Shameful Injustice


January 20, 2017

Shameful Injustice

by KJ John@www,malaysiakini.com

What is the cost of one human life? What if the person is an Islamic State (IS) terrorist? Does his life cost any less? What if the person is a Palestinian? What about an Israeli? Are there different rules of human value for different peoples? What would be that basis? Would it be colour or ethnicity or looks or brains? What then do we humanly mean by rule of law, in any state; is it not more like, all men are brothers, but some are more equal than others?

Recently, a court in Israel found a soldier “guilty of manslaughter, rather than murder”. I do not know the full facts of the case, nor am I really too interested in specifics, but suffice to know that I heard three versions of news reports on the matter; from Al Jazeera, BBC and CNN. To me, it was a simple case story of an act of cold-blooded murder.

Image result for Israeli soldier who shot a wounded Palestinian

Elor Azria was the Israeli soldier charged with manslaughter after shooting a prone and wounded Palestinian assailant in the head.

All three channels spoke of “obvious and willing killing of the injured Palestinian with a shot through his forehead by that lone soldier”. It was a military court in Israel that found him guilty of manslaughter but my question is, why was it re-framed as “manslaughter” when it was obvious that the criminally convicted soldier knew that the Palestinian was already badly injured and “essentially captured”?

But this soldier still chose to put a bullet through the Palestinian’s forehead. Did we not already deal with such concerns at the Nuremberg Trials? Adolf Eichmann claimed he was following orders and was declared guilty by an Israeli court.

Culture of closing one-eye on facts

The scientific method of verification of truths in a modern court is based on two equally rational systems of fact-finding; one based on evidence-based facts, and then there is a due process of rule-making and decision-taking but all designed to questioning and challenging these methods for certainty assertion. The judges decide finally.

Therefore, when all such due processes are followed, in all matters, the question of how the judgment is received is moot and quite irrelevant! But, in the above specific case, my concern is that “the system had compromised justice even before the case started”. Why do I say this?

Image result for Chelsea Manning and President Barack Obama

Private Chelsea Manning who leaked classified information to Wikileaks was pardoned by President Barack Obama–A Controversy.

Why would the public prosecutor agree that the original charge made, after police investigations, to be reduced to manslaughter? Why would the Israeli military court allow such a negotiated compromise even before hearing the facts in this case? The soldier shot the injured Palestinian through the forehead 11 minutes after he was lying on the ground. It was murder by most definitions.

Is this ‘really showing grace’ or was this not really ‘an abuse of the due process of law?’ There are already international rules of conduct in public places under non-war conditions. Even if their Israeli mindset is in a constant state of war-mindedness, is such an act and visible breach of human law of mutual regard, by another human being, right, good, and true?

How then can an entire onlooker global and Israeli system choose to close one eye if the appeal of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to abrogate the verdict is subsequently taken seriously? Are we not creating and promoting a culture of obvious wrongdoing and closing one eye to all such wrongs?

High-level collusion for corrupt motives

Whether in Israel, or Myanmar, or ‘Melayusia’; are not a culture of collusion in favour of corrupt values, and the consequent abuse of democracy, a denial of our only real ideal?

In my current lived geography, quite unaware of what they are really doing, a group of vigilantes have been doing almost a similar thing, as follows:

1. Some volunteers formed a society and registered it with the Registrar of Societies (ROS). But their constituent members are only selective members (of only four roads) even though they claim to represent the entire community or settlement with their name ‘Katura’ or Kampung Tunku Residents Association which should theoretically represent all 30 roads of the Kampung Tunku settlement, and not just the selected four.

2. They claim to have got the Petaling Jaya City Council’s (MBPJ) agreement with their ‘illegal and unrepresentative proposal’ to create a pseudo-guarded community made up of only four out of 30 streets.

3. I have registered more than one complaint with the mayor, and another with the council and a third with the police and to date there is still no hope on the horizon for those of us who feel like Palestinians in an Israeli-claimed geography.

4. Recently also, all others who are badly affected by the programme’s road closures are also protesting. These three road closures are affecting drivers who access these roads to get to where they are going. My understanding is that such closures should only be at midnight, but obviously these vigilantes are self-made heroes, right? They follow their own rules.

5. My police report to police HQ by Internet filing no is: RMP.008579. They promised a response in three days and so I will choose to wait before I pursue the matter with them.

My core question to all in local governance is“when was security of our lives privatised to Nepali guards by the Royal Malaysian Police?” When was the Federal Constitution amended to make the this concession? Even the National Security Council (NSC) Act does not allow this, yet.

Privatising motives to ‘illegal others’

Ever since ‘the government’s privatisation policy’ was abused, over time, into a policy for cheating, stealing and lying (CSL), to achieve specific agenda of promoters, those perpetrators began a culture of cheating, stealing, and lying to cover their tracks. But such rape and theft continues unabated in spite of a change of government at the state level. Now, proofs are made available by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) arresting a secretary-general.

I have always labelled such an abusive policy, a ‘piratisation policy’, or a policy that seeks to use public assets and resources for private motives, including for a political party’s sectarian goals or agenda. Public Policy always exists to protect and preserve Public Interest.

Image result for Najib is Malaysian No 1 Official

The world-famous Malaysian Official 1 (MO1) is one classic case of such a ‘piratisation’ agenda as revealed by evidences from the US Justice Department (DOJ), the Swiss and the Singapore government agencies.

In fact in a different way, I heard even Dr Mahathir Mohamad say that “such stealing” was not so blatant under his governance of UMNO; he in fact even argued that he was always concerned that more than one trustee was appointed to manage all such UMNO funds. He also claimed that he never allowed such monies into private accounts of any one person.

Now, is my geography also adopting such a CSL policy with impunity? I have acted against these illegal actions every step of the way, in the last 30 years, but I have not been successful to stop this rot and growing culture of corruption. The sad reality is that such abuse has continued, even if at a slower rate, with a different political alliance leading the state. Nonetheless, it still appears like more of the same even if at a slower rate. Power does in fact corrupt all.

If Anwar Ibrahim was charged with abusing political influence wrongly, and for improper motives, my question to the MACC chief commissioner is, while you appear to be a new broom sweeping our dirt clean; why only pick on public servants and not yet the most important politician? And, especially those who by default have been proven to have abused public funds by putting them into personal accounts; even if unknowingly?

By the way, was tax paid for personal funds in the account held by MO1?

Image result for we are malaysians

We are Malaysians–Dumb Ones

As a Malaysian, I am also frankly tired of seeing everything wrong with every Israeli action but with an inability to seeing wrong with similar issues in our own country. Actually, we govern ourselves almost exactly like the Israeli’s govern their system with two different sets of laws; one for the governed and another for the governors.

Rakyat Malaysia, how can we change this form of mis-governance for the good of every citizen; and especially those who have greater needs?

How to Get Beyond Our Tribal Politics


January 15, 2017

The most-watched made-for-TV movie in American history is “The Day After,” a 1983 portrayal of life in Kansas and Missouri in the days just before and after an all-out nuclear war with the Soviet Union. If you’ve had even fleeting thoughts that Tuesday’s election could bring about the end of the world or the destruction of the country, you might want to find “The Day After” on YouTube, scroll to minute 53 and watch the next six minutes. Now that’s an apocalypse.

It’s an absurd comparison, of course, but the absurdity is helpful. It reminds us that no matter how bad things seem, we have a lot to be grateful for. The Soviet Union is gone, and life in America has gotten much better since the 1980s by most objective measures. Crime is way down, prosperity and longevity are way up, and doors are open much more widely for talented people from just about any demographic group. Yes, we have new problems, and the benefits haven’t been spread evenly, but if you look at the big picture, we are making astonishing progress.

Watching “The Day After” also might help Americans to tone down the apocalyptic language that so many have used about the presidential race. On the right, some speak of this as the “Flight 93 election,” meaning that America has been hijacked by treasonous leftists who are trying to crash the plane, so electing Donald Trump to rush the cockpit is the only sane choice. On the left, some think that a Trump victory would lead to a constitutional crisis followed by a military coup, fascism and dictatorship.

Nearly half the country will therefore wake up deeply disappointed on the morning of Nov. 9, and many members of the losing side will think that America is doomed. Those on the winning side will feel relieved, but many will be shocked and disgusted that nearly half of their fellow citizens voted for the moral equivalent of the devil. The disgust expressed by both sides in this election is particularly worrisome because disgust dehumanizes its targets. That is why it is usually fostered by the perpetrators of genocide—disgust makes it easier for ordinary citizens to kill their neighbors.

In short, the day after this election is likely to be darker and more foreboding than the day after just about any U.S. election since 1860. Is it possible for Americans to forgive, accept and carry on working and living together?

We think that it is. After all, civility doesn’t require consensus or the suspension of criticism. It is simply the ability to disagree productively with others while respecting their sincerity and decency. That can be hard to do when emotions run so high. But if we understand better the psychological causes of our current animosity, we can all take some simple steps to turn it down, free ourselves from hatred and make the next four years better for ourselves and the country. Three time-honored quotations can serve as guides.

“Me against my brother, my brothers and me against my cousins, then my cousins and me against strangers.” —Bedouin saying

Human nature is tribal. We form teams easily, most likely because we have evolved for violent intergroup conflict. Our minds take to it so readily that we invent myths, games and sports—including war games like paintball—that let us enjoy the pleasures of intergroup conflict without the horrors of actual war.

The tribal mind is adept at changing alliances to face shifting threats, as the Bedouin saying indicates. We see such shifts after party primaries, when those who backed a losing candidate swing around to support the nominee. And we saw it happen after the 9/11 attacks, when the country came together to support the president and the military in the invasion of Afghanistan.

But with the exception of the few months after 9/11, cross-partisan animosity has been rising steadily since the late 1990s. This year, for the first time since Pew Research began asking in 1994, majorities in both parties expressed not just “unfavorable” views of the other party but “very unfavorable” views. Those ratings were generally below 20% throughout the 1990s. And more than 40% in each party now see the policies of the other party as being “so misguided that they threaten the nation’s well-being.” Those numbers are up by about 10 percentage points in both parties just since 2014.

So what will happen the next time there is a major terrorist attack? Will we come together again? Or will the attack become a partisan football within hours, as happened after the various lone-wolf attacks of the past year? Something is broken in American tribalism. It is now “my brothers and me against my cousins” all the time, even when we are threatened by strangers and even when there is no threat at all.

Democracy requires trust and cooperation as well as competition.

Democracy requires trust and cooperation as well as competition. A healthy democracy features flexible and shifting coalitions. We must find a way to see citizens on the other side as cousins who are sometimes opponents but who share most of our values and interests and are never our mortal enemies.

“Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?… You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.”Jesus, in Matthew 7:3-5

Our tribal minds are equipped with a powerful tool: shameless and clueless hypocrisy. It is a general rule of psychology that “thinking is for doing”: We think with a particular purpose in mind, and often that purpose isn’t to find the truth but to defend ourselves or attack our opponents.

Psychologists call this process “motivated reasoning.” It is found whenever self-interest is in play. When the interests of a group are added to the mix, this sort of biased, god-awful reasoning becomes positively virtuous—it signals your loyalty to the team. This is why partisans find it so easy to dismiss scandalous revelations about their own candidate while focusing so intently on scandalous revelations about the other candidate.

Motivated reasoning has interacted with tribalism and new media technologies since the 1990s in unfortunate ways. Social media, hackers and Google searches now help us to find hundreds of specks in our opponents’ eyes, but no technology can force us to acknowledge the logs in our own.

“Nature has so formed us that a certain tie unites us all, but…this tie becomes stronger from proximity.” —Cicero, “On Friendship”

Humans are tribal, but tribalism can be transcended. It exists in tension with our extraordinary ability to develop bonds with other human beings. Romeo and Juliet fell in love. French, British and German soldiers came out of their trenches in World War I to exchange food, cigarettes and Christmas greetings.

The key, as Cicero observed, is proximity, and a great deal of modern research backs him up. Students are more likely to become friends with the student whose dorm room is one door away than with the student whose room is four doors away. People who have at least one friend from the other political party are less likely to hate the supporters of that party.

But tragically, Americans are losing their proximity to those on the other side and are spending more time in politically purified settings. Since the 1980s, Democrats have been packing into the cities while the rural areas and exurbs have been getting more Republican. Institutions that used to bring people together—such as churches—are now splitting apart over culture war issues such as gay marriage.

Ever more of our social life is spent online, in virtual communities or networks that are politically homogeneous. When we do rub up against the other side online, relative anonymity often leads to stunning levels of incivility, including racist and sexist slurs and threats of violence.

So are we doomed? Will the polarizing trends identified by Pew just keep going until the country splits in two? Maybe John Adams was right in 1814 when he wrote, “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.”

But we have lasted 240 years so far, and both sides agree that America is worth fighting for. We just have to see that the fight isn’t always against each other; it is also a struggle to adapt our democracy and our habits for polarizing times and technologies.

Illustration: Luci Gutiérrez

Some of these adaptations will require changes to laws and institutions. Some will come from improving technology as we fine-tune social media to reward productive disagreement while filtering out trolling and intimidation.

And many of the changes must come from each of us, as individuals who have friends, co-workers and cousins who voted for the other side. How will we treat them as customers, employees, students and neighbors? What will we say to them at Thanksgiving dinner?

If you would like to let go of anger on Nov. 9 without letting go of your moral and political principles, here is some advice, adapted from ancient wisdom and modern research.

First, separate your feelings about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton from your feelings about their supporters. Political scientists report that since the 1980s, Americans have increasingly voted against the other side’s candidate, rather than voting enthusiastically for their own, and that is especially true this time. So don’t assume that most people on the other side like or even agree with their candidate on any particular issue. They may be voting out of fears and frustrations that you don’t understand, but if you knew their stories, you might well empathize with them.

Second, step back and think about your goals. In the long run, would you rather change people or hate them? If you actually want to persuade or otherwise influence people, you should know that it is nearly impossible to change people’s minds by arguing with them. When there is mutual antipathy, there is mutual motivated reasoning, defensiveness and hypocrisy.

But anything that opens the heart opens the mind as well, so do what you can to cultivate personal relationships with those on the other side. Spend time together, and let the proximity recommended by Cicero strengthen ties. Familiarity does not breed contempt. Research shows that as things or people become familiar, we like them more.

Emotions often drive reasoning, so as our hearts harden, our thinking also calcifies, and we become dogmatic. We are less able to think flexibly and address the social problems that we claim to care about. As John Stuart Mill wrote in 1859, “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.” So cultivating a few cross-partisan friendships will make you smarter as well as calmer, even if polarization grows worse.

And if you do find a way to have a real conversation with someone on the other side, approach it skillfully. One powerful opener is to point to a log in your own eye—to admit right up front that you or your side were wrong about something. Doing this at the start of a conversation signals that you aren’t in combat mode. If you are open, trusting and generous, your partner is likely to reciprocate.

Tom Lehane, left, a Trump supporter, has a disagreement with Clinton supporter Hila Minshen before a Trump rally on Sept. 9, 2016 in Pensacola, Fla.
Tom Lehane, left, a Trump supporter, has a disagreement with Clinton supporter Hila Minshen before a Trump rally on Sept. 9, 2016 in Pensacola, Fla. Photo: Mark Wallheiser/Getty Images

Another powerful depolarizing move is praise, as we saw in the second Clinton-Trump debate. After more than 90 minutes of antagonism, a member of the town-hall audience brought the evening to a close with this question: “Would either of you name one positive thing that you respect in one another?”

Mrs. Clinton began with weak praise by saying that she respects Mr. Trump’s children. But then she made it strong and generous by noting how “incredibly able” those children are and how devoted they are to their father, adding, “I think that says a lot about Donald.” Mr. Trump responded in kind: “I will say this about Hillary. She doesn’t quit, and she doesn’t give up. I respect that.”

That brief exchange was emotionally powerful—the only uplifting moment of the night for many viewers. Had it been the opening exchange, might the debate have been more elevated, more constructive?

This has been a frightening year for many Americans. Questions about the durability, legitimacy and wisdom of our democracy have been raised, both here and abroad. But the true test of our democracy—and our love of country—will come on the day after the election. Starting next Wednesday, each of us must decide what kind of person we want to be and what kind of relationship we want to have with our politically estranged cousins.

Dr. Haidt is a social psychologist at New York University’s Stern School of Business, a fellow at the Martin Prosperity Institute and the author of “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.” Dr. Iyer is a social psychologist and data scientist at the website Ranker and the executive director of CivilPolitics.org.

How uneven are our scales of justice?


January 9, 2017

How uneven are our scales of justice?

by Dr,Lim Teck Ghee@www.malaysiakini.com

Image result for Ambassador Tommy Koh of Singapore

Professor and Ambassadoor Koh is the first Singaporean to receive the “Great Negotiator Award”, given out by the programme on negotiation at Harvard Law School, which comprises of students and faculty from the university as well as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Tufts University.

COMMENT In an exchange with Tommy Koh at a seminar on ‘Japan as an economic power and its implications for South-East Asia’ in 1974, the Singaporean diplomat reminded me that members of the legal profession did not comprise members of the world’s oldest profession, perhaps only second. That’s probably untrue as they could be third or fourth on this list.

Whatever anyone’s opinion of lawyers derived from personal experience is – we should not forget that lawyers generally sell their services to the higher bidder – there needs to be concern about how unevenly tilted the scales of justice in Malaysia have become.

Image result for Dr Lim Teck Ghee

Surprisingly or not surprisingly, there has been little discussion of this important topic though we have had a courageous whistleblower, Justice NH Chan, who called attention to the shortcomings of some of his former judicial colleagues in his book, ‘Judging the Judges’, subsequently printed in its second edition as ‘How to Judge the Judges’.

Image result for Justice NH Chan

Although Justice Chan, who sadly passed away recently, directed his criticism principally against his senior colleagues, his reiteration of the fundamental underpinnings of justice administration resonate in its relevance to the entire judiciary and other members of the legal profession.

Image result for Malaysia's Judiciary

Members of the Judiciary–The judge must be fair and impartial. At the same time, it is important that even litigants who lose should feel that they had a fair trial.–Lim Teck Ghee

To him, the epitome of justice is a fair trial and this requires that the judge must do justice according to law – “this is what the rule of law is all about”. The judge must be fair and impartial. At the same time, it is important that even litigants who lose should feel that they had a fair trial.

Justice Chan also felt that the public should have sufficient knowledge to enable them to judge the performance of the judges.

However, even when there is public scrutiny – which rarely happens except in the most attention-grabbing of cases, say one in every tens of thousands – it appears to be well-nigh impossible to bring anyone from the judiciary – from the lowest subordinate magistrate level to the highest level of federal supreme judge – to book for any abuse of power, corrupt practice or judgment or judicial behavior seen to be unfair or unjust.

The Royal Commission’s no-action decision on the notorious VK Lingam case serves as a good example.Being fair and impartial means that each and all members of the judiciary especially have to rise above the factors of class, race or religion in arriving at judgment. Do integrity and impartiality constitute the norm or is the judiciary – as with the rest of the civil service – influenced by extraneous factors in the cases they hear?

To what extent, for example, are members of the judiciary influenced or affected by the racial identity of the accused and/or of the lawyers in the cases they hear? Are they likely to be more lenient when sentencing members from the rich and powerful strata of society or from members of their own racial grouping?

Are they biased against those from the poorer classes who do not have the services of sharp and expensive lawyers to ensure that they get a fair trial or against those from different racial or religious groups?

Seldom raised in public realm

To my knowledge, these and similar questions have seldom been raised or discussed in the public realm. Colleagues from the legal fraternity to whom I have addressed this question in private, although generally agreeing that the judiciary is far from being independent or free from political influence, argue that the scales of justice are generally evenly and fairly administered in Malaysia in terms of the influence and impact of race and religion.

The most recent findings in the 2016 Rule of Law Index conducted by the World Justice Project appear to contradict this view. This is Malaysia’s score on the following components of civil and criminal law

Civil Justice

No discrimination – 0.5
No corruption – 0.5
No improper government influence – 0.38
Accessibility and affordability – 0.5

Criminal Justice

No discrimination – 0.51
Due process of law – 0.57
No improper government influence – 0.39
Timely and effective adjudication – 0.53

Source here, p110.

What the data by this organisation seems to indicate – the index is based on over 100,000 households and 2,400 expert surveys to measure how the rule of law is experienced, but we do not know the details of this sampling for Malaysia – is that one out of every two cases of civil and criminal justice in the country is tainted by discriminatory or corrupt action by the law enforcement agencies, including the judiciary.

Public attention – local and international – has tended to focus on issues related to fundamental rights and freedoms, constraints on government powers, and open government.

However in a robust and thriving democracy, it is equally important to ensure that the rule of law – as experienced in practical, everyday situations by ordinary people – is also subject to scrutiny and reform so that it is fair and impartial in all aspects.

A good example of such public examination is that recently conducted by British Columbia in its 2012 Justice Reform Initiative which resulted in a white paper and road map for justice reform in the state. We are sorely in need of such an initiative or minimally a clear and useful dialogue on this often neglected aspect of the Rule of Law. Perhaps the Bar Council can take the lead in this exercise.


LIM TECK GHEE is a former World Bank senior social scientist, whose report on bumiputera equity when he was director of Asli’s Centre for Public Policy Studies sparked controversy in 2006. He is now CEO of the Centre for Policy Initiatives.

 

My 2017 Wish–Din Merican


January 1, 2017

My 2017 WishGet Rid of Corrupt Najib Razak and all the Rubbish associated with him

Image may contain: 4 people, people standing, suit and indoor

 My Friends and I in Phnom Penh–We feel we can make the world a better and safer place through Education for All

It is only natural for all Malaysians to wish our country well. The reason is simple. We are Malaysia as Malaysia is not wood, brick and mortar. So, we can share the views expressed in the G25 Statement for the New Year. But my friends in G-25 who were once influential public servants are too polite as they have been all their lives. I will be blunt and direct.It is my style since politeness got me nowhere.

I want Najib  Razak removed as Prime Minister of Malaysia and he and all his Minsters and supporters thoroughly investigated, charged and punished for corruption and abuses of power. That means locking him up for life as the Guest of His Majesty The Yang Di-Pertuan Agong.  I like the incumbent Attorney-General (Apandi Ali) , Inspector-General of Police(Khalid Abu Bakar), the Chief Secretary to the Government ( Ali Hamsa), Secretary -General  to the Ministry of Finance (Irwan Siregar) and Bank Negara Governor (Muhammad Ibrahim)  sacked for dereliction of duty and sheer incompetence. These so-called Blue Ocean professionals are a disgrace so are our Judges who have failed to administer justice.  Because of poor leadership and horrible followership,  Malaysia has become a degenerate and soon to be a bankrupt nation.

Getting rid of Najib and everything associated with his toxicity is what we should do in 2017. That is my  New Year wish. I challenge all Malaysians to just do it, if and when Najib decides (and if he dares) to have GE-14 –Din Merican

G25 warns that a weak economy that is unable to generate sufficient income and employment opportunities will be dangerous to society.

COMMENT@www.freemaalysiatoday.com

malaysia-economy1_1

By G25 Secretariat

We are entering 2017 and the one wish that ranks higher than anything else in our hearts and souls for the New Year is that Malaysia will remain a peaceful country with all races living in harmony and respecting our diversity in culture and religion, confident that the rule of law will prevail to protect the rights of all citizens, in accordance with the guarantees under the Federal Constitution.

We hope that 2017 will bring more cheerful news about economic recovery to lift the people’s mood and give them a good feeling about the future. With the various restructuring and transformation programmes which have been introduced in the government, as well as in the corporate and financial sectors, the economy is on a strong footing for recovery as and when the global uncertainties fade away to revive business confidence around the world.

Image result for tan sri mohd sheriff mohd kassim

Tan Sri Mohd Sheriff Mohd Kassim–Ex Secretary-General, Ministry of Finance and former Managing Director, Khazanah Malaysia Berhad now G25 member.

Malaysia is well aware why a strong economy is important. A weak economy that is not able to generate sufficient income and employment opportunities is dangerous to our society. It will attract the hate politics that use race and religion to destabilise the country, leading to extremists exploiting the situation for their own agenda. That is how one country after another in the Muslim world became failed states. The root cause is their failures to implement the right policies to generate growth, provide for the basic needs of their people and promote tolerance for religious and cultural diversity. Frustrated by the uncaring attitudes of their governments, which prefer to spend more time on religious politicking than on the economy, their educated youth turn to extremism to express their anger. This must not be allowed to happen in our country.

Our founding fathers created the constitution, introduced the Rukunegara and implemented the New Economic Policy to ensure Malaysia achieve rapid economic growth as this is fundamental for social progress and national unity. In every five-year development plan document, since the introduction of the NEP in 1971, there is a very strong emphasis on the link between economic growth and national unity. Thanks to our capable leaders, the country has developed so fast that we have graduated from a low-income country to becoming a high income country soon, a remarkable achievement by any standards. Economic development has brought stability to the country. Although much remains to be done in achieving the aspirations in the Rukunegara, we can be proud that we have built the economic foundation to strengthen our prospects for achieving national unity.

Image result for Kamil Jaafar

G25’s Tan Sri Ahmad Kamil Jaafar–Ex-Secretary General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Wisma Putra).

The challenge for the country is to sustain the economic progress that has been achieved and make it more inclusive so as to win public confidence and support for the government’s development efforts. Inclusivity means recognising the rights of the lower-income groups for a bigger share of the national wealth and providing economic justice for all races. It also means tolerance for an open society with rights and freedoms for citizens to voice their disagreements with the government and to hold it accountable for its actions.

The government has adopted inclusive development strategies in its economic planning and in the annual budget. It is spending huge amounts of money and borrowing heavily to finance its development programmes for growth and equitable distribution among all segments of society. In doing so, it should be transparent in the management of the country’s finances so as not to repeat the recent scandals that have rocked business sentiments in the country and damaged its reputation as a well-governed country. In this regard, it is essential that Parliament, the judiciary and the institutions of law and order be empowered to provide the checks and balance in ensuring that good governance is restored at all levels of government and that those found guilty of corruption and unethical behaviour be brought to justice without fear or favour.

Image result for tan sri mohd sheriff mohd kassimDato’Anwar Fazal–Penang’s Famous and admired Civil Society Activist cum Environmentalist and G25 Member.

The government should move with the times to embrace civil society and a free media as partners in development. This will put our country as the best model in the Muslim world for making constitutional democracy meaningful to the people, transcending over race, culture and religion to create a united nation. With all races sharing a common destiny of economy development and social justice under a vibrant democracy, Malaysia can look forward to a bright future.

With these words, we wish all Malaysians a Happy and Prosperous New Year.

G25 is a movement of eminent Malay moderates.

Malaysians no longer trust Najib Razak


December 29, 2016

S.E.A. View

Malaysians  no longer trust  Najib Razak

http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/what-price-malaysias-trust-deficit

The lack of excitement over massive infrastructure projects and ringgit’s plunge are signs of market and ground sentiments

Image result for najib razak and rosmah mansor

Malaysia’s Prime Minister Najib Razak and Big Momma Rosmah Mansor

The last weeks of December have been busy ones for Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak. On December 13, Datuk Seri Najib signed the much awaited High Speed Rail (HSR) agreement with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong that will link Kuala Lumpur and Singapore.

That same week, he officiated at the opening of Malaysia’s Mass Rapid Transit (MRT), a project that started in 2011. Days later, on December 18, Mr Najib launched the 1.4km-long Batang Sadong Bridge in Sarawak, a huge connectivity leap for Sarawakians, who previously had to rely on ferry crossings. The bridge is one of several projects the government has in store for Sarawak, the others being the massive 2,000km-long Pan Borneo Highway that will link Sarawak and Sabah and a coastal highway that will connect towns in Sarawak.

Soon after the Sarawak trip, Mr Najib was in Sabah to launch eight projects linked to the Pan-Borneo Highway. The recent launches came weeks after Mr Najib’s trip to China, one that saw the Malaysian economy potentially receiving a thumping US$33 billion (S$48 billion) of Chinese investment. A major part of the investment deal was Malaysia agreeing to build a 640km-long East Coast Rail Line(ECRL) with Chinese financing. Once completed, the ECRL will link the northernmost town in the east coast state of Kelantan to Port Klang, which fronts the busy Straits of Malacca on the west coast. Needless to say, these infrastructural investments are major game changers that are set to alter Malaysia’s landscape in a fundamental way, unleashing the country’s huge economic potential.

Such long-term growth commitment should excite the public, but not so in Malaysia. As for China’s massive investment, Mr Najib’s critics see it as a sell-out to China’s interest. They were also quick to contest that the US$13 billion ECRL project was overpriced – never mind that the proposed line needs to negotiate the Titiwangsa ridge, difficult geographical terrain that has for a long time kept the east coast of the peninsular relatively underdeveloped compared with the west coast.

What is apparent is that Mr Najib’s policies attract sceptics. Malaysians, it seems, are less willing to go along with government policies no matter how attractive the long-term benefits are. An obvious reason is that nagging political issues continue to cloud the many positives of Mr Najib’s policy initiatives. People in Malaysia are not quite done with the 1MDB issue. The international media has also kept turning the spotlight on 1MDB and Mr Najib, reinforcing public scepticism. What is obvious is that Malaysians are stuck in second gear, unwilling to move beyond the 1MDB issue.

Is Malaysia paying a heavy price for its ongoing political crisis? It seems so. The state is suffering from a trust deficit. Trust, between the governed and the government, seems to be in short supply. The 2016 Edelman Trust Barometer found that only 39 per cent of Malaysia’s general population trusts the government

Is Malaysia paying a heavy price for its ongoing political crisis? It seems so. The state is suffering from a trust deficit. Trust, between the governed and the government, seems to be in short supply. The 2016 Edelman Trust Barometer found that only 39 per cent of Malaysia’s general population trusts the government. That needs addressing because a trust deficit prevents the state from garnering policy collaborators. Policy “buy-in” becomes difficult as stakeholders are unwilling to be part of the policy process. Worse, a trust deficit could also see stakeholders subverting what otherwise could be effective policies. Mr Najib’s market-friendly policies, which would have been gladly accepted in the past, are now looked upon with intense scepticism. His decision to lift fuel subsidies, allow 70 per cent foreign ownership in the services sector, sell all the government’s Proton shares and introduce the goods and services tax (GST) to prevent leakage and broaden the tax base are but a few market-friendly policies that, thus far, have not warmed citizens’ hearts. Malaysians are still unwilling to accept the GST even when GST receipts have clearly buffered Malaysia’s huge losses in petroleum revenue in the past year.

Mr Najib launching Malaysia’s MRT on Dec 15. The lack of public trust stands in the way of Malaysia’s long-term goals. PHOTO: AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

A trust deficit could potentially lead to more damaging systemic risk. Thinning public trust and greater tendency to talk down the economy could amplify Malaysia’s political, social and economic risks. A self-fulfilling prophecy may set in, creating a case where the public runs down the economy more than it should and triggering a crisis of confidence. An obvious benchmark of confidence is the Malaysian ringgit, Asia’s worst-performing currency. Though there are external factors that have contributed to the weakening of the ringgit – Trumponomics, the attractiveness of US bond yields and weak commodity prices – analysts are also quick to add that the ringgit suffers from domestic risks, the premium of which is anybody’s guess. Some see domestic risk as one contributing factor to the ringgit weakening to a rate of RM4.70 to US$1.

Image result for the malaysian ringgit the disappearing currency

There are those who think that the ringgit slide is overdone as it does not reflect Malaysia’s fundamentals. But under conditions of low public trust, good economic figures are quickly neutralised by bad economic ones. Going by fundamentals alone, there are reasons not to short the ringgit. The Malaysian economy has shown plenty of resilience despite chaotic domestic politics and severe economic headwinds. Its GDP has averaged 5.3 per cent growth since 2011. This year, the economy is expected to grow at 4.2 per cent. For next year, the IMF predicts the economy to grow at 4.5 per cent on the back of strong domestic consumption. The country is also in better fiscal shape, with Mr Najib keeping to his promise to trim spending. The Budget deficit now stands at 3 per cent of GDP, down from a high of 6 per cent in 2009. Its current account remains positive. In fact the current account saw a sharp increase in the third quarter, the highest since December last year. More importantly, the economy has broken away from its heavy reliance on the oil and gas sector. Petroleum now counts for just 15 per cent of total revenue, a sharp drop from about 30 per cent two years ago. The economic figures, however, do not seem to count when it comes to the sliding ringgit.

Finally, broken trust between the state and the governed is affecting Malaysia’s long-term effort at institutional change. Change is difficult when stakeholders are unwilling to ride on the change agenda. In a low-trust environment, stakeholders are persuaded by partisan concerns, depriving the change agenda of a diversity of views. The Najib administration, for instance, has introduced the “blue ocean” strategy as part of its strategic blueprint. Developed by two INSEAD professors, the strategy rethinks the idea of competition and collaboration and has been behind many of Malaysia’s government and economic transformation programmes. Policy emphasis on the bottom 40 per cent of income- earners, retargeting state subsidies, providing direct transfers to low income earners, collaboration and sharing of resources between government agencies and building a one-stop centre for public services are among the few policy initiatives that seemed to enjoy little public buy-ins.

An exploratory study I carried out between September and October to gauge public receptiveness to the government’s national blue ocean strategy, part of wider research on networked government, found that the public know little or nothing at all of such blueprint. Trust, or the lack of it, has blurred the public’s identification with policies, making them unwilling partners of institutional change.

With a general election expected next year, Mr Najib has his work cut out for him. Restoring public trust is proving to be difficult but the need for it is urgent. Systematic public disengagement from political leadership could well be the most important factor that stands in the way of Malaysia’s long-term goals. In the short-term though, Malaysians should be careful that their attempts at political change do not cripple an otherwise functioning economy.


  • The writer is a visiting research fellow at the Sir Walter Murdoch School of Public Policy, Murdoch University and Assistant Professor at the Tun Abdul Razak School of Government, Universiti Tun Abdul Razak. 

A Fairy Tale waiting to be Real: “Fake” Letter by Malaysia’s DPM from Ponorogo


December 26. 2016

A Fairy Tale waiting to be Real: “Fake” Letter by Malaysia’s DPM from Ponorogo

by Mariam Mokhtar

http://www.mariammokhtar.com/the-allegedly-fake-letter-written-by-malaysias-no-2-zahid-hamidi/

Around the time of the UMNO-Baru General Assembly, a “fake” letter, allegedly written by Zahid Hamidi, urging BN MPs and senators to force Najib to resign, was apparently being circulated.

Image result for Ambitious Zahid Hamidi from Pornorogo

The Man from Pornorogo–Zahid Hamidi

In it, the ambitious Zahid proclaimed himself PM and made Khairy Jamaluddin, his deputy.

Who would make a good DPM?

Zahid and Khairy are like chalk and cheese. Was Khairy made DPM to appease the rakyat?

Here are the choices:-

If Ismail Sabri were to become DPM, copy cat malls would emerge throughout Malaysia, just like with Low Yat Plaza II. Ismail has a fondness for turtle eggs,  and conservation would die out, along with the turtles.

Nor would you want Ahmad Maslan to be the DPM. Nasi goreng à la Ahmad Maslan, which is fried rice with lavish cucumber trim, would replace nasi lemak, as our national food.

Related image

Having replaced Najib Abdul Razak, Zahid would not want emotionally affected politicians, like Hishamuddin Hussein, Najib’s cousin, in his Cabinet.

Khairy’s credentials

Khairy would make an excellent choice for DPM. In stark contrast to Zahid’s ‘jaguh kampung’ origins, Malaysians adore Khairy’s Oxford education.

Unbeknownst to many, the tall, dark and handsome Khairy is also the most talked about man in “mengaji and agama classes” (in-depth learning for Koran at home). The middle-aged Malay tai-tais – the ladies who lunch, most of whom come from Taman Tun Dr. Ismail, drive their ustazs up the wall. Poor ustaz cannot stop them chattering about Khairy, during their lessons.

With a Treasury strapped for cash, Zahid could trim his Cabinet, with Khairy holding four ministerial posts.

Image result for Khairy the Polo Man

Khairy could continue as Sports Minister, on account of his skills on a polo pony and his ambition as a wannabe ASEAN athlete.

With his impeccable English. Khairy could prevent embarrassing translations of Mindef documents, such as the “poking eye clothes” incident. He could  hold a rifle, and jump out of an aeroplane. He should make a good Defence Minister.

Having benefited from an overseas education, Khairy could also be Education Minister, and reinstate funding to send students to overseas universities.

Zahid would get more things done as PM

So what’s wrong with Zahid as PM? He brings out the best in Malaysian politics and has many fine qualities.

Yesterday, Najib dismissed the contents of the “fake” letter, and blamed the Opposition for underestimating the loyalty of UMNO-Baru members.

This is where Najib is wrong. Loyalty is Zahid’s forté. The greasy pole of politics is not difficult to climb, if you know how. The enemy is not the Opposition. The enemy is within.

During the late 1990s, Zahid was loyal to Anwar Ibrahim, who was DPM at the time. Zahid pestered the then PM, Mahathir Mohamad, to answer allegations about corruption. When Anwar fell, Zahid became the Mahathir’s sidekick and swore loyalty to Mahathir. Mahathir is now a nobody, whilst Zahid has become Najib’s right-hand man.

If Zahid becomes PM, his first duty would be to sack the IGP for incompetence. Despite having all the resources at his disposal, Malaysia’s top policeman cannot even locate and arrest a fugitive convert father.

The IGP, prefers to tweet rather than put men on the streets. He could tweet his followers, and ask for the public’s help to find the whereabouts of Mohd Ridhuan Abdullah, who is charged with kidnapping his seven year-old daughter from his former, wife, Indira Gandhi. Why hasn’t he done this?

Related image

In the war against crime, Zahid knows who to turn to. In the past, Zahid considered the Tiga Line Malay triad as his friends. As it takes a thief to know another thief, Tiga Line gang members will make the best law enforcers in Malaysia.

With Zahid in charge, work for translators will increase. When he goes overseas, he can be like President Putin, of Russia or President Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China, and use translators.

An event always looks more prestigious and important, when translators are present. Waiting for a translator would also give Zahid more time, to cook up a good answer, if he were to be asked a tricky question, in front of the world’s press.

You’ve been to supermarkets with signs displaying “Buy One, Get One Free” (BOGOF). Zahid’s gobby daughter, who does not shy away from controversy and once blasted MAS stewardesses for being too old, would make a good guard dog, to protect her father’s reputation.

If President-elect Trump can elect family members to plum positions, why not Zahid? After all, 1MDB was also a family affair, with step sons helping themselves to the taxpayers’ money.

Anwar was deposed by Mahathir, as was Musa Hitam. Muhyiddin Yassin was sacked by Najib.

So is the post of DPM a poisoned chalice? Not really.  “The Chosen One”, aka MO1, has lifted the curse from the post of DPM.  Timing is all important and smart DPMs must strike when the going is good.