Don’t bet on any reduction in gambling
The Sunday Star Says
Upon wrestling with the decision in front of a spirited and divided national audience, the critics won.
Official approval for the licence had reportedly been granted some time ago.
However, the ultimate prerogative rests with the Government on whether to proceed with awarding it to Ascot, since the company had the first right of refusal.
On the surface, the debate seemed to be between moralists and pragmatists.
While moralists argued that the influence of legalised sports betting would be detrimental to society, pragmatists said it would curtail illegal betting while providing state revenues through tax.
There is the fallacious argument that legalising sports betting would also mean permitting the use of narcotics.
Gambling is not illegal, like smoking and alcohol consumption, so within legal limits and under proper controls there is no basis for controversy.
What are already illegal, like narcotics and various criminal activities, would remain illegal.
The irony of the critics’ stand is that while purporting to champion wholesome values, they are in effect encouraging illegal bookies and their “black money” schemes to flourish.
The fact is that some people do gamble and many Malaysians are no different.
Legalising sports betting may not increase gambling across the population, and keeping it illegal will only make it harder to monitor without eliminating it.
There have also been snide remarks questioning the sincerity of policymakers who defend non-Muslims’ right to gamble.
These rights have always existed, so instead of sarcasm, the critics of sports betting should ask themselves why they agree to compromise on them.
In essence, the issue has been politicised but the Government will need to understand that “giving in” this time need not mean having to capitulate on other issues later on.
Responding to public clamour, particularly when the response is mixed, is always a double-edged sword.
It is important to be sensitive yet resolute, demonstrating firmness in conviction rather than uncertainty or rudderless indecision.
Judi bola dan taksub berpolitik
2010/06/27
CADANGAN mengeluarkan semula lesen judi bola sebenarnya hanya menunggu masa untuk ditolak. Ini terutama bila ia dijadikan isu politik. Memanglah sukar untuk dimajukan ke hadapan.
Jika kita imbas kembali, sejurus selepas diumumkan, kerajaan menimbang perkara itu, beberapa negeri mengumumkan bahawa mereka akan menghalang khidmat judi yang baru itu di kawasan mereka.
Ini jelas tindakan politik kerana ada antaranya membenarkan premis judi yang lain serta mereka juga mengutip hasil seperti cukai tempatan daripada operasi judi lain. Ada juga urus niaga tembakau dan arak yang juga mempunyai keupayaan untuk menjahanamkan hidup kita, namun mereka dibenarkan di negeri berkenaan.
Antara negeri yang menolak judi bola, ada juga yang membenarkan lumba kuda dan perkhidmatan judi yang berkaitan dengannya. Memanglah ada orang yang kata lumba kuda itu sukan, tetapi rasanya tiada siapa yang betul-betul percaya kenyataan itu, terutama mereka yang pergi setiap hujung minggu ke litar lumba.
Mungkin negeri-negeri ini boleh memberi alasan yang mereka mewarisi judi lumba kuda, tetapi jika betullah judi sungguh dibenci seperti mereka katakan mengenai judi bola, mungkin lebih senang diharamkan terus operasi sebegini.
Di dalam isu judi, rasanya, seperti juga isu-isu lain, kita memang mampu bermuka-muka.
Kesan buruk judi pula semacam bukan perkara utama ia ditentang, tetapi yang penting ialah dividen politik. Apa tidaknya, isu judi bola memang jelas sesuai untuk dipolitikkan dan siapa di antara kita yang mahu menggalakkan sesuatu yang dilarang agama?
Sekarang ini kita sungguh giat berpolitik tidak kiralah jika ia isu Rancangan Malaysia Kesepuluh (RMKe-10) atau bajet tahunan atau undang-undang atau UPSR dan sebagainya. Apa isu sekalipun kita akan dapati terbentuknya dua kumpulan utama yang selalunya mencerminkan fahaman politik kita.
Kita mudah memihak kepada parti yang kita sokong tidak kiralah apa ceritanya. Ada kalanya kita jenuh mencari perbezaan daripada kesamaan.
Contohnya, untuk isu judi bola ini, walaupun pihak kerajaan dan lawannya bersetuju untuk tidak membenarkan judi bola, mungkin ada yang mencari isu lain dalam perkara ini untuk bertikam lidah. Sudah menjadi lumrah kita yang suka berpolitik dan menekankan perbezaan.
Seolah-olah tidak kira apa isu pun, kita tidak boleh sekata. Begitulah mendalamnya ketaksuban kita kepada politik kini.
Adalah pilihan politik yang baik dan mudah untuk mengambil kedudukan yang sudah tentunya tidak akan salah judi tidak baik dan jangan disokong, atau jangan sokong khidmat judi yang baru. Kita tidak perlu berpeluh memikirkan bagaimana hendak memperjuangkan perkara yang sukar, seperti mencari kebaikan judi.
Tambahan pula dari segi agama sememangnya kita tidak boleh menyokongnya. Ini adalah asas yang tidak boleh ditolak ansur.
Juga ketika ini sokongan terhadap kerajaan adalah terdiri daripada orang Melayu dan mereka tidak berapa berkenan dengan judi. Walaupun mereka membiarkan apa yang ada, adalah sukar untuk mereka bersetuju menambah khidmat judi.
Sama ada mereka berjudi atau tidak atau dibenarkan di premis judi atau tidak, mereka tidak akan sedap hati dengan perkhidmatan baru yang jelas menentang agama.
Adalah sukar untuk mengambil sikap pragmatik di dalam isu judi, walaupun jutaan dan bilion dikatakan kerajaan hilang atau mengalir ke luar negara oleh kerana judi haram.
Lesen baru judi yang dicadangkan memang nampaknya sesuai untuk menyelesaikan masalah itu, namun bila kita majukannya ke konteks agama, ia tentulah tidaklah sesuai.
Sekalipun kesan positif ekonomi judi ada, ia masih tidak boleh dikira. Juga tidak boleh diterima ialah tujuan lesen judi untuk mengurangkan aktiviti haram. Orang yang berkecimpung di dalam judi haram adalah sangat sedikit berbanding rakyat keseluruhan.
Jelas di dalam pertimbangan kerajaan tiada pilihan, selain menolak cadangan mengeluarkan semula lesen judi bola kepada Ascot Sports Sdn Bhd (Ascot).
Penolakan judi bola boleh memberi kesan politik. Ini jelas di dalam perkiraan kerajaan kelmarin, bila ia mengumumkan keputusannya.
Pentadbiran sesuatu negara memerlukan kerajaan melihat kepada kepentingan semua, sama ada isu judi bola, pengurangan subsidi ataupun cukai barangan dan perkhidmatan.
Kerajaan bukan saja perlu mengkaji kesan kepada negara, tetapi juga kesan politik. Begitu jugalah perkiraan pihak yang membangkang bila bercakap atau bertindak.
Oleh itu, ada kalanya apa yang baik untuk negara tidak baik untuk politik dan apa yang baik untuk politik ada kalanya boleh menjadi bisa kepada negara.
Utusan 25/6/2010
Berkecuali, memihak atau berpolitik: Apa pilihan 'ulama'?
ISTILAH 'ulama' merujuk kepada seseorang yang beragama Islam yang akil baligh, mempunyai ilmu yang mendalam mengenai hal ehwal agama Islam serta beramal dengannya pada setiap masa. Ulama berperanan meneruskan tugas-tugas para Nabi yang terdahulu iaitu berdakwah dan mengembangkan ajaran Islam dalam segenap peringkat dan lapangan kepada seluruh umat manusia di serata pelosok ceruk dan rantau.
Allah SWT telah menjadikan para ulama sebagai pewaris perbendaharaan ilmu agama sehingga ilmu syariat terus terpelihara kemurniannya sebagaimana awalnya. Oleh kerana itu, kematian salah seorang daripada ulama boleh mengakibatkan terbukanya fitnah besar bagi kaum Muslimin.
Diriwayatkan daripada Abdullah bin Amr bin al-Ash r.a: "Aku pernah mendengar Rasulullah SAW bersabda: " Allah tidak akan mengambil kembali ilmu (agama) dengan mengambilnya dari (dalam hati) manusia, tetapi mengambilnya kembali dengan kematian para ulama hingga tidak bersisa, lalu orang ramai akan mengambil orang-orang bodoh sebagai pemimpinnya yang apabila orang-orang itu bertanya kepada mereka, mereka akan memberikan jawapan-jawapan yang tidak didasarkan kepada ilmu. Maka mereka akan berada dalam kesesatan dan menyesatkan orang lain." (al-Bukhari).
Islam sangat memandang tinggi terhadap status dan peranan para ulama dalam masyarakat. Justeru, tugas dan peranan mereka ini sejak zaman dahulu, sekarang dan akan datang adalah sangat konsisten dan tidak pernah berubah.
Dalam sejarah politik Malaysia, terdapat ramai orang yang bergelar dan bertaraf ulama pernah dan sedang menceburi bidang politik. Ada di antara mereka ini pernah dilantik memegang beberapa jawatan penting, antaranya sebagai menteri besar dan menteri Kabinet.
Pun begitu, 'kerjaya politik' sering diberi label negatif oleh kebanyakan orang, kerana kononnya 'politik itu kotor'. Timbul satu persoalan mengenai kewajaran seseorang yang bergelar 'ulama' untuk berpolitik, atau mengambil sikap memihak kepada parti politik tertentu, atau hanya mengambil sikap berkecuali dalam hal berkaitan dengan politik dan pemerintahan negara.
Ulama sememangnya pewaris para Nabi kerana ia meneruskan tugas-tugas yang pernah dilaksanakan oleh para nabi yang terdahulu. Pun begitu, kita juga harus faham bahawa tugas-tugas para Nabi yang terdahulu termasuk Nabi Muhammad SAW bukan sahaja terhad kepada aspek yang bersifat 'akhirat' tetapi juga turut mencakupi aspek yang bersifat 'duniawi'.
Jika para ulama pada hari ini ingin menceburi bidang politik, adakah mereka ini mahir dengan selok-belok pemerintahan negara sebagaimana yang dimiliki oleh Nabi Muhammad SAW? Atau sekurang-kurangnya memiliki ciri-ciri kepimpinan dan keberanian para sahabat baginda seperti Saiyidina Abu Bakar as-Siddiq, Umar al-Khattab, Uthman Ibnu 'Affan, dan Ali bin Abi Talib? Ataupun setidak-tidaknya, seperti Khalifah Umar Abdul Aziz?
Sejarah telah membuktikan bagaimana pada zaman awal Islam, para ulama terpaksa 'menjauhkan diri' daripada terbabit dalam hal ehwal politik dan pemerintahan negara lantaran wujudnya sifat 'rakus' dan 'ganas' aktor-aktor yang pernah menguasai arena politik dan pemerintahan negara Islam pada zaman dahulu hingga wujudnya dua istilah yang agak popular pada hari ini iaitu 'ulama' (golongan ahli agama) dan 'umara' (golongan pemerintah).
Kisah-kisah sedih dan kegagalan para ulama yang pernah berkecimpung dalam dunia politik dengan niat yang tulus lagi ikhlas bertujuan untuk 'membersihkan' dunia politik yang seringkali dianggap 'kotor' sepatutnya telah mewajarkan para ulama hari ini untuk berfikir dua kali sebelum membuat sebarang keputusan untuk menyertai dunia politik sebagai ahli politik sepenuh masa.
Selain daripada itu, pilihan untuk memihak kepada sesebuah parti politik juga adalah tidak elok kerana ia boleh menjejaskan imej dan kredibiliti ulama untuk jangka masa panjang.
Ulama dalam erti kata yang sebenar ialah ulama yang bersifat neutral dan berkecuali. Sama ada dia adalah 'ulama rasmi' yang gajinya dibayar oleh kerajaan ataupun 'ulama tidak rasmi' yang bekerja sendiri, itu bukanlah satu alasan yang baik untuk tidak berperanan sebagaimana yang sepatutnya dilakukan oleh seorang yang bergelar 'ulama'.
Ulama mesti berani berkata benar walaupun pahit untuk didengar. Dalam hal ehwal politik dan pemerintahan negara misalannya, ulama mesti berani menegur, bukan sahaja kepada pemimpin parti pemerintah, tetapi juga kepada pemimpin parti pembangkang sekiranya terdapat sebarang perkara atau kelakuan berpolitik atau dasar yang difikirkan menyalahi syariat Islam yang sebenar. Ulama tidak harus takut untuk menyatakan kebenaran kepada mana-mana pihak dan pada masa yang sama pula sedia dikritik sekiranya salah.
Sekarang, terpulanglah kepada para ulama untuk mengambil salah satu daripada tiga pendekatan di atas, sama ada untuk bersikap berkecuali, memihak, ataupun menyertai dunia politik sepenuh masa.
Walau apa pun keputusan yang dibuat, perlu diingatkan bahawa hanya keputusan untuk bersikap neutral dan berkecuali sahaja akan dapat 'mengekalkan' status ulama yang sedang disandang dan dimiliki oleh seseorang.
Sesungguhnya 'dunia ulama' dan 'dunia politik' pada hari ini sebenarnya sangat berbeza walaupun pada zahirnya nampak sama. Perubahan status seseorang individu daripada 'ulama' kepada 'ahli politik' biasanya boleh menjadikannya 'sibuk' dengan pelbagai urusan dan kerenah politik harian yang kebanyakan mampu 'melalaikan' orang yang ingin menceburi bidang ini.
Ingatlah, ulama yang bersikap berkecuali, ikhlas, tegas, bijaksana serta berani menyatakan kebenaran bukan sahaja akan disanjung oleh masyarakat Islam, tetapi juga segala usahanya akan turut diberkati dan dirahmati oleh Allah SWT sepanjang masa.
Whither the Young[ish] Turks?
JUNE 11 — It has been three decades since Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad handpicked Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim as a potential leader. In the intervening period, what new leaders have burst onto the scene? What young leaders from the 1980s and 1990s are now on the cusp of greatness, ready to lead us into 2020 and beyond?
Now, for those of us who grew up in the 1990s, this probably seems like an ordinary state of affairs. But in the 1970s, we had a talented crop of future statesmen waiting in the wings. The young leaders of that era were Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, Dr Mahathir, and Tun Musa Hitam — and while I have my problems with some of these men, I’d vote for almost any of them in a heartbeat over our generation of three Umno Youth chief candidates.
This problem is not unique to Umno. Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu’s iron grip on the MIC is so notorious, it needs no further comment. MCA has gone from hapless leader to hapless leader; even those who bear promise, like Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat, have tripped over their own foibles.
Worse still, a similar problem is evident in Pakatan Rakyat. While PAS has a decent stable of middle-aged leaders, the DAP suffers from a tremendous generation gap. After Lim Kit Siang and Karpal Singh, the only viable candidate for leadership of the party is Lim Guan Eng; it is only in the last few years that the party has noticeably ramped up its recruitment of young leaders. PKR’s problems are so terribly complicated, but this simple fact is telling: There is no obvious successor Anwar.
Where is this missing generation of statesmen in their 40s and 50s? Why do we have so few leaders of calibre, and why do so many of the promising leaders we do have tend to be related to some other powerful man? Why do you seem to need to be someone’s son or son-in-law to get somewhere if you’re a middle-aged politician?
Many obvious possibilities present themselves, but I place the brunt of the blame squarely on Dr Mahathir’s shoulders. When Tan Sri Rafidah Aziz recently criticised the current generation of young leaders, she said: “When I became a politician, I never dared to speak out against my seniors... I was in awe of them and I wanted to learn from them.”
Rafidah is a fine example of the “leadership” Dr Mahathir cultivated.
Mahathir never tolerated opposition to his regime, especially not from within his own ranks. If you disagreed with him, at one point or another, he would purge you. It can hardly be a coincidence that he went through five deputy prime ministers, before settling on the most conciliatory and eager-to-please man as his successor; the four deputies who dared to say no were seen off the stage.
To be fair, Dr Mahathir is hardly the first Malaysian leader to have had this bad habit of zero tolerance for disagreement. When Dr Mahathir, Tengku Razaleigh and Musa Hitam spoke out against Tunku Abdul Rahman’s leadership, Tunku sent them into political exile. But Tun Abdul Razak had the foresight to cultivate these men as leaders, and today all three are seen as some of our finest statesmen.
For twenty years under Dr Mahathir, we nurtured a crop of politicians who only knew how to say yes, and can’t imagine thinking for themselves. It’s hardly a coincidence that the most dynamic and promising of the candidates in the three-horse race for Umno Youth chief, Khairy Jamaluddin, was the only one who did not come to prominence under the Mahathir regime. The Mahathir years dealt a terrible blow to our political culture, and cowed a generation of potential statesmen into subservience.
There is a fine line between reasonable dissent and unreasonable insubordination, and knowing how and when to stay on the right side of this line is part and parcel of leadership. But in the Mahathir era, any act of disagreement, no matter how small, was treated as insubordination and betrayal. The siege mentality this bred amongst our politicians — both in government and opposition — meant that a whole generation of potential statesmen was effectively strangled in the crib, smothered by fright.
Unlike Rafidah, I welcome a new generation of leaders willing to take a stand and say “no” when it is something they truly believe in. We must respect our elders — but that is no reason to take every thing they say as gospel truth.
If young Malaysians are to lead, we must be willing to blaze new trails of our own in our political landscape, instead of following the bogged-down tracks which have been laid out for us.
Memperkasa Melayu hadapi tuntutan, asakanPADA zaman Sultan Mahmud mangkat dijulang, permasalahan orang Melayu tidak begitu kompleks. Kehidupan mereka seadanya. Sembang-sembang politik tidaklah mendalam dan mendasar. Kehidupan harian sangat sederhana dan berligar di sekitar empat penjuru tiang halaman rumah masing-masing. Tetapi, orang Melayu tahu menilai maruah dan harga diri. Tidak ada yang lebih dipelihara melainkan soal maruah, harga diri dan air muka. Maruah adalah segala-galanya bagi bangsa Melayu.
Banyak peristiwa 'amuk Melayu' berlaku sejak tahun 1944 yang dipimpin oleh Kiyai Salleh sehinggalah kes Natrah pada awal tahun 1950-an di Singapura dan tragedi berdarah 13 Mei 1969 membuktikan pemilikan bangsa Melayu pantang diusik atau diganggu gugat oleh sesiapapun, apatah lagi daripada anasir-anasir luar lingkungan bangsa Melayu sendiri.
Soal agama dengan segala bidang dan institusinya, bahasa, hak-hak yang terkanun dan tidak terkanun, institusi Raja yang berdaulat, norma-norma sosial bangsa Melayu yang begitu halus mengakar pada adat dan budayanya serta perkara-perkara lain yang dianggap sinonim dengan persoalan maruah bangsa tidak boleh dilanggar dan dipalit oleh sesiapapun.
Kesemua perkara ini juga termaktub kemas di dalam Watikah Wasiat Raja-Raja Melayu yang dimeterai pada 31 Ogos 1957.
Pada peringkat awal kemasukan kaum- kaum pendatang ke Tanah Melayu dahulu, tidak banyak berlaku pergeseran kaum dan pencerobohan hak-hak orang Melayu kerana mereka tahu menjaga batas dan menghormati orang-orang Melayu.
Ia wujud mungkin kerana pada waktu itu mereka terpaksa menumpukan perhatian kepada soal-soal asasi seperti mendapatkan tempat tinggal, mengembangkan perniagaan dan terbukanya peluang dominasi ekonomi di wilayah baru (tentunya dengan perancangan dan bantuan pihak Inggeris), masalah kewarganegaraan, akomodasi dalam arus politik perdana Tanah Melayu, ketakutan mereka untuk pulang ke China akibat suasana politik di sana yang lebih menekan dan tidak menentu membuatkan mereka melihat Tanah Melayu lubuk yang lebih selesa bagi mengaut untung.
Namun, senario itu berubah setelah mereka memperoleh hak kerakyatan, pegangan ekuiti dan pemilikan sumber ekonomi yang semakin mencengkam, perkara-perkara tersurat dalam Perlembagaan yang boleh diberikan tafsiran semula dan dieksploitasi untuk lebih menghimpit orang Melayu serta beberapa perkara lain membuka ruang untuk mereka menangguk di air yang keruh.
Agenda menggoncang sendi-sendi bangsa Melayu dapat dilihat pada gelagat Lee Kuan Yew dan disemarakkan lagi dengan kenyataan Dr. Tan Chee Koon (pada waktu itu beliau memimpin Parti Buruh) yang mengkritik kerajaan tentang rancangan pendidikan dan sikap berat sebelah yang kononnya memberi kelebihan kepada anak-anak Melayu, tentang Maktab Mara dan sebagainya. Pendekatan yang agak komunal dengan mengemukakan statistik yang tidak tepat (perbandingan di antara pelajar Melayu dengan bukan Melayu dalam kursus-kursus profesional di IPTA ) bukan saja boleh menimbulkan dan membakar semangat kebencian antara kaum, bahkan ia boleh juga disifatkan sebagai jenayah politik yang sangat merbahaya pada waktu itu.
Khir Johari yang pada masa itu menerajui Kementerian Pelajaran menjawab tuduhan dan tohmahan tersebut dengan kata-kata beliau, "Sebahagian besar daripada mahasiswa Universiti Malaya dan Maktab Teknik adalah keturunan Cina dan tiap-tiap orang mendapat subsidi daripada kerajaan. Begitulah juga dengan Sekolah Tinggi Chung Ling Pulau Pinang yang mempunyai 3,500 orang murid dan 100 peratus terdiri daripada murid-murid Cina yang mendapat bantuan penuh dari kerajaan. Sekolah-sekolah lain seperti Victoria Institution, St. John, MBS di Kuala Lumpur, St. Michael dan ACS di Ipoh dan Penang Free School, kebanyakan muridnya terdiri daripada murid-murid Cina".
Sementara itu, Tunku Abdul Rahman yang sangat kecewa dengan sikap kaum imigran yang menyerlahkan tindak-tanduk seperti 'kacang lupakan kulit' pula memberikan kenyataan berikut: "Membina universiti Cina bererti menegakkan sesuatu yang sentiasa mengingatkan orang-orang Cina akan sifat Cina mereka dan bukan sebagai orang-orang Malaysia." Namun seperti biasa, jawapan dan kenyataan itu bagi mereka tidak cukup kuat untuk tidak mengizinkan kaum mereka menentukan dasar pelajaran sendiri.
Selepas terkeluarnya Singapura dari Tanah Melayu, pergolakan politik semakin kritikal khususnya setelah pihak pembangkang yang diterajui oleh beberapa parti politik bukan Melayu mendapat kejayaan di luar dugaan semasa Pilihan Raya Umum 1969 hingga akhirnya membawa kepada berlakunya tragedi berdarah 13hb Mei, 1969 akibat reaksi keterlaluan dan di luar batas kesopanan yang ditunjukkan oleh para pengikut mereka.
Setelah PAP menutup bukunya di Malaysia, DAP mengambil alih tugas sacred mission PAP dalam meneruskan perjuangan meleburkan benteng dan meranapkan kewibawaan bangsa Melayu dengan melontarkan gagasan Malaysian Malaysianya untuk mewujudkan padang yang 'sama rata'.
Persoalannya apakah perubahan sikap dan pendirian kaum imigran terhadap orang Melayu itu menjadi bertambah baik dan usaha pemupukan perpaduan kaum meningkat? Apa yang nyata ialah asakan dan tuntutan mereka semakin menjadi-jadi serta menampakkan kegilaan yang sukar dibendung, apatah lagi warna perkauman DAP terutamanya, yang amat pekat itu kini dicairkan oleh penglibatan dan sokongan sebilangan orang Melayu yang lupa di mana bumi dipijak dan tempat langit dijunjung.
Sunday May 30, 2010
Perilous to stay on snooze mode
On The Beat
By WONG CHUN WAI
Our politicians must take heed that the old ways of wooing voters will not work any more in the changing political landscape.
IT has become a ritual for our political leaders to ask their members to wake up after each electoral defeat, but Malaysians wonder if these politicians are still on snooze mode even after making their wake-up calls.
The impression we get is that while Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has taken bold initiatives to win back the lost ground following the March 8 general election, some Barisan Nasional leaders are still refusing to see the changing political landscape.
Some are continuing to cling on to outdated ways, even in states controlled by Pakatan Rakyat where they behave like they are still in power simply because the federal government is under Barisan rule. Worse is that there are still component party leaders who refuse to retire.
The last is the most difficult for Najib as Barisan president to handle without being seen to be interfering in the affairs of component parties.
These are leaders who see themselves as indispensable and believe that their parties would crumble without their presence. They forget that we are all mere mortals and that life would still go on tomorrow with or without them.
So, again, we have heard Barisan leaders saying they would carry out post-mortems to find out why they were defeated in the Sibu by-election. Really, many ordinary Malaysians would be able to give the reasons without having lengthy meetings.
Some politicians seemed to be able to give an intelligent explanation on why Barisan lost immediately after the results were out, but we should ask them why they did not share those insights earlier.
Missing the pulse
The worn-out political strategy of announcing financial grants no longer work in urban constituencies because voters see this as a duty of the government.
As taxpayers, they expect the government to make these allocations regularly during the five-year term and not just on the eve of an election.
Politicians should not expect voters to be grateful when this money is given. Why should they be grateful when it’s the people’s money? Where does government money come from? It certainly didn’t drop from the sky.
Helping elderly or rural people with no identity cards after they have lived in Malaysia for decades or, worse, were born here, is good but it is also a double-edged sword because it is reflective of the government’s inefficiency.
As senior MCA leader Datuk Seri Dr Fong Chan Onn said last week, some Malaysians have demanded to know why it seems to be easier for many Indonesians to get their documents to stay here while there are Malaysians who face numerous problems to get theirs.
If we look at the March 8 results, it looks like many of our political leaders missed the pulse of the urban electorate and increasingly the rural voters. They do not want their elected representatives to be merely “hardworking and can bring development” to their constituencies. Looking at potholes and clogged drains will not win elections now, it’s as simple as that.
Barisan leaders continued to use this approach in Sibu even when voters talked about integrity, credibility, accountability and justice.
They want to hear the leaders talk about stopping corruption, discriminatory policies and the racial divide. They want to hear more about 1Malaysia and how the government plans to see it work beyond slogan shouting.
Such political language should not be the monopoly of the opposition. Barisan leaders should also be talking this talk.
These voices have become increasingly loud and as political leaders, they must have heard and surely want to respond to these alienated voices.
With a general election in about two years’ time, Barisan politicians including those in Sabah and Sarawak had better get out of bed quickly. They cannot remain in snooze mode for much longer.
Harsh truths
They cannot take for granted that the postal votes would go to the Barisan. As evident since the March 8 polls, soldiers and policemen have voted for the opposition, as have orang asli voters whose constituencies have now become semi-urban or even urban, as in the Bukit Lanjan state constituency in Selangor, which is located near two shopping complexes.
But the point is this: it is not enough for Barisan politicians to know the reasons and not address them. Post-mortems by political parties often focus on how they lose in elections rather than why.
In the latest edition of the Economist magazine, it was reported about the defeated Labour party in the United Kingdom that “they have concentrated on Labour’s failure to convey its message rather than on its substantive mistakes” and “they have described the defeat rather than properly accounting for it”.
Labour, it said, “needs someone with the gumption to take the ritual post-election hypocrisy beyond platitudes and into harsh truths”.
The story seems the same. The defeated politicians have blamed everyone, from “ungrateful” voters to the media to “barbaric outsiders”, except themselves. Finding scapegoats and sacrificial lambs is an easier way out than to face harsh political realities.
Politicians can choose to ignore the changing political landscape at their own peril because ultimately, it would be the people who would decide. By then, it could be a political wake if these politicians do not wake up.
Malay groups declare NEM a threat
KUALA LUMPUR, May 29 — The Malay Advisory Council (MPM) in its maiden congress today passed a resolution protesting the New Economic Model (NEM), saying it is a threat to the economic interest of the country’s majority race.
The umbrella body comprising of 76 Malay NGOs and led by Malay rights group Perkasa, deliberated for hours before unanimously agreeing that the Najib administration’s move will dismantle what they see as inherent Malay rights.
Many of the participants at the congress slammed the NEM and its maker, the National Economic Advisory Council (NEAC), of betraying the social contract which they claimed recognises the special economic rights of the Malays.
A panel of “experts” speaking at the congress demanded the need for the new model to continue with affirmative action as expounded by the New Economic Policy (NEP), a model created to strengthen Malay economic participation.
The three-hour meeting passed a 31 point resolution, which in essence, wants almost all aspects of the NEP preserved under the NEM.
Among the clear example of this are points 4 and 5 of the resolution.
“The congress regretfully concedes that the government have failed to help increase Bumiputra participation, ownership and control in strategic sectors,” read point 4 of the resolution that calls for all these concerns to be addressed under the NEM.
“The affirmative economic and distribution policy that Bumiputra participation in various economic sectors must be maintained,” read point 5 which in its summary demands that the NEM retain this by making the economy more Bumiputra friendly, transparent, needs and merit based.
The same point stressed on the need to maintain a race-based affirmative action to reflect the country’s ethnic composition.
MPM in its resolution also want strategic government intervention in private enterprises to ensure “distributive justice” for all especially the Bumiputras.
The resolution reflects the failure of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to quell fears among Malay groups on NEM’s ability to safeguard their allegedly depleting rice bowl.
Najib has embarked on an effort to sell his NEM to sceptical Malay voters, arguing that a new direction is needed to pull the ailing economy out of its middle income trap by freeing the market off the crippling Malay largesse.
The resolution will be handed over to Najib later tonight. From the mood of the congress, many of the participants appear eager for the premier’s response.
Earlier today, participants and panel members of the congress took turns to vent their frustration towards the NEM albeit stopping short of attacking Najib.
Most of their anger were targetted towards the NEAC particularly its leading figure Tan Sri Amirsyam Arshad who they chastised as a traitor to the Malays.
“The NEM is a new Malayan Union. It will be used to colonise the Malays once again,” said secretary to the congress, economist Dr Zubir Harun.
Senator Datuk Akbar Ali, a former director with the Malacca Economic Action Council, went to the extent of accusing the NEAC as a tool used by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to attack then premier Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
Dr Mahathir, who ruled the country for 22 years, has been hailed by MPM as the champion of the NEP and is known to oppose IMF’s liberalisation proposals for the Malaysian economy.
Cherish our heritage of co-operation
MAY 29 — We are too hung up on tolerance. For some reason, we are happy and proud of the fact that our nation’s melting pot of communities haven’t murdered one another since 1969 — that is supposed to be one of our nation’s crowning achievements. And I agree, it is. But it isn’t enough.
It’s trendy to say we should move on from tolerance to acceptance these days. But really, aren’t the two more or less the same thing? Acceptance is just a slightly more tolerable kind of tolerance.
Now, the fact that we can all peacefully co-exist is in itself quite the achievement. The globe is littered with examples of countries where people cannot even live side by side with their fellow countrymen. Rwanda, Bosnia and South Africa are some of the most poignant examples in recent memory.
But what I believe makes us special, something we should truly be proud of, is that we all work together. In fact, we don’t only work together now; we have been working together for time immemorial. Together, we have built up a shared heritage in our society, our culture, and our economy.
When I speak of our nation’s history, I don’t even have to think about it. The history of the Malay states being colonised over the course of the 19th century isn’t Malay history; it’s my history. The founding father of Kuala Lumpur might be Yap Ah Loy, but it is a Malaysian city — our city. All our nation’s accomplishments, our triumphs and our failures, belong to us.
Our forefathers built up a heritage of co-operation — not co-existence — and bequeathed it to us. This co-operation — not some co-existence built on tolerance — is the engine of our success. It is what truly sets us apart from almost every other plural society out there.
In the Middle East, they might all worship Allah, but the Christians, Shia and Sunni co-exist uneasily side-by-side. Here in Malaysia, people of virtually every major world religion and ethnicity work, live and play together without a second thought. That is a beautiful heritage — and alas, one we take all too easily for granted.
To a substantial degree, I think this heritage even sets us apart from Singapore. Singapore is a perfect example of tolerance, but it does not have our unique heritage of plural co-operation. Since the early 19th century, it has been on the verge of being a monoethnic society, and it shows.
Singaporeans are thus sometimes unable to appreciate the value of diversity and the importance of sharing our national burdens. This myopic mentality was beautifully displayed some 20-odd years ago when a Chinese Singaporean MP demanded the government allow Malays to serve in key positions in the Singapore Armed Forces. He was heavily criticised by many, including the present prime minister of Singapore, and met with this retort from a Malay PAP MP:
“I would like to ask the Member for Potong Pasir what authority has he to speak on behalf of the Malays? Is he politicking? We have just been telling the Malaysians to lay off. This is a Singapore problem and I am telling the Member for Potong Pasir that this is a Malay problem. The Malay MPs will solve them.”
Sadly, this rhetoric must sound familiar to many of us on this side of the Causeway. Almost exactly the same words could have come from anyone in government here. This is a symptom of how much we’ve forgotten what our founding fathers gave us.
Can anyone imagine Tunku Abdul Rahman or Tun Abdul Razak saying these words? Would Tun Tan Cheng Lock or Tun V.T. Sambanthan have accepted it if someone told them this? The very notion that the statesmen who founded our country could be capable of such myopia boggles the mind. As flawed and controversial as our founding fathers were, they were at least farsighted enough to realise Malaysia is about more than mere co-existence, with Malay problems for the Malays, and other problems for the dan lain-lain.
The Nut Graph recently interviewed Fahmi Fadzil, who comes from a long line of Umno supporters. But as Fahmi laments, the men and women of 1957 are long gone. Radicals who were once a distinct minority in the party now rule the roost. He recounts how his father, once a staunch party man, decided to campaign for the DAP in 2008. He describes how “if my grandparents were alive today, do you know how disgusted they’d feel with Umno?”
The men and women leading our country today are putting us on a dangerous path. We are slowly but surely eradicating the heritage our founding fathers — those of the original Umno and Perikatan — bequeathed to us. Fifty years ago, our founding fathers weren’t proud of the fact that we were tolerating each other — how could they be, when we were still waging a war on the communist insurgency?
Fifty years ago, we were proud of the fact that we had worked together for our hard-earned independence, and that every Malayan — soon to be Malaysian — could call themselves free. Today, we are supposed to be proud that we can “tolerate” or “accept” one another, and resign ourselves to the supposed fact that some intractable problems are internal issues for only certain communities to resolve. As I’m sure any of our founding fathers would want to tell you, there is a lot more to Malaysia than this.
Rakyat perlu bersama kerajaan
 |
| Najib Tun Razak disambut ribuan penganut agama Buddha semasa menghadiri majlis rumah terbuka Wesak di Tokong Maha Vihara, Kuala Lumpur, semalam. Turut mengiringi Perdana Menteri, isterinya, Rosmah Mansor serta beberapa menteri Kabinet. |
KUALA LUMPUR 28 Mei - Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak hari ini menyeru semua rakyat supaya bersama-sama kerajaan menjadikan Malaysia sebagai sebuah negara model dalam konteks toleransi antara agama dan kaum.
Justeru beliau meminta semua lapisan masyarakat di negara ini meningkatkan lagi kefahaman mengenai amalan beragama selain sentiasa memelihara rasa hormat antara satu sama lain agar keharmonian yang dikecapi selama ini tidak akan terjejas.
Beliau berkata, mesejnya jelas iaitu tanpa wujudnya elemen harmoni adalah mustahil setiap program kerajaan untuk rakyat seperti Program Transformasi Kerajaan (GTP) dapat dijayakan.
"Keharmonian dan keamanan adalah kunci ke arah menjadikan Malaysia sebagai sebuah negara maju. Oleh itu kita perlu mempertahankannya tanpa sebarang kompromi.
"Setakat ini kita lihat keharmonian itu wujud tetapi bagi saya ia boleh dipertingkatkan lagi dan antaranya melalui cara menambahkan pemahaman kita terhadap kepelbagaian amalan agama di negara ini," katanya.
Friday May 28, 2010
Discipline gone to the dogs
WHY NOT? BY RASLAN SHARIF
We don’t cane school children anymore, with the result that they talk, walk about, and go in an out of, class even when a lesson is on.
WE ALL remember our school days. At least some of us do. And I completely understand that there might be a few people out there who would want to keep their memories of school far, far, away from recollection.
I went to several schools, my civil servant father having to make “tours of duty” in several towns across the country in the course of his career.
I attended schools in Alor Star, Klang, Seremban and Petaling Jaya. In between, I also received two years of primary education in America, when my father took the whole family along during his stint at Lousiana State University.
The school I attended in Baton Rouge was the University Terrace Elementary School, which was right next door to the apartments we lived in. Naturally, I walked to school every day.
School was fun in many ways. There were double recesses (yes, twice), nice teachers, good food at the cafeteria, and lessons in the first and second grade that were a breeze for me.
Not so nice were the fights that broke out at times among some students, among other things.
Once, when I was in the second grade, this kid – I think his name was Marcus, if I remember correctly – demanded money from me, with the “friendly” advice that a refusal on my part would result in his older brother in the fifth grade making my acquaintance after school.
Survival instincts honed over millions of years of human evolution immediately kicked in, and I gave him the quarter that he asked for.
He asked for money again the next week, and again my survival instincts got the better of me – I told him no.
I was hungry and I was damn well going to use the money I had to buy some food at the cafeteria.
Marcus was pissed and I spent the rest of my time at school that day with a full stomach and a dreadful feeling that the rest of the day was not going to be very pleasant.
Later, as I made my way out of school, I braced myself for the inevitable. I was about to meet my Marcus, and his fifth-grade brother from Hell.
But they never showed up. And Marcus never bothered me again.
I found out later that the reason this older brother of his wasn’t waiting for me outside of school was because he was too busy playing in Marcus’ mind. The “bro with the fro” (this was in the 1970s) didn’t physically exist.
I was lucky.
There were one or two other similar episodes throughout my school days but none as bad as the case of Marcus and his imaginary brother.
This was primarily (no pun intended) because the environment in Malaysian primary and secondary schools was a lot milder. At least that was the case back in the days that I was in school.
Now that I am a father of two primary school-going children, I can’t help but compare what it was like in my time and what I think it is these days.
The most obvious thing for me is that discipline isn’t what it used to be. Yes, we don’t cane schoolchildren anymore and we now do things in a more “touchy-feely” manner. But as far as I’m concerned, respect for authority is just not there.
I’ve seen little children blithefully ignoring the instructions of teachers; forget about prefects and class monitors.
Remember how silent we were during assembly? Many kids at my kids’ school don’t really give two hoots about whatever’s being said and who’s saying it.
Remember about being orderly as we moved to and from our class? There’s pushing and shoving up and down the stairs now, if not more of the sort of behaviour that puts personal safety at risk.
Remember how we gave due deference to our teachers when they were in class, keeping our mouths shut and at least pretending to pay attention? Kids these days think nothing of talking at the back while the teachers teach in front, with some even walking about as well as in and out of class.
These little things are symptomatic of the general breakdown of “law and order” in schools. Worst of all, I’m talking about primary schools here.
Am I surprised at the things that are said to have been happening in the now notorious secondary school in Rawang?
Not the least bit.
I remember police visiting my secondary school to meet the acquaintance of some characters who looked like they were on to the wrong way of going about life.
At the very least, they knew they were being observed and school was not the place to even give a hint of what they were doing outside in their own time.
What can we do about all this?
I don’t know. But what I do know is that many students of SMK Taman Garing are unlikely to grow up into adults with fond memories of their schooldays.
Thursday May 27, 2010
A good deal for Malaysia
Comment by MERGAWATI ZULFAKAR
Emotional issues with Singapore are passe. It should be business and economic interests now between two neighbours.
It is a 217ha of land that runs from the north to the south of Singapore – the size of almost 300 standard football fields. A valuation exercise carried out last year found the total land area to be worth up to S$4bil (RM9.5bil).
The KTM Berhad railway land has been a thorny issue between Malaysia and Singapore for almost 20 years.
There had been plenty of arguments and bad blood over the railway land that was leased from Singapore.
To Malaysia, the land represents its sovereignty while Singapore wants to develop it.
Where previous leaders had failed, two relatively young leaders are set to resolve the KTM land issue because they refused to be bogged down by old issues. It is a breakthrough.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has described the deal as historic while Singapore’s Lee Hsien Loong summed it up aptly:
“It is time to rejoice.”
The KTM Berhad land that stretches from Woodlands and ends in Tanjung Pagar was leased under 1918 colonial ordinance for 999 years.
It is solely for operating a railway line to ferry goods and passengers to Singapore and vice versa.
Over the years, the surrounding areas have been overtaken by development with industries and waste treatment.
The Points of Agreement (POA) was eventually signed on Nov 27, 1990 on the status of the railway land but problems arose as each side had its own interpretation.
Now many Malaysians are questioning just how does Malaysia benefit by giving up the leased land?
What is the big deal with Tan-jung Pagar being relocated to Woodlands on July 1, next year?
For a start, it is as a super good deal for Malaysia.
It goes beyond land. It involves spawning the local economy and the connectivity between Johor and Singapore (see graphic).
M-S Pte Ltd will be set up by the end of the year with Khazanah Nasional holding a 60% stake and Singapore state investment arm Temasek Holdings holding the remaining 40%.
They will jointly develop the KTM land in Tanjung Pagar, Kranji, Woodlands and Bukit Timah.
At the same time, the six pieces of land earmarked for joint development could be swapped for four pieces of land in Marina South and one in Ophir-Rochor, the city state’s prime financial and business districts.
Marina South recently saw the opening of an integrated resort, Marina Bay Sands. Imagine the huge potential of development that can take place here.
Imagine, one day we may just get to see an iconic building in Marina South with Malaysia’s influence.
More good things are coming – a rapid transit system link Tanjung Puteri in Johor Baru and Singapore will be developed by 2018.
The link will connect with other public transport services in Johor Baru and the republic.
Some 80,000 Malaysians commute daily to Singapore to work and study. Their travelling time will be cut and traffic congestion across the Causeway and within Johor Baru itself will ease.
Word has it Kempas will be the next railway hub in Johor should Malaysia opt to move the railway station from Singapore soil in 2018.
Singapore has also finally agreed to become a partner in an iconic project in Iskandar Malaysia, the Malaysian growth corridor which sits next to the island city state.
This is the signal that the private sector has been waiting for from the Singapore Government.
Singapore businesses want to invest in Iskandar, knowing its full potential and given the success of China’s special Shenzen economic zone.
Khazanah and Temasek will form a 50-50 joint venture company to undertake the development of the iconic wellness township project in Iskandar.
For a start, the launch of the “live work play” wellness township concept will offer traditional and complementary alternative medicine and modern medicine.
Take a pick if you want Malay and Chinese traditional healing or don’t be surprised if ayurveda is available too. Where else would one find traditional healing methods in one place?
A new interest is growing among Singapore companies in Iskandar. That also means multinational companies operating in Singapore will take notice too.
When the investments start coming in, more jobs will be created.
Expect more exciting things to happen in the near future.
The negotiations have been tough. Some may argue, we are losing our rights to the railway land but KTM is losing money from the Singapore route.
Legal experts argue that Malaysia’s hands are tied. Malaysia’s interpretation of when the POA takes effect does not hold water any more.
It has been a long 19 years and six months.
By the time the Tanjung Pagar Railway station moves to Woodlands next year, it would have been 20 years and six months.
Under Najib, Malaysia is quite clear about where it is heading. We cannot wait for another 20 years to get things moving forward.
Sentimental and emotional reasons alone will not get us anywhere.
Discrimination in the private sector
MAY 26 — Often we hear complaints regarding smart non-Malay students with many As not getting a place in local universities. Political parties, NGOs and the media often highlight their plight and injustice.
I, for one, agree with the push by the government in solving this problem. Regardless of a student’s racial background, a smart student is an asset to the nation and he or she should be given a chance to get an education and contribute to society.
I fully support the move by the government in abolishing quotas in most of the public universities, promoting merit-based distribution of scholarships and move to incorporate more non-Malays into the government.
Although some may argue the main reason for the lack of non-Malays opting to be a government servant is due to perks and wages rather than discrimination, we should view all these as positive.
A good example would be the recent flood at the Selangor Chinese Assembly hall interviews to fill up the vacancies with the Malaysian-Anti Corruption Commission (MACC). Ironic when one considers the recent political spin that has been put upon the MACC, thanks to the Teoh Beng Hock case.
I guess Er Soon Poi put it quite well when he said, “I am impressed with the salary and allowances offered in the public sector and I am interested to become a government servant although I have little knowledge about the MACC” (The Sun May 23, 2010).
I admit there is the perception that there is an ethnic dominance in the Malaysian civil service. I agree with this view and fully support any move to diversify the Malaysian civil service.
To me this is one of the many polarities that divide the Malaysian society. But I have always reminded myself of the old saying, “It takes two hands to produce a clap”. So I am going to discuss what many politicians and activists are quite reluctant to talk about.
Perhaps it is a bit uncomfortable for some of these politicians to talk about or the fact that it does not serve their political purpose.
Discrimination
It started with complaints by local Malay graduates that they faced difficulty in getting good jobs in big companies, mainly multinational corporations which offer good salaries. Especially big, foreign companies with good perks in sectors like banking, finance, electronics, IT, etc.
I have heard of this way back when my seniors were complaining about it. At first even I shrugged it off.
There is this general perception that Malay graduates are “bad in communication skills, mainly English, and not as competent as the non-Malay graduates.”
Come on, let’s be honest. I have more than once encountered this remark, “Ahh you speak pretty good English for a Malay.” Malaysians are huge hypocrites, I tell you. No wonder our politicians are like that as well.
As much as one would like to put a cast on the stereotyping of lazy, incompetent and spoon-fed Malays, there is something really wrong when say 90 per cent of the executive or high ranking technical staff comes from a single ethnic background. Especially when one consider the fact that the Malays are not the minorities.
Are these Malay graduates so incompetent? Because last I heard back in university, there is quite a healthy number of Malay-Muslim students getting on deans’ lists and receiving medals during convocations.
Their English can’t be that bad and based on my experience, the level of English competency is equally horrible regardless of ethnic background when it comes to local graduates. Chances are, there might be a problem with the Malay graduates in Malaysia generally, but instead maybe there is a problem with the human resource manager in said company, don’t you agree?
It becomes even more apparent when that minority ethnic, be it Malays or whatever, tend to fill positions like receptionists, office boys, dispatchers, etc. It’s like having diversity for the sake of showcase, so what better place to put them if not right in front at the reception desk.
The Mandarin factor
Now, once in a while when I browse through the classifieds, I would see an ad that goes something like this: “Mandarin competence” or “Chinese Speaking”. At first I would assume it to be something harmless. Perhaps that company does a lot of deals with China hence they need Mandarin speakers to help them deal with their foreign clients.
But it gets quite dodgy when the companies that have those kind of job ads don’t really deal with foreign clients, especially China. It gets even dodgier when the advertised vacancy is something like a “Systems Administrator” or “R&D Engineer”.
Last I checked, I have yet to find any datasheet, programming language, operating system or technical textbook that is written in Mandarin. Perhaps there are that one or two technical manuals written in Mandarin because of that Made in China product. But chances are if the Germans and Japanese can include an English technical manual with their product, I am pretty sure a “Made in China” product has it as well (Okay, maybe with bad English).
There’s something really amiss when you have a vacancy ad which lists the Mandarin factor for a Japanese manufacturing plant.
Look, this is Malaysia, the official languages here are Bahasa Malaysia and English. Unless a company deals with China or Taiwan, there is no need for compulsory Mandarin. We all know why you put down that criterion. And if there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s people pretending to be something else when the real reason is very obvious.
Some of you might say “But hey Zaidel what about that ad that goes ‘Untuk Bumiputera Sahaja’ You bloody Perkasa racist!” I say yes, it is quite racist as well, like I said it takes two hands to clap and having this masked hypocritical Mandarin ad is just as bad as having a openly gung-ho racial ad like the “Bumiputera” criterion as well.
So how do we go about this then?
Some may take the path of hyperventilating rants and dramatic raving, which usually ends with the conclusion that the only way to solve every problem in this nation is by voting anything else other than Barisan Nasional.
I actually prefer something more concrete (and less hyperventilating). In the civil service a minimal quota system can always be implemented. For instance, a minimum of one in every three new staff must be of a different ethnic background. That sort of situation fits for the civil service and is easily monitored by the Parliament, hence a regulatory measure can be implemented.
However, in the private sector having regulations may hamper productivity and meddle in the market forces. If, say, the government suddenly announced a regulatory measure such as a quota, it would affect the general productivity.
Based on previous experience when it comes to regulatory policies in the private sector, we do know that this does not work well, e.g. 30 per cent Bumiputera Equity shares. As much as I want diversity in the workplace, I realise it must be balanced with the current needs, market forces and productivity level, and the fact that private sectors should decide for themselves.
So instead of a regulatory measure, I suggest we do an incentive-based measure. One measure could be a tax cuts for companies that introduce diversity in their workplace.
For instance, if a company has a minimum of 25 per cent Bumiputeras working as executives with them, they are then entitled to a 10 per cent income tax reduction. To make it fair, we do the same for, say, a 100 per cent Bumiputera company that manages to introduce a minimum of 25 per cent non Bumiputeras into their company.
This way the government won’t be meddling into the private nature of the private sector and gives the freedom for these companies to take their time in introducing diversity in the workplace without hampering their productivity.
Diversity incentives are quite common in the rest of the world and we have seen it to be quite effective. It’s a win-win situation. To those which think that they may not be ready yet, no worries, business as usual. Maybe next year.
Conclusion
Now some of you may find it hard to chew on this, but like it or not, it’s there, it exists. There is discrimination in the private sector just as in the civil service.
Though many of us find it convenient to blame the civil service, many seem to shy away when it comes to the private sector. However, rather than leaving this as an article that merely focuses on ranting and raving, I would prefer it to be something that we all can ponder upon and come up with solutions that would benefit everyone in the long run.
Don't do it, it's not cool
Oblivious to those around them, the two shared their experiences with designer drugs ketamine and speed.
"I still remember when I took speed for the first time with my boyfriend. It was so cool," exclaimed one of them.
It is not half as cool as 'K', replied the other.
It occurred to me then that the "cool factor" is often the reason why youths try drugs in the first place.
It is not that they are ignorant. I am sure they know household detergents and dangerous chemicals are used to make the drugs.
If only that teenager knew that the drug, 'K' or ketamine hydrochloride is widely used as an animal tranquilliser.
If only her friend knew that drain cleaner and battery acid are among the ingredients used to make the amphetamine speed.
And if only they knew that long term use of designer drugs could lead to irreversible physical and mental impairment or even worse, death.
These designer drugs are destructive, and irreparably so. Perhaps then, they would think twice.
Recently, two teenage boys from the United Kingdom died from taking mephedrone, a legal drug which is commonly used as plant fertiliser.
Toxicology reports revealed that Louis Wainwright, 18, and Nicholas Smith, 19, died as a result of taking the drug along with alcohol and methadone, the heroin substitute, while clubbing in Scunthorpe on March 14.
Now, their government's official drug advisers have recommended a ban on mephedrone, also known as M-Cat, Meow Meow, Drone or Bubbles.
Disguised as food plants, they are easily accessible and sold loosely on the Internet. What is most worrying is that there are Facebook groups devoted to the drug.
An article in The Guardian reported that the drug was offered for sale by Facebook users who were selling mephedrone as plant food to groups such as "Keep mephedrone legal" and have even offered the drug on the mephedrone fan page.
Mephedrone's side effects is similar to those of synthetic drugs.
Other anecdotal reports suggest heavy use can lead to paranoia, hallucinations and serious panic attacks.
Although the plant food is labelled "Not For Human Consumption", there are still many who choose to consume it.
It may not be easily accessible locally yet, but the police should equip themselves with tools to detect mephedrone. Police should take precautionary measures now and be on high alert.
With synthetic drugs that are already in the market, the authorities should organise awareness programmes to educate youth on the harm they could suffer if they took drugs.
There is nothing cool about drugs and our youth need to be constantly reminded of the dangers of drug abuse.
Just like the two teens at the kopitiam, Wainwright and Smith were just two boys trying to be "cool". What they didn't know was that drugs are far from being that.
In the line of fire
WHY NOT? WONG SAI WAN
When does a cop become a hero and when does he become a villain? That, unfortunately, is a fine line.
IT was a lovers' tiff but this 30-something year-old Indonesian let his anger get the better of him and he strangled his girlfriend to death.
He drove her body in his Perodua Kancil from Bangi in Selangor to Nilai in Negri Sembilan where he was hoping to find a lonely spot to dispose of the body.
He drove slowly while looking for a suitable spot and police in a passing patrol car were suspicious of his manner of driving.
Realising that the cops were eyeing him, the Indonesian sped off with the patrol car in pursuit.
His car skidded and crashed into a ditch after a short chase.
He did not resist when the two policemen apprehended him and soon confessed to having killed his 20-something-year-old girlfriend.
The quick action of the two policemen earned the praise of their bosses.
But, unfortunately this job well done was overshadowed by the case of 14-year-old Aminulrasyid Amzah who was shot dead the day before in a car chase with the police, after he refused to stop when ordered to pull over.
Most people - from politicians to parents - hit out at the four policemen, questioning how they could shoot a 14-year-old boy dead.
DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang even called it cold-blooded murder.
All these negative reactions drew an equally swift and bitter comment from Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hasan.
He said if the people did not appreciate his men, he could withdraw them from the streets.
The Government immediately set up an investigating panel headed by Deputy Home Minister Datuk Wira Abu Seman Yusop.
The other members are former IGP Tun Mohammed Haniff Omar, Home Ministry deputy secretary-general Datuk Ahmad Fuad Abdul Aziz, law lecturer Assoc Prof Datuk Abdul Halim Sidek, Asian Strategy & Leadership Institute CEO Datuk Michael Yeoh, lawyer Datuk Seri Muhammad Shafee, social scientist Datuk Dr Dennison Jayasooria and crime analyst and actor Kamal Affendi Hashim.
The panel will try to determine what happened, and who is at fault.
What saddens me most is the swiftness with which everyone pointed the finger at the four policemen, concluding instantly that they were guilty.
They ignored the fact that there was a lengthy car chase - 6km it seems.
They ignored the fact that the boy kept on driving despite the car being fired at.
More importantly, the jury of the public ignored the fact that the two patrol cars had their sirens blaring and lights flashing, and yet the boy refused to stop.
Instead they pointed to the picture of the boy published in several newspapers, asking how the policemen could have mistaken him for a criminal.
I wonder how easy it is to see who was driving the car during the tense 6km high-speed car chase in the dark.
Why are we not just as concerned that a 14-year-old did not stop when ordered to do so by policemen in a siren blaring, lights flashing patrol car?
Also, why do we not ask ourselves what a 14-year-old boy was doing out at 2am, driving around in someone else's car without a licence?
Of course, these questions get pushed aside when there is a death. But are we being fair to the four policemen? A twitter friend when posed this question said, “That's because we no longer trust the police.”
That statement hit me hardest in this whole tragic affair.
If distrust in the police force is so widespread, that is a wider issue than this unfortunate incident.
How did we come to this? Personally, I believe that the police took the brunt of the blame and bad press following the mistreatment of Refomasi demonstrators in 1997 and 1998 that culminated in the “black-eye incident”.
Over the past decade, the police had tried very hard to improve their image.
They engaged public relations companies, adopted more people-friendly policing techniques, had been more transparent in their investigations and even invited civilians to join their investigation teams.
However, the rising crime rate plus so many high profile cases - Aminulrasyid, A. Kugan, and Francis Udayapan, among them - only made things worse for the force.
Where previously politicians stayed clear of accusing the police of anything, the black eye inflicted on Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim changed the rules of engage-ment.
Politicians, especially those from the Opposition parties, are taking every opportunity now to demonise the police.
Two years ago, the police and the Government had a chance to redeem the force's reputation when the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the force recommended an Inde-pendent Police Complaints and Misconduct Com-mission.
However, the police force wanted certain provisions of the proposed commission to be amended.
As a result, the commission was never implemented, and the lack of independent monitoring of the force made matters worse for the people in Bukit Aman.
If the commission had been set up, it would now be investigating Aminulrasyid's case, and I am sure it would exonerate the four cops; but I wonder if the public would agree.
But at least the politicians will have one less reason to demonise the police.
Stick with English
OUR children are at the crossroads when dealing with language in Malaysia. They lament that the moment they are out of school, they discover that they need English in almost every aspect of their daily and academic life, especially if they live in cities. Only when they go to the wet market do they converse in Bahasa Malaysia. Even then, it is pasar Malay or the dialects of the vendors.
They say that firstly, when they surf the Internet, the majority of the sites they visit are in English. The only sites in Bahasa Malaysia are those of government agencies and ministries, but they do not surf government sites every day. For all we know, some ministries have also put up English sites to help their international counterparts.
Secondly, all brochures of goods, hotels, shops and organisations are in English, except for those of the Government. Employers want workers who can converse and write in English. Those poor in English lose out.
Thirdly, certain careers require the absolute use of English. One such example is the aviation industry. A pilot trainee said nothing whatsoever in his training is conducted in Bahasa Malaysia. He finds his friends poor in English face difficulty studying and communicating. Not being able to decipher the English instruction may cause mishaps on runaways. So do his friends who do medicine and law in India.
To apply for jobs, our children need to write letters and resumes in English. Their friends who are in colleges and universities also need to write assignments in English.
Similarly, in entertainment, especially music and songs, they listen to the English ones. The Astro guide and TV schedules are in English. Informative and academic channels on Astro like National Geographic, History, Discovery and Science are in English. So is the news over CNN, BBC and Al-Jazeera. Their favourite shows of sports, cars and entertainments are all in English.
The language used in the brochures of imported goods is none other than English, even if they are produced in China or the Middle East. Books sold on the Amazon.net are almost all written in English.
Likewise, signboards and notices, apart from the Government ones, are almost all in English. Instructions on vitamin and pharmaceutical bottles are all in English and so are the manuals of scientific and engineering gadgets and equipment. Even when we go to Mecca to perform Umrah and Haj, the signs are in English, French and Arabic, not Bahasa Malaysia.
Thus, why do we want to switch back to Bahasa Malaysia in teaching important subjects at schools? Lengthening the hours to teach English during English lessons will be less effective compared to doing the content subjects in English.
Learning content subjects in English is killing two birds with one stone. One will acquire the language and learn the subject, and the language learnt in this manner will be more authentic.
Let the generation who began their Mathematics and Science in English at schools in 2005 finish their education in Englsih. Let them be the generation to revive the good English we once had. Let them help us be more competitive in the global market, and let them teach the generation after theirs this language of academic and this language of the world.
Sukan payung kumpul, menyatukan rakyat
Oleh Zainul Arifin
2010/05/16
Menang, kalah beri hasil lumayan - gema suara 1MalaysiaNamun permainan berakhir mengikut jalan cerita yang dijangka, dan bukannya kejutan ala cerita dongeng pada 1992 apabila Piala Thomas jatuh ke tangan kita.
Bagaimanapun saya tidak terlalu kecewa dengan keputusan kelmarin itu. Tiada malunya jika kita antara empat negara utama badminton dunia. Ia adalah kejohanan dunia dan cabaran tentulah hebat. Tiada sebab kita tidak boleh berbangga dengan anak-anak muda kita itu.
Banyak yang pergi ke Stadium Putra itu tahu betapa sukarnya bagi pasukan kita untuk menang, namun mereka pergi dengan sepanduk dan bendera, serta suara yang hilang di akhir perlawanan. Adakah mereka terlalu mengharap atau tidak tahu menilai lawan?
Seperti juga ribuan yang akan ke Afrika Selatan menyokong pasukan negara mereka yang kebanyakannya tidak akan melepasi pusingan pertama, kita ke stadium selain memberi semangat adalah untuk meraikan pasukan kita.
Memang kemenangan dicari, tetapi itu bukannya saja tujuan kita apabila memberi sokongan. Kita menyokong kerana berterima kasih kerana ada orang yang sanggup berjuang untuk kita, tidak kira betapa sukarnya tugasan yang diberi. Kita bangga dengan usaha mereka. Kita mempunyai pelaburan emosi dengan pasukan kita. Ada satu lagi faktor emosi untuk bersorak, iaitu semangat patriotisme.
Pemain negara kita mewakili kita, jika mereka berjaya, bukan saja kita tumpang gembira tetapi kita juga juara.
Sebenarnya bukanlah pingat dan piala yang menjadikan negara disegani, tetapi cita-citanya yang tinggi. Cita-cita ingin menjadi juara dunia akan membuatkan kita bekerja keras, dan sekiranya kita tidak berjaya sekalipun, usaha kita sudah tentu menjadikan kita lebih baik.
Kita semua sedar bahawa minat terhadap sukan semakin berkurangan di negara ini. Rakyat kita bukan gemar bersukan, terutama pada akhir-akhir ini. Ada yang hanya minat menonton sukan dan tidak pernah peluh setitik pun bersukan. Kita banyak disajikan persembahan terbaik di televisyen, oleh itu kita tidak berapa bersemangat mengikuti pasukan dan atlit kita yang jelasnya bukan juara dunia, kecuali seperti Nicol David.
Tetapi jika kita sebuah negara yang bersemangat menghayati sukan, atau ‘sporting nation,’ maka kita bukan saja boleh menilai mutu, tetapi juga usaha dan pengorbanan. Sokongan kita bukan dibeli oleh keputusan yang baik saja, tetapi kita juga akan menyanjung mereka yang bekerja keras untuk menjadi yang terbaik.
Kini sukan bukanlah menjadi satu keutamaan di sekolah. Ada sekolah yang sudah bertahun tiada hari sukan. Inisiatif kerajaan untuk mencapai satu murid satu sukan adalah baik, tetapi ia adalah arahan dan bukannya galakan. Bilakah kali terakhir sekolah yang menghasilkan ahli sukan disanjung? Namun kita kerap menamakan sekolah yang penuntutnya dapat A yang banyak. Kononnya kepemimpinan sekolah akan lebih cepat naik pangkat jika keputusan akademik baik.
Kalangan ibu bapa juga banyak yang tidak berapa suka jika anak mereka bersukan, malah ada juga tidak mahu kokurikulum kerana kononnya mengganggu peluang anak mereka mendapat A yang banyak. Oleh itu tidak hairanlah jika kita tidak dapat ramai atlit kerana saluran sudah dikecilkan.
Jelas kita adalah sebuah negara yang tidak memberi tumpuan tinggi kepada sukan. Walaupun kita ada anggota Kabinet untuk meneliti isu sukan, rakyat kita kurang berminat. Namun pulangan sukan adalah lumayan, melebihi pingat dan gelaran yang boleh diperoleh.
Jika dilihat muka-muka yang bersorak dan bertempik di Stadium Putra, kelmarin, jelas mereka adalah muka-muka 1Malaysia. Jika kita lihat pasukan Piala Thomas dan Uber, jelas muka-muka 1Malaysia. Suara yang menggegarkan stadium menyambut pukulan smash Datuk Lee Chong Wei atau yang meraung kecewa apabila beregu kita menghantar bulu tangkis ke jaring, juga adalah suara 1Malaysia.
Tiada nampak beza bangsa, agama dan politik apabila membawa sepanduk dan mengibarkan bendera. Sungguh baik apabila kita berupaya melupakan perbezaan apabila mendepani tujuan yang sama.
Jika politik mahu kita berpisah dan bertelingkah, sukan adalah satu payung yang mana kita boleh berkumpul dan bersatu, walaupun ketika keputusan tidak menyebelahi kita.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete