From http://bakrimusa.blogspot.com/

The Labu and Labi Team of Najib and Muhyyiddin (Third of Four Parts)

The Labu and Labi Team of Najib and Muhyiddin
M. Bakri Musa

(Third of Four Parts)

The Ugly and Dysfunctional Mahathir-Anwar Pair

As leader, Mahathir is essentially a one-man team, a loner. He exhibits the typical alpha-male monkey mode. An alpha monkey could tolerate other males in the colony only if they were to submit to him, or be seen doing so. Any hint of a non-deferring behavior or “dissing” would be dealt with quickly until the challenger is either driven out or fatally finished off. Such leaders have little use for a deputy, partner, or a team. Instead he needs a sidekick, in the manner of a Jim McMahon to Johnny Carson; someone to make the leader looks good and be the butt of his jokes.

Consider Mahathir’s relationship with his first deputy, Musa Hitam. It went well so long as Musa deferred to Mahathir, that is, by being submissive. In the beginning, Musa was exactly that. The moment he began to assert himself or received more attention than Mahathir, it marked the beginning of the end for Musa.

The same dynamics governed Mahathir’s relationship with his third deputy, Anwar Ibrahim. Like Musa, Anwar was only too willing to be Mahathir’s sidekick and to humor him, at least initially. And why not; Anwar was handsomely rewarded, as seen by his rapid ascent in the party and government. Mahathir never viewed Anwar as a threat seeing that he was very much younger and thus could patiently bide his time. That scenario would have successfully played out to the end had Anwar not succumb to the impatient goading of his many impatient and greedy supporters.

Mahathir’s alpha male traits were never more in display following UMNO’s highly contentious leadership convention of 1987 which saw Tengku Razaleigh nearly toppling Mahathir. In the aftermath, Mahathir had to do what every alpha monkey male would, that is, get rid of its challenger.

It did not surprise me that the deputies Mahathir was most comfortable with were Ghaffar Baba and Abdullah Badawi. Both played the role of the sidekick only too well, especially Abdullah Badawi. Unfortunately they, specifically Abdullah, only played the role, as Mahathir found out too late and much to his regret.

Ghaffar Baba also played the second fiddle role exceptionally well, leading many to underestimate him. His inability to speak English merely reinforced the public perception of his shortcomings; many also doubted his intellect. Nothing could be further from the truth. He had a formidable intellect; however being a kampong boy with no family connections, the best that he could aspire to was the Sultan Idris Training College.

Not only was Ghaffar well endowed with innate intelligence, he was also “street smart,” but he skillfully hid both under his characteristic and very Malay humility. Make no mistake, the late Ghaffar Baba could read the Malay psyche very well, a skill that Mahathir usefully tapped. In that respect he contributed considerably to the partnership with Mahathir. Ghaffar was no mere sidekick, as many saw him.

With his vast understanding of the nuances of Malay culture, Ghaffar could have successfully fended off Anwar’s challenge, but Ghaffar knew that his party was in desperate need of new blood. At the same time he did not wish to see the party that he loved so dearly be fractured by an intense rivalry at the top. It was those noble considerations that made him gave way to Anwar, and not, as many believed, his fear of defeat. Ghaffar exhibited class as well as courage in bowing out early in that tussle with Anwar; he put his party’s interest ahead of his own. That is a rarity among today’s politicians.

As for Abdullah, when a previously non-alpha male monkey takes over, it first instinct is to kill all the babies of the previous alpha male in an attempt to eliminate his predecessor’s genes in the colony. This was what Abdullah did by ‘killing’ off Mahathir’s many ‘babies,’ his pet mega projects.

Abdullah’s mistake was not realizing that Mahathir had not been ‘killed’ or banished from the colony. That alpha monkey was still in the same jungle, imperiously perched high up on another tree, the Petronas Twin Towers. He was still very much alive and influential. Abdullah never knew what hit him when Mahathir unleashed his fury.

Because he was essentially a one-man show, Mahathir’s legacy would be at considerable risk once he is gone. We saw that already when Abdullah took over, only that he was so clumsy and inept. Had Mahathir cultivated younger leaders a la Tun Razak to Tunku, or even a not-so-young but a capable one a la Razak to Dr. Ismail, Mahathir would have greatly enhanced the caliber of his leadership as well ensure that his legacy would endure.

I predict that once Mahathir is gone, his long tenure would merit only an asterisk in our modern history, as Mao Zedong is to China’s. Mao ruled for over a quarter of a century. It would be a gross understatement to say that he had the greatest (though not necessarily positive) impact on China and the Chinese. Yet today, if one were to ask the throngs of shoppers at Beijing’s many modern shopping malls who Mao was, the likely response would be, “Mao, who?” Not too long ago they even threw his wife into jail. Some legacy!


Sizing Up Najib and Muhyiddin

Najib is an aristocrat, the son of a former prime minister. He comes from a modern nuclear family: father, mother and the five sons, Najib being the oldest. He had a privileged upbringing, including boarding school and university abroad. Najib and his brothers had plenty of parental love, what with their stay-at-home traditional mother. Even though the late Tun was a busy man, rest assured that with only five sons, he would remember and celebrate their birthdays.

Muhyiddin is one of over four dozen children of a village alim with multiple wives. It would be unlikely for his father to even remember Muhyiddin’s name, much less his birthday. In dynamics, young Muhyiddin had essentially a fatherless childhood. He attended the village school and later a small town high school, before proceeding to the local university.

The wives they have chosen too are very different. Najib’s current wife, his second, is the poster girl for extravagance and vulgarity, a Malaysian Imelda Marcos, except that Imelda had a weakness only for shoes. Muhyiddin’s wife is the typical kampong girl; she views her job as being to be by his side; to be seen but never heard.

It is easy to imagine Rosmah being actively engaged in her husband’s business. I cannot even contemplate Muhyiddin seriously engaging his wife in serious matters. He is the typical alpha kampong male; he knows what is best and his word rules.

Their seven-year age difference means that Muhyiddin could not possibly succeed Najib in the usual transition process. Muhyiddin is the older, so by the time Najib retires, Muhyiddin would be too old to take over. The only conceivable way for him to get the top slot would be if Najib’s tenure were to be prematurely cut short, by unexpected death or sordid scandals. Both are not remote possibilities. Najib’s father died in his early 50s from leukemia, and that malady remains lethal even today. As a timely reminder, many a Third World leader had succumbed to fatal “accidents.”

Scandals would be the more likely career killer for Najib. He certainly has some nasty ones hanging over him, from the brutal murder of the Mongolian model to his admitted conversations with Anwar Ibrahim’s alleged sodomy victim. Then there are the steady streams of squalid incompetence during his tenure as Defense Minister, from stolen jet engines to newly-acquired submarines that would not dive.

It does not escape everyone’s notice that far from defending Najib, Muhyiddin seems to relish his superior’s travails. Worse, he does not even bother to hide his delight.

In Malaysian politics, followers could sniff right away rivalries at the top. They would then quickly realign their positions and shift their loyalties in the hope of latching onto the winning team. The game would quickly degenerate into a sport of running down the opposing camps, with temporary alliances forged, broken, and then re-constituted to meet the quickly evolving dynamics. Thus expect even more ugly revelations from all sides.

This is already happening. Many are shocked at the utter corruption and rottenness of the party and its leaders. While such exposés would be bad for the party, they would be good for the country, especially considering that the next general election will only be a few years away.

Many would conclude that the inevitable collapse of UMNO under Najib to be the fulfillment of the RAHMAN prophecy, the “N” of the acronym representing Najib. I argue otherwise. There is no alignment of the stars that would preordain such an outcome. Rather what we have here reflects nothing more than Najib’s lack of leadership and the dearth of talent within UMNO. Had Mahathir chosen Najib instead of Abdullah as his (Mahathir’s) successor, Najib’s and thus UMNO’s political demise would have come sooner.

Were that to happen, my only regret would be to see the inglorious end to what was once an illustrious Malay institution – UMNO. Tun Razak was one of the key personalities in setting it up. It took only a generation to destroy what he had worked very hard to create and build. It would the supreme irony that it would be his son who would be responsible for destroying UMNO.

That would be quite a legacy.

Parliament In Disarray from http://myzaidibrahim.wordpress.com/

In many of the better business books, descriptions on the most preferred quality and characteristics of a company’s CEO, tend to always stress on the importance of honesty and integrity.

While the nature of nations and businesses are vastly different, being different entities with different processes and aims, structurally they do have the similar needs for good management, efficient performance, quality output and progress. Seen in this light, certainly the nation, and all of its processes, must acquire ‘CEOs’ with the highest honesty and integrity.

Does this fact however hold true for Malaysia?

Looking at recent trends, I am inclined to believe, maybe not so. Whilst companies may need a CEO with all the finest attributes, it does not however look very necessary in Malaysia for a person to have such attributes, if one would like to become Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat or the Chairman of the Elections Commission, for example. In fact I am tempted to argue that it may not even be desirable for you to have such qualities if you wish to head such organisations in this country.

Before I elaborate, let me first confess of my excitement when Pak Lah first announced Integrity as the cornerstone of his administration a few years back. I thought this is what the country sorely needs. However unfortunately, after much fanfare and millions of Ringgit gone astray, all we have today is the Institute of Integrity and very little else. Maybe, ‘Integrity in Governance’ is not included within APCO’s Terms of Reference, perhaps that’s why….

I remember that in the good old days, JKR officers would even record the amount visitors spent on them for coffee and curry Puffs at the office canteen. In the good old days, judges were prepared for the sack but remained steadfast and true to their principles and convictions. A certain Central Bank Governor opted to resign rather than suffer the humiliation of having to take orders from politicians. Well friends, those days are long gone and it looks like as if persons of integrity may never hold the reign at any of our state institutions again.

Today if you like to remain in the helm you would have to play politics and do as what the political masters tell you to do, no complications please – integrity seems to be the hardest word.

Which explains why the Dewan Rakyat Deputy Speakers have conducted themselves in such fashion last week? The Speakers have lost control of the Dewan. Its absolute mayhem every day. The shouting matches and the wasting of hours of precious debating time is due to their lack of understanding of the role of Parliament and their own position and authority to regulate the proceedings in the House firmly and fairly. Their handling of the issues pertaining to Standing Order 36 (12) violations by MPs is shameful.

Yes members of the Dewan must not make misleading and deliberately untruthful statements. That’s the essence of Order 36. Whilst Erskine May correctly states that the rule is applicable to all members of Parliament, in terms of actual parliamentary practice based on proceedings in England and Canada and Australia, the rule not to “misled the House” is meant to ensure compliance by Ministers in Government to tell the truth and not lie to Parliament. This is what is known as Ministerial responsibility to Parliament, and the Rule “not to misled” is to ensure Ministers not to lie in Parliament. We can glean this principle by looking into the cases of John Profumo, John Biffen and the Westland Affair. If we read the British or Canadian Hansard, the reported cases involving the offence of “misleading the House” will always refer to Ministers who have lied or misled the House on the facts under their charge. Due to this demand for strict integrity in discharging one’s ministerial responsibility and accountability to the Parliament, British and Canadian Ministers must exhibit the highest sincerity and honesty while furnishing their replies to Parliamentary queries.

To translate this context within our legislative process then, as an example – should the Defence Minister state that the contract for the maintenance of our submarines amounted to RM270 million, and if other Parliamentarians can indeed prove that this figure is wrong, then the Minister concerned should rightly be referred to the Committee for action. Similarly, when at some point the Deputy Minister of Defence states that the commissions for the purchase of some submarines was in the region of RM450 million while on another occasion the Minister himself maintains that no such commissions were paid, it suggests to us that someone is possibly lying. These then are some of the prime examples where the radar of the Speakers of the Dewan should bleep loudly. Such inconsistencies in data are what that they should be interested in.

The central aspect of the Westminster system is the ability of Parliament to acquire accurate information about Government and about Ministers giving truthful and complete answers to Parliament. This is what Order 36 is meant to address. Not to punish any statements by Opposition leaders and members of Parliament for statements BN do not agree with or embarrassing to them. Not to punish different interpretations of the same facts or to punish political viewpoints. The Speaker must first rule whether the impugned statement is misleading on the face of it. Only then should he ask for a vote whether to refer or not to refer to the Privileges Committee. He must, on the facts or statements before him, decide independently and fairly whether a member has violated the rule before he takes a vote. So for instance, if he is satisfied with the explanation from YB Mahfuz that his statement APCO equals UMNO is merely an opinion then he should rule accordingly and stop the fracas. The Speaker cannot punish a member for giving an opinion. If he thinks there is some serious factual errors and made deliberately to misled the House, he must give his reasons after getting the explanation from the Member. He could ask YB Mahfuz to correct them and apologise, and that would be the end of the matter. Or if he believes there is prima facie basis for the complaints then he can bring the matter to a vote. He cannot let the majority decide whether a wrong has been committed by an Opposition member because they majority will always say yes. They always want to refer the Opposition Member to the Privileges Committee even if no wrong has been done. They always want to suspend an Opposition Member (better still if an Opposition Member joins them). If the Speaker is not willing to ensure the independence and impartiality of the Chair, then Parliament will become a dog house where yelling is the order of the day. There will be no time for debate on policies in Parliament. At this rate one wonders why should anyone be interested to be a Member of Parliament.

So Anwar Ibrahim now has to be referred to the Committee of Privileges and would probably be suspended for saying that there is similarity in the concept of One Malaysia and One Israel; and for suggesting the possibility that APCO may be responsible for these ideas? What crime or violation has he done? It is an opinion of an Opposition Leader. He gave his reasons to support his arguments and they were good, reasonable reasons. Parliament must not and cannot afford to stifle its member and punish them too, just because they have embarrassed the government. Any member is given sufficient latitude to speak on any subject without fear of civil actions by the authorities. That is what Parliamentary Privileges mean. British politicians over the ages gave their life to secure independence of Parliament from the Monarch and other ecclesiastical powers. Unfortunately our own Parliament willingly stifles its own Yang Berhormat.

If Anwar had given any factual errors, the Chair could just resolve the matter fairly by asking him to correct them. What were the findings of the Deputy Speaker when he made the decision to refer Anwar to the Committee? Was it in his findings that an error was deliberately committed by Anwar to mislead the House? There was no ruling on the facts, only an assertion that the Speaker has the power to do so. But the facts seem to stay with Anwar. We can differ and disagree perhaps only on the conclusions.

The reason the Speaker has chosen to refer Anwar to the Committee was apparently because Nazri had said so. And Nazri said so because the Cabinet said so. In any other civilized country, Nazri and the entire Cabinet would be cited for contempt of Parliament! Parliament has to make its own decision, and not dictated by the Cabinet. This is the meaning of separation of powers and the independence of Parliament. This is what the Standing Orders are for, this is what the Privileges given to Yang Berhormat are for. A Parliament with integrity cannot be seen to be shamelessly directed by the Executive, and the Cabinet Ministers. If this is the case, the Deputy Speaker then might as well dispense with the facade of the independence of the Parliament that they had spoken about and defended so vigorously back when they were backbenchers.

But you certainly cannot exercise independence and integrity if you build your career by depending on instructions with vested interests or unquestioningly taking orders, from parties with an agenda of their own, at the expense of the rakyat. How lofty positions can change us all.

TIM3 - Interesting Article From http://www.themalaysianinsider.com

FEB 21 – With the ever-increasing profile of racially divisive rhetoric spun to purportedly protect the interest of Malays, shouldn’t the alternative point of view be made equally forcefully, by way of an effective and organised Malay counter-movement?

Although right-wing Malay NGOs would like you to believe that Malays are united behind the notion of Ketuanan Melayu, there are actually a very large number of us who view this ideology as being immoral and unIslamic, and therefore unacceptable.

We also believe that it actually serves to weaken our community because it prevents many from developing a sense of personal accountability, it impedes the development of the capacity for critical and informed analysis, and it promotes short cuts and patronage.

In addition, this approach discourages playing by the book, it prevents an understanding of the value of diversity and inclusiveness, and it creates an excuse to avoid becoming competitive and achievement orientated.

Today many Malays share a concern with other Malaysians that even though time-limited means tested affirmative action programmes have value, perpetual handouts and special privileges are like drugs.

This is because it creates an addiction to receiving from the “hand that feeds”, that which poisons them and affects the growth and well-being of the beneficiaries. With this comes elitism and cronyism, encouraged and supported by those who need, or offer, such protection and patronage.

With resources quickly drying up, there is a real fear of a rude and potentially violent awakening when this habit can no longer be maintained.

So, the idea for this Malay counter-movement has begun to germinate. If this movement were to materialise, it would look to advance a Malay culture and mindset, which rejects Ketuanan Melayu, and that is instead built on Islamic and universally held values, virtues and ideals, which include integrity, self-motivation, self-determination, a quest for knowledge, a desire for self-improvement, tolerance and respect.

It would operate on an independent and non-partisan basis so that it can stay true to a morally robust set of principles by which to pursue the cause of improving the welfare and condition of the Malays.

It would study and promote an understanding of the concerns that could impede the progress of the Malays. It would also seek to inform policy through consultation with all stakeholders such as the Government, political parties, and civil society.

It would look to help develop new ideas to address the concerns relating to why the Malays, in general, have not been as successful and self-actualised as they ought to have been, given the opportunities they have been afforded over the last fifty years.

Finally, it would look to make and market a convincing case to the Malays, as to what is it for them to gain, in life and in the hereafter, were they to lead their life by the values and principles espoused.

For this movement to be impactful, it must be structured as being wholly Malay, and its membership must be fairly representative of the community whether by reference to gender, age or background. This is because its ultimate aim is to win the hearts and minds of the Malays themselves.

This, of course, might hinder the participation of those who do not feel it right to associate themselves with a wholly Malay-only movement, although there will be some who will see its value in countering the rhetoric of the hardliners in right-wing Malay organisations.

Nevertheless, it might appeal to others who feel it crucial, and might want to help, to work together to promote meaningful change in their own community as an end in itself, and as a means to a better Malaysia.

Ideally, “towering” non-partisan Malays who are universally respected by all Malaysians should play an active role in the movement. These individuals would have achieved success in their own fields without the ill effects of Ketuanan Melayu, and should ensure that the movement has credibility, maintains its independence and moral compass, and remains unsoiled by the vested interests of any individual or political party.

Even though non-partisan, the movement should also attract members of all Malay-centric political parties who share the same ideals for their community. They might wish to support this movement because they all share a desire to get rid of an antiquated and bankrupt Malay political paradigm built on religious and racial intolerance, patronage and insecurity.

They would be united in wanting to replace it with one that builds the confidence and capacity of the Malays to compete and contribute fairly and successfully.

However, in order to maintain the credibility and independence of the movement, leaders and active members of such political parties should accept the need to confine their participation to a supporting role, and not expect to lead or influence its decision-making.

It should follow that Malay leaders of all parties who desire a united and workable Malaysia ought to fully support the creation of this movement, since the greater is the movement’s support from the Malay community, the less will they need to pander to the sentiments of extremists and racists inside and outside of their party.

Finally, such a movement should not be seen as serving to perpetuate an “us versus them” mentality, separating Malays from non-Malays. It must not become in anyway a threat to an inclusive Malaysia.

Instead it should be seen as doing the exact converse, i.e. helping to prepare the Malays to take the first and important steps to embrace the creation of the illusive Bangsa Malaysia, over the longer term.

Today, this movement is nothing but an idea. If you are interested in its development, please sign up as a member of the Facebook group Tabung Idea Mengukuhkan Martabat Melayu, which I have only just set up, to log ideas and comments about this proposal.



Tiba Masanya Untuk Pergerakan Melayu Alternatif?
Dengan keberleluasaannya retorik perkauman yang kononnya diajukan kononnya demi kepentingan orang Melayu, bukankah elok jika suara yang memberi pandangan alternatif, melalui satu pergerakan yang berkesan, diberikan dengan kelantangan yang setanding?

Walaupun badan-badan NGO Melayu yang berhaluan kanan inginkan supaya orang ramai percaya bahawa orang Melayu semuanya bersatu menyokong konsep Ketuanan Melayu, tetapi sebenarnya ramai daripada orang kita yang memandang ideologi itu sebagai sesuatu yang tidak berwibawa dan tidak berlandaskan ajaran Islam, dan oleh itu tidak boleh diterima pakai. Ramai dari kita juga berpandangan bahawa falsafah ini cuma akan melemahkan masyarakat Melayu itu sendiri, kerana ia menghindar penerapan nilai keteguhan dan akauntabiliti diri, ia menyekat pembangunan pemikiran kritikal yang berasaskan maklumat, dan ia mendorong pendekatan mengambil jalan yang senang dan bergantung kepada system naungan. Selain dari itu, pendekatan sedemikian tidak memberi dorongan positif supaya bermain bersifat adil, ia menyekat pefahaman betapa mustahaknya perbezaan pemikiran dan bertindak secara inklusif, dan ia mewujudkan sebab kenapa tidak perlu menjadi kompetitif dan berkerja keras.

Hari ini, ramai orang Melayu berkongsi pandangan dengan orang Malaysia yang lain, bahawa walaupun program kerajaan memperimbangkan ekonomi berasaskan keperluan yang dihadkan dari segi masa mempunyai nilai, pemberian yang tidak ada hujung pangkal berasaskan hak-hak istimewa adalah seperti dadah. Ini adalah kerana ianya menimbulkan satu ketagihan dengan pemberian berasaskan naungan dari ‘mereka yang berkuasa’, yang akan membantutkan dan meracuni hidup mereka yang menerima. Dengan itu, maka wujudlah sistem elitisma dan kronisma, didorong dan disokong oleh mereka yang memerlui, dan yang memberi, perlindungan dan naungan tersebut. Dengan sumber-sumber mulai ketandusan, terdapat satu perasaan takut bahawa akan adanya satu detik waktu tegang, mengancam dan berkemunkinan ganas di mana kebiasaan kemewahan ini tidak dapat dikecapi lagi.

Maka timbullah satu idea untuk menubuhkan satu pergerakan Melayu alternatif untuk menyuarakan pandangan tersebut. Jika pergerakan ini dapat dijadikan kenyataan, ianya akan cuba memajukan budaya dan pemikiran Melayu, yang menolak Ketuanan Melayu, dan yang dibentuk berlandaskan nilai-nilai murni dan mulia Islam dan universal, seperti kewibawaan, keteguhan diri, keberdikariankemampuan berdikari, keinginan memperbaikki keadaan diri, toleransi, dan perasaan saling hormat menghormati. Pergerakan ini akan beroperasi sebagai satu pertubuhan yang independen dan tidak menyokong mana-mana parti politik, supaya ianya pergerakan ini dapat bertindak berasaskan prinsip moral yang lengkap dan teguh untuk membela nasib masyarakat Melayu.

Ianya akan mengkaji dan mempromosi kefahaman mengenai masalah yang menghindari kejayaan orang–orang Melayu. Ianya akan cuba mempengaruhi pembentukan polisi-polisidasar-dasar dan akan bertukar-tukar fikiran dengan badan-badan kerajaan, parti-parti politik, dan masyarakat sivil dan seterusnya. Ianya akan cuba melahirkan idea-idea baru untuk menangani masalah kenapa orang Melayu tidak seberjaya dan sematang sebagaimana sepatutnya, memandangkan banyaknya peluang-peluang yang diberi sejak lima puloh tahun yang lepas. Akhirnya, ia akan membina dan menampilkan satu kefahaman baru kepada masyarakat Melayu mengapa tatacara hidup sebegini akan membawa kejayaan dan kebahagian, baik di dunia mahupun di akhirat.

Untuk Pergerakan ini betul-betul berkesan, ianya perlu dibentuk sebagai satu Pergerakan untuk orang Melayu sahaja, dan ahli-ahlinya mestilah terdiri dari segenapan lapisan masyarakat Melayu, baik dari segi jantina, umur, atau latarbelakang. Ini adalah kerana perjuangannya adalah untuk memenangi pemikiran dan perasaan masyarakat Melayu itu sendiri. Ini, sudah tentu, akan menghindari penglibatan mereka yang tidak berasa senang untuk menyokong satu Pergerakan yang hanya dikhaskan untuk orang Melayu sahaja, walaupun mungkin ada di antara mereka yang akan melihat nilainya dalam memberi tentangan kepada suara-suara ekstrim yang datang dari pertubuhan Melayu haluan kanan. Walaubagaimanapun, ianya pergerakan yang dicadangkan itu mungkin dapat menarik minat dari mereka yang merasakan perlu, dan ingin tolongmembantu, berganding bahu untuk mencapai pertukaran perubahan pemikiran mind-set yang bererti di dalam masyarakat mereka, sebagai satu matlamat tersendiri, dan juga sebagai satu jalan untuk mencapai satu negara Malaysia yang lebih baik mantap dan murni.

Sepatutnya, individu-individu Melayu yang ulung, terbilang dan tidak berpolitik, dan yang dihormati oleh seluruh lapisan masyarakat di Malaysia, memainkan peranan dalam Pergerakan ini. Individu-individu ini, yang telah mencapai kejayaan dalam bidang masing-masing tanpa kesan buruk dari polisi-polisi berlandaskan Ketuanan Melayu, dapat menentukan supaya Pergerakan ini mempunyai kredibiliti, bertindak secara independen dan berhalukan berhaluan pegangan bermoral, dan tidak dicemari oleh muslihat mana-mana individu atau parti politik.

Walaupun Pergerakan ini tidak menyokong mana-mana partibergerak secara parti-parti politik, ianya patut menarik minat ahli-ahli parti-parti politik Melayu, yang inginkan perkara yang sama untuk masyarakat mereka. Mereka ini mungkin menyokong Pergerakan pergerakan ini kerana sama-sama berkongsi keinginan untuk menyingkir paradigma yang lama dan bankrap yang berasaskan sistem naungan dan perasaan tidak senang dengan kebolehan diri, dan yang ketandusan toleransi ugama dan perkauman. Mereka mungkin bersepadu ingin menggantikannya dengan sesuatu yang membina keyakinan diri dan kebolehan orang Melayu untuk berdayasaing dan memberi sumbangan, secara jujur dan adil, dan berjaya. Walaupun demikian, supaya kredibiliti dan status independen tidak tercabar, pemimpin-pemimpin politik dan ahli parti yang aktif mesti menerima hakikat bahawa penglibatan mereka dihadkan kepada peranan menyokong Pergerakan sahaja, dan bukan untuk memimpin Pergerakan ini ataupun cuba mempengaruhi tindak-tanduknya.

Sepatutnya, pemimpin-pemimpin politik Melayu yang inginkan satu negara Malaysia yang bersatu dan yang berkesan, akan menyokong penubuhan Pergerakan ini, kerana semakin besar sokongan yang diberi kepada Pergerakan tersebut oleh masyarakat Melayu, maka makin kuranglah perlunya keprihatinan terhadap sentimen-sentimen mereka-mereka yang ekstremis dan rasis, di luar dan di dalam parti.

Akhirkata, Pergerakan ini tidak patut dilihat sebagai sesuatu percubaan untuk terus mengasingkan orang Melayu dari orang bukan Melayu. Ia tidak boleh dilihat sebagai mencabari kewujudan satu Malaysia yang inklusif. Sebaliknya ia patut dilihat sebagai landasan untuk menolong orang Melayu supaya mengambil langkah awal dan mustahak untuk kecapi mengecapi pembentukan Bangsa Malaysia yang masih menjadi hanya bayangan, dalam jangkamasa panjang.

Hari in, Pergerakan ini hanya satu idea. Sekiranya anda berminat untuk menyokong dan menyumbang kepada idea ini, sila jadi ahli Facebook group Tabung Idea Mengukuhkan Martabat Melayu (TIM3) yang baru saja saya sediakan untuk mengumpul idea-idea dan komen-komen mengenai cadangan ini.

Another interesting article from razaleigh.com mostly share by young professional Malays too.

*In a speech I made in January this year I spoke of where we stand in our developmental path and what I felt we must do to move forward.

Revisiting the middle income trap

I would like to revisit the argument of that speech to develop it further.

We are stagnating. The signs of a low growth economy are all around us. Wages are stagnant and the cost of living is rising.

We have not made much progress in becoming a knowledge and services based economy.

According to the World Bank, Malaysia’s share of GDP contributed by services was 46.2% in 1987. Ten years later, that share had grown by a mere 0.2%
Between 1994 and 2007, real wages grew by 2.6% in the domestic sector and by 2.8% in the export sector, which is to say, they were flat over that thirteen year period.

Meanwhile our talent scenario is an example of perverse selection at its most ruinous. We are failing to retain our own young talent, people like yourselves, let alone attract international talent to relocate here, while we have had a massive influx of unskilled foreign labour. They now make up 30-40% of our workforce. Meanwhile, alone in East Asia, the number of expatriate professionals here has decreased. Alone in East Asia, private sector wage increases follow government sector increases, instead of the other way around. We are losing doctors and scientists and have become Southeast Asia’s haven for low cost labour.

I said that we are in a middle income trap, stuck in the pattern of easy growth from low-value-added manufacture and component assembly and unable to make the leap to a knowledge-intensive economy. Regional competitors with larger, cheaper and dare I say, hungrier labour forces have emerged. China and India have risen as both lower cost and higher technology producers, and with giant domestic markets.The manufacturing sector which propelled the growth we enjoyed in the nineties is being hollowed out. There is no going back, there is no staying where we are, and we do not have a map for the way forward.

I am glad that the characterisation of Malaysia as being in a ‘middle-income-trap’ has been taken up by the government, and that the need for an economic story, or strategy, for Malaysia is now recognized. We stand in particular need of such a model because we are a smallish economy. We cannot be good at everything, and we don’t have to be.

We need only make some reasonable bets in identifying and developing a focussed set of growth drivers. It is not difficult to see what the elements of such a growth strategy might be. Whatever we come up with should build on our natural strengths, and our strengths include the following:

We are located at the crossroads of Asia, geographically and culturally, sitting alongside the most important oil route in the world.

a) We have large muslim, Chinese and Indian populations that connect us to the three fastest growing places in the world today.

b) We have some of the largest and oldest rainforests in the world, a treasure house of bio-diversity when the greatest threat facing mankind as a whole now is ecological destruction and the greatest technological advances are likely to come from bioscience.

c) We have the English language, a common law system, parliamentary democracy, good schools, an independent civil service and good infrastructure.

These advantages, however, are declining ones. Our cultural diversity is in danger of coming apart in bigotry, our rainforests are being logged out and planted over, our social and political institutions are decaying.

I have spoken at length on different occasions about the causes and consequences of institutional decline. The decline in our society and indeed in our natural environment, originates in a decline in our basic institutions. The link between these is corruption. The destruction of our ecosystem for example, is made possible by corrupt officials and business-people. The uncontrolled influx of unskilled labour is a direct result of corruption.

Dependencies and the young

These are problems we need to be aware of before we speak glibly about coming up with new strategies and new economic models. We need to understand where we are, and how we have gone wrong, before we can set things right.

You are young, well educated Malaysians. Many among you have left for other shores. Record numbers of Malaysians, of all races, work abroad or have migrated. Among these are some of our best people. They sense the stagnation I described. There is a certain lack of energy, ingenuity and “hunger” in the climate of this country that young people are most sensitive to. In the globalized job market, young people instinctively leave the less simulating and creative environments for those that have a spark to them.

How did we lose our spark as a nation?

We have a political economy marked by dependence on easy options and easy wealth. Like personal dependencies, these bad habits provide temporary comfort but discourage the growth of creativity and resilience.

I mentioned our dependence on low cost foreign labour.

The other dependence is something I played a part in making possible. This is a story I want to leave you with to ponder in your deliberations today.

Blessing and curse

Our nation is blessed with a modest quantity of oil reserves. As a young nation coming to terms with this natural bounty in the early 1970’s, our primary thought was to conserve that oil. That is why, when Petronas was formed, we instituted the Petroleum Development Council. Its function was to advise the PM on how to conserve that oil and use it judicially for national development. We knew our reserves would not last long.

We saw our oil reserves as an unearned bounty that would provide the money for modernization and technology. We saw our oil within a developmental perspective. Our struggle then, was to make the leap from an economy based on commodities and low cost assembly and manufacture to a more diverse, economy based on high income jobs.

Aware that we had an insufficient tax base to make the capital investments needed to make the leap, we planned to apply oil royalties to what you would call today strategic investments in human capital. whatever money left after making cash payments, allocations for development funds, etc, was to be placed in a Heritage Fund for the future. The Heritage Fund was for education and social enrichment.

In working out the distribution of oil between the states, who had sovereign rights over it, and the Federal government, we were guided by concerns for equity between all Malaysians, a concern to develop the poorer states (who also happened to be the oil rich states) and a concern for inter-generational equity. That oil was for special development purposes and it was not just meant for our generation.

Sabah and Sarawak joined Malaya to form Malaysia because of the promise of development funds. Yet today, despite being their massive resources, they are some of our poorest states.

Instead of being our ace up the sleeve, however, our oil wealth became in effect a swag of money used to fund the government’s operational expenditure, to bail out failing companies, buy arms, build grandiose cities in the middle of nowehere. Instead of helping eradicate poverty in the poorest states, our oil wealth came to be channeled into our political and politically linked class. Instead of being the patrimony of all Malaysians, and for our children, it is used as a giant slush fund that has propped up authoritarian rule, eroded constitutional democracy and corrupted our entire political and business class.

Our oil receipts, instead of being applied in the manner we planned upon the formation of Petronas, that is, according to its original developmental purpose, became a fund for the whims and fancy of whoever ran the country, without any accountability.

The oil that was meant to spur our transition to a more humane, educated society has instead become a narcotic that provides economic quick fixes and hollow symbols such as the Petronas Towers. Our oil wealth was meant to help us foster Malaysians capable of building the Twin Towers than hire foreigners to build them, a practice in which we preceded Dubai. I would rather have good government than grand government buildings filled with a demoralized civil service.

It is no wonder that we are no longer productive, no longer using our ingenuity to devise ways to improve ourselves and leap forward.

Malaysia is now an “oil curse” country.**

When I started Petronas in 1974, I did not realize I would see the day when I would wish we had not uncovered such bounty.

The story I have told is a reminder of the scale of the challenge of development. My generation of young people faced this challenge in the 1960’s and 70’s. You face it now. The story tells us that development is about far more than picking strategies out of a box.

You have kindly invited me to address a seminar on strategies for reinventing and liberalizing Malaysia’s economy. But the story of our squandered oil wealth reminds us that it was not for want of resources or strategies that we floundered. Our failure has been political and moral. We have allowed greed and resentment to drive our politics and looked the other way or even gone along while public assets have been stolen in broad daylight.

I encourage you to take up the cause of national development with the ingenuity that earlier generations of Malaysians brought to this task, but the beginning of our journey must be a return to the basics of public life: the rule of law, honesty, truth-telling and the keeping of promises.

The Malaysia we need to recover is one that was founded on laws and led with integrity. With the hindsight of history we know such things are fragile and can be overturned in one generation, forgotten the next. Without a living foundation in the basics you might sense an air of unreality around our talk of reinventing ourselves, coming up with a new economic model, and liberalizing our economy.

So before we can reinvent ourselves we need to recover our nation. That larger community, bound by laws, democratic and constitutional, is the context of economic progress, it is the context in which young people find hope, think generous thoughts and create tomorrow.

–

*Opening speech at

THE 1ST YOUNG CORPORATE MALAYSIANS SUMMIT

“Reinventing and liberalising malaysia’s economy:strategy and directions”

Saturday, December 12, 2009

—-

**The resource curse thesis

The idea that natural resources might be more an economic curse than a blessing began to emerge in the 1980s. In this light, the term resource curse thesis was first used by Richard Auty in 1993 to describe how countries rich in natural resources were unable to use that wealth to boost their economies and how, counter-intuitively, these countries had lower economic growth than countries without an abundance of natural resources. Numerous studies, including one by Jeffrey Sachs and Andrew Warner, have shown a link between natural resource abundance and poor economic growth. This disconnect between natural resource wealth and economic growth can be seen by looking at an example from the petroleum-producing countries. From 1965-1998, in the OPEC countries, gross national product per capita growth decreased on average by 1.3%, while in the rest of the developing world, per capita growth was on average 2.2%. Some argue that financial flows from foreign aid can provoke effects that are similar to the resource curse.

(Wikipedia: “Resource curse“)

Interesting Article From razaleigh.com

Human Rights and Good Government

HUMAN RIGHTS DAY*

December 10 marks the 61st Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights “in recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family”

Proclaimed at the end of war that had witnessed “barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind”, it recognized that such acts came out of a disregard and contempt for human rights. It recognized human rights as “the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”

Human rights are defined against or at least with respect to the powers of the state. They are “international norms that help to protect all people everywhere from severe political, legal, and social abuses.” More often than not, human rights are meant to protect individuals and minorities from governments and majorities.

Human rights are often defined in the negative, that is to say, they often define what may not be done to individuals. The basic rights of right to life, liberty and security of person are rights not to be interfered with in certain ways. Such rights are defined as limits upon the powers of the state, articulated after a World War in which it had become clear to all the world that state-sponsored brutality had plumbed new depths of barbarism.

The declaration also defines political and civil rights. Although defined in legal terms, these rights are universal, whether or not they have been enacted in any particular jurisdiction.

The declaration defines political, civil and social rights but also rights to a certain standard of living (Article 25) and to education (Article 26).

The language of human rights is legal and abstract, but the human dignity and equality it aims to uphold take shape in the real world through institutions and practices. The fundamental rights it champions must be enacted and protected by the organs, arms and agencies of the state. The substantive rights it guarantees must be delivered by government.

Human rights thus require a framework of good government in order to be more than paper guarantees.

Whatever the specific features of the government under which people live, their human rights will not be assured without the government itself abiding by certain basic principles, and being subject to the rule of law.

Let me just draw on some examples from my experience.

The tender committee


One of the basic functions of government is stewardship of the resources of a nation. In truth every nation has the natural, cultural and human resources to provide for the basic wellbeing of all its citizens. Even in famine, people usually starve not because there is not enough food in the country as a whole, but because their entitlements to it have broken down. In an age of abundance, poverty and shortage are social and political rather than natural problems. There is no evading our common responsibility for them. Where people are in want, weak government is almost always at the heart of the problem.

The government’s ability to provide for the basic necessities of its citizens is directly tied to its ability to be a transparent custodian of the nation’s resources. This custodianship is expressed through good practices. These good practices are only sustainable in an ethos of trusteeship.

Malaysia has suffered a worrying decline in both.

Let me cite some examples.

The tender committee


Of late in Malaysia it has become common to speak of the “negotiated tender”, the “direct nego.” When this term first started being bandied about in the 1980’s I couldn’t understand it. It had never existed before in our system of government.

I do not understand what kind of legal loophole was employed to make this aberration the new norm in government procurement.

What I do understand is that since Independence in 1957, and up to the time I served as Minister of Finance, the open tender was about the only way the government could procure anything.

It was ingrained in the civil service that all government procurement must be done in a visible manner and with the proper controls to ensure independence and effectiveness in procurement.

The Ministry of Finance ensured that all procurement was done through a system of tenders.

In the first instance, any tenderer must be pre-qualified and any submission must conform with specifications laid down by the technical and financial committee in consultation with prospective users.

Vendors had to be pre-qualified before they were allowed to submit a tender.

Thereafter their submission must meet basic specifications.

The tender committee was formed and managed with the utmost concern for independence. The committee would sit at a moment’s notice when the government had something to procure. All tender documents were coded and distributed to the members of the tender committee first thing in the morning. The members were isolated and given three or four hours to study the documents. Technical and financial advisors would be on hand to explain the technicalities to the decision-makers.

Immediately after the committee had decided, their decision on who the contract had been awarded to would be conveyed not only to the people who had participated in the tendering process, but to the public.

I have belaboured the details of the process because the details represent careful controls and checks through which the government exercised its custodianship of public resources. The committee was given no advance notice, was physically isolated, and had to work quickly in order to prevent communication with interested parties. The results had to be announced publicly immediately to prevent retrospective interventions with them.

Secrecy and publicity were deployed to ensure the integrity and transparency of the process. Contrast the uses of secrecy today, backed by the Official Secrets Act, to prevent the public from knowing how much has been stolen from them and by whom.

Public service as trusteeship

Good practices do not exist in a vacuum. They can only be applied by public officials who have had it ingrained in them that they hold their positions in trust for the entire rakyat. Not for themselves, their party or their community. Good practice in public service requires an ethos of public service as trusteeship.

My late father was a senior government official. He had an official car given by the government. He never used the car to go to the club, nor would he allow us children to go to school in it. If we had to go by car, we went in his personal car. If he must go to the club, he would come home and change cars and drivers, so that car and driver were personal. The car belonged to the government and the petrol in the car was paid for by the government. If you went for private function you used your own petrol and was driven by your personal driver.

I can remember being in his official car once. I jumped into it to go to the Sultan’s birthday celebration parade. He relented because he was going to an official function. What a thrill. He was very strict about these things.

Later, whether in business or government it was unthinkable for me not to apply the same practices. These practices were a kind of basic hygiene as unremarkable and ingrained as the habit, say, of washing one’s hands before a meal.

My experience was typical of public servants of my generation. Those of you acquainted with retired senior civil servants will recognize the type of person I am talking about. They lived and breathed this ethos.

Now we see politicians using official vehicles with no regard and indeed no understanding of the distinction between private and public assets. Their wives go shopping in government transportation.

I have gone on about these details because faithfulness in small things begets faithfulness in large things. It is in the details that the spirit of trusteeship is cultivated and passed on.

Public trusteeship and human rights


What is the relevance of this to human rights?

Good practices and a strict ethos of trusteeship in respect of public assets is important because they are a safeguard against corruption, and the biggest challenge to the full enjoyment of human rights by all in Malaysia is corruption.

As a result of corruption, stadiums collapse, bridges fall down, people die unnecessarily on roads not built to specification. As a result of corruption, communities and individuals in our midst suffer malnutrition, are deprived of education, are trafficked like slaves, die in official custody. As a result of corruption, the voiceless are exploited or neglected: vulnerable children, migrant workers, Orang Asli, and the interior-dwelling people of Sabah and Sarawak.

The people who bear the highest responsibility for this crime are people in high positions, both official and commercial, engaged in an elaborate game which in reality is simply about stealing public assets. These are people who expect and exact respect from the public, when their deeds costs people their livelihoods, their health and their lives, diminishes human prospects, blights the future of our children.

The rule of law and human rights


The most important safeguard of human rights is the rule of law. The ultimate safeguard of our human rights in Malaysia is the Constitution. A Constitution is a living thing only when it is instutionalised as a living practice. It needs judges, public officials and civil society who are committed to upholding and protecting it without fear or favour.

When the Constitution is ignored or contravened by the Government of the day, and by officials sworn to uphold it, this foundational institution is injured, the rule of law is undermined, and there is a little less standing between each Malaysian and the barbarism against which the Universal Declaration was proclaimed.

Our Constitution was flouted in Perak this year when its legitimate government was replaced by unconstitutional and undemocratic means. This was a violation of the rule of law. As this action was promoted and endorsed by the highest authorities, it damaged the people’s confidence in the rule of law, in democratic governance and in our constitutional monarchy.

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights which we celebrate today draws on the searing experience of the Great Wars of the twentieth century. An unforgettable impression left by that war is that the tissue between ourselves and barbarism is thin indeed, woven from the fragile thread of values, institutions and practices.

The Universal Declaration expresses the inherent dignity of the human person, and declares his inalienable right to life and liberty in the language of human rights. Those values are ancient and near universal, but the modern language of rights is now indispensable for discussing them.

Our founding Prime Minister, the late Tunku Abdul Rahman, understood this. He had wanted to have the UNDHR inserted as a supplement to our Constitution. I am not sure what prevented him from doing so, but it is clear from his conduct and from his statements that he shared its ethos. The “founding fathers” of this young country, who were of the generation that saw the founding of the UN and the formulation of the Universal Declaration, shared this ethos. To remind ourselves of the spirit in which we began, and the ethos we must now fight to recover, I would like to end with the beginning of the speech that Tunku gave upon the formation of Malaysia on September 16, 1963:

THE great day we have long awaited has come at last – the birth of Malaysia. In a warm spirit or joy and hope, 10 million people of many races in all the States of Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah now join hands in freedom and unity.
We do so because we know that we have come together through our own free will and desire in the true spirit of brotherhood and love of freedom.

–
*Speech delivered at a seminar on human rights organized by the UNDP on Dec 8 at the Renaissance Hotel, KL

Kadar Pekerjaan

Perdana Menteri ingin menjana dan memberikan peluang pekerjaan kearah status ekonomi masyarakat yang lebih tinggi.

Peluang pekerjaan berteknologi tinggi dapat diwujudkan apabila sektor berteknologi tinggi berjaya diwujudkan. Walau bagaimana pun sektor asas seperti sektor perkhidmatan tidak boleh diabaikan kerana bertapa maju mana sekali mana mana negara ianya masih memerlukan sektor asas yang merupakan platform kepada masyarakat tersebut.

Dalam pada kita merancang kearah masa hadapan maka sudah tiba masanya Kementerian yang berkaitan mengeluarkan perangkaan bulanan untuk:
i. Bilangan pekerja yang hilang kerja.
ii. Bilangan pekerja yang masih menggangur.
iii. Bilangan pekerjaan yang telah diwujudkan.

Ini adalah KPI sebenarnya yang lebih dekat dengan rakyat. Perangkaan tersebut hendaklah dijadikan routine dan dikeluarkan setiap bulan.

Kekalkan Facade

Sepatutnya pihak berkuasa tempatan menguatkuasa sepenuhnya mana mana tuan rumah yang sesuka hati mengubahsuai rumah mereka tanpa mendapat kelulusan daripada pihak berkuasa.

Adalah penting untuk memelihara facade asal sesebuah rumah. Facade asal dari segi senibinanya akan dapat memberikan identiti sesebuah kawasan perumahan. Identiti yang mempunyai nilai yang sebenarnya.

Lihat sahaja bangunan yang diiktiraf sebagai Heritage Site oleh UNESCO. Setiap satunya mempunyai ciri ciri senibina asal dan asli yang berkaitan dengan zamannya.

Adapun alasan yang diberikan seperti ruang yang tidak mengcukupi yang menyebabkan mereka terpaksa mengubahsuai rumah mereka adalah alasan yang tipis.
lihat sahaja penghuni rumah yang menyewa rumah mereka tidak ada usaha mereka untuk mengubahsuainya dan keluasan yang disewa dikira mengcukupi walaupun jauh dari mengcukupi.

Jika kita ke kota New York atau kota London kita akan dapat melihat kebanyakkkan daripada townhouse yang sudah berpuluh tahun umurnya masih lagi mengekalkan facade asalnya.

Sekiranya pihak berkuasa tempatan tidak memantau keaslian facade tiada maknanya kelulusan asal yang diberikan oleh Jabatan Perancang, kelulusan pembangunan dan CF jika apa yang diluluskan dan dibina tidak dihormati oleh para pemilik rumah.