REFSA Rojak is our weekly take on the goings-on in Malaysia. We trawl the newsflow, cut to the core and focus on the really pertinent. Full of flavour, lots of crunch, this is the concise snapshot to help Malaysians keep abreast of the issues of the day.

Burgers and Bums vs Bersih

Freedom of assembly became a farce when burgers and butts were flashed in public this week. Claiming that the Bersih rally had affected businesses, petty traders group Ikhlas set up a burger stall outside the house of Bersih’s co-chairperson Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan to protest their loss of income.

’If we cannot do business in KL, we would do it here’ was Ikhlas’ argument – although recovering lost profit was presumably not the intention, as the burgers were given out for free.

While the Internet is still sizzling with snide remarks on the ‘burger protesters’, a group of veteran soldiers became the latest butt of jokes after their ‘bum exercises’ in front of Ambiga’s house.  The Malay Armed Forces Veterans Association (PVTM) claimed that it was their right to protest against Ambiga for being an ‘enemy’ of the nation.

Questioning if protesters have the right to invade an individual’s privacy, Ambiga told the traders to file their claims for losses suffered in court. She also planned to lodge a police report, for the  disturbance affected not only her family, but the whole neighbourhood.

However, deputy IGP Datuk Khalid Abu Bakar  announced that no action would be taken against the traders as they had committed no criminal offence – they did not enter Ambiga’s house, but were ‘in a public space’. He added that under the recently-enforced Peaceful Assembly Act, all parties are allowed to conduct peaceful gatherings. City Hall, on the other hand, promised to take action against the protesting traders if the public makes a report.

Following the deputy IGP’s statement, a coalition 20 Indian NGOs will gather in front of his house this Sunday to provide a free thosai breakfast, with the purpose of promoting the dish. Khalid ordered a ‘thosai telur’ (egg thosai) in jest, but advised against setting up a stall in front of his house as it would ‘disrupt traffic flow and pose an inconvenience to [his] neighbours’.

Thanks to the deputy IGP’s sudden support for public assemblies, it is the police force sitting on the grill now. If peaceful gatherings in public spaces are not criminal offences, then on what basis (or rather, whose order) did the law enforcers carry out the massive crackdown on the recent Bersih demonstration? What is the justification for the barricades around Dataran Merdeka, a prominent ‘public space’?

‘An eye for an eye’ makes rousing drama, but let the headline-hoarding stunts not distract us from the electoral roll that is still in need of a clean-up!

What irregularities?

All is well with the electoral roll, as far as the Electoral Commission (EC) is concerned. According to the commission, cases of retired army and police personnel who are still registered as postal voters, as well as new army and police postal voters who are above the recruitment age, are not irregular.

The dubious voters were revealed by Dr Ong Kian Ming, who is the director of the Malaysian Electoral Roll Analysis Project (Merap) that is assisting Bersih to analyse the much-disputed electoral roll. EC’s deputy chairman Wan Ahmad accused Ong of having ‘an agenda’ as the latter did not approach the EC for clarification. Wan Ahmad also accused Ong, Bersih and the opposition parties of demonising the EC with ’slander and lies’.

But who is really the one with the agenda? EC’s independence is questioned by columnist Jacqueline Ann Surin, who highlighted its subservience to the government, as well as its skewed practices which benefit BN.

To their credit, the EC website is now displaying a list of voters with shared addresses for the individuals concerned to verify.  Voters are also urged to contact EC to update their addresses.

EC’s willingness to rectify voters’ addresses shows some commitment to clean up the electoral roll. Sadly, the integrity of such an effort is marred by the commission’s defensive stand regarding weaknesses in the electoral process, as well as its condemnation of people who reveal them. Will EC get down from its high horse, or will it trample over dissenting voices?

Focus on the message, please

Is ‘attack-the-messenger’ the name of the game these days? Following the Malaysian Bar’s criticisms of police brutality during the Bersih 3.0 rally, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri proposed the setting up of a law academy to act as an ‘alternative’ to the Bar, and called on the Bar Council to dissolve itself.

The Bar Council was flabbergasted at the proposal, insisting that the creation of the alternative institution  would ’usurp the functions and powers of the Bar Council’, and at the same time undermine its independence.

Council president Lim Chee Wee also told the government not to attack the messenger, but act on the message contained in the Bar’s final report and its extraordinary general meeting’s (EGM) resolution instead.

Nazri, however, countered that the Bar Council has no right to reject the proposal of the law academy. He claimed that the academy will benefit those with a legal background who did not belong to any association, like lecturers in universities and legal advisers in the corporate sector.

No flip to press freedom

The truth seems to prevail in theSun newspaper, as the Center of Independent Journalism (CIJ) has singled it out as having the most neutral political coverage among four major print dailies.

According to a study carried out by CIJ, theSun was the only paper that gave any positive coverage at all to Pakatan, while The Star, New Straits Times and Utusan Malaysia only gave negative or neutral coverage to the opposition pact. It was also the sole paper to give BN some negative coverage, while the other three papers only gave positive or neutral coverage to the ruling coalition. CIJ also remarked that across the board, the newspapers were overwhelmingly in favour of BN.

With Malaysiakini being denied a permit to publish its news in the form of a newspaper, it seems that the positive slant towards BN among print media will remain for the time being. The award-winning and independent news portal called the denial of permit unconstitutional, as it is a restriction on press freedom.

One wonders if the political masters realise that their tight grip on the mainstream media is like shooting themselves in their own foot. As mainstream media meets with growing distrust , it may one day find itself without readership as the rakyat would turn to more reliable sources.

Why ‘Rojak’? Disparate flavours and textures come together in a harmonious mix to make this delicious but underrated concoction. Our Rojak weekly is much like this mix, making sense of the noise of daily newsflow and politicking.

It is also our ultimate dream that our multi-ethnic melange of communities can be made richer within the unique ‘sauce’ that is Malaysia. Let’s take pride in the ‘rojakness’ of our nation!

————————————–

[Pic credit: Grill - alitaylor/sxc.hu, Bersih 3.0 logo - Bersih 2.0 [Official] Facebook page]

REFSA Rojak is our weekly take on the goings-on in Malaysia. We trawl the newsflow, cut to the core and focus on the really pertinent. Full of flavour, lots of crunch, this is the concise snapshot to help Malaysians keep abreast of the issues of the day.

Blame NST if international relations between Malaysia and Australia are strained

When the master says ‘Jump’, an obedient servant asks ‘How high?’ But in the case of UMNO-controlled New Straits Times (NST), the obeisance became ‘How low?” NST stooped to a new low last week in its blatant misrepresentation of the views of Australian senator Nicholas Xenophon.

Xenophon was part of an independent seven-member team overseeing Bersih 3.0. NST boldly attributed anti-Islamic sentiments to the gentleman in an apparent attempt to discredit him. Unfortunately for NST, the words in question were uttered in the Australian parliament, and the Hansard clearly records that Xenophon said, “Scientology is not a religious organisation. It is a criminal organisation that hides behind its so-called religious beliefs.”

The paper later released an apology and retraction, but the damage to good relations between countries and to its own already tattered reputation is severe. We find it impossible to believe that the replacement of ‘Scientology’ with ‘Islam’ in the NST article is an honest mistake. NST may think it has scored some brownie points with its bosses but such barefaced lies usually have a way of coming back to bite you later.

Astro is just as guilty

Astro also seem to be afflicted by the same lack of professionalism disease. International news networks Al Jazeera and BBC filed complaints over the manner in which their YouTube videos and news reports on Bersih 3.0 were doctored on Astro. Quite an irony considering Astro recently won the 2012 Putra Brand of the Year award. Its unethical action brings into question the validity of the award.

Blacking out the truth in order to serve political masters

Blurring the line between truth and lie, substituting fact with fiction are not the only things mainstream media are good at; blacking out fact and reality is another speciality. There was no coverage of innocent victims’ accounts of police aggression during Bersih 3.0, as well as  police officers’ harassment and violent assault on journalists, some of whom were from the mainstream media. The Star and New Straits Times ran riot with accounts of violent behaviour from some demonstrators, complete with expressions of horror, but  conveniently ‘forgot’ to publish accounts of the brutality perpetrated by law enforcers on members of their own profession who were just doing their jobs.

Malaysian media civil society organisations came out to condemn police brutality and listed the affected journalists:  1) Radzi Razak, from theSun, 2) Arif Kartono, a photographer with Malay Mail, 3) Wong Onn Kin, a photographer with Guang Ming Daily, 4) Koh Jun Lin, a photojournalist with Malaysiakini, 5) P. Malayandy, a photographer with Makkal Osai, 6) Al Jazeera correspondent Harry Fawcett,  7) Huang An Jian, a photographer with Guang Ming Daily, 8 ) Kenny Lew, Channel News Asia video cameraperson, 9) Chen Shaua Fui, assistant editor of Merdeka Review, 10) Lisa J Ariffin, a journalist with Malaysian Insider, 11) P Nathan, a photographer from The Star,

Hooligan-like behaviour exhibited by thugs is not surprising because, well, they are thugs. So what conclusion can we draw when the police act the same way?

Two issues of nuclear proportions

Not surprisingly, mainstream media have also blacked out citizens’ concerns about Lynas, the potentially dangerous rare earth plant in Gebeng, Pahang. Citizens’ arguments on the danger of rare earths processing, cutting corners and radioactive waste seeping into the water system etc. are given a wide berth. More coverage is instead given to Lynas’ views.

The public are also probably not aware that the government plans to build ‘two units of nuclear power plants’ to develop nuclear energy by 2014. A coalition of NGOs called Malaysian Coalition Against Nuclear (MyCAN) started an online public petition objecting to this plan to develop nuclear energy.

The Scorpene has resurfaced

Another issue kept out of mainstream media and which captured the nation’s imagination a few years back may not remain submerged for long now that French prosecutors have jumped into the investigation. The cold, hard facts of Malaysia’s purchase of two scorpene submarines in 2002 from French shipmaker DCN were splattered all over online media, but were whitewashed in the mainstream media.

NGO Suaram’s perseverance to get to the bottom of the corruption that led to billions of ringgit lost and the murder of a Mongolian translator has to be commended. As co-operation from Malaysian authorities is not forthcoming, Suaram lodged a complaint with the French courts. The latest that has emerged is that, in the said purchase, DCN allegedly paid ‘114 million euros in defence kickbacks to Perimekar’, a company owned by Najib’s political analyst and associate Razak Baginda. A convoluted money trail aimed at covering the tracks of the perpetrators has been uncovered. A matter of public interest like this should be in all the media.

For those who thought they got away with murder (literally and figuratively), beware the deadly ‘scorpene’ sting. It’s almost always fatal.

Journalistic principles at the mercy of politics

We are seeing more and more incidents of journalistic principles and ethics being compromised in the name of politics. The manipulation and doctoring of news reports can only cement the perception of mainstream media as unethical and unscrupulous organisations. Once established as unprincipled, redemption will be difficult. Regaining the trust of the public in the future will be tricky. Remember the boy who cried ‘wolf’? Balanced and accurate reporting is what the public wants from all media. Let integrity, reliability and veracity return to journalism.

Why ‘Rojak’? Disparate flavours and textures come together in a harmonious mix to make this delicious but underrated concoction. Our Rojak weekly is much like this mix, making sense of the noise of daily newsflow and politicking.

It is also our ultimate dream that our multi-ethnic melange of communities can be made richer within the unique ‘sauce’ that is Malaysia. Let’s take pride in the ‘rojakness’ of our nation!

Source: Wikimedia Commons

The Malaysian media encourages the misguided view that differences of opinion among members of political parties are unhealthy. Differing views are often portrayed as ‘squabbling’ or ‘spats’ or ‘rifts’ between members of the fraternity and indicative of weakness and disunity.

The contrary is true. Firstly, the ability to accept differing opinions is a sign of maturity in political parties or coalitions. Every person is unique, and that uniqueness includes our worldviews and of course, our opinions on matters. Even people in the most intimate of relationships do not agree on everything. Lovers fight. Married couples argue.

Some of us are more opinionated (or if you prefer, stubborn) than others, and when it comes to political parties… well you can expect a much higher concentration of strong-willed, passionate people who have their own take on things. The important thing is that the disagreements are in pursuit of a higher cause. The point of debate goes beyond demolishing the other person’s arguments and proving yours are better. Constructive debate and discourse which involves different viewpoints often results in a compromise that is agreeable to most. And isn’t that the point of a democracy – to reflect the views of the majority?

But even when the middle path is not taken, and when different factions with irreconcilable differences emerge, it can be for the better. Take for example the Republican and Democratic parties in the United States. The business-friendly  Republicans  believe people should be as free as possible to pursue their own best interests and government should play a minimal role in the economy. The Democrats have a broader social agenda and believe government is crucial in creating a fairer society.

Many would be surprised to learn that these polar-opposites today share the same roots in the Democratic-Republican Party founded by Thomas Jefferson. Differences of opinion within led to a schism in the 19^th century. In the short term, this split certainly was destructive – the Democratic-Republican party ceased to exist.  But in the long term, it created two powerful parties that now dominate politics in the richest country in the world.

Disagreements still rumble internally within the parties. Just consider the race to be the Republican candidate for president of the United States. Rick Santorum, the previous front-runner who recently pulled out, is a very conservative Christian focused on social issues. Mitt Romney, the present front-runner, was a successful venture capitalist and presents a more moderate face. All the candidates have hotly debated, and indeed, attacked each other. But the internal competition creates a dynamic in which the strongest, most ‘winnable’ candidate survives, behind which the entire party then closes ranks.

Notice the difference between these mature parties and the immature, insecure ones in our country? The losing candidate is not demonised as a traitor to the party, ostracised or expelled. Neither does he storm off if a huff or retreat to sulk in a corner. He and his followers are absorbed back into the fold and continue the fight for the greater good as the party sees it. The different opinions expressed during the campaign are not viewed as detrimental or bad for the party. Rather, they are recognised for what they are: just different viewpoints. And the winning candidate may well absorb some of these viewpoints.

This brings us to the very important point that successful political parties recognise constructive dissent as not only natural, but also necessary for rejuvenation. The Democratic and  Republican parties in the United States have now been in existence for nearly two hundred years. The fact that they are still relevant is testimony to their ability to absorb and accept new ideas and evolve to meet the changing needs and demands of the people they seek to govern. New ideas, and change, by definition, require freedom to dissent and debate.

The real problem is not dissent. It is suppressing dissent. UMNO for example, has not seen a contest for its presidency for a quarter of a century – ever since the titanic battle in 1987 between Tunku Razaleigh and Dr Mahathir which lead to Tengku Razaleigh leaving UMNO to form Semangat 46 and a sycophantic culture developing in the new UMNO. Dr Mahathir recently admitted that UMNO faces a scarcity of competent leaders at the top^[1].  The shortage is so severe that the UMNO now cannot find a woman capable enough to helm the Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development.

Take this test yourself. Name the vibrant young leaders in UMNO, MCA and the MIC, the bulwarks of conformity and ‘unity’. Next, name the vibrant young leaders in DAP and PAS[2], the parties often portrayed by the mainstream media as riven by disagreements.

Differing opinions are simply a natural democratic process, are in the bigger picture constructive, and a mark of a mature, strong parties. So the next time the mainstream media highlights another intra-party ‘spat’ within Pakatan Rakyat, think of it as Ginseng- it is bitter-sweet but is natural and rejuvenating!

Ong Kar Jin

9 May 2012

——————————– 

Guest contributor Ong Kar Jin is a young Malaysian who tries to take own the thorny (and occasionally horny) realities of Malaysian politics and life in his own smelly way. He has two passions in life: food and politics; and is always happy to have a debate especially over a meal. He blogs at duriandemocracy.blogspot.com, tweets at @duriandemocracy, and writes for loyarburok while not perfecting his plan for world domination.

REFSA (Research for Social Advancement) concurs with the views expressed by Kar Jin in this article.

On April 28, hundreds of thousands of Malaysians stood up for free and fair elections. Many may not have realised it, but just by gathering in groups of 3 or more without a permit they were already contravening the the draconian Peaceful Assembly Act.

Guest writer Zairil Khir Johari scrubs our eyes with the sea of yellow that poured into Kuala Lumpur. Legality must never be confused with legitimacy.

The Legitimacy of Law

I don’t know if the government actually noticed, but more than 100,000 people broke the law last Saturday. They did so not only unashamedly, but also proudly and cheerfully.

The Bersih 3.0 rally on April 28 saw what is estimated to be hundreds of thousands of Malaysians gathering at six different locations in Kuala Lumpur before marching towards a single destination point — Dataran Merdeka, or as some temporarily-erected signage labelled it, Tel Aviv.

In case the authorities have forgotten, this constitutes a breach of the newly enacted Peaceful Assembly Act which clearly outlaws “street protests”, legally defined as an “open air assembly which begins with a meeting at a specified place and consists of walking in a mass march or rally for the purpose of objecting to or advancing a particular cause or causes.” Which was exactly what a few hundred thousand of us did.

I point this out because for everything that has happened, no one, especially those on the side of authority, seems to have noticed this technicality. If the authorities did, then they certainly didn’t do anything about it. In fact, the Inspector-General of Police himself has claimed that his officers had been instructed to give way to demonstrators.

Am I to understand that our police will now facilitate law-breaking? Perhaps, if one were to grant them the benefit of the doubt, one could say that they were being pragmatic, or understanding, or merely turning a blind eye. Or perhaps it is simply that there was nothing they could reasonably do because the law made no sense in the first place.

In other words, the legitimacy of this particular legislation now comes into question. Here, I think it is important to distinguish between legality and legitimacy. Legitimacy hinges on popular acceptance, while legality rests solely on conformity and observance of the letter of the law. Just because a law exists doesn’t make it legitimate. After all, Hitler’s systematic subjugation of the Jewish people was for all intents and purposes perfectly legal, yet can we accord legitimacy to his actions?

At the end of the day, governments and laws are considered legitimate only if they rest on the consent of the governed and protect basic rights. Thus, while the banning of street protests under the Peaceful Assembly Act may be legal, the fact that it infringes upon a basic right — that of freedom of assembly, which by the way is constitutionally provided for — unfortunately renders it illegitimate, at least in the eyes of the hundreds of thousands of Malaysians last Saturday.

Some have continued to insist that we shouldn’t have broken the law, that Bersih 3.0 should not have been held at Dataran Merdeka when alternatives such as Stadium Merdeka had been offered. As justification, they point out the incidents of violence that occurred at the tail-end of what was for the most part a peaceful rally.

Yes, some violence erupted, committed by both sides. But the real question is: why did it even have to come to that? Everything would have gone smooth and fine had the authorities simply allowed us to gather at a public square — something which should not require permission in a country with laws that make sense.

Sometimes, the advancement of justice can only be achieved by breaking laws. After all, if everyone obeyed all laws, even if it made no sense and had no popular legitimacy, then change will never happen.

Such a premise may appear to be self-contradictory. It is in fact a recurring one. This very conundrum was once posed to legendary civil rights activist Martin Luther King, Jr, who replied in his 1963 treatise, “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, which states:

One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?”

The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

That said, government politicians are right about one thing. Bersih 3.0 had indeed been hijacked. What started off as an event aimed at raising awareness for free and fair elections was by the end hijacked by hundreds of thousands of Malaysians with a variety of causes, from electoral reform to heritage preservation to education and even the environment. Some causes were political, some were not, but what we all had in common was a desire to brave the blaring sun and face the possibility of police action, even if it meant breaking the law, because we were determined to voice out our many frustrations about what is wrong with our country. And any law that prevents people from doing that peacefully has no right to be a law.

As for me, I’ll be damned before I let anyone tell me that I can’t hang out with my friends at our own Independence Square.

Zairil Khir Johari is political secretary to Mr Lim Guan Eng, Chief Minister of Penang.

This article was first published in The Malaysian Insider on 4 May 2012.

[Picture source: Unknown]

REFSA Rojak is our weekly take on the goings-on in Malaysia. We trawl the newsflow, cut to the core and focus on the really pertinent. Full of flavour, lots of crunch, this is the concise snapshot to help Malaysians keep abreast of the issues of the day.

Cops gone wild

Our men in blue lost more than their cool during the Bersih 3.0 rally in KL last weekend; their reputation and reliability were in shreds after they brutally handled the largely peaceful crowd.

Various eyewitness accounts, video footage and pictures documented the chilling aggression of the police officers when dispersing the protesters. They were seen firing rounds of tear gas and water cannons directly at the retreating public, as well as mocking, taunting and roughing up people in the crowd.

The rally, estimated to be 250,000 strong, started out as a peaceful protest for free and fair elections. Their initial plan to sit-in at Dataran Merdeka was thwarted by an 11th-hour court order barring the protesters from entering the square. Undeterred, Malaysians continued to march and gather at various routes that led to Dataran Merdeka.

The atmosphere of the yellow assembly was initially friendly.  There was no intervention from the police and anti-riot Federal Reservation Unit (FRU), until the barricades at Dataran Merdeka were breached by overzealous protesters at 3pm, triggering a chaotic crackdown. Inspector-general of police Ismail Omar asserted that water cannons were only deployed after protesters crossed the barrier, and that the use of chemically-laced water was the ‘least hurtful way to disperse the crowd’.

The breach of barricade does not justify the excessive use of force by the police against a crowd that was already dispersing, according to Bersih co-chairperson Ambiga Sreenevasan. The Bar Council also slammed the authorities for violating human rights, and listed several highly questionable behaviours displayed by the police force.

These allegations of police violence are being investigated under a special team formed by the authorities, while members of the public are urged to come forward with evidence.

While the police brutality deserves action and attention, it should also not dominate the post-Bersih discourse. Let us not be distracted from the fact that the election commission has been silent on the demands of Bersih 3.0. If the fraud in our electoral process is not eliminated, it could lead to a political party seizing Putrajaya illegitimately.

Don’t let the tears that flowed from our eyes and the burning pains on our skins blur our sights in the push for electoral reforms!

After Bersih 3.0, journalists join the fight for press freedom

The Bersih 3.0 rally pried opened more than one can of worms. On top of casting the searchlights on the violent behaviour of some of the police officers, the protest has uncovered the ugly truth of press freedom, or the lack thereof.

During the rally, authorities allegedly attacked and arrested journalists, besides seizing and damaging  cameras and press equipment. Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammudin defended the seizure of media equipment, claiming that it was ’the standard operating procedure of police’, a statement which the Inspector-General himself subsequently flatly contradicted.

Media blackout is even darker when it is the media companies themselves enforcing it. PKR vice president N Surendran has accused the Home Minister of instructing chief editors of major print dailies to refrain from reporting any incident of police brutality. Subsequently, satellite TV network Astro admitted to censoring a news report by that most august of institutions, the BBC,   ’to comply with the national content regulations’. Astro omitted interviews with demonstrators and the episode of policemen apparently firing at demonstrators.

Senior journalists concurred that mainstream media’s coverage of the protest was not truthful. Global Bersih, the coalition of overseas Bersih supporters, has urged Malaysian corporations to stop their dealings with the mainstream media. Businesses that advertise or enter into sponsorship with mainstream media organisations are reminded that they are ‘supporting blatant distortion and misrepresentation’ of the rally.

It is ironic that the Malaysian media is getting such bad press in the same week the rest of the world celebrates World Press Freedom Day. To mark the occasion, all major Chinese dailies printed their front pages in black and white to condemn the violence against media personnel. Some featured the yellow ribbon – the symbol of press freedom. The newscaster of NTV7 mandarin news also sported a black vest with yellow ribbon, while the deejays of radio station FM 988 donned black.

Kudos to the journalists who stood up against suppression of press freedom at the risk of, as the Chinese say, smashing their own rice bowls. Only a press that pursues what is right can speak for the voiceless, as opposed to being used as mere megaphones for political propaganda.

Minimum wage for all

On the subject of rice bowl, the minimum wage introduced for Malaysian workers is good news. Or is it? Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC) and Centre for Public Policy Studies (CPPS) welcome the RM900 floor wage for Peninsular Malaysia, and RM800 for East Malaysia, but hope that the implementation of the policy will be revised from time to time. On the flipside, economists and employers warned that the minimum wage policy would lead to more unemployment, ‘black market’ labour and inflationary pressure.

In response, Pakatan Rakyat said that the minimum wage policy has to be implemented comprehensively, such as by giving ‘incentives’ to small-medium industries (SMIs) to remain competitive with improved productivity, not relying on cheap, unskilled labour.

Parting of Ways

The share swap deal between Malaysia Airlines (MAS) and AirAsia has been called off, as ‘the cross-holding of shares has become a distraction to management efforts to turnaround MAS’, announced Khazanah Nasional.

REFSA welcomes the parting of ways of the two airline companies. We have been deeply sceptical of the collaboration since its announcement last year, and our warnings that the rakyat would be the biggest losers have sadly proven true. With MAS and AirAsia back as competitors, the best interests of consumers can regain some lost  altitude.

Why ‘Rojak’? Disparate flavours and textures come together in a harmonious mix to make this delicious but underrated concoction. Our Rojak weekly is much like this mix, making sense of the noise of daily newsflow and politicking.

It is also our ultimate dream that our multi-ethnic melange of communities can be made richer within the unique ‘sauce’ that is Malaysia. Let’s take pride in the ‘rojakness’ of our nation!

But this share of votes does not translate into federal government influence. Leaders from Peninsular UMNO control 64% of federal government ministries and 81% of federal government spending.
This leaves very little for the other BN component parties. For example, BN component parties from east malaysia accounted for 26% of BN parliamentary seats but have hardly any control over federal government spending.

Read more as REFSA examines the extent of how Peninsular UMNO dominates the other BN parties.

REFSA Rojak is our weekly take on the goings-on in Malaysia. We trawl the newsflow, cut to the core and focus on the really pertinent. Full of flavour, lots of crunch, this is the concise snapshot to help Malaysians keep abreast of the issues of the day.

Winning just 18.9 per cent of votes, but able to capture 50.4 per cent of Parliament

A government formed with just an 18.9 per cent win sounds incredulous. How, you may ask.  The answer: through malapportionment (unequally-sized constituencies) and gerrymandering (manipulation of electoral boundaries).  Electoral boundaries created by the Election Commission (EC) have produced this lopsided result – one rural voter is worth an average of six urban voters. Election watchdog Tindak Malaysia said that in 2008, the BN coalition obtained just 18.9% of the popular vote but was able to form a simple majority in Parliament because it won 112 of the smallest 139 federal seats.

Roll-call for the electoral roll

Manipulating electoral boundaries becomes easy when we have a seriously flawed electoral roll. Multiple discrepancies in the roll were unearthed by researcher and project director of Malaysian Electoral Roll Analysis Project (Merap), Ong Kian Ming, and his team. If the electoral roll is any indication:

Bisexuals and lesbians are welcome.  Whoever says Malaysia is not open-minded and liberal has only to take a look at our electoral roll – it recognises bisexuality and lesbian marriages! Nearly 16,000 voters have IC numbers that say they are the opposite of their actual gender i.e. a male having an even number ending, and vice versa.  Seventy-two with a ‘bin’ in their names are listed as female. Our liberal-mindedness extends to the uniformed services. Harisah binti Ghani (770130-0356-68) was listed as being married to policewoman Zaini binti Hamzah (IC: T1110543).

Old is gold. We have another cause for celebration – 1000 voters are 100 years and above. One Wong Kwan Moy was listed as being born in 1853. This person would be 149 years old this year.  Another, Tey Kim, was born in 1890, making her 122 years old. These people should be feted!

Malaysians find certain names appealing. Malaysians can be quite unimaginative – so implies the electoral roll. 369 voters in Terengganu have the same name – Fatimah binti Ismail, while another 346 are called Fatimah binti Abdullah.  20 in the first group have the same date of birth as do 26 in the latter group. Coincidence?

The more the merrier. The electoral roll also tells us that, amazingly, one household can have as many as 100 people (the average household size in Malaysia is below 5). 324 addresses each have 100 voters registered while 1000 addresses have 50-100 voters each.  Either these people love company or they are destitute and are squatting with very accommodating relatives. Apparently, the EC will only formally investigate addresses with over 50 voters registered.

You don’t need a valid address to register. The EC also generously allows voters to register without proper addresses. It seems a house number is immaterial information. Perhaps these people are the homeless we sometimes find sleeping on five foot ways or under bridges?

The EC can raise the age limit for army recruits. Legally, the maximum age for army recruits is 30 years. However, in 2011, a regular voter in Kuala Kangsar, Abu Talib bin Ahmad, aged 42, was newly registered as an army postal voter. And in six months he was moved around twice, from Jeli to Kereteh. This is only the tip of the iceberg.

The EC allows spouses of police to be postal voters. By right, spouses of police officers cannot be postal voters. But, it was revealed that 4000 spouses of policemen were illegally registered as postal voters.

Bersih 3.0: Fighting electoral fraud

Dubious voters on the electoral list could number as many as 400,000 which may well lead to a swing in the overall election results.  Despite the inconsistencies being brought to the attention of relevant parties, they were largely ignored by the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) on Electoral Reform. In fact the Election Commission has been sitting on the information regarding 3.1 million dubious voters since 2002. Its chief Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof has smugly declared that Malaysia has the ‘cleanest electoral roll in the world’.

Since those in power are not keen to do right by the people, it is now up to Bersih 3.0 and all Malaysian citizens to do the right thing. On 28 April, Bersih, a coalition of 84 civil societies, will be at Dataran Merdeka for a sit-in demonstration to demand for electoral reform, as would be other demonstrators in 72 cities in 29 countries. Never mind that the police have cordoned off the area, and Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) has issued threats, the fight for free and fair elections must go on.

What are you doing this Saturday? Many of us, including REFSA’s executive director, Teh Chi-Chang, will be exercising our democratic right to sit peacefully in a public square. Do join in the picnic. Bring your own yellow banana.

Why ‘Rojak’? Disparate flavours and textures come together in a harmonious mix to make this delicious but underrated concoction. Our Rojak weekly is much like this mix, making sense of the noise of daily newsflow and politicking.

It is also our ultimate dream that our multi-ethnic melange of communities can be made richer within the unique ‘sauce’ that is Malaysia. Let’s take pride in the ‘rojakness’ of our nation!

REFSA Rojak is our weekly take on the goings-on in Malaysia. We trawl the newsflow, cut to the core and focus on the really pertinent. Full of flavour, lots of crunch, this is the concise snapshot to help Malaysians keep abreast of the issues of the day.

PTPTN : The great divide

Instead of passively nodding (off, perhaps) in lecture halls, some 500 students marched the KL streets  to shake their fists at the National Higher Education Fund (PTPTN), demanding free tertiary education.

Charging that the PTPTN was exploitative, some protesters pitched tents at Dataran Merdeka to ’symbolise the life of hardship facing the students’. Despite orders from the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) enforcement officers to leave, the students vowed to stay put at the square until April 28. An attack by thugs also failed to dent the students’ commitment to their cause.

PTPTN was accused of being a ‘loan shark’ that commercialises education with unreasonable interest rates. Students lamented being saddled by huge debts upon graduation. The protesters also claimed that the government can afford to provide free education with our tax revenue and rich natural resources.

Keadilan leader Datuk Seri Anwar reiterated that loan repayments will be abolished if the Pakatan Rakyat coalition captures Putrajaya, but stressed that the rich must pay. The Malaysian Insider columnist Dr Kamal Azman is not impressed with such promises, claiming that writing off student loans at the expense of Petronas and taxpayers breeds a culture of irresponsibility. The Higher Education Minister dared the student protesters to give up their PTPTN loans.

The PTPTN dilemma is, however, more than just a debate on debts. In his column in The Malaysian Insider, PKR’s social media strategist Praba Ganesan delved deeper into how the flaws of the education loan made it a ‘cash cow’ for opportunistic university administrations, with the graduates as collateral damage.

While REFSA does not agree that loans should be written off, we nonetheless take our hats off to the students for making a stand. This harks back to the 1960s when students were active and vibrant movers for their causes – a stark contrast to the much-lamented subservient mentality of their successors  today. Fortunately, since the political tsunami of 2008, and mass rallies like Bersih 2.0, youths have been injected with the adrenaline for change. While their demands may be debatable, the anti-PTPTN rally may well set the stage for more youth activism.

Still no relinquishing of power

Journalism bodies remain sceptical towards the amendments of the Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA).

The amendments remove the Home Minister’s absolute discretion over printing press licenses, as well as the publishing and printing of newspapers. The renewal of licenses is also no longer necessary.

Nonetheless, Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) and the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) pointed out the minister’s right to suspend or revoke printing permits means the print media is still under government control. Both bodies have called for the PPPA to be ’completely and unconditionally removed’ instead.

Back and forth

The government has hit the ‘escape’ key to abandon consultation with stakeholders regarding the Computing Professionals Act (CPA) 2011. The Science, Technology and Innovation ministry (Mosti) has given the draft of the bill back to the private sector, citing that it was they who had drafted it first.

REFSA had earlier expressed its reservations about MOSTI facilitating this Bill at the behest of multinational companies and industry leaders. Will the Board of Computing Professionals (BCPM), which the Bill has called to be set up, be dominated by the same IT giants? Will these business leaders be impartial in regulating smaller start-ups with innovations that may not sit well with their interests?

Read more on why REFSA is against the fundamentally flawed CPA 2011.

Yellow on the go

Dubious voters are no small matter, despite the Election Commission (EC) waving it off as a minuscule  0.3 percent of the electoral roll. However, Bersih asserted that 0.3 percent was enough to have allowed Barisan Nasional to retain Selangor in the 2008 General Elections.

As discrepancies in the electoral roll surface, Malaysians’ support for the yellow movement of Bersih has spread across the world map. Global Bersih has launched its official website, and rallies are scheduled in 41 cities in 14 countries.

On local soil, Malaysians gearing up for the sit-in protest are receiving encouragement from even Umno members. Tamrin Abdul Ghafar, son of former deputy prime minister Abdul Ghafar Baba, told a pre-Bersih 3.0 gathering that he could ’no longer bear to see the electoral system being manipulated’. He also conveyed the support of Umno veteran Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah for the movement.

Sit for your stand on free and fair elections – join Bersih 3.0 at Dataran Merdeka on April 28!

Why ‘Rojak’? Disparate flavours and textures come together in a harmonious mix to make this delicious but underrated concoction. Our Rojak weekly is much like this mix, making sense of the noise of daily newsflow and politicking.

It is also our ultimate dream that our multi-ethnic melange of communities can be made richer within the unique ‘sauce’ that is Malaysia. Let’s take pride in the ‘rojakness’ of our nation!

Click below for Chi-Chang’s insights!

Alternatively, you can click here for the slides.

On 11 April an open dialogue session organised by PAGE Ipoh Chapter under the leadership of Datuk Dr Anwar Hassan was held in Ipoh. Aptly titled PPSMI – The Never Ending Quest, the gathering attracted a crowd of students, parents, educators and concerned citizens. What transpired reflected the enthusiasm and passion of the community towards PPSMI, enough to give us hope that all is not lost where this issue is concerned.

Datin Noor Azimah Rahim, Chairperson of PAGE Malaysia and an active proponent of PPSMI was present to lend support to a matter which is close to her heart. She and her team, who are fierce advocates of the principle ‘pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents’ as stated in the Education Act 1996, made no bones about where they stand on the issue.

Chairman of Malaysian Employers Federation, Perak branch, Mr Soong Kok Hong was also present to explain that English was a decisive factor in job recruitment, and anyone with adequate proficiency has an edge over those who don’t. Also, the abundance of available literature for Science, Technology and other technical subjects is written mainly in English. And we know only too well that employers lament over how wanting our local graduates are, especially where English communication is concerned.

The Education Ministry may keep touting the MBMMBI (Upholding Bahasa Melayu, Strengthening English proficiency) policy in replacement of PPSMI, but as far as English is concerned, its words are pure rhetoric and ring hollow. The MBMMBI catchphrase is oft repeated but the policy is one we know little about, and see no evidence of, to date.

Though PPSMI is still in force for those who started with the policy back in 2003, the reality on the ground is quite the opposite. The complaint heard at the meeting is that secondary school teachers are teaching Mathematics and Science in BM, and school principals are not doing enough to direct these teachers to stick to English.  Mind you, these teachers receive a critical allowance meant for PPSMI. The lack of moral obligation and accountability reflect poorly on this group of educators in our midst.

Parent Teacher Associations (PTAs) also have to take the initiative to ensure that PPSMI still lives on for those who started with it. Since they are obliged to be objective and impartial in matters of education, abandoning this duty is not an option. Dr Anwar urged parents to use the PTA platform to voice their concerns openly and explicitly, to ensure no deviation from what is right.

A glimmer of hope came from a PPSMI supporter who detailed how a group of parents succeeded in convincing their children’s school principal to continue with the policy (the school had initially switched to BM) through the PTA platform.

PAGE Ipoh Chapter has proposed a number of reforms for the Education department to act on. They are:

1) The PPSMI option to be given to Year 1 and 2 students; a PPSMI class to be set up if there are 30 or more students willing to take up this option

2) Education authorities to make public a list of schools offering PPSMI

3) English books for Mathematics and Science to be made easily available in schools offering PPSMI

4) Designate a cluster of permanent PPSMI schools in each district to allow parents to relocate their children there if they so wish.

It would have reflected well on education authorities (or even school principals and PTA chairpersons) if they had attended the PAGE Ipoh dialogue. Some interest shown would have been welcome; the opportunity to express their stand on the matter was given but was ignored.  The authorities’ failure or reluctance to engage or consult with the community on matters of public concern, speaks volumes.

In civil and advanced societies, any establishment worth its salt will welcome not only any occasion for interaction and engagement with the public, but also itself create avenues for open communication. If people who should know better don’t know better, on whom should we place our faith and trust? In which direction are we being led? If people in power pave the road to educational progress with coarse, uneven and sharp stones, the walking will be tricky indeed.

Perhaps for some people, the PPSMI chapter is already closed, and it is business as usual when the noise dies down at the end of the day. But just because you keep your eyes shut, it does not mean the issue is settled. For those who think that proponents of PPSMI will yield and close the chapter on this policy, think again.

Sandra Rajoo

Contributing Editor