How Different Countries Debate in Parliaments/Congress

INDIANS SHOULD EMULATE THE JEWS AND CHINESE.

According to the Hindu Sangam president S. Ganesan, 48% of prisoners in the 24 prison nationwide are Indians, while the Director General of Home Ministry, Datuk Seri Mahmood Adam is on record saying that 36,000 prisoners in jails across the country. This would mean that some 17,280 of the prison inmates are Indians. In fact, it becomes even more disturbing, when N.V Subbarow, the education officer of Consumer Association of Penang education officer recently revealed that Indian girls are now involved in murder and robbery cases.

All these must be alarming statistics, for a community which forms 7% of the total Malaysian population. It has now become all too common to read in the newspapers of Indian youths being charged or being sentenced for heavy crimes like murder, hijacking and gang fights. Even, the law journals are now enriched and replete with case laws involving Indians, something unheard of in the decades of old.

Many have blamed the high incidence of Indians being involved in crime is due to the marginalization of Indians as a direct consequence of discriminatory national policies, inappropriate distribution of opportunities and wealth and other social causes. To a certain extent it is true. But, that is no excuse for Indians to become a dysfunctional community.

My observation as a lawyer, makes me conclude that many Indians take to crime because most of them do not have or lack the necessary education and qualifications which in turn precludes them from possible opportunities.

In truth, Indians do have a choice. Instead, Indians wallow in self pity blaming the society, the system, political parties and the government for their predicament. That is similar to African Americans lamenting and blaming their social ills and backwardness because of their 400 years of slavery.

What Indians ought to do is to emulate the Jews who despite all the suffering, persecution and discrimination could rise above all and be successful. Closer home, we have the Chinese as a shining example, who despite all the obstacles, hardships and adversities could in a generation or two progress and uplift themselves. For both these races, they recognized that education was their redemption. Jewish and Chinese parents recognized that if they wanted to improve and progress there were no other alternative but education and were prepared to make enormous personal sacrifices and often without seeking help or handouts just to educate their children.

Here we have Indian fathers throwing away good money sitting and drinking alcohol in the coffee shop while complaining about inequality and injustice, without realizing he is actually sacrificing his children’s education by indirectly financing the future education of the coffee shop owners’ children. At home, at night, while the Chinese school children are doing their homework and studying, in many Indian homes, mothers’ and their children are happily glued for hours on Astro. What hope then for Indians? Perhaps, it is the parents who are preparing the children on a road to crime.

Indians must realize that Indians world over be it in Africa, Middle East, United Kingdom, United States and Australia are doing well. Many Indians, could do well especially in these countries is because of education, which opened the window of opportunities which was not available to them in their home country. With education and appropriate qualification, you are a citizen of the world and armed with education and the appropriate qualification, somewhere elsewhere you may find the opportunity.

Unless Indians are not prepared to recognize that key to change is education and they are not prepared to make the paradigm shift, they will be stuck in a quagmire of their own making. Then, they have no one to blame but only themselves.

Shocking Imbalance In Johor Civil Service

There are only 126 non-Malays out of the 8,372 workforce in the Johor civil service. This startling statistic was revealed by the Johor Menteri Besar Ghani Othman when replying to the written question by Gwee Tong Hian (DAP-Bentayan) during the recent sitting of the Johor state assembly.

According to the menteri besar the racial breakdown of the Johor civil service is as follows:

Malays : 8,244 or 98.47%

Chinese : 10 or 0.12%

Indians : 116 or 1.39%

Others : 2 or 0.02.%

According to the population statistics of Johor from the data of the Johor State Investment Centre, the racial composition of the population of Johor is as follows:

Total population of Johor: 3.17 million ( as at 2006)

Malays/bumiputera : 54 %

Chinese : 33 %

Indians : 6 %

Clearly, judging from the percentages of the Chinese and Indian populations of Johor, the non- Malays are grossly under-represented in the Johor civil service.

The menteri besar in his reply said that the Johor government and the Public Services Commission were committed in their effort towards ensuring that only those who were of quality

and with integrity are recruited into the service.

chosen. With a mere 126 non-Malays out of a 8,372 total, the Johor government must be finding it near impossible to find Chinese and Indians with 'quality and integrity' to serve in the Johor civil service. Or is it because of the extraneous and over-stringent prerequisites imposed on Chinese and Indian applicants and thus the 'difficulty'?

In order to attract non-Malays into the Johor civil service, the menteri besar said that the Public Services Commission would take steps to advertise in the Chinese and Tamil-language newspapers.

Rightfully and logically, the Public Services Commission ought to have advertised in the Chinese and Tamil-language papers in the first place if they were genuinely interested in attracting and giving non Malays an opportunity. Further, the Johor government and the Public Services Commission could have worked closely with the MCA, MIC and NGOs in finding suitably qualified Chinese and Indians.

In fact, it would be good to hear from Johor MCA and Johor MIC of what role and what steps they had taken in addressing this gross imbalance in the Johor civil service. May I also propose that if the Johor government and the Public Services Commission are having difficulty in finding Indians to serve in the Johor civil service, they can seek the assistance of the pro-active president of Johor Indian Business Association (Jiba).

I am confident he can easily assist the Johor government and the Public Services Commission. If all efforts fail, I am sure Johor Pakatan Rakyat would be ever willing to assist.
Admittedly, the proximity of Singapore is a lure for many Johoreans to seek employment across the causeway. But I am nevertheless confident that given the opportunity many Chinese and particularly the Indians would want and be willing to work and serve proudly in the Johor civil service.

It is high time the Johor government and the Public Services Commission take proactive and concrete steps to remedy the racial imbalance in the Johor civil service.

THE STRAITS TIMES FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26 2010 PAGE A27

MATA JELI : A PERSPECTIVE ON INDONESIAN AFFAIRS

Singing praises of Bluebird taxis
By Bruce Gale

PUBLIC transportation in Jakarta is widely acknowledged to be chaotic, uncomfortable and sometimes dangerous. So it is quite a surprise for newcomers to discover that the capital has a taxi service that is second to none in the region.

Bluebird taxis are ubiquitous in Jakarta. Of the almost 30,000 taxis in the capital, about 12,000 are painted in the familiar metallic blue and sport the company’s geese-like logo. Bluebird taxis arrive promptly when booked over the phone, and the company employs drivers who are polite and often competent in basic English. Many passengers can also relate stories of valuable items left in Bluebird taxis being returned to them after they contacted the company.

Private security consultants recommend Bluebird, particularly when travelling around the capital at night. So do some foreign government travel and trade websites. Indeed, the brand has such a peerless reputation in a country so often regarded as offering little more than second or third rate products and services that it seems reasonable to ask how it was accomplished.

The taxi service began in 1965, when two brothers began a rental car company called Chandra Taxi. The company has been trading under its current name since 1972, when the family matriarch Mutiara Djokosoetono mortgaged the family home in order to finance the purchase of the company’s first 25 taxis. Other transportation services now provided by Bluebird include executive taxi services (Silverbird) and chartered bus services. The company also offers logistics services (including freight forwarding) and runs holiday resorts.

Speaking to the The Straits Times earlier this month, company vice-president Sigit Priawan Djokosoetomo said the company owed its success to its commitment to honesty and good service, both to the customer and the drivers it employs.

It all sounds like public relations hype. But a study of the company’s history, together with interviews with various Bluebird taxi drivers in Jakarta who had no idea their passengers was a Straits Times journalist, has convinced me that it is basically true.

Like most companies aspiring to create a sense of pride and professionalism among their staff, Bluebird puts its drivers through a basic orientation course to familiarise them with company policies and procedures. There are also regular follow-up briefings at which drivers are encouraged to share ideas and experiences in dealing with unusual situations or difficult customers.

But the real reason for the company’s success seem to me to be the way this ethnic Chinese family-owned company treats its employees.

Bluebird maintains an unusual arrangements with drivers under which the latter receive a percentage of the total metered fare. Most other taxi companies in Jakarta and around the region - including those operating in Singapore - impose a flat rental fee instead.

Asked about the policy, Mr. Sigit explained that the company felt that its drivers should never be forced to go home empty-handed. But what if the taxi driver avoids using the meter? “We have 12,000 spies,” he replied. Bluebird drivers get rewards if they spot another Bluebird taxi not using the meter. With many Jakartans actively preferring Bluebird taxis over the competition, drivers also have a vested interest in protecting the company’s reputation.

Bluebird maintains 17 depots in Greater Jakarta. Each has its own clinic staffed by doctors - including dentist as well as ear, nose and throat specialist - all of whom are on Bluebird’s payroll. The company also runs its own health insurance which covers each driver’s immediate family. But these are not the only benefits enjoyed by employees. Several drivers The Straits Times spoke to noted that dormitories at the depots also allow those who live outside Jakarta to save on transport costs by working three or four days at a stretch before returning to their families.

For evidence of the success of the corporate culture in changing driver behaviour, Mr. Sigit referred to the situation in Bandung about three years ago, just before Bluebird entered the market. At that time, no taxi in the city offered metered service, and all had bad reputations. “We recruited the existing taxi drivers over there... We trained them. And the day they worked for our company, they switched behaviour. They knew that if they cheated, they would be sacked”.

Bluebird’s success in Jakarta has spawned numerous imitators, but none has yet managed to replicate the company’s winning formula. Struggling to remain profitable during the economic crisis of the late 1990s, President Taxi - formerly a market leader repainted its yellow taxis blue. Today, there are about 19 taxi companies operating in Jakarta and other Indonesian cities that have adopted a similar tactic. Some also display logos similar to Bluebird’s.

But perhaps the greatest compliment has come from Singapore. In November 2008, representatives from the Singapore Taxi Academy, the Taxi Operators Association and various Singapore-based taxi firms visited Jakarta to meet Bluebird executives and learn more about the reasons for the company’s success. Usually, it is the other way around.
bruceg@sph.com.sg

ITS NOT WHITE AUSSIE BILLY BOB WHO MURDERED MOHD SHAH SAEMIN !

Tuesday’s newspapers, reported the brutal killing of Mohd Shah Saemin, who was a driver at the Malaysian consulate in Sydney outside his home in Sydney.

What with the recent incidents of Indian students being attacked In Melbourne and with Australian politicians “meddling” in Malaysia’s internal affairs, it was just too good an opportunity for Malaysian newspapers not to have a go at Australia.

New Straits Times in its editorial leaned on the assumption that the brutal killing of a non white and in this case the killing of a Malaysian Malay was another example of Australian racism, lambasted Australia. Yup ! It’s white man Billy Bob, it assumed.

In its editorial, referring to Australia’s multi cultural population and foreign born citizens which now accounts for five million or 24 per cent of its population it said “ If these flaring of white Australian hostility against outlanders are the last gasp of an old disease, the resilience of the moderate majority should help see Australia and its burgeoning immigrant communities attain, in time, a new multiculturalism among Australians of all origins. It would help, however if Australia’s shapers of opinion and policy pulled their heads out of the sand and woke up to the antipathies on their streets before these dangerous divisions become entrenched beyond redemptions.”.

Strong words indeed and with New Strait Times immediately assuming that the killers of Mohd Shah Saemin must have been some white man Billy Bob and thus the pontification.

Today, its been a case of egg on the face.

The same paper today blaze headline that Mohd Shah Saemin could have been a victim in a crime of passion. And guess what ! its not white Billy Bob who is suspected of killing him. Instead, Indonesian born Hazairin Iskandar is being charged with the murder. Hazairin Iskandar? He definitely is not whiteman Billy Bob.

When NST in its pontification, asked Aussies to pull the heads out from the sand, its pretty obvious that our chaps here had their brains buried inside their arse.

As my dear mother, always said engage the brain before opening your mouth.

SELEPAS 52 TAHUN BN, LIM GUAN ENG MEMBELA NASIB MASYARAKAT MELAYU PULAU PINANG

Termakbul sudah impian dan matlamat Barisan Nasional merebut melalui mahkamah, tampuk pimpinan kerajaan negeri Perak. Kini Barisan Nasional dan khususnya UMNO mensasarkan Pulau Pinang yang dipimpin kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat yang diterajui DAP. Maka, terserlah kebelakangan ini agenda harian memburuk-burukkan kerajaan negeri Pakatan Rakyat pimpinan Ketua menteri Pulau Pinang Lim Guan Eng.

Bertubi-tubi tomahan dilemparkan terhadap DAP dan Lim Guan Eng oleh media arus perdana serta beberapa keparat dari Parti Keadilan Rakyat mengganyang DAP dan Lim Guan Eng. Kononnya, DAP dan Lim Guan Eng dikatakan sedang menindas orang Melayu, meminggirkan orang Melayu,menzalimi orang Melayu serta menghina agama Islam.

Apa yang lebih menakjubkan ialah tuduhan melulu bahawa Lim Guan Eng adalah seorang cauvanis dan rasis dan malahan bersifat kominis. Lim Guan Eng cauvanis dan rasis ? Jika Lim Guan Eng seorang yang cauvanis dan rasis, apakah beliau yang berketurunan Cina sanggup kedepan membela dan menuntut keadilan untuk seorang wanita Melayu bawah umur yang dikatakan telah dirogol oleh seorang ahli politik. Tiada kedengaran atau kelihatan semasa itu suku-sakat yang melaungan kesedian membela bangsa, agama dan negara tampil kedepan untuk membela martabat perempuan sebangsa dan seagama yang teraniaya. Bukan sahaja Lim Guan Eng membela wanita Melayu tersebut tetapi juga reda merengkok 18 bulan di penjara demi dan kerana membela wanita Melayu. Apakah, UMNO-Barisan Nasional boleh menunjukkan mana-mana ahli mereka yang telah melakukan pengorbanan seperti yang dilakukan Lim Guan Eng.

Dalam keghairahan menganyang DAP dan Lim Guan Eng yang dikatakan sedang meminggirkan, menindas, dan menghina orang Melayu dan Islam, apa yang tidak didedahkan atau dipersoalkan ialah mengapa lebih 52 tahun Barisan Nasional memerintah Pulau Pinang, keadaan masyarakat Melayu Pulau Pinang begitu tercorat kebelakang. Tidak dipersoalkan apa yang sebenarnya telah dilakukan mantan Perdana Menteri yang berasal dari Pulau Pinang untuk masyarakat Melayu Pulau Pinang semasa beliau menjadi Perdana Menteri.

Namun, dua tahun Lim Guan Eng menjadi Ketua Menteri Pulau Pinang, beliau telah membawa perubahan paradigma dalam masyarakat Melayu Pulau Pinang sehingga masyarakat Melayu Pulau Pinang di bela dengan adil dan saksama.

Jika masih sangsi, bacalah seterusnya apa yang telah dilakukan Pakatan Rakyat, DAP Pulau Pinang dan Lim Guan Eng.

www.malaysia-today.com

Kini jelaslah, siapa sebenarnya yang telah dan sedang menjaga serta membela masyarakat Melayu Pulau Pinang.

OUR STATE OF ART SUBMARINE CAN'T DIVE

Just when you had giggled your arse off at the jet engines which went missing and wondered what next, as if on cue comes the next joke. Apparently, our spanking new state of art Scorpene submarine KD Tunku Abdul Rahman has developed problems that make it unfit for diving. Yes, a submarine which cannot dive !

According to Minister of Defence Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, “ the submarine can still dive, but when we detected the defects, we were advised not to dive”. Mmm…don’t they do test drive, I mean test dive as in this case to confirm that the submarine purchased can submerge and dive before taking delivery. Instead, we are now relying on the warranty clauses and defect liability clauses.

I hear Singaporeans are laughing their heads off !

THE MYTH OF THE SECRET AGENDA OF CHRISTIANS

The objection to Christians in Malaysia using the word Allah is premised on the two argument. Firstly, that the use of the word Allah could cause confussion or cause Muslims to be confused and secondly, that Christians have a hidden agenda and a secret motive in insisting to use the word Allah. Thus, like a broken record, Zulkifli Nordin and other like minded ilks and minions are unrelenting in their zeal that Christians cannot use the word Allah as in their view it is exclusive to Muslims.

Pray, may I ask, if there is any proof that Christians in Malaysia have been confusing Muslims in Malaysia by using the word Allah or that Muslims have become confused by Christians using the word Allah.

Empirical data shows that the oposite has been happening and it is not the Christians who have been confusing Muslims or having a hidden agenda trying to convert Muslims. Milenia magazine, February 2010 edition refering to Jakim's portal lists out 55 deviant groups. They are (at pg.29): Nasrul Haq, Budi Suci, Al-Watan, Budi Suci Sejati, Jawa Faradin, Silat Sunda Pukulan Ghaib, Tusuk Hikmat, Ilmu Kebatinan, Potong Maya, Naluri, Kaula, Haqqullah Syahadah, Rampai, Wali Suci, Kalimat sakti, Silat Pukulan Jarak Jauh, Ilmu Tenaga Dalam Hikmat, Zikir Sha'ban Islam Haq, Asala wujud Garis Laksamana, Al- Maazat, Trancendentral Meditation- Maharisi Mahish Yogi, Ilmu Kebatinan, Abdul Manan Bin harun menolak Hadis, Ilmu Mentauhidkan Allah oleh Nasrun ST Qahar, Kumpulan Ikhwan/Al-Mas, Kuasa Ghaib, Mohd Nordin Putih, Nasrun ST Qahar, Roslan Katimum atau Ajaran Wali Sembilan, Tarekat Naqsyabandiyah Kadirun Yahya, Wali Sembilan, Khatijah Binti Ali, Syed Mutalib Bin Syed mohd Nordin, Ajaran Mohd Seman Al-Banjari, Al-Arqam, Golongan Anti-Hadis, Ajaran Juruzon Bin Abdul Latif, Syiah, Ajaran Haji Ghazali Othman Hulu Kelang, Ajaran Haji Kahar Ahmad, Ajaran ilmu Tajali Ahmad, Ajaran Ilmu Tajali Ahmad laksamana, Ajaran Ilmu hakikat @ Dumin Hulu Langat, Tarekat Mufaridah, Ajaran Hassan Anak Rimau, Tarekat Aurad Ismaiiliah, Ajaran Martabat Tujuh, Tarekat Samaniah Ibrahim Bonjol, Ajaran Sulaiman (Bahtera Nabi Noh, Ajaran Ilmu Hakikat Hassan Bin Jonit, Ajaran Ahmadiah, Ajaran Mohd Nor Seman, Ajaran Ayah Pin, Al-Maaunah, Ajaran Azhar Wahab, Ajaran Haji Banuar.

These movements which according to Jakim are deviant groups and are out to confuse Muslims. Don't these groups who have and or are confusing Muslims pose a greater threat and actual danger to Muslims than the misconceived perceived danger by Christians and which ought to concern Zulkifli Nordin and his merrymen?

According to Milenia (at pg.22), some of these movement have redefined themselves. For example, Al-Arqam have redefined to Al-Rufaqa and now as Global Ikhwan. Infact, according to the Mufti of Selangor, even learned professionals are involved in these movements. According to him (at pg.13) ".. guru ajaran sesat berselindung disebalik agama dengan menyebarkan dakyah yang apabila diselidiki ternyata bercanggah dengan Al-Quran dan Sunnah serta mempunyai motif yang tersirat."

Thus, it begs the question, who is actually confusing Muslims and who is having hidden motives or motive?. The Herald for example dutifully, complies with the Home Ministry's requirement to place in its masterhead that the newspaper is "For Non-Muslim's Only". Clearly, the Herald cannot cause confussion since its target audience is Non Muslims and no one else. Since the Herald is for Non Muslims, there is no reason for Muslims to read the newspaper.

Similarly the unfounded allegation that the ultimate motive and agenda of the Christians is to convert Muslims is also without any basis. Christians know very well that it is an offence to evangelise to Muslims. Still, it does not stop some miscreants making allegations of thousands of Muslims becoming apostates. The Mufti of Perak once caused a national sensation claiming that 100,000 Muslims had apostasised, while 100,000 more have sought to do so. Naturally, the immediate focus was on the Christians. But the truth revealed, when Dr Mohd Azam Mohd Adil of Universiti Teknologi Mara said that his studies showed that based on the figures by National Registration Department, for the period between 1999 and 2003, there were only 220 changes of names from Muslims to non Muslims and not the 100,000 that had apparently converted and 100,000 awaiting to do so, as was sensationalised by the Mufti of Perak. It is worth knowing that, Jakim's statistics show that between 1990 and 2001, 11,818 Sabahan's and 9,603 Sarawakians converted to Islam and by far the two states with the highest number of Muslim converts.

In fact any perceived danger to Muslims in truth does not come from the Christians. On the contrary, it is deviant Muslims groups which gives concern. The Malay advocacy group Teras head in 2006 said that the leader of Ariffin Mohamed's Ayah Pin sect had between 5,000-10,000 Malays. Just imagine what may be the number of followers for al-Arqam/ Rufaqa/ Global Ikhwan or other deviant groups which are regularly exposed.

So, what is the secret motive or agenda of the Christians which Zulkifly Nordin and his ilks and minions continue to sensationalise and cast false aspersions that Christians are proselytising to the Muslims and planning to convert Muslims. To prove his point, Zulkifly Nordin has even waved in the air some written material purportedly by Christians to show proof of the Christian agenda. Those written pamplets could also be someone's mischief making against the Christians, as proven in the recent surau burning incident in Muar when the perpetrators who did the act were not (thankfully) Christians.

So, the argument that Christians of trying to confuse non Muslims or that there is a secret agenda and motives by the Christians to convert Muslims is nothing more than seeing ghost where there is none. If only Zulkifli Nordin and others like him care to realise.

WHEN YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND ENGLISH





The Picture says it all.

What is amazing is that no one in the hall noticed it.

Read the Danger of not understanding English, http://www.malaysiatoday.net/

VERNACULAR SCHOOLS NOT CAUSING DISUNITY

Recently, Prof. Emeritus Tan Sri Khoo Kay Kim proposed a restructuring of the national education system, including the implementation of a single stream, to ensure attainment of the goals of 1 Malaysia. As often the case, vernacular schools and principally Chinese schools has been singled out as being the root cause for polarization and the lack of national unity. However, to fault vernacular schools for the cause for polarization and disunity is premised on multiple fallacies.

Many urge the government to follow in the footsteps of Singapore which has abolished vernacular schools. However, they conveniently forget that in Malaysia, vernacular education is a right guaranteed by constitution and by acts of parliaments. Vernacular education is part of the social contract. That right ought not to be questioned and the right to vernacular education is the right of the Non Malays and cannot be compromised. Thus, to call for abolishment or single stream is nothing but being seditious.

Those who continuously fault the vernacular schools ought to be reminded that it is the desire and wish of every parent to see their children mix, study and play with children of other races. After all, the parents themselves were often the products of national schools where students of different races and religions studied, played and interacted together and forged friendship which extended long after they left school.What those calling for single stream education and proponents for abolishing vernacular schools, fail to admit is that vernacular schools in the past were not necessarily the schools of first choice of Non Malays. Non Malay parents sent their children to English medium schools simply because education was in English, The schools had good teachers and English medium schools provided school leavers better career opportunities. In fact Chinese schools such as Han Chiang High School in Penang were on the verge of closing down because of falling attendance and in the 70’s had to depend on students from Indonesia and Thailand to survive. Now the reverse has happened.According to statistics, Chinese parents who sent their children to national schools have fallen from around 50 % in the 1970’s to about 6% in 2006. The NST November 19, 2008 reported that 9 out of 10 Chinese send their children to Chinese schools. Today, there are approximately 630,000 students studying in 1288 Chinese primary schools. Those blaming vernacular schools and particularly Chinese schools ought to know that there are almost 60,000 Non Chinese students studying in Chinese schools and a substantial proportion of the students are Malays.

Even, more alarming is that, Tamil parents and particularly Tamil professional who were educated in national schools are now beating a path to Tamil schools. Today, approximately 100,142 students study in 523 Tamil schools, despite the fact that many Tamil schools lack the facilities national schools or Chinese schools have.

With Chinese and Indian parents abandoning national schools for vernacular schools, the national schools not by choice, have taken on the image of “sekolah Melayu”. Those advocating single stream never bother to ask why have Non-Malays abandoned national schools and they are no more the school of first choice.

Rightfully those advocating single stream education or proposing closure of vernacular schools ought to ask the parents of the 60,000 Non Malay students ( a substantial proportion being Malays) studying in Chinese schools, why did they as Malays abandon national schools which have better facilities, teachers and students of same race and religion and instead choose to send their children to Chinese schools where their children are a minority, and be exposed to Chinese culture, Chinese religious believes or having to eat in the school canteen which is more likely to serve food which may not be halal. Malay parents seeing the benefits of Chinese education who are also abandoning national schools for Chinese schools. If Chinese schools are indeed the root cause of disunity then questions must be asked why Malay are beginning to see Chinese schools as schools of first choice.

Instead, they repeat the decade old polemics blaming vernacular schools for causing racial polarization and disunity. Further, they also conveniently choose to ignore that there are also schools which are exclusively for a single race, religious schools of a particular religion, universities catering to a single race and universities with religious orientation of a single religion. Are not the existence of these schools and universities not equally divisive? What logical justification is there to call for single stream education in primary schools and then allow divisive secondary and tertiary education.

Malaysia is unique with its multiracial, multicultural and multi religious population. The role of a school is not only to create a learning atmosphere. In Malaysia schools have an added responsibility in that it ought to be a place where students are taught to value and celebrate diversity. Students should be taught to acknowledge and respect each other’s culture, language and religion and to be imbibed with a sense that each other’s cultural, language and religious diversities are part and parcel of our national heritage and that this uniqueness should be treasured and protected by all. Schools must inculcate multiracialism, multiculturalism and multireligionism. The question is whether the national schools are doing this. The character of national schools have changed and have become overtly and overwhelmingly Malay-Muslim. Malay-Muslim centred actions and policies have caused the exodus of Non Malays from national schools.School administrators and the principals in some national schools have turned the school and the school’s culture’s dominantly Malay-Muslim centred. While great effort is taken to continuously remind the Non Malay students about respecting Malay cultural mores and religious sensitivities, the same is not done when it comes to Non Malays cultural and religious sensitivities and even worst they are blatantly indifferent to the sensitivities of the Non Malays. Here is a letter which appeared in Malaysia-Today news portal where a parent wrote:-“In my children’s SK school, the Hari Raya holidays are stretched to well over a week to accommodate the Malays. Replacement classes are planned months ahead and notification letters are sent out very early. However, when it comes to Chinese New Year, not a single extra day is given-not even for the kids who have to travel to make it to their home town. Mind you, Malays make up roughly 50% of the student population.”

Razak Baginda who was then the Executive Director of Malaysian Strategic Research Centre is quoted in the International Herald Tribune June 7, 2005 as saying that his “dauughter complained that the religious teachers are the culprits, They inculcate very negative views of the other religions. They are always have them and us attitude that is very destructive.”This is merely one example. Many Non Malay parents also complain that while the school has religious and religious activities for Muslims students, it is near impossibility to have the same for Non Malay-Non Muslim students. In some school classes are segregated according to race and religion but giving time-table convenience as an excuse. Some schools even forbid their students from wearing shorts for physical education.

Thus, it was not a surprise when in 2002, the then Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed without mincing his words said that national schools system has been hijacked by obscurantist interested in Islamic practices that emphasise form over substance.

Add to the changing landscape of national schools, is a perception problem. Many parents lament that that the standard of teaching in national schools has deteriorated. A lecturer at the Teacher’s Training College in Johor Bahru once lamented about the quality of the trainee teachers. According to him, many of these trainee teachers hardly have a passion for teaching and that teachers training college was their last choice after having failed to secure a place in the universities or other colleges.

Thus, the attraction to teaching is simply its perks - half day session, five day week and the long term breaks and more importantly job security. Many have the perception that in national school, many of the teachers seem to be disinterested and unmotivated and instead some are more interested in molding the children for the hereafter.Rightly or wrongly many believe that vernacular schools and particularly Chinese schools have dedicated teachers with a reputation for quality, rigour and working their students hard. Could this be the reason why more than 60,000 Non Chinese students now study in Chinese schools ?

I believe the exodus in such droves from national schools to vernacular schools would not have happened had the government been far sighted and been quick to arrest the problem. Why did the government wait until almost 90% Non Malay students abandon national schools before recognizing that there was a problem Surely the government ought to have known about overzealous school administrators with their own agenda and about teachers who permeates ill feelings and racism. The government must have known about the gradual malay-nisation of schools. There have been cases of Non Malay students who were racially abused to the extent of being called monkeys. Such teachers rightfully out to have been dismissed forthwith and criminal action initiated. Instead they were sent for counseling.

Prime Minister Dato Seri Najib Tun Abdul Razak has rightly pointed out that any move to a single stream education would require a big paradigm shift and it will only change if the people are ready to make a change and if the society is not ready, the government will carry on with the existing system.

That paradigm shift, I believe must come from the government. If only the government can walk the talk of 1 Malaysia, take the necessary steps to overhaul the standard of national schools, enhance the quality and standard of teaching, ensure that schools are free from zealots and racist, employ teachers and administrators who truly subscribe to multiculturalism and multi-religionism, make the teaching of vernacular education mandatory and recreate the atmosphere of yesteryears (ie pre- Merdeka), it is possible that national schools could regain its past glory and its rightful place in Malaysian education.

Norman Fernandez, was a 1 Malaysia student of La Salle, Sentul.

RM254 BILLION - KE MANA?

Lucu Geli Geliman
mendengar Tun Det tiba-tiba tersedar diri menyoal
kemana perginya 'lion-'lion
apa terjadi pada RM254 'lion duit lombong.

Lucu Geli Geliman
mendengar Tun Det menyoal bertanya
padahal yang bertanya
lebih tahu dari yang ditanya.

nukilan,
Norman Fernandez
dalam bas JB-KL
22.07.2009

BILA KERAJAAN PAS ROBOHKAN GEREJA

Inilah gambar bangunan serba sederhana mirip rumah kos rendah yang telah dibina oleh Orang Asli Kg Jias, Gua Musang, Kelantan untuk digunakan sebagai gereja tetapi malangnya telah dirobohkan pada 4 Jun 2007 kerajaan PAS Kelantan.

Susulan dari itu, Tok Batin Kg Jias, Pedik Busu dan tiga orang pendududuk Kg Jiras pada 1 Julai 2007 telah memfailkan saman terhadap Majlis Daerah Gua Musang. Pejabat Tanah dan Dearah Gua Musang dan Kerajaan PAS Kelantan untuk angkara yang dilakukan.

Pada 16 Julai 2009, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Kota Baru, Tuan Mohd Azlan Hashim telah mendapati perobohohan gereja yang dilakukan pihak berkuasa adalah tidak sah dan salah serta mendapati tindakan pihak berkuasa selepas merobohkan gereja mencuba mendirikan balai raya menggantikan gereja sebagai menceroboh tanah Orang Asli. Mahkamah telah memerintahkan bahawa ketiga-tiga Defendan membayar ganti-rugi.

Alasan pihak berkuasa untuk merobohkan bangunan ini adalah kerana Orang Asli Kg Jiras yang beragama Kristian telah membina bangunan ini sebelum mendapat kebenaran pihak berkuasa. Tetapi hakikat sebenarnya ialah bangunan itu dirobohkan tidak lain dan tidak bukan hanyalah kerana ia adalah sebuah gereja. Adakah pihak berkuasa tempatan akan merobohkan bangunan tersebut jika Orang Asli Kg Jiras mendirikan rumah ibadat agama lain yang disenangi pihak berkuasa dan kerajaan PAS? Malahan apabila pihak berkuasa menyatakan kesedian untuk membina sebuah balai raya (dan bukannya membina gereja) menggantikan gereja yang diroboh ditempat lain untuk Orang Asli Kg Jiras, ini menunjukkan dengan jelas betapa kurang senang PAS melihat kehadiran sebuah gereja.

Sebelum ini Barisan Nasional banyak dikritik kerana telah merobohkan tempat-tempat ibadah bukan Islam. PAS sebaliknya menonjolkan betapa toleran mereka terhadap orang bukan Islam. Tokong dan patung Buddha di Tumpat selalunya di tonjolkan sebagai mercu tanda bukti toleransi PAS dan dengan niat untuk meraih undi serta mendekati penggundi Cina. Perobohan gereja Orang Asli, Kg Jiras dalam negeri yang dipimpin kerajaan PAS wajar menginsafkan orang bukan Islam apa yang telah dilakukan dan berkebolehan dilakukan oleh kerajaan PAS.

KENYATAAN DAP JOHOR

DAP JOHOR mengecam majalah al-Islam dan rencana Tinjauan al-Islam: Dalam Gereja Mencari Kesahihan Remaja Murtad; al-Islam edisi Mei 2009 dan tindakan biadab wartawan-wartawan majalah al-Islam yang telah memasuki gereja Katolik dan menjalankan pengintipan didalam gereja serta menghina umat Katolik apabila menyertai upacara roh kudus dengan menerima roti suci yang hanya boleh disertai oleh orang katolik yang telah dibaptis yang kemudian di ludah dan dirakam gambar.

DAP JOHOR menggesa pihak polis demi memastikan keamanan dan silahturahim antara kaum terpelihara menyegerakan siasatan dan mengambil tindakan terhadap majalah al- Islam dan wartawan-wartawan yang terlibat.

DAP Johor.
17hb Julai 2009

The Social Contract In Context

MARCH 31 – The in thing nowadays seems to be the phrase “social contract”. Every Tom Dick, hairy or otherwise, seems to be so well versed with this subject.

You make a bit of noise about the Federal Constitution and you would be referred to the “social contract”. You question a teeny wee bit about equality and you would surely be referred to the “social contract”.

I think the next time somebody cuts you off in a traffic jam, you should shout “social contract!” at that socially inept moron.

The latest outburst on the social contract had to of course come from Hishamuddin Hussein, the newly-minted Umno vice president. In his last speech as the Umno Youth Chief – of course, it was also a speech designed to garner votes for his VP-ship – Hishamuddin branded those who question the social contract as “arrogant”.

In his words: “Mereka begitu angkuh, sombong dan bongkak mempersoalkan kontrak social dan mempertikai hak kedudukan orang Melayu dan kaum Bumiputera. Kontrak sosial telah sengaja disalah tafsir dan dijadikan tajuk untuk menyemarakkan api perkauman.”

Before we talk of something important and of far reaching consequence, we should know what we are talking about. We should not just blabber aimlessly and throw about allegations and accusations as if it is our God given right to belittle other people.

What is this creature called the “social contract”? Is there such a thing? Is it like any other contract? Must it be signed? And stamped? If so, who signed it? Before that, who drafted it? What are the terms and conditions? Can they be changed? What if it is breached? What are the consequences of such breach? Does anybody know? Allow me to explain this concept.

Human Beings and Their Natural Rights

Early philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle postulated the existence of natural justice or natural rights. These concepts were premised on the theory that human beings were born with and naturally follow a set of “natural” morality and behavioural patterns which are independent of human made regulations.

The concepts of “good” and “evil” for example, are inherent in every human being. This being the case, the people’s grasp of and adherence to such “natural rules” are independent of human made regulations and their enforcement.

If we accept the postulations that human beings are born with a set of natural behavioural patterns, than we must also accept the fact that human beings are also entitled to several basic rights.

These are rights so fundamental to the existence of a human being that the denial or transgression of such rights would render his or her existence as a human being almost meaningless. The most basic of these rights are rights which are universal to every human being, regardless of creed and breed, of cultures and upbringing, of religion and school.

The advent of civilisations had seen humans transformed from being individualistic and stateless animals into socio-politico creatures. Cities were built and societies developed. Governments and states were born.

The rise of the states and the ensuing assumption of power by the states and their governments would see the surrender of certain individual rights to the states and governments for the greater good of the society in general.

The Social Contract as a Concept

If it was human nature to be able to roam free anywhere and at any time, and to take whatever was thought to be necessary to survive, why would humans then surrender these basic rights to the states or governments for such rights to be regulated or even curtailed?

Why must a human being respect a property which belongs to another and who, in that instance, defines and decides on the ownership of such property in the first place? Why would the people agree to follow and obey executive orders when the people, by nature, are born to be free of constraints?

Here lies the premise of social contracts. The earliest known articulations on social contracts were by Plato who postulated that members of any given society implicitly agree to be bound by the social contract by their continued presence within that society.

Implicit in most forms of social contracts is “freedom of movement”, which later was termed as one of the “natural rights”.

The postulations of a social contract existing between a society, a state or a government and the people centre on the needs of the people to build nations and to maintain social orders within their nations.

Thus, for the benefit of the nation, the people implicitly agree to surrender some of their rights to the state or government in exchange for social order and greater benefits to all.

Thomas Hobbes explained it clearly. In a state of nature, human beings have unlimited natural freedoms. However, these unlimited natural freedoms would impinge on each other’s rights as each person would feel free to do anything against each other (also described as “the rights to all things”).

Men then created civil societies where these rights were governed in order to establish a social order. In exchange for subjecting themselves to the state or government, the people gained “civil rights”, which were sacrosanct and unalienable, even to the state or government.

Social Contract as a Living Document and the Consequence of its Breach

John Locke argues that the social contract and the civil rights are living documents in that their terms could be renegotiated to suit the needs of changing times. These contracts and rights are only legitimate to the extent that they benefit the general interest. Locke even posits the rights of rebellion in the event the social contracts lead to tyranny.

The breach of these social contracts by the people would result in some form of punishment on the defaulting party, which could entail the loss of any or some of their civil rights.

Thus, a thief may lose his rights to freedom when he is sentenced to imprisonment for stealing.

A government which breaches the social contract by abusing its powers may consequently, argues Locke, be overthrown.

We have seen many instances where Locke’s position has been taken to its natural conclusion. In Thailand and the Philippines for example, the people rose to overthrow governments which were perceived to have breached the social contract by various abuses of their powers and transgressions of human rights.

However, in modern states, especially in a democracy, it is submitted that the natural consequence to a government for its failure to uphold the social contract through abuse of its powers would rest with the people’s vote in an election.

The real power therefore rests with the members of the state, namely, the people and the voters to elect a new government at an opportune time.

The Rights of the State vs the Rights of the People

The concept of social contracts also appeals to later day philosophers, such as John Rawls (1921-2002). He branded states which violate human rights as “outlaw states” and “benevolent absolutism” and argued that these states should not command mutual respect and toleration from “liberal and decent people”.

Rawls, of course, premised his postulations on the assumptions that human beings are both “reasonable and rational” and that we are reasonable only to the extent that we are able to achieve an end together within a set of specific regulatory principles.

In going about achieving this end, we, as the people, would affirm some fundamentally basic liberties or freedoms, such as “freedom of conscience, expression and association”.

Analysing all the concepts of the states or government versus the rights of the people, as well as the concept of the social contract between the two elements, the question is of course one of the quantity and quality of rights which the people are ready and willing to surrender to the state or government in exchange for the greater societal benefits which may be yielded from the state.

Are there in existence, for example, rights which are so basic and fundamental, which ought not to be surrendered at any cost? Or is the greater good of the state or society a justification for the transgression by the state of the people’s fundamental rights?

Are there rights which are so fundamental to the existence of the people that these rights are universal in nature? Or are there values, cultural, religious or otherwise, which make these rights vary from one society to another?

Mahathir Mohammad and Lee Kuan Yew are perfect examples of the propagator and practitioners of “benevolent absolutism”.

Both share a common perspective towards democracy. Under the guise of “Asian values”, they argued that democracy in Asia, particularly in Malaysia and Singapore, cannot and should not entail the concept of absolute “freedom” as practised in the West. Freedom, according to Mahathir, should be curtailed for the greater good of the country. What Mahathir and his ilk failed to address is the fact that no reasonable citizen of this country would question the curtailment of freedom for the greater good of the nation.

But what is being demanded is that such curtailment must be done in accordance with the law. Such curtailment should not, at any rate, be done without the due process of the law. That basic right is cast, almost in stone, in the Federal Constitution and that is a part of the social contract, if we want to harp on the same.

In truth, the Asian values which were being brandished about by Mahathir and LKY are but a lame excuse for benevolent absolutism. Pure and simple.

Underlying the “agreement” of the people to surrender some of their rights to the State for the greater good of the society as a whole is a system of “check and balance” which is ingrained in our justice and administration system.

Now, what is left to the people if such check and balance mechanism is obliterated by the government? Isn’t that a blatant breach of the social contract?

The point is this. Nobody in their right mind, and that includes me, is questioning the need for a controlled curtailment of some individual rights in favour of an orderly society. I hope I have made that clear.

What is being questioned is the mechanism of such curtailment. It must be done with due process of the law. That is the social contract. It stems from the realisation that the primacy of the individual has to be balanced with the paramountcy of society (to borrow the words of Shashi Tharoor in his excellent dissertation, “Are Human Rights Universal?” appearing in the World Policy Journal).

And, in my opinion, the element which provides the leverage between the two seemingly opposing rights is nothing but the law and justice system.

The Malay Annals (”Sejarah Melayu”) and the Social Contract

Just as the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights 1689 defined early social contracts between the subjects and the English King or States, the Malays have their own version of a social contract.

This is contained in the Malay Annals, an excellent satirical work by Tun Sri Lanang which consists of and is believed to have been based on facts which were romanticised with folklores.

In it was narrated the story of Sang Utama Sri Tri Buana (the Palembang ruler from whom all Malay royalty claims descent) who, in his quest to rule the people, made a pact with Demang Lebar Daun, who represented the people.

Demang Lebar Daun promised that “the descendants of your humble servants shall be the subjects of your majesty’s throne, but they must be well treated by your descendants. If they offend, they shall not, however grave their offence, be disgraced or reviled with evil words: if their offence is grave, let them be out to death, if that is in accordance with Muslim law”.

To which Sang Utama replied: “I agree to give the undertaking for which you ask, but I in turn require an undertaking from you … that your descendants shall never for the rest of time be disloyal to my descendants, oppress them and behave in an evil way to them.” To which Demang Lebar Daun agreed, “ … but if your descendants depart from the terms of the pact, then so will mine.. subjects shall never be disloyal or treacherous to their rulers, even if their rulers behave cruelly and immorally … and if any ruler puts a single one of his subjects to shame, that shall be a sign that his kingdom shall be destroyed by Almighty God.” (as taken from the Tuah Legend website)

Thus was born the oft-quoted Malay saying, “Raja adil Raja disembah, Raja zalim, Raja disanggah”, which forms the basis of the loyalty of the Malay subjects to their King.

The Hang Jebat rebellion against Sultan Mansur Shah was an illustration of how this social contract was practised.

The Social Contract is Not Cast in Stone

As pointed out above, Locke argues that the social contract is a living document and its terms may be renegotiated as and when the needs arise.

Rawl on the other hand posits that we, as human beings, are reasonable only to the extent that we are able to achieve an end together within a set of specific regulatory principles. Thus, by no means is a social contract an unmovable object. As society evolves, generations and consequently values and cultures change, internal and external dynamics would redefine the society’s priorities and needs.

It follows that the social contract would change and vary in order to achieve newer objectives and ends. Thus in India, we would now see the practice of suttee, where a surviving widow would be burned alongside her husband’s body, being outlawed.

Slavery in the United States and other parts of the world become a practice which is frowned upon. Gay marriages are now permitted, even in Singapore. Such is the power of time and progress.

The Federal Constitution for example, had never contained provisions for the New Economic Policy or a new education policy.

In the aftermath of May 13th 1969 however, the NEP was introduced out of societal necessities as well as, probably, political necessity. Thus a new social contract was born. What about the new education policy, where the English took a back seat, as opposed to the pre-Merdeka policy where a certain degree of emphasis was given to the English language? Wasn’t that a change to the social contract?

The Federal Constitution is, to my mind, the social contract between the people of Malaysia and the State or Government. But it has been amended countless time to suit the needs of the society (although one could present a really substantive argument that it was amended for political expediency on countless occasions).

The Judiciary, for example, in whom was imbued judicial power in the original Federal Constitution (and thus the original social contract), was later deprived of judicial powers save and except provided for by the Parliament through yet another amendment of the Federal Constitution. Wasn’t that a change to our social contract?

Hishamuddin talked about the actions of some parties who dare to belittle our Royal institution. With respect, that is almost hypocrisy. Under the original social contract, the Malay Rulers cannot be sued in any Court. No legal action may be brought against any of the Rulers.

Mahathir Mohammad’s regime amended the Federal Constitution to allow the Rulers to be sued in a special Court.

Many of us would have read the recent suit by a bank against one of the Malay Rulers. Wasn’t that a change to our social contract? How about the necessity for Royal assent to a bill of law before that bill could legally become law? Originally that was the position. But again, the Federal Constitution was amended to do away with such requirement. Wasn’t that yet another change to the social contract?

Hishamuddin and his ilk should realise that nobody is questioning the rights of the Malays and the status of Islam as enshrined in the Federal Constitution. What is being questioned is the implementation of the government’s affirmative policy. There are obvious differences between the two.

In any event, the social contract, as proven above, has been varied and changed on countless occasions, by none other than the BN government itself. Of course, the BN government would argue that those changes were necessary for the betterment of the society as a whole.

Why then, when anybody other than the BN leaders stands up to raise a question on the social contract, or when he or she would even dare to suggest a discussion on, let alone a change to the social contract, he or she would be deemed arrogant, or in Hishamuddin’s own words, “sombong, angkuh dan bongkak”? – Loyarburok

Article by Art Harun.

This was what Bernama Malaysia's national news agency reported on March 16, 2009.

Brunei Drops Territorial Claim Over Limbang

BANDAR SERI BEGAWAN, March 16 (Bernama) -- Brunei has officially dropped its long-standing territorial claim over Limbang, a northern division in Sarawak, marking a new era in the bilateral relations between both countries, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said.

The prime minister said the matter was part of the historic Letters of Exchange (LoE) inked between him and Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei, which formalised the solution to the long-standing Malaysia-Brunei boundary issues, at the Istana Nurul Iman here Monday.

"It has been stated in the LoE that Brunei has dropped the issue and this means that Limbang is part of Malaysia," he told a news conference with Malaysian journalists before heading home at the end of his two-day visit to the sultanate.

Limbang, located on the banks of Sungai Limbang between the two halves of Brunei and covers an area of 3,978 sq km with population of more than 40,000, was annexed by James Brooke, the first Rajah of Sarawak, in 1890 to become the fifth division of Sarawak.

Abdullah, in thanking the Sultan of Brunei and his government for the positive action in making the solution a reality, said that border issues would now cease to haunt the relations between both countries.

"With the issue solved, Brunei and Malaysia can now enter a new era of bilateral relations and cooperation in various fields and there is no more unhappiness over the issue," he said.

A joint statement issued by both leaders stated that among the key points in the LoE was the modalities for the final demarcation of land boundaries between Brunei and Malaysia.

It also stated that the demarcation would be resolved on the basis of five existing historical agreements between the Brunei government and Sarawak government, and as appropriate, the watershed principle.

"Hereafter, all issues pertaining to land boundaries of the two states shall be accordingly resolved," it said.

The statement said among the key elements in the LoE was the "unsuspendable rights of maritime access" for Malaysian nationals and residents across Brunei's maritime zones en route to and from their destinations in Sarawak, provided Brunei's laws and regulations were observed.

"The solution of the maritime delimitation issue ensures certainty with regard to the delimitation of the territorial seas, the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zones (EEZ) of both countries."

The two countries would be able to enforce their rules and regulations and embark on new developments in their respective maritime zones," it said.

The two-page statement also stated that the LoE, which marked a historic and momentous occasion for Brunei and Malaysia, reflected the two countries' ability to reach a comprehensive, fair and equitable package solution in the larger interest of both countries.

It also said that both leaders believed that the signing of the letters would pave the way for the development of strategic partnership and closer collaboration in all fields, especially trade and investment.

Other areas are in energy and hydrocarbon resources, tourism, education, agriculture, infrastructure, banking, halal industry and people-to-people contacts with special focus on the Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak, it said.

Both leaders believed that "the brotherly relations between Brunei and Malaysia will contribute to the promotion of peace and prosperity in the region," the statement said.

They also instructed officials and representatives to follow up and monitor the full implementation of provisions in the letters, which marked the successful conclusion of negotiations, with historical, legal and other relevant criteria acceptable to both sides.

Abdullah, accompanied by wife Datin Seri Jeanne Abdullah, earlier led the Malaysian delegation, which included Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Rais Yatim and Education Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussien, to the historic occasion at the Istana Nurul Iman.

They were welcomed by the Sultan of Brunei and his consorts Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha and Pengiran Isteri Azrinaz Mazhar.Present was the Crown Prince of Brunei, Prince Al-Muhtadee Billah.

Abdullah then held a four-eye meeting with Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah before both of them adjourned to the signing ceremony which took place at the Cabinet Room.

It was witnessed by delegations from both countries including Brunei's Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister Prince Mohamed Bolkiah and Second Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister Pehin Datuk Seri Setia Lim Jock Seng.

Sarawak Chief Minister Tan Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud and Sabah Chief Minister Datuk Seri Musa Aman were also present at the signing ceremony.

Abdullah later left for home from the Brunei International Airport.-- BERNAMA

And here comes the pie-on-face!

Brunei denies Sarawak border dispute resolved

BANDAR SERI BEGAWAN, March 19 — Brunei has denied claims that the sultanate and Malaysia had resolved their territorial dispute over Limbang in Sarawak.

Brunei's Second Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Pehin Dato Lim Jock Seng, on Tuesday set the record straight by denying there was any discussion on Limbang during talks on Monday between Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah, the Borneo Bulletin reported yesterday.

“In actual fact, the claim on Limbang was never discussed. What was discussed was the demarcation of land boundaries on the whole,” Lim said in response to a question at the Legislative Council session.

He said a joint press statement issued on Tuesday mentioned that the demarcation of the land boundaries would be resolved on the basis of five existing historical agreements between Brunei and Sarawak.

“After that, a working group comprising general surveyors of the two countries will follow with the technical aspect to solve the land border issue.''

Malaysian media had widely reported Abdullah as saying that Brunei had dropped its claim on Limbang. The Limbang dispute can be traced back to the cession of the territory by Brunei to Sarawak's White Rajahs in 1890. The cession had been strongly disputed by the sultanate, which regarded the transfer as annexation by Sarawak.

The move had resulted in a significant reduction of Brunei's territory and cut the sultanate into two. — The Straits Times

WHAT A JOKE!

Ridwan courts infamy with his judgments — The Malaysian Insider

MARCH 12 — When Judicial Commissioner Ridwan Ibrahim put Perak state assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar in a straitjacket and curtailed his powers, two of Malaysia’s most illustrious judges must have been turning in their graves.

Tan Sri Chang Min Tat and Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader were legal giants, men of integrity, honesty, professionalism and whose legal judgments stood up to the closest scrutiny.

They were also among the judges who steadfastly upheld the position that the courts should not interfere or question the proceedings of Parliament or a state assembly, giving life to the doctrine of separation of powers between the executive, legislature and judiciary.

If Ridwan is interested, the score is 5-0 against him. A check shows that five cases have been brought before the courts by politicians seeking a variety of restraining orders and injunction.

The plaintiffs wanted the courts to stop a defendant from dissolving the legislative assembly; wanted an order of prohibition against members of the Committee of Privileges and an injunction to restrain the removal of a Speaker.

In all the cases, the courts were loath to interfere, relying heavily on Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution which reads: “The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any state shall not be questioned in any court.’’

The five cases were:

• Fan Yew Teng v Government of Malaysia.
• Lim Cho Hock v Speaker, Perak State Legislative Assembly.
• Tun Datu Haji Mustapha bin Datu Harun v Legislative Assembly of State of Sabah.
• Tun Datu Haji Mustapha bin Datu Harun v Tun Datuk Hj Mohamed Adnan Robert.
• Haji Salleh bin Jafaruddin v Datuk Celestine Ujang.

In the Lim Cho Hock case, the plaintiff sought a declaration that the offices of the Menteri Besar and President of Ipoh Municipal Council cannot be held by the same person. He also wanted the court to rule that the appointment of the MB as President of the Council was null and void and that the state authority had exceeded its powers in making this appointment.

Justice Abdoolcader ruled that it was clear that the courts have no jurisdiction over proceedings of the legislative assembly.

It is not only in Malaysia that the courts have held that it was wrong and improper for actions or proceedings of the legislature to be questioned. Courts in India, Australia, Canada and New Zealand also have stayed true to this principle in cases such as Prebble v Television New Zealand, P V Narasimha Rao v State, Harnett v Crick.

So when Judicial Commissioner Ridwan Ibrahim granted an order restraining Sivakumar from convening any unlawful meetings, he was entering unfamiliar territory and he was going against legal precedent and the constitution.

Barisan Nasional officials and their supporters argue that Sivakumar overreached and acted outside his jurisdiction when he accepted the undated resignation letters of three Pakatan Rakyat lawmakers.

They also argue that Sivakumar’s decision to suspend Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir and his six executive council members was unconstitutional and against the state constitution.

The only snag is that the Perak state constitution makes clear that “there shall be freedom of speech and debate or proceedings in the assembly and such freedom of speech and debate or proceedings shall not be liable to be impeached or questioned in any court or tribunal out of the assembly’’.

So can nothing be done against a rampaging Speaker? Isn’t there some action that can be taken against a partisan Speaker?

Of course, there is. Just not through the courts.

So how did Barisan Nasional react after the courts ruled in the five cases that proceedings in the legislature should not be questioned by the courts?

They did nothing because they were the beneficiaries.

The arrogance of a novice judge

NH CHAN is former Court of Appeal judge famous for his ‘All is not well in the House of Denmark’ comment regarding judicial corruption. He was then referring to High Court’s commercial division which was located in Wisma Denmark, Kuala Lumpur. The quote is based on Shakespeare’s ‘Something is rotten in the state of Denmark’.

I must say I was taken aback by the astonishing ruling of Ridwan Ibrahim, a High Court judicial commissioner.

He ruled that the lawyers “engaged by (Perak assembly speaker V) Sivakumar (left) had no locus standi to represent him in an application by Perak Menteri Besar Zambry Abdul Kadir, who is seeking a declaration that Sivakumar’s decision to suspend him and his executive council was unconstitutional and unlawful”.

I am appalled at the arrogance of the judge. I am quite sure he is not an expert in constitutional law and even if he were, in a case of such great public importance to the nation, it is wise to listen to the views of the other side. Especially in this case, when eminent counsel Tommy Thomas was available to assist him.

The judge could have invited him to submit as an amicus curiae - in Latin it means ‘friend of the court’ and when the phrase is used in a court of law it means ‘one who advises the court in a case’. I have done that many times even when I was in the Court of Appeal.

Judges of far greater eminence than this judicial commissioner have often asked lawyers of great experience who are in the court for their valued views. Yet this judge thought he knew everything that he did not require any assistance from one of the top lawyers in the country.

Dick Hamilton in his book ‘Foul Bills and Dagger Money’ wrote:

“It is always easy to criticise judges, and some of them deserve it from time to time; but it is even easier to underestimate the difficulty of their task, and to take their successes for granted. No member of the Bar pretends to understand every branch of the law. ... But a High Court judge has to deal with any sort of case which comes before him.”

In order for the judge to tackle all sorts of cases which come before him, the wise and able judge is always humble enough to ask any of the lawyers in court who is an expert in his field for assistance.

Here we have Thomas (right), who is one of the top lawyers in the country only too willing to assist the judge, yet this probationary judge, who thinks he knew more about law than some of the most eminent judges who have sat on the bench, refused to hear him out.

Here’s how to judge the judge

You cannot judge a judge unless you know the basic law yourself. But you do not have to worry because I shall now provide you with the law applicable so that you are in a position to judge the judge.

You may be surprised at your own ability after you have read this. You might think that even a layman, after reading the applicable law, knows what is the right decision to make. And when a judge does not know the correct answer, it makes you wonder how such a thing could have happened.

I shall start with section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956. I have highlighted the important words for easier reading.

Sub-sections (1) reads:

“(1) Notwithstanding any written law -

(a) in civil proceedings by or against the Federal Government...

(b) in civil proceedings by or against the Government of a State, a law officer ... authorised by the Legal Adviser of such State ... may appear as advocate on behalf of such Government...”.

As you can see, this sub-section is not relevant as it only applies to civil suits brought by or against the state government, not a public officer.

And sub-section (2), which is relevant on the subject of discussion, reads:

“(2) Notwithstanding any written law in civil proceedings to which a public officer is a party -

(a) by virtue of his office; or

(b) in his personal capacity, if the Attorney-General certifies in writing that it is in the public interest that such officer should be represented by a legal officer; a legal officer may appear as advocate on behalf of such officer...”.

This sub-section only applies to civil suits brought by or against a public officer. In such a case, a public officer may (the word is 'may' not 'must') be represented by a legal officer which could include the legal adviser of the state.

Therefore, there is nothing in section 24 (2) of the Government Proceedings Act to suggest that a public officer if he sues or if he is sued must be represented by a legal officer such as the state legal officer.

In any case, section 24 (2) of the Government Proceedings Act only applies to civil proceedings to which a public officer is a party. Therefore, the question is, does the speaker of the Legislative Assembly of a state hold office as a member of the public service? If he does, then he is a public officer.

Article 132, Clause (3) of the Federal Constitution states that:

“(3) The public service shall not be taken to comprise -

(b) the office of President, Speaker, Deputy President, Deputy Speaker or member of either House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly of a State.”

So now you know that the speaker and the members of the Legislative Assembly of a state are not part of the public service as they do not hold office as public officers. Therefore, section 24 (2) of the Government Proceedings Act does not apply to them.

Now we all know, except the judge because he thought he knew better, that Thomas could not be prevented to appear for the speaker Sivakumar. If only he had heard Thomas out, instead of barring him from speaking, he would not have made such a grave error.

Courts can’t question validity of assembly decisions

According to newspaper reports, the case is an application by (BN-appointed menteri besar) Zambry Abd Kadir to the court to declare the decision of speaker Sivakumar in the legislative assembly to suspend him and his six exco members as unconstitutional and unlawful.

The question is, can the courts decide on the validity of the proceedings in the Legislative Assembly?

The answer is staring at us right here in the Federal Constitution. Article 72, Clauses (1) to (3) states:

“(1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.

(2) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof.

(3) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything published by or under the authority of the Legislative Assembly of any state.”

So now you know from the Federal Constitution itself that the validity of the suspension of Zambry and his six exco members by the speaker in the state assembly cannot be questioned in any court.

From what we have read from the newspapers, it seems that there is an injunction against the speaker.

You may wonder how an injunction can be obtained against the speaker when our written constitution says that “no person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of the State”.

NH CHAN, who is former Court of Appeal judge, lives in Ipoh. This is an abridged version of the original article.

Malaysiakini / March 9, 2009.