OPEN LETTER to Tun Dr. Mahathir Bin Mohamad

April 14, 2015

OPEN LETTER to Tun Dr. Mahathir Bin Mohamad

by Din Merican

Rosmah-Mansor-Perdana-MenteriBoleh ka?

As someone who admires you over many years, it pains me to read about your political tussle with the incumbent Prime Minister, Dato Seri Najib Tun Razak, concerning his administration. It is also sad to note that our Prime Minister has not responded satisfactorily to issues you raised with regard to 1MDB financial affairs, the brutal murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu, the Mongolian model, and the management of the Malaysian economy.

Most of us agree that the Najib administration is incompetent, inept and corrupt. But there are some differences of opinion about whether he should resign or stay in office. Apparently, UMNO, of which Dato’ Seri Najib is President, is solidly behind him. Key leaders of the party including his predecessor, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, the Youth Wing, and your critics in UMNO have pledged their support.

Najib is confident he can hold his own against your incessant attacks and those of pro-Mahathir bloggers like Dato Kadir Jasin  and  Syed Outside the Box, among others, that he can ignore you and allow his supporters to launch  a series of counter-attacks against you and your associates. You have been checkmated by a much younger leader and consummate politician who inherited a powerful office from you. Najib knows power and he knows how to use it.

In Kedah, there has been some moves to ask your son, Menteri Besar, Kedah Dato Seri Mukhriz Mahathir to step down from his post.  Najib cannot be dislodged from office without a “smoking gun” with regard to various allegations against him. It is not likely that people in his party will come forth to provide irrefutable evidence of his wrongdoings.

Allegations will remain allegations and there is no way you and your supporters can convince us at this stage that he should be asked to resign. In fact, what I see is that unlike Tun Abdullah, he is determined to cling to power and fight those who are bent on his removal.  With the levers of power and money at his disposal, the odds of success are stacked in his favour.

Why is this so? My answer is a simple one. You made it possible and are now witnessing the consequences of your craftsmanship. While you were in power (1981- 2003), you were able to create an all powerful Executive Branch, making the Judiciary (with the dismissal of Lord President Tun Salleh Abas in 1988), Parliament, the much respected civil service, the Police and the Armed Forces subservient to the Prime Minister. Our system of checks and balances in public administration was destroyed.

You were also fortunate that there was no internet and that prevented us from knowing quickly about the major scandals such as Maminco, Bank Negara forex losses, and Perwaja, that occurred during your administration. It will be a gargantuan effort to change our political culture.

Malaysians are basically timid. We especially the Malays have been conditioned by Tun Dr. Mahathir (refer to his controversial book, The Malay Dilemma and Dr. Syed Hussein’s critique of it in his book, The Myth of the Lazy Native)  have been conditioned to think that we have dilemmas. In truth, we all want  progress and modernisation, and  shun ignorance and backwardness.

At the party level, you removed promising leaders like Tun Musa Hitam and Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah  who were a threat to you and created UMNO Baru after your own image to replace the outlawed UMNO. What is worse is that you killed democracy in UMNO Baru by amending  the constitution to ensure that it would be impossible for the posts of President and Deputy President to be challenged in  party elections.

So today, the President in office holds absolute power over the party. No challenge is possible and that,  in  my humble opinion, is your legacy. You have to learn to accept this for a fact and that is Najib is today the most powerful man in our country.

Najib will use this power at his disposal to check all attempts to force his resignation. It is the most rational option available to him. You would have done the same, and did that before when you were UMNO President and Prime Minister. All those from within the party and outside who had the courage and nerve to oppose you were removed, sidelined, or sent to Kamunting under the Internal Security Act (Ops Lalang). You would not broach any opposition and  your actions deformed our polity.

It is time for you, Tun,  to apologise to the nation and then right your political mistakes. You must do it now and stay the course in this political battle against Najib Tun Razak. Let us see what you can really do since the odds of success are  not with you today. You have become an ordinary citizen like me with the right to vote in any general election. There is little else you can do except to make a lot of noise.

Book Review: Hun Sen’s Cambodia

April 14, 2015


Hun Sen’s Cambodia

by John Bethelsen

In the western mind, as Sebastian Strangio so eloquently writes, Cambodia remains “nearly synonymous with the terror and mass murder that engulfed the country in the mid-1970s, when the Khmer Rouge seized power and embarked on a radical experiment in communism.”

Hun Sen's CambodiaThe country has struggled on from that period, modernizing and tearing down its forests, building dams and highways, destroying the gorgeous traditional architecture that once characterized Phnom Penh for the same faceless high-rises that have peopled so many Asian cities at the same time millions of tourists stream to the magnificent temple complex at Angkor Wat.

But in the 35 years since that devastating period, which took the lives of an estimated 2 million people in a senseless bloodletting on the part of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, the country has continued to attempt vainly to cope with its past. The United States especially, and other western powers should struggle with their own disgraceful role in that past, backing the murderous Khmer Rouge in a misguided attempt to contain the Vietnamese and their supposed ties to the then Soviet Union.

 Hun Sen, who has ruled the country for 25 of those years, has seen to it that except for one or two superannuated leaders, the rank and file have escaped judgment for their crimes. After negotiations got the trials back on track, “the only trial the United Nations wanted was one Hun Sen could not control.  The only trial Hun Sen wanted was one he could.”

The result is a country that has never come to terms with what happened. “There is no doubt Cambodia is in need of some sort of a reckoning, Strangio writes. “If there is one unifying theme to the country’s relationship with its ghastly past, it is this profound lack of resolution. After overthrowing the Khmer Rouge in 1979, the ruling CPP promoted rituals of remembering, but also of forgetting.”

Most of the survivors have simply picked up the pieces and moved on as best they could, some finding consolation in Buddhism and others simply choosing silence.

Much of the country’s recent history has been dominated by the presence of hundreds, perhaps thousands of foreign NGO workers attempting to rebuild the institutions that were simply demolished as Pol Pot set out in his appalling attempt to revolutionize the country. About a third of the foreign aid goes ‘technical assistance,’ “the hiring of highly paid foreign development consultants to write reports and project assessments,” he writes. “In 2002, donors paid 700 international consultants an estimated $50-70 million, an amount roughly equivalent to the wage bills of 160,000 Cambodian civil servants.” Dependence on this foreign ‘consultariat’ means that large amounts of aid simply flow back out of the country.”

That has meant that the country today is stuck in what Strangio calls a “dependence spiral,” in which the lack of government capacity to run it is matched by continuing aid disbursals.

“What started out as an investment in Cambodia’s future has evolved into an entrenched development complex that has eroded democracy, undermined the livelihoods of the poor, and given powerful elites a free hand to keep plundering the nation’s resources for their own gain.”

Nonetheless, the presence of those myriad international aid workers has managed to keep some rein on Hun Sen’s proclivities towards dictatorship. Cambodian society, Strangio points out, is considerably freer than most Asian nations, with “fewer political prisoners than China, Vietnam or Burma.  It jails fewer bloggers than Thailand or Vietnam and prosecutes fewer journalists than Singapore.”

More than 2,600 NGOs are registered with the government, 80 percent of them local. Civil society groups employ 42,000 people “who are involved in every conceivable area of government from good governance land rights, environmental conservation and gender equality to health care, anti-human trafficking and wildlife rescue. They work tirelessly to monitor and document government abuses of every sort and their reports are transmitted via a vigilant English language press.”

But it is difficult to call Cambodia a democracy. “Twenty years after the UN jump-started civil society in Cambodia, it lives on under Hun Sen as a mirage for the benefit of well-intentioned foreigners and donor governments.  While Cambodia remains freer than many other Asian countries, the outcome is a purposefully selective freedom.  Indeed, few countries have seen such a wide gap between norms and realities.”

But, as he points out, the mirage of democracy is clearly better than no democracy at all although it is a mirage nonetheless. While the NGOs have fought to clean up the unspeakable disaster that Cambodia was left with in 1979, the country more than anything else has swung back to being what it was prior to the enlightened leadership of Norodom Sihanouk, the modernizing, quixotic and beloved king who walked a decades-long tightrope between the contending powers that sought to impose their will on it.

There is undeniable change.  The young have had enough of Hun Sen and, in 2013 elections, almost certainly would have thrown him out if the election had been anything near free and fair.

But today, “If the past 30 years of Cambodian history have shown anything, it is that political changes imposed from the outside are often superficial, and only last as long as foreigners can bring political leverage to bear on the country’s leaders,” he writes. “Outside attention is refocusing. With growing aid and support from China, Hun Sen and the Cambodian People’s Party have an escape hatch from western pressure.  Twenty years ago it might have seemed if Cambodia lay in a democratic slipstream. Now it seems like the dream of a half-forgotten age.”

Cambodia has been the subject of a long list of very good books since William Shawcross published his brilliant “Sideshow” in 2002. This is an articulate and valuable addition to that library, by a longtime resident and former Phnom Penh Post reporter who struggles, in 322 pages, to come to his own conclusions about the cataclysm that overtook a gorgeous country and which continues to play itself out today as the Chinese especially increase their sway.

Advice for Malaysian Politicians–Think Before You Speak

April 13, 2015

Advice for Malaysian Politicians–Think Before You Speak

by Scott Ng @www,


There have lately been ministers who were “misquoted”, especially when their statements caused an uproar for – well, let’s face it – the sheer utter inanity of their own words. It’s become quite par for the course for a BN minister to make a statement and then realise that he has put his foot in his mouth after social media and civil society inevitably erupt with criticism. And then he would say he had been misquoted to make him look bad.

And these eminent people would be right to complain, had they actually not said those things. This makes me wonder about the quality of some of the biggest names in power. All claim to be highly educated or qualified in certain fields, and yet cannot seem to string together sentences in an inoffensive manner.

Perhaps this comes from not doing research on the matter at hand or not thinking long and hard before speaking. Nonetheless, you’d expect an elected representative to do better when addressing the public. After all, a politician lives and dies by his words, and mastery of public relations skills is a must for anyone who attempts to address a group of people, much less a nation.

It doesn’t matter that you spoke for X amount of hours on topic Y, because when you say something so undeniably ridiculous the people and the media cannot resist pouncing on such an easy target.

One example is Ahmad Maslan’s suggestion to university students to cook their own meals. Now, this would be a perfectly sensible suggestion, if one did not consider the extenuating circumstances around campus life. For one, you can cook only if one is in a kitchen, and rented house or not, universities tend to be some distance from a house, and classes are sometimes at odd hours. We also have to remember that whatever spare time a student has is usually put into studying.

Of course, there’s also the teensy, tiny little fact that you can’t cook on campus or in campus housing, where the other half of the student population stays.

Now, the brickbats hurled at such an ill-considered suggestion have led to Maslan complaining on television that we’re being unfair to him. To a certain extent, of course, trial by public opinion is often an unfair process. But can you blame people who are struggling to make ends meet for being frustrated with our ministers being so seemingly out of touch with the real world when what we need are men of the people who can give out well-reasoned advice and show sympathy with us in difficult times?

Don’t even get me started on how much ministers will protest about being misquoted when the GST inevitably causes horrible inflation.

It’s almost mind blowing, really, for our ministers to continually use the term “misquoted” in defending themselves. That speaks of a careless, laissez faire attitude that is endemic to being privileged and pampered, and our ministers and politicians ( of both sides of the political divide) really need to get in touch with the people if they want to have any hope of public approval. Until that fateful day, it is going to be a fact of life for our politicians that they will be castigated and reviled for failing to recognise the needs of the people.

Ismail Sabri on Najib

We’ve gone on time and time again on how we need a better class of politicians, and this is proof beyond proof that pampered elites need to get their shoes scuffed and soiled once in a while, or else they will forget how real life plays out for a normal person. One can only hope then that we won’t see the word “misquoted” bandied about by those who fail to properly consider the words coming out of their mouths.

Najib hangs on to power

April 12, 2015

Najib hangs on to power by outflanking and confounding his political foes and detractors

Najib and 1MDBGiven the wide array of scandals nipping at his heels, eroding electoral support and powerful foes inside his own ruling party, it might be reasonable to question how Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak manages to fend off his critics and stay in power.

But there he is. Defying the expectations even of his rivals, Najib retains his hold on the machinery of the United Malays National Organization, with some of his staunchest foes giving up on their dreams of booting him out of the premier’s job. The latest to throw in the towel is Deputy PM and UMNO Vice President Muhyiddin Yassin, say sources in Kuala Lumpur.

The 67-year-old Muhyiddin, who hardly qualifies as a reform candidate himself, is not the only one to attempt the overthrow. Former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has been trying to do the same thing since August, 2014 with the help of former Finance Minister Daim Zainuddin and an army of bloggers led by A. Kadir Jasin, the former editor of the New Straits Times newspaper group. The opposition, led by the Democratic Action Party’s Tony Pua and Rafizi Ramli of the Parti Keadilan Rakyat, has clearly delineated major scandals, only to be investigated by officials for sedition and other charges. Rafizi has spent the weekend in jail for alleged sedition.

Najib has been under fire from within his own party because of the loss by the national ruling coalition of the popular vote in the 2013 general election for the first time since 1969 although it maintained power through gerrymandering. He is also the author of a long string of scandals going back to his period as defense minister. He has undergone scathing criticism for allegations of vast mismanagement of the 1MDB state investment fund, which has billions of ringgit in unfunded liability.  His wife’s profligate spending, which seems impossible to inventory adequately from a husband who has spent his life in public service, has also enraged critics.

The money river flows

The reason that Najib is unassailable, however, is the unceasing river of money that flows from government coffers to UMNO cadres. Thus the unanimous confidence vote in early March, when the prime minister called together 160 of the 191 UMNO division chiefs to a party meeting in Kuala Lumpur. That was followed [by] a strong confidence vote from other component Barisan parties.  It is money that not only appears at election time, to pay for lunches or small items like tin roofs for constituents whose kampung houses leak, but pays them wages between elections.

The payments are made through various government agencies including the Village Security and Development Committee, to which the cadres are appointed. They are also appointed to four propaganda agencies under the Ministry of Information, Communication and Culture, which have offices in each of Malaysia’s 13 states and three federal territories. The bulk of the money to support these propaganda agencies comes from the 1MDB Foundation, from which more than RM1 billion was siphoned off, purportedly for charity work, a well-placed source told Asia Sentinel.


In addition there are contracts, such as the “Cowgate” one handed to Shahrizat Abdul Jalil, the minister for women, family and community that in 2012 resulted in accusations that funds meant for a cattle project resulted in personal use of RM250 million to pay for condominiums, vacations and a Mercedes-Benz, among many other irregularities.  Rafizi, the PKR secretary-general, has been charged with violations of the banking and financial securities act for revealing the details of the scandal in addition to a wide range of other charges including those mentioned above for sedition.

The money also flows to Barisan partners, who have made an even bigger mess of things. In 2007, the Malaysian Chinese Association was handed the chance by the Barisan to develop the Port Klang Free Zone, but which because of corruption ended up with unfunded liabilities of billions of ringgit because of cost overruns and crookedry resulting from the fraudulent valuation of land underlying the project.  Five people have been arrested, none of them prominent MCA figures.

The Master of Money Politics

Thus money politics is hardly new but Najib is a master of it. He was the country’s longest-serving minister for defense, first from 1991 to 1995, then from 2000 to 2008, when he became prime minister. As defense minister, he oversaw the modernization of the country’s military to the tune of billions of dollars. Three contracts in particular stand out.  One was for the purchase of navy patrol boats, a second for Russian Sukhoi jet fighters and the third was the notorious purchase of Scorpene submarines. Together, those contracts are said to have produced at least US$300 million for UMNO cronies and others, in addition to the amount that probably rubbed off on Najib himself.Asia Sentinel

– See more at:

WATCH this speech by Rafizi Ramli– The Sedition Act is an instrument that will be available to the Prime Minister. The long term impact of the revised Act–Self Censorship for Malaysians. Bad news.

POTA violating laws, rights in terrorism fight

April 12, 2015

POTA violating laws, rights in terrorism fight

COMMENT: The Malaysian Bar, the Sabah Law Association, and the Advocates’ Association of Sarawak vehemently oppose all forms of detention without trial, and view the passage into law of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015 (“Pota”) in the early hours of 7 April 2015 with grave concern.

POTA is clearly an attempt by the government to resurrect the Internal Security Act 1960 (“ISA”), Restricted Residence Act 1933, Banishment Act 1959, and Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969.

POTA is objectionable, ignores due process, infringes upon our constitutional rights, and is repugnant to the rule of law.

POTA brings about the re-emergence of detention without trial laws, the limiting or denial of legal representation, and the ouster of the jurisdiction of the courts.

Ill-defined targets

POTA is unclear in its scope inasmuch as it is directed at an ill-defined group of persons. It is purportedly directed at persons who are “engaged in the commission or support of terrorist acts involving listed terrorist organisations in a foreign country or any part of a foreign country”.

However, words like “engaged”, “commission”, “support” and “involving” have not been defined in POTA.  Thus, the reach of the legislation is extremely wide and lends itself to abuse.

It opens up the real possibility that almost anyone could be targeted under POTA. It cannot be conveniently seen as simply targeting “terrorists”.

We have seen how the ISA, which had been meant to deal with the communist insurgency, was used to stifle political dissent and imprison political opponents. POTA gives false hope in the exclusion of “political belief and political activity” as a ground for detention.

Organisations not registered as political parties under the Societies Act 1966, or not registered under the Societies Act 1966 at all, may be subjected to the wide powers of POTA.

We also note that in the past, politicians and political activists had been detained under the ISA for activities that were nonetheless viewed as prejudicial to national security or public order.

We fear POTA will be similarly abused as a tool for political oppression.

Executive taking over judicial powers

The Malaysian Bar, the Sabah Law Association and the Advocates’ Association of Sarawak are also very troubled by the encroachment into judicial discretion in criminal matters.

POTA, a person can initially be remanded for investigative detention for a maximum of 60 days. A magistrate has no discretion to refuse a request for remand, and is reduced to rubber-stamping requests by the police and Public Prosecutor.

Likewise, a Sessions Court Judge has no discretion to refuse any application by the public prosecutor to order that an accused person be attached with an electronic monitoring device.  Discretionary powers that exist to enable the judiciary to confront the excesses of the executive are now effectively extinguished.

The intrusion on judicial discretion permitted by Pota is serious, as it is tantamount to vesting judicial power in the executive.  We remind the government that under our constitutional scheme, judicial power is vested in the Judiciary, and the vesting of judicial powers in any other body is unconstitutional.

Rights of arrested denied

Further, there is no provision for the person remanded to be informed of the grounds of arrest, nor is there any guarantee that legal representation will be allowed. This is because the police are prone to applying the exclusion under section 28A(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code to deny access to legal representation.

This is another serious matter, as access to legal representation for persons facing serious allegation of terrorism and the prospect of loss of liberty should not be denied.

Pota also confers draconian powers on the inquiry officer – who is not expressly defined in Pota – tasked with investigating the allegations against the accused person and presenting the evidence to the prevention of terrorism board (“POTB”).  In this regard the normal rules of evidence and criminal procedure are excluded, and the inquiry officer may procure evidence by any means.

The inquiry officer then presents his/her report to POTB and there is no provision for POTB to inquire into the report or require further investigation. POTB has extensive powers – it may grant a detention order of up to two years, or a restricted residence order of up to five years.

These periods of detention or restricted residence may be subsequently renewed for an indeterminate period.

These orders are to be made by POTB without due process, inasmuch as the accused person is denied the right to make any legal representation to the POTB.

Secret hearings

Next, the argument that POTA cannot be compared with the ISA because it is no longer the Minister of Home Affairs who decides on the detention or restriction order, is specious.

Members of the POTB are appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (but following convention, upon the advice of the government) and can be dismissed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong at any time.

This absence of security of tenure undermines whatever independence POTB purports to have.  Only the chairman is required to have legal experience, and there is no provision that he or she must be, or must be qualified to be, a judge. We have seen from the practice of the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 that the names of the members of the prevention of crime board have not been made public.

It is likely to be no different for members of POTB. The fact that POTB hearings will not be held in public means, in effect, that POTA will allow secret hearings by a secret panel. There will be no transparency.

One of the most offensive aspects of POTA is its absolute ouster of judicial scrutiny. No judicial review of the detention order or the restriction order is possible. This is an affront to the Judiciary and is further contrary to article 8 of the federal constitution, which guarantees equality and equal protection before the law.

The small concession that courts can review procedural compliance is illusory in practice since POTB determines its own procedures.

Violating laws to fight terrorism

The Malaysian Bar, the Sabah Law Association and the Advocates’ Association of Sarawak take the view that the answer to the fight against terrorism does not lie in oppressive laws that violate our adherence to the rule of law, due process and constitutional safeguards.

The war against terrorism requires the strengthening of our ability to detect, gather evidence, investigate and deal with the threat of terrorism in a holistic manner.  We must eschew shortcuts or quick fixes that seemingly provide short-term solutions but no long-term result.

We are aware of the evolving threat of global terrorism and the efforts by the government to adapt in order to counter it domestically.

We are supportive of these efforts, but maintain that the war on terrorism must be won without compromising the rule of law, human rights and principles of natural justice.

The Malaysian Bar, the Sabah Law Association and the Advocates’ Association of Sarawak reject this attempt by the government to revive detention without trial, repeated renewals of such detention, the ouster of the jurisdiction of the judiciary, and the limitation or denial of the rights of suspected persons to due process of law.

We urge the government to withdraw POTA from being tabled in the Dewan Negara.

The statement is jointly issued by STEVEN THIRU, president of the Malaysian Bar, GBB NANDY @ GAANESH, president of the Sabah Law Association and LEONARD SHIM of the Advocates’ Association of Sarawak.

Fa Abdul’s Open Letter to Prime Minister Najib: 20 Questions

April 12, 2015

Fa Abdul’s Open Letter to Prime Minister Najib: 20 Questions

Rosmah-Mansor-Perdana-MenteriDear PM,

It was a pleasant surprise to read about your planned defamation suit against Nga Kor Ming, the head of Perak DAP, for making baseless allegations of your beloved wife. I have always believed that a good husband shall always protect and care for his wife and family. You have proven to be a loving husband to Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor. Alhamdulillah.

It is my wish that you could also show similar love and care towards us, your people. Numerous times you have spoken of your role as the protector of the people but sadly we have yet to see the proof of your words.

While interviewed on a televised talk show last Thursday night, you made a clear statement once again that your loyalty is towards the people and your party and that therefore you felt justified in not being answerable to anyone but the people and your party.

Thus, as one of your humble people, Datuk Seri, I would like to seek some clarifications. My questions below are not meant as a provocation. I only seek the truth, Yang Berhormat.

I hope you would take your time to answer these questions and not regard them as rubbish in their coming from a nobody. I may be a nobody to you, Datuk Seri, but I am also one of the people to whom you pledged your loyalty.

These are my 20 questions.

1. Were you given the list of questions prior to your interview on TV3 last Thursday? Did you go through the text to filter its content, enabling you to respond accordingly?

2. Why were the guests to your daughter’s wedding asked not to snap any pictures or share them on social media?

3. Why is it of great importance for you to purchase your 7th private jet now, given that 1MDB hasn’t even been liquidated yet?

4. Why was Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor seen chairing many Cabinet meetings as alleged in Nga Kor Ming’s circulating pictures?

5. Why do you think Sirul and Azilah killed Altantuya Shariibu?

6. Do you think it fair and just to provide the same amount of BR1M to families with RM800 income per month and to those with RM3000 per month?

7. Is it true that there is a Myanmar village set up near Pekan Nanasi, Pekan, Pahang where Myanmar nationals were given MyKad, houses to stay, a motorcycle per family and job at the pineapple estate?

8. As a Muslim, do you support hudud? If yes, why are your wife and daughter not in their hijab?

9. Do you regard Malaysia as an Islamic country? If yes, how do you justify Malaysia as an Islamic country when your party members do not adhere to the Islamic law and Muslim VIPs are selected as directors in corporations involved in non-halal product trading?

10. How do you define racism? Why did you choose to keep silent over racist remarks uttered by Perkasa, Isma, Ridhuan Tee and some of your ministers?

11. Do you think it is wise to have 126,000 Police personnel watching over social media while our country combats crime on the street?

12. What is the core purpose of the Sedition Act? Don’t you think the Sedition Act has been used more widely against ordinary Malaysians frustrated with the administration of the country, compared to any actually spreading hatred among the nation?

13. Why do you think Malaysia is importing more foreign workers? Are we facing shortage of labour? Have you considered fixing a minimum wage system and absorbing our very own Malaysians into the labour market?

14. If you were the Education Minister, what would you do to improve the quality of our education system?

15. Do you think it justifiable for MPs to receive increased salaries and allowances? Why do you choose to consider increments for MPs while ignoring calls to raise our stagnant salaries in accordance with the rising living costs?

16. Why is Malaysia still a non-signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol? We have more than 100,000 refugees above the age of 18 in our country, yet they are not allowed to work legally. Don’t you think using them as a labour force would be more beneficial to our nation compared to continuously importing more foreign workers?

17. What do you think of the video evidence by Global Witness which revealed how (then Sarawak Chief Minister) Abdul Taib Mahmud’s family members and business associates abuse logging licences to enrich themselves? Why have you not taken any actions based on the undeniable evidence?

18. Why are forest reserves being leased to foreign companies, namely China? Whatever happened to the Aboriginal People’s Act 1954 which gives the Orang Asli legal rights to the land occupied by their ancestors?

19. Is BN being transparent in managing the country? If yes, why are the public the last to find out about the government multimillion projects, and only after implementation?

20. What actions have been taken based on the annual reports by the Auditor-General regarding mishandling of government funds? Perhaps you may begin with National Feedlot Corporation (NFC).

I thank you for taking your time to read my questions, Yang Berhormat. I urge the people of Malaysia to submit their questions as well, since you have given us your word that your loyalty and priority is us. I shall wait patiently for your reply.

“Kalau kerbau dipegang pada talinya, manusia dipegang pada katanya.”

Thank you.


Fa Abdul.