I was surprise, someone high in the government hierarchy ask the question, who is Ambiga Sreenavasan?
Ambiga Sreenavasan is a Malaysian lawyer, a professionally qualified lawyer, a former President of Malaysian Bar Council from 2007-2009. Malaysian Bar Council is a body of legal practitioners in Malaysia,representing all Malaysian lawyers.
She is now Datuk Ambiga Sreenavasan. She is the Chairperson of Bersih 2.0, the organisation that branded itself for the 2011 rally. Bersih 2.0 group is pushing the Election Commission of Malaysia (EC) to ensure free and fair elections in Malaysia. They have demanded that the EC clean up the electoral roll, reform postal voting, use indelible ink, introduce a minimum 21-day campaign period, allow all parties free access to the media and put an end to dirty politics.
Dato' Ambiga Sreenevasan was born in 1956. She is a former student of Convent Bukit Nanas and served as the Head Prefect in 1975.
Ambiga Sreenavasan today is active in NGO. So she is not an ordinary person, but a person with strong legal knowledge. Her voice is not ordinary voice, she represented the voices of many Malaysian people. If you ignore her voice, it will be at own risk, especially those involve in politic.
She was awarded a Doto' and International Women of Courage Award.
The following was what the awarder said about her in the award ceremony. In March 2009, Ambiga became one of the eight recipients of the 2009 Secretary of State's International Women of Courage Award. In the ceremony, the United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton commented:
“Ambiga Sreenevasan, has a remarkable record of accomplishment in Malaysia. She has pursued judicial reform and good governance, she has stood up for religious tolerance, and she has been a resolute advocate of women’s equality and their full political participation. She is someone who is not only working in her own country, but whose influence is felt beyond the borders of Malaysia. And it is a great honour to recognise her and invite her to the podium"
Some Malaysian may pretend not to know her, but she will be well known internationally. As a lawyer and a representative of NGO, the group is only requesting for a positive change in the election rule. There is nothing wrong with the request, but it was repeatedly dismissed by EC, Election Commission. EC deputy chairman Wan Ahmad Wan Omar claimed Bersih was working with Pakatan Rakyat to "overthrow the government."(source: wikipedia), Ambiga in reply , has criticised the EC's conduct, asking them to remain independent from politics. Rightfully, Election Commission and their staff should remain neutral, which include comments from them. Election Commission is not a vehicle of ruling party, whatever agenda the NGOs or individuals have, is not for them to comment, they should be above politic, and involved themselves only in election and process of election.
If the Election Commission is not responsive to the demand of Bersih 2.0. The group has no other choice but resort to peaceful rally, as expression of their demand to EC. There is nothing to do with political parties, however we cannot deny that it involve politic of the country. Some members of political parties may support the agenda of the group. The supporter may include member of ruling party and opposition. No one can avoid politic, not even any organization or NGO, when the agenda involve the process of selection of future government, the election process. Bersih 2.0 speak for the majority of the people who understand the unfairness of the election system on democratic representation in the country.
The demand is not only from Ambiga Sreenavasan, or Bersih 2.0, it is also from many people who are not member of any political parties, but an ordinary citizen who are entitle to vote in the coming election. They want a fair election for a fair government. They are the representative of the people to voice up to EC for a change of the election process. Majority of the people may not participate at the rally or wear yellow shirts, but many of them are with the group and support the demand for the change in election process.
Their heart is for yellow.....
This is just a simple voice from the ordinary people. Why EC dismiss it?
If Election Commission is neutral, what is so difficult to provide dialogue with Bersih 2.0, and avoiding the rally taking place.
We must also remember, Abdul Samad Muhammad Said was also in the rally on 9-7-2011. He is a person representing the sincere hearts of the people. Please do not ask, who is Abdul Samad Muhammad Said?......
Why worry and fearful of a sincere voice....
With Datuk Ambiga Sreenavasan and Abdul Samad Muhammad Said, you need to respect the voice, it is a loud voice from the people......the color blind will only see 1/9 of the iceberg, yet forgot that 8/9 is under the surface. The number of the participants in the rally, is only random sample of masses of people who support the agenda. The crowd or herding effect, the contagion effect, and domino theory will play its positive role in the coming election...
Yellow angsana flowers just for you, Datuk Ambiga Sreenavasan, from the Penang lang and all Malaysian.....
I see yellow in future, the political tsunami will be greater than 308....
Showing posts with label Penang politic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Penang politic. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Monday, May 2, 2011
Election warm up talk still on communal line
MCA President Dr Chua Soi Lek has warned the Chinese community that their support for the opposition may cause no Chinese representation in the ruling government. Dr Chua had criticized the SUPP for still accepting government positions in the Sarawak after the latter was badly thrashed in the recent elections.
Why MCA did not ask Gerakan to avoid cabinet seat; I still remember the President of Gerakan said the same thing during the Political Tsunami of last election, if I still can remember.
MCA is now using communal politic tactic to start its election campaign. Some community viewed the warning as a threat to Chinese community. MCA by using racial tone in salvaging their political strength is a desperate move , and may be this will be their last strike, they will possibly followed the steps of SUPP, Gerakan and SNAP.
The two party system is going to stay, despite MCA has the fear that it will become the scenario of Malay dominated ruling party and Chinese dominated opposition party. Malaysian know the scenario will be unhealthy, if Malaysian still thinking of political maturity of pre- merdeka or early independence days of 50s, 60s, 70s, or even 80s, where communal parties was the norm of the days. But the days are long gone, Malaysian are going for multiracial political parties, not parties based on race line.
If there is no Chinese representative in the cabinet, so what? even with representative in the cabinet, the interest of the community was also not protected. What is the use of having racial representative. It is time to throw away the parties based on race, to follow the call for " One Malaysia" Concept as started by the Prime Minister. The first step is to think Malaysian, not Malay, Chinese, Indian, Kadazan or Iban.
Racial politic will not have market for the future generation and the young voters; they are more educated, and more access to information. They are having the common issues, regardless of race, religion, and education background.
What is "race baiting"? It is the term used in as a synonym for "playing the race card" in American politics to refer to situations where one politician accuses another of being a racist. Race baiting is any form of speech, actions, or other forms of communication, to anger, intimidate or incite a person or race of other people or in simplicity, the making of verbal attacks against members of a racial group.
The party that accused that the other parties are using "race baiting" tactic; but they are now using proxies, thinking that most Malaysian are blind to their tactic.If it is in the opposite direction, some of the proxies will have been under ISA detention. Why the impartiality?....it is clear that it depend on which direction you are in. If you are in the right direction, you can talk anything you like, without any action taken by authority. The picture is very clear.
I was surprise when the Chinese premier come visit Malaysia, he also call for support of "One Malaysia", despite the disrespect of small country to welcome in wrong writing in the welcome banner. I remember historical event of the late Prime Minister Tun Razak's visit to China in 1974, which paved way for the establishment of Malaysia-China ties. On 31st of May 1974, Malaysia was the first Southeast Asian state to effect official ties with China But the most important was that Tun Razak dissolve Parliament on his return to Malaysia after his China visit. General elections 1974 were held in Malaysia between 24 August and 14 September 1974, alongside state elections in all states except Sabah. The result was a victory for Barisan Nasional (formerly the Alliance Party), which won 135 of the 154 seats. I was thinking that the same tactic will be repeated to make use of Premier Wen Jiabao's visit for coming election to gain votes from Chinese community.
China's Premier Wen Jiabao visited Malaysia on April 27 & 28. His high profile visit to Malaysia was marred by an embarrassing banner at a welcoming ceremony. The Chinese text on the banner contained several grammar and syntax errors. The said banner was prominently displayed at a podium near the Prime Minister's Department in the federal administrative capital for the official welcoming ceremony Premier Wen Jiabao, the Prime Minister of a country with 2nd highest GDP. The sentence in Malay was: "Istiadat Sambutan Rasmi Sempena Lawatan Rasmi TYT Wen Jiabao Ke Malaysia" (Official welcoming ceremony in conjunction with official visit of His Excellency Wen Jiabao to Malaysia). Literally translated, the Chinese words read: "Official welcoming ceremony, with him Wen Jiabao His Excellency's official visit Malaysia". the translation was done by Google Translate, instead of consulting an official language interpreter. It was a shameful day for all Malaysian....
I do not know whether the ruling party will make use of Premier Wen Jiabao's visit as the strategic tool for the coming federal and state election. Otherwise the opposition will have a good time making use of the issue to ridiculous the efficiency of the current government. The tactic will backfire.....
What the Chinese community, especially urbane Chinese's concern is the national issues; no longer the communal issues. the corruption, the government governance, the efficiency, the fairness, the protection of their rights, the quality of education, transparency etc.... If the ruling parties are still thinking that they can use communal issues as a base to attract back the votes of Chinese community, they are wrong.
If you put non-Chinese in Chinese constituency, if the candidates are fighting for the same national issues that appealed to the community, they will still votes for him, regardless of their racial background. One fine example is the Kapal Singh in Chinese dominated constituency.
MCA President Dr Chua Soi Lek's statement will backfire, giving a slap on the One Malaysian campaign, talking about the issue going against One Malaysia Concept, how can you threatening the Chinese community, using communal line. The voters will not buy it, surely......he will see the swan song of either his Presidency or his party.....
It seems that he can see his future very clearly....
1Malaysia stresses national unity and ethnic tolerance. The 2010 values of 1Malaysia as articulated by Najib Razak are perseverance, a culture of excellence, acceptance, loyalty, education, humility, integrity, and meritocracy.
Lately there are so many politicians, talking on racial line; I am wondering why the One Malaysia Concept did not make us talk more like Malaysian......is it facing failure to even convince their own politician?....
The country can no longer move forward based on communal line; otherwise it has no future, when globally people are looking less at their skin and religion differences when cyber technology are maturing to borderless society, where nationalism may become less sensitive to the younger generation, the Y generation.
Why?......they will ask.....and cast their votes....
Suggested articles/website:
1. 1 Malaysia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1Malaysia
2. Banner boo-boo during Wen Jiabao's visit to Malaysia, http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Malaysia/Story/A1Story20110429-276272.html
3. PM expresses regret over Chinese banner translation error; http://www.mmail.com.my/content/70972-pm-expresses-regret-over-chinese-banner-translation-error
4. Najib following in dad's footsteps; http://www.malaysianbar.org.my
/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=23712
5. DAP wants to be a monopoly, says Chua,http://www.mca.org.my/en/dap-wants-to-be-a-monopoly-says-chua/
6. PAS rejects Najib's invite, says fully committed with PR, http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/newscommentaries/40101-pas-rejects-najibs-invite-says-fully-committed-with-pr
Why MCA did not ask Gerakan to avoid cabinet seat; I still remember the President of Gerakan said the same thing during the Political Tsunami of last election, if I still can remember.
MCA is now using communal politic tactic to start its election campaign. Some community viewed the warning as a threat to Chinese community. MCA by using racial tone in salvaging their political strength is a desperate move , and may be this will be their last strike, they will possibly followed the steps of SUPP, Gerakan and SNAP.
The two party system is going to stay, despite MCA has the fear that it will become the scenario of Malay dominated ruling party and Chinese dominated opposition party. Malaysian know the scenario will be unhealthy, if Malaysian still thinking of political maturity of pre- merdeka or early independence days of 50s, 60s, 70s, or even 80s, where communal parties was the norm of the days. But the days are long gone, Malaysian are going for multiracial political parties, not parties based on race line.
If there is no Chinese representative in the cabinet, so what? even with representative in the cabinet, the interest of the community was also not protected. What is the use of having racial representative. It is time to throw away the parties based on race, to follow the call for " One Malaysia" Concept as started by the Prime Minister. The first step is to think Malaysian, not Malay, Chinese, Indian, Kadazan or Iban.
Racial politic will not have market for the future generation and the young voters; they are more educated, and more access to information. They are having the common issues, regardless of race, religion, and education background.
What is "race baiting"? It is the term used in as a synonym for "playing the race card" in American politics to refer to situations where one politician accuses another of being a racist. Race baiting is any form of speech, actions, or other forms of communication, to anger, intimidate or incite a person or race of other people or in simplicity, the making of verbal attacks against members of a racial group.
The party that accused that the other parties are using "race baiting" tactic; but they are now using proxies, thinking that most Malaysian are blind to their tactic.If it is in the opposite direction, some of the proxies will have been under ISA detention. Why the impartiality?....it is clear that it depend on which direction you are in. If you are in the right direction, you can talk anything you like, without any action taken by authority. The picture is very clear.
I was surprise when the Chinese premier come visit Malaysia, he also call for support of "One Malaysia", despite the disrespect of small country to welcome in wrong writing in the welcome banner. I remember historical event of the late Prime Minister Tun Razak's visit to China in 1974, which paved way for the establishment of Malaysia-China ties. On 31st of May 1974, Malaysia was the first Southeast Asian state to effect official ties with China But the most important was that Tun Razak dissolve Parliament on his return to Malaysia after his China visit. General elections 1974 were held in Malaysia between 24 August and 14 September 1974, alongside state elections in all states except Sabah. The result was a victory for Barisan Nasional (formerly the Alliance Party), which won 135 of the 154 seats. I was thinking that the same tactic will be repeated to make use of Premier Wen Jiabao's visit for coming election to gain votes from Chinese community.
China's Premier Wen Jiabao visited Malaysia on April 27 & 28. His high profile visit to Malaysia was marred by an embarrassing banner at a welcoming ceremony. The Chinese text on the banner contained several grammar and syntax errors. The said banner was prominently displayed at a podium near the Prime Minister's Department in the federal administrative capital for the official welcoming ceremony Premier Wen Jiabao, the Prime Minister of a country with 2nd highest GDP. The sentence in Malay was: "Istiadat Sambutan Rasmi Sempena Lawatan Rasmi TYT Wen Jiabao Ke Malaysia" (Official welcoming ceremony in conjunction with official visit of His Excellency Wen Jiabao to Malaysia). Literally translated, the Chinese words read: "Official welcoming ceremony, with him Wen Jiabao His Excellency's official visit Malaysia". the translation was done by Google Translate, instead of consulting an official language interpreter. It was a shameful day for all Malaysian....
I do not know whether the ruling party will make use of Premier Wen Jiabao's visit as the strategic tool for the coming federal and state election. Otherwise the opposition will have a good time making use of the issue to ridiculous the efficiency of the current government. The tactic will backfire.....
What the Chinese community, especially urbane Chinese's concern is the national issues; no longer the communal issues. the corruption, the government governance, the efficiency, the fairness, the protection of their rights, the quality of education, transparency etc.... If the ruling parties are still thinking that they can use communal issues as a base to attract back the votes of Chinese community, they are wrong.
If you put non-Chinese in Chinese constituency, if the candidates are fighting for the same national issues that appealed to the community, they will still votes for him, regardless of their racial background. One fine example is the Kapal Singh in Chinese dominated constituency.
MCA President Dr Chua Soi Lek's statement will backfire, giving a slap on the One Malaysian campaign, talking about the issue going against One Malaysia Concept, how can you threatening the Chinese community, using communal line. The voters will not buy it, surely......he will see the swan song of either his Presidency or his party.....
It seems that he can see his future very clearly....
1Malaysia stresses national unity and ethnic tolerance. The 2010 values of 1Malaysia as articulated by Najib Razak are perseverance, a culture of excellence, acceptance, loyalty, education, humility, integrity, and meritocracy.
Lately there are so many politicians, talking on racial line; I am wondering why the One Malaysia Concept did not make us talk more like Malaysian......is it facing failure to even convince their own politician?....
The country can no longer move forward based on communal line; otherwise it has no future, when globally people are looking less at their skin and religion differences when cyber technology are maturing to borderless society, where nationalism may become less sensitive to the younger generation, the Y generation.
Why?......they will ask.....and cast their votes....
Suggested articles/website:
1. 1 Malaysia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1Malaysia
2. Banner boo-boo during Wen Jiabao's visit to Malaysia, http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Malaysia/Story/A1Story20110429-276272.html
3. PM expresses regret over Chinese banner translation error; http://www.mmail.com.my/content/70972-pm-expresses-regret-over-chinese-banner-translation-error
4. Najib following in dad's footsteps; http://www.malaysianbar.org.my
/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=23712
5. DAP wants to be a monopoly, says Chua,http://www.mca.org.my/en/dap-wants-to-be-a-monopoly-says-chua/
6. PAS rejects Najib's invite, says fully committed with PR, http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/newscommentaries/40101-pas-rejects-najibs-invite-says-fully-committed-with-pr
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Adolf Hitler & Malaysian Politic
Recently our Chief Minister of Penang, Lim Guan Eng was being criticized on his Easter Message. The following was the full message:
Easter Message 2011
In this holy Easter celebration to mark the crucification of Jesus Christ and the Lord Jesus resurrection, is also an occasion to to renew Christians’ vows of faith in truth, hope and love.
Christians regardless of skin colour have prayed for peace and prosperity. Christians have also prayed for wisdom and compassion in our leaders. Most important of all Christians pray for truth to guide Malaysians in our daily affairs.
All religions celebrate these common values of truth, unity in diversity, freedom of choice and peace. We must seek truth from facts and not allow sentiments to be ruled by blind emotion.
To all Christians, I wish you a very happy and blessed Easter.
If we are to be one united nation, we must learn to share, we must believe in equality and equal opportunity. We must believe in justice.
Stop the characterization of the Holy Scriptures by the Home Ministry as threats to national security and public order. Stop restrictions on the right of Christians to use any language to worship. Stop the stamping of Malay bibles which is an act of dishonouring the Holy bible.
We need to change. Change for the better. To change is difficult but not to change is fatal. We need a change of mindset of treating every Malaysian as facing common problems and aspirations. We must celebrate our differences and our diversity.
We should move away from the mindtrap of fear based on hate, racism, extremism. We should not be taught to fear diversity. We should not be brainwashed with Hitlerian ideas that one is superior to another merely because of the colour of our skin.
We must have the courage to change.
Malaysians are ready to embrace change; change for the better. Malaysians no longer want to live under a situation where freedom is curtailed, human rights infringed, and abuse of power, corruption and mismanagement are rampant.
In the recent Sarawak state election, Sarawakians have decided that enough is enough. Sarawakians want good governance, end to corruption, empowered by democracy, equal opportunity and justice for all.
Just as Easter signifies a renewal of life, Faith, hope and love can drive home a victory against ignorance, fear and oppression.
Let us fill our hearts with faith, hope and love by discarding those with racial prejudices and hatred or who preach the language of violence and division. Then only can we realise the ideals and aspirations in the Malaysian Constitution of forging one nation.
(source: http://limguaneng.com/index.php/2011/04/24/easter-message-2011/)
As I looked at his message, word by word, I have found no wrong in his message.
Statement of Change to accept Differences and Diversity
The only wrong or mistake, if any, is his mention of "Hitlerian ideas - that one is superior to another merely because of the colour of our skin". That was the wrong highlighted by the blog and Utusan Malaysia.
"We need to change. Change for the better. To change is difficult but not to change is fatal. We need a change of mindset of treating every Malaysian as facing common problems and aspirations. We must celebrate our differences and our diversity.
We should move away from the mindtrap of fear based on hate, racism, extremism. We should not be taught to fear diversity. We should not be brainwashed with Hitlerian ideas that one is superior to another merely because of the colour of our skin.
We must have the courage to change".
If we digest his message word by word, sentence by sentence, and to understand the whole passage on the message he desire to deliver, we will understand what he was talking about. The statement is clear, a message of change; after the message for change, he re-emphasized that, "We should not be taught to fear diversity. We should not be brainwashed with Hitlerian ideas that one is superior to another merely because of the colour of our skin. We must have the courage to change".
Any ordinary person will not see anything wrong with the statement. It was a fair statement. "We should move away from the mindtrap of fear based on hate, racism, extremism"; this is a criteria for a democracy, a foundation for our nation building, we should all against hate, racism and extremism in a multiracial and multi-religion county like Malaysia. It is nothing wrong, unless you do not agree with the statement.
"We should not be taught to fear diversity",this is positive message for country with diversity, Malaysia was found based on diversity, why should we fear? so anyone who taught to fear diversity, is against the spirit of "1 Malaysia" by the Prime Minister. He is against the spirit of nation founding of Malaysia. So, nothing wrong with the sentence.
The critic of his message, focused on the statement; " We should not be brainwashed with Hitlerian ideas that one is superior to another merely because of the colour of our skin". That statement touched the sensitivity of the critic. The name of Adolf Hitler was mentioned, that negative icon of Nazism during the World War 2, the bad man called Adolf Hitler. But if you delete the name of Adolf Hitler, the sentence is ;
"We should move away from the mindtrap of fear based on hate, racism, extremism. We should not be taught to fear diversity. We should not be brainwashed with ideas that one is superior to another merely because of the colour of our skin. "
That is also a fair statement, a statement of fairness promoted by all religion; he ask us to follow our religion that we should be a racist, extremist, and full of hate. No audience will go against this statement, which is positive and a call to move away from extreme. To be aware of the people who are extremist, racist, and full of hate; that is good message.....
There was no sign of race baiting. By the way the term "race baiting" is also used in as a synonym for "playing the race card" in American politics to refer to situations where one politician accuses another of being a racist. Race baiting is any form of speech, actions, or other forms of communication, to anger, intimidate or incite a person or race of other people or in simplicity, the making of verbal attacks against members of a racial group. Did you find any race baiting in Lim Guan Eng's Easter 2011 message?...
But the word "Hitlerian ideas", was treated as ugly by one of the editor of the main stream press, and blogger. Lim Guan Eng was rebuked in a pro-Umno blog Minda Intelek Melayu which accused Lim of claiming that the country adopted and practiced racial supremacy the way Nazi Germany did under Hitler in the 1940s. Utusan Malaysia highlighted it in their editorial column. That was the out cry from some politician...the political games again started, and it was a sign that federal election is coming close.....
What is Hilterian ideas in Lim Guan Eng's mind ?
We cannot speak for Lim Guan Eng, what is Hilterian ideas, as it will be a broad study on philosophy and political ideas of Adolf Hitler. But since he was talking about "Hitlerian ideas - that one is superior to another merely because of the colour of our skin". It must be related to racial issue of Adolf Hitler's ideas. Lim Guan Eng is using the word "Hilterian ideas" to describe and emphasis on the racial fairness and unity in diversity, which is a good and fair statement, and will be acceptable if the message is deliver in any country(democratic country) in the world.....
Wikipedia do have an article on Nazism and race, the extract from the article on the supremacy of Aryan race, as follow;
Nazism developed several theories concerning races. The Nazis claimed to scientifically measure a strict hierarchy among "human race"; at the top was the master race, the "Aryan race", narrowly defined by the Nazis as being identical with the Nordic race, followed by lesser races.
At the bottom of this hierarchy were "parasitic" races (of non-"Aryan" origin) or "Untermenschen" ("sub-humans"), which were perceived to be dangerous to society. In Nazi literature, the term "under man" ('Untermensch') was applied to the Slavs, especially including Russians, Serbs (from South Slavic group), and ethnic Poles.[1] Nazi ideology viewed Slavs as a racially inferior group, who were fit for enslavement, or even extermination.[2] About 2 million non-Jewish ethnic Poles were killed by Nazi Germany.[3][4] Lowest of all in the Nazi racial policy were Gypsies and Jews, who were both eventually deemed to be "Lebensunwertes Leben" ("Life unworthy of life") and to be exterminated during the Holocaust (see Raul Hilberg's description of the various phases of the Holocaust). Not to be forgotten, Hitler did have people of Jewish descent working for him. Coined as mischling (or 'Half-Jews'), they were often employed in the Wehrmacht, although they were not allowed to be soldiers after 1940. One mischling, Werner Goldberg, was even called "The Ideal German Soldier" by German newspapers.
Hitler starting as soon as he took power his program of selection of population — a real biopolitics — with the July 1933 "Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring" and the T-4 Euthanasia Program which would terminate in the Holocaust; and the Marxist line, which transformed the essentialist notion of "race" into the historical concept of class struggle.
(source: Nazism and race, wikipedia)
This article on state racism may also be helpful to understand the issue of race baiting accusation.
State racism is a concept used by French philosopher Michel Foucault to designate the reappropriation of the historical and political discourse of "race struggle", in the late seventeenth century.
It also refers to a type of institutional racism promoted by a government. Examples include Apartheid in South Africa, Jewish-Non-Jewish segregation in Israel, and racial segregation in the United States, as well as any systemic or community-based racism in local, state or federal law enforcement (see also racial profiling).
Affirmative action measures are sometimes accused of being a form of state racism, especially when they favour an ethnic majority.
Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, gender , or national origin"[1] into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group, usually as a means to counter the effects of a history of discrimination. The focus of such policies ranges from employment and education to public contracting and health programs
(source: wikipedia)
This was the critic and their responses:
1. Apakah patut Lim Guan Eng menuduh pihak lain menggunakan idea-idea Hitler? Apakah benar negara ini mengamalkan satu lebih unggul dari yang lain kerana warna kulit?
Kenyataan Lim Guan Eng itu ternyata berbau hasutan dan berat sebelah. Adalah tidak masuk akal apabila segala yang terbina dalam negara ini berdasarkan kepada idea-idea Hitler !!
Jika ya, tidak mungkin ada kaum lain yang lebih cemerlang daripada kaum Melayu dan Bumiputera. Tetapi perkara itu tidak pernah terjadi tetapi Lim Guan Eng berfikiran demikian!
Kenapa? Apakah Lim Guan Eng dan DAP masih terperangkap di dalam kepompong rasis dan perkauman beliau? Atau parti DAP cuba sengaja mengapi-apikan perkauman di antara rakyat negara ini?
Dan adalah kurang sopan jika Guan Eng sanggup menuduh pihak lain mengamalkan idea Hitler walau pun ianya jauh sekali daripada benar!
http://novandri.blogspot.com/2011/04/mesti-baca-dap-sangat-melampau-tuduh.html
2. Setiausaha Agung DAP, Lim Guan Eng hari ini dikecam apabila dikatakan cuba menggambarkan seolah-olah negara ini mengamalkan idea Hitler iaitu seseorang itu lebih unggul dari yang lain kerana warna kulit.
Idea berkenaan menurut blog Minda Intelek Melayu (M.i.M), dilontarkan oleh Guan Eng dalam perutusan beliau sempena sambutan Hari Easter 2011 seperti yang disiarkan menerusi laman blognya semalam.
Kenyataan Guan Eng itu, kata blog berkenaan, berbaur hasutan dan berat sebelah kerana adalah tidak masuk akal apabila segala yang terbina dalam negara ini adalah berdasarkan kepada idea-idea Hitler.
''Jika benar, tidak mungkin ada kaum lain yang lebih cemerlang daripada kaum Melayu dan Bumiputera. Perkara itu tidak pernah terjadi tetapi Guan Eng berfikiran sedemikian!," kata blog itu menerusi entri terbaru seperti yang disiarkan di http://novandri.blogspot.com, hari ini.
Now, who is race baiting?.....readers should read the original message, decided on your own. Avoid reading any articles or comments by people with political agenda.
Who is race baiting, who has politicize the simple message?....
Statement of Historical events
Another wrong highlighted by the blog was the statement:
"Stop the characterization of the Holy Scriptures by the Home Ministry as threats to national security and public order. Stop restrictions on the right of Christians to use any language to worship. Stop the stamping of Malay bibles which is an act of dishonoring the Holy bible".
I found nothing wrong with the statement, as it is the statement summarized the events that happen sometime ago. You can said it is a truth story that happen in Malaysia. The summary of events can be extracted from any daily newspaper in Malaysia of all languages. If you do not believe in Malaysian newspapers, then you can find it in all websites of reputable global newspapers. Or may be you do not believe in mass media, then you can always found it in any social media, blogs, or web articles. So, nothing wrong with it, it is a statement to summarize what actually happen. If you find this statement wrong, may be it should not be telling the truth to the people; but people of the group who have suffered from the events will still remember the events.....may be like many things that happen in the past, we should hide inside the carpets and remain silence, pretending nothing happen......
May be Lim Guan Eng is wrong to use the word "Stop", he should be more polite to say " Let us stop" or " Let us plead" or.....but he is a politician and vocal person, it is not political slogan in pre-election political rally, there is no shouting and emotional out pour like Sarawak election. I am sure he know how to respect the religious people in the church, and not shouting like political rally. In this statement, he was actually emphasis and bringing on the past events that happened, which was not good for the sensitivity of the people of the particular faith. He shared with their feeling. There is nothing wrong.
Finally it is message of Change
The core of the message is talking about change and he even mentioned "Malaysians are ready to embrace change; change for the better. Malaysians no longer want to live under a situation where freedom is curtailed, human rights infringed, and abuse of power, corruption and mismanagement are rampant", the statement I am sure is the same outcry of all Malaysian, regardless of race, religion, and political inclination. The Prime Minister also called for Change, the "One Malaysian" concept is the program of change.
A positive message, with or without Adolf Hitler
It is a message of peace,love, and hope...and a message of change for better...
Finally in conclusion, he rightly stated that "Just as Easter signifies a renewal of life, Faith, hope and love can drive home a victory against ignorance, fear and oppression". That is his message of Easter, and nothing wrong.
Anyhow, the statement was addressed to the audience in the church celebrating Easter or readers reading his message in his personal blog. It is a private event,only the audience who come into the church or visit his blog/website, will receive the message. If you feel offense by the statement, as you support the action of the government on the issue, then do not read it. It is freedom of choice and expression. If the statement is criminal or against the national law, then report it to the police or charge him in court. We are living in democratic country, there are always legal procedures for grievances.
Readers should read the comment by Lim Guan Eng himself, and understand what is in his mind; before making any judgmental statement. This blogger do not want to comment on his statement in Guan Eng: Is opposing Hitler wrong?,(http://my.news.yahoo.com/guan-eng-is-opposing-hitler-wrong-044444463.html)to remain in neutrality.Readers can decide for yourself actually what were the issue and agenda of all the fuss on Adolf Hitler.....
In the same spirit by ruling party
For reader's information, the ruling party was once using the name of Adolf Hitler to describe Lim Guan Eng sometime ago....
He(Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Senator Koh Tsu Koon) criticised Guan Eng's approach to the matter as being simplistic, saying that as an accountant, the latter should realise that many factors must be considered before a decision is taken by the government.
“Of course he (Guan Eng) can give speeches like (former Indonesian leader) Sukarno and (German dictator Adolf) Hitler, he is clever to talk. But what is the solution?” he queried.
Former PKR Bayan Baru parliamentarian Zahrain Hashim (right), who has since become independent, had earlier this year called Guan Eng a "dictator, a chauvinist and communist-minded".
(source: Gerakan: Guan Eng a 'Hitler', Kit Siang 'desperate' , by Susan Loone,
Malaysiankini, dated Sep 26, 10 , http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/143660 )
What do you think, are they using the same ugly name? Adolf Hitler must be happy that Malaysia liked his name; or may be like HIM?.....or his ideas..
It is sad, not for Adolf Hitler, as he is dead. It is sad for Malaysian politic for using tactic like Adolf Hitler in the domestic politic, in a democracy country....
Heil Hitler.....Heil Malaysia....the demon has come out of democracy....and we have the crazy politician remain in the country to play the games of Adolf Hitler.... crazy,just crazy....
Sign of coming election
Since the last election campaign, when the opposition make use of IT technology to win their support, ruling parties are now jumping into the wagon. They are now actively using cyber technology and social media. However, the ruling parties have the strategic advantages over opposition, as they have the control over the mass media. They are now doing even better, by using proxy in the social media and publicity campaign. This is the heat of pre-election campaign for coming federal election, and the ruling party have being heated up immediately after Sarawak state election. The politician are using racial sentiments, the popular tools to gain support.....I just ponder who is race baiting?.....
For general public, please use our common sense and not to fall into the traps of the political games. Cyber political games are on, Heil Hitler.....Heil Malaysia....
The games of proxies has begin.....
Related articles/websites:
1. Gerakan: Guan Eng a 'Hitler', Kit Siang 'desperate'; http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/143660
2. Easter Message 2011,http://limguaneng.com/index.php/2011/04/24/easter-message-2011/
3. Guan Eng: Is opposing Hitler wrong?, http://my.news.yahoo.com/guan-eng-is-opposing-hitler-wrong-044444463.html
4. MESTI BACA ! Heil Hitler - DAP Meroyan Tahap Malu Dek Pendedahan MiM !!, http://novandri.blogspot.com/2011/04/mesti-baca-heil-hitler-dap-meroyan.html(The blog may delete article)
5. Malaysia amal idea Hitler? Utusan Malaysia online; http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/info.asp?y=2011&dt=0426&pub=Utusan_Malaysia&sec=Dalam_Negeri&pg=dn_16.htm
6. Lim Guan Eng's Remarks not based on Reality, http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsindex.php?id=582092
Easter Message 2011
In this holy Easter celebration to mark the crucification of Jesus Christ and the Lord Jesus resurrection, is also an occasion to to renew Christians’ vows of faith in truth, hope and love.
Christians regardless of skin colour have prayed for peace and prosperity. Christians have also prayed for wisdom and compassion in our leaders. Most important of all Christians pray for truth to guide Malaysians in our daily affairs.
All religions celebrate these common values of truth, unity in diversity, freedom of choice and peace. We must seek truth from facts and not allow sentiments to be ruled by blind emotion.
To all Christians, I wish you a very happy and blessed Easter.
If we are to be one united nation, we must learn to share, we must believe in equality and equal opportunity. We must believe in justice.
Stop the characterization of the Holy Scriptures by the Home Ministry as threats to national security and public order. Stop restrictions on the right of Christians to use any language to worship. Stop the stamping of Malay bibles which is an act of dishonouring the Holy bible.
We need to change. Change for the better. To change is difficult but not to change is fatal. We need a change of mindset of treating every Malaysian as facing common problems and aspirations. We must celebrate our differences and our diversity.
We should move away from the mindtrap of fear based on hate, racism, extremism. We should not be taught to fear diversity. We should not be brainwashed with Hitlerian ideas that one is superior to another merely because of the colour of our skin.
We must have the courage to change.
Malaysians are ready to embrace change; change for the better. Malaysians no longer want to live under a situation where freedom is curtailed, human rights infringed, and abuse of power, corruption and mismanagement are rampant.
In the recent Sarawak state election, Sarawakians have decided that enough is enough. Sarawakians want good governance, end to corruption, empowered by democracy, equal opportunity and justice for all.
Just as Easter signifies a renewal of life, Faith, hope and love can drive home a victory against ignorance, fear and oppression.
Let us fill our hearts with faith, hope and love by discarding those with racial prejudices and hatred or who preach the language of violence and division. Then only can we realise the ideals and aspirations in the Malaysian Constitution of forging one nation.
(source: http://limguaneng.com/index.php/2011/04/24/easter-message-2011/)
As I looked at his message, word by word, I have found no wrong in his message.
Statement of Change to accept Differences and Diversity
The only wrong or mistake, if any, is his mention of "Hitlerian ideas - that one is superior to another merely because of the colour of our skin". That was the wrong highlighted by the blog and Utusan Malaysia.
"We need to change. Change for the better. To change is difficult but not to change is fatal. We need a change of mindset of treating every Malaysian as facing common problems and aspirations. We must celebrate our differences and our diversity.
We should move away from the mindtrap of fear based on hate, racism, extremism. We should not be taught to fear diversity. We should not be brainwashed with Hitlerian ideas that one is superior to another merely because of the colour of our skin.
We must have the courage to change".
If we digest his message word by word, sentence by sentence, and to understand the whole passage on the message he desire to deliver, we will understand what he was talking about. The statement is clear, a message of change; after the message for change, he re-emphasized that, "We should not be taught to fear diversity. We should not be brainwashed with Hitlerian ideas that one is superior to another merely because of the colour of our skin. We must have the courage to change".
Any ordinary person will not see anything wrong with the statement. It was a fair statement. "We should move away from the mindtrap of fear based on hate, racism, extremism"; this is a criteria for a democracy, a foundation for our nation building, we should all against hate, racism and extremism in a multiracial and multi-religion county like Malaysia. It is nothing wrong, unless you do not agree with the statement.
"We should not be taught to fear diversity",this is positive message for country with diversity, Malaysia was found based on diversity, why should we fear? so anyone who taught to fear diversity, is against the spirit of "1 Malaysia" by the Prime Minister. He is against the spirit of nation founding of Malaysia. So, nothing wrong with the sentence.
The critic of his message, focused on the statement; " We should not be brainwashed with Hitlerian ideas that one is superior to another merely because of the colour of our skin". That statement touched the sensitivity of the critic. The name of Adolf Hitler was mentioned, that negative icon of Nazism during the World War 2, the bad man called Adolf Hitler. But if you delete the name of Adolf Hitler, the sentence is ;
"We should move away from the mindtrap of fear based on hate, racism, extremism. We should not be taught to fear diversity. We should not be brainwashed with ideas that one is superior to another merely because of the colour of our skin. "
That is also a fair statement, a statement of fairness promoted by all religion; he ask us to follow our religion that we should be a racist, extremist, and full of hate. No audience will go against this statement, which is positive and a call to move away from extreme. To be aware of the people who are extremist, racist, and full of hate; that is good message.....
There was no sign of race baiting. By the way the term "race baiting" is also used in as a synonym for "playing the race card" in American politics to refer to situations where one politician accuses another of being a racist. Race baiting is any form of speech, actions, or other forms of communication, to anger, intimidate or incite a person or race of other people or in simplicity, the making of verbal attacks against members of a racial group. Did you find any race baiting in Lim Guan Eng's Easter 2011 message?...
But the word "Hitlerian ideas", was treated as ugly by one of the editor of the main stream press, and blogger. Lim Guan Eng was rebuked in a pro-Umno blog Minda Intelek Melayu which accused Lim of claiming that the country adopted and practiced racial supremacy the way Nazi Germany did under Hitler in the 1940s. Utusan Malaysia highlighted it in their editorial column. That was the out cry from some politician...the political games again started, and it was a sign that federal election is coming close.....
What is Hilterian ideas in Lim Guan Eng's mind ?
We cannot speak for Lim Guan Eng, what is Hilterian ideas, as it will be a broad study on philosophy and political ideas of Adolf Hitler. But since he was talking about "Hitlerian ideas - that one is superior to another merely because of the colour of our skin". It must be related to racial issue of Adolf Hitler's ideas. Lim Guan Eng is using the word "Hilterian ideas" to describe and emphasis on the racial fairness and unity in diversity, which is a good and fair statement, and will be acceptable if the message is deliver in any country(democratic country) in the world.....
Wikipedia do have an article on Nazism and race, the extract from the article on the supremacy of Aryan race, as follow;
Nazism developed several theories concerning races. The Nazis claimed to scientifically measure a strict hierarchy among "human race"; at the top was the master race, the "Aryan race", narrowly defined by the Nazis as being identical with the Nordic race, followed by lesser races.
At the bottom of this hierarchy were "parasitic" races (of non-"Aryan" origin) or "Untermenschen" ("sub-humans"), which were perceived to be dangerous to society. In Nazi literature, the term "under man" ('Untermensch') was applied to the Slavs, especially including Russians, Serbs (from South Slavic group), and ethnic Poles.[1] Nazi ideology viewed Slavs as a racially inferior group, who were fit for enslavement, or even extermination.[2] About 2 million non-Jewish ethnic Poles were killed by Nazi Germany.[3][4] Lowest of all in the Nazi racial policy were Gypsies and Jews, who were both eventually deemed to be "Lebensunwertes Leben" ("Life unworthy of life") and to be exterminated during the Holocaust (see Raul Hilberg's description of the various phases of the Holocaust). Not to be forgotten, Hitler did have people of Jewish descent working for him. Coined as mischling (or 'Half-Jews'), they were often employed in the Wehrmacht, although they were not allowed to be soldiers after 1940. One mischling, Werner Goldberg, was even called "The Ideal German Soldier" by German newspapers.
Hitler starting as soon as he took power his program of selection of population — a real biopolitics — with the July 1933 "Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring" and the T-4 Euthanasia Program which would terminate in the Holocaust; and the Marxist line, which transformed the essentialist notion of "race" into the historical concept of class struggle.
(source: Nazism and race, wikipedia)
This article on state racism may also be helpful to understand the issue of race baiting accusation.
State racism is a concept used by French philosopher Michel Foucault to designate the reappropriation of the historical and political discourse of "race struggle", in the late seventeenth century.
It also refers to a type of institutional racism promoted by a government. Examples include Apartheid in South Africa, Jewish-Non-Jewish segregation in Israel, and racial segregation in the United States, as well as any systemic or community-based racism in local, state or federal law enforcement (see also racial profiling).
Affirmative action measures are sometimes accused of being a form of state racism, especially when they favour an ethnic majority.
Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, gender , or national origin"[1] into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group, usually as a means to counter the effects of a history of discrimination. The focus of such policies ranges from employment and education to public contracting and health programs
(source: wikipedia)
This was the critic and their responses:
1. Apakah patut Lim Guan Eng menuduh pihak lain menggunakan idea-idea Hitler? Apakah benar negara ini mengamalkan satu lebih unggul dari yang lain kerana warna kulit?
Kenyataan Lim Guan Eng itu ternyata berbau hasutan dan berat sebelah. Adalah tidak masuk akal apabila segala yang terbina dalam negara ini berdasarkan kepada idea-idea Hitler !!
Jika ya, tidak mungkin ada kaum lain yang lebih cemerlang daripada kaum Melayu dan Bumiputera. Tetapi perkara itu tidak pernah terjadi tetapi Lim Guan Eng berfikiran demikian!
Kenapa? Apakah Lim Guan Eng dan DAP masih terperangkap di dalam kepompong rasis dan perkauman beliau? Atau parti DAP cuba sengaja mengapi-apikan perkauman di antara rakyat negara ini?
Dan adalah kurang sopan jika Guan Eng sanggup menuduh pihak lain mengamalkan idea Hitler walau pun ianya jauh sekali daripada benar!
http://novandri.blogspot.com/2011/04/mesti-baca-dap-sangat-melampau-tuduh.html
2. Setiausaha Agung DAP, Lim Guan Eng hari ini dikecam apabila dikatakan cuba menggambarkan seolah-olah negara ini mengamalkan idea Hitler iaitu seseorang itu lebih unggul dari yang lain kerana warna kulit.
Idea berkenaan menurut blog Minda Intelek Melayu (M.i.M), dilontarkan oleh Guan Eng dalam perutusan beliau sempena sambutan Hari Easter 2011 seperti yang disiarkan menerusi laman blognya semalam.
Kenyataan Guan Eng itu, kata blog berkenaan, berbaur hasutan dan berat sebelah kerana adalah tidak masuk akal apabila segala yang terbina dalam negara ini adalah berdasarkan kepada idea-idea Hitler.
''Jika benar, tidak mungkin ada kaum lain yang lebih cemerlang daripada kaum Melayu dan Bumiputera. Perkara itu tidak pernah terjadi tetapi Guan Eng berfikiran sedemikian!," kata blog itu menerusi entri terbaru seperti yang disiarkan di http://novandri.blogspot.com, hari ini.
Now, who is race baiting?.....readers should read the original message, decided on your own. Avoid reading any articles or comments by people with political agenda.
Who is race baiting, who has politicize the simple message?....
Statement of Historical events
Another wrong highlighted by the blog was the statement:
"Stop the characterization of the Holy Scriptures by the Home Ministry as threats to national security and public order. Stop restrictions on the right of Christians to use any language to worship. Stop the stamping of Malay bibles which is an act of dishonoring the Holy bible".
I found nothing wrong with the statement, as it is the statement summarized the events that happen sometime ago. You can said it is a truth story that happen in Malaysia. The summary of events can be extracted from any daily newspaper in Malaysia of all languages. If you do not believe in Malaysian newspapers, then you can find it in all websites of reputable global newspapers. Or may be you do not believe in mass media, then you can always found it in any social media, blogs, or web articles. So, nothing wrong with it, it is a statement to summarize what actually happen. If you find this statement wrong, may be it should not be telling the truth to the people; but people of the group who have suffered from the events will still remember the events.....may be like many things that happen in the past, we should hide inside the carpets and remain silence, pretending nothing happen......
May be Lim Guan Eng is wrong to use the word "Stop", he should be more polite to say " Let us stop" or " Let us plead" or.....but he is a politician and vocal person, it is not political slogan in pre-election political rally, there is no shouting and emotional out pour like Sarawak election. I am sure he know how to respect the religious people in the church, and not shouting like political rally. In this statement, he was actually emphasis and bringing on the past events that happened, which was not good for the sensitivity of the people of the particular faith. He shared with their feeling. There is nothing wrong.
Finally it is message of Change
The core of the message is talking about change and he even mentioned "Malaysians are ready to embrace change; change for the better. Malaysians no longer want to live under a situation where freedom is curtailed, human rights infringed, and abuse of power, corruption and mismanagement are rampant", the statement I am sure is the same outcry of all Malaysian, regardless of race, religion, and political inclination. The Prime Minister also called for Change, the "One Malaysian" concept is the program of change.
A positive message, with or without Adolf Hitler
It is a message of peace,love, and hope...and a message of change for better...
Finally in conclusion, he rightly stated that "Just as Easter signifies a renewal of life, Faith, hope and love can drive home a victory against ignorance, fear and oppression". That is his message of Easter, and nothing wrong.
Anyhow, the statement was addressed to the audience in the church celebrating Easter or readers reading his message in his personal blog. It is a private event,only the audience who come into the church or visit his blog/website, will receive the message. If you feel offense by the statement, as you support the action of the government on the issue, then do not read it. It is freedom of choice and expression. If the statement is criminal or against the national law, then report it to the police or charge him in court. We are living in democratic country, there are always legal procedures for grievances.
Readers should read the comment by Lim Guan Eng himself, and understand what is in his mind; before making any judgmental statement. This blogger do not want to comment on his statement in Guan Eng: Is opposing Hitler wrong?,(http://my.news.yahoo.com/guan-eng-is-opposing-hitler-wrong-044444463.html)to remain in neutrality.Readers can decide for yourself actually what were the issue and agenda of all the fuss on Adolf Hitler.....
In the same spirit by ruling party
For reader's information, the ruling party was once using the name of Adolf Hitler to describe Lim Guan Eng sometime ago....
He(Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Senator Koh Tsu Koon) criticised Guan Eng's approach to the matter as being simplistic, saying that as an accountant, the latter should realise that many factors must be considered before a decision is taken by the government.
“Of course he (Guan Eng) can give speeches like (former Indonesian leader) Sukarno and (German dictator Adolf) Hitler, he is clever to talk. But what is the solution?” he queried.
Former PKR Bayan Baru parliamentarian Zahrain Hashim (right), who has since become independent, had earlier this year called Guan Eng a "dictator, a chauvinist and communist-minded".
(source: Gerakan: Guan Eng a 'Hitler', Kit Siang 'desperate' , by Susan Loone,
Malaysiankini, dated Sep 26, 10 , http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/143660 )
What do you think, are they using the same ugly name? Adolf Hitler must be happy that Malaysia liked his name; or may be like HIM?.....or his ideas..
It is sad, not for Adolf Hitler, as he is dead. It is sad for Malaysian politic for using tactic like Adolf Hitler in the domestic politic, in a democracy country....
Heil Hitler.....Heil Malaysia....the demon has come out of democracy....and we have the crazy politician remain in the country to play the games of Adolf Hitler.... crazy,just crazy....
Sign of coming election
Since the last election campaign, when the opposition make use of IT technology to win their support, ruling parties are now jumping into the wagon. They are now actively using cyber technology and social media. However, the ruling parties have the strategic advantages over opposition, as they have the control over the mass media. They are now doing even better, by using proxy in the social media and publicity campaign. This is the heat of pre-election campaign for coming federal election, and the ruling party have being heated up immediately after Sarawak state election. The politician are using racial sentiments, the popular tools to gain support.....I just ponder who is race baiting?.....
For general public, please use our common sense and not to fall into the traps of the political games. Cyber political games are on, Heil Hitler.....Heil Malaysia....
The games of proxies has begin.....
Related articles/websites:
1. Gerakan: Guan Eng a 'Hitler', Kit Siang 'desperate'; http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/143660
2. Easter Message 2011,http://limguaneng.com/index.php/2011/04/24/easter-message-2011/
3. Guan Eng: Is opposing Hitler wrong?, http://my.news.yahoo.com/guan-eng-is-opposing-hitler-wrong-044444463.html
4. MESTI BACA ! Heil Hitler - DAP Meroyan Tahap Malu Dek Pendedahan MiM !!, http://novandri.blogspot.com/2011/04/mesti-baca-heil-hitler-dap-meroyan.html(The blog may delete article)
5. Malaysia amal idea Hitler? Utusan Malaysia online; http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/info.asp?y=2011&dt=0426&pub=Utusan_Malaysia&sec=Dalam_Negeri&pg=dn_16.htm
6. Lim Guan Eng's Remarks not based on Reality, http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsindex.php?id=582092
Friday, April 8, 2011
Sarawak election
Just as expected, Sarawak state election has come.
This time the opposition is hoping for another victory like 308 during the last general election.
Will they repeat the same victory like the last election? This is the question that most Malaysian will like to ask?
Lately, the ruling Barisan National, is heavily using the mass media to propagate the idea of One Malaysia. The Prime Minister is following the footstep of China's Prime Minister, Wen Jiabao, walking the street to the grassroots people. He walk into the places that he never walk in his previous political career. He seems to have gain some popularity among the ordinary people. He has account in social media, he had meetings with bloggers, he is into the internet technology to meet people. The promotion campaign on his personality is great, sometime it may look artificial and another commercial campaign for the coming election....but it revealed that he realized the time has changed, the old tactic cannot be used anymore.....
It may be a good transformation, people like it......
As for the opposition, the trouble is in their unity, there are problems in their component party, PKR(Parti Keadilan Rakyat), the political frogs jumping from the party seems to have no end. People are wondering did they select the right candidates for the election?. The political dirty tactic used by their own members for internal political struggles have damaged the reputation of opposition alliance. The ruling party has actively focus on the political attack on the opposition ruled state government, sometime not directly from their component parties, but cleverly make use of proxies to do it. Perak state government was collapse; Selangor state government have their own share, and was humiliated; Kelantan and Kedah state government having their attack on religion issues, especially on banning of alcohol and gambling. For DAP controlled Penang state government, the effective tools is the racial issues on the Chinese dominated political party.
Many of political attacks have no base, and dirty tactic, even the extends to downgrade a politician's personality. Alcohol and gambling were not the culture of Chinese, social drink like tea drinking on functions may be the culture, but not addictive drinking. No religion encourage addictive drinking and gambling, there is nothing wrong on banning gambling and addictive drinking(in entertainment outlets). We know the social ills of the habits. The people are worried about extremism, in politic, in religion, and in community, in NGOs, in Charitable organization, and anywhere, extremism is not welcome by Malaysian people, and never our culture. A clean hand shake is social etiquette, a friendly gesture, how can it be rejected in an open multiracial society?.
The opposition ask for change, not only transformation; they shout the slogan "Sarawak for Change" or "Jom Ubah Sarawak" , and use the Sarawak local hornbill bird as their mascot for the election campaign. The hornbill in the native language is "Ubah", which in Malay is literally means "Change". The opposition is anticipating a tsunami change like Penang in 308 in the coming election for Sarawak.
Our common enemies are corruption, crime, social ills, unfairness, discrimination, racialism, extremism..... not small petty issues. We uphold law and justice, we respect human right, we respect people elected government(ruling or opposition), we need clean environment(physically , politically, commercially, socially). We need alternative voices, we need good and top class education for our children , we need employment for the school leavers, we need fair business opportunities for our commercial sectors, we need fair competition and not discrimination in any ways....these are the major issues we faced, and should be the agenda for any political parties in the election.
No, not dirty political tactic; we need sincere and clean politician...
We need strong opposition...and alternative voices....
We need to say " NO" to the wrongs; we need to change(not only transformation)..Said No to corruption, say No to power abuse, said No to discrimination....
We need to vote wisely....
The people of Sarawak need to stand up for their right; no worry that there were a norm for a long time; you are the people of Sarawak, you determine the future of Sarawak. Not one person can determine your future, he is no God. You have much more right than that one person, we know who he is.....
Think about the issues..... that affect your daily life....did he sound and protect your right in Sarawak as your leaders?.....
Think of the mega projects in the state, did the project benefited the people of the state, or few individuals?...
Think of timber right, and the environment, is there any abuse of power in awarding timer concession, and have the natural environment adversely affected?...
Think of your native land, are they been protected as your right or taken away in the name of "development".... actual development or resale to the developer to gain more profits...
Think of your religion, can you use your language freely....
Think of nepotism, is the resources in the state fairly distributed or the government projects fairly awarded without favoritism......
Think of your children education....
Think of your community....
Think of your nation, a multiracial, multi-religion country (where Sarawak was once a classic example of the dream).....
Think all; did you need to change......
Then, said "NO" to the wrongs, and vote "Yes" for the right thing to do...that is your right as citizen, do not afraid.....
Remember we are Malaysian, we are all Malaysian; from East or West Malaysia; Malay, Chinese, Indian, Iban, Kadazan or orang asli; it is our right to enjoy our country, not the outside people, not one person...
It is not "One Malaysian's Malaysia"; it is "All Malaysian's Malaysia"...
No one man can played the role of One Malaysia, all Malaysian played their role for this country, it is Malaysian's Malaysia; black hair, brown hair, white hair and even you change your hair color to blue and yellow. White color alone is not always supreme, it is Malaysian of all color.
The Sarawak political issues are now issues for all Malaysian, regardless of political background, and the voice of people is "to change"....even the ruling component parties are calling for change, in a softer tone, transformation.....the message from the people is clear....to change....
Now the Sarawak Election 2011, is no longer a state election alone, it is the focus of all Malaysian, the attention by Malaysian all over the country. Their hearts are with the Sarawakian, hoping for a change in the state of Sarawak.....our support is with you Sarawak, have courage to change for better....
May God bless Sarawakian in their decision....your decision will have great impact not only to the future of Sarawak, but also the future of Malaysia....
Suggested websites/articles:
1. Movement for Change Sarawak, http://mocsarawak.wordpress.com/
2. Keadilandaily, http://www.keadilandaily.com/10000-penduduk-miri-beri-isyarat-untuk-ubah-sarawak/(Party website of Keadilan)
3. Softly but sweetly, the winds of change head for Sarawak ,by Selena Tay, Malaysia Chronicle, http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=10263:softly-but-sweetly-the-winds-of-change-gather-speed-for-sarawak&Itemid=2
4. A hornbill joins the battle for change, by Regina Lee, http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/160298
5. Sarawak, Bangunlah. Ubah Nasib Rakyat Bumi Kenyalang!(Party website of SNAP) http://www.sarawaknationalparty.org/2011/03/sarawak-bangunlah-ubah-nasib-rakyat.html
6. Sarawak for Change, http://sarawak4change.com/(website for DAP)
7. DAP Sarawak Chairman, http://holeng.dapsarawak.com/
8. DAP Malaysia, http://dapmalaysia.org/newenglish/
9. SUPP, http://www.supp.org.my/
10. Parti Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu, http://www.bumiputerasarawak.org.my/
11. Anti-Taib protests in Ottawa and London, 28 February 2011,http://malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/letterssurat/38443-anti-taib-protests-in-ottawa-and-london-28-february-2011
12. Sarawak voters must question Taib Mahmud's disproportionate wealth, the destruction of Sarawak's forests and Indegenous people's lives, http://www.sarawaknationalparty.org/2011/04/sarawak-voters-must-question-taib.html
13. http://www.stop-timber-corruption.org/
14. http://www.bmf.ch/en/?lang=en
15.Exposed: Taib's stash of secret foreign assets,http://en.harakah.net.my/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2311:exposed-taibs-stash-of-secret-foreign-assets&catid=34:primary&Itemid=56
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Pulau Jerejak debate
The game is on in Penang, LGE Vs KTK.... this time is on Pulau Jerrejak, another white elephant...
The other side:
Former chief minister Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon has blamed three international incidents for the financial loss suffered by the state government in the Pulau Jerejak tourism development project.
He cited the global financial crisis, the Sept 11 tragedy in the United States in 2001 and the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic in 2003 for the loss.
Dr Koh, who is Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, was responding to Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng who had urged him to explain the alleged RM30mil losses incurred by the state government in the redevelopment of Pulau Jerejak into an island resort.
“The financial condition was unstable in 1997 and 1998. When 9/11 happened, people did not want to travel for a year,” he said after opening a workshop for Penang Barisan Nasional leaders at Pantai Jerejak Resort on Sunday.
Dr Koh said UDA Holdings Bhd was willing to cooperate with the state government to develop the place.
“I have contacted UDA chairman Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed and he is interested in its revival. The project, which is still in its first phase did not progress to the next phase due to the 2008 political tsunami.
“There are four phases in the project. This will turn the island into a rainforest resort,” he said.
It had been reported that the Penang Development Corporation (PDC) and UDA were involved in the joint venture to develop the Tropical Island Resort (TIR) on the island.
The PDC holds a 49% stake in TIR while UDA Holdings holds the remaining stake.
Dr Koh said Barisan would be ready if Lim decided to take a positive or negative approach on the matter.
“I’m really annoyed over this and we will play the game until the end. The ball is now in his court,” he said.
(source: http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com)
That is good news, both are ready for the game. A long waiting report cards for Pulau Jerejak...
The game should be played fairly by the two CMs, a high level debate. We anticipate for more disclosure and more accountability; not only 911, and SARs, these are factors that did not adversely affected the state, at least no long term effect. Moreover it affect all tourism industry, but for short term, plane still fly, people still travel. Just look at Phuket of Thailand and Bali,Indonesia, they recover fast from the Tsunami and Terrorist attack. But Pulau Jerejak is still affect by 911 and SARs?....for 18 years? someone said it make my toe laugh.....
By the way, ask Penang lang, who have been to Pulau Jerejak? Many have been to Sentosa Island in Singapore where their latest development project have start to earn tourism money......
What is the feedback from Penang lang when the project started?....
To look at the island, just stand in front of Queensbay Mall, look at the green island we once have, is it still beautiful or an eye sore?...and it had been 18 years...
Let us open our eyes and see how the game end....
The other side:
Former chief minister Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon has blamed three international incidents for the financial loss suffered by the state government in the Pulau Jerejak tourism development project.
He cited the global financial crisis, the Sept 11 tragedy in the United States in 2001 and the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic in 2003 for the loss.
Dr Koh, who is Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, was responding to Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng who had urged him to explain the alleged RM30mil losses incurred by the state government in the redevelopment of Pulau Jerejak into an island resort.
“The financial condition was unstable in 1997 and 1998. When 9/11 happened, people did not want to travel for a year,” he said after opening a workshop for Penang Barisan Nasional leaders at Pantai Jerejak Resort on Sunday.
Dr Koh said UDA Holdings Bhd was willing to cooperate with the state government to develop the place.
“I have contacted UDA chairman Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed and he is interested in its revival. The project, which is still in its first phase did not progress to the next phase due to the 2008 political tsunami.
“There are four phases in the project. This will turn the island into a rainforest resort,” he said.
It had been reported that the Penang Development Corporation (PDC) and UDA were involved in the joint venture to develop the Tropical Island Resort (TIR) on the island.
The PDC holds a 49% stake in TIR while UDA Holdings holds the remaining stake.
Dr Koh said Barisan would be ready if Lim decided to take a positive or negative approach on the matter.
“I’m really annoyed over this and we will play the game until the end. The ball is now in his court,” he said.
(source: http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com)
That is good news, both are ready for the game. A long waiting report cards for Pulau Jerejak...
The game should be played fairly by the two CMs, a high level debate. We anticipate for more disclosure and more accountability; not only 911, and SARs, these are factors that did not adversely affected the state, at least no long term effect. Moreover it affect all tourism industry, but for short term, plane still fly, people still travel. Just look at Phuket of Thailand and Bali,Indonesia, they recover fast from the Tsunami and Terrorist attack. But Pulau Jerejak is still affect by 911 and SARs?....for 18 years? someone said it make my toe laugh.....
By the way, ask Penang lang, who have been to Pulau Jerejak? Many have been to Sentosa Island in Singapore where their latest development project have start to earn tourism money......
What is the feedback from Penang lang when the project started?....
To look at the island, just stand in front of Queensbay Mall, look at the green island we once have, is it still beautiful or an eye sore?...and it had been 18 years...
Let us open our eyes and see how the game end....
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Haram Money in Penang
Penang & Haram Money
Recently there was some dispute about the issue of Haram Money in Penang state. Some senior citizen who received money from the state's Senior Citizen Appreciation Programme have returned the money, accusing the money was obtained from the racing activities of Penang Turf Club.
The newspaper from New Strait Time reported the following on 2-10-2010:-
GEORGE TOWN: Another 70 senior citizens from Bayan Baru here have decided to give back the RM100 reward they received from the state government as they feared that the money could have come from gaming activities.
Habsah Said, 81, from Permatang Damar Laut, said she was very disappointed and shocked to discover that the money for the state's Senior Citizen Appreciation Programme was obtained from the racing activities of Penang Turf Club.
"For Muslims, we are not allowed to receive money from forbidden sources and it is considered as "duit haram", which all of us have decided to return," she said at a press conference call by Bayan Baru Umno division chief Datuk Abdul Rahim Saibu here today.
She said she had accepted the money earlier because she thought it was "halal" (permitted by Islam). Another senior citizen Zainab Abu Bakar, 67, from Kampung Melayu, said she decided to return the money voluntarily back the the state government for the same reasons.
Earlier, some 50 senior citizen had opted to give the money to Umno Bayan Baru before it was returned to the state government while another 20 of them turn up later to do so the same. –
(source: Bernama)
Is it true that the money is from non-Halal source?
Government Revenue
How did federal government and state government derived their revenue to support their government expenditure budget(or public expenditure budget)? . Government revenue or Government income is revenue received by a government to meet their expenditure. Government revenue may be from various taxes, direct or indirect; non tax revenue from businesses owned by government owned corporations and investment revenue from sovereign wealth funds, fees and licenses collected, and donation from the public.
The tax income source of government revenue may be derived from sin tax or sumptuary taxes.
Wikipedia stated that “ A sin tax is a kind of sumptuary tax: a tax specifically levied on certain generally socially proscribed goods and services”. These goods are usually alcohol and tobacco, but also include candies, soft drinks and coffee, while services range from prostitution to gambling. Sumptuary taxes are ostensibly used for reducing transactions involving something that the society considers unwanted, and is thus a kind of sumptuary law. Sin tax is used for taxes on activities that are considered socially undesireable. Common targets of sumptuary taxes are alcohol and tobacco, gambling, and vehicles emitting excessive pollutants. Sumptuary tax on sugar and soft drinks has also been suggested [1]. Some jurisdictions have also levied taxes on illegal drugs such as cocaine and marijuana.
The revenue generated by sin taxes is sometimes used for special projects, but might also be used in the ordinary budget. American cities and counties have used them to pay for stadiums, while in Sweden the tax for gambling is used for helping people with gambling problems. Acceptance of sumptuary taxes may be greater than income tax or sales tax.
(source: Wikipedia)
Haram & Halal
Then what is haram money? To understand that we must know the difference between Haraam and Halal according to Islamic law.
Haraam (Arabic: حرام) (often Haram) is an Arabic term meaning "forbidden". In Islam it is used to refer to anything that is prohibited by the faith or considered as an improper or illegitimate way in Islamic faith. It not only apply to food , Haraam also applies to ill-gotten wealth obtained through sin. Examples include money earned through cheating, stealing, corruption, murder or any means that involves harm to another human being. It is prohibited in Islam for a true Muslim to profit from such Haraam actions. Any believer who benefits from or lives off wealth obtained through Haraam is a sinner.
Halal (Arabic:حلال, ḥalāl; means lawful or legal) is a term designating any object or an action which is permissible to use or engage in, according to Islamic law. It is the opposite of haraam. The term is used to designate food seen as permissible according to Islamic law (Sharia, الشريعة الإسلامية). As with haraam, it can also use for wealth , obtained from allowed sources from Islamic Law.
(source: wikipedia)
A Muslim cannot take nor do something that is considered an improper or illegitimate way. There will be sins doing something that is considered Haram and definitely will be no virtues. For "Makruh", it basically means "disliked" and it simply means that when a Muslim does, or consumes something, there won't be any sin nor virtue for him or her but is advised not to do so. The last one is the "Sunah", a Muslim will get a virtue for doing or consuming something that is considered Sunah but if he or she does not do it, there won't be any sins or any virtues.
So Haram money is money derived from haraam source or non-Halal source, or sinful sources, like corruption, sinful activities, gambling, pork farm, alcohol or tobacco business. For tobacco, there is still debate. The money from haraam sources, will be rejected by the people of Muslim faith.
Malaysian need to understand that most of the Haram money, is also not accepted and not allow by other religion faith. They have in fact common value. Whatever is Haram is also haram or not allow by other religion. The only difference is that there is no strictly imposed law to prohibit the acceptance of the money, there is freedom of choice to accept it.
Penang State Revenue, Federal Revenue and the dilemma
(i) State Government
Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng says Auditor General's report shows that for the first time ever, the state's revenue have breached the RM 1 billion mark in 2009. Income Tax from individual and corporation are revenue for the federal government, so there is no way Penang state derive their revenue from sin taxes or Haraam income. Most of the state revenue is halal.
The only possible one is the donation from companies involved in gambling and alcohol businesses. The money from the Haram source or non-Halal source should not be used in public infrastructure used by the people which include Muslim citizen, it can only be used for Non-Muslim citizen. A responsible state government will respect the faith of the people. Non-Halal fund or income can be used for social institution/charitable institution that accept the fund. For donation it is easy to separate it, unlike tax revenue , the donation is normally is one –off and not continual. The donation can easily allot to specific fund for non- Muslim usage. The state government should publicly disclosed the availability of Non-Halal fund, confirmed by external auditor that the source of the fund is non-Halal, and not use for expenditure involved with Muslim people. A proper disclosure will avoid the communication problem and politically motivated accusations. That should not have problem for state government.
Moreover, Penang state councillor for religious affairs, domestic trade and consumer affairs, Abdul Malik Kassim is in the state cabinet , being a Muslim himself, he will be involved in the matter concerning Muslim affairs. The citizen of Penang should be of comfort that the issue of Haram money will be properly handled by the said state councilor.
PENANG'S state halal agency, PIHH Development Sdn Bhd (Halal Penang) has been set up to develop halal business hub in the state. An Halal industrial Park has been developed by the state halal agency. Located in Bukit Minyak with a land size of 52.65ha the Penang Halal Industrial Park has so far attracted RM150 million in investment from a Chinese marine biotechnology company. The company will hold its groundbreaking before the end of the year. Three other projects that are in the midst of being finalised at the Penang Halal Industrial Park are a gelatin project with an Iranian group, an Australian group who wants to produce containers using organic products, and a biotechnology group from India.(source: NST dated Jun 22, 2010).
This indicated that the state is fully aware of the issue of Halal and Haram in Muslim faith.
(ii) Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang (MPPP)
The Municipal Council of Penang Island or Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang (MPPP) is a local authority which administers Penang Island. This agency is under Penang state government. MPPP are responsible for public health and sanitation, waste removal and management, town planning, environmental protection and building control, social and economic development and general maintenance functions of urban infrastructure. The MPPP can only derived revenue from fee and assessment from the activities undertaken by them. The only possible of haram income are fee or license collected from gambling outlet or pork business, but it is collected for the services rendered, and not consider as Haram or Non-Halal. There is no problem of Haram Money.
(iii) Federal Government
Federal government however have some of their revenue from gambling tax, from companies like Genting, Sport Toto etc, and company tax from alcohol or gambling businesses. A responsible federal government will need to split their revenue into Halal income and Haraam income, since the majority of the citizen of the country is from people of Islamic faith. The fund from the Haraam income should be separated and use only in the sector that accepted the fund. It is fair to the citizen of the Islamic faith that the fund should not be used to the area that directly affected them in their daily living. The federal government is facing the problem of the separation of Haram revenue, as sin taxes are a continue sources. Federal government need to disclose the source and how the fund are used.
The issue of the Haram money; the ball is now with the federal government to meet the request of the people, as advocate by the opposition party in Penang(from their own party)……..
Then, why wait.....for the benefit of citizen from Muslim faith.
What are the feedback from public
1. From Thomas Lee
The Penang state government has acknowledged receiving RM500,000 from the Penang Turf Club, but said the money would be used to help poor non-Muslims.
Certainly, due respect must be given to our Muslim friends whose religious conscience does not permit them to accept money originated from non-halal source, but the unwitting and inadvertent incident should not exploited into a religious and political issue.
Guan Eng should not be lambasted for something which he probably assumed is proper and harmless, since over the years, the Barisan Nasional federal government has been using tax monies from the gambling corporations and haram businesses like pubs and non-halal restaurants which serve alcoholic drinks, and also from workers in haram professions such as pork sellers, to fund government and public projects.
Now that we know that it is forbidden (haram) for our Muslim citizens to accept and use monies derived from non-halal sources, then the federal government should rectify the matter, and have a special separate account for all tax monies collected from the haram sources such as Sports Toto, Magnum, the Genting casino, the pubs, and the entertainment joints and restaurants selling alcoholic drinks. These monies must never ever be used in anything associated with Islam, or in projects which may involve the Muslims.
As for the tax monies collected from the haram sources, the federal government could use them for the building of Chinese and Tamil schools, temples, churches, cemeteries, or even scholarships for the non-Muslim students.
Let us look at the positive side of this incident, and learn from it. Don’t aggravate the situation to turn it into a religious issue…..
2. If you ever get haraam money, you should dispose of it by giving it away to the poor. Throwing it away is not correct. ...
3. From http://romerz.blogspot.com/2010/10/double-standards-of-halal-or-haram.html
For as long as I can remember and that goes back to the sixties, Malaysia has had some form or other of gambling - horse racing, social welfare lottery, 4D, Sports Toto, etc., now whether this is right or wrong is another question altogether (which the scope of this posting will not cover for now).
Some of which were legacies from our colonial past and some of which were new introductions after independence. All of them were and are still heavily regulated and heavily taxed by the federal government of the day, which in Malaysia's case had been the Alliance and BN government. In both instances, whether Alliance or BN, UMNO to which Azhar Ibrahim belongs is the real power behind the government. And they have been collecting huge amounts of "haram" money in the form of taxes for the treasury.
Over the course of many years, these "haram" money together with "halal" money (those which have not been lost through corruption) had been spent on subsidies and various social programs not to mention the bribes given each time elections comes around. I dare say that not a single Malaysian then and now have benefited in one way or another from "haram" money which the treasury collected.
I dare say that no one today can distinguish what is "haram" or "halal" money spent by the government not that they made any attempts to make that distinction in the first place. The reality is it is just impossible to make such a distinction.
In all those years,did Azhar or for that matter any politician from UMNO, ever once questioned if the federal government was being insensitive to pious Muslims by giving them "haram" money in one form or another? Why bring it up now when it involves the DAP state government of Penang? Why cause such anguish to those whom they claim they represent when they have been doing it for all these years since independence?
4. MUAR: Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin has called on Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng to answer allegations made by Umno Youth on the state government's financial source to fund its poverty eradication programmes. Muhyiddin said Muslims would not want to be associated should gambling money were used for the programmes.(source: Bernama dated 25-9-2010, http://www.mmail.com.my/content/50409-lim-should-answer-allegations-umno-youth)
And many more in the internet……
So actually what is the issue?
It is actually another political game played by the failed politician, who knows that the election is coming. But the playing up of the issue on old citizen is disrespect to the old citizen, the playing up of the issue without conclusive evidence is also considered a non-Halal act of accusation.
Why accuse the Chief Minister, when it is the state government decision; with the joint responsibility of all state exco members or the state cabinet. Politician should avoid personality attack, but focus on policy issues. if it is a good policy, the state government should stand firm. The ultimate decision and views of the people are more important, as they will open their eyes clearly on the issue.
Please stop playing the emotion of the innocent people over religion and racial issue to discredit the current state government. The political agenda behind the plot is clear to the Penang people. A good noble act by the state government cannot simply be constructed as bad by a “sour grape “politician. Any accusation without ground and evidence is political motivated. The accusation or any grievance should be support with evidence. We expected the game to continue as election is becoming closer… it is time the opposition need to know and act like a responsible opposition in the state.....lately there were too many issues playing up....
I call upon all citizen of Penang, regardless of race, religion, political background to reject this type of politician who bought instability to the state. They have deprived the elected state government of the valuable time which need to be used for the state affairs.
Penang lang, open our eyes….we need political peace for the state...
Recently there was some dispute about the issue of Haram Money in Penang state. Some senior citizen who received money from the state's Senior Citizen Appreciation Programme have returned the money, accusing the money was obtained from the racing activities of Penang Turf Club.
The newspaper from New Strait Time reported the following on 2-10-2010:-
GEORGE TOWN: Another 70 senior citizens from Bayan Baru here have decided to give back the RM100 reward they received from the state government as they feared that the money could have come from gaming activities.
Habsah Said, 81, from Permatang Damar Laut, said she was very disappointed and shocked to discover that the money for the state's Senior Citizen Appreciation Programme was obtained from the racing activities of Penang Turf Club.
"For Muslims, we are not allowed to receive money from forbidden sources and it is considered as "duit haram", which all of us have decided to return," she said at a press conference call by Bayan Baru Umno division chief Datuk Abdul Rahim Saibu here today.
She said she had accepted the money earlier because she thought it was "halal" (permitted by Islam). Another senior citizen Zainab Abu Bakar, 67, from Kampung Melayu, said she decided to return the money voluntarily back the the state government for the same reasons.
Earlier, some 50 senior citizen had opted to give the money to Umno Bayan Baru before it was returned to the state government while another 20 of them turn up later to do so the same. –
(source: Bernama)
Is it true that the money is from non-Halal source?
Government Revenue
How did federal government and state government derived their revenue to support their government expenditure budget(or public expenditure budget)? . Government revenue or Government income is revenue received by a government to meet their expenditure. Government revenue may be from various taxes, direct or indirect; non tax revenue from businesses owned by government owned corporations and investment revenue from sovereign wealth funds, fees and licenses collected, and donation from the public.
The tax income source of government revenue may be derived from sin tax or sumptuary taxes.
Wikipedia stated that “ A sin tax is a kind of sumptuary tax: a tax specifically levied on certain generally socially proscribed goods and services”. These goods are usually alcohol and tobacco, but also include candies, soft drinks and coffee, while services range from prostitution to gambling. Sumptuary taxes are ostensibly used for reducing transactions involving something that the society considers unwanted, and is thus a kind of sumptuary law. Sin tax is used for taxes on activities that are considered socially undesireable. Common targets of sumptuary taxes are alcohol and tobacco, gambling, and vehicles emitting excessive pollutants. Sumptuary tax on sugar and soft drinks has also been suggested [1]. Some jurisdictions have also levied taxes on illegal drugs such as cocaine and marijuana.
The revenue generated by sin taxes is sometimes used for special projects, but might also be used in the ordinary budget. American cities and counties have used them to pay for stadiums, while in Sweden the tax for gambling is used for helping people with gambling problems. Acceptance of sumptuary taxes may be greater than income tax or sales tax.
(source: Wikipedia)
Haram & Halal
Then what is haram money? To understand that we must know the difference between Haraam and Halal according to Islamic law.
Haraam (Arabic: حرام) (often Haram) is an Arabic term meaning "forbidden". In Islam it is used to refer to anything that is prohibited by the faith or considered as an improper or illegitimate way in Islamic faith. It not only apply to food , Haraam also applies to ill-gotten wealth obtained through sin. Examples include money earned through cheating, stealing, corruption, murder or any means that involves harm to another human being. It is prohibited in Islam for a true Muslim to profit from such Haraam actions. Any believer who benefits from or lives off wealth obtained through Haraam is a sinner.
Halal (Arabic:حلال, ḥalāl; means lawful or legal) is a term designating any object or an action which is permissible to use or engage in, according to Islamic law. It is the opposite of haraam. The term is used to designate food seen as permissible according to Islamic law (Sharia, الشريعة الإسلامية). As with haraam, it can also use for wealth , obtained from allowed sources from Islamic Law.
(source: wikipedia)
A Muslim cannot take nor do something that is considered an improper or illegitimate way. There will be sins doing something that is considered Haram and definitely will be no virtues. For "Makruh", it basically means "disliked" and it simply means that when a Muslim does, or consumes something, there won't be any sin nor virtue for him or her but is advised not to do so. The last one is the "Sunah", a Muslim will get a virtue for doing or consuming something that is considered Sunah but if he or she does not do it, there won't be any sins or any virtues.
So Haram money is money derived from haraam source or non-Halal source, or sinful sources, like corruption, sinful activities, gambling, pork farm, alcohol or tobacco business. For tobacco, there is still debate. The money from haraam sources, will be rejected by the people of Muslim faith.
Malaysian need to understand that most of the Haram money, is also not accepted and not allow by other religion faith. They have in fact common value. Whatever is Haram is also haram or not allow by other religion. The only difference is that there is no strictly imposed law to prohibit the acceptance of the money, there is freedom of choice to accept it.
Penang State Revenue, Federal Revenue and the dilemma
(i) State Government
Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng says Auditor General's report shows that for the first time ever, the state's revenue have breached the RM 1 billion mark in 2009. Income Tax from individual and corporation are revenue for the federal government, so there is no way Penang state derive their revenue from sin taxes or Haraam income. Most of the state revenue is halal.
The only possible one is the donation from companies involved in gambling and alcohol businesses. The money from the Haram source or non-Halal source should not be used in public infrastructure used by the people which include Muslim citizen, it can only be used for Non-Muslim citizen. A responsible state government will respect the faith of the people. Non-Halal fund or income can be used for social institution/charitable institution that accept the fund. For donation it is easy to separate it, unlike tax revenue , the donation is normally is one –off and not continual. The donation can easily allot to specific fund for non- Muslim usage. The state government should publicly disclosed the availability of Non-Halal fund, confirmed by external auditor that the source of the fund is non-Halal, and not use for expenditure involved with Muslim people. A proper disclosure will avoid the communication problem and politically motivated accusations. That should not have problem for state government.
Moreover, Penang state councillor for religious affairs, domestic trade and consumer affairs, Abdul Malik Kassim is in the state cabinet , being a Muslim himself, he will be involved in the matter concerning Muslim affairs. The citizen of Penang should be of comfort that the issue of Haram money will be properly handled by the said state councilor.
PENANG'S state halal agency, PIHH Development Sdn Bhd (Halal Penang) has been set up to develop halal business hub in the state. An Halal industrial Park has been developed by the state halal agency. Located in Bukit Minyak with a land size of 52.65ha the Penang Halal Industrial Park has so far attracted RM150 million in investment from a Chinese marine biotechnology company. The company will hold its groundbreaking before the end of the year. Three other projects that are in the midst of being finalised at the Penang Halal Industrial Park are a gelatin project with an Iranian group, an Australian group who wants to produce containers using organic products, and a biotechnology group from India.(source: NST dated Jun 22, 2010).
This indicated that the state is fully aware of the issue of Halal and Haram in Muslim faith.
(ii) Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang (MPPP)
The Municipal Council of Penang Island or Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang (MPPP) is a local authority which administers Penang Island. This agency is under Penang state government. MPPP are responsible for public health and sanitation, waste removal and management, town planning, environmental protection and building control, social and economic development and general maintenance functions of urban infrastructure. The MPPP can only derived revenue from fee and assessment from the activities undertaken by them. The only possible of haram income are fee or license collected from gambling outlet or pork business, but it is collected for the services rendered, and not consider as Haram or Non-Halal. There is no problem of Haram Money.
(iii) Federal Government
Federal government however have some of their revenue from gambling tax, from companies like Genting, Sport Toto etc, and company tax from alcohol or gambling businesses. A responsible federal government will need to split their revenue into Halal income and Haraam income, since the majority of the citizen of the country is from people of Islamic faith. The fund from the Haraam income should be separated and use only in the sector that accepted the fund. It is fair to the citizen of the Islamic faith that the fund should not be used to the area that directly affected them in their daily living. The federal government is facing the problem of the separation of Haram revenue, as sin taxes are a continue sources. Federal government need to disclose the source and how the fund are used.
The issue of the Haram money; the ball is now with the federal government to meet the request of the people, as advocate by the opposition party in Penang(from their own party)……..
Then, why wait.....for the benefit of citizen from Muslim faith.
What are the feedback from public
1. From Thomas Lee
The Penang state government has acknowledged receiving RM500,000 from the Penang Turf Club, but said the money would be used to help poor non-Muslims.
Certainly, due respect must be given to our Muslim friends whose religious conscience does not permit them to accept money originated from non-halal source, but the unwitting and inadvertent incident should not exploited into a religious and political issue.
Guan Eng should not be lambasted for something which he probably assumed is proper and harmless, since over the years, the Barisan Nasional federal government has been using tax monies from the gambling corporations and haram businesses like pubs and non-halal restaurants which serve alcoholic drinks, and also from workers in haram professions such as pork sellers, to fund government and public projects.
Now that we know that it is forbidden (haram) for our Muslim citizens to accept and use monies derived from non-halal sources, then the federal government should rectify the matter, and have a special separate account for all tax monies collected from the haram sources such as Sports Toto, Magnum, the Genting casino, the pubs, and the entertainment joints and restaurants selling alcoholic drinks. These monies must never ever be used in anything associated with Islam, or in projects which may involve the Muslims.
As for the tax monies collected from the haram sources, the federal government could use them for the building of Chinese and Tamil schools, temples, churches, cemeteries, or even scholarships for the non-Muslim students.
Let us look at the positive side of this incident, and learn from it. Don’t aggravate the situation to turn it into a religious issue…..
2. If you ever get haraam money, you should dispose of it by giving it away to the poor. Throwing it away is not correct. ...
3. From http://romerz.blogspot.com/2010/10/double-standards-of-halal-or-haram.html
For as long as I can remember and that goes back to the sixties, Malaysia has had some form or other of gambling - horse racing, social welfare lottery, 4D, Sports Toto, etc., now whether this is right or wrong is another question altogether (which the scope of this posting will not cover for now).
Some of which were legacies from our colonial past and some of which were new introductions after independence. All of them were and are still heavily regulated and heavily taxed by the federal government of the day, which in Malaysia's case had been the Alliance and BN government. In both instances, whether Alliance or BN, UMNO to which Azhar Ibrahim belongs is the real power behind the government. And they have been collecting huge amounts of "haram" money in the form of taxes for the treasury.
Over the course of many years, these "haram" money together with "halal" money (those which have not been lost through corruption) had been spent on subsidies and various social programs not to mention the bribes given each time elections comes around. I dare say that not a single Malaysian then and now have benefited in one way or another from "haram" money which the treasury collected.
I dare say that no one today can distinguish what is "haram" or "halal" money spent by the government not that they made any attempts to make that distinction in the first place. The reality is it is just impossible to make such a distinction.
In all those years,did Azhar or for that matter any politician from UMNO, ever once questioned if the federal government was being insensitive to pious Muslims by giving them "haram" money in one form or another? Why bring it up now when it involves the DAP state government of Penang? Why cause such anguish to those whom they claim they represent when they have been doing it for all these years since independence?
4. MUAR: Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin has called on Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng to answer allegations made by Umno Youth on the state government's financial source to fund its poverty eradication programmes. Muhyiddin said Muslims would not want to be associated should gambling money were used for the programmes.(source: Bernama dated 25-9-2010, http://www.mmail.com.my/content/50409-lim-should-answer-allegations-umno-youth)
And many more in the internet……
So actually what is the issue?
It is actually another political game played by the failed politician, who knows that the election is coming. But the playing up of the issue on old citizen is disrespect to the old citizen, the playing up of the issue without conclusive evidence is also considered a non-Halal act of accusation.
Why accuse the Chief Minister, when it is the state government decision; with the joint responsibility of all state exco members or the state cabinet. Politician should avoid personality attack, but focus on policy issues. if it is a good policy, the state government should stand firm. The ultimate decision and views of the people are more important, as they will open their eyes clearly on the issue.
Please stop playing the emotion of the innocent people over religion and racial issue to discredit the current state government. The political agenda behind the plot is clear to the Penang people. A good noble act by the state government cannot simply be constructed as bad by a “sour grape “politician. Any accusation without ground and evidence is political motivated. The accusation or any grievance should be support with evidence. We expected the game to continue as election is becoming closer… it is time the opposition need to know and act like a responsible opposition in the state.....lately there were too many issues playing up....
I call upon all citizen of Penang, regardless of race, religion, political background to reject this type of politician who bought instability to the state. They have deprived the elected state government of the valuable time which need to be used for the state affairs.
Penang lang, open our eyes….we need political peace for the state...
Monday, August 2, 2010
Penang Rulers
Penang's Rulers
Title of Head of Penang Government since 1786
* Superintendent 11 August 1786
* Lieutenant governor 1799
* Governor 1805
* Resident councilor 1849
* Japanese governor 1941
* British military governor 1945
* Resident commissioner 1946
* Governor (ceremonial) 31 August 1957
* Chief minister 12 June 1959
11 Aug 1786 British colony (Prince of Wales Island)
1826 part of Straits Settlements
1946 part of Malaya/Malaysia
Superintendents (of the British East India Company)
11 Aug 1786 - 21 Oct 1794 Francis Light (b. 1740 - d. 1794)
1794 - 1795 Philip Mannington
1795 - 1799 Forbes Ross MacDonald (b. ... - d. 1799)
Lieutenant governors
1799 - 1804 Sir George Leith (b. 1766 - d. 1842)
1804 - 1805 Robert Townsend Farquhar (b. 1776 - d. 1830)
Governors
1805 - 1807 Philip Dundas (b. 17... - d. 1807)
1807 - 1810 Norman Macalister
1810 Charles Andrew Bruce (b. 1768 - d. 1810)
1810 - 1812 William Edward Phillips (1st time) (b. 1769 - d. 18...)
1812 - 1816 William Petrie (b. 17... - d. 1816)
1816 - 1817 William Edward Phillips (2nd time) (s.a.)
1817 - 8 Aug 1819 John Alexander Bannerman (b. 1758 - d. 1819)
1819 - 1824 William Edward Phillips (3rd time) (s.a.)
20 Aug 1824 - 1826 Robert Fullerton (b. 1773 - d. 1831)
Resident councillors
1849 - 1855 Edmund Augustus Blundell (b. 1804? - d. 1868)
1855 - 1860 William Thomas Lewis (b. 1791 - d. 1875)
1860 - 1867 Henry Man (b. 1815 - d. 1898)
1867 - 1883 Archibald Edward Harbord Anson (b. 1826 - d. 1925)
1883 - 1887 Charles John Irving (b. 1831 - d. 1917)
1887 - 1897 Allan Maclean Skinner (b. 1846 - d. 1901)
1894 - 1895 Francis James Anderson (acting) (b. 18... - d. 1920)
1897 - 11 Jul 1904 Charles Walter Sneyd-Kynnersley (b. 1849 - d. 1904)
1904 - 1907 James Kortright Birch (b. 1850 - d. 19...)
1907 - 1910 Robert Norman Bland (b. 1859 - d. 1948)
1910 - 1914 William Evans (b. 1860 - d. 1936)
1914 - 1917 Alfred T. Bryant
1917 - 1919 Walter Cecil Michell (b. 1864 - d. 1939)
1919 - 1922 Gilbert A. Hall
1922 - 1925 Arthur Blennerhassett Voules (b. 1870 - d. 1954)
1925 - 1926 William Peel (b. 1875 - d. 1945)
1926 - 1928 Ralph Scott (b. 1874 - d. 19...)
1928 - 1930 Meadows Frost (b. 1875 - d. 1954)
1930 - 1931 Edward Wilmot Francis Gilman (b. 1876 - d. 1955)
May 1931 - 1933 Percy Tothill Allen (b. 1878 - d. 19...)
(acting to Aug 1931)
1933 - 1941 Arthur Mitchell Goodman (b. 1886 - d. 1961)
Japanese governors
Dec 1941 - 1942 Shotaro Katayama
1942 - 1944 Masakichi Itami
1944 S. Ikagawa
1944 - 1945 Seiichiro Shinohara
British military governors
1945 Peter Dicken Cracroft (b. 1907 - d. 2003)
1945 - 1946 Thomas John Norman Hilken (b. 1901 - d. 1969)
Resident commissioners
1946 Norman Grice (b. 1893 - d. ...)
May 1946 - 1948 Sydney Noel King (b. 1897)
1948 George Evan Cameron Wisdom (b. 1899 - d. 1958)
(acting)
1948 - 1951 Arthur Vincent Aston (b. 1896 - d. 1981)
1951 - 1957 Robert Porter Bingham (b. 1903 - d. 1982)
Heads of State (title Yang di-Pertua Negeri)
31 Aug 1957 - 30 Aug 1967 Raja Sir Tun Uda Al-Haj bin Raja
Muhammad (b. 1894 - d. 1976)
31 Aug 1967 - 31 Jan 1969 Tun Syed Sheh bin Syed Abdullah
Shahabuddin (b. 1910 - d. 1969)
5 Feb 1969 - 5 Feb 1975 Tun Syed Sheh bin Syed Hassan
Barakbah (b. 1906 - d. 1975)
5 Feb 1975 - 1 May 1981 Tan Sri (from Jun 1976, Tun)
Sardon Jubir (b. 1917 - d. 1985)
1 May 1981 - 1 May 1989 Tun Awang Hassan (b. 1910 - d. 1998)
1 May 1989 - 1 May 2001 Tan Sri (from 7 Jun 1989, Tun)
Hamdan Sheikh Tahir (b. 1921 - d. 2005)
1 May 2001 - Dato' Seri (from 9 Jul 2001, Tun)
Abdul Rahman Abbas (b. 1938)
Chief ministers (title Ketua Menteri)
12 Jun 1959 - 12 May 1969 Wong Pow Nee (b. 1911 - d. 2002)
12 May 1969 - 25 Oct 1990 Lim Chong Eu (b. 1919)
25 Oct 1990 - 11 Mar 2008 Koh Tsu Koon (from 3 Jun 1995,
Tan Sri Koh Tsu Koon) (b. 1949)
11 Mar 2008 - Lim Guan Eng (b. 1960)
Title of Head of Penang Government since 1786
* Superintendent 11 August 1786
* Lieutenant governor 1799
* Governor 1805
* Resident councilor 1849
* Japanese governor 1941
* British military governor 1945
* Resident commissioner 1946
* Governor (ceremonial) 31 August 1957
* Chief minister 12 June 1959
11 Aug 1786 British colony (Prince of Wales Island)
1826 part of Straits Settlements
1946 part of Malaya/Malaysia
Superintendents (of the British East India Company)
11 Aug 1786 - 21 Oct 1794 Francis Light (b. 1740 - d. 1794)
1794 - 1795 Philip Mannington
1795 - 1799 Forbes Ross MacDonald (b. ... - d. 1799)
Lieutenant governors
1799 - 1804 Sir George Leith (b. 1766 - d. 1842)
1804 - 1805 Robert Townsend Farquhar (b. 1776 - d. 1830)
Governors
1805 - 1807 Philip Dundas (b. 17... - d. 1807)
1807 - 1810 Norman Macalister
1810 Charles Andrew Bruce (b. 1768 - d. 1810)
1810 - 1812 William Edward Phillips (1st time) (b. 1769 - d. 18...)
1812 - 1816 William Petrie (b. 17... - d. 1816)
1816 - 1817 William Edward Phillips (2nd time) (s.a.)
1817 - 8 Aug 1819 John Alexander Bannerman (b. 1758 - d. 1819)
1819 - 1824 William Edward Phillips (3rd time) (s.a.)
20 Aug 1824 - 1826 Robert Fullerton (b. 1773 - d. 1831)
Resident councillors
1849 - 1855 Edmund Augustus Blundell (b. 1804? - d. 1868)
1855 - 1860 William Thomas Lewis (b. 1791 - d. 1875)
1860 - 1867 Henry Man (b. 1815 - d. 1898)
1867 - 1883 Archibald Edward Harbord Anson (b. 1826 - d. 1925)
1883 - 1887 Charles John Irving (b. 1831 - d. 1917)
1887 - 1897 Allan Maclean Skinner (b. 1846 - d. 1901)
1894 - 1895 Francis James Anderson (acting) (b. 18... - d. 1920)
1897 - 11 Jul 1904 Charles Walter Sneyd-Kynnersley (b. 1849 - d. 1904)
1904 - 1907 James Kortright Birch (b. 1850 - d. 19...)
1907 - 1910 Robert Norman Bland (b. 1859 - d. 1948)
1910 - 1914 William Evans (b. 1860 - d. 1936)
1914 - 1917 Alfred T. Bryant
1917 - 1919 Walter Cecil Michell (b. 1864 - d. 1939)
1919 - 1922 Gilbert A. Hall
1922 - 1925 Arthur Blennerhassett Voules (b. 1870 - d. 1954)
1925 - 1926 William Peel (b. 1875 - d. 1945)
1926 - 1928 Ralph Scott (b. 1874 - d. 19...)
1928 - 1930 Meadows Frost (b. 1875 - d. 1954)
1930 - 1931 Edward Wilmot Francis Gilman (b. 1876 - d. 1955)
May 1931 - 1933 Percy Tothill Allen (b. 1878 - d. 19...)
(acting to Aug 1931)
1933 - 1941 Arthur Mitchell Goodman (b. 1886 - d. 1961)
Japanese governors
Dec 1941 - 1942 Shotaro Katayama
1942 - 1944 Masakichi Itami
1944 S. Ikagawa
1944 - 1945 Seiichiro Shinohara
British military governors
1945 Peter Dicken Cracroft (b. 1907 - d. 2003)
1945 - 1946 Thomas John Norman Hilken (b. 1901 - d. 1969)
Resident commissioners
1946 Norman Grice (b. 1893 - d. ...)
May 1946 - 1948 Sydney Noel King (b. 1897)
1948 George Evan Cameron Wisdom (b. 1899 - d. 1958)
(acting)
1948 - 1951 Arthur Vincent Aston (b. 1896 - d. 1981)
1951 - 1957 Robert Porter Bingham (b. 1903 - d. 1982)
Heads of State (title Yang di-Pertua Negeri)
31 Aug 1957 - 30 Aug 1967 Raja Sir Tun Uda Al-Haj bin Raja
Muhammad (b. 1894 - d. 1976)
31 Aug 1967 - 31 Jan 1969 Tun Syed Sheh bin Syed Abdullah
Shahabuddin (b. 1910 - d. 1969)
5 Feb 1969 - 5 Feb 1975 Tun Syed Sheh bin Syed Hassan
Barakbah (b. 1906 - d. 1975)
5 Feb 1975 - 1 May 1981 Tan Sri (from Jun 1976, Tun)
Sardon Jubir (b. 1917 - d. 1985)
1 May 1981 - 1 May 1989 Tun Awang Hassan (b. 1910 - d. 1998)
1 May 1989 - 1 May 2001 Tan Sri (from 7 Jun 1989, Tun)
Hamdan Sheikh Tahir (b. 1921 - d. 2005)
1 May 2001 - Dato' Seri (from 9 Jul 2001, Tun)
Abdul Rahman Abbas (b. 1938)
Chief ministers (title Ketua Menteri)
12 Jun 1959 - 12 May 1969 Wong Pow Nee (b. 1911 - d. 2002)
12 May 1969 - 25 Oct 1990 Lim Chong Eu (b. 1919)
25 Oct 1990 - 11 Mar 2008 Koh Tsu Koon (from 3 Jun 1995,
Tan Sri Koh Tsu Koon) (b. 1949)
11 Mar 2008 - Lim Guan Eng (b. 1960)
Thursday, July 29, 2010
The Repeal of Rent Control
Even the issue has been history; but looking back the repeal of rent control which lead to the arrogant of the former state government, insensitive to the current sentiments of Penang people, were the factors that caused the downfall the former state government. The rent control act was the legal framework that allowed an active social communities in the downtown of Georgetown. It is the main factor for the living museum of old Georgetown to survive.
Penang's architectural heritage has enjoyed a better fate than other Strait Settlement states. Penang has one of the largest collections of pre-war buildings in Southeast Asia. This is for the most part due to the Rent Control Act which froze house rental prices for decades, making redevelopment unprofitable. With the repeal of this act in 2000 however, property prices skyrocketed and development has begun to encroach upon these buildings, many of which are in a regrettable state of disrepair.
The repeal of Rent Control Act, had removed that active community from downtown of Penang. The living museum had therefore disappeared. Today we have seen many cultural heritage disappearing, the culprit is the repeal of Rent Control Act. The political will of the former state government was to please the business community, the land owner, the developer; who were waiting for their opportunity to make profit form the land, deep in the downtown. The arrogant government forgot the masses of the urban poor, the main forces who were behind Gerakan and Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu in 1969. There is no plan for them.......
The result, the political Tsunami of 308 in 2008 election....complete collapse of Gerakan from the state politic. It may be the end of the party in Penang. The 12th Malaysian general election was held on March 8, 2008, the opposition dealt a heavy blow to the Barisan Nasional(Gerakan)coalition government by taking the state of Penang. Although Penang was regarded as a hotly contested state, the outcome unexpectedly turned out to be a landslide win with the opposition, the Democratic Action Party (DAP) gaining the majority of the state seats. Many seats saw the opposition winning over two-thirds of the votes, rather than the usual 50-50 distribution. BN only won 2 of the 13 parliamentary seats and 11 of the 40 state seats, its worst performance in Malaysian history.
Another significant blow was the defeat of Gerakan Acting President, Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon, who was looking to move up from state politics, decided not to run for his state seat and subsequently gave up his Chief Minister post of 18 years, to challenge the Batu Kawan parliamentary seat. Some speculated this was part of a larger ambition to be a cabinet member, only to lose to newcomer P. Ramasamy of the DAP by a large margin of 9,485 votes.
Below is the article from Aliran, by Dr Khoo Boo Teik. It is an interesting read again despite two years after the fall of the Gerakan state government. The article was on 2000, in 2008 the state government collapse, today is 2010.
The Repeal of Rent Control
Requiem for Gerakan
By Dr Khoo Boo Teik
On Friday, 17 March 2000, the hide-and-seek game that the Chief Minister of Penang, Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon, had been playing with S.O.S. (Save Ourselves, an ad hoc support group helping tenants affected by the repeal of rent control) resulted in the arrest of S.O.S. secretary, B. K. Ong and one other S.O.S member. (Three days later, the S.O.S. treasurer was also arrested.)
The S.O.S. members had been trying to get Dr Koh to talk to the tenants directly. Dr Koh refused, although he had been quite willing, earlier, to hold discussions with landlords and their representatives over a RM100 million government fund to help them renovate their premises.
The S.O.S. members used the unorthodox but non-violent way of unfurling a banner in front of Dr Koh’s car after the Chief Minister officiated at the opening of Eight Row, Krian Road, newly rehabilitated houses adapted for upmarket commercial purposes.
I used to live in a rent control house round the corner from Eight Row. That house no longer exists. But I’m moved by the incident to write about the repeal of rent control in Georgetown, Penang.
And as I thought about rent control, I was struck that the S.O.S. incident captures the coming end of Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia’s relevance to Penang (and Malaysian) politics.
Rent control: a personal note
I was born and bred in Georgetown. For the first twelve years of my life, my family used to live in a single room. We did that three times, twice in shophouses and once in a house that was partly used for storage. Each was a rent-controlled house leased by an uncle. In this way, I got to know Macalister Road, Penang Road, Macalister Lane and their surrounding areas quite well.
When I was thirteen, my family moved once more to a rent-controlled house at Macalister Road. Unlike other families on our block, we used the house for residential purposes only. We had no subtenants. Looking back, having a whole house was a big improvement for us, but having a family of eight in a two-bedroom house hardly left any space to sublet.
The rent was RM40 a month, always paid on time to a rent collector employed by our landlord, who was no pathetic owner of a single house, but one of the wealthiest property estates which owned whole blocks of rent-controlled premises in Georgetown.
Even so, I suspect RM40 per month is the sort of rental that causes landowners, developers, professionals in the property sector, brokers and bankers to gnash their teeth over ‘prime properties gone to waste’. Others, like politicians, economists and journalists, will be driven half mad by thoughts of low returns on investment, unfair subsidies, and parasites living off exploited landlords.
The true price of tenancy
Hence, I should mention that my father paid RM13,000 to obtain a transfer of tenancy. Not all that money went to the landlord, but some of it did in order that the landlord approved the change of tenancy. ‘Bottom line’ fanatics and market fundamentalists should note that that was RM13,000 ‘in 1968 dollars’, paid in cash, upfront, for the right to rent the house.
In May 1968 the money my father paid could have bought a single-storey terraced house in the new Green Lane suburban estates. But he worked in town. His children studied in nearby schools. And his friends considered it unwise to relocate to the ‘country’ only a few months after certain quarters had turned the Labour Party’s hartal into Penang’s 1967 racial riots.
Rent control and Georgetown's heritage
Up to the ‘depressed 1960s’, however, most families I knew did not own their houses. If they weren’t living in government or employer-provided quarters, they were chief tenants, subtenants, or co-equal tenants (often family members pooling to rent a house). For them housing was rent-controlled premises, a sublet room, a partitioned cubicle, or, in the case of the destitute, the five-foot path.
Thus, many, by no means rich, people, struggled to save dollar after dollar to rent a whole house. It was the norm, both in market and social terms, that he or she who paid for the ‘right of tenancy’ could recoup his or her investment, via business (including the business of subletting), or by ceding the tenancy rights to someone else at market price.
It insults those people’s self-reliance and thrift, and degrades an honoured custom to mock at the ‘subsidised rent’ without considering the high price of the change in tenancy when talking about rent control in these times.
The basis of 'our culture'
I don’t mention any of this out of nostalgia. ‘Our house’ was quite livable. But, from a housing point of view and more, there was nothing charming about the overcrowded, underprovided, dilapidated, unimproved premises that made up much of rent-controlled housing in the oldest and poorest parts of Georgetown.
Yet from these unenviable quarters Georgetown’s common people – merchants, retailers, tradesmen, money changers, craftsmen, coffeeshop proprietors, clerks, schoolteachers, roadside petty traders, itinerant hawkers, temple and association caretakers, (gambling) club ‘managers’, manual labourers, trishaw pedlars and even gangsters – created a vibrant urban culture.
Generations of such George-town people, of all ethnic backgrounds – who have little in common with the politicians who love to identify with them at election time – can be proud of the finer aspects of this culture which suburbia and shopping complexes cannot replicate.
Too often, however, those who package this culture as ‘our heritage’ pander to the tourist dollar, upmarket tastes and yuppie yearnings for gentrification. They speak of ‘our culture’ and ‘our heritage’ as if they are nothing save blood and genes mixed up with a ‘pearl of the orient’.
It never occurs to them that Georgetown’s wonderful hawker food and kuih nyonya, Jual Murah and nasi kandar, or Chingay and dondang saying, for example, had a material basis, one critical part of which was state-imposed rent control.
Subdivided and sublet, converted and multiple-use, tenant-managed and rent-controlled, mostly pre-war housing held down the costs of commerce and services, small and cottage industries, and social reproduction.
Consequently a market in rent control housing flourished. It may not have been the type of housing market that everyone liked. However, every bit of it was a legitimate part of the urban economy and necessary for social and political stability.
Altering the rules of the housing market
That was at least true until the late 1970s. Then Penang’s industrialisation, economic growth, the KOMTAR project, expanding housing credit, and demographic pressures transformed George-town’s housing market.
Those who could afford homeownership moved from the city centre into private suburban housing estates, or the Penang Development Corporation-built housing in Bayan Baru and Seberang Jaya. Those who couldn’t, or waited till it was too late, found that the rules of the housing market had been changed.
A frenzied pace of urban growth brought new developers and speculators who bought rent-controlled houses where they could to redevelop the areas for new types of tenants.
With that, the customary rights of the old tenants were doomed. In market and legal parlance, they were reduced to low-status ‘encumbrances’ – nuisances, if you will – in the calculations of the new landowners who pursued big redevelopment bucks.
Across Georgetown, a new breed of property developers emerged that negotiated the relocation of their tenants, or applied to the law to evict them.
Customs be damned
Henceforth, a cacophony of politicians, bureaucrats, developers, economists, professionals and journalists made sure rent control acquired a bad name. They said rent control was obsolescent, inefficient and unfair. Tenants were unreasonable, undeserving and parasitic. Rent-controlled housing unprofitably sat on scarce and underutilized land.
It was no accident that the intimations of the recent repeal of the Rent Control Act came after 1990, after Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s position had been secured, and privatisation and Malaysia Inc. could proceed unimpeded.
It wasn’t just rent control that was put to the legislative sword. All over Malaysia, customary rights yielded to deregulation, market forces and the full exercise of property rights. Indeed, customary rights be damned: social practices and norms once embodied in Malay reserve land, Muslim wakaf land, Chinese clan holdings, Indian estate labour lines, and Sarawak’s remotest forests were targeted in the same way as rent control.
Ironically people who once had the protection of customary rights and social norms became expendable ‘encumbrances’, also known as parasitic tenants, illegal squatters, superfluous labourers, or anti-development natives.
No Georgetown after dark
The repeal of rent control has paved the way for forms of redevelopment that will replace a thriving historical community with a gutted inner city. Georgetown’s urban culture as we’ve known it will come to an end. There will be no Georgetown after dark.
For that the Barisan Nasional government has a lot to answer.
On the one hand, its Chief Minister has been talking 100 million bucks with the landlords. On the other hand, he announced his government would assist ‘handicapped, single and elderly’ tenants but, of course, not ‘bank managers and professionals’ as if the latter are typical S.O.S. tenants. He said the government must ‘be fair to 96% of Penangites’ who paid market prices for their housing’.
What does that kind of ‘fairness’ mean, if not subsidies for landlords, and market prices for tenants?
Look back on Komtar
I’m not an MCA man who runs down Dr Koh to increase MCA’s chances of taking over the Penang chief minister’s post. Petty squabbles between power grabbers generally nauseate me.
But I think Dr Koh’s idea of ‘fairness’ at this juncture foretells the end of Gerakan’s relevance to Penang (and Malaysian) politics.
Look back upon a time when things were quite different, as, say, when the KOMTAR project was initiated in the 1970s. KOMTAR was mired in controversy, dislocated lots of people from the project vicinity, and was opposed on grounds that it would ruin Georgetown’s heritage, among other things. One can continue to argue these matters.
But in the light of the government’s mismanagement of the rent control crisis, one critical difference stands out. To implement KOMTAR, Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu’s government, via the Penang Development Corporation (PDC), and the State Low Cost Housing Committee, compensated, assisted and resettled people who were ‘decanted’ from the area.
In contrast, although the move to repeal rent control was announced ten years ago, the present government has prepared no contingency plan, no supporting fund, and no alternative residential, commercial and industrial premises. Faced with George-town’s most serious development issue, PDC, once the government’s powerful ‘implementation arm’ has no role.
The contrast isn’t to be explained by differences in the personalities or political abilities of Dr Lim and Dr Koh. The difference lies in Gerakan’s changed character as a political party.
A different Gerakan
When it was formed, Gerakan was a coalition of three main groups – Dr Lim’s former United Democratic Party (UDP), a group of ex-Labour Party politicians led by the late Tan Sri Dr Tan Chee Khoon, and trade unionists like V. David and the late V. Veerappan. Joining this coalition were intellectuals like Professor Syed Hussein Alatas.
It was a coalition that believed in some measure of social democracy as the way to solve social and political problems. It was Gerakan’s promise to tackle Penang’s economic and other problems that won the party the 1969 state election.
The ex-labourites and unionists fell out with Dr Lim, and left him Gerakan’s rump. That split diluted but didn’t abort Gerakan’s basic plan. Gerakan’s subsequent entry into Barisan Nasional may have been politically opportunistic. Still government then meant planning and implementing socio-economic projects. The interventionist orientation of Dr Lim’s Gerakan fit in with Tun Abdul Razak’s commitment to state planning via the New Economic Policy.
For Penang then PDC implemented a strategy of ‘rural industrialization, rural urbanization, urban redevelopment, tourism promotion, and agro-horticulture’. Not all the PDC plans were realized. Many of their results can also be debated.
But there would not have been Bayan Lepas and Prai free trade zones, the townships of Bayan Baru and Seberang Jaya, and Geogetown’s ‘comprehensive development areas’ at KOMTAR, Macallum Street Ghaut and elsewhere without that basic commitment to the social responsibility of government.
SOS - but for whom?
Gerakan’s present leadership shows no such commitment – not to social democracy, state planning, or ‘proactive’ implementation – even assuming that kind of commitment were practicable under Dr Mahathir’s privatization and Malaysia Inc.
Plans for Penang there are and will be: Penang Strategic Development Plan 1, Penang Into the 21st Century, Penang Strategic Development Plan 2, and so on. But they are ‘public relations’ plans bearing motherhood statements for feelgood effects – ‘post-industrial society’, ‘sustainable development’, ‘cultural vibrancy’, ‘caring society’, ‘quality of life’.
The reality is nothing less than abject surrender to market forces. (If certain rumours about the origins of Lim Chien Aun and Lim Boo Chang’s defections to MCA are to be believed, those are market forces outside Penang at that).
One doesn’t have to covet the chief minister’s seat to conclude that Gerakan, in presiding over the end of rent control in Georgetown, has itself become irrelevant to Penang’s future.
Even if Gerakan can’t face up to it, S.O.S isn’t just the lonely cry of desperate tenants.
(source: www.aliran.com/oldsite/monthly/2000/02c.htm)
Will the Heritage issue become critical, and follow similarly to Rental Control issue for next election? the current state government need to learn the lesson from the issue in 2000.
Meow, meow, meowwwww.......will history repeated?.....
Penang's architectural heritage has enjoyed a better fate than other Strait Settlement states. Penang has one of the largest collections of pre-war buildings in Southeast Asia. This is for the most part due to the Rent Control Act which froze house rental prices for decades, making redevelopment unprofitable. With the repeal of this act in 2000 however, property prices skyrocketed and development has begun to encroach upon these buildings, many of which are in a regrettable state of disrepair.
The repeal of Rent Control Act, had removed that active community from downtown of Penang. The living museum had therefore disappeared. Today we have seen many cultural heritage disappearing, the culprit is the repeal of Rent Control Act. The political will of the former state government was to please the business community, the land owner, the developer; who were waiting for their opportunity to make profit form the land, deep in the downtown. The arrogant government forgot the masses of the urban poor, the main forces who were behind Gerakan and Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu in 1969. There is no plan for them.......
The result, the political Tsunami of 308 in 2008 election....complete collapse of Gerakan from the state politic. It may be the end of the party in Penang. The 12th Malaysian general election was held on March 8, 2008, the opposition dealt a heavy blow to the Barisan Nasional(Gerakan)coalition government by taking the state of Penang. Although Penang was regarded as a hotly contested state, the outcome unexpectedly turned out to be a landslide win with the opposition, the Democratic Action Party (DAP) gaining the majority of the state seats. Many seats saw the opposition winning over two-thirds of the votes, rather than the usual 50-50 distribution. BN only won 2 of the 13 parliamentary seats and 11 of the 40 state seats, its worst performance in Malaysian history.
Another significant blow was the defeat of Gerakan Acting President, Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon, who was looking to move up from state politics, decided not to run for his state seat and subsequently gave up his Chief Minister post of 18 years, to challenge the Batu Kawan parliamentary seat. Some speculated this was part of a larger ambition to be a cabinet member, only to lose to newcomer P. Ramasamy of the DAP by a large margin of 9,485 votes.
Below is the article from Aliran, by Dr Khoo Boo Teik. It is an interesting read again despite two years after the fall of the Gerakan state government. The article was on 2000, in 2008 the state government collapse, today is 2010.
The Repeal of Rent Control
Requiem for Gerakan
By Dr Khoo Boo Teik
On Friday, 17 March 2000, the hide-and-seek game that the Chief Minister of Penang, Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon, had been playing with S.O.S. (Save Ourselves, an ad hoc support group helping tenants affected by the repeal of rent control) resulted in the arrest of S.O.S. secretary, B. K. Ong and one other S.O.S member. (Three days later, the S.O.S. treasurer was also arrested.)
The S.O.S. members had been trying to get Dr Koh to talk to the tenants directly. Dr Koh refused, although he had been quite willing, earlier, to hold discussions with landlords and their representatives over a RM100 million government fund to help them renovate their premises.
The S.O.S. members used the unorthodox but non-violent way of unfurling a banner in front of Dr Koh’s car after the Chief Minister officiated at the opening of Eight Row, Krian Road, newly rehabilitated houses adapted for upmarket commercial purposes.
I used to live in a rent control house round the corner from Eight Row. That house no longer exists. But I’m moved by the incident to write about the repeal of rent control in Georgetown, Penang.
And as I thought about rent control, I was struck that the S.O.S. incident captures the coming end of Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia’s relevance to Penang (and Malaysian) politics.
Rent control: a personal note
I was born and bred in Georgetown. For the first twelve years of my life, my family used to live in a single room. We did that three times, twice in shophouses and once in a house that was partly used for storage. Each was a rent-controlled house leased by an uncle. In this way, I got to know Macalister Road, Penang Road, Macalister Lane and their surrounding areas quite well.
When I was thirteen, my family moved once more to a rent-controlled house at Macalister Road. Unlike other families on our block, we used the house for residential purposes only. We had no subtenants. Looking back, having a whole house was a big improvement for us, but having a family of eight in a two-bedroom house hardly left any space to sublet.
The rent was RM40 a month, always paid on time to a rent collector employed by our landlord, who was no pathetic owner of a single house, but one of the wealthiest property estates which owned whole blocks of rent-controlled premises in Georgetown.
Even so, I suspect RM40 per month is the sort of rental that causes landowners, developers, professionals in the property sector, brokers and bankers to gnash their teeth over ‘prime properties gone to waste’. Others, like politicians, economists and journalists, will be driven half mad by thoughts of low returns on investment, unfair subsidies, and parasites living off exploited landlords.
The true price of tenancy
Hence, I should mention that my father paid RM13,000 to obtain a transfer of tenancy. Not all that money went to the landlord, but some of it did in order that the landlord approved the change of tenancy. ‘Bottom line’ fanatics and market fundamentalists should note that that was RM13,000 ‘in 1968 dollars’, paid in cash, upfront, for the right to rent the house.
In May 1968 the money my father paid could have bought a single-storey terraced house in the new Green Lane suburban estates. But he worked in town. His children studied in nearby schools. And his friends considered it unwise to relocate to the ‘country’ only a few months after certain quarters had turned the Labour Party’s hartal into Penang’s 1967 racial riots.
Rent control and Georgetown's heritage
Up to the ‘depressed 1960s’, however, most families I knew did not own their houses. If they weren’t living in government or employer-provided quarters, they were chief tenants, subtenants, or co-equal tenants (often family members pooling to rent a house). For them housing was rent-controlled premises, a sublet room, a partitioned cubicle, or, in the case of the destitute, the five-foot path.
Thus, many, by no means rich, people, struggled to save dollar after dollar to rent a whole house. It was the norm, both in market and social terms, that he or she who paid for the ‘right of tenancy’ could recoup his or her investment, via business (including the business of subletting), or by ceding the tenancy rights to someone else at market price.
It insults those people’s self-reliance and thrift, and degrades an honoured custom to mock at the ‘subsidised rent’ without considering the high price of the change in tenancy when talking about rent control in these times.
The basis of 'our culture'
I don’t mention any of this out of nostalgia. ‘Our house’ was quite livable. But, from a housing point of view and more, there was nothing charming about the overcrowded, underprovided, dilapidated, unimproved premises that made up much of rent-controlled housing in the oldest and poorest parts of Georgetown.
Yet from these unenviable quarters Georgetown’s common people – merchants, retailers, tradesmen, money changers, craftsmen, coffeeshop proprietors, clerks, schoolteachers, roadside petty traders, itinerant hawkers, temple and association caretakers, (gambling) club ‘managers’, manual labourers, trishaw pedlars and even gangsters – created a vibrant urban culture.
Generations of such George-town people, of all ethnic backgrounds – who have little in common with the politicians who love to identify with them at election time – can be proud of the finer aspects of this culture which suburbia and shopping complexes cannot replicate.
Too often, however, those who package this culture as ‘our heritage’ pander to the tourist dollar, upmarket tastes and yuppie yearnings for gentrification. They speak of ‘our culture’ and ‘our heritage’ as if they are nothing save blood and genes mixed up with a ‘pearl of the orient’.
It never occurs to them that Georgetown’s wonderful hawker food and kuih nyonya, Jual Murah and nasi kandar, or Chingay and dondang saying, for example, had a material basis, one critical part of which was state-imposed rent control.
Subdivided and sublet, converted and multiple-use, tenant-managed and rent-controlled, mostly pre-war housing held down the costs of commerce and services, small and cottage industries, and social reproduction.
Consequently a market in rent control housing flourished. It may not have been the type of housing market that everyone liked. However, every bit of it was a legitimate part of the urban economy and necessary for social and political stability.
Altering the rules of the housing market
That was at least true until the late 1970s. Then Penang’s industrialisation, economic growth, the KOMTAR project, expanding housing credit, and demographic pressures transformed George-town’s housing market.
Those who could afford homeownership moved from the city centre into private suburban housing estates, or the Penang Development Corporation-built housing in Bayan Baru and Seberang Jaya. Those who couldn’t, or waited till it was too late, found that the rules of the housing market had been changed.
A frenzied pace of urban growth brought new developers and speculators who bought rent-controlled houses where they could to redevelop the areas for new types of tenants.
With that, the customary rights of the old tenants were doomed. In market and legal parlance, they were reduced to low-status ‘encumbrances’ – nuisances, if you will – in the calculations of the new landowners who pursued big redevelopment bucks.
Across Georgetown, a new breed of property developers emerged that negotiated the relocation of their tenants, or applied to the law to evict them.
Customs be damned
Henceforth, a cacophony of politicians, bureaucrats, developers, economists, professionals and journalists made sure rent control acquired a bad name. They said rent control was obsolescent, inefficient and unfair. Tenants were unreasonable, undeserving and parasitic. Rent-controlled housing unprofitably sat on scarce and underutilized land.
It was no accident that the intimations of the recent repeal of the Rent Control Act came after 1990, after Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s position had been secured, and privatisation and Malaysia Inc. could proceed unimpeded.
It wasn’t just rent control that was put to the legislative sword. All over Malaysia, customary rights yielded to deregulation, market forces and the full exercise of property rights. Indeed, customary rights be damned: social practices and norms once embodied in Malay reserve land, Muslim wakaf land, Chinese clan holdings, Indian estate labour lines, and Sarawak’s remotest forests were targeted in the same way as rent control.
Ironically people who once had the protection of customary rights and social norms became expendable ‘encumbrances’, also known as parasitic tenants, illegal squatters, superfluous labourers, or anti-development natives.
No Georgetown after dark
The repeal of rent control has paved the way for forms of redevelopment that will replace a thriving historical community with a gutted inner city. Georgetown’s urban culture as we’ve known it will come to an end. There will be no Georgetown after dark.
For that the Barisan Nasional government has a lot to answer.
On the one hand, its Chief Minister has been talking 100 million bucks with the landlords. On the other hand, he announced his government would assist ‘handicapped, single and elderly’ tenants but, of course, not ‘bank managers and professionals’ as if the latter are typical S.O.S. tenants. He said the government must ‘be fair to 96% of Penangites’ who paid market prices for their housing’.
What does that kind of ‘fairness’ mean, if not subsidies for landlords, and market prices for tenants?
Look back on Komtar
I’m not an MCA man who runs down Dr Koh to increase MCA’s chances of taking over the Penang chief minister’s post. Petty squabbles between power grabbers generally nauseate me.
But I think Dr Koh’s idea of ‘fairness’ at this juncture foretells the end of Gerakan’s relevance to Penang (and Malaysian) politics.
Look back upon a time when things were quite different, as, say, when the KOMTAR project was initiated in the 1970s. KOMTAR was mired in controversy, dislocated lots of people from the project vicinity, and was opposed on grounds that it would ruin Georgetown’s heritage, among other things. One can continue to argue these matters.
But in the light of the government’s mismanagement of the rent control crisis, one critical difference stands out. To implement KOMTAR, Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu’s government, via the Penang Development Corporation (PDC), and the State Low Cost Housing Committee, compensated, assisted and resettled people who were ‘decanted’ from the area.
In contrast, although the move to repeal rent control was announced ten years ago, the present government has prepared no contingency plan, no supporting fund, and no alternative residential, commercial and industrial premises. Faced with George-town’s most serious development issue, PDC, once the government’s powerful ‘implementation arm’ has no role.
The contrast isn’t to be explained by differences in the personalities or political abilities of Dr Lim and Dr Koh. The difference lies in Gerakan’s changed character as a political party.
A different Gerakan
When it was formed, Gerakan was a coalition of three main groups – Dr Lim’s former United Democratic Party (UDP), a group of ex-Labour Party politicians led by the late Tan Sri Dr Tan Chee Khoon, and trade unionists like V. David and the late V. Veerappan. Joining this coalition were intellectuals like Professor Syed Hussein Alatas.
It was a coalition that believed in some measure of social democracy as the way to solve social and political problems. It was Gerakan’s promise to tackle Penang’s economic and other problems that won the party the 1969 state election.
The ex-labourites and unionists fell out with Dr Lim, and left him Gerakan’s rump. That split diluted but didn’t abort Gerakan’s basic plan. Gerakan’s subsequent entry into Barisan Nasional may have been politically opportunistic. Still government then meant planning and implementing socio-economic projects. The interventionist orientation of Dr Lim’s Gerakan fit in with Tun Abdul Razak’s commitment to state planning via the New Economic Policy.
For Penang then PDC implemented a strategy of ‘rural industrialization, rural urbanization, urban redevelopment, tourism promotion, and agro-horticulture’. Not all the PDC plans were realized. Many of their results can also be debated.
But there would not have been Bayan Lepas and Prai free trade zones, the townships of Bayan Baru and Seberang Jaya, and Geogetown’s ‘comprehensive development areas’ at KOMTAR, Macallum Street Ghaut and elsewhere without that basic commitment to the social responsibility of government.
SOS - but for whom?
Gerakan’s present leadership shows no such commitment – not to social democracy, state planning, or ‘proactive’ implementation – even assuming that kind of commitment were practicable under Dr Mahathir’s privatization and Malaysia Inc.
Plans for Penang there are and will be: Penang Strategic Development Plan 1, Penang Into the 21st Century, Penang Strategic Development Plan 2, and so on. But they are ‘public relations’ plans bearing motherhood statements for feelgood effects – ‘post-industrial society’, ‘sustainable development’, ‘cultural vibrancy’, ‘caring society’, ‘quality of life’.
The reality is nothing less than abject surrender to market forces. (If certain rumours about the origins of Lim Chien Aun and Lim Boo Chang’s defections to MCA are to be believed, those are market forces outside Penang at that).
One doesn’t have to covet the chief minister’s seat to conclude that Gerakan, in presiding over the end of rent control in Georgetown, has itself become irrelevant to Penang’s future.
Even if Gerakan can’t face up to it, S.O.S isn’t just the lonely cry of desperate tenants.
(source: www.aliran.com/oldsite/monthly/2000/02c.htm)
Will the Heritage issue become critical, and follow similarly to Rental Control issue for next election? the current state government need to learn the lesson from the issue in 2000.
Meow, meow, meowwwww.......will history repeated?.....
Penang & Labour Party(1952-1969)
Labour Party, the local Chinese called it lau-kang-tong(勞工黨). The Labour Party of Malaya (Malay: Parti Buruh Malaya; Abbreviation: LPM) was a political party of Malaya that was active between 1952 to 1969. It was originally formed as a confederation of state based labour parties known as the Pan-Malayan Labour Party or PMFP(馬來西亞勞工黨).
The 50s and 60s were the days of Labour Party as opposition; DAP was weak compared to Labour Party. When they control the city council, the city bus was called city council bus by the locals even long after the party have dissolved. The supporters of opposition still talk fondly of the city council elections.
The LPM's roots lay in the state labour parties that were established after the British government announced plans to organize local elections in 1950. In 1952, representatives from the state parties, 21 trade unions and the Malay left-leaning organization SABERKAS (or Syarikat Berkerjasama Am Saiburi, not to be confused with the present day SABERKAS in Sarawak) met in Kuala Lumpur and decided to form the PMFP. This organization initially took an anti-communist stand but was not overtly anti-colonial. The party joined the Socialist International as a member.
The party chairman Lee Moke Sang was forced to resigned as public servants were barred from political office. D.S. Ramanathan became the new chairman. With the rise of more radical socialist leadership, the positions gradually took a more anti-colonial form and in June 1954, the organization was renamed the LPM.
The Labour Party of Malaya (LPM) was a multi-ethnic socialist party of the 1950s and 1960s. Its political origins lay in the ‘New Trade Unionism’ of the Cold War period. Before Merdeka, the anti-communist International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), with the support of the colonial government, encouraged the formation of a non-militant trade union movement and moderate Labour Parties located in different regions of the country. Yet, the LPM grew into a mass radical political party whose rise and fall were crucially shaped by circumstances often beyond its control.
LPMP in the Early 1960s
Emerging from its victory in the City Council Election of December 1957, LPMP became the ruling party of Georgetown in 1958 with a majority of eight seats. The five originally elected councilors were D.S. Ramanathan Tan Phock Kin, C.Y.Choy, Sabapathy and David. Ramanathan’s tenure of office was only for a year. He was however reelected together with three other new councilors, Lim Kean Siew, Ooi Thiam Siew, and Lee Kok Liang. With a slate of creditable professionals and trade unionists, the party had won overwhelming support from the city dwellers, especially the down-trodden who had long been neglected by the Alliance Party.2 In the 1959 State and General Elections, the party pledged to achieve ‘power in a democratic state by peaceful, non-violent, democratic and constitutional means’, and comfortably won five state seats and three parliamentary seats in the state of Penang on the platform of a multi-teneted policy statement of the Malayan People’s Socialist Front comprising the Labour Party of Malaya and Partai Rakyat.3 With committed services and remarkable delivery of well-intended social and economic projects to improve the living environment of Georgetown, the multi-ethnic Socialist Front swept its way into electoral height winning fourteen out of fifteen seats in the1961 City Council election.4 Four LPMP candidates, namely the Mayor Ooi Thiam Siew, the Deputy Mayor, N. Patkunam, D.S. Ramanathan and Lim Kean Siew, won with handsome majority in wards that were not purely Indians or Chinese. Patkunam had stood in an entirely Chinese area against an MCA Chinese candidate, and Ooi Thiam Siew and Lim Kean Siew had fought in areas with sizeable Malay votes and all won.5
While appropriate strategy and visionary planning might have ensured LPMP’s electoral successes throughout the years, one other invaluable resource that organisationally linked the party to the masses was the incessant political education activities carried out by party functionaries and cadres. These were leaders and members of the proscribed Malayan Socialist Youth League and Union of General Workers, Penang & Province Wellesley who had joined the party after 1958.6 Many CPM-influenced underground elements had also at this time accepted secret instructions to work within the party to defeat the Alliance.7 (Vasil 1971: 125) The third group consisted of young left-wing Chinese school leavers who had been in one way or another involved in the students’ movement. They joined the party to realise the ideals of ‘social justice and human emancipation’. Their respective roles in propagating the influence of LPMP were indeed significant. There was also the existence of a pre-Council Group to bring the party functionaries and city councilors together. It comprised representatives of all branches within the city limits and all elected councilors. In such an informal arrangement, the party functionaries and cadres could influence party members to the wishes and the desires of the council, and inculcate party ideology amongst the councilors and at the same time, bring the feelings of the masses to the attention of the councilors.8
From a modest number of eighteen branches in 1959, LPMP had by 1963 a total of 38 branches under the umbrella of the division registered at 274, Macalister Road. Georgetown had six branches, and rural districts outside the urban boundaries had seventeen. Province Wellesley was divided into Seberang Perai Utara, Seberang Perai Tengah and Seberang Perai Selatan with seven, four and four branches respectively.9 Of the fifteen members in the division committee, two were professionals trained overseas, one teacher, one trade unionist and one senior technical superintendent. They occupied the important portfolios of Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Hon. Secretary and Hon. Treasurer in the set-up. The other ten were clerks and workers who had risen as emerging young leaders, including four of the influential ‘ten marshals’ of the Socialist Front.
If the Labour Party still around today; will they able to take control of Penang, instead of DAP?.... let the historian provide the answer.
1. The Labour Party of Malaya, 1952–1972; http://www.aliran.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=846:the-labour-party-of-malaya-19521972&catid=75:200810&Itemid=45
2. Riding the Storms: Radicalisation of the Labour Party of Malaya, Penang Division, 1963-1969 ; by Mr. Tan Kim Hong, Inti International College, Penang, http://penangstory.net.my/conference-content-abstracts(c).html
The 50s and 60s were the days of Labour Party as opposition; DAP was weak compared to Labour Party. When they control the city council, the city bus was called city council bus by the locals even long after the party have dissolved. The supporters of opposition still talk fondly of the city council elections.
The LPM's roots lay in the state labour parties that were established after the British government announced plans to organize local elections in 1950. In 1952, representatives from the state parties, 21 trade unions and the Malay left-leaning organization SABERKAS (or Syarikat Berkerjasama Am Saiburi, not to be confused with the present day SABERKAS in Sarawak) met in Kuala Lumpur and decided to form the PMFP. This organization initially took an anti-communist stand but was not overtly anti-colonial. The party joined the Socialist International as a member.
The party chairman Lee Moke Sang was forced to resigned as public servants were barred from political office. D.S. Ramanathan became the new chairman. With the rise of more radical socialist leadership, the positions gradually took a more anti-colonial form and in June 1954, the organization was renamed the LPM.
The Labour Party of Malaya (LPM) was a multi-ethnic socialist party of the 1950s and 1960s. Its political origins lay in the ‘New Trade Unionism’ of the Cold War period. Before Merdeka, the anti-communist International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), with the support of the colonial government, encouraged the formation of a non-militant trade union movement and moderate Labour Parties located in different regions of the country. Yet, the LPM grew into a mass radical political party whose rise and fall were crucially shaped by circumstances often beyond its control.
LPMP in the Early 1960s
Emerging from its victory in the City Council Election of December 1957, LPMP became the ruling party of Georgetown in 1958 with a majority of eight seats. The five originally elected councilors were D.S. Ramanathan Tan Phock Kin, C.Y.Choy, Sabapathy and David. Ramanathan’s tenure of office was only for a year. He was however reelected together with three other new councilors, Lim Kean Siew, Ooi Thiam Siew, and Lee Kok Liang. With a slate of creditable professionals and trade unionists, the party had won overwhelming support from the city dwellers, especially the down-trodden who had long been neglected by the Alliance Party.2 In the 1959 State and General Elections, the party pledged to achieve ‘power in a democratic state by peaceful, non-violent, democratic and constitutional means’, and comfortably won five state seats and three parliamentary seats in the state of Penang on the platform of a multi-teneted policy statement of the Malayan People’s Socialist Front comprising the Labour Party of Malaya and Partai Rakyat.3 With committed services and remarkable delivery of well-intended social and economic projects to improve the living environment of Georgetown, the multi-ethnic Socialist Front swept its way into electoral height winning fourteen out of fifteen seats in the1961 City Council election.4 Four LPMP candidates, namely the Mayor Ooi Thiam Siew, the Deputy Mayor, N. Patkunam, D.S. Ramanathan and Lim Kean Siew, won with handsome majority in wards that were not purely Indians or Chinese. Patkunam had stood in an entirely Chinese area against an MCA Chinese candidate, and Ooi Thiam Siew and Lim Kean Siew had fought in areas with sizeable Malay votes and all won.5
While appropriate strategy and visionary planning might have ensured LPMP’s electoral successes throughout the years, one other invaluable resource that organisationally linked the party to the masses was the incessant political education activities carried out by party functionaries and cadres. These were leaders and members of the proscribed Malayan Socialist Youth League and Union of General Workers, Penang & Province Wellesley who had joined the party after 1958.6 Many CPM-influenced underground elements had also at this time accepted secret instructions to work within the party to defeat the Alliance.7 (Vasil 1971: 125) The third group consisted of young left-wing Chinese school leavers who had been in one way or another involved in the students’ movement. They joined the party to realise the ideals of ‘social justice and human emancipation’. Their respective roles in propagating the influence of LPMP were indeed significant. There was also the existence of a pre-Council Group to bring the party functionaries and city councilors together. It comprised representatives of all branches within the city limits and all elected councilors. In such an informal arrangement, the party functionaries and cadres could influence party members to the wishes and the desires of the council, and inculcate party ideology amongst the councilors and at the same time, bring the feelings of the masses to the attention of the councilors.8
From a modest number of eighteen branches in 1959, LPMP had by 1963 a total of 38 branches under the umbrella of the division registered at 274, Macalister Road. Georgetown had six branches, and rural districts outside the urban boundaries had seventeen. Province Wellesley was divided into Seberang Perai Utara, Seberang Perai Tengah and Seberang Perai Selatan with seven, four and four branches respectively.9 Of the fifteen members in the division committee, two were professionals trained overseas, one teacher, one trade unionist and one senior technical superintendent. They occupied the important portfolios of Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Hon. Secretary and Hon. Treasurer in the set-up. The other ten were clerks and workers who had risen as emerging young leaders, including four of the influential ‘ten marshals’ of the Socialist Front.
If the Labour Party still around today; will they able to take control of Penang, instead of DAP?.... let the historian provide the answer.
1. The Labour Party of Malaya, 1952–1972; http://www.aliran.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=846:the-labour-party-of-malaya-19521972&catid=75:200810&Itemid=45
2. Riding the Storms: Radicalisation of the Labour Party of Malaya, Penang Division, 1963-1969 ; by Mr. Tan Kim Hong, Inti International College, Penang, http://penangstory.net.my/conference-content-abstracts(c).html
Friday, July 23, 2010
Civil servant & Politic
The term civil service has two distinct meanings:
A branch of governmental service in which individuals are employed on the basis of professional merit as proven by competitive examinations. The body of employees in any government agency other than the military.
A civil servant or public servant is a civilian public sector employee working for a government department or agency. The term explicitly excludes the armed services, although civilian officials will work at "Defence Ministry" headquarters. The term always includes the (sovereign) state's employees; whether regional, or sub-state, or even municipal employees are called "civil servants" varies from country to country.
Article 132 of the Constitution of Malaysia stipulates that the Public Service consist of:
the General Public Service of the Federation
the State Public Services
the Joint Public Services
the Education Service
the Judiciary and the Legal Service
the Armed Forces
For all intents and purpose, Statutory Bodies and the Local Authorities are also considered as part of the Public Service. This is because both these autonomous bodies resemble the Public Service in many respects since they adopt the procedures of the Public Service pertaining to appointments, terms and conditions of service and the remuneration system. Besides that, their officers and staff also receive pension and other retirement benefits similar to the employees in the Public Service.
Federal Public Service (excluding the Education Service, Judiciary & Legal Service, Police and Armed Forces) are appointed by Federal Public Service (excluding the Education Service, Judiciary & Legal Service, Police and Armed Forces). State Public Services in Selangor and Penang are appointed by Public Service Commission (Federal), but other states are appointed their respective state public service commission. No matter who appointed them, the public servants. The civil service is a politically non-partisan and neutral body, with all its officers supposed to function and operate impartially in the implementations of the policies, programmes, and projects of the elected government.
A government is the organization, or agency through which a political unit exercises its authority, controls and administers public policy, and directs and controls the actions of its members or subjects. The government in Malaysia, either federal or state is elected by people. The head of federal government is the Prime Minister; the head of the state government is either the Chief Minister or Mentri Besar. A Chief Minister is the elected [head of government] of a sub-national (e.g. constituent federal) state, the title given to the heads of governments of the Malaysia states without a monarchy.
Civil servants, federal or state level are not under the control of any political parties, be it the government party or opposition. The operational authority over them is the Prime Minister in federal level or Chief Minister in state level. If he is a federal level civil servant under the federal ministries, he is directly under the Prime Minister, with delegated authority given to federal Minister for respective ministries. If he is posted to the state, he has also have doted line responsibility to the state Chief Minister. He is still a civil servant and need to exercise impartially for the benefit of people in the state he have been posted. His role cannot in conflict with the state policies and direction. If he is going against the state policy and direction, and sabotage the state, he is not doing his job as civil servant. If there is role conflict, he should refer to his immediate Head, the Minister. The Minister should decide on the matter with no bias on his own political inclination(even he is appointed through his political party) as it is a civil matter, not political matter. The Minister should then take the matter to the Chief Minister of the state. If the Minister see no chance of any resolution, he as federal head should act responsibly as head of civil service, consider transfer the staff out of the state, to avoid aggravating the situation. If the unfortunate situation escalate to become the conflict between the federal minister and state chief minister, it is consider a crisis, and the state is difficult to function. It then become a political crisis.
There must be communication between the federal minister and the state minister; otherwise the government cannot function. The federal government will be seen as acting with discrimination against the people of the state. The state government is seen as not able to administrate the state. The people of the state will suffer. A responsible federal government or state government will not let this happen. Is the communication actually exist? Is there any communication between the federal government and the state government ruling by different political parties?.
Under the civil servants' code of conduct, no civil servant is allow to make any public statement that could tarnish the government's image; no involvement by the public servant with the political party is allowed to fight his case, as civil servant must not involved the political party into their work and civil service. He can however using legal channel or other internal grievance procedure to fight his case. The Chief Minister is still the Head of state government elected by people; if the said civil servant is posted to the state, he is to serve the state government elected by people, regardless of political inclination. If he cannot work with the state for whatever reason, he should responsibly ask for transfer. A civil servant is not a politician, he should not act like a politician, that is professionalism.
If the Chief Minister feel that the said civil servant cannot function in his role or his role has conflict the state policy, and the state policy has been sabotage; it is always the right of the Chief Minister to request the federal to move him out as the state no longer can function with him. A formal request for his transfer should be requested.
A civil servant, regardless of federal or state must be able to function with the state policies and direction; if not, there is no place for him to be in the state. As a professional, he should have ask for transfer or be transfer by the said Ministry. He must not act in any way that cause detriment to the state government. By acting against the interest of the state, he is also violating the code of conduct.
He must always remember he is a civil servant, his role is to serve the people; state or federal. The Chief Minister is the representative of the people in the state. He is not serving the government party, not Barisan National or Pakatan.........the Chief Minister as the Head of state government is still his boss.
However the issue that happen in the state, the spar between a civil servant and Chief Minister, is not a simple issue. Behind the issue there is the bigger problem of relationship between the federal government and state government ruling by different political parties; the fair allocation of federal fund; the channel that the federal fund are released; how and where the federal fund is released, the frustration of the Chief Minister of opposition party, the barrier and denial of communication channel, and the most important reason is still the hidden political agenda behind the incident.
Ultimately it is still political games; fighting between two political parties. The civil servant should not be involved in the political agenda of the political party. He should know his job function, and professionally do his work. That is his responsibility to the civil service and the people; not to the political party, even a ruling political party. But the problem with many local civil servant, they have been working under the government ruled by the same political parties for so long, and may have perception that the government is the ruling party. There is a role conflict in their mentality, it will be worst if the appointment is by the said political party or recommendation by the party. They will be in dilemma... and it reflect that there is still political influence in the civil service.
It is the responsibility of Public Service Commission to educate their staff of their responsibility and professionalism. The civil servant must be neutral in discharging their duty without any political inclination. The said Commission should be a non-political biased authority, under the non-political Head.
Let not the spar between the civil servant & Chief Minister become political issue, the state will suffer. Now the ball is at the federal level....how are they going to solve the issue involve the federal civil servant? Until today, it is only political talk at federal level, without any concrete action to solve the problem. May be, even the federal minister also wearing a political hat and forgot about the other hat they wear, the appointment as a federal Minister and as head of the ministry. They are playing political magic by changing of hats often. Political games should be over for politician with government post, he is wearing a government hat, A government is the organization, or agency through which a political unit exercises its authority, controls and administers public policy, and directs and controls the actions of its members or subjects. His political hat should put behind, when doing his duty as Head of Government. Rightfully he should discharge his duty without political bias, but how many are able to do it in our local political environment?......
Ultimately, federal or state government, if unable to function effectively they still need to face the people during the next election. That will be the time to see the feeling of the people on the issue.
A branch of governmental service in which individuals are employed on the basis of professional merit as proven by competitive examinations. The body of employees in any government agency other than the military.
A civil servant or public servant is a civilian public sector employee working for a government department or agency. The term explicitly excludes the armed services, although civilian officials will work at "Defence Ministry" headquarters. The term always includes the (sovereign) state's employees; whether regional, or sub-state, or even municipal employees are called "civil servants" varies from country to country.
Article 132 of the Constitution of Malaysia stipulates that the Public Service consist of:
the General Public Service of the Federation
the State Public Services
the Joint Public Services
the Education Service
the Judiciary and the Legal Service
the Armed Forces
For all intents and purpose, Statutory Bodies and the Local Authorities are also considered as part of the Public Service. This is because both these autonomous bodies resemble the Public Service in many respects since they adopt the procedures of the Public Service pertaining to appointments, terms and conditions of service and the remuneration system. Besides that, their officers and staff also receive pension and other retirement benefits similar to the employees in the Public Service.
Federal Public Service (excluding the Education Service, Judiciary & Legal Service, Police and Armed Forces) are appointed by Federal Public Service (excluding the Education Service, Judiciary & Legal Service, Police and Armed Forces). State Public Services in Selangor and Penang are appointed by Public Service Commission (Federal), but other states are appointed their respective state public service commission. No matter who appointed them, the public servants. The civil service is a politically non-partisan and neutral body, with all its officers supposed to function and operate impartially in the implementations of the policies, programmes, and projects of the elected government.
A government is the organization, or agency through which a political unit exercises its authority, controls and administers public policy, and directs and controls the actions of its members or subjects. The government in Malaysia, either federal or state is elected by people. The head of federal government is the Prime Minister; the head of the state government is either the Chief Minister or Mentri Besar. A Chief Minister is the elected [head of government] of a sub-national (e.g. constituent federal) state, the title given to the heads of governments of the Malaysia states without a monarchy.
Civil servants, federal or state level are not under the control of any political parties, be it the government party or opposition. The operational authority over them is the Prime Minister in federal level or Chief Minister in state level. If he is a federal level civil servant under the federal ministries, he is directly under the Prime Minister, with delegated authority given to federal Minister for respective ministries. If he is posted to the state, he has also have doted line responsibility to the state Chief Minister. He is still a civil servant and need to exercise impartially for the benefit of people in the state he have been posted. His role cannot in conflict with the state policies and direction. If he is going against the state policy and direction, and sabotage the state, he is not doing his job as civil servant. If there is role conflict, he should refer to his immediate Head, the Minister. The Minister should decide on the matter with no bias on his own political inclination(even he is appointed through his political party) as it is a civil matter, not political matter. The Minister should then take the matter to the Chief Minister of the state. If the Minister see no chance of any resolution, he as federal head should act responsibly as head of civil service, consider transfer the staff out of the state, to avoid aggravating the situation. If the unfortunate situation escalate to become the conflict between the federal minister and state chief minister, it is consider a crisis, and the state is difficult to function. It then become a political crisis.
There must be communication between the federal minister and the state minister; otherwise the government cannot function. The federal government will be seen as acting with discrimination against the people of the state. The state government is seen as not able to administrate the state. The people of the state will suffer. A responsible federal government or state government will not let this happen. Is the communication actually exist? Is there any communication between the federal government and the state government ruling by different political parties?.
Under the civil servants' code of conduct, no civil servant is allow to make any public statement that could tarnish the government's image; no involvement by the public servant with the political party is allowed to fight his case, as civil servant must not involved the political party into their work and civil service. He can however using legal channel or other internal grievance procedure to fight his case. The Chief Minister is still the Head of state government elected by people; if the said civil servant is posted to the state, he is to serve the state government elected by people, regardless of political inclination. If he cannot work with the state for whatever reason, he should responsibly ask for transfer. A civil servant is not a politician, he should not act like a politician, that is professionalism.
If the Chief Minister feel that the said civil servant cannot function in his role or his role has conflict the state policy, and the state policy has been sabotage; it is always the right of the Chief Minister to request the federal to move him out as the state no longer can function with him. A formal request for his transfer should be requested.
A civil servant, regardless of federal or state must be able to function with the state policies and direction; if not, there is no place for him to be in the state. As a professional, he should have ask for transfer or be transfer by the said Ministry. He must not act in any way that cause detriment to the state government. By acting against the interest of the state, he is also violating the code of conduct.
He must always remember he is a civil servant, his role is to serve the people; state or federal. The Chief Minister is the representative of the people in the state. He is not serving the government party, not Barisan National or Pakatan.........the Chief Minister as the Head of state government is still his boss.
However the issue that happen in the state, the spar between a civil servant and Chief Minister, is not a simple issue. Behind the issue there is the bigger problem of relationship between the federal government and state government ruling by different political parties; the fair allocation of federal fund; the channel that the federal fund are released; how and where the federal fund is released, the frustration of the Chief Minister of opposition party, the barrier and denial of communication channel, and the most important reason is still the hidden political agenda behind the incident.
Ultimately it is still political games; fighting between two political parties. The civil servant should not be involved in the political agenda of the political party. He should know his job function, and professionally do his work. That is his responsibility to the civil service and the people; not to the political party, even a ruling political party. But the problem with many local civil servant, they have been working under the government ruled by the same political parties for so long, and may have perception that the government is the ruling party. There is a role conflict in their mentality, it will be worst if the appointment is by the said political party or recommendation by the party. They will be in dilemma... and it reflect that there is still political influence in the civil service.
It is the responsibility of Public Service Commission to educate their staff of their responsibility and professionalism. The civil servant must be neutral in discharging their duty without any political inclination. The said Commission should be a non-political biased authority, under the non-political Head.
Let not the spar between the civil servant & Chief Minister become political issue, the state will suffer. Now the ball is at the federal level....how are they going to solve the issue involve the federal civil servant? Until today, it is only political talk at federal level, without any concrete action to solve the problem. May be, even the federal minister also wearing a political hat and forgot about the other hat they wear, the appointment as a federal Minister and as head of the ministry. They are playing political magic by changing of hats often. Political games should be over for politician with government post, he is wearing a government hat, A government is the organization, or agency through which a political unit exercises its authority, controls and administers public policy, and directs and controls the actions of its members or subjects. His political hat should put behind, when doing his duty as Head of Government. Rightfully he should discharge his duty without political bias, but how many are able to do it in our local political environment?......
Ultimately, federal or state government, if unable to function effectively they still need to face the people during the next election. That will be the time to see the feeling of the people on the issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)