Why Najib’s 1Malaysia will fail – Part 1

Why Najib’s 1Malaysia will fail – Part 1

June 23, 2009

Let’s try to put a context to where Najib is coming from and headed to with his 1Malaysia.

What is Najib’s grand design that he now calls 1Malaysia?

Is his 1Malaysia novel and innovative, or re-hashed from a model that we’ve seen before?

Two days ago, Malaysianinsider reported Mukhriz as saying that it would be difficult to realise the “1Malaysia” concept if the Malays are not united, as the the Malays are the pillar in making 1 Malaysia a reality and played an important role in ensuring the country’s progress as they are the majority in the country.

I quote Mukhriz from that report :

“If they are not united, how are we going to realise the 1 Malaysia concept? This will not only be detrimental to the Malays but also to other races…When we talk about Malay unity, we are not talking from the racism point of view. We have accepted the fact that there cannot be a government which is led 100 per cent by Malay leaders … we have been practising power sharing for so long”

What do you discern from this?

One, ‘Malay unity talk’ ala UMNO-style is not racism.

Two, power sharing in the governance of this country is set, not on the premise of having the best men and women in place to get the job done, but along racial lines, with a predominance of Malays at the helm of government because they are the majority, because this is how power has been shared thus far.

If you want to know where Mukhriz is coming from, you don’t have to go far.

Just read his father’s ‘The Malay Dilemma’.

I’ve just finished re-reading that book.

If you’ve never read this book, you should make the effort to.

It’ll give you an idea of how this country found itself on that slippery slope into the cesspool we now are in when Mahathir took over the PMship.

It will reveal how this man, in the late 60’s / early 70’s, conveniently distorted a prevailing ‘have versus have-nots’ class issue into a racial one, portrayed as being that of the ‘marginalised Malays versus the non-Malay community’ and, through his years of rule as PM, perpetuated this thinking, with the acquiescence of the other BN component party leaders, of course.

In a speech that he was supposed to have delivered at the Harvard Club of Malaysia on 29th July 2002, this is what Mahathir is reported to have said :

“When I wrote The Malay Dilemma in the late 60s, I had assumed that all the Malays lacked the opportunities to develop and become successful. They lacked opportunities for educating themselves, opportunities to earn enough to go into business, opportunities to train in the required vocation, opportunities to obtain the necessary funding, licences and premises. If these opportunities could be made available to them, then they would succeed. …… So what is the new Malay dilemma? Their old dilemma was whether they should distort the picture a little in order to help themselves. The new dilemma is whether they should or should not do away with the crutches that they have got used to, which in fact they have become proud of. There is a minority of Malays who are confident enough to think of doing away with the crutches, albeit gradually. But they are a very small minority. Their numbers are not going to increase any time soon. They are generally regarded as traitors to the Malay race. ….”

There you have it!

Distort the picture in order to help themselves!

That the truth then was that every marginalised Malaysian, regardless of race,“lacked opportunities for educating themselves, opportunities to earn enough to go into business, opportunities to train in the required vocation, opportunities to obtain the necessary funding, licences and premises”, was buried in the distorted picture that was presented, so that certain quarters could help themselves.

11 years before that reported speech to the Havard Club, in 1991, Mahathir launched his Vision 2020 where he also spoke of establishing a united Malaysian nation; a Bangsa Malaysia, as he put it. I have alluded to this in a previous post last year. This is what Mahathir had said in 1991 of that Bangsa Malaysia :

“By the year 2020, Malaysia can be a united nation, with a confident Malaysian society, infused by strong moral and ethical values, living in a society that is democratic, liberal and tolerant, caring, economically just and equitable,progressive and prosperous, and in full possession of an economy that is competitive, dynamic, robust and resilient. There can be no fully developed Malaysia until we have finally overcome the nine central strategic challenges that have confronted us from the moment of our birth as an independent nation…The first of these is the challenges ofestablishing a united Malaysian nation with a sense of common and shared destiny. This must be a nation at peace with itself, territorially and ethnically integrated, living in harmony and full and fair partnership, made up of one ‘Bangsa Malaysia’ with political loyalty and dedication to the nation…The eighth is the challenge of ensuring an economically just society. This is a society in which there is a fair and equitable distribution of the wealth of the nation, in which there is full partnership in economic progress. Such a society cannot be in place so long as there is the identification of race with economic function, and the identification of economic backwardness with race.”

18 years on from that inspirational speech of his, why is it that we do not appear to be anywhere near establishing that one ‘Bangsa Malaysia’ with political loyalty and dedication to the nation ?

Was Mahathir’s Vision 2020 no different from his ‘Look East’ policy that he innovated soon after taking office, in that both were made up of inspiring rhetoric with little political will to carry through and which got us all sufficiently distracted so that the privileged hands that were raiding the national coffers could work at will and unnoticed?

What is the difference between Mahathir’s Vision 2020 and Najib’s 1Malaysia?

Is there such a difference between Mahathir and Najib that we should be encouraged to believe that, whilst Mahathiir had little impact in taking us anywhere near the Bangsa Malaysia he spoke of, with Najib, it will be otherwise ?

http://harismibrahim.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/why-najibs-1malaysia-will-fail-part-1/

Watching Malaysia change

Watching Malaysia change

Thursday, 18 June 2009 02:26pm

©The Nut Graph (Used by permission) By Zedeck Siew DATUK Ambiga Sreenevasan's reference point for how aware Malaysians are about issues is the taxi driver. The respected lawyer and former Malaysian Bar president is no stranger to being scolded by taxi drivers while she is dressed up in her courtroom garb. "'Aiya, this judiciary, can buy,' one told me," Ambiga says. "They are very critical, and are very clear on what is right and wrong." The Malaysian taxi driver is one of her gauges of public awareness, and the senior lawyer is convinced that nobody should underestimate the Malaysian public's understanding of issues. Indeed, Ambiga's seen quite a lot in her own life. The Nut Graph talked to her on 26 May 2009 at her office in Kuala Lumpur about growing up through 13 May 1969, watching the 1988 judicial crisis unfold, and the changing attitudes of Malaysians. We are all pendatangs. Where are you from? My father was born and bred in Malaysia. My mother was from South India, and my father married her and brought her to Malaysia. My paternal grandfather was also from South India. I think it was a question of looking for opportunities, for him. He was an assistant commissioner for labour. My parents have three children. I was born in Seremban, on 13 November 1956; my father, who was a doctor, was posted there. My father, Datuk Dr G Sreenevasan, was one of our pioneer urologists. He was the main person behind the Institute of Urology and Nephrology in Hospital Kuala Lumpur. I remember him spending longs days and nights planning this. Growing up, I remember that my father was very inspired by Tunku Abdul Rahman, and his call for all races to unite. My father had many opportunities abroad, but he decided to stay here; he wanted to build something up in Malaysia. And he did. All my father's friends and colleagues were like that. Those people who lived through independence really had the spirit of nationalism in them. The drive that they had — unfortunately we've lost that now. Comparing them with Malaysians today, I understand when people of that generation tell me: you don't know what it is to want to build up our country. What was school like? I went to Convent Bukit Nenas from Form One to Upper Six. I remember that my friends and I had a strong sense of "Malaysianism". This was after 1969. It's true that 13 May destroyed a lot of trust. But then there was the Rukunegara, which we all had to learn — seemingly real attempts to bring people together. We were happy to strengthen our command of Bahasa (Malaysia), for example. It felt as if — in my school, at least, where the student body was mixed — there was a coming together of the races. It was a healing period. Let's backtrack. What was 13 May like? I was 13 at the time. On the day it happened, we got a message from the school authorities: Go home early. My mother came to pick me up. Well, we lived in Kampung Baru, at the time. On Jalan Putra — now Jalan Raja Muda 1. This was not far from the then-Selangor menteri besar's home. We were there because it was close to the General Hospital, so it was easy for my father to get to work. Ours was the last house on the row. My father was overseas at the time, so it was just mother and us children, my uncle and aunt, and the household cook. At 6pm we saw people running past, wearing headbands. Soon after, we heard screams. Later, there were cars being burnt in the field. The house behind us was burnt. We were always safe, though. I don't know why. Maybe it was because we had lived there so long, so everyone knew us. Or maybe it was because we were Indian [Malaysian]. When my father got back, about a week after 13 May, he helped out at the hospital, treating people with injuries. He said: "I read about the riots, but I never imagined it would be this bad." It was bad. We had never before seen anything like that. For a long time after, whenever I heard fireworks going off, I would feel nervous. What was university like? When I went to university in the UK, my horizons expanded and I learnt about freedom of thought and speech — and what these concepts meant in real terms. When I visited the Bar there, I saw how a functioning democracy operated. This time was a very important part in moulding my views on human rights and fundamental freedoms. I came back and joined the Malaysian Bar in 1982. It was a wonderful organisation, even then. Being a young lawyer, I remember being petrified to appear before people like Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader — he would chew you up if you didn't know your brief. He was so respected because he knew your brief, and the law, and was of the highest integrity and intellect. In fact, I'd appeared before all the judges who were later suspended in the judicial crisis. What was it like, being a young lawyer during the 1988 judicial crisis? It was a real shock to the system. Our first three prime ministers never touched the judiciary; probably this was because they were lawyers themselves. Our judiciary was a very respected institution. I remember, as the tribunals were in progress, a group of us lawyers sitting at the back of the courtroom and watching. To see these men, who had so much self-respect, to be treated in that shabby way — we couldn't believe it. I remember going home and bursting into tears. It was like someone demolishing your house while you're standing in it. Things are getting better since those dark times. But, ultimately, when it comes to the judiciary, it is up to the judges themselves to act courageously, now. When did you become aware about race? Race was always there. We were always aware of it, but it wasn't as divisive as it is today. The New Economic Policy worked quite well, initially. Then the abuses started: the enrichment of a few at the expense of the many who actually needed it. And these few became arrogant. Playing the race card suited them, because it solidified their positions. I think, very frankly, that politicians are responsible for bringing so much racism into our society. I think it suited the politicians to play on our differences instead of what unites us. But the arrogance that grew with this has been rejected by the people. I'm talking about the March 2008 elections. What we saw was a rejection of racist rhetoric. People were fed up. Previously, the 13 May bogey used to work — but that's not working any more. Where do you think we are going, now? I like to think of Malaysian history as being divided into three phases. The initial years, during my father's time, when there was this nationalistic feeling, this drive to show the world that we could be an independent and united nation. Then a long period, during which things became more divisive. A time when we appeared to have economic prosperity, but also had so much corruption and racism. And now, a third phase: the push for change. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of young Malaysians now feel no connection with 13 May. They don't come from that past. There is a disconnect between the youth, and old politics. My father's generation adored Tunku. I don't know whether we will get that feeling again. But you need this generation saying: the world has moved on, so let me move on, too. http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/general_opinions/comments/watching_malaysia_change.html

Press Release: Protect and uphold solicitor-client privilege

Press Release: Protect and uphold solicitor-client privilege

Tuesday, 16 June 2009 03:50pm

The Malaysian Bar is alarmed and perturbed that the police continue to harass and intimidate lawyers by calling them in for questioning on matters relating to the execution of their professional duties.

Most recently, lawyer Chan Kok Keong was served a Section 111 notice that was silent as to the subject he would be questioned about. At the interview, he was asked regarding an affidavit that had been affirmed by his client, former Perak assembly speaker V. Sivakumar, in a suit where Chan is representing the said client. Lawyers representing Chan in this matter were themselves informed that they would be required to give statements if they wished to accompany Chan at the interview.

Such questioning makes a complete mockery of the fundamental principle of solicitor-client confidentiality by which lawyers are bound. It shows a grave lack of respect for the criminal justice system, as the solicitor-client privilege lies at the core of this system.

This harassment must stop if we are indeed committed to the principle of access to justice and to the Rule of Law. It is internationally recognised that lawyers perform a vital function when they act for their clients in the pursuit of justice, and that they must be permitted to carry out these functions freely.

We urge the police to immediately stop such unwarranted action whereby officers continue to call in lawyers representing clients, to have their statements recorded. Further, we call on the police to respect the Rule of Law, which includes the right to legal access and the substantially unfettered right, recognised in law, to legal representation without the undue harassment and intimidation of lawyers carrying out their duties as officers of the court.

Ragunath Kesavan

President

Malaysian Bar

16 June 2009

http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/press_statements/press_release_protect_and_uphold_solicitor_client_privilege.html