more hours to the subject.

What surprised me is that when Mahathir introduced the policy in 2003, he was supported by his cabinet that included Najib, Muhyiddin, Hishamuddin, and over a dozen of current ministers who now collectively voted to reverse the policy.  Likewise, the policy was fully endorsed too by UMNO’s Supreme Council then.  Like the cabinet, many of those earlier members are still in that body today.  Yet today the Council also voted to disband the policy.  Muhyiddin, Hishamuddin and the others have yet to share with us why they changed their minds.  The conditions that prompted the introduction of the policy back then are still present today.  This reversal will do not change that.

Najib, Muhyiddin and Hishamuddin are “lallang leaders,” they bend with the slightest wind change.  Unlike Margaret Thatcher’s famed resolve of “This lady is not for turning,” with Najib, Muhyyuddin, et al., all you have to do to make them undertake a U turn would be to blow slightly in their faces.  Blow a bit harder and they would scoot off with their tails between their legs.  These leaders will never lead us forward.

This reversal will not solve the widening achievement gap between urban and rural students.  The cabinet has yet to put forth new ideas on ameliorating that problem.  So, just as ancient Chinese women were physically handicapped because of their bound feet, rural or more specifically Malay children will continue to be intellectually handicapped by their warped and small minds, the consequence of this policy shift.  Perhaps that is the real objective of this policy reversal, the shackling of the intellectual development of our young so they will forever be dependent on their ‘leaders.’

posted by din merican–July 12, 2009

The English Dilemma
by Sim Kwang Yang*
July 11, 2009

After many months of very intense debate in the mainstream and alternative media, Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin, who is also education minister, has finally announced the government decision to reverse the teaching of Math and Science from English to Bahasa Malaysia and the vernacular mother tongues.

The decision is not likely to please everybody, and the debate is sure to rage for years to come. After all, it is an issue that affects all parents in the country. On his blog, Dr Mahathir Mohamad has conducted a poll to survey public opinion on the matter. About 72 percent of the respondents are against the government decision. But then, the teaching of Math and Science in English was the brainchild of this former prime minister, and the recent reversal by the current government can only be seen by him as a betrayal of his personal legacy.

The glaring question is: Will Mahathir now train his sight on the current Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, as he did with Abdullah Ahmad Badawi?

Many commentators have pointed out that the government flip-flop on the issue is a direct concession made to the linguistic nationalists from all ethnic communities in Malaysia. Personally, I have a great deal of sympathy with the linguistic nationalists of all shades. I am partly the product of the Chinese primary school system, and until today, I still do multiplication in my heart in Mandarin, even when I have to work on a problem in quantum physics.

I am also a product of the old all-English education in the 1960s when we had to sit for examinations administered by Cambridge overseas certificate board. After I finished Form Six in 1968, I taught English as a compulsory subject in Form Five classes to prepare them for the Cambridge Overseas Certificate exam with some success. My best students were those transferred from Chinese schools.

The Blind cannot lead the Blind

Those parents who want to have Math and Science taught to their children in English argue from the pragmatic point of English being the premier language of commerce, scholarship, and diplomacy. Mastering the English language will equip their children with an added edge on the job market when they grow up.

I agree that mastering the English language is important for all Malaysians, for reasons beyond those expressed by many parents. But the best way of learning a foreign language is not by teaching it in Math and Science classes, especially when the English proficiency of all our Math and Science teachers must be suspect. The blind cannot lead the blind.

The best way to learn any foreign language is through total immersion in the language, using it all day long in daily life, preferably among native speakers. That is how all those foreign students from all over the world learned their English in the Canadian universities I attended in the 1970s. Failing that, the second best way to learn a foreign language is to teach it as a single compulsory subject in schools – from the primary to the university level.

When I went to Stockholm in Sweden for an international meeting once, I was surprised that all the young Swedes spoke English fluently, though with a heavy Swedish accent. I was told that English was taught as a second language throughout their school days.

To improve the teaching and learning of our school children, the whole system of the current way of doing things must be reformed. The entire curriculum must be overhauled. All this talk about teaching modules may be fashionable; it is also in vogue to say how learning any language should be made fun.

The truth of the matter is that English is not an easy language to master. The basic rules of grammar, syntax, and parts of speech simply cannot be grasped as a kind of second nature without long years of much rote learning and repetitive weekly exercises. Spelling, vocabulary, and pronunciation simply cannot be learned without weekly spelling and dictation tests. Comprehension, reading and writing skills simply cannot be mastered without weekly tests in précis and essay writing. Multiple-choice questions and matching terms will not do the trick.

Teachers who don’t know Jane Austen

The Achilles’ heel in our nation’s current educational system must be the shortage of qualified teachers who are proficient in English themselves. The really competent ones would have gone in search of their pot of gold in the highly lucrative private tuition industry.

I had to interview some applicants for teaching English for a tuition centre once in KL. Quite a few had a diploma in teaching English as a second language from Universiti Malaya. Their handle on the language was so obviously inadequate. None of them had heard of Jane Austen!

We have until 2012 before the new policy is put in place. If the government is serious about raising the standard of English among our future citizens, then it is imperative to improve our teacher-training programmes, in the universities and our teacher training colleges.

Native speakers of the English language with the highest academic qualifications must be recruited from overseas to teach these future teachers of the language in our country. Here, we must repress the impulse of the New Economic Policy to push through mediocre graduates. Instead, there must make serious efforts to recruit and pass only the best students, irrespective of race.

Current teachers can also be given intensive refresher course. What is more important though is perhaps a concerted effort to stock up the library in educational institutions at all levels.

Dedicated English teachers must be encouraged to start English drama clubs, English speech-and-debate contests, and English school magazines. Parents must allow their children to participate in these extra-curricular activities, rather than filling all their free time with more regimented English tuition classes.

I still think that the best way to learn English is through the teaching of English literature as an optional subject from a very young age, starting with nursery rhymes and fairy tales, graduating slowly to the great classics. The love of literature so nurtured will encourage students to want to read on their own in their free time. Ultimately, reading a great deal of English books is the surest way of acquiring English proficiency through a process of mental osmosis.

The teaching of the English language is essentially an educational issue, but unfortunately for Malaysia, the language issue has always been infused with too much political fervour.

The current furore nascent in the national conversation on the subject is the result of a faulty system of decision making. Policy decisions are made always at the power centre from the top down, without much consultation with parents and teachers, who are the real stakeholders in these matters.

As long as education is deemed to be a tool for social engineering within the political agenda of the ruling class, decision-making will not be decentralised and deregulated, leaving little room for public participation from the local community.

What is needed to resolve this, and many other controversies, is a major political reform in the political structure of our country.

*Sim Kwang Yang was MP for Bandar Kuching from 1982 to 1995. He has spend many years as an educator. Sim can be reached at kenyalang578@hotmail.com.

The Malaysian Insider

July 12, 2009

Harapan se-orang permuda Malaysia…

oleh Zulhabri Supian

Sebagai rakyat Malaysia yang tidak menganggotai mana-mana parti politik yang wujud di negara ini, perasaan  saya masih bercampur-campur di antara puas hati dan tidak sepanjang 100 hari YAB menerajui negara tercinta ini.

Kenapa bercampur-campur? Jawapan lazim tidak lain tidak bukan kerana dasar-dasar baru yang diperkenalkan masih di peringkat retorik walaupun ada yang sudah nampak konkrit. 1 Malaysia merupakan satu contoh klasik retorik peringkat tertinggi apabila YAB sendiri gagal menjawab dengan penuh menyakinkan apakah binatang 1 Malaysia itu. Macam-macam penjelasan dan kemudian penafian yang diberi oleh YAB dan rakan-rakan sekabinet, sebarisan dan sekepala.

Sedang ramai berkira-kira untuk merasa gembira apabila dilihat dan diberi ilusi negara ini sudah mula menuju ke arah pembentukan Bangsa Malaysia yang bersatu-padu di dalam erti kata sebenar. Kronologi selepasnya menidakkan seterusnya memberhentikan niat untuk merasai gembira yang sudah mula menjelma.

Bersyukurlah kerana rakyat Malaysia sangat penyabar dan pemaaf orangnya dan hal-hal yang sepertinya harapan palsu,contoh Reformasi 1998 & tsunami 8 Mac sudah menjadi amalan dalam bernegara. Bak kata YAB,  konsep 1 Malaysia ini tidak rigid dan begitulah juga proses politik negara ini yang hampir sama dan lebih memilih untuk berevolusi dari berevolusi.

Isu perkauman dan perpaduan melibatkan soal ekonomi, bahasa, budaya dan macam-macam lagi tidak akan selesai di dalam masa 100 hari. Namun demikian sepanjang 100 hari YAB memerintah Negara tercinta ini masih belum tergambar apakah hala tuju proses hubungan kaum yang semakin lama semakin terpecah berdasarkan kelas ekonomi, bahasa pertuturan dan pastinya warna kulit.

Isu pembatalan PPSMI yang diumumkan baru-baru ini tidak menyelesaikan banyak masalah melainkan menimbulkan lebih banyak suara-suara tidak berpuas hati di sana-sini terutamanya di kalangan masyarakat Bandar. Masyarakat kita sudah terpisah dua kerana PPSMI yang diperkenalkan oleh Tun Dr. Mahathir.

Isu-isu tradisi yang sering dibawa oleh Pakatan Rakyat seperti kebebasan media, kebebasan berhimpun dan kewujudan akta-akta yang mengekang seperti Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri, Akta Penerbitan & Media Cetak, Akta Pertubuhan, Akta Kolej Universiti dan Universiti dan beberapa lagi masih belum dilihat penting dan segera oleh pemerintahan YAB.

Walaupun majoriti rakyat lebih mementingkan isu ekonomi dan perut berbanding hal-hal seperti ini, tidaklah itu bermakna pemerintahan YAB harus menutup mata membiarkan unsur-unsur yang membunuh demokasi ini dibiarkan hidup sepanjang hayat Negara.

Sisi-sisi positif awal yang dapat dilihat sepanjang 100 hari YAB memerintah adalah sessi berjalan-jalan di tempat-tempat tumpuan rakyat seperti di Puduraya, Jalan Petaling, Brickfields dan beberapa lagi. Walaupun ada yang mengata ia sekadar mengaburi mata, ia sebenarnya amat penting sekali untuk melihat secara berdepan masalah yang dihadapi rakyat jelata. Cuma soalnya di sini susulan selepas lawatan yang harus diberi perhatian penuh supaya rakyat-rakyat yang teruja itu tidak merasa diperbodohkan.

Pengenalan dasar meritokrasi di dalam pemberian biasiswa dan liberalisasi ekonomi yang diperkenalkan walaupun mengundang pelbagai pro dan kontra dilihat amat positif oleh rakyat. Walaupun Pakatan Rakyat sering dicerca sebagai pengkhianat kaum Melayu apabila dasar yang serupa yang mungkin lebih baik dijaja sebagai umpan pilihan raya, tindakan sama tidak pula dikenakan kepada YAB. Maknanya rakyat sebenarnya tiada masalah selagi mana keadilan sosial  dipraktikkan walaupun ianya datang baik dari Barisan Nasional mahupun Pakatan Rakyat.

Menjadi harapan saya untuk 100 hari yang mendatang agar YAB dapat melakukan sesuatu yang revolusioner dan evolusioner seperti pemansuhan Akta ISA, mengembalikan demokrasi di Perak, berlaku adil terhadap negeri-negeri yang diperintah PR, membebaskan media (tidakkah YAB dengki melihat kebebasan media dan pemilu di Indonesia?) dan menumpukan sepenuh perhatian terhadap ekonomi rakyat, rakyat dan rakyat.

July 12, 2009

Najib not going to win brownie points

by Khoo Kay Peng*

Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak has announced some ‘goodies’ to mark his 100th day in office. It is best for his supporters not to go overboard and overly generous with their praises. The fact is he did not make any major announcements or address any key areas, as claimed by certain newspapers.

Some of his announcements are noteworthy but most of them are not going to bring any significant changes to the social, economic and political landscape in the country. The 20 percent discount given to frequent toll roads’ users, limited to those using SmartTag and Touch ‘n Go cards, does not help to address the root cause of lopsided privatisation contracts signed between the government and the operators. It was not made clear whether the discount is given by the operators or the government may end up having to compensate them for the lost revenue.

Most of the announcements are not extraordinary. Halving the licensing renewal fee for petty traders and hawkers in Kuala Lumpur, providing low-cost housing to low income families, facilitating applications for registration of births in Sabah and Sarawak, construction of roads and public amenities in Sabah and Sarawak and offering additional 3,000 individual taxi permits are things any government should do without the need to make any fuss about them.

Only in Malaysia, such announcements are considered ‘goodies’ and ’special gifts’ generously handed out to the people by its supreme leader. I would like to offer the prime minister a free advice. He should really avoid making such populist announcements because they are not going to win him any brownie points.

There is a growing political maturity amongst many urban Malaysians. Such announcements will not make him look generous, caring or people friendly. Instead, they only help to expose his inability to focus on real fundamental issues facing the nation and its people.

Serious bottleneck in economy

The prime minister and his teams of experts should put more thoughts and efforts into our economic development. The economic structure is clearly facing a serious bottleneck. Our efforts to market Malaysia as a high-tech hub and a knowledge-based economy are not bearing the desired results.

The main problem highlighted by many organisations, both local and foreign, is a lack of skilled workers. What is the government’s strategy to help retain and grow our skilled labour pool?

The government’s continuous education policy flip-flop is going to invoke a high cost on the society. It means our hope to enhance the knowledge capital of our workforce will be severely dented and any new plan to help improve the quality of our education system can only be done after 2012.

Closer to the economic front, none of our plans – five-year plans or otherwise – seemed to work. There is a dire need to rethink a new growth strategy for our economic development. None of our newly developed industrial parks and hubs – Cyberjaya, Port Klang Free Zone and the various corridors – is showing any sign of success yet.

Our tourism development strategy focuses more on promotion and advertisement rather than the development of world-class tourism products and the improvement of public amenities to support tourism. The appointment of Jean Todt, the ex-CEO of Ferrari, is not going to save the industry. Again, it only exposes a lack of new ideas to help develop the sector.

Issues that Najib has ignored

As a veteran, the prime minister should do better than just the 11 announcements made to mark his 100th day in office. On race relations, he should strive to introduce a race relations legislation to protect the people from unfair and unjust racial profiling and abuses. He should also try to introduce a new coalition formula for Barisan Nasional.

Any political party or coalition must evolve with the changing requirements and expectations of the society. The BN political structure does not help to promote true nation building. On many occasions, it was detrimental to national unity by protecting and condoning overt ethno-nationalism, race supremacy, religious exclusivity and nepotism.

In the early days of his premiership, Najib had touched on the need for BN to change. Sadly, he failed to walk his talk in his first 100 days. He should spend a great deal of speech on the need to explore meaningful socio-political changes to help steer the society towards a less racialised and polarised future.

Najib spoke casually on his intention to combat crime and fight corruption but stopped short of providing us with the details. I support the prime minister’s intention to address these two key issues.

But to address these two issues, his administration must first strengthen the relevant public institutions which are directly responsible to carry out their duties to fight corruption and crime.

What are his plans to help restore public confidence in the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, the police and the judiciary? What had happened to the two royal commissions – the judiciary and police force? As a start, his administration should ensure a satisfactory closure to the two royal commissions. Will Najib address these issues in his next 100th day?

There are many more fundamental areas and important issues which were left unaddressed in his first 100th day such as the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) fiasco, custodial deaths, land scams, constitutional crisis in Perak power grab, dispute in using religious terms, repeal of draconian laws, et cetera. These issues cannot be swept under the carpet. They will return to haunt his premiership.

As a Malaysian, I would like the prime minister to do well. It is my citizenry duty to ensure that his leadership brings out the best in the country. There is no time for populist announcements, half-hearted reforms and insincere apple polishers.

*Khoo Kay Peng is a corporate consultant and an independent political analyst. He has a blog, Straight Talk.

razaleigh.com
Tengku Razaleigh’s official weblog

July 11, 2009

The NEP is over. We need a New Deal

by YBM Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah*

Thank you for inviting me to address you. It’s a pleasure to be here, and to learn from you. You have asked me to talk about Najib’s  First 100 Days, and this lecture is in a series called Straight Talk. I shall indeed speak plainly and directly.

Let me begin by disappointing you. I am not going to talk about Najib’s First 100 Days because it makes little sense to do so.

Former Malaysian Minister of Finance Tengku Razaleigh

Our governments are brought to power for five year terms through general elections. The present government was constituted after March 8, 2008 and Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak’s tenure as Prime Minister resulted from a so-called “smooth transfer of power” between the previous Prime Minister and himself that took a somewhat unsmooth twelve months to carry out. During those months, Najib took on the de facto leadership role domestically while Abdullah warmed our international ties. The first 100 days of this government went by unremarked sometime in June last year.

Not only is it somewhat meaningless to talk about Najib’s First 100 days, such talk buys into a kind of political silliness that we are already too prone to.  It has us imagine that the present government started work on April 2 and forget that it commenced work on March 8 last year and must be accountable for all that has been done or not done since then. It has us forget that in our system of parliamentary, constitutional democracy, governments are brought to power at general elections and must be held accountable for promises made at these elections. It leads us to forget that these promises, set out in election manifestos, are undertaken by political parties, not individuals, and are not trifles to be forgotten when there is a change of individual.

It is important that we remember these things, cultivate a more critical recollection of them, and learn to hold our leaders accountable to them, so that we are not perpetually chasing the slogan of the day, whether this be Vision 2020, Islam Hadhari or 1Malaysia. As PR Professionals, you would see my point immediately.  Slogans without substance undermine trust. That substance is made up of policies that have been thought through and are followed through. That substance is concrete and provided by results we can measure.

Whether or not some of our leaders are ready for it, we are maturing as a democracy.  We are beginning to evaluate our governments more by the results they deliver over time than by their rhetoric. As our increasingly well-educated and well-travelled citizens apply this standard, they force our politicians to think before they speak, and deliver before they speak again. As thinking Malaysians we should look for the policies, if any, behind the slogans. What policies are still in place and which have we abandoned? What counts as policy and who is consulted when it is made? How is a proposal formulated and specified and approved before it becomes policy, and by whom? What are the roles of party, cabinet, King and Parliament in this process? Must we know what it means before it is instituted or do we have to piece it together with guesswork? Do we even have a policy process?

The mandate Najib has taken up is the one given to Barisan Nasional under Abdullah Badawi’s leadership. BN was returned to power in the 12th General Elections on a manifesto promising Security, Peace and Prosperity. It is this manifesto against which the present administration undertook to be judged. The present government inherits projects and policies such as Islam Hadhari and Vision 2020. If these are still in place, how do they relate to each other and to 1 Malaysia? How do we evaluate the latest slogan against the fact of constitutional failure in Perak, the stench of corruption in the PKFZ project and reports of declining media freedom? What do we make of cynical political plays on racial unity against assurances that national unity is the priority?

It is not amiss to ask about continuity. We were told that the reason why we had to have a yearlong ‘transfer of power’ to replace the previous Prime Minster was so that we could have such policy continuity. The issues before the present BN government are not transformed overnight with a change of the man at the top.

Let me touch on one issue every Malaysian is concerned with: security. The present government made the right move in supporting the establishment of the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operations and Management of the Police in 2004. Responding to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, the government allocated the PDRM RM8 billion to upgrade itself under the 9th Malaysia Plan, a tripling of their allocation under the 8th Malaysia Plan.

Despite the huge extra amounts we are spending on policing, there has been no dent on our crime problem, especially in the Johor Bahru area, where it continues to make a mockery of our attempts to develop Iskandar as a destination for talent and investment.  Despite spending all this money, we have just been identified as a major destination for human trafficking by the US State Department’s 2008 Human Rights Watch. We are now in the peer group of Sudan, Saudi Arabia and North Korea for human trafficking. All over the world the organized cross-border activity of human trafficking feeds on the collusion of crime syndicates and corrupt law enforcement and border security officials.

Security is about more than just catching the criminals out there. It is also about the integrity of our own people and processes.  It is above all about uprooting corruption and malpractice in government agencies, especially in law enforcement agencies. I wish the government were as eager to face the painful challenge of reform as to spend money. The key recommendation of the Royal Commission was the formation of an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission. That has been shelved.

Royal Commissions and their findings are not to be trifled with and applied selectively. Their findings and recommendations are conveyed in a report submitted to the King, who then transmits them to the Government. Their recommendations have the status of instructions from the King. The recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Police have not been properly implemented.

The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Video clip might as well not have been conducted, because its findings have been completely ignored. Both Commissions investigated matters fundamental to law and order in this country: the capability and integrity of the police and of the judiciary. No amount of money thrown at the PDRM or on installing CCTV’s can make up for what happens to our security when our law enforcers and our judges are compromised.

Two Royal Commissions undertaken under the present government unearthed deep issues in the police and the judiciary and made recommendations with the King’s authority behind them, and they have been ignored. The public may wonder if the government is committed to peace and security if it cannot or will not address institutional rot in law enforcement and the rule of law.

The reform of the police and the judiciary has been on the present government’s To Do list for more than five years.

I want to reflect now upon where we stand today and how we might move forward. We are truly at a turning point in our history. Our political landscape is marked with unprecedented uncertainty. Nobody knows what the immediate future holds for us politically. This is something very new for Malaysians. The inevitability of a strong BN government figured into all political and economic calculations and provided a kind of stability to our expectations. Now that this is gone, and perhaps gone for good, we need a new basis for long-term confidence. No matter who wins the next General Election, it is likely to be with a slim majority. Whatever uncertainty we now face is likely to persist unless some sort of tiebreaker is found which gathers the overwhelming support of the people.

We need to trust less in personalities and more in policies, look less to politics and more to principle, less to rhetoric and more to tangible outcomes, less to the government of the day and more to enduring institutions, first among which must be the Federal Constitution.

We need an unprecedented degree of openness and honesty about what our issues are and what can be done; about who we are, and where we want to go. We need straight talk rather than slogans. We need to be looking the long horizon rather than occupying ourselves with media-generated milestones.

Those of us who think about the future of Malaysia have never been so restless. The mould of our past is broken, and there is no putting it back together again, but a new mould into which to pour our efforts is not yet cast. This is a time to think new thoughts, and to be courageous in articulating them.

Such is the case not just in politics but also in how the government manages the economy. In a previous speech I argued that for our economy to escape the “middle income trap” we need to make a developmental leap involving transformative improvements in governance and a successful reform of our political system. I said the world recession is a critical opportunity for us to re-gear and re-tool the Malaysian economy because it is a challenge to take bold, imaginative measures. We must make that leap or remain stuck as low achievers who were once promising.

We are in a foundational crisis both of our politics and of our economy. In both dimensions, the set plays of the past have taken us as far as they can, and can take us no further. Politically and economically, we have arrived at the end of the road for an old way of managing things. The next step facing us is not a step but a leap, not an addition to what we have but a shift that changes the very ground we play on.

This is not the first time in our brief history as an independent nation that we have found ourselves at an impasse and come up with a ground-setting policy, a new framework, a leap into the future. The race riots of 1969 ended the political accommodation and style of the first era of our independence. Parliament was suspended and a National Operations Council put in place under the leadership of the late Tun Razak. He formed a National Consultative Council (NCC) to study what needed to be done. The NCC was a non-partisan body which included everyone. It was the NCC that drafted and recommended the New Economic Policy. This was approved and implemented by the Government.

The NEP was a twenty year programme. It had a national, and not a racial agenda to eradicate poverty and address structural inequality in the form of the identification of race with occupation. It aimed to remove a colonial era distribution of economic roles in our economy. Nowhere in its terms is any race specified, nor does it privilege one race over another. Its aim was unity.

The NEP’s redistributive measures drew on principles of social justice, not claims of racial privilege. This is an important point. The NEP was acceptable to all Malaysians because its justification was universal rather than sectarian, ethical rather than opportunistic. It appealed to Malaysians’ sense of social justice and not to any notion of racial privilege.

We were devising a time-limited policy for the day, in pursuit of a set of measurable outcomes. We were not devising a doctrine for an eternal socio-economic arrangement. Like all policies, it was formulated to solve a finite set of problems, but through an enduring concern with principles such as equity and justice. I happen to think it was the right thing for the time, and it worked in large measure.

Curiously, although the policy was formulated within the broad consensus of the NCC for a finite period, in our political consciousness it has grown into an all-encompassing and permanent framework that defines who we are.  We continue to act and talk as if it is still in place. The NEP ended in 1991 when it was terminated and replaced by the New Development Policy, but eighteen years on, we are still in its hangover and speak confusingly about liberalizing it. The NEP was necessary and even visionary in 1971, but it is a crushing indictment of our lack of imagination, of the mediocrity of our leadership, that two decades after its expiry, we talk as if it is the sacrosanct centre of our socio-political arrangement, and that departures from it are big strides.

The NEP is over, and we have not had the courage to tell people this. The real issue is not whether the NEP is to be continued or not, but whether we have the  imagination to come up with something which better serves our values and objectives, for our own time.

Policies are limited mechanisms for solving problems. They become vehicles for abuse when they stay on past their useful life. Like political or corporate leaders who have stayed too long, policies that overrun their scope or time become entrenched in abuse, and confuse the means that they are with the ends that they were meant to serve. The NEP was formulated to serve the objective of unity. That objective is enduring, but its instrument can come up for renewal or replacement. Any organisation, let alone a country, that fails to renew a key policy over forty years in a fast-moving world is out of touch and in trouble.

There is a broad consensus in our society that while the NEP has had important successes, it has now degenerated into a vehicle for abuse and inefficiency. Neither the Malays nor the non-Malays approve of the way it now works, although there would be multiracial support for the objectives of the NEP, as originally understood. The enthusiasm with which recent reforms have been greeted in the business and international communities suggests that the NEP is viewed as an obstacle to growth. This was not what it was meant to be.

It was designed to promote a more equitable and therefore a more harmonious society. Far from obstructing growth, the stability and harmony envisaged by the NEP would were to be the basis for long term prosperity.

Over the years, however, and alongside its successes, the NEP has been systematically appropriated by a small political and business class to enrich itself and perpetuate its power. This process has corrupted our society and our politics. It has corrupted our political parties. Rent-seeking practices have choked the NEP’s original intention of seeking a more just and equitable society, and have discredited the broad nation-building enterprise which this policy was meant to serve.

Thus, while the NEP itself has expired, we live under the hangover of a policy which has been skewed from its intent. Instead of coming up with better policy tools in pursuit of the aims behind the NEP, a set of vested interests rallies to defend the mere form of the NEP and to extend its bureaucratic sway through a huge apparatus of commissions, agencies, licenses and permits while its spirit has been evacuated. In doing so they have clouded the noble aims of the NEP and racialized its originally national and universal concerns.

We must break the stranglehold of communal politics and racial policy if we want to be a place where an economy driven by ideas and skills can flourish. This is where our daunting economic and political challenges can be addressed in one stroke. We can do much better than cling to the bright ideas of forty years ago as if they were dogma, and forget our duty to come up with the bright ideas for our own time. The NEP, together with the Barisan coalition, was a workable solution for Malaysia forty years ago. But forty years ago, our population was about a third of what it is today, our economy was a fraction the size and complexity that it is now, and structured around the export of tin and rubber rather than around manufacturing, services and oil and gas.

Forty years ago we were in the midst of the Cold War, and the Vietnam War raged to the north. Need I say we live in a very different world today. We need to talk to the facebook generation of young Malaysians connected to global styles and currents of thought. We face global epidemics, economic downturns and planetary climate change.

We can do much better than to cling to the outer form of an old policy. Thinking in these terms only gives us the negative policy lever of “relaxing” certain rules, when what we need is a new policy framework, with 21st century policy instruments. We have relaxed some quotas. We have left Approved Permits and our taxi licensing system intact. We have left the apparatus of the NEP, and a divisive mindset that has grown up around it, in place.

Wary of well-intentioned statements with no follow-through, the business community has greeted these reforms cautiously, noting that a mountain of other reforms are needed. One banker was quoted in a recent news article as saying: “All the reforms need to go hand in hand..Why is there an exodus of talent and wealth? It is because people do not feel confident with the investment climate, security conditions and the government in Malaysia. Right now, many have lost faith in the system.”

The issues are intertwined. Our problems are systemic and rooted in the capability of the government to deliver, and the integrity of our institutions. It is clear that piecemeal “liberalization” and measure by measure reform on a politicized timetable is not going to do the job.

What we need is a whole new policy framework, based on a comprehensive vision that addresses root problems in security, institutional integrity, education and government capability. What we need to do is address our crisis with the bold statecraft from which the NEP itself originated, not cling to a problematic framework that does little justice to our high aspirations. The challenge of leadership is to tell the truth about our situation, no matter how unpalatable, to bring people together around that solution, and to move them to act together on that solution.

If the problem is really that we face a foundational crisis, then it is not liberalization of the NEP, or even liberalization per se that we need. From the depths of the global economic slowdown it is abundantly clear that the autonomous free market is neither equitable nor even sustainable. There is no substitute for putting our heads together and coming up with wise policy. We need a Malaysian New Deal based on the same universal concerns on which the NEP was originally formulated but designed for  a new era: we must continue to eradicate poverty without regard for race or religion, and ensure that markets serve the people rather than the other way around.

Building on the desire for unity based social justice that motivated the NEP in 1971, let us assist 100% of Malaysians who need help in improving their livelihoods and educating their children. We want the full participation of all stakeholders in our economy. A fair and equitable political and economic order, founded on equal citizenship as guaranteed in our Constitution, is the only possible basis for a united Malaysia and a prerequisite of the competitive, talent-driven economy we must create if we are to make our economic leap.

If we could do this, we would restore national confidence, we would bring Malaysians together in common cause to build a country that all feel a deep sense of belonging to. We would unleash the kind of investment we need, not just of foreign capital but of the loyalty, effort and commitment  of all Malaysians.

I don’t know about you. I am embarrassed that after fifty years of independence we are still talking about bringing Malaysians together. I would have wished that by now, and here tonight, we could be talking about how we can conquer new challenges together.

* This talk was delivered on July 10, 2009, at HELP University College, Damansara, Kuala Lumpur to a gathering of PR Consultants. I was asked to address the topic “Najib’s 100 Days”