POLITICS. QUESTIONS MALAYSIANS WANT DR. MAHATHIR TO ANSWER.
For a man who held in complete contempt anyone who dared to question his policies and decisions, it comes at a complete surprise that in retirement Tun Dr Mahathir has suddenly taken the high moral ground and is now unrelenting in his pursuit for answers for decisions taken by the present government of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
Since Tun Dr Mahathir demands answers, it is only right and justified that the same ordinary public which he now claims to be part of also requires him to answers the following questions :
QUESTIONS FOR MAHATHIR
1. What was the basis of inviting Libyan-American Sadeq Mustaffa to Malaysia to set up InventQjaya Sdn Bhd and to also give a grant of RM440 million? What was the benefit for Malaysia and how has Malaysia benefitted?
2. What was the justification for privatizing profitable state owned enterprises like Telekom Malaysia, Tenaga Nasional and Pos Malaysia?
3. What was the basis of granting Indah Water Konsortium a concession to manage the national sewerage system? Could you explain the RM1.4 billion soft loan to IWK which is clearly irrecoverable losses?
4. You insinuate Khairy Jamaluddin. Did you not assist your son Mirzan by rescuing Konsortium Perkapalan Berhad (then owned by Mirzan) and which had debts of RM1.7 billion using funds from Petronas? Was it not your administration which forced Malaysian International Shipping Company (MISC) to acquire the assets of Konsortium Perkapalan Nasional?
5. Did your government not sell Malaysian Airline System without an open tender to Tajuddin Ramli who had no knowledge whatsoever in running an airline? Why did your government bail out Tajuddin Ramli by paying RM8 per share when the shares were trading at RM3.60 in the open market.
6. Did your administration not bail out Time DotCom Bhd which was saddled with a RM5 billion debt? Why did your government bail out Time dotCom Bhd by using RM904 million from Kumpulan Wang Amanah Pencen to buy up 273.9 million unwanted Time dotcom shares incurring an instant loss of RM280 million?
7. Did you not force Employees Provident Fund (EPF) to buy 81.6 million unsubscribed public portion of the initial public offering (IPO) of Time Dotcom Bhd at RM 3.30 per share when the shares were trading at only between RM1.95 and RM2.10 and in the process incurring an instant loss of RM100 million?
8. Did you not bail out the light rail transit operators Projek Usahasama Transit Ringan Automatik Sdn Bhd (Putra) which belonged to Renong and Sistem Transit Aliran Ringan Sdn Bhd (STAR) using almost RM600 million from EPF which still resulted in EPF having to write off RM135 million and a share loss of RM96million?
9. Did your administration not award North South Expressway concession to UEM (who then formed PLUS) and then provide them with a loan of RM1.6 billion which was half of the tender price of RM3.2 billion. What was the justification in your administration grant PLUS such overgenerous terms which included annual increment of toll rates, guaranteed traffic volumes?
10. What was the justification of your administration in 1998 in awarding the RM24.3 Billion contract to PSC Industries Berhad, together with and an advancement of more than RM2.5 Billion to build naval patrol boats? Why were they also given exclusive rights to service the Malaysian navy’s entire fleet? Could you confirm that the first two ships built by PSCI could not even pass pre-delivery trials? How would you answer to the Public Accounts Committee’s revelation that it will cost the government another RM120 million just to salvage the first two vessels nearing completion after seven years?
11. What was the basis of awarding Ekran Bhd the contract to build the Bakun Hydroelectric Dam in sarawak? Why did your administration take over the construction of the Dam by bailing out Ekran by almost RM 200 Million for “work done”?
12. What was the justification for your administration in MAMINCO to corner the London tin market which instead resulted in MAMINCO losing RM150 million?
13. Was your administration not vitriolic about George Soros and other currency traders and hedge fund managers and yet presided over speculation in the foreign exchange markets which ultimately cost Bank Negara almost RM9.3 billion losses?
14. What are the total losses of Perwaja Steel and how much of public funds have been used to cover these losses of Perwaja Steel?
15. What was the basis for your administration, at the expense of Malaysian tax payers, to force Tenaga Nasional Berhad toaccept such grossly unfair and unjustified terms in purchasing energy from independent power producers?
16. What was the justification of privatizing government medical stores to Southern Task Sdn Bhd which then hiked up the price of medicines?
17. Perhaps you could reveal how much of Petronas monies have been used by your administration in bailouts and projects of folly.
Naturally there are many more questions the Malaysian public would want answers to but answering these questions first would be a good start.
This article first appeared in Malaysiakini July 5, 2006.
Norman Fernandez
Johor Bahru.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
CONSTITUTION. NON MUSLIMS AND RIGHT TO PLACE OF WORSHIP.
PART 2.
The Fifth Malaysia Plan, on nation building said “A greater understanding and appreciation of the sensitivities of the various communities as well as a recognition of the commonness of experiences and values would go a long way in promoting racial harmony and tolerance and serve to strengthen the bonds among all Malaysians.”
Twenty years on (Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi tabled the Ninth Malaysia Plan in 2006), Non Muslims continue to face great difficulties in obtaining approval and place of worship.
The problems and tension would not have risen, had the government not only ensured that there was harmonization of local municipal laws and state laws with the Federal Constitution in respect of Non Muslims places of worship but also kept abreast and taken into consideration demographic changes. In a rapidly developing Malaysia, local municipal planning policies have not kept up with the need for clear, fair and equitable guidelines for Non Muslim places of worship. Progress and economic boom meant new housing areas and new townships. Alas, housing areas and townships were approved and even developed without consideration for places of worship for Non Muslims. Worst of all, temples situated in private and government land had to make way for development often without alternative land being made first and even if made the proposed alternative is not suitable.
While religious groups can purchase land or even properties, Non Muslims face the difficulty in obtaining the necessary approval for converting the land use to that of a religious use.
Further, there are other obstacles. Under the Garis Panduan Perancangan: Tempat Ibadat Bukan Islam, Jabatan Perancangan Bandar Dan Desa Semenanjung Malaysia, Kementerian Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan (September 1988) the ministerial guideline directs local councils to refuse application for building of Non Muslim religious buildings in Muslim majority areas. Also, for a long time regulation have remained that all application for building of Non Muslim place of worship must be referred to State Islamic Religious Council and Jabatan Kuasa Ketua Kampung for approval. Then there is the requirement that there should at least be 5000 adherents of the same faith before a place of worship can be considered. In fact, the Menteri Besar of Johor on 21st December 2001 in the Dewan Undangan Negeri (State Legislature) said that permission for building of places of worship will not be given unless the adherents of faith constitute a majority of the area. Going by the strict criteria it would mean that no church would ever be approved since it is unlikely that the Catholics will ever constitute a majority in any place.
For effective practice of religion one must be able to congregate with others of the same faith. Due to the difficulties in obtaining places of worship, some religious faith have acquired houses in residential areas, shop houses, factory lots and even commercial buildings for the purpose of using them as places of worship. Admittedly and to a certain extent and praise God, the authorities have often kept an eye closed unless their presence and activities is such that it gives rise to objection and protest. Not withstanding this tacit approval, the fact remains that the local authorities has a whole gamut of laws which can be invoked to prosecute not only the religious group but even the owners of the building and even the devotees.
There are a number of ways the present problem can be resolved. A complete review and drafting of a fair and equitable guideline for Non Muslim places of worship is long overdue. The government should make it mandatory that developers set aside land for Non Muslim places of worship. The government should stop the practice of general demarcation presently practiced by developers as it does not identify which Non Muslim religious group is entitled. Land should be made available for all major religion or if that is economically not viable then at least make the land available for Non Muslim religious groups to acquire them. While it may be impractical for every housing area to have temples and churches, every constituency should have places of worship of the major religions.
Another alternative and a better alternative is to permit conversion of buildings such as shop houses or even disused halls and cinemas or even abandoned shopping complexes as places of worship. In fact in Johor there are many such building which have been left abandoned since the Asian economic crisis of 1997 and these buildings can easily be converted to churches.
Recent incidents ought to be a reminder that if this issue is not handled sensitively, fairly and at the earliest, it can easily in the long term turn out to be another issue and which can be much more divisive.
PART 2.
The Fifth Malaysia Plan, on nation building said “A greater understanding and appreciation of the sensitivities of the various communities as well as a recognition of the commonness of experiences and values would go a long way in promoting racial harmony and tolerance and serve to strengthen the bonds among all Malaysians.”
Twenty years on (Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi tabled the Ninth Malaysia Plan in 2006), Non Muslims continue to face great difficulties in obtaining approval and place of worship.
The problems and tension would not have risen, had the government not only ensured that there was harmonization of local municipal laws and state laws with the Federal Constitution in respect of Non Muslims places of worship but also kept abreast and taken into consideration demographic changes. In a rapidly developing Malaysia, local municipal planning policies have not kept up with the need for clear, fair and equitable guidelines for Non Muslim places of worship. Progress and economic boom meant new housing areas and new townships. Alas, housing areas and townships were approved and even developed without consideration for places of worship for Non Muslims. Worst of all, temples situated in private and government land had to make way for development often without alternative land being made first and even if made the proposed alternative is not suitable.
While religious groups can purchase land or even properties, Non Muslims face the difficulty in obtaining the necessary approval for converting the land use to that of a religious use.
Further, there are other obstacles. Under the Garis Panduan Perancangan: Tempat Ibadat Bukan Islam, Jabatan Perancangan Bandar Dan Desa Semenanjung Malaysia, Kementerian Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan (September 1988) the ministerial guideline directs local councils to refuse application for building of Non Muslim religious buildings in Muslim majority areas. Also, for a long time regulation have remained that all application for building of Non Muslim place of worship must be referred to State Islamic Religious Council and Jabatan Kuasa Ketua Kampung for approval. Then there is the requirement that there should at least be 5000 adherents of the same faith before a place of worship can be considered. In fact, the Menteri Besar of Johor on 21st December 2001 in the Dewan Undangan Negeri (State Legislature) said that permission for building of places of worship will not be given unless the adherents of faith constitute a majority of the area. Going by the strict criteria it would mean that no church would ever be approved since it is unlikely that the Catholics will ever constitute a majority in any place.
For effective practice of religion one must be able to congregate with others of the same faith. Due to the difficulties in obtaining places of worship, some religious faith have acquired houses in residential areas, shop houses, factory lots and even commercial buildings for the purpose of using them as places of worship. Admittedly and to a certain extent and praise God, the authorities have often kept an eye closed unless their presence and activities is such that it gives rise to objection and protest. Not withstanding this tacit approval, the fact remains that the local authorities has a whole gamut of laws which can be invoked to prosecute not only the religious group but even the owners of the building and even the devotees.
There are a number of ways the present problem can be resolved. A complete review and drafting of a fair and equitable guideline for Non Muslim places of worship is long overdue. The government should make it mandatory that developers set aside land for Non Muslim places of worship. The government should stop the practice of general demarcation presently practiced by developers as it does not identify which Non Muslim religious group is entitled. Land should be made available for all major religion or if that is economically not viable then at least make the land available for Non Muslim religious groups to acquire them. While it may be impractical for every housing area to have temples and churches, every constituency should have places of worship of the major religions.
Another alternative and a better alternative is to permit conversion of buildings such as shop houses or even disused halls and cinemas or even abandoned shopping complexes as places of worship. In fact in Johor there are many such building which have been left abandoned since the Asian economic crisis of 1997 and these buildings can easily be converted to churches.
Recent incidents ought to be a reminder that if this issue is not handled sensitively, fairly and at the earliest, it can easily in the long term turn out to be another issue and which can be much more divisive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
