Y.B. Sivarasa on DSAI's prosecution - videos from Media Rakyat

Dear Readers,

This is a must see from the folks at Media Rakyat!

Sivarasa Rasiah: You The Rakyat Be The Jury (Pt 1)

Sivarasa Rasiah: You The Rakyat Be The Jury (Pt 2)

Sivarasa Rasiah: You The Rakyat Be The Jury (Pt 3)

These videos (and lots more like them) are available at Media Rakyat. In their own words:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights indicates: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers”

Mediarakyat is dedicated to improve the freedom of information in Malaysia.

At Mediarakyat, you will find plenty of informative & interesting video clips concerning current events & speeches that the mainstream newspapers & TV stations may not be able to cover or reluctant to cover.

Please consider supporting them so that they may bring us the news and views that BN does not want us to know about.

Sincerely,
Malaysian Heart

"One Malaysia?" - op-ed article from the New York Times

I've just read a very interesting op-ed article by Philip Bowring, on the New York Times website. In the article titled "One Malaysia?", he (in my opinion) quite accurately describes the socio-political situation we Malaysians find ourselves in, in the aftermath of GE-12 and the first 100 days of DS Najib's government. How can one not concur when he writes, "Malaysia badly needs a break from 52 years of sometimes authoritarian and corrupt rule by a coalition of race-based parties headed by the United Malays National Organization (UMNO), which controls most levers of power and money"?

Bowring isn't accurate in everything; for example, he describes Altantuya's murderers as DS Najib's "security guards" rather than as police officers serving in PDRM's Unit Tindakan Khas. However, his last three paragraphs more than make up for it (bold emphasis mine):

Ultimately, the race issue prevents wholehearted cooperation among the opposition parties in Anwar’s coalition. Some of the Islamists hanker to make common cause with UMNO to strengthen Malay unity and defend pro-Malay, pro-Islamic discrimination. This in turn fits well with allegations by senior UMNO figures that Anwar is a traitor to his race by aligning with the Chinese and Indian minorities.

The notion that Malays and Muslims are under threat from minorities is absurd. But it helps keep Malays loyal to UMNO even while the ruling coalition can claim that it is both multiracial and moderate. The coalition, however corrupted, is still seen by many as representing moderation and stability. UMNO may have pandered to Islamist demands, but few would accuse its leaders of piety or puritanism.

Najib’s slogan is “One Malaysia,” an attempt to portray his government as a unifying force. Its actual policies may remain racially skewed in favor of Malays and oppressive of dissent. But given the opposition’s divisions, and the Malay sense of entitlement that makes multiracial politics so difficult, the slogan may work to keep UMNO in power for another decade.

Spot on, wouldn't you say? What are we doing about it?

Please do read the entire article here. You may need to register with nytimes.com first, which is free and takes only a few minutes. You can find more articles by Philip Bowring here.

You can never Win with a Bigot - My Response to "OutSyed the Box: Is The DAP A Chauvinist Party?"

This is my Response to "OutSyed the Box: Is The DAP A Chauvinist Party?" by Syed Akbar Ali (SAA, or Tuan Syed)

Dear Reader, allow me to to share a "joke" with you. Two waiters were talking about the diners they were serving that evening:

Waiter A: There's a large party at my table. I'll get a good tip tonight for sure.
Waiter B: Don't hold your breath, buddy. They're all X (insert name of group here), everyone knows that X are cheapskates.

Later that night...

Waiter A: Hey, I got a really nice tip from them! They weren't cheapskates at all!
Waiter B: Of course you got a "big tip", sucker. Everyone knows those X control all our money anyway!

As far as waiter B is concerned, the X are damned if they do and damned if they don't. He has made up his mind and no truth can change it. He is a caricature of a bigot, i.e. one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. Bigots never let facts, reason and logic get in the way of what they want to believe; after all, why should they, when it's so much easier to find crooked thinking and dishonest arguments enough to support their bigotry?

Bigotry is spreading fast in our blogosphere, on both sides of the political divide; I believe that SAA's blog entry of 31 July 2009 is but one example of it. The purpose of the post in question seems to be to imply that the DAP is chauvinist, anti-Malay and anti-Islam.

Let's look at some of the things SAA wrote, beginning with this about Lim Guan Eng (LGE): "Lim Guan Eng made a public display of standing up for a young Malay girl because the fellow involved was Rahim Tamby Chik, Guan Eng’s nemesis in Melaka at that time. Would Lim Guan Eng have made the same stand if it was not Rahim Tamby Chik? What if it was Chua Soi Lek?" So, according to SAA, if someone like LGE speaks up for a Malay girl, he/she is only motivated by political and/or racial motivations, never by principle or more nobler aims.

Yet, five paragraphs later, he is taking Theresa Kok to task for (supposedly) doing the exact opposite: NOT speaking up for a Malay girl! He writes: "Then it came to pass that the girl was not Chinese but actually a Malay girl, also wearing a tudung, who was a suspected drug addict. Not surprisingly that also marked the end of Theresa Kok's involvement in the matter. She dropped the case like a hot potato."

Doesn't it seem like whatever a DAP politician says or does, SAA can find a way construe it to imply that they are opportunist, racist and/or worse? How convenient!

Let's look at another example of SAA's logic. Of LGE's conviction for sedition over the case allegedly involving Rahim Tamby Chik, he wrote: "By the way none of his lawyers (or even DAP) spoke of conspiracy, crooked judges etc after the verdict. Does anyone know the name of the judge who jailed Guan Eng? Crooked judge? How come DAP never said so?" He seems to be implying that LGE, his party and his lawyers have implicitly admitted his guilt because they (supposedly) did not dispute the judges verdict. Yet, in his post "The Solution To The Perak Crisis" of 12 May 2009, SAA criticised Perak PR leaders for disputing court decisions that were unfavourable to them!

There's just no way to win with Tuan Syed, is there? We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't! Would it be in any way unreasonable to suspect that SAA would have found a way to criticise LGE, even if he (LGE) had disputed his conviction?

SAA's arguments that I've described above, are all based on just one of the 38 dishonest tricks commonly used in arguments, namely no. 38: attributing prejudice or motives to opponents, without any evidence in support. That's easy to do, but by neglecting to go beyond smear tactics, such an argument does not consider the action or argument on its own merits. It also ignores the various possible real reasons a person acts or speaks in a particular way.

Let's look at another example by SAA, based on the same dishonest trick. SAA writes this about Lim Kit Siang (LKS): "In Bamiyan the Buddha statues were blown up but no one died. 11 Press statements were made by Kit Siang. In the destruction of the Babri Mosque, 2000 people were also massacred but no Press statement from Lim Kit Siang." SAA uses these facts to imply that LKS, and by extension the DAP, is anti-Malay, anti-Islam and chauvinist.

Now, if LKS had issued a statement SUPPORTING the destruction of the Babri Mosque by Hindu fanatics and the subsequent massacre of Muslims, then SAA's implication would have been very credible. However, as it stands, SAA has merely attributed, again, without evidence, a DAP leader's action (inaction, in this case) to prejudices or dishonourable motives.

This particular game can be played, with almost any combination of organisation, person and causes, until the cows come home. To see how ridiculous SAA's argument is, let's apply his logic, along with some of his own words to, let's say, Tun Dr. Mahathir (TDM). TDM launched SAA's book recently, and seems to be a person whom SAA admires very much; as he wrote here "If we had a 100 Vincent Tans and just one more Dr. Mahathir our country will be fine".

TDM, either personally and through his organisation, the Perdana Global Peace Organisation, has made numerous statements against the Israeli oppression of Palestinians. To paraphrase SAA, I congratulate TDM for his concern. Well done. However, how many statements has TDM made against the oppression of Christians in Pakistan? Can anyone guess? The answer is none. Since Tuan Syed had no qualms about arguing thus against LKS, would he also believe that TDM is anti Christian? Of course he wouldn't; the argument is preposterous.

My question to SAA is this: WHY does the shoe have to be put on the other foot before he realises the patent unfairness of his arguments? Isn't it a moral failing if one is unable to feel the unfairness and injustice felt by others in a situation, until and unless one's own interests are affected?

To be fair, Tuan Syed has not always written like this; indeed, he used to be one of the better bloggers out there. Even when I disagree with his point of view and conclusions, I used to find his blog entries well argued and if nothing else, principled. If you don't believe me, just take a look at here, here and even here; some antipathy towards DSAI and PR perhaps, but that's not a crime, is it? I could never find a crooked thought in them. For him to have sunk this low within the last couple of months, is saddening.

In my opinion, this recent blog post of SAA's represents the worst of what the Malaysian blogosphere is becoming: a seedy back alley for spreading bigotry, with spin, smear, insinuation and dishonest arguments; all done for partisan interests. An example of this is the effort by pro-BN bloggers and the BN owned mainstream media to paint PR as anti Islam and anti Malay. Tuan Syed seems to have jumped onto this particular bandwagon with much gusto.

Democracy needs a forum for open minds to honestly discuss and debate issues of National interest, as we work towards a Malaysia that is free from racism, bigotry, corruption, oppression, bad governance and tainted judiciary. Bigotry, on either side of the political divide, will destroy our blogosphere; it has already infected our mainstream media and blighted inter-community relations in the past, with dire consequences. If we care for our Nation's future, we need to reclaim this space for enlightened public discourse.

All of us have our own political beliefs and affiliations, there's nothing wrong with that. However, whatever those beliefs are, we have a responsibility to argue our cases justly and honestly; if not to our readers, then at least for the sake of our own conscience. SAA ends his post by writing: "So this may throw some light if the DAP is anti Malay, anti Islam, chauvinist etc." No, Tuan Syed, your words do not throw any light at all on the character of your intended victims, but they do reveal much about your own.

Sincerely,
Malaysian Heart

Is This the Standard of Journalism Practiced by the New Straits Times?

(screenshot of article taken at 1650hrs, 24/7/09)

(Disclosure: I am a member of Hartal MSM*, an advocacy group that calls for a Paper-free Tuesday -- "No buy, No lies")

1. Journalism's first obligation is to the truth.
2. Its first loyalty is to citizens.
3. Its essence is a discipline of verification.
4. Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.
5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power.
6. It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.
7. It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant.
8. It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional.
9. Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.

From "The Elements of Journalism": What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect

When a news organization's editorial policy is dictated by its owners, the quality of its journalism is often the first thing to go out the window (followed closely by its credibility, reputation and circulation figures). The general level of integrity and professionalism in our news media notwithstanding, I have to say that this "online exclusive" op-ed piece from the New Straits Times (22/7/09), entitled "They got their Royal Commission of Inquiry but will they stop their lynching?", is as egregious a case of journalistic misconduct as I have ever come across. Lest I be accused of making that claim just because I disagree with the article in question, please allow me share with you my reasons for saying so:

1) The writer made a significant error of fact by claiming that the purpose of the Royal Commission of Inquiry was "to probe the chary [sic] death of Teoh Boon Hock [sic]".

This is untrue. PM Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said (bold emphasis mine): "The Royal Commission will be set up according to specific terms, which is to scrutinise and study the procedures related to interrogations that are used by the MACC. It will also identify if there were any violations of human rights during Teoh’s interrogation."

The PM also made it clear that Teoh Beng Hock's death would NOT be investigated by the RCI, but by an inquest. He thus rejected the most critical component of what Teoh's family, Pakatan Rakyat leaders and civil society have been demanding all along.

Why is this error significant? Because the writer uses it to impugn the character and motives of Pakatan Rakyat and its leaders throughout the article, beginning with the headline itself. A major thrust of the article is to show that even when their demands have been met, PR leaders (ostensibly for selfish political reasons), will continue to criticize the RCI. Without this "misinterpretation" of the facts, his thesis cannot stand.

The full import of the PM's statement should have been quite obvious to the writer. He has misrepresented Pakatan Rakyat's position, and as of 1650 hrs on 24/7/09, this remains uncorrected.

2) The writer used at least two of the 38 dishonest tricks commonly used in argument, specifically:
a) he used emotionally loaded words, selectively. Against Pakatan Rakyat leaders, followers and their actions, he had this to say, without any supporting evidence (my emphasis in bold):

• band of noxious supporters
• toxic Pakatan demonstrations
• defiant rants
• this mob
• sly pre-emption
• Pakatan’s instigation
• parrot his all-time favourite bellowing
• pressing for a RCI
• howls of protest
• partisan party sycophant
• sly pre-empts
• Another sly pre-empting ploy
• last week’s rampage
• Pakatan Rakyat minions
• brutish smugness
• mob fury
• lynching, Malaysian-style

For the cabinet and government leaders, he has this instead:

• most pragmatic decision
• strongly endorsed the setting up of the RCI

b) he attributed prejudices or dishonourable motives to his "opponents", again without offering any evidence in support:

"They were almost certain of getting a favourable Cabinet response but the hyperboles and sly pre-emption that senior Pakatan leaders discharged seemed to have given the appearance that the goading provoked the Cabinet into agreeing to the RCI."

"But let’s not be surprised that Pakatan would claim credit for their RCI ingenuity."

"Pakatan leaders’ pressing for a RCI had a disingenuous purpose:... Pakatan people will be nudged aside from the glare of suspicion..."

"Now anticipate the howls of protest, even if it makes sense to expand the scope of the RCI’s inquiry to include all possibilities."

"Kit will find other specious means to further pile the burden of attestation on Najib to prove that the RCI is “absolutely independent” and will do their job fearlessly."

"Pakatan Rakyat minions will insist no less than a guilty verdict, that some MACC perp pushed Teoh Beng Hock out of the 14th floor to his death for no reason other than wanting to torture the young man.

3) To further his attack on his "opponents", the writer has subverted the meaning of words, obscuring the truth. For example, he describes Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim, a former vice-chairman of Transparency International’s Board of Directors no less, as a "sycophant", i.e. "a servile self-seeker who attempts to win favour by flattering influential people". To be sure, Tunku Aziz is a member of the DAP, but has the writer any evidence to show that Tunku Aziz has ever attempted to win favour by flattering influential people in DAP, Pakatan or anywhere else? If the favour of "influential people" is what Tunku Aziz sought, would the DAP have been the right party for him to join? One would have thought that there might have been much more "favourable" opportunities elsewhere, say, working for certain news media organisations.

One more example: the writer characterised Pakatan Rakyat's response to Teoh's death as a "lynching, Malaysian-style". To "lynch" is to punish violently or to execute, without due process, for real or alleged crimes. Another definition is "to punish (a person) without legal process or authority, especially by hanging, for a perceived offense or as an act of bigotry." It is a crime punishable by law in Malaysia, and it is what the writer accuses Pakatan Rakyat of doing to the MACC. Can he show how, and by what stretch of the imagination, can Pakatan Rakyat's actions thus far be construed as a lynching?

The irony is that the exact opposite may be argued, without any need for verbal obfuscation. Teoh Beng Hock was either a witness or a suspect in an alleged crime, and was, prima facie, in the custody of the MACC. If the reports of Halimi Kamaruzzaman's, Tan Boon Hwa's and Dariff Din's experience of the MACC's interrogation methods are reliable, then there is probable cause to suspect that Teoh too, may have been the victim of high handed interrogation tactics. Did Teoh's interrogators limit themselves to asking questions? Was psychological or physical violence used on him? Is it true that during his 10 hour interrogation, "officers dragged him to a window on the 14-story building and threatened to throw him out," as the Phillipine Daily Enquirer's website, quoting anonymous, "well-placed sources and officials close to the MACC", reports?

Considering the state of law enforcement and criminal investigation in Malaysia, with our history of suspicious deaths in custody, routine denial of access to counsel, allegations of politically motivated selective prosecution, the lack of real transparency and accountability, and our government's apparent inability to institute reforms (such as the IPCMC), isn't it reasonable for Malaysians to be asking those questions? All this, plus the inescapable fact that whatever was done to Teoh was done in OUR NAME, makes it a moral imperative that we actively work to uncover the circumstances surrounding his death. Asking our public servants tough questions, exploring the possibility that they have behaved criminally, and being very skeptical about the answers they give us, is not lynching, it is demanding that they be accountable to us.

By turning the very meaning of this word on its head, this "journalist" from the NST has insulted the memory of all who have suffered lynching at the hands of the powerful. He has made a mockery of the idea that our government and law enforcement authorities are accountable to the Rakyat; he seems to have chosen to serve power, rather than be an independent monitor of it.

With Malaysia at the crossroads in the aftermath of 8/3/08, advocacy journalism has become a "weapon" in the political "war" to determine which path our country takes. It is a genre of journalism that intentionally (and transparently) adopts a non-objective viewpoint, usually for a social or political purpose. It is certainly not new, and it is not disreputable per se; The Economist is an example of a publication that practices it quite well.

However, while advocacy journalists may justifiably eschew their newsroom colleagues' credo of objectivity (i.e. being neutral and not taking sides in their reporting), this does not absolve them of all standards of ethical journalism. Here is the bare minimum that they have to meet (adapted from here and here):

1) They must acknowledge and declare their editorial position and bias up front. Doing so will inform readers as to where the writer is coming from and allows them to employ their critical faculties accordingly. Working to promote a particular point of view without disclosing one's true stance is shilling.

2) They must be truthful, accurate, credible and ensure that every statement they make is factual and based on evidence from neutral sources. In other words don't spread propaganda, don't take quotes or facts out of context, "don't fabricate or falsify", and "don't judge or suppress vital facts or present half-truths". Requiring that media outlets refrain from spreading untruths and falsehood is not too much to ask for, is it?

3) Even if they do not provide equal time for their opponents' views, they must at least understand & address their opponents' relevant points & criticism - they must never ignore, trivialize or distort them. They must be fair and thorough.

4) They must use honest arguments & never resort to the crooked thinking and dishonest tricks commonly used in arguments. Avoid slogans, ranting, and polemics. Instead, "articulate complex issues clearly and carefully."

5) They must not allow their bias to turn into rose coloured glasses, or worse, a blind spot. They must not spare their own cause the tough, critical questions and scrutiny.

Without adhering to these most basic of standards, the resulting media "product" will be nothing more than propaganda, and bad one at that.

Had it come from a political party's media mouthpiece, the article might have been just bearable. After all, political propagandists and shills may rightly claim that they are not bound by any ethics, and are not obliged (or interested) to help citizens seek the truth. They may thus abandon even the pretence of reasoned discourse and honest logic, and to please their masters, may be as chauvinistic and as partisan as they please.

However, coming from the New Straits Times, the news outlet that is Malaysia's oldest newspaper still in print, one which claims that "Our goal is to be the preeminent provider of news, information and entertainment and to achieve total customer satisfaction through our professional and highly regarded workforce that values quality, integrity, innovativeness and personal service", it is nothing short of an abject disgrace.

It stands to reason that the NST's lofty goal will remain out of its reach so long as its journalists (and editors) choose to behave like members of the oldest profession, and not as members of an honourable one. Unfortunately, it also stands to reason that they will keep on plying their trade quite profitably, so long as we Malaysians keep availing ourselves of their services.

Sincerely,
Malaysian Heart

* Hartal MSM is a mediawatch group which had its beginnings in December 2007 in the People's Parliament, an initiative convened by civil rights lawyer Haris Ibrahim. The group seeks to promote a free and fair media as an impetus to Malaysia's stalled nation-building process.

MUST READ Article from Aliran: "ACT NOW! - Vibrant democracy requires eternal vigilance"

Dear Readers,

I have just read best article regarding Democracy & Malaysia that I have ever read, perhaps even the best that I will ever read in my life. It is by Dr. Andrew Aeria from UNIMAS and you can read it at Aliran Monthly. It is entitled: "ACT NOW! Vibrant democracy requires eternal vigilance", and truer words have never been spoken. If you care for Democracy in our Nation, please read Dr. Aeria's article & encourage all your friends to read it too. Here is how he starts:

If we are passionate about Malaysia and our birthright, then we should ACT NOW to save our democracy, says Andrew Aeria.

In early March, University Malaya Law lecturer Azmi Sharom made a very pertinent observation in his weekly Star column that ‘Malaysians have this thing where they hope some mighty champion will sweep down from the mountains and solve their problems for them’.

His point was that instead of waiting for this ‘mighty champion’ to turn up and do the job for us, we should instead use whatever resources we have at hand and just ACT NOW if we want to mend our broken democracy and save it from our numerous ‘Bolehland-class’ politicians (defined as MPs, Aduns and party members who are either plain foul-mouthed, ‘tidak apa’, sexist, racist, lazy, corrupt, incompetent and even thuggish with only their personal and family’s material interests at heart). And by this, I also include many over-estimated opposition Pakatan Rakyat (PR) politicians and civil service bureaucrats as well.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding currently prevalent within our society that we do not need to do anything about our democracy since we have already elected PR (our ‘Mighty Champion’?) as our loyal parliamentary opposition serving King and country. As well, we elected them to govern in five states and so we have to ‘give them time’ to settle into the job. Unfortunately, this is self-deceiving and ultimately toxic to democracy. Simply because democracy is much more than just elections and what happens in parliament. And it certainly won’t flourish after merely being ‘given time’. ...

Please continue reading here. If you like the article, please consider supporting Aliran. In their words: "Justice was never won without personal sacrifice - whether measured in time volunteered, energy devoted to a cause, or financial support generously given. We need your support in our struggle for justice. Your contribution no matter how small will be like a droplet that builds up into a wave of change. Click here if you would like to contribute financially."

Sincerely,
Malaysian Heart

Pakatan Rakyat, Good Governance, Transparency and Accountability - Updated

Governments are elected & instituted by the Rakyat not as ends in and of themselves, but as the means by which the Rakyat's rights, interests, freedoms and safety are secured & protected. This is the only raison d'etre of any government.

Any government that seeks to serve the Rakyat must practice good governance, which according to the UNDP, is:

"The exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage a country's affairs at all levels. It comprises of the mechanisms, processes and institutions, through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences."

The characteristics of good governance are participation, rule of law, transparency, responsiveness, equity and inclusiveness, effectiveness, efficiency, accountability and strategic vision and consensus orientation. Good governance ensures that corruption is eradicated, the views of minorities are taken into account and that the voices of the most vulnerable in society are heard in decision-making and implementation. It is also responsive to the present and future needs of society, balancing between growth and distribution, present and future resource use.

Of these characteristics, I would like to touch upon just two key ones where I believe that Pakatan Rakyat governments are sorely shortchanging the Rakyat; namely transparency and accountability.

Case in point is the issue of the awarding of waste management contracts in Selangor by Alam Flora. On 21 & 25 May '09, PKR's Petaling Jaya Selatan division’s deputy chief and PJ City Councillor Mr. A. Thiruvenggadam, claimed that:
1. "No job offers have given to the Indian community. No contracts have also been allocated for the Indian businessmen in the state"
2. "the state government divides waste-concessionaire Alam Flora contracts to political parties - 40 per cent to PKR, 30 per cent to PAS and 30 per cent to DAP"

First, let's get some things straight. Mr. Thiruvenggadam is wrong to call for special treatment for one community. He was appointed to represent PJ citizens of all communities, not just those of his own ethnic group. One of the key deliverables for PR (please correct me if I am wrong) is replacing the racial politics of BN with a new Malaysian politics. Mr. Thiruvenggadam's demands go against that key deliverable.

Furthermore, how much is awarding contracts to a vendor from a particular community going to help the whole community? I don't mean to impugn Mr. Thiruvenggadam's motives, but did he have any preferred vendor in mind?

Government contracts are to be awarded transparently based on merit in accordance with good governance to maximise the benefit to the Rakyat. They are not to be divided amongst the party faithful as the spoils of electoral victory. Even if affirmative action to benefit the underprivileged & marginalised is a government policy (as it should), there still should be transparency & accountability. Indeed, as Mr. Thiruvenggadam himself alludes to in his statement, there are humongous issues about balanced development & marginalisation which need to be urgently addressed by the State government. However, to think that a race based spoils system will solve those problems is worse than folly.

In that respect, although YAB Tan Sri Khalid could have been more diplomatic in dealing with stakeholders, his principled stand & his political secretary Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad's statement to Malaysiakini is commendable. Clearly, PR needs to ensure that all its leaders understand the aims & principles of their struggle, and they should start by reading & understanding their respective manifestos first. No more gravy trains ala BN.

Enough about demands for special treatment. My main concern here is about Pakatan Rakyat leaders & how they operationalize good governance. Has good governance ever been in their agenda? Is the Pope Catholic? From day one, PR has been banging the drum of good governance as a tenet of their campaign, and as a unique selling proposition to differentiate themselves from BN. Let's look at the evidence of this (bold emphases are mine):

1. PKR's manifesto mentions good governance 2 times & transparent/cy 8 times, and promised to "Promote a fully transparent culture of openness in the awarding of government contracts and tenders, and granting awards based not on connections, but on competitiveness and track records."

2. PAS' manifesto mentions transparent/cy 7 times, and promised to "Put in place Best Practices in all Government departments, agencies and Government-Linked Companies as to provide transparency and accountability to uproot graft and corrupt practices. Public procurement must undergo open tender and those that involve mega projects must be subjected to an Independent Tender Board placed under the jurisdiction of the Parliament."

3. DAP's manifesto promised to "implement open and transparent tenders for all government contracts"

4. In the heady days after 8/3/08, this is what newly elected Petaling Jaya representatives had to say after their first meeting with the mayor and the heads of departments of the Petaling Jaya Municipal Council:

(From left) Lee, Sivarasa, Wong and Hee speaking after the meeting. (Photo from The Star)

YB Elizabeth Wong: “We also informed MBPJ that our new state government is run on the basis of greater transparency and that is something we expect to see from the local council in terms of awarding contracts, tenders and development projects,”

YB Sivarasa Rasiah:“Our new state government is built on a platform of more governance with zero-tolerance on corruption,”.

Obviously, there is no shortage of talk in PR about good governance & transparency. How about the walk? Let's see how they have responded to Mr. Thiruvenggadam's allegations:

Selangor MB: Show proof of impropriety in contracts allocation
PKR: Solid waste management allegations untrue
PKR rubbishes secret pact to dish out Alam Flora contracts
Contracts awarded on merit, says Liu

PR leaders' reactions to Mr Thiruvenggadam's allegations do not reflect their promises for transparency & good governance. No concrete actions (to my knowledge) have been taken as yet. Basically, all they have done is to deny any wrongdoing, assert that contracts are awarded on merit, and ask for proof of impropriety. In my humble opinion, this is woefully insufficient & inadequate. Mr. Thiruvenggadam's credibility notwithstanding, his allegations are too serious to be brushed aside with mere denials & assertions.

What is infinitely worse is this: Sivarasa: No harm making recommendations to Alam Flora. Although here (PKR denies Alam Flora contracts dished out to parties) YB seems to be against politicians choosing vendors, five paragraphs later he says this:"Individuals, and including leaders of political parties will make recommendations and we see no harm in that absolutely. That is quite normal and not a problem for us." In effect, YB Sivarasa seems to be saying that it is OK for politicians to recommend vendors to the contract awarding bodies. With all due respect YB, I beg to differ. It is immaterial that "This is a situation unlike a tender system in which firms with the lowest quotation gets the contract" or that "The decision-making at the end of the day lies in Alam Flora’s hands". Any selection of vendors and contractors is a situation where corruption can potentially occur. Therefore it must be done by the appropriate competent authority & must be done transparently, accountably & with the Rakyat's interests foremost, without undue interference from politicians. Incumbent politicians & elected reps favouring one vendor over another (and making it known to the authority via their recommendations) is interference in the selection process and is the first baby step down the slippery slope to political patronage, corruption, cronyism & nepotism.

I say again: politicians & elected representatives are there to ensure that the Rakyat's rights, interests, freedoms and safety are secured & protected. They have no business recommending any one party over another for contracts, jobs, titles, awards, sinecures, free nasi lemak, or any other favours. In some countries it is even against the law to do so.

DAP has made a statement calling for transparency & open tenders:
DAP: We would be no different from BN
DAP calls for competitive tenders in Selangor
Media Statement by Tony Pua in Petaling Jaya on Tuesday, 9th June 2009

That's a start, but DAP is a partner in Selangor's coalition government, with 3 out of 10 exco positions and 13 out of 36 PR state assembly seats. They need to do a lot more than just issue statements like a third party neutral observer. As for PAS, as far as I am aware, they have been missing in action on this issue.

Some of those statements by PR's leaders (especially YAB Tan Sri Khalid's request for proof, which is eerily reminiscent of old BN attitudes) seem to suggest that they have forgotten that they are accountable to the Rakyat. So, here's a thought. How about you (PR government) show us (the Rakyat whom you are supposed to be serving) why we should believe anything you say? Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. The onus is on you, PR, to prove to us what you assert. Nothing but full transparency & disclosure will convince us.

You can start by doing this:
1. Make public the details of all waste management contracts awarded during the tenure of PR governments & the last BN government. Include the details of successful vendors including their political affiliations and contributions (if any). How many contracts were awarded by BN & PR respectively?

2. Make public the contracts, relations & transactions between PR state & local authorities and Alam Flora regarding the awarding of waste management contracts, including the contract terms, matrix of responsibilities & accountabilities. How many percent of contractors are chosen by Alam Flora & State government respectively? Who choses for the State government, the politicians or civil servants? Where does the buck stop?

3. Make public the entire procurement process for waste management services, including pre-qualification criteria & selection processes, as well as any & all attempts to influence those processes by elected representatives and PR leaders. Expose the "tremendous competition to get the contracts renewed, with many firms unabashedly trying all ways and means, including using the political route and instigating state assemblymen and other politicians". Disciplinary action must be taken against those proven guilty. If everything is above board (as you say it is), prove it & clear your names.

4. Fully implement what you promised in your manifestos as well as the recommendations of Transparency International, as contained in the handbook "Curbing Corruption in Public Procurement" available here, for all public procurement in PR governed states. For goodness sake, realize that you will never get good results by fiddling around with a flawed legacy system. Cut the Gordian Knot, uproot the corruption & plant good governance, as you had promised. And if Alam Flora or any other concessionaire or party places unreasonable obstacles to this, please be so kind as to let the Rakyat know about it. We are not as stupid as politicians seem to think we are.

Complete steps 1, 2 & 3 within 5 working days. Complete Step 4 within 3 months from now. Can you do that?

Everyone knows that it's not easy changing a system that has been going on for 50 years. But PR leaders must never forget that is exactly the reason why we voted them in - we want them to lead the change. That we are in this situation more than a year after PRU-12 is simply unacceptable. PR need to quickly get their act together & deliver on their promises, or else they must step aside and allow others who are more committed and/or capable to do the job!

Sincerely,
Malaysian Heart

UPDATE 18:15 12/6/09
Report from The Nut Graph - Audit committee to monitor contract in Selangor:

- The Selangor government will form an audit committee to monitor its waste management contracts to ensure that Selangor citizens are provided with value-for-money services

- ... this would curb the unhealthy and unethical practice of awarding contracts to brokers instead of genuine operators, which he said was rampant under the previous administration.

This is encouraging news. The Selangor state government must ensure that:

1. the workings of the audit committee are open to public scrutiny & oversight
2. There is no hint of political patronage in the awarding of contracts
3. state officials, civil servants, elected & appointed reps & political leaders do not interfere in the contractor selection process
   
4. good governance, transparency and accountability are fully implemented in the state

The Rakyat will be watching...


Read reactions from others here:
The Barisan Nasional disease
Selangor MB: Open tender system cannot be implemented within a year
Alam Flora contracts
40-30-30?

Please Consider Endorsing This - JOINT STATEMENT BY MALAYSIAN CIVIL SOCIETY ON PAS RESOLUTION TO BAN SISTERS IN ISLAM

Dear Readers,

Please join me in endorsing the following statement in order to protect and promote the right of all Malaysians to freedom of opinion & expression under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

JOINT STATEMENT BY MALAYSIAN CIVIL SOCIETY ON PAS RESOLUTION TO BAN SISTERS IN ISLAM

We the undersigned are deeply disturbed by the call on the part of the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS) to have Sisters in Islam (SIS) banned and its members rehabilitated should its activities be determined to be contrary to the Islamic shariah. It is apparent to us that in making the call in the manner that it has, PAS has already formed the view that SIS should be banned and its activities brought to an end.

While we respect the freedom of members of PAS to associate in a manner that they consider appropriate or warranted as well as their freedom to express a view in association on such matters as they see fit, the members of SIS, or any other organization for that matter, are equally guaranteed those freedoms. No one person or organization has a monopoly over the right to express views on matter of public importance. The call to silence SIS and send its members for rehabilitation is an act of violence against those freedoms and their constitutional underpinnings. It also lends itself to further closure of the already narrow space of public discourse and debate that a slew of anti-expression laws have allowed Malaysians.

For Malaysia to mature into the democracy that Malaysians aspire to, it is vital that diversity, even of views, be protected and nurtured. Respect for the freedoms guaranteed to all Malaysians by the Federal Constitution, be they members of PAS or any other organization or simply individuals, is crucial to this endeavor.

The demand for action against SIS culminating in a ban is not easily reconciled with PAS public rhetoric in favour of a more democratic and inclusive Malaysia. On the contrary, the demand is wholly anti-democratic. We reiterate that though members of PAS are entitled to their views, the call for the banning of SIS is wholly unacceptable. As a matter of principle, the question of banning any organization purely for their views should not arise at all. Differences of views must be respected and, if at all, be resolved through constructive engagement.

In view of this, we urge PAS to reconsider its position and take such steps as are necessary to retract the call for action against SIS.

Signed by:


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Please feel free to widely circulate this Statement to your contacts for their endorsement as well.

Please send back your endorsement by 12 noon, Wednesday 10 June 2009 to HAKAM, c/o Azareena Aziz (azareenaziz@gmail.com), or fax it to +603-7785-8737

Read more here:
SIS says PAS ‘ban’ move anti-democratic
SIS (Sisters In Islam) Press Statement
Public petition against PAS resolution
Please endorse this by noon today 10/06/09
Joint Statement by Malaysian civil society on PAS resolution to ban Sisters in Islam (SIS)
JOINT STATEMENT BY MALAYSIAN CIVIL SOCIETY ON PAS RESOLUTION TO BAN SISTERS IN ISLAM
SOS for SIS
www.sistersinislam.org.my

Bukit Selambau: An Urgent Call for Calm & Understanding, and Suggestions for a Way Forward

Something I wrote before the Bukit Selambau by-elections:

I’m writing this with deep concern over the Pakatan Rakyat’s prospects in the Selambau Election as well as for the future of the alternatif movement as well. Just over a month ago we were quite united, and so confident that BN could never win, even against goats & cows. Today the situation has changed dramatically, as the conflict that is apparently brewing within the AM over the choice of candidate for the Bukit Selambau by election threatens our chances there as well the achievement of our aspirations for Malaysia. I say apparently, because my only sources of information are news reports & blogs postings, some from the MSM, some from bloggers & journalists whose agendas I don’t know about. I have no way of verifying what is the real situation, & given the Standard Operating Procedures of our opponents in the past, I cannot stress enough the importance of getting to the TRUTH.

What I find especially distressing is the tone of the anger that has been directed at Hindraf & the PKR dissenters, in the comments & reports in our blogosphere. On page after page they have had so many insults, threats & stereotypes hurled at them, it is as if BN’s propaganda in the MSM & blogs designed to demonize, demoralize & discredit them has done its job. I don‘t doubt that most of our comments have been made with good intentions & end in mind, i.e. victory for PR, and were sparked by that sense of urgency & alarm that we all feel as the elections approach. Nevertheless, I cannot but feel that such a tone is unworthy of anyone who shares in the values that I believe PR stands for.

Have we forgotten the role that Hindraf played in making 8/3/08 possible? These are the people who, in their pain & desperation could do nothing else but put their bodies & their lives in the path of the FRU & their chemical cannons. True, dissatisfaction with BN had been growing for a long time, but for me, seeing the blood that they shed when they stood their ground & embraced the truncheon’s blows over & over again, deeply changed the way that I thought & felt about my country & myself. They led the way, they electrified us, even shamed us into action; but sadly, to this very day, they and their families still bleed for it. Some are locked away & forgotten; some prosecuted & persecuted. Many know now what it is to be without Father, Husband or Family. Some, ill, uncared for and forsaken, deteriorate day by day; and one, in exile, may never get to return home, not even to die. Then, there’s that deepest & most painful of wounds that they all bear: the subtle racism, overt ostracism & slur; a wound to which we can now safely say, we have rubbed in our own little “contribution” of salt. Whatever you or I may think about Hindraf or their apparent position on Bukit Selambau, let us agree that at the very least, we owe them our respect & gratitude.

I’ve organised the rest of my thoughts under 4 headings:

A. Our Current Situation

B. What’s really at stake here

C. Suggested Way Forward

D. Final Thoughts

A. Our Current Situation

On the face of it we have Hindraf & PKR grassroots leaders are unhappy with PKR leaders’ decision to nominate S. Manikumar as PKR candidate for Bukit Selambau. Both (Hindraf & PKR) had prepared shortlists of their preferred candidates but none were chosen. Their main reasons for this unhappiness seem to be:

• Disappointment at not being chosen themselves, as a “reward” for past hard work

• Manikumar’s youth, inexperience, lack of record and not being a local, being a “crony”

• Not being involved in the selection process

• Lack of transparency in the process

• Disagreement with process & selection criteria itself

• Perceived double standards in selection

• Possible issues with Manikumar’s allegedly fraudulent business dealings

• Perception of there having been backroom deals with V. Arumugam with the involvement of DSAI’s friends (one Datuk Ravi?)

Other longer standing grouses with PR may be:

• Lack of democracy in PKR & PKR Kedah, who have not held state-level elections since he joined in 2004

• Perception of having been deceived by false promises and lack of progress on various development issues e.g. land for schools, citizenship documents, social issues, business opportunities & training

• Perception of a lack of respect and appreciation

One thing I want to note here is these reasons, with the exception of the one regarding personal disappointment, are not racist (ala ketuanan UMNO/MCA/MIC) but actually speak to root issues of common concern.

As a result of this dissatisfaction:

• 3 ex PKR members are standing in Bukit Selambau as independents

• Hindraf is not supporting PKR’s campaign in Bukit Selambau

• PKR’s Jerai division has disbanded itself & Kalaivanar has thrown his support for BN

• Various commentators have condemned Hindraf & the PKR Kedah dissidents, with growing perception of Hindraf as an unworthy organisation with a agenda driven by racist or personal concerns

This conflict must be seen in the context of of PR’s growing list of problems & challenges (partly self inflicted, partly BN’s doing):

• Abortive takeover of Parliament & our perceived loss of the moral high ground

• Fall of Perak and PR’s subsequent tactical errors resulting in emotionally sensitive charges of derhaka and the attendant publicity

• Perception amongst rakyat (not just Hindraf) that PR has not been effective & efficient, that PRU 12 promises have not been kept

• Various scandals (real or engineered) surrounding PR personalities, accompanied by doubt’s about integrity of PR reps

• Lack of a coherent common vision accompanied by bouts of discord between & within PR component parties

Add to all that a perceived BN “resurgence” due to Mahathir’s return to a “united” UMNO, Samy Vellu’s “new mandate” at MIC, Najib’s repressive countermeasures and we may just be seeing the beginnings of a “perfect storm”.

B. What’s really at stake here

Superficially, at stake is the victory in Bukit Selambau as well as in Bukit Gantang & Batang Ai. However we must go below the surface, and acknowledge that even if we win all three, given the current situation as outlined above, this conflict within us will slow down the momentum of our movement, perhaps even allow BN to begin rolling back the clock to pre-PRU 12. To regain forward momentum, as well as to help build a strong foundation for our struggle, a careful consideration of the deeper root issues raised by this conflict is needed within PR. What’s really at stake here is our movement’s identity, vision, direction & indeed future viability. These issues, all which overlap with real Hindraf/PKR grouses identiified above, are:

• Vision & leadership

  • What is our vision for all Malaysians?

  • Is this vision a shared one? How do we create this consensus?

  • What are our strategies & policies to achieve this vision?

• Values, Principles & Political Culture

  • What are our values & principles?

  • Are these values & principles practiced by our current leaders at all levels?

  • Do we want feudal “warlords” as leaders who know everything & cannot be questioned & seem to seek personal interests? Are there old BN habits & paradigms that still infect us?

  • Are we open, consultative, empowering, engaging & transparent?

  • Do we play the politics of race, patronage, feudalism, cronyism & nepotism, backroom dealmaking, numbers, rewards for loyalty? In other words business as usual BN style?

  • What is the true nature of the relationship between PR & rakyat?

• Delivery & execution

  • How do we select & develop a truly representative cadre of leaders in such a way that no group feels left out?

  • Do we select leaders by ability, or as a reward for loyalty? Do we place unfair standards of class, formal education or wealth?

  • Is our leader selection process transparent, fair, where all have had a say in it and agreed the rules? Are there double standards?

  • How have we delivered on our promises since 8/3/08? A lot was promised.

  • Have we been fair & equitable or have we been busy fighting fires, living from crisis to crisis (some of our own making), & neglected to lead in the truest sense of the word?

  • How do we work with marginalized groups who bear the brunt of BN’s failed policies? Takeovers of Parliament & long term political goals are all well & good but what do we do to ease their suffering here & now?

• Communication (most of the misunderstanding is really attributable to poor communication & engagement)

  • How do we inform & educate stakeholders, understand & manage expectations, & get our message across?

  • How do we work with multiple stakeholders, with common broad goals but diverse cultures & perspectives?

  • How do we raise the level of political discourse beyond race & patronage?

  • How do we work with the various groups who are at different levels of political maturity, thanks to our political monoculture of the last 50 years?

C. One Way Forward

The thing to do is to sit down together & share one’s thoughts & feelings openly. The main purpose of this meeting should be to find & develop a common vision, set of values, principles and goals that we truly share. When that is done, consider & address the dissatisfaction & disagreements that have been the cause.

I suggest that Tuan Guru Nik Aziz (probably the most respected leader in Malaysia) be the host or convenor. The leadership of both sides must come with open minds & most importantly open hearts. There can be no place for personal egos, posturing & rhetoric or trying to gain concessions ala BN’s old politics. All talks must be firmly based on mutual respect and objective truth that can be verified. If we only plaster over cracks by merely soothing tensions while ignoring the real issues, we are setting ourselves up for future disaster.

There will not be enough time to cover every detail, but there is enough to begin to repair the relationship. It may be too late to undo some mistakes if mistakes have been made. If both sides decide that we can work together, come out of that room together & share with all of Malaysia what you have just achieved. Make it crystal clear that no effort will be spared to achieve victory, make it plain that errors have acknowledged, bonds have been mended, wrongs have been set right and changes have been committed to. Then let us each do what we do best.

D. Final Thoughts

To PR: Most of Hindraf’s & PKR’s grouses seem to be real & most are based on one or more of the common issues stated above. Granted, 1 or 2 personalities seem to be pushing for personal gain & “reward”, but once the underlying grouses are addressed, those with personal interests in mind will be clearly identifiable & obvious to all. I disagree with Neil Khor & others who say that Hindraf has a “radical race based agenda” and I do not believe that there is any fundamental unbridgeable ideological difference between PR & Hindraf. With their leaders behind bars & the perception that we have forsaken them, what we are seeing is not a racial agenda ala UMNO/MCA/MIC but frustration over the issues raised, coupled with the vestiges of BN thinking & political paradigm. As I said before, old habits die hard. The right question to ask is how do we engage them? Let us start by acknowledging that some of us have been treating Hindraf as the Greeks treated Philoctetes, good enough to fight for us but not good enough to be in our company & to engage with fully. The day we start ignoring constitutents we will start becoming BN hoping to win based on a not BN USP. PR same as BN. However, under no circumstances must you compromise your non-sectarian agenda”.

To Hindraf & PKR dissidents: I won’t pretend that I understand the depth of your pain. But I will say this: the Chinese have a saying: “tong zhou gong ji” which means “when people are in the same boat, they should help each other”. Right now, except for the BNputras & their cronies, we are all in the same boat, and our boat is now leaking. If we do not help each other now, we will all sink together. So in this emergency with 8 days left it’s time to get our boat safely across. True, your community has been marginalized by BN and I won’t try to lessen or underestimate your suffering, but you must acknowledge that you are not the only one in pain. Poor Malays & orang asli still face conditions just as bad. I’m not asking you to sacrifice your principles or tolerate unfair dealing from anyone, PR included. Ask the tough questions and hold PR accountable for whatever they have promised. But at the same time be prepared to honestly reexamine Hindraf’s struggle. Do not be chained to old BN ways of thinking, and do not be afraid to think out of the box. Please take the opportunity to make your voice heard. The overwhelming perception out there is that some amongst you are seeking personal position or that you are only fighting for a narrow racist agenda. This is a golden opportunity to set the record straight. Supporting BN now will only harden & solidify the this negative perception.

Make no mistake, a vote for any of the independents or a even spoilt vote will be a vote for BN. It would be a real loss for all if people who have the same overall goals fail to work tohgether & hand victory to those who have been oppresing all of us these many years. And while you are considering your next course of action, do be aware of those in your midst whose may not have your best interests at heart.

May I also humbly remind you of Waythamoorthy’s words, that I believe ring so true today: “Many see Hindraf as an opportunity to gain leverage and dictate their own benefits. This is totally against our principles. Hindraf is you and me who are battling a war for better policies and governance for the Malaysian Indian as a society with equal and fair treatment as opposed to individual glamour and glory."

To both PR & Hindraf: Don’t let BN exploit this division by spreading more lies & confusion. Their MSM & blogs have already begun. We only help BN more when the tone of our discourse deteriorate to the level of provocations, threats & insults. To see that happen will be BN’s ultimate victory.

Let me be very clear - I voted for PR not to see 1 BN replaced by another. I did not vote for PR for special treatment for myself, my family or my race. I did not vote for PR to be their crony. I voted for PR for an end to corruption, cronyism, imbalanced development, mismanagement of national resources, authoritarianism, intitutionalised & societal racism. But I want a government that is more than just a mere negation of BN or “the lesser of 2 evils”. I want a government that is responsive, tolerant, respects the rakyat, transparent, fair & equitable, that promotes individual freedom & human rights. I strongly believe that these are the common bonds that unite us. Let us show that we can overcome conflicts, rediscover what really holds us together & emerge victorious together.

Lest we lose hope in our struggle, let us remember that in politics, conflict among partners is common, due to the political culture that is dominant. We need a new political culture & after 50 years, old habits die hard. Ever since 8/3/08 we have had to undergo a steep learning curve, and we cannot expect too much in 1 year & must not delude ourselves that all our leaders are all angels who will know instinctively what we the rakyat want. It is up to all of us to ensure that our leaders know what we want & to keep them on the straight path.

Now, what can we do as individuals about this. Consider carefully what is right, then communicate it to your family, friends, leaders. Get involved, for our future, the future of our country is too important to be left to chance, to in the hands of politicians.

Sincerely,

Malaysian Heart