Maika : Bleeding Again - Aliran

Aliran Monthly : Vol.23(11)

PP3739/12/2003 ISSN 0127 - 5127 / RM3.00 / 2003:Vol.23No.11


n its twenty years of tor-tured history, Maika in-vestors have knownnothing but pain and

sorrow. The new dawn of a goldenopportunity that was held out tothe Indian poor never arrived. In-stead, each passing year only wit-nessed dashed hopes and brokenpromises that littered the cheq-uered history of Maika.

Touted as an economic vehicleand a miracle to lift the Indianpoor from the shackles of poverty,Maika was launched with muchhype and hope. The poor Indians- traditional MIC supporters, thelower middle-class and the work-ing class Indians as well as a vastmajority of plantation workers -were mesmerised into respondingenthusiastically. Respond they

COVER STORY

Maika : Bleeding AgainA case of noble intentions gone awry

AM 1992 : 12(5) AM 1993 : 13(10)

by P Ramakrishnan

AM 1994 : 14(1)

IIIII

did, some scraping the barrel, others mortgaging their property andpawning their jewellery while the vast majority took loans at exorbi-tant rates to invest in a venture that promised dreams of hopes andtantalising prospects.

It’s not only the poor Indians who responded to this call to rally be-hind the MIC's efforts to secure seven per cent of the corporate owner-ship for the Indian community - which at that time had been stagnat-ing at under one per cent since 1960. Even the middle-class Indians


A real scandal is always hard to keep under wraps.No surprise then that the Maika saga is once againin the news after a controversy ridden AGM on 30Dec 2003.

In our cover story this month, P Ramakrishnan ex-plores the long-playing Maika saga. It’s a story ofbetrayal and utter lack of accountability - a scandalthat has wiped out the savings of many innocentIndian Malaysians.

In a jolt from the past, Ram then goes on to look atexactly what role MIC president Samy Vellu playedin the scandal over the allocation of 10 millionTelekom shares to Maika and three other firms.

Charles Hectors contributes two pieces. The firstcautions Malaysians that they cannot expect muchfrom new premier Abdullah Badawi as he is theproduct of an existing, oppressive system - a newface coming from the same old body. His secondarticle highlights the plight of university studentswho have been suspended and are unable to con-tinue their studies even before the courts have foundthem guilty of illegal assembly.

Former MTUC vice-president and Aliran member KGeorge looks at the role of the all-powerful directorgeneral of trade unions. He points out how oppres-sive labour laws have eroded the workers’ right ofassociation in free trade unions.

The plight of Acehnese refugees and asylum-seek-ers continues to receive little attention in the main-stream media. Highlighting the case of one suchasylum seeker, Amer Hamzah Arshad goes on toassess to what extent Malaysian laws protect therights of refugees.

We also carry a piece by Riaz Hassan that discusseswhether public trust in state and religious institu-tions is enhanced in an Islamic state.

Finally we wish all our readers a Happy New Year.

C O N T E N T S

Printed by Percetakan Tujuh Lapan Enam Sdn. Bhd.No. 16, Lengkangan Brunei, 55100 Pudu, Kuala Lumpur.

EDITOR'S NOTE

COVER STORYCOVER STORYCOVER STORYCOVER STORYCOVER STORY••••• Maika: Bleeding AgainMaika: Bleeding AgainMaika: Bleeding AgainMaika: Bleeding AgainMaika: Bleeding Again 22222

••••• Is Samy Vellu Really Innocent?Is Samy Vellu Really Innocent?Is Samy Vellu Really Innocent?Is Samy Vellu Really Innocent?Is Samy Vellu Really Innocent? 99999

FEATURESFEATURESFEATURESFEATURESFEATURES••••• Restrictive Laws Squeeze WorkersRestrictive Laws Squeeze WorkersRestrictive Laws Squeeze WorkersRestrictive Laws Squeeze WorkersRestrictive Laws Squeeze Workers 1 11 11 11 11 1

••••• Unheralded Human RightsUnheralded Human RightsUnheralded Human RightsUnheralded Human RightsUnheralded Human Rights

DefendersDefendersDefendersDefendersDefenders 1 41 41 41 41 4

••••• A Question Of TrustA Question Of TrustA Question Of TrustA Question Of TrustA Question Of Trust 1 71 71 71 71 7

••••• To Leave Or Not To LeaveTo Leave Or Not To LeaveTo Leave Or Not To LeaveTo Leave Or Not To LeaveTo Leave Or Not To Leave 2 62 62 62 62 6

••••• Dominance And Its Dilemmas IIDominance And Its Dilemmas IIDominance And Its Dilemmas IIDominance And Its Dilemmas IIDominance And Its Dilemmas II 2 92 92 92 92 9

••••• Can UMNO Wipe Out Corruption?Can UMNO Wipe Out Corruption?Can UMNO Wipe Out Corruption?Can UMNO Wipe Out Corruption?Can UMNO Wipe Out Corruption? 3 73 73 73 73 7

••••• New Face, Same BodyNew Face, Same BodyNew Face, Same BodyNew Face, Same BodyNew Face, Same Body 4 04 04 04 04 0

REGULARSREGULARSREGULARSREGULARSREGULARS••••• Thinking AllowedThinking AllowedThinking AllowedThinking AllowedThinking Allowed 1 91 91 91 91 9

••••• LettersLettersLettersLettersLetters 3 23 23 23 23 2

OTHERSOTHERSOTHERSOTHERSOTHERS••••• Aliran Monthly May Have To CeaseAliran Monthly May Have To CeaseAliran Monthly May Have To CeaseAliran Monthly May Have To CeaseAliran Monthly May Have To Cease

PublicationPublicationPublicationPublicationPublication 2 22 22 22 22 2

••••• Subscription FormSubscription FormSubscription FormSubscription FormSubscription Form 2 32 32 32 32 3

ALIRANALIRANALIRANALIRANALIRAN is a Reform Movement dedicated to is a Reform Movement dedicated to is a Reform Movement dedicated to is a Reform Movement dedicated to is a Reform Movement dedicated toJustice, Freedom & Solidarity and listed on theJustice, Freedom & Solidarity and listed on theJustice, Freedom & Solidarity and listed on theJustice, Freedom & Solidarity and listed on theJustice, Freedom & Solidarity and listed on theroster of the Economic and Social Council of theroster of the Economic and Social Council of theroster of the Economic and Social Council of theroster of the Economic and Social Council of theroster of the Economic and Social Council of theUnited Nations. Founded in 1977, Aliran welcomesUnited Nations. Founded in 1977, Aliran welcomesUnited Nations. Founded in 1977, Aliran welcomesUnited Nations. Founded in 1977, Aliran welcomesUnited Nations. Founded in 1977, Aliran welcomesall Malaysians above 21 to be members. Contactall Malaysians above 21 to be members. Contactall Malaysians above 21 to be members. Contactall Malaysians above 21 to be members. Contactall Malaysians above 21 to be members. Contactthe Hon. Secretary or visit our webpage.the Hon. Secretary or visit our webpage.the Hon. Secretary or visit our webpage.the Hon. Secretary or visit our webpage.the Hon. Secretary or visit our webpage.

Published byPublished byPublished byPublished byPublished by

Aliran Kesedaran Negara (ALIRAN)Aliran Kesedaran Negara (ALIRAN)Aliran Kesedaran Negara (ALIRAN)Aliran Kesedaran Negara (ALIRAN)Aliran Kesedaran Negara (ALIRAN)103, Medan Penaga, 11600 Jelutong,103, Medan Penaga, 11600 Jelutong,103, Medan Penaga, 11600 Jelutong,103, Medan Penaga, 11600 Jelutong,103, Medan Penaga, 11600 Jelutong,

Penang, Malaysia.Penang, Malaysia.Penang, Malaysia.Penang, Malaysia.Penang, Malaysia.

Tel : (04) 658 5251 Fax : (04) 658 5197Tel : (04) 658 5251 Fax : (04) 658 5197Tel : (04) 658 5251 Fax : (04) 658 5197Tel : (04) 658 5251 Fax : (04) 658 5197Tel : (04) 658 5251 Fax : (04) 658 5197

Homepage : http://www.aliran.comHomepage : http://www.aliran.comHomepage : http://www.aliran.comHomepage : http://www.aliran.comHomepage : http://www.aliran.com


who were wary of the caste andcommunal politics practised byMIC came forward to participate.

Incorporated on 13 September1982, Maika commenced businesson 31 January 1983.

According to Terence Gomez, “Al-though the original plan by theMIC was to ensure that at leastRM30 million worth of Maikashares were subscribed to, so suc-cessful was the campaign to pro-mote the company that by 1984 aphenomenal RM106 million wasraised from almost 66,400 share-holders. The largest individualshareholder with almost 2.8 mil-lion shares was MIC presidentDatuk Seri S Samy Vellu. Theamount invested in Maika waseven larger than that obtained bythe MCA’s Multi-Purpose Hold-ings when the company com-menced business.”

What went wrong for a venturethat took off in a blaze of glory?Why is it in shambles today?

It is a case of a noble intention thathas gone awry through bad man-agement, poor investment andsheer arrogance that brooked noquestion and refused to be ac-countable to the shareholders. Ifproper business ethics had beenobserved, if honest criticism hadbeen tolerated and accommo-dated, if from the beginningMaika was run by professionalsrather than politicians, Maika per-haps may not have nose-divedinto the hopeless situation that itis in today.

In spite of a number of major ac-

quisitions made into some impor-tant companies - like the UnitedAsian Bank (UAB), United Orien-tal Assurance (UOA), MalaysianAirlines System (MAS),Malaysian International Ship-ping Corporation (MISC), TV3 andEdaran Otomobil Malaysia Bhd(EON) - Maika’s performance hasbeen mediocre.

It registered a profit from 1984 to1986 - the total amount was noth-ing to shout about and amountedto RM16.5 million only - whichenabled Maika to declare threedividends which totalled 11 senper share.

There wasn’t any fanfare whenMaika was allotted shares inSyarikat Telekom Malaysia Bhd(STMB). It was assumed in 1990that Maika had been allotted allthe shares it had subscribed to. Nodetails were made known at thattime.

Sometime in the middle of Febru-

ary 1992 the shroud of secrecysurrounding the Telekom sharesallocation was ripped apart. Thenall hell broke loose.

A journalist from Watan disclosedthat “there could have been somehanky-panky in the allocation ofTelecoms shares to Maika.”

This was then followed by anotherreport in a Tamil magazine,Thoothan, on April 1, 1992 whichdisclosed that there could havebeen some discrepancy in the dis-tribution of the ten millionTelekom shares allocated to Maikaby the Finance Ministry.Malaysians learned for the firsttime that Maika acquired only onemillion and not the entire 10 mil-lion shares that were allotted toMaika.

Samy Vellu, through the TamilNesan and at MIC meetings, triedto explain by insisting that thecash flow problem faced by Maikadid not allow Maika to take up allten million shares. But, one of thedirectors, a one-time ally of SamyVellu, Vijandran, issued a state-ment insinuating that the truthmay not have been told.

When this matter was raised inparliament, Finance MinisterDatuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim dis-closed that since Maika had statedthat it could take up only one mil-lion shares, the remaining ninemillion shares were allocated tothree companies proposed byMaika because to his “ministry”sknowledge, the three companiesrepresented the interests of theIndian community” (The Star,April 30, 1992).Incidentally, at thetime of share allocation in 1990,the Finance Minister was TunDaim Zainuddin.

Telekom Shares:H a n k y - P a n k y

Tun Daim Zainuddin: Finance Ministerwhen shares were allocated.

A PhenomenalR e s p o n s e


ing and that Maika intended totake up the entire allocation of 10million shares.(Indeed, a letterdated October 5, 1990 from Arab-Malaysian Merchant BankersBhd - AMMBB - offering RM50million to finance the purchase ofthe 10 million shares was receivedon October 6, 1990).

He further clarified that SamyVellu replied that “there musthave been a mistake. The offer toMaika should be for one millionand not 10 million.

“According to Dato Seri SamyVellu, the remaining 9 millionshares were for allocation to“other MIC bodies”.

“Further, Dato Seri Samy Vellustated that he would contact theMinistry to clarify the position.”

It was then, after Samy Vellu hadcontacted the Finance Ministry,that the letter of offer was retractedand Maika’s allocation reduced to

The mystery deepended and be-wildered the shareholders whenanother Maika director,Pasamanikam, contradicted thestatements made by Anwar andSamy Vellu. According toPasamanikam, Maika did not re-ject the Finance Ministry’s offerand did not propose that the ninemillion shares be allocated to anyother company. He further re-vealed that Maika had indeedraised a RM50 million loan to fa-cilitate the acquisition of the en-tire 10 million shares even beforethe Finance Ministry had with-drawn its offer.

Why did the Finance Ministrycancel the initial offer of the 10million shares and subsequentlyallot only one million shares toMaika? Who was responsible forthe retraction of the original offer?Who lied to the Finance Ministry?Who informed them that Maikahad recommended that the ninemillion shares be given to the threecompanies? Who supplied thenames of these three companies?Who coerced the Finance Minis-try to change their mind?

There was no earthly reason forthe Finance Ministry to change itsmind on its own after having al-located 10 million shares. Whoaborted this offer?

According to Tan Sri G K RamaIyer, the Managing Director ofMaika Holdings Bhd - as revealedin his press release dated May 16,1992 - Samy Vellu was informedat 6.10 am on october 5, 1990 thatMaika had been offered 10 millionSTMB shares and of the probabil-ity of obtaining full loan financ-

one million shares.

Why did Samy Vellu preventMaika from acquiring the 10 mil-lion shares? Wasn’t Maika hisbrain-child to raise the corporatewealth of the Indian communityso that their economic welfarewould be secured? Wasn’t he theleader of MIC which launchedMaika as a business venture toenrich the community which hadlong been associated with depri-vation and poverty?

This was God-sent wealth. Whydid he prevent this wealth fromreaching Maika? Imagine howmuch Maika would have madefrom these shares for which it onlypaid RM5 per share. WhenTelekom shares were “first tradedit fetched a price of RM6.15 pershare and that too during a bear-ish market. By mid-1992 theTelecoms share price was hover-ing around RM11-RM13,” ob-served Terence Gomez.

According to Ram, in an article inthe Aliran Monthly - 1993:13(10) -by giving away the bulk of theshares, Samy Vellu had takenaway from Maika RM120 millionin profit (which it would have at-tained had it just held on to theextra shares until then).

Samy Vellu made it abundantlyclear that he personally decidedto allocate only one million sharesto Maika. According to SamyVellu, “I could have given all theshares to Maika Holdings if notfor their past business record.They don’t deserve 10 millionshares because of the dismal per-formance of the Maika manage-

There Must HaveBeen A Mistake

Tan Sri G K Rama Iyer : Maika wasoffered 10 million shares

They D o n ’ t D e s e rve10 Million Shares

Maika D idn ’ t RejectThe Shares


ment. They have to learn to do busi-ness on their own and not dependon shares and make money out ofit” (New Strait Times, 16 May1992).

His autocratic style and arrogancecomes through so forcefully: “Icould have given all the shares toMaika Holdings…,” he boasts.“They don’t deserve 10 millionshares…,” he berates. Mind you,he decides - not the Ministry ofFinance!

It is very apparent that he keeps avery tight hold on Maika. Thatbeing the case, how could Maikaundertake any business venturewithout his knowledge and bless-ing? Shouldn’t he be part of thedebacle that is haunting Maikatoday? Shouldn’t he also shoul-der the blame for “the dismal per-formance of the Maika manage-ment”?

And why should he give nine mil-lion shares to three obscure com-panies, two of which were in factshell companies with paid-upcapital of RM2 each? He did it on

his own, without authority or di-rective from the Central WorkingCommittee. And what was the ra-tional for doing so?

And who lied to the Finance Min-istry that these “three companiesrepresented the interests of theIndian community”? What wasthe motive for diverting nine mil-lion shares to three private com-panies?

Those who sought to find the an-swers were threatened or beatenup. One brave soul who went ona crusade to expose this scandalwas stabbed in Penang. When-ever questions regarding Maikawere raised at MIC meetings pre-sided by Samy Vellu, it was al-leged that thugs would suddenlyappear beside the person askingthe question and that would bethe end of the affair to seek an-swers.

Some years ago, it was claimedthat at one paricular MIC meet-ing at the Dewan Sri in Penang,chaired by Samy Vellu, a Maikashareholder wanted to know theposition of Maika. It was allegedthat Samy Vellu told this share-holder that he would provide theanswer after the adjournment forrefreshment. In the meantime two

thugs confronted this shareholderand told him that if he wanted toreturn home in one piece it wasthe right time to go home. Whenthe meeting resumed, Samy Vellureportedly called for the share-holder to repeat his query. Butsince he wasn’t there, Samy Vellucontinued with his meeting with-out touching on the subject ofMaika.

It was alleged that Samy Vellu’sson and brother-in-law were di-rectors of of the RM2 companies,SB Management Services Sdn Bhdand Advance Personal Comput-ers Sdn Bhd. which received threemillion shares each. The thirdcompany that received the re-maining three million shares wasClearway Sdn Bhd.

How these companies disposedof these shares and the manner theprofits were channelled to MajuInstitute of Education and Devel-opment (MIED) were highly ques-tionable. Millions of ringgit weregiven to MIED in cash. In this dayand age one has every right to sus-pect such transactions. Do youcarry millions of ringgit in yourperson to pay to an educational

H i g h l yQ u e s t i o n a b l e

Samy Vellu: They don't deserve10 million shares

Maika shareholders: Anger at being short-changed


Maika's accounts raise more questions:

1) Why does it take one whole year for the AGM to be held?(The AGM for the financial year ended 31December 2002will only be held on 30 December 2003. Normally, the AGMshould be held within 6 months of the end of the financialyear).

2) From RM125 million paid up share capital, theaccummulated losses have come up to RM71.7 million. (Theloss after tax and minority interests for the year ended 31December 2002 was RM4.5 million).

3) The overall profit before tax for the year ended 31 Dec2002 amounted to RM8.9 million. The only significant prof-itable activity is insurance, which made a profit before taxof RM26.9 million. Investment trading made a loss ofRM12.2 million, property incurred a loss of RM1.4 millionand manufacturing made a loss of RM3.5 million. Howwere these losses incurred?

4) The current liabilities is four times the current assets. Thegeneral rule of thumb for healthy companies is that currentliabilities should only be half the value of current assets.This is why Maika is tottering on the brink of bankruptcy.

5) Provision for doubtful debts for the year ended 31 Dec2002 amounted to RM8.3 million. Who were the borrowersor debtors? They should be named.

6) Directors' other emoluments(remuneration) totalledRM202,000 for the year. Do they deserve this? Why is thereno figure disclosed for directors’ salaries?

7) Staff costs of RM15.7 million works out to RM40,000 perannum per employee at the group level. At the companylevel, staff costs (for 11 employees) averaged almostRM70,000 per annum per person! How much was VellPaari a/l Samy Vellu paid?

Maika TotteringOn Brink OfB a n k r u p t c y ?

institution? For God's sake, thereis such a thing as bank transfers!

Let’s for a moment try to be logi-cal. How did these companiescome to possess this amount ofmoney before it was handed overto MIED? They must have beenpaid in cheques when they soldthe Telekom shares. Does it meanthat they went to the bank, cashedthe cheques and carried the mil-lions of ringgit, presumably in abag, as one crazy Malaysian guydid in Australia? This seems farfetched!

What is puzzling is the fact that inspite of so much overwhelming evi-dence, the Anti Corruption Agency(ACA) after 17 months of investi-gation cleared Samy Vellu of anywrong-doing but unfortunatelywithout clearing the doubts in theminds of the Malaysians, as wasobserved by Aliran Monthly. (See ac-companying story on page 9 for afuller account)

But the larger question as to howand why political parties are al-located shares that aremonoploised by the connectedfew have not been addressed.These allocations are never re-vealed and it is not possible toknow which crony benefits andby how much. This system has ledto abuses and effectively blocksthe wealth from reaching a widercircle of deserving citizens.

Even the former Prime MinisterMahathir Mohamad, when que-ried on the issue, confirmed the lackof accountability being practised bygovernment leaders. Mahathir’stwisted logic for not interfering with

Who Benefits FromShare Allocations?


Samy Vellu’s decision in connec-tion with the allocation of sharesfor the Indians was: “I cannot in-terfere in this matter because I alsodon’t want non-bumiputras toquestion how we distribute theshares among our commu-nity.”(The Star, 14 May 1992)

He wasn’t bothered whether thebenefits reached the right people.He wasn’t concerned if there wasa corrupt practice in place. Thepolicy seemed to be one of non-interference when wealth re-sources were allocated, particu-larly under questionable circum-stances.

In spite of 10 years of history, theMaika scandal refuses to be bur-ied. It keeps on surfacing, haunt-

ing and hounding the perpetra-tors of a crime that robbed the poorof their fair share of their due. Tenyears ago the Aliran Monthly hadrightly observed, “The contro-versy surrounding the Maika-Telekom shares scandal appearsto be far from over.”

Maika will be holding its AnnualGeneral Meeting on December 19,2003 in Kuala Lumpur. As far aswe know, no shareholder seemsto have received any Notice ofMeeting. Neither have they re-ceived the Annual Report nor theStatement of Accounts. And to-day is December 17, 2003. (ThisAGM has now been postponed to De-cember 30, 2003)

How many shareholders areaware of this meeting? And whatcan they discuss without the ben-efit of the annual report and the

Maika ScandalRefuses To Be Buried

statement of accounts? Will theshareholders be free from intimi-dation to raise relevant questions?Will they receive honest answers?

But answers may not be found atthis AGM. What could this AMGreveal that the previous AGMsfailed to disclose?

It is, therefore, a matter of urgentconcern that the Maika scandal bere-investigated seriously. DatukSeri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi,our new Prime Minister whoseems to be on a crusade to wipeout corruption, should order theACA to reopen this case. The poorIndians have turned to him as alast resort for help. Many of themhad lost almost everything in in-vesting in the Maika shares. Allthey want is the return of their in-vestment. Justice must be done tothem. Will he respond? q

What, happend to our investment?What, happend to our investment?What, happend to our investment?What, happend to our investment?What, happend to our investment? Mr. R. Krishnan (age 72) in tears at the Maika gatheringMr. R. Krishnan (age 72) in tears at the Maika gatheringMr. R. Krishnan (age 72) in tears at the Maika gatheringMr. R. Krishnan (age 72) in tears at the Maika gatheringMr. R. Krishnan (age 72) in tears at the Maika gatheringappealing for refund of his RM5,000 investment beforeappealing for refund of his RM5,000 investment beforeappealing for refund of his RM5,000 investment beforeappealing for refund of his RM5,000 investment beforeappealing for refund of his RM5,000 investment before

his demisehis demisehis demisehis demisehis demise


he Anti-CorruptionAgency (ACA) havestated they find the MICleader, Datuk Seri Samy

Vellu, innocent of any criminalwrong-doing relating to the allo-cation of Telekom shares to MaikaHoldings. Samy Vellu, who hasconsistently maintained his inno-cence, but not been consistentabout very much else, would thusappear to have been vindicated.

Samy Vellu has certainly not beenconsistent about who the 10 mil-lion Telekom shares were sup-posed to go to. First he said theywere to be allocated to Maika, theinvestment arm of MIC; but sinceMaika did not have the finances,the shares were allocated to otherparties representing Indian inter-ests. Then, it was made public thatMaika in fact had arranged a loanthat would have allowed it to takeup the full 10 million Telekomshares. Following this, SamyVellu changed his tune. The 10million shares were not being of-fered to Maika but to MIC, he nowsaid. And MIC it seems, allocatedonly one million Telekom sharesfor Maika, and the rest were forother companies that would makeprofits to be channelled to the MICeducational institution, Tafe Col-lege.

A letter was issued by the Minis-try of Finance (MOF) offeringMaika 10 million Telekom sharesin the flotation of the utility com-pany. Soon after getting this let-ter, Maika Chief Executive Officer,Tan Sri Rama Iyer, rang up SamyVellu to inform him of the alloca-tion.

Curiously, Samy Vellu immedi-ately told Tan Sri Rama Iyer therehad been a mistake and he wouldcheck with the ministry officialson how many shares were reallyoffered to Maika.

Even before the MOF realised therehad been a “mistake” in sendingout the letter offering Maika 10million Telekom shares SamyVellu somehow already knewthere was a “mistake”. Subse-quently, MOF officials “clarified”Maika was only being offered 1million Telekom shares.

What was not clarified was howthe mistake arose and on whatgrounds the MOF agreed to allo-cate 9 million shares to 3 otherobscure companies supposedlyrepresenting the interests of theIndian community while Maikaitself only received one million

shares.

Samy Vellu has not been consist-ent in his public statements onwhether the full amount was ini-tially offered to Maika. Neither hasthe leader of the Indian party inthe Barisan been consistent aboutwhy Maika was not to be offeredthe full 10 million shares.

First he said Maika could not af-ford the shares. When Tan SriRama Iyer produced the letterfrom Arab-Malaysian MerchantBank offering Maika a loan to takeup the full 10 million shares, Samychanged his tune and said theshares were not being offered to

PAGES FROM THE PAST

Is Samy VelluReally Innocent?

TTTTT MOF letter

He has certainly not been consistentabout the 10 million Telekom shares

Maika Shortchanged


Maika because it had a poor trackrecord in its investments.

But what was the record for the 3companies that together took upthe 9 million Telekom shares un-der instruction from MIC? Two ofthese companies were in fact shellcompanies with paid-up capitalof RM2 each.

Is it pure coincidence that theleader of the opposition, Lim KitSiang found letter-heads and busi-ness cards that showed SamyVellu’s son as director of one ofthe companies? Samy Vellu, ofcourse, claimed these items werefakes.

Of the 3 companies that equallyreceived the 9 million Telekomshares in October 1990, ClearwaySdn Bhd, sold its 3 million shareswithin a month for a net profit ofRM2.3 million.

The other two companies, Ad-vance Personal Computers (APC)and SB Management Sdn Bhd(SBM) which together received 6million Telekom shares, sold 5.5million shares also in early No-vember 1990 for a RM2.1 millionprofit. With this profit, theybought 3 million Renong shares.The remaining half a millionTelekom shares were sold only inMarch-April 1992, just about thetime the Maika controversy be-came public.

The companies supposedly wereto make profits from Telekomshares (which was a pretty surething given that it was an initialflotation) to be channelled to Tafe.It is hard then to fathom why APCand SBM used the money from

selling the Telekom shares to buyshares in Renong.

Why did the profits not gostraight to Tafe? Why were thefunds instead put in Renongshares which appear not to havebeen sold until 1992?

Had these companies become theinvestment arm of Tafe? Whowould underwrite the losses ofthis further investment? In fact theRenong shares purchased in No-vember 1990 had gradually fallenin value and by the middle of 1992were only about half their cost. Ifthere had been profits from theRenong investment, who wouldhave benefited?

APC and SBM held on to 0.5 mil-lion of the Telekom shares receivedin October 1990 and only soldthese in 1992.

Why were the shares held for solong? Was there any guaranteethat when the shares were soldthe profits would go to Tafe? Isit pure coincidence that theseshares were sold just about thetime that the public were becom-ing aware that Maika failed toreceive the 10 million Telekomshares it was supposed to havebeen allocated?

For those who have been follow-ing the Maika-Telekom issue,there is now a new puzzle. How,in spite of all these coincidencesand curiosities, could an investi-gative body like the ACA come tothe conclusion that there hadbeen no wrong-doing on the partof Samy Vellu? Given his highposition in government and alleg-

edly close links to the Prime Min-ister, many would jump to the con-clusion that the ACA investiga-tion was a cover-up.

It is hard for the intelligent pub-lic to reconcile the conclusion ofthe agency with what is knownfrom press reports. Prima facie,not allowing Maika to get thefull allocation of Telekomshares, and thus underminingMaika’s profits, is a criminalbreach of trust.

Shareholders of Maika had puttheir faith in Samy Vellu andmoney in Maika. Many had bor-rowed as much as they could inorder to buy Maika shares. Thenit transpired that Samy Vellu hadnominated 3 other companies toget the bulk of Telekom shares —taking away from MaikaRM120m in profit if it had justheld on to the extra 9 millionshares up to today.

How could the ACA say there wasnothing wrong in diverting prof-its from Maika to obscure compa-nies with no established record?What were the facts that sup-ported the ACA conclusion? With-out going through all the facts dis-covered by the ACA it is not easyto see how it reached its conclu-sion.

If the report remains only for theeyes of the selected few, the cred-ibility of the ACA will be affected.The agency must make public thereasons for its conclusion, or riskits acronym (ACA) being widelyperceived as standing for some-thing quite the opposite.

RamBank Officer

Source: AM 1993 : 13(10)

Dubious dealings

Puzzling ACAD e c i s i o n


rade union rights are ba-sically human rights asfar as rights such as free-dom of association, free-

dom of expression, peaceful as-sembly and protection from slav-ery and forced labour are con-cerned. To enable us to identity thebasic union rights, it is necessaryto have a glimpse of the Interna-tional Labour Organisation Con-ventions No. 87, 98 and 151.

The ILO is part of the United Na-tions Organization. ILO Conven-tions are adopted at its annualconference, participants of whichconsist of two government del-egates each from member coun-tries and one delegate each fromemployers’ federations and work-ers’ organisations of the respec-tive countries.

According to Convention No.87,workers and employers shall havefull freedom to organise them-selves. The organisations shalldraw up their own constitutionand rules, elect their leaders in fullfreedom and organise their ad-ministration and activities with-out any interference by the gov-ernment. The organizations shallnot be dissolved or suspended by

the administrative authority,which is the government.

No condition should be imposedby the government on the organi-sations’ right to establish or join afederation/confederation and toaffiliate with international or-ganizations.

Granting of legal personality shallnot involve restrictions on theabove rights.

Under Convention No. 98, it is theresponsibility of the governmentto protect workers against anti-union discrimination and victimi-sation by employers and againstdomination of workers' organisa-tions by any acts including finan-cial contributions. The govern-ment should also establish ma-chinery for the purpose of ensur-ing respect for the right to organ-ise.

There is nothing extraordinary inthese Conventions. These rightsadopted by the ILO are more orless based on the Universal Dec-laration of Human Rights. Work-ers especially need these guaran-tees to protect themselves againstexploitation by employers who

wield financial power and politi-cal influence.

If one is concerned over the plightof working people, one would beshocked to find that Malaysianlabour law is extremely restrictiveand even prohibitive when com-pared to the rights guaranteed bythe ILO Conventions.

In this article, I wish to highlightsome of the provisions in theTrade Unions Act (TUA) 1959.While the TUA confers legal per-sonality to trade unions it hasnumerous provisions contrary tothe ILO Conventions. As the na-tion progressed, more and moreobnoxious amendments were in-troduced to the Act, the worst be-ing the 1980 amendments, whichwere in fact the brainchild of Dr.Mahathir Mohamad.

The Director General of TradeUnion (DGTU) shall have generalsupervision, direction and controlof matters relating to trade unions(section 3). Under section 4A,which was introduced in 1980, heshall exercise all such powers,discharge all such duties and per-

LABOUR MOVEMENT

Restrictive LawsSqueeze WorkersIf they are to have their rights restored,workers must realise the power of their votes

by K George

TTTTTShockingly Restrictive


form all such functions as may benecessary for carrying out the pro-visions of the Act.

Under colonial, rule the workerswere allowed to form GeneralUnions, which means the mem-bership could comprise all catego-ries of workers. This right hasbeen systematically withdrawnvide section 9 of the Act, whichsays Malaysian workers are onlyallowed to form unions within aparticular trade, occupation or in-dustry.

It does not stop at that. The DGTUis empowered to refuse registra-tion of a trade union vide section12(3) if he or she is of the opinionthat:• the union is likely to be used

for unlawful purposes, or• any of the objectives of the un-

ion are unlawful, or• the constitution of the union

conflicts with the provision ofthe Act.

He can also reject the registrationof a trade union if there is in exist-ence another union catering forsimilar workers. The operativecondition is “in his opinion.”What a blow to the concept of free-dom of association!

Section 15(2) says if there is morethan one union in existence in aparticular trade, occupation orindustry, the DGTU may cancelthe certificates of all unions otherthan the union, which has thelargest number of members. It isyet another slap on the freedom ofassociation.

The DGTU is empowered to sus-

pend a branch of a union if he issatisfied that the branch has con-travened the provisions of the Actor the rules of the union. Is it notmore proper and sensible for theDGTU to direct the union headoffice to do this unpleasant job?

It is also within the power of theDGTU to disqualify an electedexecutive of a trade union or a fed-eration of trade unions by speci-fying the grounds for such dis-qualification (section 28(2)).

Even in employing a worker, aunion has to get clearance fromthe DGTU as required under sec-tion 29 of the Act. If an employerclaims his or her workers have noright to be members of a particu-lar union, the DGTU is empow-ered to make a decision based onhis own opinion. For instance, atrade union catering for drinkworkers was ordered not to enrolworkers involved in the Horlicksbusiness by one DGTU. Subse-quently another DGTU reversedthat decision. Another example:our government and the courtruled that electronic workers aredifferent from electrical workers!

While the government has givenpermission for trade unions to in-vest in business enterprises andcooperatives, it is mandatory un-der section 49 for the union con-cerned to obtain prior approvalfrom the Director General beforethe investment is carried out. Vio-lation of this condition carries apenalty of two years’ imprison-ment and/or RM2, 000 fine.

Sections 50 to 57 in Part VIII of theAct deal with union funds and fi-nance, the accounting procedureetc. The Director General can en-ter a trade union office and inspect

all its books and records. He canalso freeze the funds of a tradeunion.

The primary purpose of all theserestrictive provisions in the Act, itis claimed, is to protect the fundsof the union, which belongs to themembers. But the fact is that therehave been instances of unionmoney being mismanaged andmisappropriated. Haven’t youheard that union money has beenused to gamble in the stock mar-ket, to invest in questionable eco-nomic ventures; and to provideinterest-free loans to union lead-ers?

Under section 71, the DirectorGeneral can seek information onany of the activities of a trade un-ion by summoning any person tohis office. The Director Generalmay administer oaths to and ex-amine any person on oath sum-moned before him.

Even for international affiliation,the trade union must obtain theprior approval of the Director Gen-eral vide section 76B; he must alsobe furnished with the constitutionand the details of the officers ofthe international organizationconcerned. He is also empoweredunder section 76C to order thetrade union to withdraw from theinternational organization.

The provisions enumerated inthis article are in total violation ofthe rights guaranteed by the ILOConventions. In fact there are sev-eral more obnoxious provisions inthe Act. Not many democraticcountries have imposed so muchrestrictions and prohibitions on

Blow Against BasicF r e e d o m s

What Have TheAuthorities Done?


the rights of the working people.

Political parties, NGOs, andconcerned citizens have fre-quently criticised the InternalSecurity Act, the Police Act, thePrinting Presses and Publica-tions Act, and the Universitiesand University Colleges Act.But seldom - very seldom - dowe hear them highlighting theatrocious provisions ofMalaysian labour laws affect-ing more than 10 million work-ers .

Do the workers know the patheticsituation of their own rights? Whoare our law makers? They are themembers of the Dewan Rakyatwhom we elect by casting ourvotes.

Who makes up the electorate?At least 90 per cent of them areworkers and their families.When they reach the ballot box,some think of their race or theirreligion; some remember thekenduri and gifts received; manyothers are influenced by thepropaganda dished out by ourpliant mass media. The workerstend to forget their struggle forthe equitable distribution of thenation’s wealth, the restorationof their dignity, the establish-ment of an egalitarian society,freedom and peace.

It is time the workers realised thatthey can succeed if only they en-sure they have trustworthy repre-sentatives in the Dewan Rakyatwho are committed to the cause ofthe workers. It is the duty and re-sponsibility of the trade unionleaders to impress on the work-ing people the power of their votes- and not to depend on senatorsand Datuks. q

So as they say, will you just wait

Waste life away — with nothing to give

All that there is, is all for the strong

And none for the weak.

Will you just watch, things as they are,

Will you just stare, look from afar,

When you can be there, part of the game,

You have a share.

Is it enough, for you who pass by

To stop for a while, and then say goodbye?

Is it enough, to live and let die?

Is it enough, is it enough?

You’ve got to believe, that you can be free

To build a new world where people can be.

No sorrows, no pain. No hunger, no thirst.

No place for fear.

So stand up and fight. No need to hide.

The cost may be high. It may be your life.

But you can be sure, the gains will outweigh

The pains you endure.

Is it enough, for you who pass by

To stop for a while and then say goodbye?

Is it enough, to live and let die?

Is it enough, is it enough?

Theme composed by the workers in project SARILAKAS

(self-strength) in the Philippines

IS IT ENOUGH?


wo and a half years havepassed, and RafzanRamli and his six otherstudent friends are still

wondering when they can getback to campus to continue theirstudies and graduate with de-grees or diploma.

The Universities and UniversityColleges Act 1971 (UUCA) pro-vides that when a student ischarged with a criminal offence,he shall immediately be “sus-pended from being a student”.Thus these students who havebeen charged in court for the of-fence of illegal assembly are un-able to continue their studies.

These seven students, after hav-ing been charged and pleaded notguilty, were subsequently sus-pended from their universitiesunder the provisions of the UUCAor Educational Institutions (Dis-cipline) Act 1976.

Rafzan and his friends are stillsuspended and cannot continuetheir studies and get their degreesor diplomas - even though the al-leged criminal offence occurredmore than two years ago. Theirpeers would have all graduated

JUSTICE

Unheralded Human Rights DefendersUnheralded Human Rights DefendersUnheralded Human Rights DefendersUnheralded Human Rights DefendersUnheralded Human Rights DefendersStill Deprived Of EducationStill Deprived Of EducationStill Deprived Of EducationStill Deprived Of EducationStill Deprived Of EducationSuspended from campus even before the courtscan find them guilty

by Charles Hector

TTTTT

Rafzan Ramli

ISA demonstration


15D (1) and/or(2), amongstothers. This ex-emption cancome with con-ditions or oth-erwise.

But alas, theMinister has sofar not yet con-sidered thematter, letalone exer-cised his discretion. In this case,Rafzan is still awaiting a reply tohis letters of appeal to the Minis-ter.

The students are not beingcharged for murder, assault, bat-tery, robbery, theft, drug traffick-ing or any other offences againstpersons or property. They are be-ing charged for participating inan assembly to express their opin-ion about a preventive detentionlaw, the Internal Security Act.

It is disturbing that students inMalaysian universities and insti-tutions of higher learning suffermore limitations on their freedomand liberty than most otherMalaysians. Instead of nurturingcreative and critical thinking, theauthorities have restricted thespace for students to attain widersocial concern.

Over and above the various lawsand legislation that suppressfreedoms and human rights inMalaysia, these students are alsogoverned by the UUCA or Educa-tional Institutions (Discipline) Act1976. The shackles are many, in-cluding restrictions on freedom ofassociation with persons or

by now and moved on with theirlives, possibly now working andearning decent wages. But thesestudents are still in limbo, unsureas to whether they will evergraduate.

The so-called “illegal assembly”took place on 8 June 2001, whenabout 500 undergraduate stu-dents from several universitiesand institutions of higher learn-ing in Malaysia came together inKuala Lumpur to protest the In-ternal Security Act 1960 (a draco-nian piece of legislation that al-lows for detention without trial).They called for the repeal of thisAct and for the immediate and un-conditional release of all thosecurrently detained or restrictedunder this repressive law.Malaysians and others around theworld have been calling for therepeal of these anti-liberty laws fora long time.

Out of the 500-odd students whogathered peacefully to expresstheir protest, Rafzan and his sixstudent friends were arrested. On19 July 2001, they were chargedin court for participating in an il-legal assembly, an offence underthe Police Act, 1967. All of thempleaded not guilty and claimedtrial. Today, almost two and a halfyears later, their trial is still notover and they remain suspendedfrom university/college.

According to the UUCA or Edu-cational Institutions (Discipline)Act 1976, the Education Ministerhas the power to at any time, inany particular case, in his ‘abso-lute discretion’, to grant exemp-tion to any person from the appli-cation of the provisions of section

Absolute Discretion

More Restrictions

groups outside the campuses.

Of concern in this case is the un-justified additional deprivation ofrights imposed on studentscharged with a criminal offenceeven before any conviction by acourt of law.

Under the UUCA or the Educa-tional Institutions (Discipline) Act1976, students in universities orother educational Institutionswho are charged with criminal of-fences will be suspended and, iflater found guilty, they will be ex-pelled.

Section 15D (1) of the UUCA pro-vides that:“where a student of the University ischarged with a criminal offence heshall immediately thereupon be sus-pended from being a student of theUniversity and shall not during thependency of the criminal proceedings,remain in or enter the Campus of thator any other University.”

Section 15D (2) of the UUCA pro-vides that the said student shallimmediately cease to be a stu-dent if found guilty. By implica-tion, if the student is found notguilty, then he or she would pre-sumably be able to continuestudying.


The established legal principle of“presumption of innocence untilproven guilty” seems to have beenoverlooked when it comes to uni-versity students. Normally, whenpeople are charged in court, theycan claim trial and be released onbail. They can then go back to workand resume normal life. Theywould only be required to servethe sentence upon conviction andsentencing.

But when it comes to universitystudents, they are immediatelysuspended. If they are later foundguilty, they would not only be ex-pected to serve the sentence im-posed by the court but would alsobe expelled.

Where then is the equality underthe law guaranteed to all personsby our Federal Constitution?Where then is the promise thatthere shall be no discriminationas stipulated in the Federal Con-stitution? Those who fail to enterlocal universities and educationalinstitutions enjoy so much morefreedom and liberty than the stu-dents in these institutions. Theycan associate with whomeverthey want. They can join politicalparties, contest general electionsand even have the chance to be-come Prime Minister.

We must realize that we are talk-ing about students here, the hopesof their parents and the nation. Todeprive them of higher educationat the diploma and degree levelsis a gross injustice. We are talkinghere about the right to educationand their future. To suspend themindefinitely merely because theyhave been charged with an offenceis very sad.

Rafzan Ramli and the six otherstudents should be considered asHuman Rights Defenders. It mustnot be forgotten that Malaysia ispart of the United Nations. TheUN General Assembly on 9 De-cember 1998 through resolution53/144 adopted the Declarationon the Right and Responsibilityof Individuals, Groups and Or-gans of Society to Promote andProtect Universally RecognisedHuman Rights and FundamentalFreedoms (now commonly re-ferred to as the Human RightsDefenders’ Declaration).

I believe that the ‘suspensions’ ofRafzan and his six friends goagainst the principles and the veryessence of this Declaration. Now,even though these seven studentsare not prominent human rightsactivists, politicians or public per-sonalities, the plight of theseyoung human rights defendersshould be a cause for concernamong all justice-loving persons.

I am not asking for their chargesto be dropped, although that toowill be good as they have sufferedenough. What I am asking is fortheir suspension to be immedi-ately revoked so that they can goback to their universities or edu-cational institutions and finishtheir degree and diploma courses.In fact, in the worse case scenario,even if they are found guilty andsentenced to prison, their sen-tence should be suspended untilthey have completed their studies.

A note to the Education Minister:A note to the Education Minister:A note to the Education Minister:A note to the Education Minister:A note to the Education Minister:

Think of these students as yourchildren, dear Minister, and allowthem to immediately continue

their studies in their respectiveuniversities and academic insti-tutions so that they can get theirdegrees or diplomas. In an em-ployment market that places highregard on paper qualifications,their continued suspension ismanifestedly unfair. As the Edu-cation Minister, you should beprojecting more care and compas-sion for Rafzan and his sixfriends. To ignore the students’letters of appeal and to allow themto suffer indefinitely doesn’t re-flect well on you.

I am sure that all concerned andjustice-loving people would alsowant the Education Minister to im-mediately exercise his discretion,as provided by law, and lift thesuspension of these seven stu-dents. Repealing the UUCA andthe Educational Institutions (Dis-cipline) Act 1976 would contrib-ute to the growth of well-roundedcitizens and, in this spirit, wehope the government will seri-ously consider this.

Human RightsD e f e n d e r s

Charles Hector is a KualaCharles Hector is a KualaCharles Hector is a KualaCharles Hector is a KualaCharles Hector is a KualaLumpur-based lawyer in-Lumpur-based lawyer in-Lumpur-based lawyer in-Lumpur-based lawyer in-Lumpur-based lawyer in-volved in human rights cases.volved in human rights cases.volved in human rights cases.volved in human rights cases.volved in human rights cases.He is also an Aliran member.He is also an Aliran member.He is also an Aliran member.He is also an Aliran member.He is also an Aliran member.

Where IsThe Equality?

q

The Education Minister has the power toat any time, in any particular case, in his‘absolute discretion’, to grant exemption.


he relationship betweenpolitics and religion inMuslim societies has be-come a focus of intense

debate among scholars of Islamand Islamic political activists. Formany Western and Muslim schol-ars and Islamic activists Islam isnot only a religion but also a blue-print for social order and there-fore encompasses all domains oflife, including law and the state.They argue that this characterisa-tion sets Islamic societies apartfrom Western societies, which arebased upon the separation of stateand religious institutions.

Notwithstanding several exam-ples of state control of religion inWestern societies, these differ-ences are commonly used inscholarly and popular discourseson Islam to account for the differ-ent developmental trajectories ofWestern and Islamic societies. Insuch analyses Western societies,with their separation of churchand state, of civil and religiouslaw, are said to have promoted anautonomous domain for secularculture and civil society, whichtogether form the bases of moder-nity. In Islamic societies, the lackof differentiation between the secu-lar and the sacred has inhibitedsuch development

The historical evidence concern-ing the separation of state and re-ligion in Islamic history reveals

two main institutional configura-tions. The undifferentiated state-religious configuration character-ised a small number of MiddleEastern societies. This configura-tion was characteristic of lineageor tribal societies. The historicnorm for agro-urban Islamic soci-eties was an institutional configu-ration that recognised the divisionbetween state and religiousspheres. Despite the commonstatement that the institutions ofstate and religion are unified, andthat Islam is a total way of life thatdefines political as well as socialand family matters, most Muslimsocieties did not conform to thisideal, but were built around sepa-rate institutions of state and reli-gion.

In short the historical scholarshipindicates that the institutionalconfigurations of Islamic societiescan be classified into two types:a) differentiated social formations(i.e., societies in which religionand state occupy different space)and, b) undifferentiated social for-mations (i.e., societies in whichreligion and state are integrated).While a majority of Islamic socie-ties have been and are ‘differenti-ated social formations’, a small butsignificant number have been andare societies that can be classifiedas ‘undifferentiated social forma-tions’. A label commonly used in

contemporary discourse for undif-ferentiated Muslim social forma-tions is ‘Islamic State.’

Irrespective of the historical evi-dence, relations between the stateand religion are an important is-sue in contemporary Muslimcountries. Many Muslim coun-tries are a product of the processof decolonisation in this century,where nationalist movementswere spearheaded by relativelysecular leaders. These new stateshave defined their identities innationalist terms and in manycases have preserved the secularlegal, educational and political in-stitutions inherited from the colo-nial era. Islamic revival move-ments have emerged in manyMuslim countries, however, andin general they denounce the trendtoward secularisation, calling for

RELIGION

A Question Of TrustAre Religious Institutions Trusted More in an Islamic State?

by Riaz Hassan

TTTTT

Revival Movements

AM vol.21(9)


the return to a state that representsand embodies Islam and enforcesan Islamic way of life.

Whereas in the past only SaudiArabia defined itself as an Islamicstate, now countries like Iran, Pa-kistan, Afghanistan and Sudanhave become or aspire to becomeIslamic states. While all of themdefine themselves and function asIslamic states, they differ from oneanother in many significant ways.Algeria is currently enduring abloody struggle for the establish-ment of an Islamic state. Similartrends appear to be occurring inpredominantly Muslim regions ofNigeria and in Malaysia. In Tur-key, the power of the Kemalist secu-lar state has come under mutedchallenge from the Islamic parties.

While the relations between thestate and religious institutions area significant concern of the Islamicworld, there is no empirical studyof the attitudes of Muslims towarddifferent institutional configura-

tions. The issue here is whetherreligious institutions enjoy moreor less trust in the public mind indifferentiated Muslim social for-mations, in which religion and thestate are separate, than in undif-ferentiated Muslim social forma-tions, in which religion and thestate are closely integrated. Pub-lic trust in institutions of the stateand civil society is an importantsymbol of political legitimacy ofthe state and its agencies.

Drawing from empirical evidencegathered as part of an interna-tional study of Muslim religiositywe are now in a position to exam-ine this issue by comparing dataabout the level of trust in the stateand civil society in institutions indifferent Muslim countries andalso compare the level of trust inundifferentiated and differenti-ated Muslim social formationsThe data for the study were gath-ered through an internationalstudy of Muslim religiosity. Thisstudy was carried out in sevencountries, namely Indonesia, Pa-kistan, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Tur-

key, Iran and Malaysia. ( The de-tails of this study and how it wascarried out are reported in my bookFaithlines: Muslim Conceptions ofIslam and Society, Oxford Univer-sity Press 2003).

The respondents in all sevencountries were asked how muchtrust they had in key institutionsof the state and civil societynamely: Ulema, Parliament, Press,Universities, Imam Masjid,Courts, Television, Pirs/Kiyai/Ustaz, Civil Service, Major Com-panies and Intellectuals.

Findings: Findings: Findings: Findings: Findings: The empirical findingsshow that there are wide varia-tions as well as similaritiesamong respondents in the sevencountries in terms of their trust incore institutions of religion andthe state.

The most striking differences be-tween the countries relate to trust

Public Trust

Trust in Key Institutions in Selected Muslim Countries (%)Trust in Key Institutions in Selected Muslim Countries (%)Trust in Key Institutions in Selected Muslim Countries (%)Trust in Key Institutions in Selected Muslim Countries (%)Trust in Key Institutions in Selected Muslim Countries (%)

InstitutionInstitutionInstitutionInstitutionInstitution PakistanPakistanPakistanPakistanPakistan IndonesiaIndonesiaIndonesiaIndonesiaIndonesia EgyptEgyptEgyptEgyptEgypt KazakhstanKazakhstanKazakhstanKazakhstanKazakhstan IranIranIranIranIran TurkeyTurkeyTurkeyTurkeyTurkey MalaysiaMalaysiaMalaysiaMalaysiaMalaysiaUlema 48 96 90 2 4 7* 2 8 9 5Imam Masjid 44 94 8 3 2 2 3 6 2 6 94Pirs / Kiyai / Ustaz 2 1 9 1 5 2 2 1 8* 1 8 9 1

Parliament 2 2 5 3 3 4 1 9 3 2 1 1 69Courts 5 5 5 5 76 1 6 2 8 3 7 7 3Civil Service 2 6 5 8 44 1 1 2 3 2 2 6 1

Press 3 8 84 5 4 3 3 2 4 4 68Television 3 1 80 49 3 7 3 0 9 7 2Major Companies 2 9 4 2 4 5 1 4 1 6 2 7 46

Universities 60 88 70 3 3 44 5 8 8 3Intellectuals 66 9 2 8 1 3 7 5 9 67 9 1

* These percentages are from a sub-sample of 66 respondents

Striking Differences

Continued on page 24Continued on page 24Continued on page 24Continued on page 24Continued on page 24


Not yet 100 days in office, yet it isevident that Pak Lah is trying tostamp his own mark as premier.In Penang, immediately after hisascendancy, he first called uponthe people to work with him, notfor him. Next he ordered the civilservice to cut unnecessary red tapein order to curb corruption; appar-ently, things run smoother oncepalms are greased. His messagewas that providing quality serv-ices to the rakyat is the priority. Therelaxed style of his Hari Raya ad-dress was also refreshing. Evenmore so that his wife Endon satalongside him and was invited to‘say a few words’ at the end. Hisconcern with the number ofdeaths on the road during the fes-tive rush came across as sincere.And there was indeed a follow-up, still on-going.

Apparently, he’s also been lead-ing prayers in the mosques thathe sometimes drops into on Fri-days. What’s more, It was a nicetouch – unlike the usual imper-sonal Open Houses - to send greet-ings to some 1,500 church leaders

on the occasion of Christmas.Many read the greetings, whichwere warmly applauded, duringchurch services. What a breath offresh air into Malaysian politics.What a welcome relief from thescoldings and sarcasm we werealways subjected to when ‘hispredecessor’ addressed the rakyat.

Indeed, in contrast to ‘his pred-ecessor’, he doesn’t appear to hogthe mass media reports either. Per-haps because of Sadaam’s arrest,perhaps because of the fatal roadaccidents, the Bam earthquakeand the threat of a new outbreakof SARS, Pak Lah at times onlyappears in the inside pages – onpage 14 on 29 Dec 2003, on page 2on 30 Dec 2003 together withEndon in a report on the batik fash-ion design competition.

The MCA, too, is partly responsi-ble for this fresh breeze. Exceptwhen it’s a UTAR fund raiser,there have hardly been any reportsof Ling, who was beginning tosound like ‘the predecessor’.There’s also been a welcome endto that Team A versus Team B‘much ado about nothing’. Ex-

ploring a future merger withGerakan (of course, that is not go-ing to happen!) is a clever politi-cal stroke, at any rate a more in-teresting news item than the go-ings-on of ‘the predecessor’ andhis sycophants.

More interesting also because ofpeople like Kayeas, who wel-comed the merger and in the samebreath invited the non-Chinese tojoin his PPP. Not so long ago, hehad similarly suggested thatPandithan’s IPF, whose entry intothe BN ruling coalition had beenstymied by you-know-who,should dissolve itself and its mem-bers join the PPP instead. This at-tempt to recruit members of otherparties must be his strategy to getthe 8 parliamentary and 18 stateseats that he has asked for in thecoming election.

Unfortunately for him, neithermerger has yet occurred. Kayeashad inadvertently contributed tothe festive merry-making a bit ear-lier too, when he first read a wrongbill in parliament, and upon be-ing corrected, then read a billwhich had earlier been passed!Incidentally, whatever has be-come of his proposed Bandar Uni-versity near Tronoh? Not reallyfresh breeze, but this is comic re-lief to the scoldings and sarcasm,and most certainly the syco-phancy surrounding ‘the pred-ecessor’. We are convinced thatKayeas got appointed as senatorand then deputy minister not sim-ply because of the strength of hisPPP. Rather, it must be becausethere’s a need to absorb into theBN those fed up with the battlingMIC and IPF. Or was it perhapsdue to his being one of ‘the pred-ecessor’s’ favourites?

Remember Ibrahim (Katak) Ali?Poor Ibrahim was recently re-moved as Pasir Mas UMNO divi-

Breath Of Fresh Air


group’s Editor-in-Chief washanded over to former journalistand now active businessmanKalimullah Masheerul Hassan.Kalimullah, who was made chair-person of the national newsagency Bernama prior to this andis said to be close to new PrimeMinister Abdullah AhmadBadawi, was also appointed asthe group’s executive director ef-fective 1 January 2004.

It is also therefore unsurprising tofind that, for example, one of thedirectors on the Board of theUtusan Melayu Group is Dato’Mohd Johari Baharum, who ac-cording to the group’s website wasthe Political Secretary 1 to theformer prime minister. It is not yetclear whether he now reports toPak Lah.

It is indeed a sad commentary ofthe country’s journalistic prac-tices when certain characters arereplaced by others who’d be ex-pected to ‘play ball’ with the newpolitical leadership and also toperform a gatekeeper role. Ap-pointment exercises such asKalimullah’s can only cause fur-ther harm to the credibility of themedia organisations concerned. Itdoesn’t take a rocket scientist (andwe are sure that there are quite afew in this land where there is aneffort to send our first astronaut)to know that what is sorely neededin the media industry is a numberof media organisations with im-peccable credentials that comealong with editorial and politicalindependence. Remember thetakeover of the Nanyang SiangPau by MCA’s investment com-pany Huaren? Remember how itsentire editorial board was alsochanged? Tell us then how muchdegree of editorial independencethe mainstream media have.

But then editorial and political

independence can only comeabout when there is a more liberalpolitical culture in our society.This means, among other things,that certain laws that have an im-pact upon the development of themedia will have to be repealed,such as the omnipotent PrintingPresses and Publications Act andOfficial Secrets Act. Really, pressfreedom cannot depend on thediscretion and ‘good heart’ of aHome Minister, for example.

Otherwise, a regime change willalmost always necessitate the re-placement of the Kadir Jasins andAbdullah Ahmads of the world ofMalaysian media. Not that theyshouldn’t be replaced, but the re-placement ought to be closely tiedto notions of journalistic credibil-ity and editorial independence,not political expediency.

Perhaps the saddest thing aboutour festive seasons is the increas-ing number of fatal accidentswhich occur each year. Many areinnocent victims of the festiverush but some unnecessarilytempt fate. As though readingabout these deaths were not de-pressing enough, now we are toldthat innocent animals in captiv-ity are dying by the hundreds inour National Zoo. One can imag-ine the suffering of these creatures,owing to utter neglect, before theirdemise. The Zoo’s annual reportfor 2001/2002 confirmed thedeath of 540 poor animals. Surely,this should qualify for the Guin-ness Book of Records!

Datuk Ismail Hutson, Zoo Negaraacting director, was outraged bythis news report in our dailiesand claimed ‘internal sabotage’.It takes the cake for this classic

sion chief. His supporters, how-ever, have protested his removaland turned up in force at the air-port to welcome him back to KotaBaru on 25 Dec. The banners read‘ Hidup Ibrahim!’ Ibrahim claimsthat he does not understand whyhe was removed. For if the criteriais that he has not performed well,then the same would apply toKelantan UMNO chief MustaphaMohamed as well, who also lostin the last election. He has a point.

But guess who’s protestingIbrahim’s removal as well?Harakah devoted several pagesand pictures to his removal,which it has termed ‘harsh’. Therehave even been suggestions thatIbrahim might do another lompat,this time to PAS, which he hasdenied. We ask you to spare athought for Ibrahim too this fes-tive season. Not particularly freshor breezy, he has nonethelessbrought much colour and comicrelief to our politics, especiallyduring those days of scoldings,sarcasm and sycophancy.

Indeed, enjoy this fresh breeze. Itmight be short lived. For it appearsthat we might be approaching thattime when the mainstream mediahave to stop pretending to be in-dependent of their political mas-ters. It is the time when new po-litical appointees occupy the cov-eted positions at the top of themedia organisations to synchro-nise with the change of politicalleadership in the country.

And so it is with the case of theNew Straits Times Press group.Freshly vacated by the once irre-pressible and flamboyantAbdullah Ahmad (of the KokLanas fame), the post of the

Q Q Q Q Q

Q Q Q Q Q

Changing Of TheGuards At The NSTP

Death Of AnimalsIn Captivity


piece of logic: He wondered whythe death of 833 animals in 1999/2000 was not highlighted by thepress. We wonder about that too.

But it only highlights the need tobe even more concerned abouthow all these 1373 animals died.Perhaps the media were more con-cerned about the goings-on in thepolitical zoo - including in thekangaroo courts - rather than inthe national zoo. But then, weshoouldn’t be surprised. If it hadbeen Malaysians who had died incustody under suspicious circum-stances, our subservient presswould have been just as reluctantto report the news in keeping withits usual practice of self-censor-ship.

It is often claimed that thisBolehland called Malaysia islooked upon by the entire worldas a good role model for othermulticultural and multiethniccountries. We’ve got remedies thatothers couldn’t even recogniseeven if they trip on them. And sothey could only quip, ‘ah, whydidn’t we think of that before?’

The Malaysian government’s lat-est contribution to the promotionof ethnic harmony, to be sure, ismore than (fore) skin deep. Cut tothe chase, the religious affairs unitin the Prime Minister’s Depart-ment believes that circumcision,which is a rite of passage foryoung Muslim boys, can contrib-ute to better ethnic relations if itinvolves thousands of other boysfrom other religious traditions. Inshort, circumcision is said to havethe potential to bring Malaysians,particularly the younger genera-tion, of all ethnic and religiousbackgrounds together.

The long and short of it all is thatMalaysian boys should find acommon ground and, if need be,make a kind of sacrifice if they areserious about promoting mutualunderstanding beyond their na-vel.

Having said that, this initiativemay however be interpreted as theunkindest cut to youngMalaysian girls. Worse still, theymay feel that they’ve been given ashort shrift. What we really meanhere is that popularising circum-cision in this fashion automati-cally rules the girls out. After all,don’t the girls also have a stake inthis beloved country of ours?

So we’d suggest that whoever ini-tiated this ‘circumcision idea’should go back to the drawingboard and think of something bigenough that would include andinvolve not only the boys but alsothe girls who are part and parcelof the Malaysian cosmos. (We’reof course not implying female cir-cumcision here.)

Hot on the heels of the capture ofSaddam Hussein, security guardsat New York’s Kennedy airport to-day arrested an individual, lateridentified as a public schoolteacher, trying to board a flightwhile in possession of a ruler, aprotractor, a setsquare, a slide ruleand a calculator.

At a morning press conference,Attorney-General John Ashcroftsaid he believed the man is a mem-ber of the notorious al-gebra move-ment. He is being charged by theFBI with carrying weapons ofmath instruction.

“Al-gebra is a fearsome cult,”

Ashcroft said. “They desire aver-age solutions by means and ex-tremes, and sometimes go off ontangents in a search of absolutevalue. They use secret code nameslike ‘x’ and ‘y’ and refer to them-selves as ‘unknowns’, but wehave determined they belong to acommon denominator of the axisof medieval with coordinates inevery country.

“As the Greek philanderer Isos-celes used to say, there are threesides to every triangle,” Ashcroftdeclared.

When asked to comment on thearrest, President Bush said, “IfGod had wanted us to have betterweapons of math instruction, Hewould have given us more fingersand toes.

“I am gratified that our govern-ment has given us a sine that it isintent on protracting us fromthese math-dogs who are willingto disintegrate us with calculusdisregard. Murky statisticianslove to inflict plane on every sphereof influence,” the President said,adding: “Under the circumfer-ences, we must differentiate theirroot, make our point, and draw theline.”

President Bush warned, “Theseweapons of math instruction havethe potential to decimal every-thing in their math on a scalenenever before seen unless we be-come exponents of a Higher Powerand begin to factor-in randomfacts of vertex.”

Attorney-General Ashcroft said,“As our Great Leader would say,read my ellipse. Here is one prin-ciple he is uncertainty of: thoughthey continue to multiply, theirdays are numbered as the hypot-enuse tightens around theirnecks.”

A Cut Above The Rest

Q Q Q Q Q

Q Q Q Q Q

More On The WarAgainst Terror


We are incurring significant fi-nancial deficits every month andwe will run out of funds in a fewweeks. The financial contributionfrom the sale of our magazines canno longer cover our fixed over-head expenses.

We cannot carry on like this. Oneway out would be to increase ourcover price - but we are very reluc-tant to do this. In the past, Alirandepended on limited financial re-sources derived from AliranMonthly subscriptions and salesas well as donations made by ourmembers, subscribers and otherwell-wishers. Our writers, mem-bers and other supporters receiveno payment for their tireless serv-ices.

Our current financial predica-ment is largely the result of declin-ing street sales (although our sub-scribers have remained loyal.)Apart from this, the cost of pro-ducing Aliran Monthly, dissemi-nating information and publica-tions, networking with other civicorganisations, and organisingpublic talks and forums has risenconsiderably.

For our operational expenses, wereceive no funding whatsoeverfrom any government or opposi-tion political party, corporation or

foreign source. We have alwayscherished our autonomy.

Help us to carry on as a rallyingpoint for citizens and civic organi-sations concerned with freedom,justice and democracy. Support usas we defend civil liberties andhuman rights, and promote inter-ethnic and inter-religious respect.Contribute to our work in raisingawareness of the plight ofmarginalised communities, dis-advantaged groups and perse-cuted individuals who are too of-ten bereft of any opportunity tospeak for themselves.

URGENT APPEAL

Aliran Monthly May HaveTo Cease Publication

Dear Readers,

Become a part of this struggleby responding in any one ofthe following ways:

1 . Make a donation to Aliran.

a) If you wish to send a dona-tion to Aliran, you may doso by cheque or bank draftcheque or bank draftcheque or bank draftcheque or bank draftcheque or bank draftpayable to “Aliran”. Thispayable to “Aliran”. Thispayable to “Aliran”. Thispayable to “Aliran”. Thispayable to “Aliran”. Thiscan be mailed to us at 103,can be mailed to us at 103,can be mailed to us at 103,can be mailed to us at 103,can be mailed to us at 103,Medan Penaga, 11600Medan Penaga, 11600Medan Penaga, 11600Medan Penaga, 11600Medan Penaga, 11600Jelutong, Penang, Malay-Jelutong, Penang, Malay-Jelutong, Penang, Malay-Jelutong, Penang, Malay-Jelutong, Penang, Malay-sia.sia.sia.sia.sia.

b) Alternatively, you may paydirectly by telegraphictelegraphictelegraphictelegraphictelegraphic

transfer to our bank ac-transfer to our bank ac-transfer to our bank ac-transfer to our bank ac-transfer to our bank ac-count no: 507 246 118 995count no: 507 246 118 995count no: 507 246 118 995count no: 507 246 118 995count no: 507 246 118 995with Malayan Bankingwith Malayan Bankingwith Malayan Bankingwith Malayan Bankingwith Malayan BankingBerhad, Green LaneBerhad, Green LaneBerhad, Green LaneBerhad, Green LaneBerhad, Green Lanebranch, Penang, Malay-branch, Penang, Malay-branch, Penang, Malay-branch, Penang, Malay-branch, Penang, Malay-sia.sia.sia.sia.sia. If you are outside Ma-laysia, please also includethe “SWIFT” code“SWIFT” code“SWIFT” code“SWIFT” code“SWIFT” code for ourbank: MBBEMYKLAMBBEMYKLAMBBEMYKLAMBBEMYKLAMBBEMYKLA

2. Take out or renew a two-year subscription toAliran Monthly.

3 . Take out a gift subscrip-tion for someone close toyou.

AM 1999Vol.19(7)

A M 1 9 9 8Vol.18(11)

In the final analysis, it is you who will decide Aliran's survival anddetermine whether this struggle is worth preserving. If every readercan donate RM10, the struggle will continue ... q


“Libertyof thought

meansliberty

to communicateone's thought.”

AM 2003: 23(11)

Send this form andpayment to

ALIRAN DISTRIBUTIONBUREAU

103, MEDAN PENAGA,11600 JELUTONG,PENANG, MALAYSIA

Salvador de Madariage1886 - 1973

Spanish diplomat, writer, critic

Please send this gift subscription to :

Mr./Ms.

Address

Occupation Tel. No.

SubscriptionSubscriptionSubscriptionSubscriptionSubscription 1 year1 year1 year1 year1 year AIRAIRAIRAIRAIRfor 11 issuesfor 11 issuesfor 11 issuesfor 11 issuesfor 11 issues 2 years2 years2 years2 years2 years SEASEASEASEASEA

I enclose money order / postal order / cheque for the above order

amounting to RM payable to Aliran.

This gift subscription is paid for and presented by:

Mr./Ms.

Address

Date Signature

ONE YEARONE YEARONE YEARONE YEARONE YEARRM25.00

S $ 2 8AIRAIRAIRAIRAIR

US$25US$28

US$30

SEASEASEASEASEAU S $ 2 1U S $ 2 1

U S $ 2 1

TWO YEARSTWO YEARSTWO YEARSTWO YEARSTWO YEARSRM50.00

S $ 5 0AIRAIRAIRAIRAIR

US$44US$50

US$54

SEASEASEASEASEAUS$38US$38

US$38

SUBSCRIPTION RATESCOUNTRYCOUNTRYCOUNTRYCOUNTRYCOUNTRYMALAYSIA

SINGAPORE & BRUNEI

ASIA & THE PACIFICEUROPE & EGYPT

AFRICA, NORTH AMERICA,SOUTH AMERICA, HAWAII

GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONORDER FORM

Mr./Ms.

Address

Occupation Tel. No.

SubscriptionSubscriptionSubscriptionSubscriptionSubscription 1 year1 year1 year1 year1 year AIRAIRAIRAIRAIRfor 11 issuesfor 11 issuesfor 11 issuesfor 11 issuesfor 11 issues 2 years2 years2 years2 years2 years SEASEASEASEASEA

Donation for Aliran ..............................................Donation for Aliran ..............................................Donation for Aliran ..............................................Donation for Aliran ..............................................Donation for Aliran ..............................................

TOTAL Enclosed : Money Order / Postal Order / Cheque

(No. ) payable to Aliranpayable to Aliranpayable to Aliranpayable to Aliranpayable to Aliran

ALIRAN MONTHLY SUBSCRIPTION FORM

AM 2003: 23(11)

AM 2003: 23(11)

AM 2003: 23(11)

A GIFTof one publication

of your choiceif you subscribe to

AliranMonthly

N O W(Tick one)

PandanganALIRAN

The NEP:Development andAlternativeConsciousness

RM

RM

RM


in the Islamic institutions. In Ma-laysia, Indonesia and Egypt, theUlema and the Imam Masjid arethe most trusted institutions ofcivil society. The institution ofPirs/Kiyai/ Ustaz is very highlytrusted in Malaysia and Indone-sia, and moderately in Egypt. InPakistan and Iran, the two coun-tries that can be described as un-differentiated states i.e. IslamicStates, trust in the religious insti-tutions was relatively low. The keyinstitutions of the state namely,Parliament, Civil Service and theCourts were trusted by a signifi-cantly smaller proportions of re-spondents in the study except inMalaysia where the level of trustwas comparatively higher. In Ma-laysia there is also a greater levelof trust in the media.

These findings are interesting be-cause this is the first time such anempirical study has been carriedout in major Muslim communitiesin different regions of the world,and with different institutionalconfigurations. Intuitively, onewould expect that since Iran andPakistan are the only Islamicstates (Undifferentiated states)among the seven countries thelevel of trust in the religious insti-tutions should be relatively high.The results are the exact opposite.In relative terms, even the trustshown in religious institutions inKazakhstan as compared withstate institutions was surprising,although one must treatKazakhstan as a special case,given its recent history. In view ofthis evidence we can say that thefaithlines in contemporaryMalaysian, Indonesian and Egyp-tian societies are very clearly de-lineated. The state institutions areheld in low to moderately high

esteem (especially in Malaysia),and the religious institutions areheld in the highest esteem. In Iranand Pakistan, both state and reli-gious institutions are held in lowesteem, and a similar pattern pre-vails in Kazakhstan.

What could be a possible expla-nation of these findings and whatare their sociological implica-tions? An explanatory hypothesiscan be constructed in the follow-ing way. Given that in all of thesocieties under study except Ma-laysia there is a relatively low levelof trust in key state institutions,we can hypothesise that a dialec-tical process is created by the so-cial and political conditionswithin which key state institu-tions enjoy only low levels of es-teem, and consequently politicallegitimacy, among their citizens.

The main business of the state isto govern and manage the affairsof society in a fair and unbiasedmanner. When the state or its keyinstitutions lack social/political

legitimacy in the public mind, thestate must use varying degrees ofcoercion to ensure compliance.This the citizens inevitably resist,which in turn produces a more au-thoritarian state response. Thisgenerates further resistance, andso a cycle of authoritarian re-sponse and resistance develops.The state ultimately comes to beseen as authoritarian, oppressiveand unfair and this leads to po-litical mobilisation against thestate. The institutions of civil so-ciety that act as the mobilisers ofthis resistance gain in public trustand consequently come to enjoyhigh levels of esteem and legiti-macy among the public.

In differentiated Muslim social for-mations, the religious institutionsplay a vital public role in the mo-bilisation of resistance to the state,thereby increasing their esteem inthe public mind. Universities andPublic Intellectuals are also heldin high esteem for the same rea-son. In Pakistan and Iran, how-ever, the situation is different. Pa-kistan and Iran are undifferenti-ated social formations in whichreligious institutions are inte-grated in the state structures. Theerosion of trust in state institu-tions, therefore, also corrodes trustin the religious institutions thatare perceived as part of the state.The Intellectuals and Universitiesare probably trusted because oftheir role as mobilisers of resist-ance against a state perceived asweak, ineffectual and authoritar-ian. The low level of trust in reli-gious institutions in Pakistan andIran further reduces the trust inthe state institutions. In the caseof Kazakhstan, the disintegrationof the former Soviet Union has re-sulted in unparalleled political,social and economic insecurity,and the low level of trust in all in-

Low Levels Of TrustIn Religious Institutions

In Islamic States:an explanation

AM vol.22(2)

Continued from page 18Continued from page 18Continued from page 18Continued from page 18Continued from page 18


stitutions is probably indicative ofthat insecurity.

The case of Turkey offers an inter-esting example. In Turkey the levelof trust in all key institutions ex-cept Universities and intellectualsis relatively low. But even in thisstaunchly secular Muslim coun-try the religious institutions ap-pear to be gaining in public ac-ceptance and trust. This is clearlyindicated in the results of recentTurkish elections in which theIslamically affiliated Justice andDevelopment Party won strongpublic support to become thedominant single political party inthe Turkish Parliament and isnow the governing political partyin Turkey.

Viewed from this perspective, thefindings may have important im-plications for the institutionalconfiguration of the state in Mus-lim countries. An Islamic statethat lacks trust, and consequentlypolitical legitimacy, in the publicmind, may in fact cause an ero-sion of trust in Islamic institutions,thereby further weakening thefabric of civil society. For the reli-gious elite in Muslim countries,the message of these findings isthat an Islamic State may not al-ways be in the best interest of Is-lamic institutions and religiouselite. They can have public trustor political power but not both.To promote a constructive socio-cultural, moral and religious rolefor religious institutions within aMuslim society, it may be prudentto keep faithlines separate fromthe state, and thereby preventthem from becoming the faultlinesof the political terrain.

The findings should be of specialinterest to the Malaysian Islamicpolitical activists seeking to estab-lish an Islamic state in the coun-try. If they succeed in these effortsit may have an adverse impact onthe level of public trust they ap-pear to enjoy now among theMalays overtime.

These findings also have implica-tions for the ruling elite, particu-larly in differentiated Muslim so-cieties. The findings also show a‘feedback’ effect. The level of trustin religious institutions is directlyrelated to the level of trust in theinstitutions of the state. Thismeans that attempts to disestab-lish Islam may have adverse con-sequences for the level of trust inand legitimacy of the state itself.The implication for the interna-tional community is that if an Is-lamic state were to come into ex-istence through democratic andconstitutional means, support forsuch a state could in the long runpave the way for the developmentof a kind of differentiated Muslimsocial formation.

In summary, integration of reli-gion and the state in Muslim coun-tries may not always be in the bestinterests of Islamic institutionsand the religious elite, becausewhen a state carries a deficit oftrust in the public mind, publictrust in religious institutions isalso eroded. This could have seri-ous social, cultural, political andreligious implications. For exam-ple, if the public lacks trust in theinstitutions of the Ulema andImam Masjid, this could signifi-cantly undermine the fabric ofcivil society.

Such a situation may also not beconducive to the profession andpromotion of the universality ofIslamic values. This would alsosuggest that religious institutionswithin a Muslim society continueto play a constructive social, cul-tural and religious role when reli-gion is kept separate from the stateand when these institutions en-joy an appropriate place in theinstitutional configurations of thesociety. It may be prudent, there-fore, to keep faith separate fromthe state.

There is, of course, the logical pos-sibility of a Muslim society that ischaracterised by high levels oftrust in and esteem for the state,and in which there is also a highlevel of trust in religious institu-tions. However, as far as we know,there are no contemporary exam-ples of such a situation that canbe readily identified. This raisesthe interesting question of whythis is so? Does it mean that sucha situation is not possible, or couldsuch a situation possibly comeabout under circumstances inwhich different political arrange-ments prevail between Islam andthe state? It is hope that this ques-tion as well as the findings re-ported here will stimulate furtherdebate and discussion on the re-lationship between the state andreligious institutions in Muslimcountries.

Separation AllowsConstructive Role

Riaz Hassan is Professor ofRiaz Hassan is Professor ofRiaz Hassan is Professor ofRiaz Hassan is Professor ofRiaz Hassan is Professor ofSociology at Flinders Univer-Sociology at Flinders Univer-Sociology at Flinders Univer-Sociology at Flinders Univer-Sociology at Flinders Univer-sity, Adelaide, Australia. Hesity, Adelaide, Australia. Hesity, Adelaide, Australia. Hesity, Adelaide, Australia. Hesity, Adelaide, Australia. Heis author of the bookis author of the bookis author of the bookis author of the bookis author of the book“Faithlines: Muslim Concep-“Faithlines: Muslim Concep-“Faithlines: Muslim Concep-“Faithlines: Muslim Concep-“Faithlines: Muslim Concep-tions of Islam and Society”tions of Islam and Society”tions of Islam and Society”tions of Islam and Society”tions of Islam and Society”published by Oxford Univer-published by Oxford Univer-published by Oxford Univer-published by Oxford Univer-published by Oxford Univer-sity Press 2003.sity Press 2003.sity Press 2003.sity Press 2003.sity Press 2003.

Public Trust OrPolitical Power?

q


n the 1990s, the Indone-sian Army abductedAhmad Adnan’s fatherdue to his brother’s in-

volvement with GAM (the FreeAceh Movement). His brother,Shamsul Bhari, had been on thewanted list of the Indonesianarmy for quite some time.

Since the abduction, AhmadAdnan has never seen his father.Ahmad Adnan imself was beatenup by the Indonesian army onseveral occasions. So was hisother brother, who subsequentlybecame insane and eventuallydied.

In 1998, the Indonesian army re-sumed their harassment ofAhmad Adnan by ransacking hishouse and beating him severely.In the first quarter of 2002, the In-donesian army visited him againto carry out their usual ransack-ing of his house. This time, how-ever, they burned down his house.The Indonesian Army confiscatedall of his personal belongings, andhe was ordered to go to an Indo-nesian army camp.

Fearing for his life, AhmadAdnan, with the assistance of hisuncle, managed to escape fromAceh. Ahmad Adnan fled to Ma-laysia in May 2002 by ship from

Tanjung Balai, Medan to PortKlang. Upon reaching the shoresof Malaysia, he went to seek ref-uge at his countrymen’s abode. Afew days later, Ahmad Adnanwent to the United Nations HighCommissioner for Refugees(UNHCR) office at Jalan BukitPetaling. He was interviewed byUNHCR officers and was subse-quently given refugee status by theUNHCR in July 2002.

On 2 April, 2003, Ahmad Adnanwith a few other friends werestopped by several policemen. Hewas asked to show his docu-ments. Ahmad Adnan promptlyshowed the policemen hisUNHCR card and explained thathe was a recognized UNHCR refu-gee. Despite his explanation, thepolicemen arrested him and de-tained him from 2 April 2003 un-til 10 April 2003.

On 11 April 2003, AhmadAdnan was brought to the Mag-istrates Court in a state of fearand confusion. Despite being arecognized refugee, he wascharged under Section 6(1) ofthe Immigration Act. The chargefor his arrest was read out tohim. Ahmad Adnan, who was

unrepresented, pleaded guiltyto the charge. The Magistratetherefore convicted him for en-tering the country illegally. Butwhat the Magistrate had refusedto consider - despite his attemptsto explain his position - was thecrucial fact that Ahmad Adnanwas a recognized UNHCR refu-gee and thus should have beenaccorded protection for his refu-gee status.

Denied a chance to explain hissituation in Malaysia, AhmadAdnan was then sentenced to 10months’ imprisonment and twostrokes of the rotan. He was thenbrought to the Kajang Prison onthe same day. Although AhmadAdnan had a chance to appealagainst his conviction and sen-tence within ten days from thedate he was sentenced, he wasdenied the opportunity of doingso due to the refusal of the prisonauthorities to file the Notice ofAppeal on his behalf.

After enduring days of hopelessattempts to pursue his appeal,Ahmad Adnan finally wrote to theUNHCR explaining his predica-ment. Luckily for Ahmad, around8 May 2003, a UNHCR official vis-ited him in Kajang Prison and as-sisted him in obtaining legal rep-resentation.

REFUGEE RIGHTS

To Leave Or NotTo Leave Or NotTo Leave Or NotTo Leave Or NotTo Leave Or NotTo LeaveTo LeaveTo LeaveTo LeaveTo Leave

by Amer Hamzah Arshad

IIIII

Court Ignores UNHCRRefugee Status

The Refugee Dilemma


An application for revision wasquickly made and filed at theShah Alam High Court. The revi-sion was heard before Dato’ K NSegara J on 7 July 2003. The revi-sion was allowed and the convic-tion (on the guilty plea) and sen-tence were set aside and the mat-ter was remitted back to anotherMagistrate. The Attorney Gener-al’s Chambers subsequently with-drew the charges against AhmadAdnan on 10 July 2003, and theMagistrate discharged AhmadAdnan.

Technically, from that momentonwards Ahmad Adnan shouldhave been released uncondition-ally. To the authorities, however,Ahmad Adnan was just anotherundocumented immigrant. Be-cause of the present state of theimmigration law, an order wasissued by the Immigration Depart-ment for Ahmad Adnan to be de-tained at an immigration depotuntil an opportunity arose to re-turn him to his place of embarka-tion or to the country of his birthor citizenship.

Luckily for Ahmad Adnan, at thatmaterial time, Denmark hadagreed to accept him for the pur-pose of resettlement. His life andliberty was eventually spared, butnot before enduring a series ofhuman rights infringements inhis country of origin as well as thecountry to which he had fled forrefuge. Some refugees are not solucky.

It is apparent from this case studythat the local laws are inadequateto handle these kinds of situa-tions. Ever since Ahmad Adnanset foot on the soil of Malaysia, hewas not protected. What’s more,he was subjected to harassment

and arrest by the police, prosecu-tion by the Public Prosecutor, de-tention and deportation by theimmigration authority.

In the present situation, eventhough the Malaysian Govern-ment has yet to ratify any of theinternational conventions per-taining to refugees and humanrights, the Government, at the veryleast, could still ensure and pro-vide the very basic protection to arefugee; namely protection fromrefoulement (see box).

The Malaysian Government, if itwanted to, could use the presentlaws to achieve this goal. The Im-migration Act, particularly Sec-tion 55, states that the Ministermay by order exempt any personor class or persons, either abso-lutely or conditionally, from all orany of the provisions of this Actand may in any such order pro-vide for any presumptions neces-sary in order to give effect thereto.Such a measure however wouldbe purely temporary and since therefugee issue is a never-endingone, the Malaysian Governmentshould seriously look into long-term measures.

It is unfortunate to note that theMalaysian Government has notmade any clear and substantiveefforts to recognise the Acehneses’refugee status in this country. Andit is deplorable that the MalaysianGovernment has not even both-ered to invoke Section 55 of the Actto protect the Acehnese refugeesthat have come to our country. In-stead they have prosecuted them,like in the case of Ahmad Adnan.

The Malaysian Human Rights

Commission (Suhakam) has failedto live up to its reason for exist-ence. It has failed in its duty:• to recommend to the

Malaysian Government toratify the UN Convention onRefugees (and its protocol) andother international humanrights treaties and instru-ments;

• to advise the Malaysian Gov-ernment to incorporate theprinciples enshrined in theUniversal Declaration of Hu-man Rights as a standard;

• to raise public awareness of theAcehneses’ refugees’ plight;and

• to seek protection for them.

It has been said that how a coun-try treats its prisoners reflects thelevel of its civilization. The samecan be said of a country in respectof its treatment of refugees.

If the Malaysian government seri-ously wants to achieve its coveted‘developed country’ status by theyear 2020, the first step in that di-rection would be to recognize andprotect the basic human rights ofnot only its own citizens but alsothat of refugees. It can do this byratifying the relevant conven-tions. And finally, let it not be for-gotten that, the duty to recognise,protect and advocate humanrights falls not only on theMalaysian government, localNGOs and human rights groups,Suhakam and UNHCR but alsoon each and every citizen in thiscountry.

An Interim Solution

Amer Hamzah is a KualaAmer Hamzah is a KualaAmer Hamzah is a KualaAmer Hamzah is a KualaAmer Hamzah is a KualaLumpur-based lawyer in-Lumpur-based lawyer in-Lumpur-based lawyer in-Lumpur-based lawyer in-Lumpur-based lawyer in-volved in cases relating tovolved in cases relating tovolved in cases relating tovolved in cases relating tovolved in cases relating tohuman rights and refugees.human rights and refugees.human rights and refugees.human rights and refugees.human rights and refugees.

q


The United Nations ConventionRelating to the Status of Refugees1951 was the first internationaltreatise that defined the duties ofmember countries to a refugee aswell as the refugee’s rights in thesecountries. The Convention sets outthat the basic human rights to beaccorded to the refugees should,at least, be the equivalent to therights enjoyed by foreign nation-als living legally in a given coun-try. In many developed countries,the rights accorded to a refugeeare similar to that of a citizen ofthat State. The Convention alsorecognized the international scopeof refugee crises and the neces-sity of international cooperation,including burden-sharing amongstates, in tackling the problem.

The Convention sets out the basichuman rights of a refugee. Amongothers:

When a person is compelled toflee his country of origin due to awell-founded fear of being perse-cuted, his immediate concern isprotection against expulsion orrefoulement. Such protection isnecessary for preventing furtherhuman rights violations. This isbecause his forcible return to hiscountry of origin may endangerhis life and safety.

Due to this, the international com-munity has recognized the princi-ple of non-refoulement, whichprohibits both rejection of a refu-gee at the frontier and expulsionafter entry. This rule derives itsexistence and validity from twin

concepts of ‘international commu-nity’ and ‘common humanity’ andmust be seen as an integral part ofthat foundation of freedom, justiceand peace that is human rights.

This principle of non-refoulement canbe found in Article 33 of the Con-vention and also in the law relatingto the prohibition of torture and cruelor inhuman treatment.

A refugee seeking protection mustnot be prevented from entering acountry. Nor can a refugee be forci-bly returned to his/her home coun-try or any other country where s/hecould face persecution. The principleof non-refoulement – barring the re-turn of a refugee to a territory wherehis/her life or freedom is threatened- is considered by a number of schol-ars as a rule of customary interna-tional law. It is thus binding on allstates without exception and regard-less of whether they have ratified theRefugee Convention or Protocol.

Since a refugee is a person who fleeshis country of origin to avoid perse-cution, it would be akin to rubbingsalt into an open wound if s/he isprosecuted and punished on accountof his/her illegal entry or presenceinto the country where s/he is seek-ing refuge.

It is for this reason that Article 31 ofthe Convention has prohibited theContracting States to impose penal-ties on refugees merely on accountof their illegal entry or presence intoa country. This prohibition, however,is subject to the refugees presentingthemselves without delay to the au-

thorities and show good cause fortheir illegal entry or presence.

Once a person fleeing persecutionenters another State, what s/heneeds most is asylum. Asylum isthe protection which a Stategrants on its territory or in someother place under the control ofcertain of its organs, to a personwho comes to seek it. Asylum isnecessary not only for safeguard-ing his/her rights to life, securityand integrity but also preventingother human rights violations.Therefore, the granting of asylumin the case of refugees is an im-portant aspect of human rightsprotection.

In addition to the basic rights men-tioned earlier, there are otherrights which are no less importantto the refugee who is granted asy-lum which should not be over-looked. These rights include theright to work, the right to hous-ing, the right to education, theright to public relief and assistance,free access to courts, freedom ofmovement within the territoryand the right to be issued identityand travel documents.

Malaysia is one of the few remain-ing countries that has not ratifiedthe Convention and all the othermajor UN human rights instru-ments that are relevant to asylumseekers and refugees. Malaysiahas also failed to enact any legis-lation for the protection of refu-gees. Refugees in Malaysia aretherefore deemed “illegal immi-grants” and would shoulder thefull brunt of the harsh and arbi-trary penalties enacted in the Im-migration Act 1959/63.

United NationsUnited NationsUnited NationsUnited NationsUnited NationsConventionConventionConventionConventionConvention

On Refugees 1951On Refugees 1951On Refugees 1951On Refugees 1951On Refugees 1951

The Basic RightsThe Basic RightsThe Basic RightsThe Basic RightsThe Basic RightsDue To A RefugeeDue To A RefugeeDue To A RefugeeDue To A RefugeeDue To A Refugee

Prohibition Of ExpulsionProhibition Of ExpulsionProhibition Of ExpulsionProhibition Of ExpulsionProhibition Of ExpulsionOr RefoulementOr RefoulementOr RefoulementOr RefoulementOr Refoulement

Can A Country That HasCan A Country That HasCan A Country That HasCan A Country That HasCan A Country That HasNot Signed The ConventionNot Signed The ConventionNot Signed The ConventionNot Signed The ConventionNot Signed The ConventionRefuse To Admit A PersonRefuse To Admit A PersonRefuse To Admit A PersonRefuse To Admit A PersonRefuse To Admit A Person

Seeking Protection?Seeking Protection?Seeking Protection?Seeking Protection?Seeking Protection?

Exemption From PenaltiesExemption From PenaltiesExemption From PenaltiesExemption From PenaltiesExemption From PenaltiesFor Illegal Entry IntoFor Illegal Entry IntoFor Illegal Entry IntoFor Illegal Entry IntoFor Illegal Entry Into

The Territory OfThe Territory OfThe Territory OfThe Territory OfThe Territory OfA Contracting StateA Contracting StateA Contracting StateA Contracting StateA Contracting State

Right To Seek AsylumRight To Seek AsylumRight To Seek AsylumRight To Seek AsylumRight To Seek Asylum

Socio-Economic RightsSocio-Economic RightsSocio-Economic RightsSocio-Economic RightsSocio-Economic Rights

Human RightsHuman RightsHuman RightsHuman RightsHuman RightsOf Refugees In Malaysia?Of Refugees In Malaysia?Of Refugees In Malaysia?Of Refugees In Malaysia?Of Refugees In Malaysia?


or the political leader-ship, mostly recycledfrom more reactionarysectors of the Reagan-

Bush I administrations, “the glo-bal wave of hatred” is not a par-ticular problem. They want to befeared, not loved. They under-stand as well as their establish-ment critics that their actions in-crease the risk of proliferation ofweapons of mass destruction(WMD) and terror. But that too isnot a major problem. Higher inthe scale of priorities are the goalsof establishing global hegemonyand implementing their domesticagenda: dismantling the progres-sive achievements that have beenwon by popular struggle over thepast century, and institutionaliz-ing these radical changes so thatrecovering them will be no easytask.

It is not enough for a hegemonicpower to declare an official policy.It must establish it as a “new normof international law” by exem-plary action. Distinguished com-mentators may then explain thatlaw is a flexible living instrument,so that the new norm is now avail-able as a guide to action. It is un-derstood that only those with theguns can establish “norms” andmodify international law.

The selected target must meet sev-

eral conditions. It must bedefenseless, important enough tobe worth the trouble, and an im-minent threat to our survival andultimate evil. Iraq qualified on allcounts. The first two conditionsare obvious. For the third, it suf-fices to repeat the orations of Bush,Blair, and their colleagues: the dic-tator “is assembling the world’smost dangerous weapons [in or-der to] dominate, intimidate or at-tack”; and he “has already usedthem on whole villages leavingthousands of his own citizensdead, blind or transfigured....Ifthis is not evil then evil has nomeaning.”

President Bush’s eloquent denun-ciation surely rings true. Andthose who contributed to enhanc-ing evil should certainly not en-joy impunity: among them, thespeaker of these lofty words andhis current associates, and thosewho joined them in the yearswhen they were supporting theman of ultimate evil long after hehad committed these terriblecrimes and won the war with Iran,with decisive US help. We mustcontinue to support him becauseof our duty to help US exporters,the Bush-1 administration ex-plained. It is impressive to seehow easy it is for political lead-ers, while recounting the mon-ster’s worst crimes, to suppressthe crucial words: “with our help,because we don’t care about suchmatters.” Support shifted to de-

nunciation as soon as their friendcommitted his first authenticcrime: disobeying (or perhapsmisunderstanding) orders by in-vading Kuwait. Punishment wassevere — for his subjects. The ty-rant escaped unscathed, and hisgrip on the tortured populationwas further strengthened by thesanctions regime then imposedby his former allies.

Also easy to suppress are the rea-sons why Washington returned tosupport for Saddam immediatelyafter the Gulf war as he crushedrebellions that might have over-thrown him. The chief diplomaticcorrespondent of the New YorkTimes explained that “the best ofall worlds” for Washingtonwould be “an iron-fisted Iraqijunta without Saddam Hussein,”but since that goal seems unat-tainable, we must be satisfied withsecond best. The rebels failed be-

INTERNATIONAL

Dominance And Its Dilemmasby Noam Chomsky Part II

New Norm OfInternational Law

FFFFF

Moral Grounds?


cause Washington and its alliesheld that “whatever the sins of theIraqi leader, he offered the Westand the region a better hope forhis country’s stability than didthose who have suffered his re-pression.” All of this is sup-pressed in the commentary on themass graves of the victims ofSaddam’s US-authorized parox-ysm of terror, crimes that are nowoffered as justification for the waron “moral grounds.” It was allknown in 1991, but ignored forreasons of state: successful rebel-lion would have left Iraq in thehands of Iraqis.

Within the US, a reluctant domes-tic population had to be whippedto a proper mood of war fever, an-other traditional problem.. Fromearly September 2002, grim warn-ings were issued about the threatSaddam posed to the UnitedStates and his links to al-Qaeda,with broad hints that he was in-volved in the 9-11 attacks. Manyof the charges “dangled in frontof [the media] failed the laughtest,” the editor of the Bulletin ofAtomic Scientists commented,“but the more ridiculous [theywere,] the more the media stroveto make whole-hearted swallow-ing of them a test of patriotism.”

As often in the past, the propa-ganda assault had at least short-term effects. Within weeks, a ma-jority of Americans came to regardSaddam Hussein as an imminentthreat to the US. Soon almost halfbelieved that Iraq was behind the9/11 terror. Support for the warcorrelated with these beliefs. Thepropaganda campaign provedjust enough to give the adminis-tration a bare majority in the mid-term elections, as voters put asidetheir immediate concerns and

huddled under the umbrella ofpower in fear of the demonic en-emy.

The brilliant success of “publicdiplomacy” was revealed whenthe President “provided a power-ful Reaganesque finale to a six-week war” on the deck of the air-craft carrier Abraham Lincoln onMay 1. The reference, presumably,is to Reagan’s proud declarationthat America was “standing tall”after conquering the nutmeg capi-tal of the world in 1983, prevent-ing the Russians from using it tobomb the US. Reagan’s mimic wasfree to declare — without concernfor skeptical comment at home -that he had won a “victory in awar on terror [by having] removedan ally of Al Qaeda.” It is imma-terial that no credible evidencewas provided for the alleged linkbetween Saddam Hussein and hisbitter enemy Osama bin Ladenand that the charge was dis-missed by competent observers.Also immaterial is the only knownconnection between the victoryand terror: the invasion appearsto have been a “huge setback inthe `war on terror’,” by sharplyincreasing al-Qaeda recruitment,as US official concede.

More astute observers recognizedthat Bush’s carefully-stagedAbraham Lincoln extravaganza“marks the beginning of his 2004re-election campaign,” which theWhite House hopes “will be builtas much as possible around na-tional-security themes.” The elec-toral campaign will focus on “thebattle of Iraq, not the war,” chiefRepublican political strategistKarl Rove explained” : the “war”

must continue, if only to controlthe population at home. Before the2002 elections, he had instructedParty activists to stress securityissues, diverting attention fromunpopular Republican domesticpolicies. All of this is second-na-ture to the recycled Reaganitesnow in office. That is how theyheld on to political power duringtheir first tenure in office, regu-larly pushing the panic button toevade public opposition to thepolicies that left Reagan the mostunpopular living President by1992, ranking alongside Nixon.

Despite its narrow successes, theintensive propaganda campaignleft the public unswayed in morefundamental respects. Most con-tinue to prefer UN rather than USleadership in international crises,and by 2-1, prefer that the UN,rather than the United States,should direct reconstruction inIraq.

When the occupying army failedto discover WMD, the administra-tion’s stance shifted from “abso-lute certainty” that Iraq possessedWMD to the position that the ac-cusations were “justified by thediscovery of equipment that po-tentially could be used to produceweapons.” Senior officials sug-

R e - e l e c t i o nC a m p a i g n ?


gested a “refinement” in the con-cept of preventive war that enti-tles the US to attack “a country thathas deadly weapons in massquantities.” The revision “sug-gests instead that the administra-tion will act against a hostile re-gime that has nothing more thanthe intent and ability to develop[WMD].” The bars for resort toforce are significantly lowered.This modification of the doctrineof “preventive war” may prove tobe the most significant conse-quence of the collapse of the de-clared argument for the invasion.

Perhaps the most spectacularpropaganda achievement was thelauding of the president’s “vi-sion” to bring democracy to theMiddle East in the midst of a dis-play of hatred and contempt fordemocracy for which no prec-edent comes to mind. One illus-tration was the distinction be-tween Old and New Europe, theformer reviled, the latter hailed forits courage. The criterion wassharp: Old Europe consists of gov-ernments that took the same posi-tion as the vast majority of theirpopulations; the heroes of NewEurope followed orders fromCrawford Texas, disregarding aneven larger majority, in most cases.Political commentators rantedabout disobedient Old Europe andits psychic maladies, while Con-gress descended to low comedy.

At the liberal end of the spectrum,Richard Holbrooke stressed “thevery important point” that thepopulation of the eight originalmembers of New Europe is largerthan that of Old Europe, whichproves that France and Germanyare “isolated.” So it does, if we re-ject the radical left heresy that thepublic might have some role in a

democracy. Thomas Friedmanurged that France be removed fromthe permanent members of the Se-curity Council, because it is “inkindergarten,” and “does not playwell with others.” It follows thatthe population of New Europemust still be in nursery school,judging by polls.

Turkey was a particularly instruc-tive case. The government resistedheavy US pressure to prove its“democratic credentials” by over-ruling 95% of its population andfollowing orders. Commentatorswere infuriated by this lesson indemocracy, so much so that someeven reported Turkey’s crimesagainst the Kurds in the 1990s,previously a taboo topic becauseof the crucial US role — thoughthat was still carefully concealedin the lamentations.

The crucial point was expressed byPaul Wolfowitz, who condemnedthe Turkish military because they“did not play the strong leadershiprole that we would have expected”and did not intervene to prevent thegovernment from respecting near-unanimous public opinion. Turkeymust therefore step up and say “Wemade a mistake...Let’s figure outhow we can be as helpful as possi-ble to the Americans.” Wolfowitz’sstand is particularly instructive be-cause he is portrayed as the lead-ing figure in the crusade to democ-ratize the Middle East.

Anger at Old Europe has muchdeeper roots than contempt fordemocracy. The US has alwaysregarded European unificationwith some ambivalence, becauseEurope might become an inde-

pendent force in world affairs.Thus senior diplomat David Brucewas a leading advocate for Euro-pean unification in the Kennedyyears, urging Washington to “treata uniting Europe as an equal part-ner,” — but following America’slead. He saw “dangers” if Europe“struck off on its own, seeking toplay a role independent of theUnited States.” In his “Year of Eu-rope” address 30 years ago,Henry Kissinger advised Europe-ans to keep to their “regional re-sponsibilities” within the “over-all framework of order” managedby the United States. Europe mustnot pursue its own independentcourse, based on its Franco-Ger-man industrial and financialheartland.

In the tripolar world that was tak-ing shape at that time, these con-cerns extend to Asia as well.Northeast Asia is now the world’smost dynamic economic region,accounting for almost 30% of glo-bal GDP, far more than the US, andholding about half of global for-eign exchange reserves. It is a po-tentially integrated region, withadvanced industrial economiesand ample resources. All of thisraises the threat that it too mightflirt with challenging the overallframework of order, which the USis to manage permanently, by forceif necessary, Washington has de-clared.

Violence is a powerful instrumentof control, as history demon-strates. But the dilemmas of domi-nance are not slight.

Contempt ForD e m o c r a c y

The first part of this articleThe first part of this articleThe first part of this articleThe first part of this articleThe first part of this articleappeared in AM 23(10).appeared in AM 23(10).appeared in AM 23(10).appeared in AM 23(10).appeared in AM 23(10).

q


From the very first day whenDatuk Abdullah Ahmad Badawitook over the post as the PrimeMinister, in his maiden speech —among other things — he ad-dressed the issue of corruptionand gave great emphasis in try-ing to wipe out corruption.

Well, what was Dr. Mahathir do-ing when he was the Prime Min-ister? Nothing much except toprotect his interests and his cro-nies. A good case is the PerwajaSteel scandal. This is a case of“power corrupts and absolutepower corrupts absolutely”.

Corruption was rife even whenAbdullah Ahmad Badawi wasthe Deputy Prime Minister but

there was nothing he could do aslong as Dr. Mahathir’s shadowwas still looming over his head.Being a cautious man (unlike thetwo previous Deputy PMs) notwanting to offend his master, hewas biding for time and only feltready to do so after he steppedinto the Prime Minister’s shoes.

We must all wish AbdullahAhmad Badawi the very best ofluck and all the resourceful energyto combat corruption.

We all know that when Dr.Mahathir was in power, he con-trolled everything — it was a one-man show. He controlled the Ex-ecutive, Legislature and the Judi-ciary.

The police force was just a con-venient tool to serve its politicalmasters. So was the Anti-Corrup-

tion Agency (ACA), which wasnothing more than a toothless ti-ger. The head of the ACA is only agovernment servant and he hasbeen trained to bark at the righttime and wag his tail when hismaster gave him a pat on the head.

But now it seems that AbdullahAhmad Badawi is going to changeall that. At the moment, the min-isters hold the ACA in contemptand feel that they are more pow-erful than the ACA. A good ex-ample of this is the case when theACA was involved in a verbalspat between Entrepreneur Devel-opment Minister Nazri Aziz overalleged graft cases pertaining to6,000 taxi permits allegedly givento an individual (NST, 8 Decem-ber 2003).

Nazri was bold enough to rebukeNordin, the ACA chief, by saying,“A sane man would know it is notwise to threaten us. I want to re-mind him for the last time that heis a Government servant and inthis structure, ministers are his su-periors and he is unswerable tous.”

What if the superiors are wrong?Surely no one is above the law —ministers included! This attitude(superiority complex?) has tochange.

To begin with, the ACA has tobe an independent body in or-der to be effective. I would sug-gest that the head of the ACA beappointed by the King (similarto the appointment of judges)with the rank equivalent to thatof a minister. At the moment theACA is not unswerable to Par-liament and only serves as acomponent in the PM’s Depart-ment.

Letters must not exceed 250 words and must include the writer'sname and address. Pseudonyms may be used. Send letters to :Editor, ALIRAN MONTHLY, 103, Medan Penaga, 11600 Penang,Malaysia or e-mail to : [email protected] Viewsexpressed need not reflect those of Aliran. If you are sendingby e-mail please include your message in the e-mail body itself.We do not open attachments to avoid viruses.

C o r r u p t i o n :The Scourge

Of The Nation


However, good news is in the off-ing as the Secretary to the Govern-ment recently announced that infuture whistle-blowers will be as-sured of protection. In the pastwhistle-blowers had to go to jailbecause of the Official Secrets Actand the perpetrators escapedprosecution. A good case waswhen Lim Guan Eng had to go tojail when he tried to expose thealleged wrongdoings of RahimTamby Chik.

Let us all pray that AbdullahAhmad Badawi will transform theACA from being a toothless tigerinto a bold and dignified lion —to be feared and respected.

Tunku Yusuf JewaKota Bharu

Salutations for your courage increating awareness among thepublic about issues affecting thepeople and the country. At presentwhere conditional freedom of ex-pression is being practised, Alirangives a glimpse of hope for us“rakyat” where views could tran-scend the invisible fences. It islaudable that most of the issueshighlighted in the Aliran Monthlyconcern the imperfections of thegovernment and the people be-hind it, and to expose and debateissues. It is one of many facets ofdeveloping a just society.

However, one aspect in whichAliran seems to be lacking is con-tribution of ideas for solutions. Ifit is justice that we are all fightingfor, then it is only justified to findthe balance between criticism andideas.

Mudassir Mahyuddin

Malaysia achieved Independ-ence 46 years ago but it is sur-prising that after all those yearsthere is still inconsistency in theuse of the word “Tunku” in ourfirst Prime Minister’s name.Certain printed media and a fewlocal writers still prefer to use“Tengku” which is not the offi-cial version of Bapa Malaysia’sname as recorded in the Sultanof Kedah’s office. This dispar-ity in the choice of word has cre-ated a little confusion amongpost-Merdeka students.

No doubt the acceptable word forprince or princess in the Malaylanguage is “Tengku” but inKedah “Tunku” is used. This he-reditary royal title in Kedah origi-nated during the reign of Kedah’sfirst Muslim ruler, SultanMuzaffar Shah (1136-1179).When Muzaffar Shah became aMuslim he changed the Hindunames of his children and addedto them the word “Tunku” whichis an abridged form of “TuanAku”. Thus Tunku AbdulRahman who is a direct descend-ent of Muzaffar Shah is addressedas “Tunku”.

In Malaysia there are many

“Tengkus” from the Malay Statesas well as those of Bugis andSumatran ancestries who losttheir royal status when Indonesiabecame a Republic. Therefore, forhistorical reasons as well as forofficial record, the MalaysianGovernment should ensure thatonly the correct form of address isused when referring to TunkuAbdul Rahman Putra. This isimportant as the Tunku is ourcountry’s first Prime Minister.

Tunku Ismail JewaPenang

“I have to teach him that politi-cians are not called the politicalmasters and him the governmentservant for nothing.”{NST: De-cember 9, 2003} It is shocking toread the statements made by aMinister regarding the position ofpoliticians. Politicians are votedto their respective positions by thepeople. They are paid with tax-payers money and yet in Malay-sia we seem to have reached astate where politicians are chal-lenging the very fabric of democ-racy. Some politicians even seemto think that they are above thelaw. Irrespective of what is tran-spiring between ACA and Nazri,it just goes to show the mind-setof UMNO politicians who feelthat no action can be taken againstthem.

In their sheer arrogance, they havecompletely forgotten that theywere voted in by the public, whoinclude many civil servants. Theywere chosen by the people to‘serve the people’ and not to betheir ‘political masters’. We havegone through the British occupa-

It Is Tunku,Not Tengku

What AboutS o l u t i o n s ?

You Are ElectedTo Serve, Nazri


tion and the Japanese occupation– we certainly do not have to gothrough an “UMNO occupation”.Politician who cannot get over this‘master-servant’ mind-set shouldnot be given the vote by the ordi-nary Malaysian on the street.

ACA has its weaknesses and limi-tations. Yes, they have draggedtheir feet on numerous occasions.Many people consider them atoothless tiger. We need to havean ACA which is more effective. We call upon the government ofMalaysia to make the ACA an-swerable to parliament and not toany one individual. This willmake their actions transparentand they will be free to act with-out fear or favour.

Dr Xavier JayakumarParti Keadilan Nasional

I was robbed and assaulted inLagenda Heights, Sungai Petanion 30 August 2003 and made apolice report on the same day.

Except for issuing me the policereport, IPD Sungai Petani have nottaken any positive action to en-sure safety and order in the sur-rounding areas, where many ille-

gal foreign workers live. There iseven a colony of over 1,000 illegalIndonesian settlers which is giventhe name “Kampung Indonesia”right in the heart of the LagendaHeights Development.

The Lagenda Heights Develop-ment Project is one of the pioneerprojects of the Ministry of HomeAffairs (KDN) under a Privatisa-tion Scheme. From my conversa-tion with the Investigation Officerat IPD Sungai Petani, the IPDSungai Petani were fully aware ofthe developments at the ProjectSite. However he was reluctant toact to eradicate the menacingpresence of illegal immigrantsthere for fear of retaliation from theKDN.

Lee Chee LeongPenang

I have nothing to say except thatTun Salleh Abas was the bestChief Justice we ever had. By theway, I need the book “May DayFor Justice”. Can you please tellme how to get one?

Paul Kerangkas

It was reported in the NST (25 Dec2003) that according to MARA52,249 student loan defaultersowed the agency a staggering 209million ringgit! This statistic isreally mind-boggling. LikeMARA, the other loan givers likethe JPA, Federal and State govern-ments and the corporate sector arein a quandary about what to do.They have been whining andgnashing and grinding their teethwithout the will to bite!

Enough is enough! All loan de-faulters must be held responsi-ble and must be made to honourtheir contractual obligations.Most loan funds are ‘revolving’ones. Loan defaulters have lit-erally made them into ‘sinking’or ‘sunk’ funds! Their selfish-ness and lack of civic sense willsabotage National developmentand progress. Loan defaultershave been likened to sponges,saboteurs, criminals and thescum of society.

I make these humble suggestionsfor the serious consideration of allloan givers:

1. Loan givers have all the per-sonal details of the defaulters. Incase of difficulty, use the servicesof the Registration Department orthe Income Tax Department totrace them.

2. Give them an ultimatum aboutthe settlement of their loans, fail-ing which initiate litigation.

3. Ensure that loan defaulters donot get promotions if they are inthe government or quasi-govern-ment departments.

4. Ensure that loan defaulters arenot conferred awards by the Sul-tans/Governors.

5. Ensure that children of loandefaulters do not get scholarshipsor loans.

I guarantee that the above meas-ures will produce the desired re-sults. However, if those chargedwith the responsibility of recover-ing loans are themselves loan de-faulters, we have an additionalproblem.

Theatre, OTA

Study Loan Defaulters

Frustrated OverPolice Inaction

N e e dMay Day For Justice


few people have askedme what would havehappened if Tun SallehAbas, the Lord President

had been allowed to convene thesitting of the Supreme Court in1988 to hear the UMNO 11 appealconsisting of nine judges made upof the followings:

1 . Tun Salleh Abas, Lord Presi-dent

2. Tan Sri Abdul Hamid, ChiefJustice of the High Court in Ma-laya

3 . Tan Sri Lee Hun Hoe, ChiefJustice of the High Court inBorneo

4. Tan Sri Wan Suleiman5 . Datuk George Seah6. Tan Sri Mohamed Azmi7. Tan Sri Hashim Sani Yeop8. Tan Sri Abdoolkader9. Tan Sri Wan Hamzah

(P.S. I will explain at the appropriatetime why although ranked No. 5 inthe hierarchy in the Supreme Court, Iwas still a Datuk, awarded to me bythe State Governor of Sarawak).

In my view, the hearing of the ap-peal would have been all over inless than an hour as there was abinding precedent in the SupremeCourt case of Dato Ong Kee Huivs Sinyium (1983) 1MLJ 36. TheCourt was presided by Tan Sri LeeHun Hoe, CJ, and the other twomembers were Tan Sri Salleh Abas

and Datuk George Seah.

After declaring UMNO to be anunlawful society, Harun J (the trialjudge) should have also declaredthe election of the UMNO Presi-dent to be null and void. This wasthe main thrust of the UMNO 11appeal to be determined by theSupreme Court.

Applying the ratio in the Dato OngKee Hui’s case, the SupremeCourt very likely, would have de-clared the election of UMNO Presi-dent to be null and void by a ma-jority of 7 to 2.

The legal implications resultingfrom this declaration would havebeen as follows:

a) By Convention, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong would normally

invitei) the President of UMNO toform the government of Malay-sia, if the BN had a majority ofMPs in Parliament.

ii) By declaring the 1987 electionof the UMNO President nulland void, the Prime Minister,Dr. Mahathir, would have hadto tender his resignation to theKing as a matter of honour.

b) The Yang di-Pertuan Agongmight have appointed Tengku TanSri Razaleigh Hamzah (who lostout to Dr. Mahathir in the Presi-dential UMNO election by a smallmajority) as Prime Minister of acaretaker government until aproper and lawful person waselected President of UMNO at alater date.

It is clear from the above scenariothat the convening of a 9-memberBench of the Supreme Courtwould have had wide and far-reaching political ramifications inUMNO in particular and Malay-sia in general. This was furtherdemonstrated by the fact that af-ter the suspension of Tun SallehAbas, the Ag Lord President, TanSri Abdul Hamid, ordered thedate fixed for the hearing of theUMNO 11 appeal to be vacatedsine die.

Dato Sri George SeahPetaling Jaya

AAAAA

- Lord Alfred Denning- Lord Alfred Denning- Lord Alfred Denning- Lord Alfred Denning- Lord Alfred Denning

Silence is not an option when things are ill done.

IF UMNO-11 APPEALHAD BEEN HEARD ...

George Seah


do – even though they personallydid not agree with it. This is ludi-crous and totally unacceptable.

We do not live in a feudal state,whereby all subjects have nochoice but to follow what the Kingsays. We are a democracy – and Ibelieve that when decisions aremade in the Cabinet, the SupremeCouncil of UMNO and theBarisan Nasional, each and everymember has the right to dissentand ultimately, the right to vote onany matter of concern. The PM, Ibelieve, did not have the power toveto decisions of the majority.

Therefore whatever was done ornot done is the collective respon-sibility of Cabinet members,UMNO Supreme Council mem-bers and Barisan Nasional su-preme body/council members,amongst others. For all gooddeeds of the Barisan Nasionalgovernment, a pat on the backshould be given and for all baddeeds all these persons in posi-tions of leadership should beblamed.

Remember the Nuremberg trials,which found the persons in gov-ernment and other positions ofauthority, under the leadership ofHitler guilty of crimes againsthumanity? Hitler was the leader,but that did not absolve others inposition of leadership and deci-sion-making from culpability forthe crimes against humanity com-mitted during World War II – itdid not matter much whether theywere following orders or not.

Likewise in the Malaysian con-text, each and every person, thefirst being Badawi himself, isguilty for all the fumbles, wrong-

doings, failings, inadequacies,injustices and violations againsthuman rights perpetrated duringthe time that Mahathir was theprime minister. And as far as the‘public’ record is concerned, I be-lieve that Abdullah never once didoppose what was done during theperiod when Mahathir was primeminister.

Gerakan, a major componentparty of the Barisan Nasional, didat one time - if memory does notfail me - adopt a position that theInternal Security Act (ISA) wasunjust and that the ISA should berepealed even though that posi-tion was contrary to the positionof the Barisan Nasional govern-ment. Now, today, I am not surewhat their position is with regardto the ISA and other preventivedetention laws.

Rais Yatim, when he was out ofthe the Cabinet and working as apractising lawyer, took the posi-tion that the ISA should be re-pealed. But when he later joinedthe cabinet, he changed his posi-tion with regard to the ISA. Whydid he change his mind? If he hadchanged his personal position af-ter serious re-thinking and reflec-tion, then it is all right. But if thechange in position was merelybecause he was now part of thecabinet, then it is wrong. Later on,when he is no more in the Cabinetor in the government, will heagain have a change of mind withregard to the ISA? Do not be likethe ‘lallang’ bending according towhere the wind blows; stick toyour principles and positions.

Our ‘ leaders’ , ministers andmembers of Parliament, amongst

others, from the Barisan Nasionalmust realize that we are all hu-man beings – each with a brain,a mind, a conscience and atongue, and it is all right to havea different viewpoint about mat-ters and issues. If one is part ofthe Cabinet, and ther Cabinet hasmade a decision about a particu-lar matter, then that decisionmust be upheld and followed. Butat the same time, one can also stillhave a personal position aboutmatters.

The stand taken by Gerakan oncewith regard to the ISA - it is notcertain if they still hold that view- is praiseworthy. In a democracy,the majority decision is carried outand implemented. But the minor-ity dissenting view is never si-lenced. The minority have theright to continue lobbying for theirviews to be adopted if they believethem to be right. Who knows, oneday, it may be this ‘minority view’that prevails,

It is sad that in Malaysia we donot often enough read about MPsfrom the Barisan National or thedifferent component parties of theBarisan Nasional taking a viewdifferent from that of the govern-ment and/or even the Prime Min-ister.

The Barisan Nasional still rules.There is no real reason to cel-ebrate the departure of Mahathir,who, by the way, was not oustedbut left on his own accord, hand-ing over the premiership to hisdeputy, Abdullah. If a new politi-cal party or a coalition of partiescomes into power, then maybethere is a reason to send memo-randums and recommendationsto the new government and to thenew Prime Minister – but not inthis case.

No Reason ToC e l e b r a t e

Culpable And Guilty

q

NEW FACE, SAME BODY Continued from page 40


wo years ago, the thenUMNO President DrMahathir Mohamadurged the party to sup-

port the punishment of corruptmembers, saying that he had hadenough.

Mahathir was reported to havetold an UMNO gathering, “I haveurged, pleaded, cried. This timethere is no more urging, no morepleading, no more crying. I ask foryour support and the support ofall UMNO members for the actionwhich we will take against thoseengaging in corruption.”

On the surface, Mahathir’s wordson the subject of money politicsand corruption in UMNOsounded earnest enough, al-though they were not as melodra-matic as the occasions when hecried.

And yet one must humbly askhow serious UMNO andMahathir’s successor really arenow about the need to eradicatemoney politics from the party.

Surely the new UMNO leader,Abdullah Badawi, who is also thecountry’s prime minister, can se-riously reduce money politics notonly in UMNO but in the wholecountry, if he is serious and sin-

cere about it. After all, he has allthe powers, hasn’t he?

What the UMNO leader should doabout money politics is not merelyto bellyache about it at big UMNOmeetings once every few years, orfor the purpose of making an in-tra-party political point, or to at-tempt to score one against theOpposition. One can perhapsconcede that as a politician he hasto do one or all of those thingsonce in a while. Unless, of course,he manages to transcend himselfinto a statesman in the truestsense of the word.

Merely telling UMNO membersthat the party is serious about curb-

ing money politics to prevent thepeople from losing faith in UMNOis not enough.

How on earth can you curb moneypolitics and corruption if con-tracts and development projectsare promised to party loyalists orrewarded on the basis of party af-filiation?

There are at least three things thatUMNO and its leader can andshould do if they are really, reallyserious about curbing money poli-tics in UMNO and the country.

First, make it legally obligatory forall UMNO officials, from the partypresident down to the committeemembers at branch level, to declaretheir own financial assets as wellas those held by their immediatefamily members — like wives,sons, daughters, grandchildrenand sons-in-law to the Anti Cor-ruption Agency (ACA).

This legal requirement of office-bearers to declare assets shouldthen be extended to all office-bear-ers in all other political partiesboth in the government as well asthe Opposition, NGOs and statu-tory bodies, in order to be fair toeverybody and to achieve thehighest possible transparency inthe land.

ACCOUNTABILITY

Can UMNO WipeOut Corruption?by Fan Yew Teng

TTTTT

B e l l y a c h e

Corruption: Rhetoric or revulsion?


This means that all Cabinet min-isters, deputy ministers, parlia-mentary and political and privatesecretaries, Members of Parlia-ment, Chief Ministers andMenteris Besar, State Assembly-men/women, State Exco Mem-bers, appointed members to city,municipal, town and local coun-cils will have to declare their as-sets to the ACA. This should in-clude all civil servants and judges.

Any Malaysian who wants toknow the financial assets of anyminister or any local councillor ora judge or the attorney-generalshould have the right to obtainsuch yearly updated informationfrom the ACA.

Those officials who have nothingto hide should not and need notobject to such a rigorous require-ment. Only people who have some-thing or lots to hide would get jit-tery about such a practice.

There is a serious anomaly in theway assets are declared by Cabi-net ministers at present, for in-stance. Members of the Cabinet arerequired to declare their assets tothe prime minister. If, for one rea-son or another, a prime ministerdoes not want to question the ill-gotten wealth of a minister or aparticular minister who is livingway beyond his means, the peo-ple are kept in the dark about it.Who benefits and who loses then?

Equally serious is the fact that atpresent the prime minister de-clares his assets to nobody. Why?Is Caesar above suspicion? Theprime minister’s assets should bedeclared annually to the ACA, justlike everybody else’s.

Such a serious anomaly involvingthe prime minister should be rec-tified immediately. I challenge himto do this before he talks againabout money politics and corrup-tion.

Second, the ACA should be madea fully and truly independent in-vestigative and prosecuting body,and should not be a departmentunder the Prime Minister’s Office.As long as the ACA is not fullyand truly independent but a meredepartment under the jurisdictionof the prime minister, so long willthe public perception persist thatthe fight against corruption inMalaysia is not as serious as it isofficially claimed.

And it is not merely a matter ofthe people’s perception, althoughit is most important. It is also aperception by politicians them-selves, including of course UMNOpoliticians.

And, if politicians — especiallyUMNO politicians — continue toperceive that the campaignagainst corruption and moneypolitics is not as serious as itought to be or officially claimed,and that in fact the campaign it-self is full of anomalies and flaws,then they can only be fortified bythe ‘don’t worry, be happy’ atti-tude. They would feel free to de-vise ways and means to circum-vent existing weak rules and regu-lations.

Thus, the ACA must be made fullyand truly independent, responsi-ble to Parliament, not the primeminister.

Closely linked to the above re-quirement is the need to abolishthe Official Secrets Act and to re-

place it with a Freedom of Infor-mation Act. We cannot be a trans-parent society if transparency ispunishable under the law.

Third, UMNO in particular andthe government in general mustdo away completely with the un-healthy and corrupt practice of re-warding the spoils of office toparty loyalists and faithfuls. Noless a person than Mahathir him-self has admitted, whether reluc-tantly or inadvertently or other-wise, that this has been for manyyears the practice!

How on earth can you curbmoney politics and corruption ifcontracts and developmentprojects are promised to party loy-alists or rewarded on the basis ofparty affiliation?

Is it any wonder that UMNO issinking in the pond of filthymoney politics? As an UMNOYouth leader once admitted, manyyoung Malays do not want to joinUMNO these days because theysee it as a party of corruption.

UMNO started off 57 years ago asa party of sacrifice, courage, prin-ciples and ideals to help the Malaycommunity. The spirit of sacrificehas, to a large extent, evaporated;the principles and ideals havemostly disappeared; and what-ever courage left is linked to moneyand power - power to make moremoney to gain more power to makeyet larger sums of money to ...

Can UMNO re-invent itself? Thatdepends on how soon and howdeeply it is prepared to reform itself

And that in turn depends on

A n o m a l y

Political Will


whether it still has the politicalwill. Last but not least is whetherthat political will - assuming thatUMNO still has some of it left - isbuttered with sincerity or yet moreopportunism.

And this will only be reflected byAbdullah Badawi’s action anddetermination in fighting corrup-tion. Of late, he has come onstrongly on corruption but howmuch of it is rhetoric or revulsion,only time will tell.

For now I would like to leave with

The last part of this arti-The last part of this arti-The last part of this arti-The last part of this arti-The last part of this arti-cle which appeared in thecle which appeared in thecle which appeared in thecle which appeared in thecle which appeared in thelast issue of Aliranlast issue of Aliranlast issue of Aliranlast issue of Aliranlast issue of AliranMonthly was inadvert-Monthly was inadvert-Monthly was inadvert-Monthly was inadvert-Monthly was inadvert-antly omitted. The AM isantly omitted. The AM isantly omitted. The AM isantly omitted. The AM isantly omitted. The AM iscarrying the full text ofcarrying the full text ofcarrying the full text ofcarrying the full text ofcarrying the full text ofthe article in this issue.the article in this issue.the article in this issue.the article in this issue.the article in this issue.

A free society is one of the finest checks against corruption. As longas people have the freedom to challenge and scrutinize publicpolicies and political personalities there is hope that those inauthority will be a little more wary of their actions. They will realizethat since they are accountable to the people they should nottransgress certain norms of behaviour.

Source: Aliran publication, “Corruption”(1981)

this. In Chapter 10 on Protector orBetrayer in my book The UMNODrama: Power Struggles in Malay-sia (published in 1989), I quotedHaji Suhaimi Said, a former PASlegal adviser as saying, “The pri-vatisation and Malaysia Incorpo-rated concepts can be consideredas the early burial prayer forUMNO. And when those con-cepts are fully implemented, thisburial prayer can be read forUMNO.”

I ended the chapter with theselines by one Richard Armour:

That money talksI’ll not deny.I heard it once -It said “Good-bye”.

A Corrupt regime, for instance, maybecome extremely repressive becauseits corruption is about to be exposed.It is not its practice of corruption thatmakes it repressive but the fear thatits corruption will be known. It will,therefore, try to curb and control lawful,legitimate social comment throughharsh, repressive measures. This couldeven lead to the emergence of anauthoritarian regime. Indirectly, then,corruption would be partly responsiblefor the erosion of democratic practices.

Source: Aliran publication, “Corruption” 1981.

q


dullah Badawi is nowthe Prime Minister ofMalaysia, the head of theBarisan Nasional and

the leader of UMNO, andMahathir has stepped down after22 years in these positions. BUTwe must not forget that we are stillunder the Barisan Nasional gov-ernment. This is something thatmany of us are forgetting.

Many Malaysians are celebratingas though there has been a changein the ruling party – as thoughAbdullah is from some otherparty, who has just come intopower. Memorandums containingexpectations of change are beingsent. Forums and public discus-sions are being held. Many arehoping for great changes in thepolicies and practice of theBarisan Nasional government.

We are kidding ourselves becausethe same persons and politicalparties are still in power, and theBarisan nasional still controlsmore than a two thirds majority

in the Dewan Rakyat – thus hav-ing the capacity to amend ourFederal Constitution as and whenit chooses.

Mahathir cannot and should notbe held solely responsible for allthe actions and omissions of theBarisan Nasional government.Mahathir cannot be held solelyaccountable for all those deten-tions without trials and for allthose repressive laws that curtailfreedoms and deprives the fullestexpression of our rights.

He was just one man, andAbdullah was in the Cabinet asthe Deputy Prime Minister to-gether with many others. To saythat because Mahathir was at thehelm, all the others were shack-led, their tongues were tied andthey were deprived of the abilityto dissent is a joke. Abdullah wasalso then the second man in theUMNO.

The responsibility for all the ac-tions and omissions under thepremiership of Mahathir shouldand must be borne by all the mem-bers of the Cabinet, all the mem-bers of UMNO, all the members ofthe Barisan Nasional componentparties and, of course, all youMalaysians out there who contin-ued to vote in the BarisanNasional into power over theyears.

It is wrong and a gross injusticeto solely blame our good doctorMahathir for all the failings andwrongdoings of the BarisanNasional government.

Some say that “Mahathir was adictator”; so, all those in the Ex-ecutive, the Cabinet, the UMNOSupreme Council and the BarisanNasional component parties hadno choice but to be silent and tofollow whatever he said and en-dorse whatever he did or failed to

POLITICS

New Face, Same BodyAbdullah Badawi is PM, and Mahathir is no more BUT …

by Charles Hector

AAAAA

Mahathir WasJust One Man

Continued on page 36Continued on page 36Continued on page 36Continued on page 36Continued on page 36

Maika : Bleeding Again - Aliran

Documents

Transcript of Maika : Bleeding Again - Aliran