The Sunday Star, Kuala Lumpur
05 March 2006
Rafidah crosses the hurdle
Datuk Seri Rafidah Aziz’s survival in the Cabinet seals her
reputation as the longest serving trade minister in the world and a
formidable one too. Is the stage set for another political term or
will this be her swansong? JOCELINE TAN reports.
THE text message that Datuk Seri Rafidah Aziz received a couple of
days after the Cabinet reshuffle read: “Boss, we are having our
political bureau meeting on Friday. Can some Wanita members see you
before that?”
The message was from Datuk Faridah Abu Hassan, Rafidah's long-time
loyalist and secretary of the Wanita Umno wing.
Rafidah promptly text-replied: “OK.”
The ladies had wanted to congratulate the Wanita Umno chief and her
deputy Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil for being retained in the
Cabinet.
“It was supposed to be a simple gathering of just a few people at her
office, very impromptu. But the numbers grew and we came with things
to eat and it turned into a party,” said Datin Shuhanie Deraman,
deputy Kelantan Wanita chief.
There were about 50 ladies, and some had come direct from the
airport, dragging their roller-bags and still in their sneakers.
But they took the trouble to bring along small gifts of flowers, kain
batik and chocolates.
Faridah brought the celebratory pulut kuning or yellow sticky rice
and chicken curry, whereas one Terengganu lady flew in with
containers of the famous east coast nasi dagang. Others brought
rendang, cakes and keropok.
Rafidah's bodyguard, Haji Shaari, who had already donned his songkok
to go for Friday prayers, was asked to recite the doa selamat.
But it was Faridah who announced on behalf of those present: “We
would like to thank the PM for having our two women leaders in the
Cabinet.” Shahrizat staying on as Women, Family and Community
Development Minister had not been an issue.
But for months, there had been speculation that Rafidah might be
moved to a new ministry or even dropped from the Cabinet after the
controversy over the Approved Permits or AP issue last year.
Hence, there was also a sense of relief as the happy group ate,
sipped tea and chatted through the lunch hour.
The International Trade and Industry Minister, some said, had
survived the guillotine.
Some likened it to her second comeback, her first being in 2000 when
she won back the Wanita Umno leadership that she had lost in 1996.
Then again, this is not exactly a comeback.
She was never out although she did come very close to the edge.
Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's reasons for keeping Rafidah are
well known by now – she is experienced, and APs, the cause of her
annus horribilis last year, are but a small part of what MITI is about.
Not everybody was as delighted as the ladies in Wanita Umno about her
staying on as MITI Minister.
But few could really find fault with the reasons offered for keeping
her on.
“She understands complex trade issues like the back of her hand and
holds her own on the world stage. I know people think that anyone
with her years of experience would be able to do the same but you’ve
got to be smart to begin with and she was never dumb,” said a top
business writer.
Her work continued to impress the Prime Minister even when her
political chips in the party were down.
She is also a workhorse. Barely a fortnight after the reshuffle, she
was leading a trade and investment mission to Europe.
But, said an aide to a minister: “It’s really exceptional that she
has survived after all that has happened. I’m not a great fan of hers
but I've got to admit that there is only one Rafidah.”
Experience and ability aside, the Prime Minister’s decision was also
made with the stability of the women’s wing in mind.
Besides, the women’s wing had remained loyal to Rafidah even as
public opinion surged against her during the AP controversy.
As Faridah put it: “I knew all along she would be in. She is still
our Wanita leader in Umno.”
Still there is no doubt that Rafidah’s survival has been more a
result of her amazing ability as a trade minister than political
considerations.
She now holds the record as the longest-serving trade minister in the
world.
Rafidah has told some of her officers in MITI this will be her last
term and that she plans to call it a day soon.
However, like most astute politicians, she has not mentioned the
retirement word to any of her Wanita Umno ladies.
No one wants to be a lameduck politician.
For instance, shortly before the Cabinet reshuffle, the Wanita chief
told Faridah she wanted to launch the wing’s trademark Keluarga
Sepuluh programme where Wanita members are delegated 10 households
each during the run-up to the general election.
She wanted to meet the Wanita grassroots, and she asked Faridah to
organise the programmes.
It was not the action of a woman with retirement on her mind.
But neither is she desperate to cling on to power.
Even at the height of the AP issue, she did not resort to using the
Wanita wing to rally support for her.
“Some of us asked whether we could do something, make statements, but
she told us not to do that. She asked us to just continue with our
work in the party,” said Shuhanie who is also a Wanita Umno exco member.
Around that time, Shuhanie brought a delegation of women members from
the Malay Chamber of Commerce to see Rafidah at MITI.
“The AP issue was so hot then but she did not allow it to affect her
at all. Instead, she spoke so well about business opportunities for
women, she had good advice for them about what to watch out for, and
what to avoid doing. Everyone was full of admiration for her.”
According to Shuhanie, Rafidah’s emotions showed only when it
concerned her relationship with former Premier Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
Rafidah will be 63 this year, and is a grandmother several times
over. The Iron Lady, said Faridah, has not been in such good health
in years particularly after an albeit successful knee operation last
year.
She has also consciously shed weight and watches what she eats
because she does not want a recurrence of her knee problem.
“She walks faster than me. The other day, I had to chase after her
because she was moving so fast,” said Faridah.
Perhaps the clearest sign of her new state of health is that she is
now able to wear high heels again, a vanity she had to give up the
last few years. She has also gone back to her golf routine.
Still, not many in the party see her staying on beyond this term.
It is unlikely that the Wanita ladies will push her out but people
are already speculating about who Shahrizat will have as her running
mate when the time comes for her to take over.
“At the end of the day, it's about the PM's trust in you,” said a
think-tank analyst.
Is Rafidah the ultimate survivor or will this be her last waltz?
Ends
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Oil price-hike demonstrators 'vanish' into thin air
Aliran, Penang
04 March 2006
Oil price-hike demonstrators 'vanish' into thin air
The notion that the mass media are not necessarily mirrors of society has been made abundantly clear today. The deafening silence by the mainstream press, particularly the New Straits Times and The Star, over yesterday’s mass demonstration against the recent petrol price hike speaks volumes of the mainstream media’s commitment to reporting the truth.
The demonstration was staged by opposition parties, non-governmental organisations and other concerned Malaysians near the Kuala Lumpur City Centre in the shadow of the Petronas Twin Towers, a mega project. A crowd of around 1,000 (according to AFP) to 2,000 (Malaysiakini) people participated in the protest.
But what you see in the newspapers is not what you get in real life. It never took place – or so the newspapers would like their readers to believe.
Diluting the angerAny journalist or seasoned editor with a hard nose for news would have recognised instantly that the demonstration deserved the attention of the media, the government, civil society, and concerned Malaysians. Yet, these newspapers consciously chose to ignore this legitimate expression of anger and anxiety over the price hike – as if such views, shared by hundreds of thousands if not millions of other Malaysians, didn’t matter at all. Had the media, including a daily that fashions itself as a ‘people’s paper’, been more socially responsible, they would have picked up this story. At the very least, reports of the demonstration could have provided feedback to the government as to how the public felt about the move.
Instead, what newspapers such as the NST have done is to run a couple of stories that suggest that the government is committed to controlling the prices of essential goods. Such reports have focussed on, for instance, the plan to set up more so-called fair-price shops and on the Perlis Menteri Besar’s call to civil servants to cycle to office – as if this would allay the fears of ordinary Malaysians.
In fact, blacking out the news of the public expression of fear and disgust runs counter to the spirit of good governance, transparency and accountability, which the present government professes to uphold. Surely, one of the ways of ensuring government accountability is to provide space for public scrutiny and even criticism of government action, where necessary. It is morally reprehensible of the press to abdicate this crucial role.
Besides, the anger and anxiety among demonstrators and other ordinary Malaysians is also because they were caught by surprise when the government rather sheepishly and suddenly announced the price hike. The government had not adequately prepared the people – nor had they revamped public transport - ahead of the price hike.
Perhaps the mainstream media (and, let us be clear, they have to second-guess the government) felt that blacking out such news would dilute the mass anger, by making individual Malaysians feel that not many other people share their disgust and dismay. Perhaps the idea is to make them feel that their individual anger is not representative of the broader public sentiment and thus prevent individuals from networking with others and vocally joining in to demand accountability.
"Let them eat cake"
The media’s damage control exercise wasn’t really helpful though. In fact, it may have sowed further aggravation among many Malaysians when deputy premier Najib Razak went on the air via all the major television stations in the country to try to ‘explain’ the reasons for the hike.
It was a PR exercise that was not even well executed. The Bernama chief editor’s management of the interview left much to be desired, and Najib’s ‘explanations’ raised more questions than answers. For instance, Najib called on fellow Malaysians to tighten their belts and change their lifestyle. It sounded a bit like “let them eat cake”, as the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote of "a great princess" who told the peasants to eat cake/brioche when she heard they had no bread.
The interviewer could have asked Najib how on earth he expected low- income working class families to tighten their belts when many households were already living on shoe-string budgets. And why was his proposal targeted only at ordinary Malaysians? The interviewer could have asked: What about the ministers themselves? How about a substantial cut in their salaries? Better still, why doesn’t Pak Lah trim his bloated cabinet? Are the federal and state governments and government departments willing to cut down on unnecessary and wasteful ceremonies, which often involve merely ‘greeting’ ministers and other VIPs?
Najib was also reported as saying that Malaysians should, as part of their change in life-styles, rely more on public transport. All very well for him to talk - when ministers are chauffeur-driven everywhere, with a fleet of out-riders to boot. He should have been grilled on the deplorable state of public transport, which had been neglected in the drive to promote private vehicle ownership. The interviewer could also have asked if the ministers would be willing to show leadership-by-example by abandoning their petrol-guzzling limousines in favour of public transport? Have they experienced what our public transport is like, in the first place?
Which brings us to the next matter: Najib should also have been pressed on whether his challenge for Malaysians to change their lifestyles runs counter to the so-called ‘national car’ project, which celebrates private vehicle ownership. Would the government soft- pedal on its national car project now? And, pursuing this line of questioning, would the government be willing to see a drop in the toll collection of highway concessionaires, many of whom are ‘friendly’ to the ruling BN, if more Malaysians were to use buses, taxis and trains?
These are the kinds of issues one would have expected Najib and the interviewer to focus on and to enlighten ordinary Malaysians. Instead, by depriving citizens of the democratic space to express their sentiments and by indulging in PR/damage control, the mainstream media may have only further confounded and irritated the masses.
04 March 2006
Oil price-hike demonstrators 'vanish' into thin air
The notion that the mass media are not necessarily mirrors of society has been made abundantly clear today. The deafening silence by the mainstream press, particularly the New Straits Times and The Star, over yesterday’s mass demonstration against the recent petrol price hike speaks volumes of the mainstream media’s commitment to reporting the truth.
The demonstration was staged by opposition parties, non-governmental organisations and other concerned Malaysians near the Kuala Lumpur City Centre in the shadow of the Petronas Twin Towers, a mega project. A crowd of around 1,000 (according to AFP) to 2,000 (Malaysiakini) people participated in the protest.
But what you see in the newspapers is not what you get in real life. It never took place – or so the newspapers would like their readers to believe.
Diluting the angerAny journalist or seasoned editor with a hard nose for news would have recognised instantly that the demonstration deserved the attention of the media, the government, civil society, and concerned Malaysians. Yet, these newspapers consciously chose to ignore this legitimate expression of anger and anxiety over the price hike – as if such views, shared by hundreds of thousands if not millions of other Malaysians, didn’t matter at all. Had the media, including a daily that fashions itself as a ‘people’s paper’, been more socially responsible, they would have picked up this story. At the very least, reports of the demonstration could have provided feedback to the government as to how the public felt about the move.
Instead, what newspapers such as the NST have done is to run a couple of stories that suggest that the government is committed to controlling the prices of essential goods. Such reports have focussed on, for instance, the plan to set up more so-called fair-price shops and on the Perlis Menteri Besar’s call to civil servants to cycle to office – as if this would allay the fears of ordinary Malaysians.
In fact, blacking out the news of the public expression of fear and disgust runs counter to the spirit of good governance, transparency and accountability, which the present government professes to uphold. Surely, one of the ways of ensuring government accountability is to provide space for public scrutiny and even criticism of government action, where necessary. It is morally reprehensible of the press to abdicate this crucial role.
Besides, the anger and anxiety among demonstrators and other ordinary Malaysians is also because they were caught by surprise when the government rather sheepishly and suddenly announced the price hike. The government had not adequately prepared the people – nor had they revamped public transport - ahead of the price hike.
Perhaps the mainstream media (and, let us be clear, they have to second-guess the government) felt that blacking out such news would dilute the mass anger, by making individual Malaysians feel that not many other people share their disgust and dismay. Perhaps the idea is to make them feel that their individual anger is not representative of the broader public sentiment and thus prevent individuals from networking with others and vocally joining in to demand accountability.
"Let them eat cake"
The media’s damage control exercise wasn’t really helpful though. In fact, it may have sowed further aggravation among many Malaysians when deputy premier Najib Razak went on the air via all the major television stations in the country to try to ‘explain’ the reasons for the hike.
It was a PR exercise that was not even well executed. The Bernama chief editor’s management of the interview left much to be desired, and Najib’s ‘explanations’ raised more questions than answers. For instance, Najib called on fellow Malaysians to tighten their belts and change their lifestyle. It sounded a bit like “let them eat cake”, as the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote of "a great princess" who told the peasants to eat cake/brioche when she heard they had no bread.
The interviewer could have asked Najib how on earth he expected low- income working class families to tighten their belts when many households were already living on shoe-string budgets. And why was his proposal targeted only at ordinary Malaysians? The interviewer could have asked: What about the ministers themselves? How about a substantial cut in their salaries? Better still, why doesn’t Pak Lah trim his bloated cabinet? Are the federal and state governments and government departments willing to cut down on unnecessary and wasteful ceremonies, which often involve merely ‘greeting’ ministers and other VIPs?
Najib was also reported as saying that Malaysians should, as part of their change in life-styles, rely more on public transport. All very well for him to talk - when ministers are chauffeur-driven everywhere, with a fleet of out-riders to boot. He should have been grilled on the deplorable state of public transport, which had been neglected in the drive to promote private vehicle ownership. The interviewer could also have asked if the ministers would be willing to show leadership-by-example by abandoning their petrol-guzzling limousines in favour of public transport? Have they experienced what our public transport is like, in the first place?
Which brings us to the next matter: Najib should also have been pressed on whether his challenge for Malaysians to change their lifestyles runs counter to the so-called ‘national car’ project, which celebrates private vehicle ownership. Would the government soft- pedal on its national car project now? And, pursuing this line of questioning, would the government be willing to see a drop in the toll collection of highway concessionaires, many of whom are ‘friendly’ to the ruling BN, if more Malaysians were to use buses, taxis and trains?
These are the kinds of issues one would have expected Najib and the interviewer to focus on and to enlighten ordinary Malaysians. Instead, by depriving citizens of the democratic space to express their sentiments and by indulging in PR/damage control, the mainstream media may have only further confounded and irritated the masses.
What The Iran 'Nuclear Issue' Is Really About
CounterCurrents.com
What The Iran 'Nuclear Issue' Is Really About
By Chris Cook11 March, 2006
Energybulletin.net
It is said that there is the reason they give; and then there is the real reason. Nowhere is this more true, perhaps, than in Iran.
My experience with Iran began four and a half years ago in June 2001 when, through my Iranian business partner, I wrote to the then governor of the Iranian central bank, Dr Mohsen Nourbakhsh. This letter was written on the basis of my experience as a former director of the International Petroleum Exchange and in the aftermath of allegations I made in relation to market manipulation on the IPE the previous year, which were dismissed by a commissioner appointed by the exchange. I still regret that I used the description "systematic" rather than "systemic" of this alleged manipulation, but that is another story.
In this letter I pointed out that the structure of global oil markets massively favors intermediary traders and particularly investment banks, and that both consumers and producers such as Iran are adversely affected by this. I recommended that Iran consider as a matter of urgency the creation of a Middle Eastern energy exchange, and particularly a new Persian Gulf benchmark oil price.
It is therefore with wry amusement that I have seen a myth being widely propagated on the Internet that the genesis of this "Iran bourse" project is a wish to subvert the US dollar by denominating oil pricing in euros.
As anyone familiar with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries will know, the denomination of oil sales in currencies other than the dollar is not a new subject, and as anyone familiar with economics will tell you, the denomination of oil sales is merely a transactional issue: what matters is in what assets (or, in the case of the United States, liabilities) these proceeds are then invested.
After a couple of years of apparent inaction, my colleague and I were invited to put together a consortium to tender for a project to create such an exchange and, after a presentation at the central bank in Tehran in May 2004, we were successful, as reported in The Guardian at the time. We subsequently learned that the delay had been due to initial opposition from the Saudis and this opposition was withdrawn after the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent US-led invasion of Iraq.
A major feasibility study was carried out in the summer of 2004 - for which we still have not been paid by the Iranian Oil Ministry - and after this, the process became bogged down in turf battles between the Oil Ministry and the Ministry for the Economy.
We met president Mohammad Khatami in December 2004 to resolve this problem and then spent considerable time with his close advisers, from whom we received powerful backing. Progress was made, to the extent that an exchange entity was incorporated and premises purchased on Kish Island in the Persian Gulf.
In the second quarter of 2005 the real opposition from within the Oil Ministry - from factions opposed to shedding any light on the sales regime - was becoming apparent. However, as the battle was about to be joined, Khatami's period in office came to an end and the presidential election in August intervened.
Neither we, nor anyone we knew, expected the result of the election, still less the events after it. Three times over a period of three months an oil minister was nominated by the new president, Mahmud Ahmadinejad, from among his trusted colleagues and three times they were turned down by the majlis (Iranian parliament), until finally an experienced insider was appointed in early December. Only now are further levels of appointments being made by the new minister.
Ahmadinejad is on record as saying that he favors transparency in the Iranian oil market. As anyone familiar with the City of London and Wall Street will know, transparency is the enemy of private profit, and it is this factor that was behind the delays in developing the bourse project.
However, we remain hopeful that the strategy we recommended, which is based upon (a) gradual and organic introduction of pricing built upon the neutral function of transaction registration and (b) a simple (and Islamically sound) partnership-based "clearing union" synthesis of bilateral trading and a multilateral guarantee, will in due course be taken forward.
One of the most interesting aspects of the process was that during our brief spell of contacts with decision-makers, some insight into current Iranian policy was possible - in particular, the nuclear question. In our conversations we were left in no doubt that it suits both the US and Iran for the issue to be seen to be that of the Iranian "threat" from nuclear weapons.
In fact the issue is a proxy for Iraq: try looking in the media prior to the events in Fallujah, Iraq, for anything more than desultory mention of this "issue". But once factions in Iran funded Muqtada al- Sadr to the tune of $50 million and the US body count started to rise, then the issue began to attain its current level of importance.
Now that pro-Iranian Shi'ite elements are taking a primary role in the emerging government in Iraq, we see the nuclear temperature rising further.
The realpolitik is of course that those in power in the US and Iran have the reason they give - and the real reason - for what they do: and for the US, the real reason is and has been for many years energy security above any other consideration.
Chris Cook is a former director of the International Petroleum Exchange. He is now a strategic market consultant, entrepreneur and commentator.
What The Iran 'Nuclear Issue' Is Really About
By Chris Cook11 March, 2006
Energybulletin.net
It is said that there is the reason they give; and then there is the real reason. Nowhere is this more true, perhaps, than in Iran.
My experience with Iran began four and a half years ago in June 2001 when, through my Iranian business partner, I wrote to the then governor of the Iranian central bank, Dr Mohsen Nourbakhsh. This letter was written on the basis of my experience as a former director of the International Petroleum Exchange and in the aftermath of allegations I made in relation to market manipulation on the IPE the previous year, which were dismissed by a commissioner appointed by the exchange. I still regret that I used the description "systematic" rather than "systemic" of this alleged manipulation, but that is another story.
In this letter I pointed out that the structure of global oil markets massively favors intermediary traders and particularly investment banks, and that both consumers and producers such as Iran are adversely affected by this. I recommended that Iran consider as a matter of urgency the creation of a Middle Eastern energy exchange, and particularly a new Persian Gulf benchmark oil price.
It is therefore with wry amusement that I have seen a myth being widely propagated on the Internet that the genesis of this "Iran bourse" project is a wish to subvert the US dollar by denominating oil pricing in euros.
As anyone familiar with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries will know, the denomination of oil sales in currencies other than the dollar is not a new subject, and as anyone familiar with economics will tell you, the denomination of oil sales is merely a transactional issue: what matters is in what assets (or, in the case of the United States, liabilities) these proceeds are then invested.
After a couple of years of apparent inaction, my colleague and I were invited to put together a consortium to tender for a project to create such an exchange and, after a presentation at the central bank in Tehran in May 2004, we were successful, as reported in The Guardian at the time. We subsequently learned that the delay had been due to initial opposition from the Saudis and this opposition was withdrawn after the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent US-led invasion of Iraq.
A major feasibility study was carried out in the summer of 2004 - for which we still have not been paid by the Iranian Oil Ministry - and after this, the process became bogged down in turf battles between the Oil Ministry and the Ministry for the Economy.
We met president Mohammad Khatami in December 2004 to resolve this problem and then spent considerable time with his close advisers, from whom we received powerful backing. Progress was made, to the extent that an exchange entity was incorporated and premises purchased on Kish Island in the Persian Gulf.
In the second quarter of 2005 the real opposition from within the Oil Ministry - from factions opposed to shedding any light on the sales regime - was becoming apparent. However, as the battle was about to be joined, Khatami's period in office came to an end and the presidential election in August intervened.
Neither we, nor anyone we knew, expected the result of the election, still less the events after it. Three times over a period of three months an oil minister was nominated by the new president, Mahmud Ahmadinejad, from among his trusted colleagues and three times they were turned down by the majlis (Iranian parliament), until finally an experienced insider was appointed in early December. Only now are further levels of appointments being made by the new minister.
Ahmadinejad is on record as saying that he favors transparency in the Iranian oil market. As anyone familiar with the City of London and Wall Street will know, transparency is the enemy of private profit, and it is this factor that was behind the delays in developing the bourse project.
However, we remain hopeful that the strategy we recommended, which is based upon (a) gradual and organic introduction of pricing built upon the neutral function of transaction registration and (b) a simple (and Islamically sound) partnership-based "clearing union" synthesis of bilateral trading and a multilateral guarantee, will in due course be taken forward.
One of the most interesting aspects of the process was that during our brief spell of contacts with decision-makers, some insight into current Iranian policy was possible - in particular, the nuclear question. In our conversations we were left in no doubt that it suits both the US and Iran for the issue to be seen to be that of the Iranian "threat" from nuclear weapons.
In fact the issue is a proxy for Iraq: try looking in the media prior to the events in Fallujah, Iraq, for anything more than desultory mention of this "issue". But once factions in Iran funded Muqtada al- Sadr to the tune of $50 million and the US body count started to rise, then the issue began to attain its current level of importance.
Now that pro-Iranian Shi'ite elements are taking a primary role in the emerging government in Iraq, we see the nuclear temperature rising further.
The realpolitik is of course that those in power in the US and Iran have the reason they give - and the real reason - for what they do: and for the US, the real reason is and has been for many years energy security above any other consideration.
Chris Cook is a former director of the International Petroleum Exchange. He is now a strategic market consultant, entrepreneur and commentator.
Slobodan Milosevic dies alone with history still demanding justice
The Observer, London
Slobodan Milosevic dies alone with history still demanding justice
Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor
Sunday March 12, 2006
In death as in life, Slobodan Milosevic, the 'butcher of the Balkans', created bitter division. The man who rose from obscurity to spread terror across the former Yugoslavia, until the world finally tired of his bloodshed, has left a final controversy that will linger long after him, stoked by his supporters: the manner of his dying.
Milosevic, who presided over wars and slaughter in which more than 250,000 people died, was found dead in his prison cell yesterday - cheating justice for a final time.
Within hours, the same followers who accused the international community and the United Nations war crimes tribunal of conspiring to frame an innocent man were suggesting, unbelievably, that the court that had expended so much time, energy and money on his trial had killed him.
Milosevic, 64, a depressive with a history of high blood pressure and chronic heart disease, was found 'lifeless' in bed by one of his guards at a UN prison near the Hague, where he was being tried on 66 counts of crimes against humanity, including genocide.
A spokesman for the tribunal said Milosevic appeared to have died of natural causes, adding that post mortem and toxicological examinations had been ordered despite opposition by Milosevic's family, who said they did not trust the examinations to be impartial. A second tribunal official said that there was 'no indication' of suicide.
Milosevic's closest supporters, including his family and lawyer, immediately cried foul.
His lawyer, Zdenko Tomanovic, said last night that Milosevic had feared he was being poisoned and had complained to the tribunal. Tomanovic demanded that any post mortem be held in Moscow with Serb medical staff present. The tribunal last night refused the request but announced that a Serbian doctor would be allowed to observe the autopsy already ordered.
Milosevic's brother Borislav claimed the tribunal had effectively killed its prisoner by refusing to let him go to Russia for treatment for a heart complaint. The tribunal had feared Milosevic would have fled if he was released.
Milosevic had been held in the same large luxury cell in the jail near sand dunes at the North Sea resort of Scheveningen, from which he had planned his defence, listened to Frank Sinatra CDs and chatted by telephone to his wife Mirjana since his trial at the Hague began in February 2002. The hearings had been repeatedly interrupted by his poor health.
Cardiologists treating Milosevic had warned him recently he was at risk from a life-threatening condition known as a hypertensive emergency, a surge in blood pressure that can damage the heart, kidneys and central nervous system.
He had complained of a buzzing in his ears and pressure behind his eyes as well as deep fatigue, all symptoms of his identified medical complaints, which had worsened under the pressure of preparing his own defence.
He had been checked regularly by doctors after his repeated complaints of illness, although the tribunal was unable to say last night when he was last medically examined.
His death is a crushing blow to the tribunal and to those who wanted to establish an authoritative historical record of the Balkan wars. Confirmation of Milosevic's death was delivered in a terse statement from the Hague: 'The guard immediately alerted the detention unit officer in command and the medical officer. The latter confirmed that Slobodan Milosevic was dead.' All inmates at the prison are checked by a guard every half hour.
Carla Del Ponte, the chief UN war crimes prosecutor, who was told of Milosevic's death half an hour after the discovery of his body, expressed regret and said she was convinced he would have been convicted. 'I also regret it for the victims, the thousands of victims who have been waiting for justice,' said Del Ponte, adding that enough evidence had been presented against Milosevic in his war crimes trial for him to be found guilty.
The former Yugoslav republics that Serb forces attacked under Milosevic were divided last night between celebrating his death and regretting he was not finally judged guilty for his crimes.President Mesic of Croatia, which fought Serb forces in 1991-92, said: 'It's a pity he did not live through the trial and get his deserved sentence.' A Croatian government statement summed up the views of many people in the Balkans: 'Several hundred thousand dead, millions of refugees, billions of euros of damage, dozens of destroyed towns, ethnic cleansing, genocide, those are all consequences of his policies.''It seems that God punished him already,' said Hajra Catic, of the association representing the mothers and widows of 8,000 Muslim men and boys massacred by Bosnian Serb forces in Srebrenica. Elected Serbian President in 1990, Milosevic ruled with an iron grip until his overthrow in 2000. Combining charm, cunning and ruthlessness, he led his countrymen to defeat in four wars, yet managed to turn his increasingly impoverished country's woes into personal victories that allowed him to hold on to power.
It was only in the Serbian capital Belgrade yesterday that there were many to eulogise his passing. 'My whole world around me crushed. I started crying when I heard the news. I am glad I lived in his time, as this type of man is rarely born', said Marija Bursac, 40, a biochemistry specialist.
For Marija and around 170,000 Kosovan Serbs who were forced to flee in 1999 after the arrival of an international force of troops, Slobodan Milosevic was a hero, someone who was prepared to defend them from their rivals, Kosovo's ethnic Albanians.
Olga, 70, another Kosovo refugee, was in constant tears after hearing the news. She said she had been following Milosevic's trial on TV and believed that if the world had been prepared to listen, there was enough evidence to prove his innocence.
'I wish we were all dead, and he was left alive to prove to the world he was right,' she said.·
Additional reporting from Belgrade by Dragana Nikolic Solomon
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
Slobodan Milosevic dies alone with history still demanding justice
Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor
Sunday March 12, 2006
In death as in life, Slobodan Milosevic, the 'butcher of the Balkans', created bitter division. The man who rose from obscurity to spread terror across the former Yugoslavia, until the world finally tired of his bloodshed, has left a final controversy that will linger long after him, stoked by his supporters: the manner of his dying.
Milosevic, who presided over wars and slaughter in which more than 250,000 people died, was found dead in his prison cell yesterday - cheating justice for a final time.
Within hours, the same followers who accused the international community and the United Nations war crimes tribunal of conspiring to frame an innocent man were suggesting, unbelievably, that the court that had expended so much time, energy and money on his trial had killed him.
Milosevic, 64, a depressive with a history of high blood pressure and chronic heart disease, was found 'lifeless' in bed by one of his guards at a UN prison near the Hague, where he was being tried on 66 counts of crimes against humanity, including genocide.
A spokesman for the tribunal said Milosevic appeared to have died of natural causes, adding that post mortem and toxicological examinations had been ordered despite opposition by Milosevic's family, who said they did not trust the examinations to be impartial. A second tribunal official said that there was 'no indication' of suicide.
Milosevic's closest supporters, including his family and lawyer, immediately cried foul.
His lawyer, Zdenko Tomanovic, said last night that Milosevic had feared he was being poisoned and had complained to the tribunal. Tomanovic demanded that any post mortem be held in Moscow with Serb medical staff present. The tribunal last night refused the request but announced that a Serbian doctor would be allowed to observe the autopsy already ordered.
Milosevic's brother Borislav claimed the tribunal had effectively killed its prisoner by refusing to let him go to Russia for treatment for a heart complaint. The tribunal had feared Milosevic would have fled if he was released.
Milosevic had been held in the same large luxury cell in the jail near sand dunes at the North Sea resort of Scheveningen, from which he had planned his defence, listened to Frank Sinatra CDs and chatted by telephone to his wife Mirjana since his trial at the Hague began in February 2002. The hearings had been repeatedly interrupted by his poor health.
Cardiologists treating Milosevic had warned him recently he was at risk from a life-threatening condition known as a hypertensive emergency, a surge in blood pressure that can damage the heart, kidneys and central nervous system.
He had complained of a buzzing in his ears and pressure behind his eyes as well as deep fatigue, all symptoms of his identified medical complaints, which had worsened under the pressure of preparing his own defence.
He had been checked regularly by doctors after his repeated complaints of illness, although the tribunal was unable to say last night when he was last medically examined.
His death is a crushing blow to the tribunal and to those who wanted to establish an authoritative historical record of the Balkan wars. Confirmation of Milosevic's death was delivered in a terse statement from the Hague: 'The guard immediately alerted the detention unit officer in command and the medical officer. The latter confirmed that Slobodan Milosevic was dead.' All inmates at the prison are checked by a guard every half hour.
Carla Del Ponte, the chief UN war crimes prosecutor, who was told of Milosevic's death half an hour after the discovery of his body, expressed regret and said she was convinced he would have been convicted. 'I also regret it for the victims, the thousands of victims who have been waiting for justice,' said Del Ponte, adding that enough evidence had been presented against Milosevic in his war crimes trial for him to be found guilty.
The former Yugoslav republics that Serb forces attacked under Milosevic were divided last night between celebrating his death and regretting he was not finally judged guilty for his crimes.President Mesic of Croatia, which fought Serb forces in 1991-92, said: 'It's a pity he did not live through the trial and get his deserved sentence.' A Croatian government statement summed up the views of many people in the Balkans: 'Several hundred thousand dead, millions of refugees, billions of euros of damage, dozens of destroyed towns, ethnic cleansing, genocide, those are all consequences of his policies.''It seems that God punished him already,' said Hajra Catic, of the association representing the mothers and widows of 8,000 Muslim men and boys massacred by Bosnian Serb forces in Srebrenica. Elected Serbian President in 1990, Milosevic ruled with an iron grip until his overthrow in 2000. Combining charm, cunning and ruthlessness, he led his countrymen to defeat in four wars, yet managed to turn his increasingly impoverished country's woes into personal victories that allowed him to hold on to power.
It was only in the Serbian capital Belgrade yesterday that there were many to eulogise his passing. 'My whole world around me crushed. I started crying when I heard the news. I am glad I lived in his time, as this type of man is rarely born', said Marija Bursac, 40, a biochemistry specialist.
For Marija and around 170,000 Kosovan Serbs who were forced to flee in 1999 after the arrival of an international force of troops, Slobodan Milosevic was a hero, someone who was prepared to defend them from their rivals, Kosovo's ethnic Albanians.
Olga, 70, another Kosovo refugee, was in constant tears after hearing the news. She said she had been following Milosevic's trial on TV and believed that if the world had been prepared to listen, there was enough evidence to prove his innocence.
'I wish we were all dead, and he was left alive to prove to the world he was right,' she said.·
Additional reporting from Belgrade by Dragana Nikolic Solomon
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
PM: I know you are angry
The Star, Kuala Lumpur
PM: I know you are angry
Measures soon to lessen people's burden
By Mergawati Zulfakar and V.P. Sujata
newsdesk@the star.com.my
PUTRA JAYA: Acknowledging he was aware that people were angry over the Government's decision to increase fuel prices, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said he would announce soon measures to lessen the burden of those adversely affected.
The Prime Minister said the Government had to make a decision, which it new was going to be popular. But, he added, it was an action that could not be avoided.
"People are angry. Yes, I know," he said when launching the Public Complaints Bureau's public opinion polls at the Putra Jaya Convention Centre here yesterday.
"It is not something that the Government derives pleasure from. But it is our responsibility to determine the best action during a certain time.
"However, I am also aware there are those who are exploiting the issue for political mileage.
"The government is responsible for ensuring that the effects of the increase on the public on the public will not be severe."
Asked later at a press conference, the Prime Minister declined to reveal the measures or when they would be announced.
"We have yet to decide whether to make the announcement before or after the tabling of the 9th Malaysia Plan," he added.
Abdullah said he was also aware of websites and poison-pen letters that were distorting facts about the price increase.
"The poison-pen letters which I have read are completely untrue. The opposition parties are clearly exploiting the fuel price increase for poliitical gain."
Regarding Tenaga Nasional Bhd's (TNB) proposal to increase electricity tariffs, the Prime Minister said that while the Government understood TNB's reason for seeking an increase, it would have to think carefully how this would affect the people.
"We have not made any decision yet. We need to think of the effects on the people, especially at this moment," he said."It was the same thing when we decided to reduce the fuel subsidy. Fuel prices would rise to but we determined the amount of increase so that we could cushion the impact a bit."
PM: I know you are angry
Measures soon to lessen people's burden
By Mergawati Zulfakar and V.P. Sujata
newsdesk@the star.com.my
PUTRA JAYA: Acknowledging he was aware that people were angry over the Government's decision to increase fuel prices, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said he would announce soon measures to lessen the burden of those adversely affected.
The Prime Minister said the Government had to make a decision, which it new was going to be popular. But, he added, it was an action that could not be avoided.
"People are angry. Yes, I know," he said when launching the Public Complaints Bureau's public opinion polls at the Putra Jaya Convention Centre here yesterday.
"It is not something that the Government derives pleasure from. But it is our responsibility to determine the best action during a certain time.
"However, I am also aware there are those who are exploiting the issue for political mileage.
"The government is responsible for ensuring that the effects of the increase on the public on the public will not be severe."
Asked later at a press conference, the Prime Minister declined to reveal the measures or when they would be announced.
"We have yet to decide whether to make the announcement before or after the tabling of the 9th Malaysia Plan," he added.
Abdullah said he was also aware of websites and poison-pen letters that were distorting facts about the price increase.
"The poison-pen letters which I have read are completely untrue. The opposition parties are clearly exploiting the fuel price increase for poliitical gain."
Regarding Tenaga Nasional Bhd's (TNB) proposal to increase electricity tariffs, the Prime Minister said that while the Government understood TNB's reason for seeking an increase, it would have to think carefully how this would affect the people.
"We have not made any decision yet. We need to think of the effects on the people, especially at this moment," he said."It was the same thing when we decided to reduce the fuel subsidy. Fuel prices would rise to but we determined the amount of increase so that we could cushion the impact a bit."
Revamp the national treasures
Revamp the national treasures
Ezam Mohd Nor
Malaysiakini, Mar 10, 06 12:38pm
The government says the oil price hike is inevitable, because it does not control world crude oil prices. That statement is debatable but in calling for a change in lifestyle, the government should be introspective and look towards its own unhealthy spending habits and lax financial control.
The roller-coaster ride towards what may well be the world of US$100 (RM380) per barrel of crude oil has been going on for many years, but the government has yet to show its willingness to change the murky ways in which our oil resources are managed.
As Malaysians, we can be proud of Petronas’ achievements as an internationally-recognised economic powerhouse. But Petronas is not merely another corporate entity. As an organisation set up by a Parliamentary act, it does not, strangely enough, answer to parliament.
Instead, it is answerable, finally and ultimately, to the whims of the prime minister.
Too much power
As shareholders in Petronas, Malaysians are expected to put their faith in a single trustee, who, along with his many other responsibilities, is expected to play a major role in guiding the macro-movements of this financial behemoth.
This, simply put, is too much power in the hands of one man.
While the government may argue that many big Multinational Companies (MNCs) are headed by a single executive chairperson and president, the Petronas case is different.
While Petronas too has its chairperson and often times, a separate chief executive, they are not held to account by the owners of the company, but instead act as elevated personal assistants to the prime minister of the day.
When the government argues that Petronas is a national treasure which should not be plundered, it is presenting an oxymoron. The lack of checks and balances, accountability, transparency and the perception of openness means that Petronas is a national treasure only in name.
We do not know how this national treasure works, its current and past states of financial health and the actual situation behind the razzmatazz of being a Fortune-500 company.
The public furore over the oil price hike is a good opportunity for the government to reform the way it runs Petronas and other nationally important corporations such as Khazanah. Much of the protest against the 30 sen hike is really aimed at the lack of transparency as often promised by the government, but not often delivered.
The time is ripe for a major revamp of these organisations, to make them more transparent and accountable.
Check and balance
A good start would be to create a better trusteeship for the check and balance of Petronas. While the prime minister, for strategic reasons, should still be ultimately in charge, he should be helped by a board of experienced and noteworthy trustees who have the clout to examine Petronas’ books and strategic decisions.
Members of the board should be drawn from the ranks of public personalities, but also some must be elected by parliament, through the mechanism of a committee of the whole House or representatives of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC).
Petronas should also have an audit committee comprising private firms and also the Auditor-General and his officers, answerable both to the prime minister and the PAC. In addition, parliament should make the Petronas charter renewable every five years and be allowed to debate its continuation at these regular intervals, to hold it to better account.
Several national companies around the world, as well as the BBC in the United Kingdom, are subject to some form of renewable charters and they all have to explain why their special status should be continued.
Equally important is how Petronas’ resources are allocated. While it is understandable that the government does not want to open up all the exact details, it is ridiculous to say that all of Petronas income is allocated towards national development .
Instead, the finance minister, in his annual budget, should report the percentage of Petronas income that is allocated under which general topic. This may be a rough figure but at least it indicates the sincerity of the government’s widely disbelieved statements.
The government says the oil price hike is a good opportunity for the people to change the way they lead their lives. We now give the same advice to the government.
______________________________________________________________________
Ezam Mohd Nor 39, is the former political secretary of ex-deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim. He is currently Parti Keadilan Rakyat Youth chief and the chairperson of Gerak, the non-political Movement For Democracy and Anti Corruption.
Ezam Mohd Nor
Malaysiakini, Mar 10, 06 12:38pm
The government says the oil price hike is inevitable, because it does not control world crude oil prices. That statement is debatable but in calling for a change in lifestyle, the government should be introspective and look towards its own unhealthy spending habits and lax financial control.
The roller-coaster ride towards what may well be the world of US$100 (RM380) per barrel of crude oil has been going on for many years, but the government has yet to show its willingness to change the murky ways in which our oil resources are managed.
As Malaysians, we can be proud of Petronas’ achievements as an internationally-recognised economic powerhouse. But Petronas is not merely another corporate entity. As an organisation set up by a Parliamentary act, it does not, strangely enough, answer to parliament.
Instead, it is answerable, finally and ultimately, to the whims of the prime minister.
Too much power
As shareholders in Petronas, Malaysians are expected to put their faith in a single trustee, who, along with his many other responsibilities, is expected to play a major role in guiding the macro-movements of this financial behemoth.
This, simply put, is too much power in the hands of one man.
While the government may argue that many big Multinational Companies (MNCs) are headed by a single executive chairperson and president, the Petronas case is different.
While Petronas too has its chairperson and often times, a separate chief executive, they are not held to account by the owners of the company, but instead act as elevated personal assistants to the prime minister of the day.
When the government argues that Petronas is a national treasure which should not be plundered, it is presenting an oxymoron. The lack of checks and balances, accountability, transparency and the perception of openness means that Petronas is a national treasure only in name.
We do not know how this national treasure works, its current and past states of financial health and the actual situation behind the razzmatazz of being a Fortune-500 company.
The public furore over the oil price hike is a good opportunity for the government to reform the way it runs Petronas and other nationally important corporations such as Khazanah. Much of the protest against the 30 sen hike is really aimed at the lack of transparency as often promised by the government, but not often delivered.
The time is ripe for a major revamp of these organisations, to make them more transparent and accountable.
Check and balance
A good start would be to create a better trusteeship for the check and balance of Petronas. While the prime minister, for strategic reasons, should still be ultimately in charge, he should be helped by a board of experienced and noteworthy trustees who have the clout to examine Petronas’ books and strategic decisions.
Members of the board should be drawn from the ranks of public personalities, but also some must be elected by parliament, through the mechanism of a committee of the whole House or representatives of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC).
Petronas should also have an audit committee comprising private firms and also the Auditor-General and his officers, answerable both to the prime minister and the PAC. In addition, parliament should make the Petronas charter renewable every five years and be allowed to debate its continuation at these regular intervals, to hold it to better account.
Several national companies around the world, as well as the BBC in the United Kingdom, are subject to some form of renewable charters and they all have to explain why their special status should be continued.
Equally important is how Petronas’ resources are allocated. While it is understandable that the government does not want to open up all the exact details, it is ridiculous to say that all of Petronas income is allocated towards national development .
Instead, the finance minister, in his annual budget, should report the percentage of Petronas income that is allocated under which general topic. This may be a rough figure but at least it indicates the sincerity of the government’s widely disbelieved statements.
The government says the oil price hike is a good opportunity for the people to change the way they lead their lives. We now give the same advice to the government.
______________________________________________________________________
Ezam Mohd Nor 39, is the former political secretary of ex-deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim. He is currently Parti Keadilan Rakyat Youth chief and the chairperson of Gerak, the non-political Movement For Democracy and Anti Corruption.
Najib: Penjimatan subsidi minyak bukan untuk selamatkan MAS
Najib: Penjimatan subsidi minyak bukan untuk selamatkan MAS
Malaysiakini, Mar 11, 06 2:46pm
Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak menegaskan penjimatan daripada pengurangan subsidi minyak kira-kira RM4 bilion tahun ini tidak akan digunakan untuk "menyelamatkan" Penerbangan Malaysia (MAS) sebaliknya bagi meningkatkan sistem pengangkutan awam termasuk di luar bandar. Timbalan Perdana Menteri berkata wang itu juga tidak akan dibelanjakan untuk projek mewah kerajaan atau "menebus" mana-mana syarikat berkaitan kerajaan (GLC) yang menghadapi masalah.
"Ada cerita kononnya duit ini nak digunakan untuk selamatkan MAS, ada saya dengar daripada RM4 bilion ini, RM2 bilion nak bagi pada MAS. Saya nak nafikan. "Ini merupakan satu lagi fitnah yang dilemparkan oleh pihak yang tidak bertanggungjawab," katanya ketika sesi taklimat mengenai isu kenaikan harga minyak 30 sen baru-baru ini kepada anggota Kemas dari seluruh negara, di Putrajaya hari ini.
Menurut laporan Bernama, sebelum ini adala laporan menyebut MAS yang memerlukan kira-kira RM4 bilion bagi rancangan pemulihannya, memohon pembiayaan sebanyak RM2 bilion daripada kerajaan manakala RM1 bilion akan dikumpul daripada sumber-sumbernya sendiri dan RM1 bilion lagi daripada pasaran modal.
Najib berkata wang penjimatan RM4 bilion itu akan dimasukkan ke dalam sebuah kumpulan wang amanah penambahbaikan sistem pengangkutan awam negara. "Dan melalui sebuah jawatankuasa kabinet yang dipengerusikan oleh Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi sendiri, diharapkan dalam masa yang terdekat ini kita boleh memperlihatkan perubahan pada sistem pengangkutan awam kita," katanya.
Ketirisan subsidi
Tanpa memberikan butiran mengenai apa yang sedang dirangka kerajaan bagi menolong rakyat, beliau berkata: "Sama ada kita nak usahakan lebih banyak bas lagi, nak usahakan supaya bas itu berhawa dingin, sama ada kita nak tambah monorel dan LRT. "Dan kita jangan lupa sistem pengangkutan di luar bandar dan sebagainya. Ini semua sedang difikirkan oleh kerajaan." Taklimat itu mencakupi pelbagai perkara yang ada hubung kait dengan kenaikan harga minyak 28 Februari lepas, termasuk pemberian pelbagai subsidi oleh kerajaan yang selama ini tidak disedari rakyat dan kesannya jika kerajaan tidak menaikkan harga runcit minyak berikutan lonjakan harga minyak mentah di pasaran dunia.
Beliau menarik perhatian bahawa selain minyak, kerajaan terus memberikan subsidi bernilai berbilion ringgit kepada rakyat di bidang pelajaran, kesihatan, pertanian dan perikanan, makanan asasi, baja dan harga padi serta tol. "Sebenarnya subsidi yang dinikmati rakyat masih banyak lagi dan ia akan terus dipertahankan selagi kita mampu. Dan kami akan tambah lagi peruntukan dalam Rancangan Malaysia Kesembilan (RMK-9) untuk kebaikan rakyat," katanya.
Beliau turut menyentuh "ketirisan" yang berlaku pada sistem subsidi yang menyebabkan golongan sasar tidak menikmati sepenuhnya kemudahan itu. Najib memberikan contoh bagaimana harga minyak lebih murah di Malaysia mendorong pelawat dari negara jiran mengisi minyak di stesen minyak tempatan dan berlakunya perbuatan mengaut untung dengan penjualan minyak bersubsidi kepada pihak yang tidak sepatutnya menerima kemudahan itu seperti sektor industri.
Malaysiakini, Mar 11, 06 2:46pm
Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak menegaskan penjimatan daripada pengurangan subsidi minyak kira-kira RM4 bilion tahun ini tidak akan digunakan untuk "menyelamatkan" Penerbangan Malaysia (MAS) sebaliknya bagi meningkatkan sistem pengangkutan awam termasuk di luar bandar. Timbalan Perdana Menteri berkata wang itu juga tidak akan dibelanjakan untuk projek mewah kerajaan atau "menebus" mana-mana syarikat berkaitan kerajaan (GLC) yang menghadapi masalah.
"Ada cerita kononnya duit ini nak digunakan untuk selamatkan MAS, ada saya dengar daripada RM4 bilion ini, RM2 bilion nak bagi pada MAS. Saya nak nafikan. "Ini merupakan satu lagi fitnah yang dilemparkan oleh pihak yang tidak bertanggungjawab," katanya ketika sesi taklimat mengenai isu kenaikan harga minyak 30 sen baru-baru ini kepada anggota Kemas dari seluruh negara, di Putrajaya hari ini.
Menurut laporan Bernama, sebelum ini adala laporan menyebut MAS yang memerlukan kira-kira RM4 bilion bagi rancangan pemulihannya, memohon pembiayaan sebanyak RM2 bilion daripada kerajaan manakala RM1 bilion akan dikumpul daripada sumber-sumbernya sendiri dan RM1 bilion lagi daripada pasaran modal.
Najib berkata wang penjimatan RM4 bilion itu akan dimasukkan ke dalam sebuah kumpulan wang amanah penambahbaikan sistem pengangkutan awam negara. "Dan melalui sebuah jawatankuasa kabinet yang dipengerusikan oleh Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi sendiri, diharapkan dalam masa yang terdekat ini kita boleh memperlihatkan perubahan pada sistem pengangkutan awam kita," katanya.
Ketirisan subsidi
Tanpa memberikan butiran mengenai apa yang sedang dirangka kerajaan bagi menolong rakyat, beliau berkata: "Sama ada kita nak usahakan lebih banyak bas lagi, nak usahakan supaya bas itu berhawa dingin, sama ada kita nak tambah monorel dan LRT. "Dan kita jangan lupa sistem pengangkutan di luar bandar dan sebagainya. Ini semua sedang difikirkan oleh kerajaan." Taklimat itu mencakupi pelbagai perkara yang ada hubung kait dengan kenaikan harga minyak 28 Februari lepas, termasuk pemberian pelbagai subsidi oleh kerajaan yang selama ini tidak disedari rakyat dan kesannya jika kerajaan tidak menaikkan harga runcit minyak berikutan lonjakan harga minyak mentah di pasaran dunia.
Beliau menarik perhatian bahawa selain minyak, kerajaan terus memberikan subsidi bernilai berbilion ringgit kepada rakyat di bidang pelajaran, kesihatan, pertanian dan perikanan, makanan asasi, baja dan harga padi serta tol. "Sebenarnya subsidi yang dinikmati rakyat masih banyak lagi dan ia akan terus dipertahankan selagi kita mampu. Dan kami akan tambah lagi peruntukan dalam Rancangan Malaysia Kesembilan (RMK-9) untuk kebaikan rakyat," katanya.
Beliau turut menyentuh "ketirisan" yang berlaku pada sistem subsidi yang menyebabkan golongan sasar tidak menikmati sepenuhnya kemudahan itu. Najib memberikan contoh bagaimana harga minyak lebih murah di Malaysia mendorong pelawat dari negara jiran mengisi minyak di stesen minyak tempatan dan berlakunya perbuatan mengaut untung dengan penjualan minyak bersubsidi kepada pihak yang tidak sepatutnya menerima kemudahan itu seperti sektor industri.
TNB's proposed tariff hike to be reviewed
TNB's proposed tariff hike to be reviewed
Malaysiakini
Mar 11, 06 6:39pm
The government is seeking a revision on the proposal for a 10 percent electricity tariff hike by power utility Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB).
An upward review will spare a larger segment of the population from the effects of the impending increase in electricity rates, Bernama reported today.
TNB had proposed to exempt those who bill a maximum of 100 kilowatt-hours, fixing that as a monthly consumption-based cut-off point. The government wants that to be revised to 200 kilowatt-hours.
Energy, Water and Communications Minister Dr Lim Keng Yaik said that would take into account the interests of the low-income group and industries that consume a lot of power.
TNB has been asked to submit the revised structure to the cabinet, he was quoted as saying.
Rising debts
Bernama reports that TNB president and CEO Che Khalib Mohamed Noh had earlier reportedly applied for a 10 percent hike in the electricity tariff this year.
The company had justified its request citing rising debts exceeding RM30 billion and skyrocketing operating costs as a result of rising fuel prices in the world market.
Following the spiral effect triggered by the recent fuel price hike, the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers wants the supply contract between TNB and independent power producers reviewed.
Malaysiakini
Mar 11, 06 6:39pm
The government is seeking a revision on the proposal for a 10 percent electricity tariff hike by power utility Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB).
An upward review will spare a larger segment of the population from the effects of the impending increase in electricity rates, Bernama reported today.
TNB had proposed to exempt those who bill a maximum of 100 kilowatt-hours, fixing that as a monthly consumption-based cut-off point. The government wants that to be revised to 200 kilowatt-hours.
Energy, Water and Communications Minister Dr Lim Keng Yaik said that would take into account the interests of the low-income group and industries that consume a lot of power.
TNB has been asked to submit the revised structure to the cabinet, he was quoted as saying.
Rising debts
Bernama reports that TNB president and CEO Che Khalib Mohamed Noh had earlier reportedly applied for a 10 percent hike in the electricity tariff this year.
The company had justified its request citing rising debts exceeding RM30 billion and skyrocketing operating costs as a result of rising fuel prices in the world market.
Following the spiral effect triggered by the recent fuel price hike, the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers wants the supply contract between TNB and independent power producers reviewed.
Protest against closure of pig farms
Protest against closure of pig farms
Kuek Ser Kuang Keng
Malaysiakini, Mar 11, 06 8:15pm
Frustrated over Malacca state executive member Seah Kwi Tong’s failure to resolve their problems, about 100 angry pig farmers staged a noisy demonstration right outside the former’s house yesterday.
Seah had initially ‘promised’ a group of 81 pig farm owners that he would try to convince the state government to reconsider its decision to close down their farms, effective March 15.
Armed with empty milk powder tins, school bags and posters, the pig farmers demonstrated for an hour under the watchful eyes of 20 police officers.
“If we lose our farms, how are we going to afford food and books for our children?” asked one disgruntled farmer.
The state government ordered all farms to close before the deadline. The farms will be forcefully sealed should the farmers fail to comply.
According to Lim Ah Keat who led the demonstration, Seah had promised on three occasions over the past few months that the matter will be resolved but the farmers kept on receiving letters about the closures.
Million-ringgit business
Seah, who attending a meeting elsewhere during the protest, was previously assigned by the Malacca MCA to assist the breeders in resolving the matter.
Lim said that if Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Agro-Based Industry Mah Siew Keong who visited Malacca yesterday failed to solve the matter, they will turn to opposition parties for help.
“The Malacca government is not fair, how can they simply close down our multi-million ringgit properties?”, said Lim adding that a civil suit to delay the state government’s order might be on the cards.
When contacted, Mah revealed that Malacca State Secretary Ismail Salleh will allow one farmer, Chin Nam Yee to appeal to the state government before the order is enforced.
Chin, who is also Malacca Livestock Breeder's Association president will present his appeal one day before the deadline.
Mah declined to comment on the fate of the other 80 farms. However, he said the outcome of Chin's farm will affect the rest.
The deputy minister also stressed that the pig farms falls under the state government's authority and the ministry is powerless to intervene.
Malacca orders all pig farms to close
Kuek Ser Kuang Keng
Malaysiakini, Mar 9, 06 1:38pm
The Malacca state government has ordered the closure of all 82 pig farms in the state in a letter first issued to farmers on March 1.
The letter, from the state’s veterinary services department, provided the breeders with a two-week deadline to comply with the order. Farmers were told to either sell, shift the animals or use any means necessary to ensure that their farms are not operational after the stipulated period. According to the department’s letter, the order is in accordance with a decision made at a state exco meeting in April 1999.
Since then there have been negotiations to stall the decision.
The breeders were warned that if they failed to comply with the order, their farms can be sealed. The disgruntled breeders then placed an advertisement in Chinese language newspaper Oriental Daily asking for the public’s support to have the order revoked. In their advertisement, the breeders warned that if it can happen in Malacca, it can happen in other states as well. Also inserted in the advertisement was the caricatures of four pig breeders in Malacca waiting to be hanged.
Rude shockMalacca livestock breeders association president Chin Nam Yee said the advertisement was placed after the breeders failed to find a solution to the matter, although two MCA state excos Poh Ah Tiam and Seah Kwi Tong had previously assured them that it will be resolved. He said only Oriental Daily had agreed to publish the advertisement while the other four Chinese newspapers had declined to do so.
The pig farming issue was raised last Dec by Seah and Malacca Chief Minister Mohd Ali Rustam was said to have verbally agreed then that there will be no action for the time being. However, the breeders suffered a rude shock when they started receiving the letter since last week.
According to Chin, the authorities want to centralise pig farming in the state but have yet to pinpoint a location. He said the breeders had demanded that the state government identify the place for the centralised pig rearing. However, the state government wants them to form a cooperative first and then apply for a place.
Kuek Ser Kuang Keng
Malaysiakini, Mar 11, 06 8:15pm
Frustrated over Malacca state executive member Seah Kwi Tong’s failure to resolve their problems, about 100 angry pig farmers staged a noisy demonstration right outside the former’s house yesterday.
Seah had initially ‘promised’ a group of 81 pig farm owners that he would try to convince the state government to reconsider its decision to close down their farms, effective March 15.
Armed with empty milk powder tins, school bags and posters, the pig farmers demonstrated for an hour under the watchful eyes of 20 police officers.
“If we lose our farms, how are we going to afford food and books for our children?” asked one disgruntled farmer.
The state government ordered all farms to close before the deadline. The farms will be forcefully sealed should the farmers fail to comply.
According to Lim Ah Keat who led the demonstration, Seah had promised on three occasions over the past few months that the matter will be resolved but the farmers kept on receiving letters about the closures.
Million-ringgit business
Seah, who attending a meeting elsewhere during the protest, was previously assigned by the Malacca MCA to assist the breeders in resolving the matter.
Lim said that if Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Agro-Based Industry Mah Siew Keong who visited Malacca yesterday failed to solve the matter, they will turn to opposition parties for help.
“The Malacca government is not fair, how can they simply close down our multi-million ringgit properties?”, said Lim adding that a civil suit to delay the state government’s order might be on the cards.
When contacted, Mah revealed that Malacca State Secretary Ismail Salleh will allow one farmer, Chin Nam Yee to appeal to the state government before the order is enforced.
Chin, who is also Malacca Livestock Breeder's Association president will present his appeal one day before the deadline.
Mah declined to comment on the fate of the other 80 farms. However, he said the outcome of Chin's farm will affect the rest.
The deputy minister also stressed that the pig farms falls under the state government's authority and the ministry is powerless to intervene.
Malacca orders all pig farms to close
Kuek Ser Kuang Keng
Malaysiakini, Mar 9, 06 1:38pm
The Malacca state government has ordered the closure of all 82 pig farms in the state in a letter first issued to farmers on March 1.
The letter, from the state’s veterinary services department, provided the breeders with a two-week deadline to comply with the order. Farmers were told to either sell, shift the animals or use any means necessary to ensure that their farms are not operational after the stipulated period. According to the department’s letter, the order is in accordance with a decision made at a state exco meeting in April 1999.
Since then there have been negotiations to stall the decision.
The breeders were warned that if they failed to comply with the order, their farms can be sealed. The disgruntled breeders then placed an advertisement in Chinese language newspaper Oriental Daily asking for the public’s support to have the order revoked. In their advertisement, the breeders warned that if it can happen in Malacca, it can happen in other states as well. Also inserted in the advertisement was the caricatures of four pig breeders in Malacca waiting to be hanged.
Rude shockMalacca livestock breeders association president Chin Nam Yee said the advertisement was placed after the breeders failed to find a solution to the matter, although two MCA state excos Poh Ah Tiam and Seah Kwi Tong had previously assured them that it will be resolved. He said only Oriental Daily had agreed to publish the advertisement while the other four Chinese newspapers had declined to do so.
The pig farming issue was raised last Dec by Seah and Malacca Chief Minister Mohd Ali Rustam was said to have verbally agreed then that there will be no action for the time being. However, the breeders suffered a rude shock when they started receiving the letter since last week.
According to Chin, the authorities want to centralise pig farming in the state but have yet to pinpoint a location. He said the breeders had demanded that the state government identify the place for the centralised pig rearing. However, the state government wants them to form a cooperative first and then apply for a place.
Iraq through the prism of Vietnam
The Nieman Foundation of Journalism, USA
The Nieman Watchdog
Iraq through the prism of Vietnam
COMMENTARY, March 08, 2006
Those who say Iraq is nothing like Vietnam have another guess coming, says retired Gen. William Odom. He lists striking similarities and asserts that only after it pulls out of Iraq can the U.S. hope for international support to deal with anti-Western forces.
By William E. Odom
diane@hudson.org
The Vietnam War experience can’t tell us anything about the war in Iraq – or so it is said. If you believe that, trying looking through this lens, and you may change your mind.
The Vietnam War had three phases. The War in Iraq has already completed an analogous first phase, is approaching the end of the second phase, and shows signs of entering the third.
Phase One in Vietnam lasted from 1961 until the Congress passed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution in March 1965, authorizing deployment of large U.S. combat forces in South Vietnam. It began with hesitation and a gross misreading of American strategic interests. It concluded with the U.S. use of phony intelligence that made it seem that North Vietnamese patrol boats had attacked U.S. ships in the Tonkin Gulf without provocation.
President Kennedy was ambivalent about deeper involvement, but some of his aides believed that a North Vietnamese takeover of the south would bring Sino-Soviet dominion over all of Southeast Asia. They paid little attention to the emerging Sino-Soviet split, which the Intelligence Community was reporting in the early 1960s. Accordingly, the “containment of China” became their goal, their rationale for U.S. strategic purpose – that is, not allowing the Soviet Bloc to expand in this region.
Was it really in the American interest to “contain China” in Vietnam? By 1965, Soviet leaders were also pursuing the containment of China, in Southeast Asia and elsewhere. Did it, then, make sense for the United States to commit large military forces to the pursuit of Soviet objectives in Southeast Asia? Obviously not; the White House’s strategic rationale had no grounding in reality.
Not only Soviet leaders but Ho Chi Minh also wanted to contain China. A long-time loyalist to Moscow and early member of Lenin’s Communist International, he was never under China’s thumb. Yet he cooperated with Beijing to balance his dependency on Moscow, disallowing either to frustrate his aim, unifying all of Vietnam under his rule.The Johnson Administration used an apparent North Vietnamese attack on U.S. ships in the Gulf of Tonkin on the coast of North Vietnam in the spring of 1965 to persuade Congress to support the introduction of major U.S. ground forces in South Vietnam. We now know that U.S. special operations – incursions into North Vietnam by Navy Seals – played a role in prompting North Vietnamese gun boat actions that became the casus belli for President Johnson. Thus, a misleading interpretation of the known facts, i.e., the intelligence assessment of these events, became the critical factor in making it America’s war, not just Saigon’s war.
Phase One in Iraq, the run-up to the invasion, looks remarkably similar. Broodings about the “necessity” to overthrow Saddam’s regime were heard earlier, but signs of action appeared in January 2002, when President Bush proclaimed his “axis of evil” thesis about Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, countries he accused of acquiring “weapons of mass destruction” and supporting terrorists against the United States. This became the cornerstone of his rationale for invading Iraq, and it was no less ill-conceived than the strategic purpose for President Johnson’s war in Vietnam. It better served the interests of Iran and Osama bin Laden.
Iran had serious scores to settle with Iraq. In 1980, Saddam Hussein launched a bloody war that dragged on until 1988 without a decisive end. That President Bush would destroy Saddam's regime, saving Iran the trouble, was probably beyond its clerics’ wildest dreams.
He did the same for al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden must have been ecstatic. The U.S. invasion opened the way for al Qaeda cadres to enter Iraq by the scores. Killing Americans in Iraq is much easier than killing them in the United States after 9/11. Moreover, toppling secular Arab leaders – including Saddam – was, and remains, Osama bin Laden’s highest priority aim. America is farther down his list, seen as an intermediate objective in the long struggle to bring his version of radical Islamic rule to all Arab countries.
As it turned out, the alleged intelligence that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction” and that Saddam aided al Qaeda was grossly wrong. That, of course, became a major international embarrassment, alienating many U.S. allies and aiding its enemies in their claims that America is an aggressor state that cannot be trusted.
Does all of this – confused war aims and phony intelligence – sound familiar? It should.
Phase Two in Vietnam was marked by a refusal to reconsider the war’s “strategic” rationale. Rather, debate focused only on “tactical” issues as the war went sour.
By1965 things had begun going badly for U.S. military operations. By the end of March 1968, public opinion was turning against the war and Johnson chose not to run for re-election. His own party in Congress was breaking with him, and the pro-war New York Times reversed itself that summer.
During this phase, no major leader or opinion maker in the United States dared revisit the key strategic judgment: did the U.S. war aim of containing China make sense? Instead, debate focused on how the war was being fought: on search-and-destroy operations, on body counts, and pacification efforts.
This obsession with tactical issues made it easier to ignore the strategic error. As time passed, costs went up, casualties increased, and public support fell. We could not afford to “cut and run,” it was argued. “The Viet Cong would carry out an awful blood-letting.” Supporters of the war expected no honest answer when they asked “How can we get out?” Eventually Senator Aiken of Vermont gave them one: “In boats.”
Phase Two in Iraq reveals that the same kind of strategic denial error prevails today. Since 2003, public discourse has focused on how the war is being fought. Reconstruction is inadequate. Not enough troops are available. We should not have dismantled the Iraqi military. Elections will save the day. The insurgency is in its “last throes.” And so on. Some of these criticisms are valid, but they fail to address the fundamental issue, the validity of U.S. strategic purpose.
As al Qaeda marched into a country where it had not dared to tread before, the White House refused to admit that its war allowed them in. As Iran’s influence with Iraqi Shiite clerics and militias quietly expands, the administration refuses to confess its own culpability. As Shiite politicians appear headed to dominate the U.S.- created “democracy” in Iraq, no one is asking “Who lost Iraq to Iran?”
Instead, after each election and referendum in Iraq, hope surges in the media. The New York Times’s reporting on the elections in February of last year was eerily reminiscent of its reporting from Saigon on the 1968 elections.
The end of Phase Two is not yet here, but the Congress is showing signs of nervousness about where the war is taking the country. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel has said that by no measure can it be said that the United States is winning the war. Republican Congressman Walter Jones is trying to push a resolution through the House, calling on the President to begin a withdrawal. When Democratic Congressman Jack Murtha, a highly decorated Marine war veteran, asserted that the war was hopeless and that U.S. forces should be withdrawn, supporters of the Bush White House attacked his patriotism. Sadly, the Democratic leadership refused to defend him.
Does all this sound familiar? Not entirely. In 1968 the Democratic Congress proved willing to oppose the Democrat in the White House. The Republican Congress today has yet to show the same courage and wisdom.
Phase Three in Vietnam was marked by “Vietnamization” and “make- believe diplomacy” in Paris, policies still ignoring the strategic realities at the war’s beginning.The wind-down in Vietnam actually started in Johnson’s last year in office, but Richard Nixon implemented it (taking his time doing so). Rather than a rapid pullout, he pursued two tactics. The first was turning the war over to South Vietnam’s military so that U.S. forces could withdraw. By 1972 most of them were gone. Second, negotiations in Paris through Soviet intermediaries with the North Vietnamese began. Both were based on transparently false assumptions.
The key problem in South Vietnam had always been achieving a political consolidation among anti-Viet Cong elites. It was not building effective military and police forces. In fact, as South Vietnamese military units became more effective, their commanders competed aggressively for political power, insuring a weak dictatorial regime in Saigon.The assumptions about the Paris peace talks were no less illusory. Their designer, Henry Kissinger, believed that Moscow would “help” the United States reach a settlement short of total capitulation. In fact, by the late 1960s, the war was not only serving Soviet purposes against China, but also weakening NATO, hurting the U.S. currency in the international exchange rates, and making the charge of “imperialism” believable to citizens in many countries allied to the United States. Thus Soviet leaders had no objective reason to help the United States find a face-saving exodus. The deeper into “the big muddy” in Vietnam went the United States, the better for the Soviet Union. Second, Moscow could not have compelled North Vietnamese leaders in Paris to accept half a loaf in South Vietnam. Hanoi was playing off Moscow and Beijing with no intention of conceding its ultimate goal for any price.
The war ended, we now know, with the abject failure of both policies. As helicopters evacuated the American Embassy in Saigon in 1975, both illusions vanished.
Phase Three in Iraq is only beginning. Early signs were apparent in the presidential election campaign of 2004. Both Bush and Kerry put full confidence in “Iraqization.” U.S. forces will “stand down” as Iraqi forces “stand up.” They differed only on who could train more Iraqis faster. Nor would they acknowledge that “political consolidation” had to come before “military consolidation,” as the Vietnam experience demonstrated.
In Iraq, we watch U.S.-led make-believe diplomacy negotiating a constitutional deal among Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. Should we believe that the Iraqi Shiites, a majority of the population with the trauma of Saddam’s bloody repressions burned into their memories, will settle for less than full control? And why should we expect the Kurds to surrender their decade-old autonomy after suffering no less bloody repressions than did the Shiites? And why should we expect Sunnis to trust a Shiite-Kurdish regime not to take revenge against them for Saddam’s crimes? And why would Iran and Syria be willing to abandon support for their co-religionists in Iraq in order to strike a peace deal favorable to the United States?
Will Phase Three in Iraq end with helicopters flying out of the “green zone” in Baghdad? It all sounds so familiar.The difference lies in the consequences. Vietnam did not have the devastating effects on U.S. power that Iraq is already having. On this point, those who deny the Vietnam-Iraq analogy are probably right. They are wrong, however, in believing that “staying the course” will have any result other than making the damage to U.S. power far greater than changing course and withdrawing sooner in as orderly a fashion as possible.
But even in its differences, Vietnam can be instructive about Iraq. Once the U.S. position in Vietnam collapsed, Washington was free to reverse the negative trends it faced in NATO and U.S.-Soviet military balance, in the world economy, in its international image, and in other areas. Only by getting out of Iraq can the United States possibly gain sufficient international support to design a new strategy for limiting the burgeoning growth of anti-Western forces it has unleashed in the Middle East and Southwest Asia.
Note: This is the third piece General Odom has written for NiemanWatchdog.org. See also: What’s wrong with cutting and running? (Aug. 3, 2005) and Want stability in the Middle East? Get out of Iraq! (Nov. 11, 2005)
Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University. He was Director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988. From 1981 to 1985, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army's senior intelligence officer. From 1977 to 1981, he was Military Assistant to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
The Nieman Watchdog
Iraq through the prism of Vietnam
COMMENTARY, March 08, 2006
Those who say Iraq is nothing like Vietnam have another guess coming, says retired Gen. William Odom. He lists striking similarities and asserts that only after it pulls out of Iraq can the U.S. hope for international support to deal with anti-Western forces.
By William E. Odom
diane@hudson.org
The Vietnam War experience can’t tell us anything about the war in Iraq – or so it is said. If you believe that, trying looking through this lens, and you may change your mind.
The Vietnam War had three phases. The War in Iraq has already completed an analogous first phase, is approaching the end of the second phase, and shows signs of entering the third.
Phase One in Vietnam lasted from 1961 until the Congress passed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution in March 1965, authorizing deployment of large U.S. combat forces in South Vietnam. It began with hesitation and a gross misreading of American strategic interests. It concluded with the U.S. use of phony intelligence that made it seem that North Vietnamese patrol boats had attacked U.S. ships in the Tonkin Gulf without provocation.
President Kennedy was ambivalent about deeper involvement, but some of his aides believed that a North Vietnamese takeover of the south would bring Sino-Soviet dominion over all of Southeast Asia. They paid little attention to the emerging Sino-Soviet split, which the Intelligence Community was reporting in the early 1960s. Accordingly, the “containment of China” became their goal, their rationale for U.S. strategic purpose – that is, not allowing the Soviet Bloc to expand in this region.
Was it really in the American interest to “contain China” in Vietnam? By 1965, Soviet leaders were also pursuing the containment of China, in Southeast Asia and elsewhere. Did it, then, make sense for the United States to commit large military forces to the pursuit of Soviet objectives in Southeast Asia? Obviously not; the White House’s strategic rationale had no grounding in reality.
Not only Soviet leaders but Ho Chi Minh also wanted to contain China. A long-time loyalist to Moscow and early member of Lenin’s Communist International, he was never under China’s thumb. Yet he cooperated with Beijing to balance his dependency on Moscow, disallowing either to frustrate his aim, unifying all of Vietnam under his rule.The Johnson Administration used an apparent North Vietnamese attack on U.S. ships in the Gulf of Tonkin on the coast of North Vietnam in the spring of 1965 to persuade Congress to support the introduction of major U.S. ground forces in South Vietnam. We now know that U.S. special operations – incursions into North Vietnam by Navy Seals – played a role in prompting North Vietnamese gun boat actions that became the casus belli for President Johnson. Thus, a misleading interpretation of the known facts, i.e., the intelligence assessment of these events, became the critical factor in making it America’s war, not just Saigon’s war.
Phase One in Iraq, the run-up to the invasion, looks remarkably similar. Broodings about the “necessity” to overthrow Saddam’s regime were heard earlier, but signs of action appeared in January 2002, when President Bush proclaimed his “axis of evil” thesis about Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, countries he accused of acquiring “weapons of mass destruction” and supporting terrorists against the United States. This became the cornerstone of his rationale for invading Iraq, and it was no less ill-conceived than the strategic purpose for President Johnson’s war in Vietnam. It better served the interests of Iran and Osama bin Laden.
Iran had serious scores to settle with Iraq. In 1980, Saddam Hussein launched a bloody war that dragged on until 1988 without a decisive end. That President Bush would destroy Saddam's regime, saving Iran the trouble, was probably beyond its clerics’ wildest dreams.
He did the same for al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden must have been ecstatic. The U.S. invasion opened the way for al Qaeda cadres to enter Iraq by the scores. Killing Americans in Iraq is much easier than killing them in the United States after 9/11. Moreover, toppling secular Arab leaders – including Saddam – was, and remains, Osama bin Laden’s highest priority aim. America is farther down his list, seen as an intermediate objective in the long struggle to bring his version of radical Islamic rule to all Arab countries.
As it turned out, the alleged intelligence that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction” and that Saddam aided al Qaeda was grossly wrong. That, of course, became a major international embarrassment, alienating many U.S. allies and aiding its enemies in their claims that America is an aggressor state that cannot be trusted.
Does all of this – confused war aims and phony intelligence – sound familiar? It should.
Phase Two in Vietnam was marked by a refusal to reconsider the war’s “strategic” rationale. Rather, debate focused only on “tactical” issues as the war went sour.
By1965 things had begun going badly for U.S. military operations. By the end of March 1968, public opinion was turning against the war and Johnson chose not to run for re-election. His own party in Congress was breaking with him, and the pro-war New York Times reversed itself that summer.
During this phase, no major leader or opinion maker in the United States dared revisit the key strategic judgment: did the U.S. war aim of containing China make sense? Instead, debate focused on how the war was being fought: on search-and-destroy operations, on body counts, and pacification efforts.
This obsession with tactical issues made it easier to ignore the strategic error. As time passed, costs went up, casualties increased, and public support fell. We could not afford to “cut and run,” it was argued. “The Viet Cong would carry out an awful blood-letting.” Supporters of the war expected no honest answer when they asked “How can we get out?” Eventually Senator Aiken of Vermont gave them one: “In boats.”
Phase Two in Iraq reveals that the same kind of strategic denial error prevails today. Since 2003, public discourse has focused on how the war is being fought. Reconstruction is inadequate. Not enough troops are available. We should not have dismantled the Iraqi military. Elections will save the day. The insurgency is in its “last throes.” And so on. Some of these criticisms are valid, but they fail to address the fundamental issue, the validity of U.S. strategic purpose.
As al Qaeda marched into a country where it had not dared to tread before, the White House refused to admit that its war allowed them in. As Iran’s influence with Iraqi Shiite clerics and militias quietly expands, the administration refuses to confess its own culpability. As Shiite politicians appear headed to dominate the U.S.- created “democracy” in Iraq, no one is asking “Who lost Iraq to Iran?”
Instead, after each election and referendum in Iraq, hope surges in the media. The New York Times’s reporting on the elections in February of last year was eerily reminiscent of its reporting from Saigon on the 1968 elections.
The end of Phase Two is not yet here, but the Congress is showing signs of nervousness about where the war is taking the country. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel has said that by no measure can it be said that the United States is winning the war. Republican Congressman Walter Jones is trying to push a resolution through the House, calling on the President to begin a withdrawal. When Democratic Congressman Jack Murtha, a highly decorated Marine war veteran, asserted that the war was hopeless and that U.S. forces should be withdrawn, supporters of the Bush White House attacked his patriotism. Sadly, the Democratic leadership refused to defend him.
Does all this sound familiar? Not entirely. In 1968 the Democratic Congress proved willing to oppose the Democrat in the White House. The Republican Congress today has yet to show the same courage and wisdom.
Phase Three in Vietnam was marked by “Vietnamization” and “make- believe diplomacy” in Paris, policies still ignoring the strategic realities at the war’s beginning.The wind-down in Vietnam actually started in Johnson’s last year in office, but Richard Nixon implemented it (taking his time doing so). Rather than a rapid pullout, he pursued two tactics. The first was turning the war over to South Vietnam’s military so that U.S. forces could withdraw. By 1972 most of them were gone. Second, negotiations in Paris through Soviet intermediaries with the North Vietnamese began. Both were based on transparently false assumptions.
The key problem in South Vietnam had always been achieving a political consolidation among anti-Viet Cong elites. It was not building effective military and police forces. In fact, as South Vietnamese military units became more effective, their commanders competed aggressively for political power, insuring a weak dictatorial regime in Saigon.The assumptions about the Paris peace talks were no less illusory. Their designer, Henry Kissinger, believed that Moscow would “help” the United States reach a settlement short of total capitulation. In fact, by the late 1960s, the war was not only serving Soviet purposes against China, but also weakening NATO, hurting the U.S. currency in the international exchange rates, and making the charge of “imperialism” believable to citizens in many countries allied to the United States. Thus Soviet leaders had no objective reason to help the United States find a face-saving exodus. The deeper into “the big muddy” in Vietnam went the United States, the better for the Soviet Union. Second, Moscow could not have compelled North Vietnamese leaders in Paris to accept half a loaf in South Vietnam. Hanoi was playing off Moscow and Beijing with no intention of conceding its ultimate goal for any price.
The war ended, we now know, with the abject failure of both policies. As helicopters evacuated the American Embassy in Saigon in 1975, both illusions vanished.
Phase Three in Iraq is only beginning. Early signs were apparent in the presidential election campaign of 2004. Both Bush and Kerry put full confidence in “Iraqization.” U.S. forces will “stand down” as Iraqi forces “stand up.” They differed only on who could train more Iraqis faster. Nor would they acknowledge that “political consolidation” had to come before “military consolidation,” as the Vietnam experience demonstrated.
In Iraq, we watch U.S.-led make-believe diplomacy negotiating a constitutional deal among Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. Should we believe that the Iraqi Shiites, a majority of the population with the trauma of Saddam’s bloody repressions burned into their memories, will settle for less than full control? And why should we expect the Kurds to surrender their decade-old autonomy after suffering no less bloody repressions than did the Shiites? And why should we expect Sunnis to trust a Shiite-Kurdish regime not to take revenge against them for Saddam’s crimes? And why would Iran and Syria be willing to abandon support for their co-religionists in Iraq in order to strike a peace deal favorable to the United States?
Will Phase Three in Iraq end with helicopters flying out of the “green zone” in Baghdad? It all sounds so familiar.The difference lies in the consequences. Vietnam did not have the devastating effects on U.S. power that Iraq is already having. On this point, those who deny the Vietnam-Iraq analogy are probably right. They are wrong, however, in believing that “staying the course” will have any result other than making the damage to U.S. power far greater than changing course and withdrawing sooner in as orderly a fashion as possible.
But even in its differences, Vietnam can be instructive about Iraq. Once the U.S. position in Vietnam collapsed, Washington was free to reverse the negative trends it faced in NATO and U.S.-Soviet military balance, in the world economy, in its international image, and in other areas. Only by getting out of Iraq can the United States possibly gain sufficient international support to design a new strategy for limiting the burgeoning growth of anti-Western forces it has unleashed in the Middle East and Southwest Asia.
Note: This is the third piece General Odom has written for NiemanWatchdog.org. See also: What’s wrong with cutting and running? (Aug. 3, 2005) and Want stability in the Middle East? Get out of Iraq! (Nov. 11, 2005)
Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University. He was Director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988. From 1981 to 1985, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army's senior intelligence officer. From 1977 to 1981, he was Military Assistant to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Saturday, March 11, 2006
MUSINGS by MARINA MAHATHIR
Malaysia Today
09 March 2006
MUSINGS by MARINA MAHATHIR
IN 1948, one of humankind’s most despicable ideas, apartheid, was made into law in South Africa where racial discrimination was institutionalised. Race laws touched every aspect of social life, including a prohibition of marriage between non-whites and whites, and the sanctioning of “white-only” jobs. Although there were 19 million blacks and only 4.5 million whites in South Africa, the majority population were forced to be second-class citizens in their homeland, banished to reserves and needing passports to travel outside them, even within their own country.
It was only in 1990 that apartheid began to crumble and South Africans of all colours were finally free to live as equals in every way.
With the end of that racist system, people may be forgiven for thinking that apartheid does not exist anymore. While few countries practise any formal systems of discrimination, nevertheless you can find many forms of discrimination everywhere. In many cases, it is women who are discriminated against.
In our country, there is an insidious growing form of apartheid among Malaysian women, that between Muslim and non-Muslim women.We are unique in that we actively legally discriminate against women who are arguably the majority in this country, Muslim women. Non- Muslim Malaysian women have benefited from more progressive laws over the years while the opposite has happened for Muslim women.
For instance, since the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, polygamy among non-Muslims was banned. Previously men could have as many wives as they wanted under customary laws. Men’s ability to unilaterally pronounce divorce on their wives was abolished and, in its place, divorce happens by mutual consent or upon petition by either spouse in an equal process where the grounds are intolerable adultery, unreasonable behaviour, desertion of not less than two years, and living separately for not less than two years. Compare that to the lot of Muslim women abandoned but not divorced by their husbands.
Other progressive reforms in the civil family law in the late 1990s were amendments to the Guardianship Act and the Distribution Act. The Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 was amended to provide for equal guardianship for both father and mother, rather than the previous provision where only the father was the primary guardian of the children. In contrast, the Islamic Family Law still provides for the father as the sole primary guardian of his children although the mother is now allowed to sign certain forms for her children under an administrative directive.
The Distribution Act 1958 was also amended to provide for equal inheritance for widows and widowers, and also granted children the right to inherit from their mothers as well as from their fathers. Under the newly proposed amendments to the Islamic Family Law, the use of gender-neutral language on the issue of matrimonial property is discriminatory on Muslim women when other provisions in the IFL are not gender-neutral. Muslim men may still contract polygamous marriages, may unilaterally divorce their wives for the most trivial of reasons and are entitled to double shares of inheritance.
These differences between the lot of Muslim women and non-Muslim women beg the question: do we have two categories of citizenship in Malaysia, whereby most female citizens have less rights than others? As non-Muslim women catch up with women in the rest of the world, Muslim women here are only going backwards. We should also note that only in Malaysia are Muslim women regressing; in every other Muslim country in the world, women have been gaining rights, not losing them.
Ends
09 March 2006
MUSINGS by MARINA MAHATHIR
IN 1948, one of humankind’s most despicable ideas, apartheid, was made into law in South Africa where racial discrimination was institutionalised. Race laws touched every aspect of social life, including a prohibition of marriage between non-whites and whites, and the sanctioning of “white-only” jobs. Although there were 19 million blacks and only 4.5 million whites in South Africa, the majority population were forced to be second-class citizens in their homeland, banished to reserves and needing passports to travel outside them, even within their own country.
It was only in 1990 that apartheid began to crumble and South Africans of all colours were finally free to live as equals in every way.
With the end of that racist system, people may be forgiven for thinking that apartheid does not exist anymore. While few countries practise any formal systems of discrimination, nevertheless you can find many forms of discrimination everywhere. In many cases, it is women who are discriminated against.
In our country, there is an insidious growing form of apartheid among Malaysian women, that between Muslim and non-Muslim women.We are unique in that we actively legally discriminate against women who are arguably the majority in this country, Muslim women. Non- Muslim Malaysian women have benefited from more progressive laws over the years while the opposite has happened for Muslim women.
For instance, since the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, polygamy among non-Muslims was banned. Previously men could have as many wives as they wanted under customary laws. Men’s ability to unilaterally pronounce divorce on their wives was abolished and, in its place, divorce happens by mutual consent or upon petition by either spouse in an equal process where the grounds are intolerable adultery, unreasonable behaviour, desertion of not less than two years, and living separately for not less than two years. Compare that to the lot of Muslim women abandoned but not divorced by their husbands.
Other progressive reforms in the civil family law in the late 1990s were amendments to the Guardianship Act and the Distribution Act. The Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 was amended to provide for equal guardianship for both father and mother, rather than the previous provision where only the father was the primary guardian of the children. In contrast, the Islamic Family Law still provides for the father as the sole primary guardian of his children although the mother is now allowed to sign certain forms for her children under an administrative directive.
The Distribution Act 1958 was also amended to provide for equal inheritance for widows and widowers, and also granted children the right to inherit from their mothers as well as from their fathers. Under the newly proposed amendments to the Islamic Family Law, the use of gender-neutral language on the issue of matrimonial property is discriminatory on Muslim women when other provisions in the IFL are not gender-neutral. Muslim men may still contract polygamous marriages, may unilaterally divorce their wives for the most trivial of reasons and are entitled to double shares of inheritance.
These differences between the lot of Muslim women and non-Muslim women beg the question: do we have two categories of citizenship in Malaysia, whereby most female citizens have less rights than others? As non-Muslim women catch up with women in the rest of the world, Muslim women here are only going backwards. We should also note that only in Malaysia are Muslim women regressing; in every other Muslim country in the world, women have been gaining rights, not losing them.
Ends
Controlling government powers
The Sun, Kuala Lumpur
10 March 2006
Controlling government powers
Shad Saleem Faruqi
THE CONCENTRATION OF all three governmental powers - executive, judicial and legislative - in the hands of the same person or institution is a sure invi tation to despotism. All Constitutions, therefore, seek to divide, disperse and limit the powers of each organ of state. No one model holds universal sway.
The French political philosopher Montesquieu propounded a theory of strict separation of powers under which there is no sharing of powers or personnel among the branches of state. No organ of government controls or interferes with the exercise of functions by others.
American scholar Madison proposed an alternative check and balance theory. Matters must be so designed that each branch checks and balances the others. While essentially separated, each branch is connected to the other branches by a system of checks and balances.
The Malaysian legal system is closer to the check and balance version of Madison. The powers of each organ are meant to check the powers of the other organs. However, theory and practice do not always march in step.
Parliament and Executive
Unlike the system in the USA where the President and the Congress are totally separated, in Malaysia the Cabinet is part of Parliament. Under Article 43(3) of the Constitution the political executive is collectively responsible to Parliament. During question time, debates, and motions Ministers are answerable, accountable and responsible to the representatives of the people.
A Cabinet that conducts itself totally against the wishes of Parliament may be defeated and removed from office by a vote of no- confidence in the Dewan Rakyat. In actual practice, however, cabinet answerability to Parliament is more notional than real. Though legislation is the function of Parliament, the Cabinet dominates the legislative sphere.
Though the Standing Orders permit Private Members bills, in practice all Acts of Parliament are government-sponsored. The policy behind them is determined by the Cabinet which uses its majority in parliament to push a legislative proposal through.
Legislative powers are delegated by Parliament to members of the executive. More laws today are a product of delegated legislation than of parliamentary legislation. There are no limits on the amount or nature of power that Parliament can delegate to the executive: Eng Keock Cheng vs PP.
The American doctrine against excessive delegation does not apply in Malaysia. The Monarch who heads the government is also in effect the "third wing" of Parliament. Local government powers which are created under the Local Government Act 1976 are both legislative and executive within the district of each authority. Article 150 of the Constitution grants very wide legislative powers to the King. Under Article 159(5) the Conference of Rulers is given a role in the constitutional amendment process.
Parliament and Judiciary
Judges are barred from membership of both Houses of Parliament. Under Article 127 their conduct cannot be the subject of a parliamentary debate save on a motion supported by one quarter of the total members of a House. The remuneration and other terms of office of a judge cannot be altered to his disadvantage: Article 125(7).But in some respects there are departures from the strict theory of separation of powers. Both Houses of the Parliament exercise some judicial function in that they can punish members or outsiders for contempt.
In Malaysia Parliament is not supreme and judicial review of parliamentary statutes on constitutional grounds is available.
Though law-making is primarily the function of Parliament many important legal principles are a product of the common law made by judges in the course of deciding cases.
Judiciary and Executive
In the provisions relating to the independence of the superior courts, the Constitution comes close to the separation of powers theory of Montesquieu. Judges are appointed by the executive but cannot be dismissed by the government except on the recommendation of tribunal of fellow judges: Article 125.
But in many other areas, the functions of the judiciary and the executive intermingle. Judges of the subordinate courts are part of the Judicial and Legal Service and are transferable from the bench to executive positions.
The rise of administrative tribunals is a departure from the strict theory of separation of powers. These tribunals determine disputes which is a function of the judiciary. However, most decisions of the executive and of administrative tribunals are subject to judicial review on the grounds of unconstitutionality, ultra vires and natural justice.
This is an important aspect of the rule of law. The Monarch, in exercising the prerogative of mercy, is able to vary or suspend a judicial decision.
Conclusion
The strict theory of separation of powers finds no place in Malaysia. The blending of the executive and the legislature is a fundamental characteristic of our system of parliamentary government. But the check-andbalance theory of separation of powers applies.
No organ totally controls the others and each is subject to some check and balance from the others.
Of the three organs of state, the executive is the most powerful. But its powers can be controlled and checked by the other organs. Illegal acts of ministers can be declared ultra vires by the courts.
Cabinet decisions may be questioned on the floor of Parliament. However, the parliamentary function of overseeing the executive is not being performed adequately. Steps need to be taken to improve the institutional efficacy of the legislature in the matter of enforcing ministerial responsibility.
There is no total separation at the institutional level. But there is a functional separation at least as to the independence of the judiciary.
The writer is Professor of law at UiTM. He can be contacted atShad247@salam.uitm.edu.my.
10 March 2006
Controlling government powers
Shad Saleem Faruqi
THE CONCENTRATION OF all three governmental powers - executive, judicial and legislative - in the hands of the same person or institution is a sure invi tation to despotism. All Constitutions, therefore, seek to divide, disperse and limit the powers of each organ of state. No one model holds universal sway.
The French political philosopher Montesquieu propounded a theory of strict separation of powers under which there is no sharing of powers or personnel among the branches of state. No organ of government controls or interferes with the exercise of functions by others.
American scholar Madison proposed an alternative check and balance theory. Matters must be so designed that each branch checks and balances the others. While essentially separated, each branch is connected to the other branches by a system of checks and balances.
The Malaysian legal system is closer to the check and balance version of Madison. The powers of each organ are meant to check the powers of the other organs. However, theory and practice do not always march in step.
Parliament and Executive
Unlike the system in the USA where the President and the Congress are totally separated, in Malaysia the Cabinet is part of Parliament. Under Article 43(3) of the Constitution the political executive is collectively responsible to Parliament. During question time, debates, and motions Ministers are answerable, accountable and responsible to the representatives of the people.
A Cabinet that conducts itself totally against the wishes of Parliament may be defeated and removed from office by a vote of no- confidence in the Dewan Rakyat. In actual practice, however, cabinet answerability to Parliament is more notional than real. Though legislation is the function of Parliament, the Cabinet dominates the legislative sphere.
Though the Standing Orders permit Private Members bills, in practice all Acts of Parliament are government-sponsored. The policy behind them is determined by the Cabinet which uses its majority in parliament to push a legislative proposal through.
Legislative powers are delegated by Parliament to members of the executive. More laws today are a product of delegated legislation than of parliamentary legislation. There are no limits on the amount or nature of power that Parliament can delegate to the executive: Eng Keock Cheng vs PP.
The American doctrine against excessive delegation does not apply in Malaysia. The Monarch who heads the government is also in effect the "third wing" of Parliament. Local government powers which are created under the Local Government Act 1976 are both legislative and executive within the district of each authority. Article 150 of the Constitution grants very wide legislative powers to the King. Under Article 159(5) the Conference of Rulers is given a role in the constitutional amendment process.
Parliament and Judiciary
Judges are barred from membership of both Houses of Parliament. Under Article 127 their conduct cannot be the subject of a parliamentary debate save on a motion supported by one quarter of the total members of a House. The remuneration and other terms of office of a judge cannot be altered to his disadvantage: Article 125(7).But in some respects there are departures from the strict theory of separation of powers. Both Houses of the Parliament exercise some judicial function in that they can punish members or outsiders for contempt.
In Malaysia Parliament is not supreme and judicial review of parliamentary statutes on constitutional grounds is available.
Though law-making is primarily the function of Parliament many important legal principles are a product of the common law made by judges in the course of deciding cases.
Judiciary and Executive
In the provisions relating to the independence of the superior courts, the Constitution comes close to the separation of powers theory of Montesquieu. Judges are appointed by the executive but cannot be dismissed by the government except on the recommendation of tribunal of fellow judges: Article 125.
But in many other areas, the functions of the judiciary and the executive intermingle. Judges of the subordinate courts are part of the Judicial and Legal Service and are transferable from the bench to executive positions.
The rise of administrative tribunals is a departure from the strict theory of separation of powers. These tribunals determine disputes which is a function of the judiciary. However, most decisions of the executive and of administrative tribunals are subject to judicial review on the grounds of unconstitutionality, ultra vires and natural justice.
This is an important aspect of the rule of law. The Monarch, in exercising the prerogative of mercy, is able to vary or suspend a judicial decision.
Conclusion
The strict theory of separation of powers finds no place in Malaysia. The blending of the executive and the legislature is a fundamental characteristic of our system of parliamentary government. But the check-andbalance theory of separation of powers applies.
No organ totally controls the others and each is subject to some check and balance from the others.
Of the three organs of state, the executive is the most powerful. But its powers can be controlled and checked by the other organs. Illegal acts of ministers can be declared ultra vires by the courts.
Cabinet decisions may be questioned on the floor of Parliament. However, the parliamentary function of overseeing the executive is not being performed adequately. Steps need to be taken to improve the institutional efficacy of the legislature in the matter of enforcing ministerial responsibility.
There is no total separation at the institutional level. But there is a functional separation at least as to the independence of the judiciary.
The writer is Professor of law at UiTM. He can be contacted atShad247@salam.uitm.edu.my.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Who’s the One who raises prices please stand up!
Who’s the One who raises prices please stand up!
Now, senior government leaders and ministers, mind you, are up and about pointing their fingers and extolling businessmen and traders. Traders are being warned, coaxed and appealed not to “raise” prices. They are being asked to be reasonable and not to take the “opportunity” at the latest and most alarming oil price hike ever. Consumers are urged to be "smart", to shun such traders, to seek fair prices. As if consumers have a choice, they have to buy fuel wherever they are! Imagine even FOMCA came up with such gibberish!
But it wasn’t the traders who drew the first hike, it was the government. Now anyone knows fuel is a basic commodity and anyone with a two cents worth of economic sense knows the effect of pulling the oil subsidy away.
What is does is to transfer a burden which a government ought to provide for the benefit of all its people. Has the cash situation or the government coffers been dried up to load this back to the people?
They knew prices will rise, they knew the effects especially on the common Malaysian but they still went ahead. Now it is just reduced to a shameful and pathetic game of cheap propaganda and media spin. So the easiest spin is to blame everything on the traders. Now, even if prices were to rise there is no mechanism to stop it. Raising prices of uncontrolled items is not illegal. Neither is raising oil prices, toll rates nor TNB tariffs for that matter. Who is going to shout and warn TNB or PLUS for it is not going to happen that way.
Now the wife was at a coffee shop just the other day. Two pak ciks were arguing over the price rises watched attentively by others in the shop. One argued that it should not have been so much especially when 30 sen a litre shoots up the price of a cylinder of LPG. The other told him to be grateful for it was still lower than Singapore or Thailand. Now suddenly, they asked the wife, correctly guessing that she is a schoolteacher, “Why don’t we ask the madam schoolteacher here to give her views as someone in the middle?”
So, she told them casually, that we are not Singapore nor are we Thailand. We should not let our peopl! e, our poor, our rural folks suffer price increases and use our neighbours as excuses and twisted justification. She stopped at that.
She told me she would have said more about what is really happening, what has happened to the wealth, what about the revenues of Petronas, why should common folk suffer out of financial inadequacies of the state. Seems people are not happy with the mess they are faced with!
Abu Omar
Now, senior government leaders and ministers, mind you, are up and about pointing their fingers and extolling businessmen and traders. Traders are being warned, coaxed and appealed not to “raise” prices. They are being asked to be reasonable and not to take the “opportunity” at the latest and most alarming oil price hike ever. Consumers are urged to be "smart", to shun such traders, to seek fair prices. As if consumers have a choice, they have to buy fuel wherever they are! Imagine even FOMCA came up with such gibberish!
But it wasn’t the traders who drew the first hike, it was the government. Now anyone knows fuel is a basic commodity and anyone with a two cents worth of economic sense knows the effect of pulling the oil subsidy away.
What is does is to transfer a burden which a government ought to provide for the benefit of all its people. Has the cash situation or the government coffers been dried up to load this back to the people?
They knew prices will rise, they knew the effects especially on the common Malaysian but they still went ahead. Now it is just reduced to a shameful and pathetic game of cheap propaganda and media spin. So the easiest spin is to blame everything on the traders. Now, even if prices were to rise there is no mechanism to stop it. Raising prices of uncontrolled items is not illegal. Neither is raising oil prices, toll rates nor TNB tariffs for that matter. Who is going to shout and warn TNB or PLUS for it is not going to happen that way.
Now the wife was at a coffee shop just the other day. Two pak ciks were arguing over the price rises watched attentively by others in the shop. One argued that it should not have been so much especially when 30 sen a litre shoots up the price of a cylinder of LPG. The other told him to be grateful for it was still lower than Singapore or Thailand. Now suddenly, they asked the wife, correctly guessing that she is a schoolteacher, “Why don’t we ask the madam schoolteacher here to give her views as someone in the middle?”
So, she told them casually, that we are not Singapore nor are we Thailand. We should not let our peopl! e, our poor, our rural folks suffer price increases and use our neighbours as excuses and twisted justification. She stopped at that.
She told me she would have said more about what is really happening, what has happened to the wealth, what about the revenues of Petronas, why should common folk suffer out of financial inadequacies of the state. Seems people are not happy with the mess they are faced with!
Abu Omar
Monday, January 02, 2006
Selamat Menyambut Tahun Baru
Ada beberapa perkembangan menarik yang dijangkakan pada tahun ini.
Dari aspek politik negara, ramai peneliti politik tanahair menjangkakan bahawa suhu politik negara akan meningkat dengan penglibatan Anwar Ibrahim secara langsung mulai Mei 2006 di dalam pelbagai isu khususnya isu rasuah dan penyelewengan. PAS pula akan memulakan strategi pilihanraya ke-12 (2008) mulai Mac 2006 (Countdown to General Election). Beberapa dasar dan langkah serta keputusan Kerajaan akan dihalusi dan dikritik. Yang menariknya, wakil-wakil rakyat mungkin tidak akan dilihat sebagai berkesan kerana sistem pilihanraya yang mudah dimanipulasi menyebabkan semakin kurang yang berminat di dalam politik pilihanraya. Manipulasi ini akan menyebabkan rakyat lebih mempercayai penglibatan secara langsung dengan NGOs kerana ini lebih murah kos penglibatannya dan lebih berkesan berbanding jutaan ringgit yang terpaksa dibelanjakan untuk memenangi kerusi pilihanraya.
Dari aspek ekonomi, RMK-9 akan dibentangkan di Parlimen pada April 2006 nanti. Kedudukan kewangan Kerajaan akan dinilai. Negara juga akan menentukan sama ada Dasar Ekonomi Nasional akan diperkenalkan.
Dari aspek sosial, pengalaman pluraliti di Malaysia akan terus diuji sebagaimana tahun-tahun sebelum ini. Isu murtad, pluralisme, agama dalam MyKad, isu antara agama dan seumpamanya akan terus melatari hubungan antara kaum di Malaysia.
Weblog MERDEKA akan cuba membanyakkan analisa terhadap isu-isu ini sebagai satu pentas "policy-advocacy" kepada mereka yang berminat.
"Stay Tuned"
Lentera, 2 Januari 2006
Dari aspek politik negara, ramai peneliti politik tanahair menjangkakan bahawa suhu politik negara akan meningkat dengan penglibatan Anwar Ibrahim secara langsung mulai Mei 2006 di dalam pelbagai isu khususnya isu rasuah dan penyelewengan. PAS pula akan memulakan strategi pilihanraya ke-12 (2008) mulai Mac 2006 (Countdown to General Election). Beberapa dasar dan langkah serta keputusan Kerajaan akan dihalusi dan dikritik. Yang menariknya, wakil-wakil rakyat mungkin tidak akan dilihat sebagai berkesan kerana sistem pilihanraya yang mudah dimanipulasi menyebabkan semakin kurang yang berminat di dalam politik pilihanraya. Manipulasi ini akan menyebabkan rakyat lebih mempercayai penglibatan secara langsung dengan NGOs kerana ini lebih murah kos penglibatannya dan lebih berkesan berbanding jutaan ringgit yang terpaksa dibelanjakan untuk memenangi kerusi pilihanraya.
Dari aspek ekonomi, RMK-9 akan dibentangkan di Parlimen pada April 2006 nanti. Kedudukan kewangan Kerajaan akan dinilai. Negara juga akan menentukan sama ada Dasar Ekonomi Nasional akan diperkenalkan.
Dari aspek sosial, pengalaman pluraliti di Malaysia akan terus diuji sebagaimana tahun-tahun sebelum ini. Isu murtad, pluralisme, agama dalam MyKad, isu antara agama dan seumpamanya akan terus melatari hubungan antara kaum di Malaysia.
Weblog MERDEKA akan cuba membanyakkan analisa terhadap isu-isu ini sebagai satu pentas "policy-advocacy" kepada mereka yang berminat.
"Stay Tuned"
Lentera, 2 Januari 2006
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Malaysia Today
26 December 2005
Give me a sign Anwar
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Dr Mahathir Mohamad, one-time Prime Minister of Malaysia, swore (sort of) that Anwar Ibrahim is his anointed successor. What does he need to do to prove this? Does he need to hug and kiss Anwar in public to convince everyone? The rumours that he is about to sack Anwar are totally unfounded and were created by people jealous of Anwar.This was how convincing Dr Mahathir was in August 1998. Then, barely a few days later, Anwar was sacked on allegations of sexual misconduct. And Dr Mahathir said he had known for years about Anwar’s sexcapades and there was no way he would allow a homosexual become the next Prime Minister of Malaysia.
Yes, that’s right: can we take anything politicians say at face value?
Many others have made ‘binding’ pledges, promises, or declarations; some even taking an oath in public. Some have said that if they died and got reborn they would never rejoin Umno. Some swore (sumpah keramat) that their struggle is with the Reformasi Movement and they toured the length and breadth of Malaysia swearing so, in full view of tens of thousands of supporters.Later on, most of these people abandoned the Reformasi Movement and rejoined Umno in spite of invoking God’s name in convincing the people they would never do so.
Yes, that’s right: even a promise to God can be broken if it is for political purposes.
On Friday, 23 December 2005, at the Istana Hotel in Kuala Lumpur, Anwar declared he would never rejoin Umno. This was not the first time he made this public pledge. The question of him rejoining Umno, said Anwar, had been raised so many times but his answer was still the same: no way!“I have many friends in Umno, especially at the divisional level. They meet me to talk and discuss issues. I have never at any time refused to meet them. In discussions with them, they have always asked me if I could rejoin Umno and my answer has always been a ‘no’,” Anwar reiterated.
When pressed further on why he would not rejoin Umno, Anwar replied, ‘The corrupt practices in Umno made it not possible for me to join Umno now.”Anwar added that although the Umno President and Prime Minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, was fighting corruption, other party leaders had yet to endorse this battle. Asked if he would rejoin Umno if it underwent a change, Anwar replied that this was unlikely to happen in the near future.Unfortunately, although Anwar may sound very convincing, as convincing as Dr Mahathir was in August 1998, somehow many still harbour doubts and are convinced that Anwar would rejoin Umno if given just half a chance. And the only reason he is not rejoining Umno is because the party does not want him back and not for all those other reasons mentioned above.
Take Anwar’s reply to the question whether he would rejoin Umno if it underwent change. The sceptics point out to his reply ‘this was unlikely to happen in the near future’.This can be interpreted many ways. One would be: it would never happen in the near future, but it could happen in the distant future. This means he would eventually rejoin Umno. It is just that it would not happen too soon. But it would happen some time down the road.
The second way of interpreting this would be: he would rejoin Umno if it underwent change. But then he does not see Umno changing in the near future so he would certainly not be able to rejoin Umno even if he wanted to and even if Umno wanted him back. The issue here is not that he does not want to rejoin Umno but that Umno would not change, thereby making it impossible for him to rejoin the party.Malaysians always read between the lines. They never take anything at face value. They always try to spot the hidden message rather than the stated message. And this is because history has shown that the hidden messages have been the ones that have turned out to be the eventual scenario.
One of Anwar’s most loyal and trusted aides’ statement at last week’s Parti Keadilan Rakyat Annual Congress in the Istana Hotel too has added fuel to the fire of rumours. Ezam Mohd Noor, who is also Parti Keadilan Rakyat’s Youth Leader, announced that he is backing out from the party to concentrate on his Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) work.Ezam had recently launched his NGO called Gerak which will focus on combating corruption. In Malaysia, that would tantamount to King Canute ordering the tide to recede. King Canute failed and most likely so will Ezam.
And every Malaysian knows this. You cannot fight corruption from outside the government. You cannot even do it when you are in the government, or heading the government. Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has learnt this the hard way. And so did Anwar back in the days when he was an idealistic Prime-Minister-in-waiting. So how can you succeed in the opposition ranks when you cannot do it at the pinnacle of political power?
“What, therefore, is Ezam’s real motive?” everyone is asking. They do not for one minute buy this fighting corruption through an NGO story. Abdullah Ahmad Badawi can’t do it though he is Prime Minister. Anwar Ibrahim could not do it when he was Acting Prime Minister. Ezam could not do it as Youth Leader of a political party (in fact, they put him in jail when in November 1999 he exposed corrupt acts of certain ministers). Can he do it as head of an NGO?That is what the sceptics are saying. And they are justified in saying so, for this is reality and idealism has no place in Malaysian politics.
Ezam then said his first choice is Umno. He does not deny this. And he joined Umno because of Anwar Ibrahim. He would never have joined Umno if not because of Anwar Ibrahim. His love, therefore, is not for Umno but for Anwar. But it is not Anwar the man that he loves but Anwar’s struggle. He is in love with what Anwar stands for: change, reformation, or reformasi.
The message is crystal clear, from both Anwar and Ezam. There is no confusion as to what they are saying. Point well taken! But the people still want to read between the lines. They do not want to take the statements at face value. They are trying to interpret the hidden message behind all these many statements.That is Malaysia for you.Anwar would need more than mere rhetoric for the people to believe him. They all know he wants to become Prime Minister. No one would dare swear otherwise. And they all know, as the opposition leader, he would at best become the opposition leader in Parliament, never the Prime Minister -- for they just do not see the opposition ever winning the general election and forming the next government; at least not in this generation.
Anwar would have to do more than just talk, give press conferences, and deliver addresses. There has already been too much talk as it is. The time for talk is over and it is now time to act. Anwar needs to do something very drastic and revolutionary for the people to believe that he is committed to the Reformasi cause (and we will talk about this in more details next week).Well, we may not have that long to wait. Maybe in three months or so we will see the silver lining in that ever so dark cloud that we are begging for Anwar to show us. Maybe in about three months or so Malaysians will once and for all rest easy in knowing that Anwar is reviving Reformasi and giving it a new image and identity, while retaining its original ideals. But of course the powers-that-be would not be resting easy though.
They would be wishing they had brought Anwar back to Umno super-fast to keep him out of the hands of the opposition.Hold your breath the next few months and make sure you do not turn blue.
[MGG] The National Front assumes its mantle on its way to destruction
[MGG] The National Front assumes its mantle on its way to destruction
THE NATIONAL FRONT IS NOT absolutely in power as it thinks it is. It is true it has two thirds or more in parliament and 12 of the 13 state assemblies. but it keeps looking over its shoulders before it does any legislation. First it was the reformasi crowd, which was formed in the wake of Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim's dismissal as deputy prime minister and UMNO's deputy president and expulsion from UMNO.
The National Front, in reality UMNO, the Malay party which controls the non-Malay parties in the front, at first did what it wanted. The other leaders of the National Front would do whatever it asked, whether right or wrong and did not care if the move affected the parties and communities they allegedly led, so long as it remained in the Cabinet. The National Front bypassed Parliament, and the state assemblies in the states they controlled, did not believe in getting them involved unless it, usually UMNO, wanted their support. It did not believe in consultation or approval. They had absolute majority in most cases.
They introduced the New Economic Policy, to give the Malays a leg up in business while they held the political power to which the non-Malay party leaders, in the cabinet, agreed. The laws were passed in parliament and the state assembies, with the non- Malays and non-Muslims voting even if the law affected their members.In Kelantan, it has had a tough ride. PAS won the first general election in 1959 and lost it in 1978, when UMNO forced it down in demonstrations. PAS won it again in 1990 and has held it since. The National Front issues threats it would not honour if it is in PAS's position, in the states or in parliament, and it promises what it will not honour once the election or byelection is over.
It made promises galore in the recent byelection in Pengkalen Pasir, which it won, but it has ignored the promises made in the other constitutuencies in Kelantan it won in the general election last year. But it believes it can do this because people have short memories, it demonises the other political parties, which it publicises in the newspapers it control, in reality all the mainstream newspapers, and therefore the whole country. People are sheep at the best of times, and lap it up, often blamining the opposition for not rebutting the National Front's political moves. But the opposition is not allowed to own its own newspapers. Many have tried, but the government view is that what is not in the National Front's interests is not allowed.
The opposition parties are allowed their organs which they can sell only to their members. And so most Malaysians have not seen or heard of them.Over the years, the opposition parties often take the law into their hands. Harakah, the PAS party organ, is published twice monthly, and is sold to the general public, though it cannot, and gets its views heard throughout the land. It sells more than 200,000 copies every issue, and more during elections or byelections. It has a multiracial leadership because eight of its pages are in English. It is read avidly because it contains the alternative point of view, a refreshing change from the Malay, English, Chinese and Tamil newspapers which carry only the National Front point of view. It carries the views of opposition leaders only when they support the National Front views, or if they are in trouble.
The opposition leaders, instead of fighting the existing position of the National Front, take the line of least resistance, and survive in the National Front shadow. But there are exceptions. PAS is committed to an Islamic state as it proclaimed when the religious wing broke off from UMNO in 1951. The Parti Rakyat Malaysia remained a thinking man's party, and the rump after its split with the Parti Socialis Malaysia has joined Parti Keadilan Rakyat, formed to get Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim from jail.
The other political parties do not matter because it is personality splits with parties in the National Front that formed them, and they would usually like to replace their alter egos in the National Front. National Front leaders will not admit it but the views although publicly decried is quietly taken as its.Politics has changed in more than 60 years. The present leaders of the National Front ignores the reasons why they are around, and rewrite history to make themselves relevant. They believe in the primacy of the party, not its members.
The National Front leadership is so made as to ensure its leaders, their children and hangers on benefit at the expense of the members. But the Malay, Chinese and Indian are beginning to question this. They are on the sidelines because they do not have leaders. But pockets of them exist all over the country, either racially or multiracially grouped. The National Front thinks they can be overcome them but it is becoming difficult. The young men and women coming out of universities will provide that leadership. It aleady begins to show. PAS and PKR get Malay recruits more than UMNO for political activities. In fact, it is said the young Malay who wants to become rich joins UMNO, those who want to be in politics look elsewhere.
The National Front is caught between a cleft stick. To all intents and purposes, it is UMNO, for its policies take precedence even if it affects the non-Malays. It changed its policy to Islamic rather than Malay, to challenge PAS, and insists its version of Islam is right. But all changes to Islamic law in the federal and state governments, which affects the minorities – Malays, Chinese, Indian, Hindus, Chistians, women – are unanimously passed, which means the non-Malays and non–Muslims agree. But the women are not minorities. They represent more than half the electorate.
The recent amendments to the Islamic family laws in the Federal Territories was not plain sailing as women came in the last minute to protest. But the law was passed, because at a price: it would bring amendments later to satisfy the women. The law must now go to the Agung for his signature before it becomes law. The women's affairs minister, a woman, has initiated talks with the Religious Affairs department, but not with women's groups, to amendment the law.
In Mexico, the ruling party which ruled from 1929 partly because it got the whole country involved in party elections was overthrown after 70 years. While that party was autocratic, it allowed democracy within it that any body elected, especially the president, was co- opted as members. But it was not enough. It was defeated in 1999. The National Front has remained in power since 1955 with the president deciding who the individual parties would select as their leaders, who are excused often from the five-year-rule that ordinary members are subject to. It is a top down party, and what the president says goes.
There is no democracy in the party contrary to what it says. It does not expect opposition from anyone; so when it comes from the women senators, it promises changes, but looks over its shoulders when it makes them, and the list is widening: Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim, PKR, PAS, UMNO women, and goes on. UMNO is a Malay and Islamic party because it has the support of non-Moslems and non- Malays. It clings to non-Malay support, as Malay support deserts it. Now the non-Malay and other support threatens to desert it. The National Front thinks it is on specific policies, but it comes from the National Front believing it can do what it likes, how it likes and without consulting others. But now it has opposition from within, who fights a political battle against its leaders.
Recently, the NF president used his power in government to order the Yang Dipertuan Agung not to attend a function held by his opponents in UMNO. Soon it can be both only if it is supported by the non-Malays.
M.G.G. Pillai
[MGG] Pak Lah and the Ali Baba firm
THE PRIME MINISTER'S SON-IN-LAW, Mr Khairy Jamaluddin, has bought into that Ali Baba concern, ECM Libra, for RM9.2 million. How did he get that money in his thirties when he has no known jobs or business that would earn him that much in so short a time. He has threatened to sue any one, including me, for bringing out these to the general public. But threatening to sue is a way of life with people at the top, when when they cannot or rather not explain. Look at the chairman of MAS, who would threaten or lodge police reports to stop the emails against him.
Mr Husam Musa, a PAS MP, has asked how Mr Khairy got the money to buy into ECM Libra, whether it came from commissions he received for selling off Malaysian government assets to Singapore.But first things first. ECM Libra is encouraged by Pak Lah's government and the Chinese running the firm knows that. Of the the three Malays on its board, two are close to Pak Lah – his son-in-law and the former group editor in chief of the New Straits Times, Dato' Khalimullah Hassan.
It came into prominence after Pak Lah was sure of becoming prime minister. With so many impediments for non-Malays in this country, they take steps so that their firms can flourish. Otherwise it would be just a ho-hum firm. Look around you, and the firms that succeed are those with connections. The Malays on its board is well connected, the close they are to the centre of power, the better placed the firm is.The Malaysian media, all owned by National Front or its members, have described ECM Libra as a boutique investment firm in which, it is alleged, the Malay investors are on the driving seat. It is far from the truth as possible. Companies get into difficulties once their patron prime minister leaves the scene. As has happened to companies owned by business men close to the former prime minister, Tun Mahathir Mohamed. It gave the companies a fillip, the x factor (if you like), during the premiership and difficultures when the great man departs.
ECM Libra did not make it to the top before Pak Lah and revels in that relationship. But ECM Libra is someway involved in foreign, particularly Singapore, firms taking key states in Malaysian government firms.But it still does not explain how Mr Khairy got his money. His father- in-law encouraged transparence, but the man does not believe in it. He got a PPE (politics, philosophy, economics) from Oxford and took a masters elsewhere for the Oxford degree was not good enough. He knew how to marry well. He was squiring Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim' s daughter, but switched attentions to Pak Lah's daughter, and married her. when the former deputy prime minister was arrested.
There is talk of Dato' Seri Anwar would rejoin UMNO. But that is unlikely. UMNO politicis would not allow it. He had risen to the top the first time around, by discarding those whose backs he used to be deputy prime minister. When he was arrested, others moved in in the vacuum, and would have to vacate if that happened.The UMNO leaders are against him. Tun Mahathir, who had him arrested, is no more in office, but, active in retirement, runs a campaign not to allow Dato' Seri Anwar to rejoin UMNO. For all the changes to Malaysia he has presided over in his 22 years are prime minister, he will known now as the man who arrested Dato' Seri Anwar. Pak Lah, when he became foreign minister, was intent on one thing: remove the man from his perch as deputy prime minister. Though distantly related, he did not want Dato' Seri Anwar around: both are from neighbouring constituencies in Penang, and dangerous to the other's future if one is top.
But Dato' Seri Anwar rejoining UMNO is spread by Mr Khairy and his acolytes. His future in politics is finished if Dato' Seri Anwar is not in UMNO. But Dato' Seri Anwar has ruled out rejoing UMNO. The man who succeeds Pak Lah as Prime Minister, most probably deputy prime minister Dato' Seri Najib Tun Razak, would not want him around when he became prime minister. There is already anger that without any experience and with connections he has risen to the top. When he has to stand for election, as for the UMNO Youth deputy head, the opponents know why way their bread is buttered, and he was returned unopposed. After all, his father-in-law is Prime Minister, whom he meets regularly and thinks the world of him.The UMNO leadership is in shambles, bought to that position by a man who bought his way to the top. He is said to be a political and business genius.
Dross becomes gold whenever he touches it. So he attracts UMNO members who hope to make a profit, in politics and/or business. His drumbeaters in the Malaysian press, who cannot ignore the prime minister's son-in-law, tells Malaysians he is a figure to be reckoned with. The Pengkalen Pasir byelection in Kelantan was described as Khairy's triumph. But he should remember what happened to that other UMNO's rising star, Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim.Mr Khairy Jamaluddin did not start life as a rich man. He was the son of a diplomat, educated at government expense, even in Oxford. He tried too fast to be in Parliament, but he stumbled badly.
He was not an UMNO candidate for elections to Parliament from Rembau. He has too many enemies in the state, one of whom is the former mentri besar and federal cabinet minister, Dato' Isa Samad. His behind-the-scenes work enabled that man to be removed from the cabinet, but he remains a power in the state. But he does not know the Malay or Malaysian ground. But he believes he can survive at the top by his connections and his less-than-honest acquisition of wealth. It has led to questions on how he got that much in so short a time. He believes he can get to the top without explaining anything, threatening legal action against those who has a contrarian view, and by being close to those in power. But he cannot, unless he explains himself as a politician, business man, and what he does for a living, and how he came to all that wealth.
M.G.G. Pillai
pillai@streamyx.com
Anwar terus dibimbangi, risalah burukkannya diedarkan kepada orang tertentu
Anwar terus dibimbangi, risalah burukkannya diedarkan kepada orang tertentu
Friday, December 30 2005
Risalah ini mula dikesan ketika pilihan raya kecil Pengkalan Pasir di Kelantan baru-baru ini dan kini mula disebarkan ke seluruh negara.
Oleh BASIRON ABDUL WAHAB
TEMERLOH, 30 Dis (Hrkh)-Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) mengesan pengedaran risalah mempertikai pembebaskan Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim daripada tuduhan liwat oleh Mahkamah Pesekutuan 2 September 2004.Risalah bertajuk 'Anwar bebas namun beliau tetap bersalah meliwat' itu didapati diedar melalui pos dan dihantar kepada individu tertentu dalam naskhah yang banyak dipercayai untuk diedarkan kepada orang ramai.
Penasihat Undang-undang PKR Pahang, Ahmad Nizam Abdul Hamid berkata beliau telah menerima salinan risalah tersebut daripada salah seorang pemimpin Umno Bahagian Temerloh semalam.
Risalah ini mula dikesan ketika pilihan raya kecil Pengkalan Pasir di Kelantan baru-baru ini dan kini mula disebarkan ke seluruh negara.
Antara lain risalah itu menyebut bahawa keputusan panel hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan yang membebasan dan melepaskan Anwar daripada tuduhan meliwat bukan dengan keputusan sebulat suara.
Dua orang hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan yang membenarkan rayuan Anwar ialah Dato' Abdul Hamid Mohamad dan Tengku Dato' Baharuddin Shah Tengku Hamid.
Dua orang hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan yang membenarkan rayuan Anwar ialah Dato' Abdul Hamid Mohamad dan Tengku Dato' Baharuddin Shah Tengku Hamid.
Risalah itu turut menyelitkan sedutan keputusan hakim Abdul Hamid Mohamad dan hakim Tengku Baharuddin Mahmud yang mengatakan.
Turut diselit ialah sedutan keputusan Hakim Datin Paduka Rahmah Hussain yan! g menolak rayuan Anwar.
Menurut Nizam, pengedaran risalah tersebut membuktikan ada pihak yang tidak senang duduk dengan pembebasan Anwar apa tah lagi Anwar telah mengarahkan peguamnya menyaman bekas Perdana Menteri Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad yang menuduhnya meliwat.
Kata beliau, pengedaran risalah itu juga menunjukkan pengaruh Anwar masih berbisa sehingga beliau perlu diburuk-burukkan semula.
"Pihak tersebut pastinya risau dan bimbang kalau-kalau rakyat memberi sokongan kepada Anwar sehingga beliau berjaya menerajui Malaysia.
"Kita yakin mereka yang terlibat dalam menyebarkan risalah tersebut adalah mereka yang mempunyai hubungan dengan bekas perdana menteri berdasarkan hujah-hujah yang digunakan mempunyai persamaan dengan apa yang selalu disebut oleh bekas PM itu dan dilapor oleh media," kata Ahmad Nizam.
Elakkan kes Moorthy jadi punca ketegangan antara agama
Elakkan kes Moorthy jadi punca ketegangan antara agama
Friday, December 30 2005
EKMAL YUSOF
SEMANGGOL, 30 Dis (Hrkh) - Kerajaan Malaysia diminta bersikap tegas mempertahankan keputusan Mahkamah Syariah negara ini bagi mengelakkan ia terus dipetikaikan.Ketua Penerangan PAS, Ustaz Ahmad Awang merujuk kepada kes Mohamad Abdullah @ M Moorthy yang dijadikan isu apabila mayatnya menjadi rebutan antara Majlis Agama Islam dengan keluarganya yang mempertikaikan Moorthy telah masuk Islam.
"Isu ini kecil sahaja tetapi ia akan merebak dan akan menjadi besar jika kerajaan tidak bertegas mempertahankan perlembagaan yang memberikan hak keputusan Mahkamah Syariah tidak boleh dipertikaikan," kata Ahmad Awang.
Menurutnya, pada tahun 1985 telah diputus! kan, sebarang keputusan di Mahkamah Syariah tidak bolih dipertikaikan oleh mana-mana pihak lagi," kata beliau.
Bantah
Sementara itu, hampir 100 penganut agama bukan Islam berhimpun di perkarangan Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur bagi membantah keputusan mahkamah itu terhadap kes Moorthy.
Majlis menyalakan lilin itu dianjurkan oleh Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism.
Bagi mereka keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi itu seolah-olah tidak memberi peluang kepada penganut bukan Islam menyuarakan pendapat dalam isu yang melibatkan orang Islam dan bukan Islam.
Sedangkan, di Mahkamah Syariah pula mereka tidak ada hak untuk bersuara.
Mahkamah Tinggi (Rayuan Khas) membuat keputusan mereka tidak mempunyai kuasa untuk menilai kembali keputusan samada sesaorang itu Islam atau tidak kerana ia adalah kuasa Mahkamah Syariah.
Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah sebelum ini telah membuat keputusan Mohamad Abdullah @ M Moorthy telah menganut Islam dan hendaklah dikebumikan secara Islam.
Bagaimanapun, isterinya yang masih belum Islam mempertikaikannya dan meminta Mahkamah Tinggi menilai kembali keputusan Mahkamah Syariah itu.
Mohamad @ M Moorthy meninggal minggu lalu selepas koma akibat jatuh dari kerusi rodanya. Bagaimanapun jenazahnya tersadai di Hospital Kuala Lumpur dan tidak dapat dikebumikan kerana perebutan hak itu.
Beliau sebelum itu lumpuh selepas tercedera semasa latihan tenteranya. Moorthy adalah salah seorang pendaki Everest yang pertama dari Malaysia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)