Malaysia’s Education: Shooting ourselves in the Foot with more Sound and Fury


August 23, 2017

Malaysia’s Education: Shooting ourselves in the Foot with more Sound and Fury

by Dr. Lim Teck Ghee

Image result for malaysia education blueprintWhere is this UMNO Minister of Education now? Well, he got himself fired by Najib Razak. He has since joined the opposition trying to make a comeback

 

The outcry over the disclosure that 402 schools in the country have been classified as “hotspots” with disciplinary and drug issues is yet another distraction from what should be the major priority of our politicians and bureaucrats managing the education system – that is, implementing deep reform of the national primary and secondary school system, especially beginning with the national schools of the Bahasa Malaysia or Malay medium, and predominantly Bumiputra attended, stream (SK and SMK).

Although the furore when set against the larger and more important backdrop of the overall deplorable state of the national schooling system is misplaced, what is revealing is that almost all the problematic schools (396) found in the black list come from the SMK stream as against 6 from the sekolah jenis kebangsaan stream (SMJK).

Image result for Minister of Education Mahathir Khalid

Minister of Education Mahdzir Khalid -As Menteri Besar he messed up Kedah, He is doing the same with our Education System

This is yet another clear indication of the appaling mess left by zealots pushing the racial and religious agenda in our educational system.

The main victim of this mess is a lost generation of Malay and Bumiputra school kids who paradoxically, despite being overwhelmingly favoured in resource allocation in the national system during the past 40 years, have ended up with low attainment levels as well as are generally lacking in the important outcomes that the educational system is supposed to be imparting in knowledge, skills, strong ethics, and the drive to succeed.

Image result for Minister of Education Mahathir Khalid

The Messed Up Commander-in-Chief and his Minister of Education: We can’t go wrong with these guys at the helm.

The critical problems affecting schools in the SK stream have been known for a long time. But they have been ignored or let unresolved by the Barisan government and the Ministry of Education with little attempt made at comprehensive reform until the last few years.

Repeated complaints have been raised of the quality of these schools including their low teaching standard, the obsession with single-race dominance and management, the narrowly nationalistic, rote-learning-oriented and behind-the-times curricula, increasing Islamization, poor leadership, disciplinary issues (which are now the subject of public attention) and a host of other shortcomings but to little avail. The inaction by the authorities has resulted in non-Malay parents shunning these schools and sending their children to the SJK or mother tongue stream, and English language private schools when they can afford it.

Targeting Mother Tongue Education as a Convenient Scapegoat

At the same time – diverting attention away from the failure of the politically favoured SK stream to provide quality and progressive education for all young Malaysians – was a hostile and virulent campaign accusing mother tongue or vernacular schools (SRJK and SMJK stream) of being responsible for dividing the young of the different races and being the cause for the lack of national unity in the country. The campaign, although unable to produce any evidence to support its claims, succeeded all too well in muddying the waters of educational reform discourse in the country during the last two decades.

Today, only a few hardliners are still clamouring for the closure of SRJKs. It is clear that their ill-founded politically driven campaign to close down Chinese and Tamil medium SRJKs has ground to a halt. The final blow to this campaign ironically has come from middle and upper class Malay parents who have enrolled their children in increasing numbers in the Chinese language medium schools because of the perceived higher standard of teaching and discipline in these schools, and the loss of faith in the quality and performance of the Bahasa Malaysia stream.

At last count, the enrollment of non-Chinese students in the SJKCs could be as high as 20% of the total enrolment of over 500,000 students in this stream. It is possible that if SJKCs are not discriminated against and are provided with equitable resources to grow, we may have a majority of Malay and Bumiputra parents preferring to send their children to this stream instead of SK schools.

Why have so many parents – Malays and non-Malays – given up sending their children to SK schools? What are the deeper and more serious problems and shortcomings that afflict these schools, besides that of bullying, gangsterism, smoking, drugs and other behavioural related issues that hog the headlines to divert our minds away from focusing on more critical reform concerns?

The answers are not difficult to arrive at. But throwing more money into these schools is not the solution. According to one estimate, SK schools during the 6th to 9th Malaysia Plans (1991-2010) received from 5 to 10 times more public finding on a per capita basis compared with SJK schools. Per capita expenditure allocations during the four Malaysia Plans amounted to RM 614, 483, 2,131 and 2,000 for SK primary schools compared with RM 176, 44, 217 and 274 for the Chinese medium primary schools with Tamil medium schools slightly less disadvantaged than their Chinese counterparts.

Logically, we should expect that this skewed expenditure over the prolonged period of the NEP (and until today) should have produced a higher quality of educational performance across the board in the SK stream, in its principals, teachers and other school leaders, and in the performance outcomes of its student population. This has not happened.

In October 2011, the Ministry of Education embarked on a comprehensive review of the education system to develop a new National Education Blueprint. In the Blueprint report which emerged in 2013, it was pointed out that Malaysia may not be getting the highest return on educational investment. The report also noted that the best available data on unity suggest that student and teacher diversity in SKs is decreasing and called for a renewed commitment to ensuring that the nation’s funds are efficiently used.

It also concluded that “it is important to understand what drives these outcomes so that the Malaysian educational system can scale up its successes, and reduce, if not eliminate, its areas of shortfall.” (Chapter3-28). Unfortunately the Blueprint, in attempting to be politically correct, failed to provide a blunt, indepth and critical analysis of why SK schools have failed.

Why have SKs failed to perform and what policy changes are needed to bring about real – and not cosmetic- improvements needs to be put on the national agenda priority, and not the ones put out that are generating “sound and fury” and likely to signify little or nothing.

Malaysian parents and their children especially those enrolled in the SK stream, as well as the country as a whole deserve better than the present Ministry-initiated hullabaloo over schools with disciplinary issues.

Malaysia’s 2017 SEA Games Cock Up–Getting the Indonesian Flag Wrong


August 21, 2017

Malaysia’s 2017 SEA Games Cockup–Getting the Indonesian Flag

by FA Abdul

http://www.malaysiakini.com

Image result for The Indonesian Flag at Independence Day--August 17, 2017

COMMENT| A young journalist working for a local media company, Wai Wai Hnin Pwint Phyu walked into the training room in the Pazundaung district of Yangon the other morning, feeling somewhat upset.

Image result for Getting the Indonesian Flag wrong in 2017 SEA Games

The Cock Up. But the Magnanimous H.E. President Jokowi Widodo said we should not make a mountain out of a molehill. But we in Malaysia should not make this kind of mistake. Actually, this oversight is inexcusable.

“Fa, what you think of SEA Games in Kuala Lumpur?” she asked in her limited English.

“I think we struggled to make it happen. Why do you ask?” I said.

“I am not happy. I am very angry,” said Wai, her face sour.

Since we had a good half-hour before beginning the training session, I pulled out two chairs next to her – one for me and one for our translator – and prepared myself for a story.

Before I could ask her what made her upset, Wai showed me a picture on her handphone. It was of a big group of Malaysian supporters clad in Jalur Gemilang.

“What picture is this?” I asked, curious.

“This is a picture of Malaysian fans, taken during the 2013 SEA Games in Myanmar during the Malaysia-Singapore football match. See how happy they are supporting their country inside the stadium.”

I looked at her, confused.

“Do you know where the Myanmar fans were when our Myanmar football team fought Laos?” she asked, her eyes turning red.

“Where?” I asked worriedly.

“Outside the stadium,” she answered shortly as she showed me a picture of hundreds of fans with Myanmar flags outside the stadium.

 

Image result for Malaysian Hooligans at 2017 SEA Games in Kuala Lumpur

Malaysian crowd unfriendly towards our Singapore neighbours

According to Wai and allegations on social media, only 500 tickets were made available by Malaysia for the Myanmar fans during the Myanmar-Laos match at the UiTM Stadium, which has a capacity of 6,000 seats. Although there were a lot of empty seats during the match, no additional tickets were made available for the remaining fans. As a result, they had to camp outside – some climbed fences and some on trees, to catch glimpses of the match.

From time to time, someone from inside the stadium would ring someone waiting outside, to give updates on the match – that was how their fans outside the stadium celebrated all of Myanmar’s three goals.

Myanmar fans who were stranded outside were purportedly only allowed to enter the stadium 10 minutes before the match ended.

“This picture is going viral in Myanmar. It is making many people angry at Malaysia. Myanmar treated Malaysia so well during the 2013 SEA Games but Malaysia is treating Myanmar so bad in 2017 SEA Games. Why?” Wai asked an honest question.

I was lost for a reply.

“There are thousands of Myanmar people working in Malaysia. This is not fair for them,” she added.

“I agree, Wai. This is not fair….if it is true.”

“You always support your Malaysia,” Wai said. She did not sound too happy. “Look at this report in your own media.”

The news report was about the bus driver of the Myanmar women’s football team who apparently was arrested for theft during a match.

“The Myanmar team had already complained on social media that they were feeling scared of the way the bus driver was operating the bus while on the way to the stadium. And then after beating Malaysia 5-0, the Myanmar team who were tired and hungry had to wait almost two more hours because they could not find the bus driver. Nobody knew he was arrested,” Wai explained.

“That’s really bad,” I said, scratching my head.

Driving without a licence

“You know what is really bad, Fa? The report also says that the bus driver had no driving licence at all!”

My jaw dropped.

“How can Malaysia hire someone without driving licence for our athletes? What if something bad had happened while he was driving recklessly?” Wai was really upset.

I scrolled the Facebook page showed by Wai and was displeased to read chains of angry comments.

“If you are not ready for this, you don’t need to be a host. Shame on you Malaysia!

Image result for Malaysian Hooligans at 2017 SEA Games in Kuala Lumpur

Tony Fernandes and AirAsia Staff–The Bright Side of Malaysia

Image result for airasia logo

 

“Everyone is angry at Malaysia. Me, my father, my boyfriend… everyone. We always like Malaysia because Malaysia is beautiful country, many of our relatives work in Malaysia and we have friends like you from Malaysia. But this time, we don’t like Malaysia.” said Wai, unhappily.

I apologised to Wai on behalf of Malaysia. She smiled, assuring me that it was not my fault that her countrymen were treated in such a way. However, deep inside, I know she is still very much upset.

With hundreds of millions of ringgit spent to ensure the 29th SEA Games unfolds perfectly, I wonder what went wrong.

Do the stories going viral in Myanmar hold any truth? Perhaps Youth and Sports Minister Khairy Jamaluddin should look into it.

As I was writing this, I received a text message forwarded by my son. It was an invitation for all Malaysian football fans to support the Malaysian team in the Malaysia-Myanmar match on August 21 in Shah Alam – the tickets all sponsored.

And I begin to wonder if Myanmar football fans in Malaysia will be able to purchase tickets for this match today – or whether they will be left allegedly stranded outside the stadium once again.

Sigh.

So much for the spirit of sport…


August 2017 Unity–The Sheer Sham of It All


August 14, 2017

August 2017 Unity–The Sheer Sham of It All

by R. Nadeswaran

http://www.malaysiakini.com

COMMENT | IT is that time of the year when almost the whole country is engrossed in the word “unity”. They walk for unity; run for unanimity; cycle for harmony; and there are those who are also making a living out of creating sports activities in various guises of good ethnic relations.

Image result for Najib promotes racism

Our leaders have been part of it. I heard the Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak lecture a crowd in Oxford on racial tolerance five years ago. Declaring that he had read the Torah, the Bibles, the Quran and other religious scriptures, Najib claimed Malaysia was an outstanding society where multi-culturalism was alive and kicking.

Image result for harussani zakaria

Two Islamic Eggheads, one from Perlis  and the other from Perak

Really? Weeks later, back in Malaysia, the religious zealots and racists were spewing their hatred, egged on by narrow-minded bigots who believe that every issue has to be seen through their blinkered eyes of race and religion.

It has not stopped, but takes a break once a year to have the “feel good” sensation just because we want to celebrate our independence as “a united nation”.

“We do not identify ourselves as Malays, Chinese, Kadazans or Indians. We are all Malaysians,” some of the leaders would say and the entire crowd would rise and give thunderous applause.

Around the corner, yet another of their colleagues would talk about his special rights and label part of the population as “pendatang” and add yet another order: “Balik Tongsan”.

Each has its own agenda, sometimes personal, most of the time materialistic – to advance such messages. These examples have been chronicled and can be traced from the archives of newspapers or news portals.

These are not restricted to our leaders. Anyone who has just that little power wants to impose his or her values in the name of race and religion. From heads of government departments and local councils to headmasters and retirees, all want to dictate how the ordinary Malaysian should lead his or her life.

Image result for Extremist Malaysia

Seven years ago, I visited my alma mater – Klang High School – after a student complained that “the guru besar had dissolved all non-Muslim religious societies” in the school, which I later found out, was not true. The decision was not made by the headmistress – it was made by the Selangor Education Department.

At that time, it was suggested that efforts be made to identify and punish the religious zealot in the Selangor Education Department. Could it have happened then and will it happen today? Who cares to punish, let alone identify the culprit because such decisions were made in the name of “maruah agama and bangsa”?

To cut a long story short, the matter was resolved, but racism, religious bigotry and extremism continue unabated until today. Occasionally, we hear of this and that, but to what extent such fanaticism exists?

The issue of a school that introduced separate cups for its Muslim and non-Muslim pupils is yet another case. Who introduced it? Why? No one seems to care.

Both the Deputy Ministers of Education – Chong Sin Woon and P Kamalanathan – reacted as expected: with a whimper and no sign of anger or regret at what was happening in our schools. The former stating that the labels were removed as the ministry does not condone such actions. No apology, no explanation – zilch – from the person responsible for such a directive.

At least in Sarawak, we get to see some semblance of discipline. Last year. the principal of a secondary school apologised after controversially rebuking pupils for wearing “big-sized” crosses, while a state minister has upheld the right of Christian schoolchildren to wear necklaces bearing the cross. State Welfare Minister Fatimah Abdullah declared that the wearing of religious symbols in school was not prohibited.

Image result for racial segregation in Malaysia

OR

Image result for racial segregation in Malaysia

Remember the flap over the rooftop airwells on houses in Langkawi which resembled crosses from afar? That was in 2015 and the “problem was solved” when the developer painted over the structures. Everything that resembles a cross – however harmless – is seen differently through the eyes of the bird-brained people.

More recently, the Kulim District Office ordered a developer to remove 20 statues described as “inappropriate” from a Bali-themed park at Taman MBI Desaku in Padang Meha.

Kulim district officer and administrator Mohamad Che Nai said the decision was taken following a meeting on the removal of several statues, including those of deities erected in the park. Earlier, the district office ordered the closure of the theme park and removal of two female-winged statues following complaints lodged by netizens who were uncomfortable with the display of god-like figures there.

So, is the council sending its officers to prowl the toy shops to confiscate Disney’s winged fairy dolls or the God-like battle-ready Wonder Woman dolls from Mattel? Is it going to get the MCMC to block sites through which we can make online orders for such dolls?

While one side sings the unity songs, the other is full-steam ahead with the same tune, except that lyrics are changed and laced with bigotry. Who cares? After all, the unity, patriotism and other slogans are short-term “syiok sendiri” efforts. Remember the “Apa lagi Cina Mahu?” cry after the last husting?

After National Day, they will be held in abeyance, raised during the next general election and thereafter buried and entombed only to be resurrected after five years? Hasn’t anyone not seen the pattern?

Malaysia through its Constitution


August 8, 2017

Malaysia through its Constitution

Much can be told about a country’s character through its laws. Correspondingly, the transformation of a country’s legal regime over time can be said to be a reflection of the socio-political evolution of its society.

Take the Constitution of the United States of America. To date, there have been 27 amendments since its promulgation in 1789. The first ten amendments are collectively known as the Bill of Rights, and spells out the aspirations and desires of a fledgling nation in the form of a solemn promise of fundamental rights in relation to religion, speech, press, assembly, the right to bear arms and protections in the criminal justice system.

 

Tunku Abdul Rahman hailed the “Merdeka” cries during the country’s Independence Proclamation Ceremony on August 31, 1957.

 

Following the end of the Civil War in 1865, amendments were made to abolish slavery and further define the rights of its citizens. As the Twentieth century got underway, the Constitution was further amended to reflect the changing times – voting rights for women, tax concerns and that peculiar period in modern American history known as Prohibition.

In 1963 the assassination of President John F. Kennedy paved the way for the 25th amendment, which establishes clear procedures for filling the post in the case of an abrupt vacancy. In 1971, following nationwide student activism in protest of the Vietnam War, the Constitution was amended for the 26th time to lower the voting age from 21 to 18.

The Malaysian Story

In similar vein, the evolution of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia since Merdeka in 1957 also provides a picture of how our nation has progressed – or regressed, depending on perspective – throughout the 60 years of its existence.

Unlike the US, the Malaysian Parliament is not shy when it comes to tinkering with the supreme law of the land. To date, there have been 57 constitutional amendment acts, which correspond to an average of almost one a year. However, it would be disingenuous to compare the two charters like for like, as the US Constitution, which comprises only seven articles, is meant to provide a “frame of government”1 that sets out the broad scope and functions of the main branches of the Federal Government, viz. the Legislative (Congress), the Judiciary and the Executive (the office of the president).

On the other hand, the Malaysian document is 12 times longer comprising 15 parts, 230 articles and 13 schedules – all of which detail very specific provisions on numerous issues including revenue from toddy shops to capitation grants from the Federal government to the states. For practical purposes, many of these provisions naturally require updating every once in a while.

That said, a number of scholars have noted that the actual number of amendments that have been made to the Federal Constitution is closer to 700, if each individual change is counted.2 Be that as it may, it is the substance more than the quantity of the amendments that really matters, and on this score constitutional expert Shad Saleem Faruqi has opined that fundamental alterations to critical areas have resulted in the dilution of the spirit of the original Merdeka Constitution.3 In addition, legal scholar HP Lee even describes the changes as amounting to “a truncation of safeguards which had been considered by the Reid Commission as vital for the growth of a viable democratic nation”.4

Malayan delegates met with British officials in London in 1956 to discuss their country’s future relationship with Britain.1960: Ending the Emergency without Losing Emergency Powers

 

The first major amendment to the Constitution took place in 1960, three years after Merdeka. In tabling the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 1960, the government moved to amend 33 articles and insert two new ones, besides amending the second schedule. While it is not unusual for a fledgling country to amend its constitution after a few years of finding its feet, some of the changes that were undertaken had serious and far-reaching consequences.

It is perhaps important to first understand the context of the times. Malaya, as the country was called then, had gained independence in 1957 in the midst of a communist insurgency that began in 1948. By 1960, the war had begun to wind down as the communist objective of seeking independence by force from the British had, by virtue of Merdeka, been rendered moot.

However, instead of capitalising on the end of the war to usher in a new era of peace and greater freedom, it was a case of the government wanting to end the Emergency without losing emergency powers. This can be clearly seen from amendments made to Part XI of the Constitution, encompassing Articles 149 to 151, which deals with legislation against subversion and action prejudicial to public order.

Article 149 provides for the creation of Acts of Parliament that would, in the face of subversive threats to the Federation,5 cause the suspension of fundamental liberties enshrined in Articles 5, 9, 10 and 13 with regards to freedom of speech, association, movement and property, and freedom from unlawful detention. This is of course an understandable provision given the tumultuous security situation of the time. However, the same article also provided a sunset clause that stipulated that all such legislation would cease to have effect after one year. In other words, laws allowing preventive detention were meant to be temporary features.

Men of the Malay Police Field Force wade through a river during a jungle patrol in the Temenggor area of northern Malaya.

 

Unfortunately, this critical safeguard was repealed in the amendment, thus paving the way for the creation of the notorious Internal Security Act 1960, which remained in force until its repeal 52 years later, only to be succeeded by similarly powerful incarnations such as the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 and the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2015.

Meanwhile, Article 150, which governs the declaration of states of emergency, used to contain in its original version a clause that would necessitate, in the event of an emergency proclamation, its tabling in both Houses of Parliament at the soonest convenience. Once convened, Parliament must approve the resolution for the emergency, failing which it would automatically expire after two months from its date of issue. In the case that Parliament is not sitting at the time, then the Yang Di- Pertuan Agong6 could issue emergency ordinances that would expire 15 days after the reconvening of Parliament.

However, the provisions were amended to remove the need for parliamentary approval. Instead, any emergency proclamation or ordinance would now continue to be in force until such time that Parliament annuls it. The corollary had been reversed – where parliamentary approval was previously required to maintain a state of emergency, it was now only required to end one. These amendments were to set the scene for many long-term emergencies and ultimately the suspension of Parliament in 1969.

While most of the other constitutional amendments made in 1960 were mainly administrative in nature, there were still a few more that carried questionable overtones. Take, for example, the amendments to Articles 122, 125 and 138, which resulted in the repeal of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission ( JLSC), hitherto responsible for making all recommendations with regards to judicial appointments.

Following that, the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against judges was transferred from the defunct JLSC to the Agong on the advice of the prime minister, thus severely curtailing the independence of the judiciary. Repercussions from this move did not become apparent until 28 years later (1988) when the provisions facilitated the sacking of the Lord President (now known as Chief Justice)Tun Salleh Abbas and two other judges of the Supreme Court, precipitating a judicial crisis from which the nation has never fully recovered.7

In addition to the Judiciary, an amendment to Article 145 also had the effect of changing the position of the attorney-general from a tenured one, much like a Supreme Court judge, to one that is held at the pleasure of the Agong. The intentions here were probably less sinister as it made the position a political appointment, which meant that the attorney-general could be a member of the government and therefore directly answerable to Parliament, as was the case from the 1960s to the early 1980s when the post was typically filled by members of parliament. However, it also meant that they could be unceremoniously sacked at any time, as Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail was to discover in 2016 after running afoul of the Prime Minister Najib Razak.

1962: Consolidation of Power

The second major amendment to the Constitution took place just two years after the first. In 1962 a bill was moved to amend 29 articles, adding three more articles while repealing three others. Changes were also made to a number of schedules, including the introduction of the 13th schedule, which governs electoral rules.

By and large, the 1962 amendments saw the tightening up of laws and other minor administrative matters involving executive authority, legislative powers and financial matters including the assignment of revenue from minerals to states. Nonetheless, major changes were also made, particularly to Parts III and VIII concerning rules of citizenship and the electoral system respectively, both tied to the long-term survivability of the ruling Alliance government.

Citizenship had been one of the most contentious political issues leading to independence, and continued to dominate public discourse in the years following. The Reid Commission, drafters of the Constitution, had liberalised citizenship requirements so that many ethnically non-Malay residents could become citizens and, accordingly, gain electoral franchise.

The consequences of the more liberal citizenship policy would not be seen until 1959 when the first General Election of independent Malaya was held. The Alliance government saw its control over 99% of seats in the Federal Legislative Council reduced to only 71% in the newly constituted Parliament of Malaya. Besides losing control over Kelantan and Terengganu, two states in the Malay heartland, much of the Alliance’s losses were also due to low levels of support from the newly qualified non-Malay voters in urban areas.

Thus, faced with diminished influence, the Alliance moved to appease Malay voters through a massive rural development programme while they sought to contain the non-Malays by two means: firstly, citizenship was made more difficult to acquire, easier to lose and greater discretionary power in citizenship matters was placed in the hands of the executive.8 Secondly – and more effectively – fundamental changes were made to the electoral system in order to mitigate the potential threat of non-Malay electoral strength.9

However, tinkering with election rules was not an easy task, thanks to the Reid Commission’s foresight in embedding provisions to ensure that the Election Commission (EC) was not only independent but also accorded total authority over the delineation of constituencies without the need for parliamentary oversight. This meant that political parties, even if they were in power at federal or state level, would have little influence over the review and delimitation of constituencies.

In 1960 an electoral re-delimitation exercise was conducted by the EC in strict conformity with the letter of the Constitution. As constituencies became more fairly apportioned and voter disparity was reduced to a maximum deviation of 15% of the average constituency size within a state, it became apparent that urban non-Malay voters would gain an increased share of electoral influence at the expense of the Alliance’s traditional rural Malay vote base, which would lose its rural weightage advantage.

Alarmed by the outcome of the redelimitation exercise, the Alliance government passed a raft of changes to the Constitution in 1962 that effectively annulled the revised constituencies, added new rules for constituency delineation, increased the 15% deviation limit to 33%, and even more significantly, stripped the EC of its independence and role as final arbiter of constituency changes. As a result, the EC is now mandated only to conduct re-delimitation reviews before presenting its recommendations to the prime minister, who in turn will then table them “with or without modifications” to Parliament for approval by simple majority.

In the grand scheme of things, the constitutional amendments made in 1962, particularly with regards to election rules that provided Parliament with even greater control over the creation and boundaries of constituencies, can be seen to have been the greatest contributor to the longevity of the ruling regime’s hold on power, unbroken to this day.

1963-1969: A Nation in Transition

Just a year after the 1962 amendments, the Constitution underwent another major overhaul. The Malaysia Act 1963 was introduced to accommodate structural changes to the country with the addition of Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore into the expanded and renamed Federation of Malaysia.

KL in the 1960s.

 

As can be expected, minor changes had to be made to more than a hundred articles in order to include the new states. For the most part, the amendments were procedural in nature with a few exceptions such as the reinstatement of a watered-down version of the JLSC.10 In 1964 and 1965 the Constitution was amended twice for minor administrative matters involving the legislative, executive and judiciary, as well as further tidying up of laws following the expansion of the Federation.

Unfortunately, the new union was not to last. In protest of what Indonesian president Sukarno labelled the “neo-imperialist” creation of Malaysia,11 Indonesia declared a “confrontation” against the Federation, proceeding to wage violent conflict for the next three years.12 Besides military skirmishes in Borneo, a spate of bombings were also carried out in Singapore, the most famous of which was the bombing of Macdonald House on March 10, 1965, which killed three people and injured 33 others.

Adding to the pressure were racial tensions stirred up by various parties including Indonesian saboteurs, nationalist Malays as well as pro-communist leftist elements. During Singapore’s two-year period in Malaysia, numerous racial riots occurred, including the notorious July 21, 1964 riot that broke out during a procession to celebrate the Prophet Muhammad’s birthday, resulting in the deaths of 22 people. Further smaller scale riots took place later in the year, contributing to an immensely tense environment. These events had also taken place against the backdrop of a racially charged 1964 General Election, which served to strain the relationship between the Alliance and the People’s Action Party, which ruled Singapore.

With disagreements coming to a head over social, political and even economic and financial issues, the relationship became untenable. On August 9, 1965, Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman; Putra moved to enact the Constitution and Malaysia (Singapore Amendment) Act 1965 in order to legally separate Singapore from the Federation. With the removal of Singapore, the Constitution had to be amended again. This was conducted in 1966, affecting 45 articles and four schedules.

1966 saw further constitutional issues as it was Sarawak’s turn to face a crisis. In June 1966, following dissatisfaction over a native land reform law advocated by Sarawak Chief Minister Stephen Kalong Ningkan, 21 out of 42 members of the state legislature petitioned the Governor of Sarawak to remove Ningkan. With the backing of the Prime Minister, the Governor demanded Ningkan’s resignation, but the latter refused as he insisted that due process had not been followed as there had not been a motion of no confidence in the legislature.

Ningkan was sacked anyway, leading him to file a suit at the High Court, which ruled in September that the governor did not have the power to dismiss a Chief Minister. Ningkan was then reinstated but before he could dissolve the legislature to seek a fresh mandate, the Federal government moved the Emergency (Federal Constitution and Constitution of Sarawak) Bill 1966 in order to declare a state of emergency in Sarawak, thus suspending elections in the state. Further to that, the state constitution of Sarawak was also amended by Parliament to authorise the Governor to convene the state legislature without going through the Chief Minister, leading to Ningkan’s ultimate dismissal.

The high-handed removal of the Sarawak Chief Minister in 1966 marked the first time that a power grab was facilitated by the Federal Government, though it would not be the last. In 1977 a coup by members of the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS) against the Kelantan Chief Minister was foiled when an emergency was declared by the federal government, thus keeping the incumbent chief minister in place until elections were held the following year. In the event, Barisan Nasional (the renamed Alliance coalition) managed to gain power for the first time in the state.

More recently in 2009, the Perak Chief Minister from PAS, leading the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) coalition government, was removed by the Sultan of the state following defections of PR assemblymen who declared support for BN. Following an audience between the Prime Minister and the Sultan, the latter refused the Chief Minister’s request for dissolution of the state legislature, and instead appointed a new Chief Minister from BN. Although a successful challenge was made at the High Court, the verdict was later overturned by the Court of Appeal and Federal Court, which held that  the takeover was legal.

1969-1973: Aftermath of a Tragedy

Topping off what is probably the most eventful decade in Malaysian history is the infamous May 13, 1969 racial riots. Tensions had mounted in the years leading up to the 1969 general election, resulting in outbreaks of sectarian violence. In November 1967 a hartal organised by Maoist sympathisers in Penang turned bloody, although it was contained from spreading beyond the state. In June 1968 protests against death sentences meted out to 11 Chinese members of the Malayan Communist Party took a racial slant until their sentences were commuted.

Eventually, the official General Election campaign period, from nomination day on April 5 to polling day on May 10, saw sentiments coming to a boil as racial and religious politics were played up to the hilt. A fortnight before polling day, a Malay political worker was killed in Penang. But while this incident managed to be quelled, another incident in Selangor occurred 10 days later, in which a young Chinese man was shot, reportedly in self-defence, by Police officers.

Sensing political opportunity, leaders of the Labour Party, which had by then fallen under the control of far-left elements and had also boycotted the general election, somehow ended up hijacking the organisation of the funeral procession. Held just a day before polling, the procession turned out to be one of the largest ever seen in KL, and was by most accounts less a funeral than a mass political demonstration complete with banners carrying revolutionary Maoist slogans and the depiction of the deceased as a political martyr.

A day later, Malaysia went to the polls. By May 11, it became obvious that the Alliance would retain power with a drastically reduced majority. Not only did the coalition fail to attain 50% of the popular vote share, they also lost their two-thirds majority in Parliament for the first time. On top of that, they also lost their majorities in the Penang, Kelantan, Perak and Selangor state assemblies, the latter two ending up in a hung situation with no party having an absolute majority.

The bombing of Macdonald House on March 10, 1965. Pic.1

 

Elated by the unprecedented results, opposition parties in the capital celebrated their success by holding large processions. Naturally, sentiments were highly racialised and provocative. In response, the Malay daily Utusan Melayu’s editorial suggested that Malay political power was under threat, prompting members of UMNO Youth13 to respond by organising a victory parade in the capital.

What followed on May 13 will forever be etched in history as Malaysia’s day of disgrace, described by Tunku as a “social and political eruption of the first magnitude”,14 a dark moment when Malaysia was betrayed by Malaysians. Blood flowed through the streets of KL as hundreds were killed in sectarian rioting.

A state of emergency was soon declared and on May 16, Parliament was suspended – a sequence of events that would not have been possible were it not for the constitutional amendments of 1960. In the absence of parliamentary rule, a National Operations Council (NOC) was established to play the role of a caretaker government under the directorship of Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Razak Hussein. State and district operations councils were formed to govern the country at the different levels.

The level of premeditation and actual motivations behind the decisions and events precipitating the riots will forever be the subject of conspiracy theories. But what cannot be denied is the fact that the May 13 incident marked the end of the first epoch of Malaysian history, and the beginning of a new era under Razak, who ruled as head of the NOC and eventually as prime minister upon the retirement of Tunku on September 22, 1970.

The bombing of Macdonald House on March 10, 1965. Pic 2

 

From the ashes of the bloody riots, a new social compact was forged in the form of the New Economic Policy (NEP)15 which laid the ground for an assertion of Malay nationalism in various sectors including education and the economy through social re-engineering and affirmative action programmes. The national political landscape was also transformed with the creation of the BN grand coalition in 1973, which absorbed opposition parties including PAS, Parti Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia (Gerakan) and the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) in West Malaysia. This had the effect of restoring the two-thirds majority in Parliament and consolidating control over every state government in the country.

Armed with total control, Razak moved to enshrine the new social compromises through the controversial Constitution (Amendment) Act 1971. Dubbed the “sensitive matters amendment”,16 seven articles were changed including those governing freedom of speech, assembly and association, parliamentary privileges, the national language, and the expansion of the scope of Article 153 that deals with the protection of the “special position” of the Malays.

As a result of the amendments, fundamental liberties were proscribed so that “sensitive matters” – defined to include issues such as citizenship, language, the special position of the Malays and the natives of Borneo, and the rulers’ sovereignty – could not be discussed openly, even in Parliament. The Sedition Act, previously inapplicable within the confines of the august House and state legislatures, now applies throughout.

These amendments were further augmented by other proscriptive legislation, such as the University and University College Act 1971, which forbade university students from participating in political activities, and the Official Secrets Act 1972, which cast a wide net for deeming what is confidential and hence unlawful to disseminate.

Further to that, Article 159 was altered so that the consent of the Conference of Rulers’, previously required only for amendments to provisions affecting the special position of the Malays and the Rulers themselves, was now also required for those affecting the national language, parliamentary privilege and certain fundamental liberties. Meanwhile, Article 153 was modified to allow the creation of quotas for Malays and natives in institutions of higher education, in addition to existing quotas for public service, education and commercial permits and licenses.

In 1973 another major constitutional amendment bill was moved that carried major electoral impact. Constitutional limits to rural weightage, which had been loosened in 1962 when the maximum deviation was increased from 15% to 33%, were abolished altogether. In the absence of the safeguards that were put in place by the Reid Commission, seats could now be created that are up to four or five times the size of other seats within the same state, as is the case today.17

In addition, the power of the EC to apportion constituencies was abrogated and instead specified in the constitution, hence amendable only by a two-thirds majority vote in Parliament. With deviation limits removed, the government of the day had practically awarded themselves carte blanche powers to delineate and apportion constituencies in any manner that was convenient to them.

Finally, the amendments also saw the carving out of KL as a federal territory, thereby removing it from the state of Selangor. As the majority Chinese population of KL was seen to have played a key part in the defeat of the Alliance in Selangor in 1969, excising the city also meant ridding the state of most of its opposition-leaning voters.18 Not only did it secure Selangor for BN, it also essentially robbed the voters of KL of their right to representation at the local level, as the federal territory has no elected legislature.

1973-1994: The Mahathir Era

Between 1973 and 1985, the Constitution was amended 11 more times, including numerous modifications to the capitation grants to the states, the creation of the federal territory of Labuan, further tightening up of election laws which gave the government even more discretionary powers, and the introduction of the ringgit as the national currency.

Of particular note were amendments made in 1983 and 1984 with regards to the legislative role of the rulers. In 1981 Mahathir Mohamad took over the job that he would go on to hold for the next 22 years. Never shy to challenge the orthodoxy, having been responsible for an infamous open letter to then-Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra in 1969 that blamed the latter for the May 13 riots, Mahathir began the first of numerous confrontations with the Malay Royalty in 1983.

Prior to this, the Rulers enjoyed legal immunity, a provision that had been abused on more than one occasion.19 By the early 1980s, the behaviour of the rulers was increasingly questioned in public discourse, particularly with regards to their perceived extravagance, financial misdeeds, wastage of public funds, involvement in business and active interference in political matters.20 Naturally disinclined towards feudalism and fueled by the prospect of an incoming activist Agong, Mahathir decided to pre-empt the situation by introducing the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 1983.21

Among the 43 articles amended were provisions that essentially made royal assent to a bill passed by Parliament a rubber-stamp procedure that could not be denied by the Agong. This applied to state laws as well. In addition, Mahathir also proposed to transfer the power to declare a state of emergency from the Agong to the hands of the prime minister. Although the amendments were passed by both Houses of Parliament, an impasse occurred when the sitting Agong, having consulted his fellow rulers, objected to the Bill.

A stand-off ensued as Mahathir went all guns blazing, rallying his party machinery in demonstrations up and down the country while the press played along to his tune, explaining the necessity for the amendments. Not to be outdone, the rulers also held counter-rallies with the support of veteran UMNO leaders.

Finally, a compromise was achieved. The right to declare emergencies remained with the Agong and the rulers retained their right to withhold assent to state laws. For federal laws passed by Parliament, the Agong could now reject a bill by sending it back to the legislature. If the said bill was passed again, then it would automatically become law after 30 days, with or without royal assent. The only exception to this was in the case of money bills, which could not be rejected in the first instance.22

Mahathir Mohamad.

 

The next major constitutional amendment would occur in 1988 amid portentous circumstances. A year earlier, Mahathir barely survived a leadership challenge from within his party, the result of which left Umno divided down the line. The losing faction undertook legal proceedings and in February 1988, the courts ruled Umno to be an unlawful society due to irregularities with some of its branches. In the wake of the deregistration of UMNO and other court decisions that the government found unfavourable, Mahathir moved to curtail the judiciary.

Article 121 was a specific target of the constitutional amendments of 1988. Previously ascribing plenary authority over the judicial power of the Federation to the courts, the article was amended to bind the courts to “such jurisdiction and powers as might be conferred by or under federal law”,23 thus subordinating the judiciary to the legislative. Other amendments included the removal of the general power of the High Court to conduct judicial reviews,the empowerment of the attorney-general to determine the courts for cases to be heard, and, significantly, the insertion of Article 121(1A), which not only drew a line of separation between the civil and syariah courts, also elevated the status of the syariah courts to be on par with the civil courts, thus creating a parallel legal system that has seen many complications arise, especially in cross-jurisdictional cases involving Muslims and non-Muslims.

In response to the government’s hastily introduced changes, the Lord President of the Supreme Court, Salleh Abas convened a meeting of judges which unanimously approved a letter to be sent to the Agong to convey their disappointment at the actions of the prime minister to undermine the judiciary.

However, thanks to amendments made in 1960, Mahathir was able to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Lord President, resulting in his eventual removal along with two other Supreme Court judges. This dark episode remains a blight in the history of the Malaysian Judiciary, and it was not until 2008 that the government made reparations to the sacked judges. In 2017 the Federal Court (previously Supreme Court) ruled that the 1988 amendments that subordinated the judiciary to Parliament were unconstitutional, although it fell short of striking down the Act in question.24

Mahathir’s second bout with Royalty took place in 1993. Despite the previous standoff, a number of rulers continued to behave with impunity, regularly interfering in state politics, flouting tax laws and even indulging in criminal activity. Following a motion of censure by Parliament against the Sultan of Johor who had physically abused a hockey coach, the Constitution was amended to strip the Rulers of their immunity from prosecution, although they would be subjected to a special court of their peers rather than the normal civil courts.

Malaysia Day celebrations.

 

In 1994 Mahathir made further amendments to the Constitution to tie up loose ends, including abolishing the power of the Agong to delay a bill by returning it to Parliament. This time, the same provision was extended for state legislatures as well, hence all but eliminating the role of the Malay royalty as a checks and balances mechanism.

At the same time, the downgrading of the Judiciary was completed through symbolic changes such as the renaming of the Lord President as Chief Justice and the Supreme Court as the Federal Court, as well as the introduction of a code of ethics for judges.

The Constitution would be amended 16 more times, with the last being in 2009. Most of the changes during this period were minor and administrative in nature, with the exception of the creation of a third federal territory in 2001, viz. the new federal administrative capital of Putrajaya.

Whither Do We Go?

Unlike the US, whose 27 constitutional amendments, from the Bill of Rights to the abolition of slavery to universal adult suffrage, paint a narrative of a nation’s journey towards building a more inclusive, progressive and emancipated society, the story of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia reveals a nation that is heading the other way – towards more exclusivism, regression and repression.

Critical amendments made over 60 years have altered the fundamental nature and spirit of the original Reid Constitution of 1957 by concentrating power in the hands of the executive, dismantling various constitutional safeguards with regards to fundamental liberties and the use of emergency powers, overhauling the electoral system in order to ensure the longevity of the incumbent government, and suppressing rival centres of power, including institutions such as the Malay royalty and the judiciary.

As a result, the Constitution today no longer embodies the spirit and intentions of the founders of the country. This is perhaps an appropriate reflection of the Malaysian polity today. Although the same party that ruled at independence continues to rule, there are few who would agree that the current leadership even remotely adheres to the same ideals and principles as its pioneers.

Ultimately, fixing Malaysia requires fixing its laws. If our country is to find its place in the sun as an inclusive and progressive nation of the twenty-first century, then the political will to rewrite our laws to make for a more inclusive, open and fair society has to be found.

1 In its draft form, the US Constitution was given the working title, ‘A frame of Government’.

2 Cindy Tham, “Major Changes to the Constitution,” The Malaysian Bar, 17 July 2007, http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/echoes_of_the_past/major_changes_to_the_constitution.html.

3 The Sun Daily,“The All-Powerful Executive,” The Sun Daily, 1 October 2005, http://www.thesundaily.my/node/176393.

4 Cindy Tham, ibid.

5 These ‘threats’ were originally confined to conditions of organised violence, but were in the same amendment expanded to include attempts to incite communal hostility and acts ‘prejudicial to the security of the Federation’.

6 The Yang di-Pertuan Agong, usually shortened to Agong, is the paramount ruler and head of state of Malaysia. The position is elected by rotation from among nine hereditary Malay rulers every five years.

7 The Malay Mail Online, “Ex-Judge: Judiciary Never Fully Recovered from 1988 Crisis,” The Malay Mail Online, 20 September 2015, http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/ex-judge-judiciarynever- fully-recovered-from-1988-crisis.

8 LA Sheridan and Harry E Groves quoted in Lim Hong Hai, “Electoral Politics in Malaysia: ‘Managing’ Elections in a Plural Society” in Aurel Croissant (ed.), Electoral Politics in Southeast & East Asia (Singapore: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, 2002), p. 108.

9 Lim Hong Hai, ibid., p. 107.

10 In 1963, the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC) was reinstated albeit in a watered down form. No longer chaired by the Lord President, the reincarnated JLSC’s remit also does not extend beyond the subordinate courts.

11 Marshall Clark and Juliet Pietsch, Indonesia- Malaysia Relations: Cultural Heritage, Politics and Labour Migration, (Abingdon: Routledge, 2014),p. 25.

12 The confrontation with Indonesia also provided the pretext for the Alliance federal government to suspend local government elections in 1965. The third vote has since been abolished.

13 Umno Youth is the youth wing of the United Malays National Organisation (Umno), the leading component party of the Barisan Nasional and the Alliance before it.

14 Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, May 13: Before and After (Kuala Lumpur: Utusan Melayu Press), p. 7.

15 Formulated by the NOC, the NEP was conceived to achieve the two-pronged objectives of eradicating poverty as well as reducing and subsequently eliminating the identification of race by economic function and geographical location.

16 The Sun Daily, ibid.

17 See, for example, Wong Chin Huat, Yeong Pey Jung, Nidhal Mujahid and Ooi Kok Hin, “The Effects of the 2016 Delimitation Exercise on the State of Penang”, 13 October 2016, http:// penanginstitute.org/v3/files/malapportionment/ Penang-Report_20161013_Final.pdf, Susan Loone, “Penang study shows ‘hard evidence’ on EC’s malapportionment of seats,” Malaysiakini, 18 January 2017, http://www. malaysiakini.com/news/369671 and Free Malaysia Today, “Pua Claims EC Conducting Single-Biggest Gerrymandering Exercise,” Free Malaysia Today, 15 September 2016, http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/ nation/2016/09/15/pua-claims-ec-conductingsingle- biggest-gerrymandering-exercise/.

18 Lim Hong Hai, ibid., pp. 111–112.

19 Barry Wain, Malaysian Maverick: Mahathir Mohamad in Turbulent Times (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), p. 175.

20 Barry Wain, ibid., pp. 179–180.

21 Barry Wain, ibid., pp. 181.

22 Barry Wain, ibid., pp. 185.

23 See Article 121 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.

24 Free Malaysia Today, “MP: Parliament Must Now Restore Judicial Power to the Judiciary,” Free Malaysia Today, 4 May 2017, http:// http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/ nation/2017/05/04/mp-parliament-must-nowrestore- judicial-power-to-the-judiciary/.

Zairil Khir Johari is MP for Bukit Bendera, Penang.

 

A Week of Fakery in Global Politics


August 5, 2017

A Week of Fakery in Global Politics

by Dean Johns@www.malaysiakini.com

Image result for The Mooch fired

All you have to do is to work for Donald Trump

Though there’s a long, long way to go before we can hope to defeat the dark forces of fake news and false views, at least we have had a few small wins against them this week.

In China, for example, the country that still fakes it as Communist despite having turned capitalist, remains a Party dictatorship despite claiming to be a “People’s’ Republic”, and continues as ever to control its people with a system of fake news and secrecy, the state censors have been forced to make fools of themselves by banning not just Facebook and Twitter as usual, but now also internet mentions and images of Winnie the Pooh.

According to Australia’s ABC News website, netizens in China have been poking fun at President Xi Jinping by drawing attention to his striking resemblance to the famous ‘bear of little brain’. This has not impressed the powers that be, apparently, especially with the 19th Party Congress approaching.

Of course the banning of Winnie the Pooh will not make the slightest difference to Xi Jinnie the Pooh’s regime, let alone bring it down, but at least it will render it a little more of a laughing-stock both at home and abroad.

Though not so much a laughing-stock, I grant you, as Trump and his fellow fakewits have been making of themselves, their supporters and by extension the US in general every week for their past six months in the White House.

And especially this past week, with the firing of foul-mouthed fakewit Anthony Scaramucci–The Mooch– from his job just 10 days after he was hired.

Image result for australian prime minister malcolm turnbull with Trump

Then came the Australian connection, with the publication of the transcript of a phone conversation that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull had with Donald Trump shortly after he was installed in the Oval Office.

At the time Trump was widely criticized, at least by the Australian media, for his reportedly hostile treatment of Turnbull, and for allegedly angrily and abruptly ending the conversation.

But while the transcript reveals all this to be true to a considerable extent, it also reveals Turnbull as something of a fakewit for having previously falsely represented his side of the conversation about the terms of a refugee-exchange deal previously made with former President Obama.

Turnbull and his immigration minister, Senator Peter Dutton, have long claimed that the deal was not intended as some cynical, self-serving “people-swap”, and the transcript revealed that’s exactly what it was.

Both were cynical and self-serving, in that Turnbull and Dutton’s motives for making the deal clearly had everything to do with their political concerns, and little if any care for the well-being of the people who have so long languished in Australia’s dismal offshore detention centres.

If this revelation had been the only sign of fakewittedness in Australia’s Turnbull-led Liberal-National Coalition government lately, it probably would not have been terribly damaging to its prospects at the next election.

But coming as it did on top of a whole string of other political atrocities by the same team of fakewits, like their total failure to carry out sorely-needed reform of the nation’s tax system, their pig-headed denial of climate-change and consequent resistance to renewable energy, and their refusal to countenance a parliamentary vote on the issue of marriage equality, it might well prove the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s (kangaroo’s?) back.

As fakewitted as Australia’s conservatives calling themselves “Liberals” can be, however, at least, as in the US, there are strong opponents, vigilant media and independent legal and other institutions to keep them relatively sensible.

Image result for Najib Razak and Razak Baginda

 

But in Malaysia, now in its 60th year of unbroken misrule by UMNO-BN, the system is so fakewitted from top to bottom that even a financial fraud as massive as the 1MDB fiasco appears not to faze the regime, its cronies and supporters.

Nor, as far as I can see, does the fact that last week the decade-old Scorpene submarines scandal resurfaced in the form of a bribery trial in the French courts.

Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, allegedly a key person of interest, if not a suspect, in both the 1MDB and Scorpene affairs, not to mention the murder of Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu related to the latter of these, simply continues to blankly deny any involvement.

Meanwhile, Abdul Razak Baginda, originally a defendant in the Scorpene and Altantuya matters, but mysteriously discharged by the court on both counts, claims he has not been charged with bribery by French authorities.

And who in Malaysia is about to call his bluff, if indeed that is what it is? Not the fake police, who are still too busy falsely claiming that they are investigating the 1MDB fraud. Not the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), which claims it is far too busy with other matters to even look into the recent allegation by Dr Mahathir Mohamad that Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi has unaccountably amassed assets of RM230 million.

In fact the MACC still apparently has not found the time to question Mahathir about how he and at least some of his sons, along with countless other UMNO-BN ministers, members and cronies, prospered so mightily during his 22 years as Prime Minister.

Nor, to my knowledge, have Malaysia’s fake mainstream media ever reported Mahathir’s key role in creating the appalling levels of financial, judicial, electoral, religious and racial fakery and fraud that he now claims to have repented to the extent that he opposes it all. A claim that, as far as I am concerned, anyone who has followed his career would have to be either an incurable optimist or a total fakewit to believe.

National Unity in Malaysia


August 5, 2017

Between The Lines: National Unity in Malaysia

Channel News Asia

What are the challenges of forging national unity in a post-colonial, multi-ethnic state? From Kuala Lumpur, our panel of Malaysian experts evaluates the country’s progress, and outlines the tasks ahead.

 

Image result for Channel Newsasia

 

COMMENT: Today, Malaysia is a divided nation led by a corrupt Prime Minister. Before unity can be restored, Najib Razak and UMNO kleptocrats and their surrogates in Barisan Nasional (namely MCA, MIC and Gerakan) and PAS must be removed via democratic elections. Otherwise, it is all talk, which is at best purely speculative and futile. The country is in a political crisis. Malaysians know that, but they are not willing to openly admit that their country is a dysfunctional state heading towards a financial crisis due to the 1mdb scandal, and high national debt and a weakening economic fundamentals.–Din Merican

Inline images 1

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/catch-up-tv/between-the-lines/national-unity-in-malaysia-9072398