TRIBUTE TO R.R. MAHENDRAN

RR Mahendran was a lawyer in private practice in Johor Bahru. On the 5 th of September 2006, RR Mahendran passed away. He was 40.


His area of practice was civil law and quasi-criminal primarily specialising in Habeas Corpus applications for which he deservedly developed a reputation and respect. As a lawyer, he was thorough in his research, meticulous in the preparation, persuasive in his articulation and unrelenting in his mission. He had all the hallmarks of an excellent lawyer.

There is no denying that in his early years of practice he was more often than not dogged in some personal battle or embroiled in some controversy. In fact controversies found a friend in him and even at death it never left him. Many still remember his Anglo-Saxon address to a stunned judge.

But in the last two to three years there was a remarkable change in him. Perhaps he finally found in his wife, Susan his anchor. He became focused in his practice, developed a passion for golf and was a maniacal supporter of Liverpool though the team more often than not fell short of his expectation. He had was a zest for life.

He was generous in kind and cash to many worthy causes of the Bar. He donated freely.


RR Mahendran had his faults and his shortcomings – even at death. Who are we to judge his faults or cast aspersions on him. Did Jesus not say, let the man who had not sinned cast the first stone It is for him to make peace with his God and knowing him he will file a habeas corpus just to get a meeting with God to resolve matters.

Let us remember RR Mahendran above all as a lawyer, proud that he was one of us and more importantly he was from the Johore Bar.

SHALOM.

DO YOU KNOW HINDUS DONT EAT BEEF ? DO WE CARE?

On Monday, 4th September 2006, the New Straits Times published a letter by Azlan Ramli a former Malay Mail reporter giving a poignant account of his meeting with the late Rev. K. Sri Dhammananda Nayaka Maha Thera, the Buddhist Chief Priest of Malaysia and Singapore who passed away on the 31st August 2006.

The letter by Azlan Ramli is published as had appeared.

REMEMBERING A GREAT HUMAN

Honoured and humbled by thoughtful gesture

AS a reporter with The Malay Mail between 1994-2005, I met Rev K. Sri Dhammananda several times – usually during Wesak Day celebrations he led at the Buddhist Maha Vihara (temple) in Brickfields and on a few other occasions.
On Christmas Day, 1998, I was assigned to cover a party for some 200 underprivileged children. It was held at the Vihara in Brickfields.
Organised by a group of Christians, the Santa Claus was a Hindu and the contributor for all the ballons adorning the party area was a Muslim.
December 1998 was also the month of Ramadan. By the time I arrived at the Vihara, it was 6.30pm and many children were already playing around, taking photos with Santa and being entertained by a clown, among others.
As the time approached for buka puasa, I was busy thinking of where to go for my dinner. The Reverend, the Vihara’s religious adviser back then, must have been observing me. As if he had read my mind, he calmly said : “Young man, don’t think too much. You can buka puasa here. I will accompany you”.
“Please forgive us. We only have vegetarian dishes here,” he humbly and smilingly added, while leading me to a dining table somewhere in the Vihara’s premises.
So there we were, sitting at the dining table, together with a few other priests in their saffron robes and a spread of vegetarian dishes was laid out in front of us.
As I was checking my watch, the Reverend brought out a small pocket radio transistor, and tuned in to a Bahasa Malaysia radio station.
As scheduled, the muezzin recited the call for the evening prayer through the little speaker, which also marked the moment to breakfast.
“Go ahead, Azlan,” he told me to start first. Only after I had my first gulp of water for the day did he and the other priests start eating. I was honoured and humled at the same time.
The fact that I didn’t go to a KFC outlet or the teh tarik stall wasn’t because I didn’t know how to turn down an invitation of the chief high priest of Malaysian and Singaporean Theravada Buddhism. It was buka puasa in a Buddhist temple for me, during a Christmas party.
The Reverend’s humble gesture greatly raised my respect and admiration for him.
During that brief encounter with him, my personal tolerance and understanding of other people’s faiths, beliefs and cultures was greatly altered for the better.
In less than an hour of dining together, his simple humility made me a better person, more open-minded and drastically changed for the better my ways of looking at the world I live in.
To me, the Rev Dhammananda was a great Buddhist and more importantly, a great human being.
Malaysia and its Buddhist community lost a very special person on Aug 31.
With much sadness, I bid farewell to him.

Ironically on the same day I had received an email from friend, Adeline, recounting her unfortunate experience at an event organized by one of the government’s ministry. Being upset and understandably she courageously wrote a letter to the ministry.

Adeline’s letter is published as contained in the email I received.

I was a guest at the recent launching of ‘Pameran Perjuangan Ke Arah Kemerdekaan’ & the new publication by our highly respected YB Datuk Seri Utama Dr. Rais Yatim. I was deeply disappointed to note that several matters of import in the interest of our country’s multi-cultural society failed to be respected and incorporated into the event.

There were dignitaries both local and from the various foreign consulates there but the Event Managers were absolutely oblivious to their presence and were not sensitive to local ethnic sentiments. How can we truly say we can proud of our multi-ethnic society when we practice total disregard and disrespect of others.

For one, the event managers failed to ensure that their dancers who represented the Chinese & Indians were indeed of that ethnic race!

Is it that hard to get one Chinese and Indians each?.. furthermore, instead of dressing to reflect the national costumes from various parts of the country, eg Minangkabau, Kadazan, etc, some of the dancers were dressed in appallingly unsuitable costumes!

When it was announced that a rep from each ethnic race would deliver the key to the chest containing YB’s Book, it did not happen as such.

These small gestures sends waves of messages to the invitees..both local & foreign..

Further to that, the beautiful collection of exhibits were all titled only in Bahasa Malaysia. Our foreign guests would have gone back wondering why did they even bother to attend! The food served for VIPs were not labeled to indicate what they were???

…Beef was placed at the table without label. Insensitive to say the least.

How can we preach harmony, mutual respect and racial solidarity when simple gestures like these reflect blatant disrespect and disregard of others.

I was deeply saddened by this event rather than proud of it. I truly wanted so much to purchase the book YB had written but the event had sapped the patriotic mood out of me. Frankly I don’t think anyone’s going to take this comment at all seriously but I had to say my piece in the true sprit of Nationalism.

Both YB & our esteemed Deputy Prime Minister delivered such beautiful speeches surrounding national unity & harmony between people of many races in our country yet sadly that message failed to reflect upon KeKWa’s handlng of the same event.

I believe it is time for KEKKWA to Walk The Talk if it truly aspires to achieve the very objectives it stands for.

The ministry’s response was;

From: aduanbb@heritage.gov.my
To:
Subject: Re: Aduan Perkhidmatan Awam
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 09:27:47 +0800(CST)

Behalf of the Ministry, We would like to thanks for your concerning and response by giving the information about the quality of the services which provided by government servant.

For your information, this hotline only received the complaining about misbehaviour of the government servant which contradicted to our Budi Bahasa and Nilai-nilai Murni Campaign.

Therefore, action can only be made if your compaining is related to our observation.

Thank you.

[ note: Notice the reply which is written in atrocious English and is a testament to how low the standard of English has fallen but more importantly notice also the tone of the reply which neither addresses the complaint nor is apologetic for its transgression.
--Norman ]


The compassionate act by the Rev. Dhammanananda as recounted by Azlan Ramli serves as a great example of religious understanding and racial tolerance. On the contrary, the act of serving beef at KEKKWA’s function ought not to be dismissed as an administrative hiccup suffice to be resolved with an apology or even worst to reason out that the Hindus and the Taoist guest at the function were provided with other options.

The act of serving beef at a government organized function can only fortify the view that despite all the sloggering of multi racial, multi religious and multi cultural Malaysia, in truth, many of us and worst of all the government continue to be ignorant, insensitive and indifferent to another’s and particularly the minority races cultural and religious norms. In fact many a times Hindus have complained about beef being served by organisers at functions attended by Hindus. It would seem that the main concern to the organisers of functions where food is served is to ensure that no pork is served. On the other hand, beef is provided as an option. Infact I (a Christian) together with a Hindu friend Kuna, had to move a resolution in the Annual General Meeting to stop the Johore Bar from serving beef at functions organiused by the Johore Bar.

Recently, Malaysia celebrated 49 years of independence. We may have achieved nationhood but honestly it is questionable if we have not lived as Malaysians. As Malaysians, we are obliged to know and understand each other and that includes knowing ,understanding and more importantly respecting cultural norms and religious sensitivities but alas ! after 49 years there are Malaysians who remain ignorant and worst of all insensitive.

Imagine after 49 years, the government, of all people still do not know that Hindus and Taoist do not consume beef.!!!

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO MALAYSIAN MICROCHIP ?

Recently, in Parliament, Mohd. Shafie Mohd Salleh (BN- Hulu Langat), suggested that the government implant a microchip in illegal immigrants or make them wear an unremovable bracelet to prevent them from returning to Malaysia. (Malaysiakini 30th August 2006).

Ironically, a microchip with such possibilities had indeed become became available when on September 5, 2003 Dr Mahathir Mohamed announced that the government had for an undisclosed amount bought the intellectual property rights to a miniature microchip from a Japanese company FEC Inc. Dr Mahathir Mohamed claimed that the aptly dubbed Malaysian Microchip (MM) and measuring 0.5mm x 0.5mm - approximately the size of a decimal point was so small and so revolutionary that the microchip could be embedded into currencies to passport and even inside human bodies. Since the microchip also came with a built-in antenna, there were a myriad of possibilities.

Then, a year later, on the 2nd March 2004, the government announced that it would begin commercial production of the microchip which initially would be manufactured in Japan and thereafter production will be shifted to Silterra (M) Sdn Bhd, a wafer fabrication firm belonging to Kedah state government.

Three years after the first announcement it would be good to know whatever has become of Malaysian Microchip?

RECONSIDER PEACEKEEPING DUTIES DECISION.

Malaysia’s offer and readiness’ to contribute troops as part of United Nations peacekeepers to Southern Lebanon raises a number of issues.

Firstly, as a general rule, peacekeepers are deployed when a ceasefire is in place and parties to conflict has given its consent. Malaysia on the on the other hand views Israel with utter contempt. Demonisation of Israel receives official sanction. The Education Minister, Dato Seri Hishamuddin, encourages the burning (infact calls for more burning) and desecration of the Israeli flag. The Foreign Minister proposes that the Organisation of Islamic Conference to arm Hizbollah to fight Israel. Then there is the Malaysian media devoid of any impartiality, which not only absolves Hizbollah from any blame but instead attempts to portray the conflict as a religious conflict.

Now is it any surprise why Israel is objecting to the presence of Malaysian peace-keepers ?. Further, could impartiality and neutrality be maintained by our Malaysian peace keepers particularly after having being fed on a diet of Jewish hatred . After all, during the Bosnia conflict, Malaysian peacekeepers even burned down a church.

Secondly, Malaysia and Malaysian soldiers has no business in the present conflict particularly when countries like Egypt, Jordan, Oatar, Oman or even Bahrain, all countries in the Middle East which either have diplomatic ties or trade ties with both Israel and Lebanon are non committal but instead hope someone else, read Malaysia would do guard duties. Why can’t, other O.I.C countries like Nigeria, Gambia, Tunisia or even Mauritania which have either diplomatic or trade ties with Israel and Lebanon cannot be forthcoming and committing their soldiers to peacekeeping duties. I am certain peacekeepers from these countries would be acceptable to all warring factions.

Why should Malaysia risk the life of its soldiers just to earn some brownie points from the O.I.C. In any event, I am certain that Malaysian soldiers took oath to defend our country and they for a moment would not have imagined that their country would put them to the risk of death in another country’s conflict.

Malaysia should reconsider its proposal.
NORMAN FERNANDEZ

REMEMBER THE IMPORTANCE OF UNITED STATES TO MALAYSIA.

Thank God good sense prevailed when Prime Minister Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi ticked off Khairy Jamaluddin and UMNO Youth’s for talking big in calling for boycott of United States products.

Lest it is forgotten, those having the warped idea of calling for a boycott may well worth to be reminded that United States is Malaysia’s largest trading partner and the largest foreign investor in Malaysia. In 2005 Malaysia-United States trade was valued at US $ 44 Billion with U.S imports from Malaysia standing at almost US$ 34 Billion. This by itself should be a sobering reminder of the importance of maintaining and even forging good relations with United States.

United States companies are also engaged in manufacturing of semiconductors and other electronic/computer products and also in oil, gas and petrochemical sectors, all providing Malaysians with employment. Even Mc Donald’s Restaurant and Coca-Cola the potent symbols of Americanism provides employment to thousands of Malay-Muslims.

Adding to this are the technical trainings, scholarships and grants preferential treatments and other assistance provided to Malaysia by United States. “The action to boycott can backfire on Malaysia” said Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Rightly said particularly when remembering that one George Soros singularly was capable of bringing Malaysia to its knees.

Bravado and brinkmanship, naturally has its limits.

NORMAN FERNANDEZ
anfalaw@streamyx.com

CONSTITUTION. NON MUSLIMS AND RIGHT TO PLACE OF WORSHIP. PART 1.

In Malaysia, freedom of right to practice religion is a fundamental right which is enshrined under Article 11 of the Federal Constitution.

Article 11(1) of the Constitution states:-
(1). Every person has the right to profess and practice his own religion and subject to Clause (4), to propagate it.

The limitation as provided in Clause 4 states that State and Federal laws may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrines or believes among persons professing the religion of Islam.

Thus, Article 11 in effect clearly envisages that a person has:-

Firstly, the right to embrace and profess a religion of his choice;

Secondly, the right to practice, perform and participate in rituals and practices of his religion and this includes the right to congregate with others of the same faith in a common place of worship; and

Thirdly, the right to propagate the tenets and teaching of his religion subject to and being mindful of Article 11(4) of the Constitution

This article however seeks to explore specifically Article 11 (3) of the Federal Constitution.

Religion is practiced by profession of faith and as such any meaningful practice of religion would obviously requires people professing the same faith to be able to congregate together at a common place of worship in order to be able to perform the rituals and practices of the religion. This constitutional guarantee is indeed provided under Article 11(3).

Article 11(3) of the Constitution states:

Every religious groups has the right to:-

(a). to manage its own religious affairs;

(b). to establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes; and

(c). to acquire and to own property and hold and administer it in accordance with the law.

Regretfully, this constitutional guarantee in Article 11(3) is bridled with obstacles.

Presently, Non Muslim are facing difficulties in obtaining not only land for the construction of places of worship but worst of all applications for places of worship are either rejected or approvals not forthcoming. Adding to these problems are the insensitive actions of local authorities in demolishing places of worship. Infact in recent months many Hindu temples in Selangor and Negeri Sembilan has been demolished by the authorities. More often then not these temples were demolished without the authorities providing a proper alternative place and even if an alternative land is provided, it comes with absurd condition such that the temple cannot be more than 10 feet by 10 feet ! (note: for comparison, a graveyard is usually 6 feet by 6 feet ) It is no surprise that in recent months there have been a number of skirmishes when temples were being demolished.

Further, it does not necessarily mean that even if the authorities have given approval, construction can commence and or continue unhindered. Sometimes even after approval, the construction of the places of worship can continue to touch a raw nerve. Thus, incidents of objections, protest and even stop order and revocation of approval are not uncommon.
The Shah Alam Catholic church is a classic example where approval granted was revoked and the authorities then alienated another piece of land and midway through construction the approval and the alienation of the land was once again revoked. Once again the Catholic Church had to make application for permission for approval and alienation of land to construct a church. Since approval was not forthcoming and faced without any choice, a legal action was filed. Good sense finally prevailed when the matter was resolved out of court when the authorities relented and approved the alienation and construction of a Catholic Church. Imagine it took the Non Muslim ( Catholics ) almost 20 years to enjoy the constitutional guarantee under Article 11(3) of the Constitution.

This is rather unfortunate particularly when we claim to be multi cultural, multi religious and multi racial, we are also quick to cast aside the spirit of tolerance and understanding. Worst of all the Non Muslims find it difficult to reconcile how the authorities are steadfast in refusing permission for places of worship can readily and expeditiously approve “rumah urut badan dan batin”, massage parlours masquerading as brothels and even love hotels. To add insult to injury these establishments which are mushrooming at an alarming rate are located in residential areas.
TO BE CONTINUED.
CONSTITUTION. NON MUSLIMS AND THE RIGHT TO PLACE OF WORSHIP. -PART 2-

REAPPRAISING DR MAHATHIR’S LEGACY

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed took office as the forth prime minister of Malaysia on the 16th July 1981. For 22 years until he stepped down in October 2003, Dr Mahathir was not only the longest serving prime minister of Malaysia but has also been credited for engineering Malaysia’s rapid modernization earning him the soubriquet of Bapa Kemodenan Malaysia (father of modernization).

Malaysia’s physical transformation is obvious. After all, Dr Mahathir presided over a period of phenomenal growth and at the end of Dr Mahathir’s tenure, Malaysia bristled with concrete symbols from the gleaming airport to the impressive skyline.

Dr Mahathir left office in a blaze of endearment and glowing tributes. Three years later, the period for veneration is over and the shenanigans of Dr Mahathir’s rule are slowly being untangled and the warts of his administration are beginning to show.

A reappraisal of his legacy will show that the transformation of Malaysia has come with a price.

JUDICIARY UNDER DR MAHATHIR

The Malaysian judiciary before Dr Mahathir though conservative was however fairly independent and was the envy of the region. Today it is a mere shadow of its former glory. In fact there has been cases of the Chief Justices who left office in a shadow of controversy.

Judicial independence from the executive was so severely compromised that it was reduced to becoming a chimera in the Dr Mahathir’s period. The judiciary not only became subservient but also the tool of the executive.

A clear case of political subservience can be seen in the Lim Guan Eng case. Lim Guan Eng was sentenced to 18 months jail under the Sedition Act and Printing Presses and Publication Act for publicly exposing the case of statutory rape of a 15 year old girl. On the other hand, the then Attorney General conveniently withdrew the criminal charges for statutory rape against the Former Chief Minister of Malacca. In a strange twist, the 15 year old girl in the Lim Guan Eng’s case gave evidence on oath that the Chief Minister did indeed have sex with her.

For the Malaysian judiciary, a critical watershed was the removal of Tun Salleh Abas as the Lord President and the suspension of five Supreme Court judges and the eventual sacking of two of them. In the aftermath of the crisis, even the Supreme Court was renamed as the Federal Court while the Lord Presidents position was renamed to Chief Justice.

There are various interpretation of these events but the main outcome has been the judiciary becoming politically compliant and the strengthening of the hands of the executive.

Then there was the Anwar Ibrahim saga, when in 1997 Dr Mahathir used homosexual shenanigans as the reason to sack Anwar Ibrahim the then Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister. The government brought sodomy and abuse of power charges against Anwar Ibrahim. No matter what the twist and turns were in this highly published case, once Anwar Ibrahim incurred the wrath of Dr Mahathir, the outcome became a forgone conclusion. Anwar Ibrahim was found guilty and sentenced to six years imprisonment for corruption and nine years imprisonment for sodomy.

Much has been written about this saga but the root cause which led to the expulsion of Anwar Ibrahim from the government and party was power. Dr Mahathir perceived Anwar Ibrahim moves as an attempt by Anwar and his supporters to grab power. This earned Dr Mahathir’s wrath and he responded with vigour and without scruples.

EDUCATION UNDER DR MAHATHIR

At independence Malaysia inherited English as the language of public education. However, English language became a politically sensitive issue and was viewed as a relic of the colonial.

Thus in the aftermath of the 1969 race riots and in the upsurge of Malay nationalism, English was sidelined and replaced by Bahasa Malaysia as not only the national language but the National Education Policy made Bahasa Malaysia the medium of instruction in schools.

It was also thought that with Bahasa Malaysia as the medium of instruction, it would give Malay students an equal footing or even better a head against Non Malay students. Thirty years later, unfortunately it is the Non Malays students who have became adept in Bahasa Malaysia, English and their mother tongue being another advantage. Whatever initial advantage the Malay students had has been surpassed with the Non Malay students being conversant in almost three languages. The Malay students are now doubly disadvantaged when Dr Mahathir reversed the teaching of maths and science from Bahasa Malaysia to English

Now in a globalised and knowledge based economy with English and Mandarin becoming a prerequisite, nationalism has come with a heavy price.

This can particularly be seen in the field of Information Technology. In 1996, Dr Mahathir came to California to promote Malaysian Multimedia Super Corridor. Bill Gates described it “amazing”. Ten years later it is Bangalore, India which is making waves and much of it has to do with competency in English.

Thirty years later, after Bahasa Malaysia becoming the medium of instruction, and now recognizing that the Malaysia’s education system was losing its competitive advantage and particularly the standard of English was deteorating, in a complete reversal of policy, Dr Mahathir attempted to remedy the situation by ordering the teaching of maths and science in English. However, having allowed and watched the rot set in , the reversal came a little too late.

There is a general decline in English competency. Thus it did not come at a surprise when the Human Resource Minister recently revealed that there are almost 60,000 unemployed graduates mostly Malays and most of them were not proficient in English.

Under Dr Mahathir, not only there was a gradual decline in the Malaysian education system but the education system itself became polarized. Teachers instead of teaching were often more concerned with forms and dressing. Instead of building on the heritage of the mission schools, school administrators worked hard to malay-nise the school.

While in the past, children of all races mixed freely and studied together and thereby building common bond, friendship and understanding, many parents and particularly the Chinese seeing national schools were on a slide lost faith began to send their children to vernacular schools. Schools could have been the best place to initiate and cultivate national unity but that opportunity has long gone. Malaysians have regressed and have become polarized from school age.


ECONOMY UNDER DR MAHATHIR

Industrialisation and privatization has been the centerpiece of Dr Mahathir’s era. Dr Mahathir wanted to transform Malaysia from an agricultural based economy to a regional industrialization hub. To achieve this, Dr Mahathir had his ambitions, initiatives and plans and launched his favoured projects with flourishes of economic nationalism. In the end many of the projects entailed huge problems, flaws and abuses and even needed government bailouts at the expense of public funds.

An example is Perwaja Steel which was Dr Mahathir’s showpiece steel plant which was to spearhead the country’s industrialization is today a spectacular failure, having lost billions by mid 1990.
Proton another of Dr Mahathir’s pet project is now floundering with plummeting car sales and is looking for a suitor. On the other hand late upstarts Thailand’s motor industry has grown and developed to the extent that Rayong is called Detroit of the East.

Together with industrialization, privatization was to have been the centerpiece of Dr Mahathir’s efforts to leapfrog to a first world status from a third world one and privatization of government assets were carried out with a zeal. Privatisation was also meant to be an effective tool for redistribution of wealth. A noble vision. Unfortunately, Malaysia’s privatization first launched in 1983, got off to a wrong footing because many projects were instead awarded to political favorites without competitive bidding. Worst still, handpicked elite who were linked to Dr Mahathir and UMNO who got the big awards and they in turn saw it as an instant ticket to richness.

The government’s public assets were privatized at discounts but the government used public funds to renationalized assets at prices far exceeding market levels. The government linked businessmen were doubly blessed by firstly benefiting from the privatization and secondly when crisis struck to be able to walk away unscathed from the debts and liabilities. Soon government linked businessmen were comforted to know that it was alright to fail for the government would ultimately bail them out using public funds.

It was this blurring of the relationship and boundaries between business, politics and state which inevitably gave rise to patronage, bailouts and corruption and with the consequence of billions of public funds been wasted or squandered.

The proof can be seen in the aftermath of the 1997 financial crisis. In the 1997 economic crisis, the top 10 borrowers hogged a staggering US 36 billion of the non performing loans and these borrowers were the fortunate few who had Dr Mahathir’s imprimatur.

Much is said about Dr Mahathir’s defiance of the International Monetary Fund following the 1997 economic crisis which was widely blamed on East Asian corruption, cronyism and nepotism. Many economist have praised Dr Mahathir’s handling of the crisis using unconventional method and it must have been most gratifying for Dr Mahathir. To be fair, Dr Mahathir’s capital control seemed eminently sensible in September 1998 when there seemed no end to the Asian crisis.

Dr Mahathir blamed the 1997 on the currency speculators and particularly George Soros for the financial crisis. During the worst of the Asian crisis Dr Mahathir even hauled out a copy of the protocols of the Elders of Zion and blamed the Jews rather than his own mismanagement. Dr Mahathir conveniently forgot that his government was also responsible for the very expensive speculative failures when Bank Negara suffered multi billion ringgit losses from its massive purchases of sterling before the sterlings collapse in September 1992.

For Dr Mahathir, it was the currency speculators, the west and the Jews which caused the crisis but never his mismanagement.

Dr Mahathir has been praised for saving Malaysia but lost amidst the laudatory praises is the question as to how did Malaysia end up in this mess in the first place. Was Malaysia’s economy so pernicious that it could take one man George Soros to cripple Malaysia’s economy?

Looking back, Dr Mahathir Mohamed should bear responsibility for it was his own flawed policies and major failures in implementation and for not checking abuses in high places, political and corporate which had created the mess. It had to take the 1997 crisis to lay bare his economic management.

Reevaluating Dr Mahathir legacy will show that although he had the hardware but by using the wrong software, the drive has developed major fault.

Norman Fernandez

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.

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.