Who will be the Next King of Malaysia?

January 11,2019

Politics | January 9, 2019 by | 0 Comments

The Sultans of Pahang, Johor and Perak are next in line to assume the role of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, according to the unique rotation system that determines the succession of Malaysia’s supreme ruler.

The rotation system has been in place since 1994, after the rulers of nine states with hereditary lines of succession, had their turn as King since Malaysia’s independence in 1957.

According to the election process set by the Conference of Rulers, only the nine Malay rulers may be elected as Agong for a five-year term, and only they can vote.

When the nine meet on January 24, the candidate in pole position for Agong will be whoever occupies the throne of Pahang. The sultan of Pahang must secure five out of nine “suitable” votes to be elected and offered the post of Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

Below are brief introductions to the three leading candidates in line for Agonship.

Pahang

Pahang’s Tengku Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah could be the next Agong if the state’s royal household installs him as the next sultan. – Facebook pic, January 9, 2019.

According to a New Straits Times report, the Pahang palace is currently working to install the state’s Regent and Crown Prince, Tengku Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah, as the new Sultan before January 24.

This is because the current Ruler of Pahang, 88-year-old Sultan Ahmad Shah Sultan Abu Bakar, who is also Tengku Abdullah’s father, is in frail health.

Sultan Ahmad Shah had taken over the Pahang throne from his father Sultan Abu Bakar Sultan Abdullah in 1974. He was Agong from 1979 to 1984.

Born in Pekan, Pahang, Tengku Abdullah will be 60 on July 30. He was made crown prince of Pahang in 1975. Four years later, he was made Pahang regent, when his father, Sultan Ahmad Shah was elected Agong.

Tengku Abdullah was made regent again in 2017.

Tengku Abdullah gained prominence in the public eye after he took the helm of the Football Association of Malaysia and his attempts to revive Malaysia’s moribund football team.

Johor and Perak

According to the Agong election process, all nine rulers must either vote “suitable” or “not suitable” for candidate next up in the rotation.

If that candidate among the nine rulers fails to get the necessary five “suitable votes”, the process is restarted with the next candidate in line, which is Johor’s sultan.

Sultan Ibrahim Sultan Iskandar of Johor is a year older than Tengku Abdullah, and ascended the throne in 2010, after the death of his father, Sultan Iskandar Sultan Ismail. Sultan Iskandar was Agong from 1984 to 1989.

Compared to the other Malay rulers, Sultan Ibrahim has been the most actively and directly involved in Johor’s political and social landscape.

Sultan Ibrahim Sultan Iskandar of Johor has been directly involved in his state’s social and political life. –Facebook pic, January 9, 2019.

He has issued decrees changing the state’s weekend to start on Friday instead of Saturday, and has publicly spoken out on racial issues. In 2015, he told racists to leave his state. In 2017, he ordered a Muslim-only laundromat to change its policies or be shut down.

Some of his decrees have been controversial, such as his plan to lead the state’s new housing board and ordering Johor’s religious authorities to sever ties with the Federal Islamic Affairs Department (Jakim).

Perak’s Sultan Nazrin Muizzuddin Shah Sultan Azlan Shah is next on the Agong succession list after Johor, and is currently deputy Yang di-Pertuan Agong. This post will also be up for election again on January 24.

At 63, Sultan Nazrin is also the oldest among Tengku Abdullah and Sultan Ibrahim.

Sultan Nazrin has been Perak ruler since 2014, after the death of his father, Sultan Azlan Shah Sultan Yussuff, who was Agong from 1989 to 1994.

Perak’s Sultan Nazrin Muizzuddin Shah Sultan Azlan Shah is an erudite economist  and he holds degrees from Havard and Oxford universities. – The Malaysian Insight file pic, January 9, 2019.

 

 

An avid scholar, Sultan Nazrin is a familiar guest of honour at political and economic symposiums. He holds a Phd and masters degree in politics and economics from Harvard University, in the United States, as well as a bachelor’s degree from Oxford University, UK.

He is currently the Pro-Chancellor of The University of Malaya.

The Malaysian Insight

Harapan entering a grey area, a year before 2020

December 26, 2018

Opinion  |  by Phar Kim Beng

https://www.malaysiakini.com/columns/457606

 

 

Opinion  |  by Phar Kim Beng

COMMENT | As I write this, Malaysia, as governed by Pakatan Harapan, is entering both a festive occasion – marked by Christmas and the New Year – and a festering one too. There are five telltale signs of the latter:

• The tragic death of firefighter Muhammad Adib Mohd Kassim in the Seafield temple riots.
• The 55,000 who gathered in Kuala Lumpur for the rally against the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Icerd).
• Authorities seemingly forgetting about M Indira Gandhi’s missing daughter, and about Teoh Beng Hock’s death nearly ten years ago.
• Close to 15 percent of Malaysia’ population will be above 60 years of age by 2023.
• About 38,000 Felda settlers getting cost of living aid  and deposits for replanting.

In any one of the above, Harapan has at best either been silent, or belatedly proactive. Meanwhile, the world continues to change in five ways:

• US President Donald Trump deciding on two simultaneous withdrawals from Syria and Afghanistan, signalling the end of American presence in two of the most conflict-prone regions in the world.
• Russia staying quiet on the pullout of American troops, although this strategic withdrawal is akin to the collapse of the Berlin Wall.
• Islamic State and the Taliban also staying quiet, suggesting a deeper motivation to push deeper into the Western world, or perhaps Asia, to wreak more havoc;
• China’s One Belt, One Road initiative, which appeared to be all but irreversible, has been challenged by the Quad (United States, Japan, Australia and India).
• Japan, one of the key powers in the Indo-Pacific region, continuing to shrink in terms of population, thus further heightening its insecurity.

These are dangerous times. There are some quaint parallels: the elan of the Vietnam War, when Communist forces pushed forward from the north to south in 1975; the fall of Kabul in 1989; the Russian incursion in Georgia in 2008; and the slow but organic militarisation of South China Sea from 2011 onwards when China, for the first time, referred to the area as its “core interest,” a term previously only reserved for Taiwan and Tibet.

But there is no telling if Harapan is aware of the whiplash effects of these world events. Political scientist Arthur Stein once warned of the importance of “relative gains” in international relations, wherein all great powers see gains and losses in zero-sum terms.

Granted, Malaysia has a foreign and defence policy that seems to be geared towards the centrality of ASEAN. But there is no telling if it wants to adjust to a post-US-Japanese world and the emerging Sino-Russian world order.

East Asia is entering this post-US-Japanese world. The US had always made it a point to keep Tokyo informed of any dramatic moves.

But now, at the speed of a tweet, Trump proceeded to announce the withdrawal of the US from the theater of the Middle East and South Asia, without notifying its staunchest East Asian allies Japan and South Korea.

Japan got its first taste of the ‘Nixon shock’ when the then-US president announced his plan to visit China in 1971, before Nixon announced his New Economic Programme, which included abandoning the gold standard.

The country would be shocked again when it received no thanks from Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah of Kuwait for its financial contribution to Operation Desert Storm led by then-president George Bush.

What Trump did in recent weeks must constitute a third shock for Japan – a major ally pulling out of two regions at the same time, even with the opposition of outgoing Secretary of Defense James Mattis.

By pulling out of Syria and Afghanistan, Japan must be reeling from the fear that its security relationship with Washington can be subject to the same forces that catapulted Trump to power – populism and the American far right.

China and Russia must also be smiling in glee, with the American admission of the impossibility of conducting simultaneous conflicts in two regions.

Malaysia is entering a world of uncertain geopolitical realities and flux.

What adds to the instability is the fact that it is ruled by a new coalition of four parties now beset by infighting – and one still due for a possibly messy transition at the top.

Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad still looks set to hands over the reins to Anwar Ibrahim, although there are signs that things are less than rosy behind the scenes – such as when the daughter of the latter quit her posts in government.

The new year seems likely to put Malaysia in a pinch as it looks ahead to 2020.

---

PHAR KIM BENG is a multiple award-winning head teaching fellow on China and the Cultural Revolution at Harvard University.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.

 

 

The Mythical Ketuanan Melayu Contract

December 15, 2018

by Dr. Lim Teck Ghee

When the Prime Minister’s Office recently announced that the Pakatan Government will not ratify the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), it also noted that the Government will defend the Federal Constitution which enshrines the social contract agreed to by representatives of all the races during the formation of the country.

 

The announcement apparently came out of a Cabinet meeting and was a unanimous decision.

 

One wonders what the Cabinet members were smoking when they agreed to inclusion of a reference to the country’s “enshrined social contract”.

 

The notion of a ‘social contract’ negotiated by the country’s leaders which led to ‘merdeka’ is one of those recent political constructs which, because it has been repeated ad infinitum by the Barisan Nasional government and its supporters, now appears to be unquestionable truth with the public, especially the Malay public.

 

The fact behind the wording is that the term was used for the first time in 1986 by The Late Datuk Abdullah Ahmad, UMNO Kok Lanas Member member of Parliament and journalist – that is, 30 years after independence. It was never used by members of the Reid Commission or by the leaders of the ‘merdeka’ movement.

Abdullah Ahmad’s Social Contract

Abdullah’s view of the social contract which he elaborated in a speech in Singapore was:

“The political system of Malay dominance was born out of the sacrosanct social contract which preceded national independence. Let us never forget that in the Malaysian political system the Malay position must be preserved and that Malay expectations must be met. There have been moves to question, to set aside and to violate the contract that have threatened the stability of the system.

“The May 13,  1969 riots arose out of the challenge to the system agreed upon out of the non-fulfilment of the substance of the contract. The NEP is the programme after those riots in 1969 to fulfil the promises of the contract in 1957… The NEP must continue to sustain Malay dominance in the political system in line with the contract of 1957. Even after 1990, there must be mechanisms of preservation, protection and expansion in an evolving system.”

When he explained it, Dollah Ahmad gave no indication that he had read the reports of the Reid Commission; neither is there evidence that he consulted the scholars who have studied and written on that period of our history.

He was also not able to quote anyone of the first generation of political leaders such as Tunku Abdul Rahman, Onn Jaafar, Tan Cheng Lock and Sambanthan; or any subsequent political leader to support and uphold his notion of the “sacrosanct social contract”.

His objective seems to have been to argue for his concept of ‘ketuanan Melayu’ and the extension of the New Economic Policy at a time when the ending of its 20 year timeframe was in sight.

Since then,  Dollah Ahmad’s construct has been appropriated by a motley crowd including UMNO political leaders, Malay mass media, self-styled academic experts, and other vested interest groups.

One prominent figure in the grouping is the former Prime Minister, Najib Razak who on 21 October 2010 in his speech to the General Assembly intimated that there is a ‘social contract’ whose terms are set in stone and which no Malaysian should question.

So can the question of the ‘social contract’ be now raised and put back in the public arena in Malaysia baru since it has been used to push back the ICERD ratification?

Or will Malaysians again be gagged into silence on a contentious issue standing in the way of better understanding of our political history and ethnic relations.

Demystifying the Social Contract

It is important to note that the majority of local and foreign scholars have repudiated the notion of Dollah Ahmad’s ‘social contract’. Perhaps the most prominent in recent times is RoyalPprofessor Dr. Ungku Abdul Aziz, who is reported to have stated t hat, “There is no such thing as [a] social contract”, and that the social contract is “a fantasy created by politicians of all sorts of colours depending on their interest”.

He also said that the social contract “should rightly be called an ‘economic contract’ to justify affirmative action in areas of education and health for groups that needed it the most”

It is possible that there are disciples of Abdullah Ahmad – including those within Putrajaya today – who hold to the view that there is a ‘social contract’ and that those contesting it are either ignorant, misguided or traitorous.

Here’s a suggestion for supporters of the ‘social contract, and their allies from the anti-ICERD movement in the Pakatan Harapan government and opposition

1. Please print out the ‘sacrosanct social contract’ especially in Malay to be viewed by all Malaysians.

2. If a copy is not available, state what you understand to be part of this social contract. Your view should be supported by relevant excerpts from the Reid Commission and the findings of reputable constitutional and legal experts who have studied the negotiations preceding and after merdeka.

3. Call on the expertise of professional organizations such as the Bar Council, the Malaysian Social Science Association, and other bodies to organize talks, seminars and forums on the ‘social contract’ to ensure that the best minds can have their opinions disseminated to the public.

The danger is that in not debating the issue openly we drive that debate underground and entrench ethnocentric interpretations that do not reflect the true intent of the agreement reached by the framers of our constitution.

 

A Tale of Two Malays

December 5, 2018

by Tajuddin Rasdi

www. freemalaysiatoday.com

In this article I present my views on the different responses and approaches of two Malay and Muslim educated leaders to raise questions about nation building. The two personalities  are Prime Minister Dr Mahathir. Mohamad and the “respected” mufti, scholar and academic Dr. Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin.

The scenario in question is the recent Seafield Sri Maha Mariamman temple incident. I do not view the temple incident as a racial one even though the police have established that the clash was between 50 Malay “hired thugs” and the devotees of the temple.

From the excellent police report and Home Minister Muhyiddin Yassin’s statement, we can gather that these Malays were hired to solve the problem of vacating the land in order for commercial development to take place. The company to which the land belongs has since denied it was involved in hiring thugs.

I have heard whispers of this kind of thuggery being undertaken to resolve the problem of vacating people from state and private land. I have also heard whispers that police often turn a blind eye to such actions. I hope these whispers are not true but the glaring events at the Seafield temple have confirmed my personal fears that there may be truth to many of them.

Whatever the real and intended purpose of the Malay “thugs”, I am convinced it was not a racial conflict but a simple “Melayu-thugs-for-hire” one. But politicians, clerics and opportunists have grabbed on to this incident to colour it as a racial conflict. When I read that 70 Malays turned up later that day, I feared the worst but thankfully, our police force was at its best.

When Asri came out with a forceful statement about taking a harsh approach in dealing with “illegal temples”, I feared it would only aggravate the situation, especially with sentiments over the ICERD still strong.

Although Mahathir has reversed the government’s earlier decision to ratify the UN treaty, many, including the “respected” cleric, seem to be egging on a demonstration that I fear could pull this country apart. We know the damage that was done by the previous Jamal Yunos-led Red Shirts rally.

Here I wish to draw attention to the approach of Mahathir on the temple issue: he showed exemplary leadership in putting Malaysian, “Malaysianness” and nation building above the idea of “Malayness”, “Islamicness” and “Tanah Melayu-ness” of those in PAS and Umno, and now – sadly – Asri.

One excellent character trait of Mahathir that I admire is that he can stand firm, no matter what the ulama, royalty and politicians throw at him. From his writings, speeches I have heard and media statements, Mahathir does not come out as a simplistic “my race above all” thinker like Zahid Hamidi and Ibrahim Ali, nor does he comes off as an “Islam above all” thinker like Hadi Awang or Asri.

He has his own personal views of Islam which I have read, his own idea about Malaysia’s history as well as his own personal formula on how Malays should change. He even admitted his failure to change the Malays, giving as proof the vast corruption by Malay elites, including in UMNO and the civil service. He dumped UMNOo… twice! Yes, UMNO dumped him once, but he did it twice. He is even said to be engineering UMNO’s elimination and a reboot of his own version of “Malay-Malaysianess” in PPBM.

Personally, I think it will never work as he is too old and may not have time to train Malays in the new “Malay-Malaysian ideology” so that they become progressive and critical-minded Muslims with a Japanese work culture.

That model of “Malay-Malaysianess” never took off even when he was the leader of UMNO.

But what I admire most about the way Mahathir handled the Seafield issue is that he was decisive and humanitarian and he did it with a Malaysian finesse. The government has ordered the status quo to be maintained and for the rule of law to take effect.

The matter has been taken to the courts again by some devotees, and a few millionaires have started a campaign to raise funds to buy the land from the owner. I suspect Mahathir may have had a hand in the idea of buying the land.

Mahathir may have lost his credibility as a Malay, a Muslim and a leader among kampung-educated Malays, bandar-educated Malays and university-educated Malays. But he has won my respect and that of the non-Malays and the very, very few thinking Malays.

He has lost the Malay political mileage that is badly needed to restabilise Malaysia as well as prop him up as the PPBM and Pakatan Harapan leader. I think it is a costly price that he has paid personally, but Mahathir is no stranger to such sacrifices.

What matters to him is a clear and unadulterated vision of where Malaysia should be heading, a vision very few Malays understand and are willing to follow, both in the opposition and in the government. Mahathir has put his political career on the line for the sake of a peaceful Malaysia.

The same can be said about the ICERD issue. Many have criticised him for “backtracking” from his tough talk at the UN but I think it takes guts and a visionary leader to go against one’s “reputable standing” and make decisions within a dynamically changing socio-political scenario. Other politicians would have taken more time to weigh the political cost and delay their decision, but Mahathir was quick, decisive and clear over both the ICERD and Seafield issues.

In contrast, let us look at how Asri responded to the temple issue. A day after the reported clash, I was shocked to read his harsh statements encouraging the authorities to come down hard on the Indians with regard to the many “kuil haram” on land not belonging to that community. Although many Muslims I know will side with him in this very popular statement, I think it is selfish and immature with respect to the idea of nation building.

Although I have admired Asri for his academic and religious views framed in an intellectual stand on many issues, his statements suggest his stand on Indians is far from friendly. The first clue to this attitude was given in his Facebook posting about Hindus attacking Muslims in India as well as the burning of widows. He made those statements in defending controversial preacher Zakir Naik, who is wanted in India. I have also heard his veiled attempts at making Hinduism look bad by associating it with the abhorrent caste system.

I will answer his criticism of the Hindu religion by giving three points. Firstly, it is most difficult to discern the principles of a religion from the cultural practices of the adherents. Until I read 20,000 hadiths, I never knew that Malays were practising “Melayu-Islam” and not the Prophet’s Islam. When Asri criticised harshly many of the attitudes and practices of the Malays using hard textual evidence, many Malays despised him but I agreed 100% with what he said concerning this matter.

I have read the hadiths and so I know. Most Malays do not read and they depend on clerics like Azhar Idrus or Zamihan Mat Zin to fill them in on what Islam is. I am 200% behind Asri in his “war” against the Malays and their ethno-centric interpretation of Islam.

Having said that, I have to ask: does Asri know enough about Hinduism to separate the cultural practices or attitudes from the philosophical teachings of that religion? I have read several books on Hinduism, including the Bhagavad Gita and the meditative techniques stemming from that faith, and I find them filled with the wisdom of the ages.

Hindus dissected the self, the ego and the mind long before Prophet Muhammad was born. Much of the concept of “self” by Muslim scholars such as al-Ghazali and Rumi echo the same teachings – not because they have been “influenced” but because of the generality and universality of the messages.

Most Muslims have a narrow window, framed in the 1,400-year scholarship of Islam, and refuse to take a walk outside of that box into the world of human civilisation and strive to understand who they are and how best to behave or act in a community of communities.

Secondly, with respect to the caste system, most societies, even the Malays, practise them. Abdullah Munshi detested the difference in punishments meted out to peasants, guards of the Rajas, the bangsawan or aristocrats and the Rajas, saying they were un-Islamic. To him all men were equal under Allah. I have many Hindu friends and I have never heard of widow burning or the imposition of the caste system; neither have I heard them threaten people of other faiths.

Thirdly, if Asri considers all Hindus as terrorists for atrocities committed against Muslims by some, then what of the Islamic State fanatics bombing here and bombing there, using lorries and other vehicles to knock down and kill non-Muslim civilians? Certainly Asri would point out that Islam the religion is free from such heinous acts and that those who do these things do not reflect Islam which offers a message of peace.

If that is so, why can’t Asri see the “terrorist Hindus” as a party totally different from Malaysian Hindus such as P Ramasamy and P Waytha Moorthy who are fighting peacefully in the political arena for the betterment of their own race? Clearly Asri has not acted with wisdom or out of consideration for the peace and safety of the many Malaysians in making such statements. He thought only about his own race and faith.

Thus, in conclusion, we can see two sons of Malaysia, two sons of the Melayu culture and two sons of Islam having two divergent approaches and attitudes towards the idea of building a peaceful nation.

One of them cares about all life in Malaysia while the other seems to care only about those of his race and religion. One has a long view of Malaysia’s future in the global community while the other has views limited to what is important to his own faith.

Malays have to decide who they should follow.

* The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.

3.3k Shares

3.1k

54

116

10

When it comes to ICERD, New Malaysia is the Old Racist Devil again

November 25,2018

When it comes to ICERD, New Malaysia is the Old Racist Devil again–BACK TO UMNO 1946. This time with PAS

By S Thayaparan

http://www.malaysiakini.com

I said the old devils are at it again,

And it’s right now like it was back then,

The old devils are at it again.

– William Elliot Whitmore, ‘Old Devils’

–

COMMENT | In an interview, DAP’s Lim Guan Eng was reported to have said “the situation needed to be pacified, it should not stop people from continuing to express their views on ICERD (International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination).”

Really? So, let me get this straight.

ICERD–MY  WAY or JUST HIT The North-South Highway

 DAP, which has not given its official stand on the ratification of ICERD, wants people to express their views on this issue?  DAP, who routinely mocks MCA for being subservient to UMNO wants people to express their views even though it has not declared its own position on the issue after the cabinet decided (by consensus) not to ratify Icerd?

DAP, the purveyors of the Bangsa Malaysia Kool-Aid, wants people to express their views, even though it has warned the Chinese community (and others) to be wary until after the December 8 anti-ICERD celebration?

So, the Finance Minister of this country, who has made these tirades about speaking the ‘truth’ even though it is economically or politically disadvantageous to do so, suddenly seems to have lost his ability to speak when it comes to the issue of ICERD.

But don’t worry folks, I am sure you will speak up on this issue, even when Lim, if asked to comment, will just deflect, leaving you holding the bag.  Another DAP leader, says this country needs a vision which highlights the virtue of the middle ground.

When politicians babble on about the middle ground, what they forget to tell you is that it is contextual. Here in this country, when I talk to people about what they think the middle ground is, they speak of middle Malaysia with two definitions.

The first is the social contract. It is not a real document but rather it is an unspoken understanding. The middle ground is that there are policies and ideologies in place that benefit the majority, and as long as minorities can exist comfortably, albeit with limited freedoms, they must not question the inequalities of the system, even if that system which claims to “uplift” the majority is in reality detrimental to the community.

The second definition was borne out of the political turmoil that split the Malay community when Anwar Ibrahim was ejected from the UMNO paradise. Or at least, that’s the narrative that we are most familiar with.  This middle ground is defined by concepts like equality, secularism and numerous other progressive ideas championed by the urban educated electorate.

So when people talk of Bangsa Malaysia for instance, they are really talking about the idea that everyone is equal in law and the aspirations to certain fundamental freedoms that people in other countries take for granted.

Here’s the thing though, ICERD was that vision of a middle ground that Pakatan Harapan claimed fidelity to. It is in their manifesto and the rhetoric of the more outspoken members of its coalition.

Rational (Harapan-aligned) critics of ICERD did not make the argument that the treaty would destroy the Malay community because they could not point to anything that did that.

What they argued was that the ratification of ICERD would be politically disadvantageous – or so they claim – and that the present government would lose its credentials as protectors of race and religion. This neatly falls into the first definition of the middle ground.

The reality is that ICER was a symbol and a declaration which is actually a baseline for functional democracies for the second definition. The religious far-right who oppose Icerd did so because they believed in the supremacy of their race and religion. What Icerd did was to say everyone should be equal.

Threats of violence work

By not ratifying Icerd, the government did two things. First, it legitimised the views of people like PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang. This really does not bother me. Hadi is the politically incorrect face of Malay supremacy.

As I said earlier – “The funny thing is that state governments controlled by the opposition bend over backwards to accommodate Muslim preoccupations and have to continuously defend themselves against charges of racism and yet the mainstream Malay establishment does not disavow someone like Hadi.”

Think of it this way. Has any Malay-Muslim Harapan politician come out and say that Hadi is wrong when it comes to issues of race and religion? Have any of these politicians offered an antithetical view of Hadi’s numerous toxic narratives?

Sure, some political operatives have made meek protestations and gingerly attempted to offer a counterview, but nobody has had the cojones to say Hadi’s view of Islam is wrong.

So I am not so worried about the first point because the foundation of mainstream Malay politics is racial supremacy, but what has happened over the years is that mainstream Malay power structures have done a reasonable job in balancing Malay and non-Malay expectations so we did not turn into just another failed Islamic state.

The second point is far more dangerous. When Harapan rejected ICERD, they sent a message to the religious far-right that their threats of violence work.Now, some would say, hasn’t this always been the case? No, this time is different because Harapan, which claimed to be a progressive force, caved in to the religious far-right.

This was not the UMNO decades-long hegemon playing to the gallery. This was a supposed multiracial coalition telling the racial and religious far-right that they were afraid to confront them even though they had federal power.

It sent a signal that the Harapan government could be brought to its knees when the issues of race and religion are used. The problem here is that the racial and religious far-right could turn every issue into a religious or racial issue and by attrition, bring down a democratically-elected government.

If this sounds scary, it really isn’t. What the Harapan government should do is determine which kind of middle ground they want to occupy. This would mean jettisoning those ideas which they have long promulgated to rile up the base.

Chin Tong is wrong when he talks about a non-Malay periphery electorate wanting to fight fire with fire. What they want – and I doubt they are a periphery – is for Harapan to occupy the second definition of the middle ground. This puts them in conflict with those who view the first definition as pragmatic and conducive to maintaining power in this system.

Harapan, and the DAP specifically, has to find its scrotal sac and define the middle ground even if it means acknowledging that there is no new Malaysia, only a BN Redux.

---

S THAYAPARAN is Commander (Rtd) of the Royal Malaysian Navy.The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.

 

The 3 Malaysian agenda for Anwar Ibrahim

October 16, 2018

The 3 Malaysian Agenda–Language, Malay Rights and Meritocracy — for A Better Malaysia. Will Anwar Ibrahim do it?

by Koon Yew Yin

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com

In all my work and writing during the past 20 years, readers will have noted that my major concern is for Malaysia to become a fully developed nation in all the key aspects of life – economic, socio-cultural, political and educational.

Towards this end I have provided numerous press statements, given umpteen talks and speeches, and written hundreds of articles and a book on how to attain what may be described as my own version of Vision 2020.

It is a vision which I believe is shared by the overwhelming majority of moderate and progressive Malaysians, especially among the younger generation which I am in constant touch with through the scholarship system I have sponsored for the past decade.

Now that Anwar Ibrahim has won the Port Dickson by-election, it is necessary for me to emphasise again on what are the crucial policies and strategies that the heir apparent Prime Minister has to articulate and implement to bring about the realisation of a united and progressive Malaysia Baru.

1. Language policy

Continuing attempts by Malay ultras to downgrade the use of other languages especially English and Mandarin are not only counter-productive but will end with the Malay community being left out of the global economy and world of knowledge, science and technology.

Anwar should realise that his standing among leaders in the region and the world is partly or even mainly because of his ability to communicate in English.

Nobody is disputing the role of Bahasa as the national language. But English is the universal lingua franca par excellence and whoever is Prime Minister of the country needs to make sure that all young Malaysians from an early age master the language to propel us into the club of advanced nations.

Anwar should make sure that the policymakers do not continue to go back and forth on this issue. Further pandering to the Malay language chauvinists will see the Malay community regress rather than progress.

2. Malay rights

Anwar and other Pakatan Harapan Malay politicians must bear in mind that the use of Malay rights – constitutional and extra-constitutional – to enrich the Malays is not only wrong. It will never work. You can never legislate the poor from penury into wealth and prosperity.

Worse is to take away from those who have worked hard and accumulated assets and savings to put into the pockets of those that are seen to be needy.

The ultimate foolishness is to do this on a racial basis as was attempted by the NEP during the past 40 odd years after May 69.

All the analysis by foreign and local scholars’ points to the fact that the NEP and follow up racial policies have been the breeding ground of abuse of power, mismanagement of economy and super corruption, cronyism and patronage. The NEP has been a major contributor to the falling back of our economy and society to its present low level as compared with Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea and other countries that were in fact at a lower or similar stage of development in the 1970s.

I am sure that Anwar is fully aware of this. He has in the past when he was in the opposition talked about the need to do away with the NEP and a racially configured national economic policy. Now that he is at the point of becoming the Prime Minister he must not back down from his previous statements and promises on rejecting the NEP for a truly Malaysian agenda. On the contrary, he must act boldly to make the Malaysian agenda a reality

3. Restore meritocracy in all spheres of public sector

During my time in the 50s and 60s as a student and young engineer it could be said that the system of meritocracy was the dominant one in Malaysia. This is the political and economic philosophy which holds that certain things, such as economic goods or power, should be vested in individuals on the basis of talent, effort, and achievement rather than be based on factors such as race or family relationships or political affiliation.

During the past decades of Barisan Nasional rule, the meritocratic system was replaced by one based on race, political affiliation, family relations and know who.

This has resulted in the dumbing down of the civil service as well as resulted in inefficiency and mismanagement of the nation’s resources.

I am confident that if a study was done on the cost to the country as a result of the loss of the system of meritocracy, the figure will run into the trillions of ringgit.

Anwar must restore the system of meritocracy in the civil service so that we are not handicapped in competing with other advanced nations. For a start, I would like to propose two basic steps. These are

a.  University places should be allocated based on examination results and should not be based on race or other forms of quotas.

b.   Entry and promotion in civil Service, the Police and army must similarly be based on educational qualifications and working experience. There must be no political or party interference in the civil service.

Anwar now has the opportunity to lead the nation into a new era of progress, prosperity and unity. To do this he must implement the Malaysian agenda outlined above.

I and other loyal and patriotic moderates in the country will be monitoring him closely to make sure that he lives up to the cry for reform and rejection of the BN racist policies which resulted in Pakatan’s election victory and Anwar’s personal victory in Port Dickson.

Conclusion: I wish to quote the 5 most important sentences by Dr Adrian Rogers who has written 18 on politics and social issues

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.

5. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

Koon Yew Yin is a retired chartered civil engineer and one of the founders of IJM Corporation Bhd and Gamuda Bhd.

The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.