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-
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
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
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
Monday, July 10, 2006
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
CONSTITUTION. NON MUSLIMS AND RIGHT TO PLACE OF WORSHIP.
PART 2.
The Fifth Malaysia Plan, on nation building said “A greater understanding and appreciation of the sensitivities of the various communities as well as a recognition of the commonness of experiences and values would go a long way in promoting racial harmony and tolerance and serve to strengthen the bonds among all Malaysians.”
Twenty years on (Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi tabled the Ninth Malaysia Plan in 2006), Non Muslims continue to face great difficulties in obtaining approval and place of worship.
The problems and tension would not have risen, had the government not only ensured that there was harmonization of local municipal laws and state laws with the Federal Constitution in respect of Non Muslims places of worship but also kept abreast and taken into consideration demographic changes. In a rapidly developing Malaysia, local municipal planning policies have not kept up with the need for clear, fair and equitable guidelines for Non Muslim places of worship. Progress and economic boom meant new housing areas and new townships. Alas, housing areas and townships were approved and even developed without consideration for places of worship for Non Muslims. Worst of all, temples situated in private and government land had to make way for development often without alternative land being made first and even if made the proposed alternative is not suitable.
While religious groups can purchase land or even properties, Non Muslims face the difficulty in obtaining the necessary approval for converting the land use to that of a religious use.
Further, there are other obstacles. Under the Garis Panduan Perancangan: Tempat Ibadat Bukan Islam, Jabatan Perancangan Bandar Dan Desa Semenanjung Malaysia, Kementerian Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan (September 1988) the ministerial guideline directs local councils to refuse application for building of Non Muslim religious buildings in Muslim majority areas. Also, for a long time regulation have remained that all application for building of Non Muslim place of worship must be referred to State Islamic Religious Council and Jabatan Kuasa Ketua Kampung for approval. Then there is the requirement that there should at least be 5000 adherents of the same faith before a place of worship can be considered. In fact, the Menteri Besar of Johor on 21st December 2001 in the Dewan Undangan Negeri (State Legislature) said that permission for building of places of worship will not be given unless the adherents of faith constitute a majority of the area. Going by the strict criteria it would mean that no church would ever be approved since it is unlikely that the Catholics will ever constitute a majority in any place.
For effective practice of religion one must be able to congregate with others of the same faith. Due to the difficulties in obtaining places of worship, some religious faith have acquired houses in residential areas, shop houses, factory lots and even commercial buildings for the purpose of using them as places of worship. Admittedly and to a certain extent and praise God, the authorities have often kept an eye closed unless their presence and activities is such that it gives rise to objection and protest. Not withstanding this tacit approval, the fact remains that the local authorities has a whole gamut of laws which can be invoked to prosecute not only the religious group but even the owners of the building and even the devotees.
There are a number of ways the present problem can be resolved. A complete review and drafting of a fair and equitable guideline for Non Muslim places of worship is long overdue. The government should make it mandatory that developers set aside land for Non Muslim places of worship. The government should stop the practice of general demarcation presently practiced by developers as it does not identify which Non Muslim religious group is entitled. Land should be made available for all major religion or if that is economically not viable then at least make the land available for Non Muslim religious groups to acquire them. While it may be impractical for every housing area to have temples and churches, every constituency should have places of worship of the major religions.
Another alternative and a better alternative is to permit conversion of buildings such as shop houses or even disused halls and cinemas or even abandoned shopping complexes as places of worship. In fact in Johor there are many such building which have been left abandoned since the Asian economic crisis of 1997 and these buildings can easily be converted to churches.
Recent incidents ought to be a reminder that if this issue is not handled sensitively, fairly and at the earliest, it can easily in the long term turn out to be another issue and which can be much more divisive.
PART 2.
The Fifth Malaysia Plan, on nation building said “A greater understanding and appreciation of the sensitivities of the various communities as well as a recognition of the commonness of experiences and values would go a long way in promoting racial harmony and tolerance and serve to strengthen the bonds among all Malaysians.”
Twenty years on (Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi tabled the Ninth Malaysia Plan in 2006), Non Muslims continue to face great difficulties in obtaining approval and place of worship.
The problems and tension would not have risen, had the government not only ensured that there was harmonization of local municipal laws and state laws with the Federal Constitution in respect of Non Muslims places of worship but also kept abreast and taken into consideration demographic changes. In a rapidly developing Malaysia, local municipal planning policies have not kept up with the need for clear, fair and equitable guidelines for Non Muslim places of worship. Progress and economic boom meant new housing areas and new townships. Alas, housing areas and townships were approved and even developed without consideration for places of worship for Non Muslims. Worst of all, temples situated in private and government land had to make way for development often without alternative land being made first and even if made the proposed alternative is not suitable.
While religious groups can purchase land or even properties, Non Muslims face the difficulty in obtaining the necessary approval for converting the land use to that of a religious use.
Further, there are other obstacles. Under the Garis Panduan Perancangan: Tempat Ibadat Bukan Islam, Jabatan Perancangan Bandar Dan Desa Semenanjung Malaysia, Kementerian Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan (September 1988) the ministerial guideline directs local councils to refuse application for building of Non Muslim religious buildings in Muslim majority areas. Also, for a long time regulation have remained that all application for building of Non Muslim place of worship must be referred to State Islamic Religious Council and Jabatan Kuasa Ketua Kampung for approval. Then there is the requirement that there should at least be 5000 adherents of the same faith before a place of worship can be considered. In fact, the Menteri Besar of Johor on 21st December 2001 in the Dewan Undangan Negeri (State Legislature) said that permission for building of places of worship will not be given unless the adherents of faith constitute a majority of the area. Going by the strict criteria it would mean that no church would ever be approved since it is unlikely that the Catholics will ever constitute a majority in any place.
For effective practice of religion one must be able to congregate with others of the same faith. Due to the difficulties in obtaining places of worship, some religious faith have acquired houses in residential areas, shop houses, factory lots and even commercial buildings for the purpose of using them as places of worship. Admittedly and to a certain extent and praise God, the authorities have often kept an eye closed unless their presence and activities is such that it gives rise to objection and protest. Not withstanding this tacit approval, the fact remains that the local authorities has a whole gamut of laws which can be invoked to prosecute not only the religious group but even the owners of the building and even the devotees.
There are a number of ways the present problem can be resolved. A complete review and drafting of a fair and equitable guideline for Non Muslim places of worship is long overdue. The government should make it mandatory that developers set aside land for Non Muslim places of worship. The government should stop the practice of general demarcation presently practiced by developers as it does not identify which Non Muslim religious group is entitled. Land should be made available for all major religion or if that is economically not viable then at least make the land available for Non Muslim religious groups to acquire them. While it may be impractical for every housing area to have temples and churches, every constituency should have places of worship of the major religions.
Another alternative and a better alternative is to permit conversion of buildings such as shop houses or even disused halls and cinemas or even abandoned shopping complexes as places of worship. In fact in Johor there are many such building which have been left abandoned since the Asian economic crisis of 1997 and these buildings can easily be converted to churches.
Recent incidents ought to be a reminder that if this issue is not handled sensitively, fairly and at the earliest, it can easily in the long term turn out to be another issue and which can be much more divisive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
