Frigthened Malaysian - December 2006

I received this email soon after the UMNO general assembly. Now where do we go from here? A good write up but sad after more then 49 years of Independence we cannot feel we belong to the country known as Malaysia!

Subject: From a Frightened Malaysian abroad-All Chinese Malaysian must read

I have been meaning to pen some thoughts for some time now, to let people actually read the views of the typical ‘overseas Malaysian’ who is kept away. I realise that my email is rather long,
but I do hope that you would consider publishing it (and also keep my name private!). I shall start by telling a little about my background. Mine is a rather sad tale – of a young Malaysian full of hope and patriotic enthusiasm, which is slowly but surely trickling away. I am very different from many other non-bumiputeras, as I was given tremendous opportunities throughout my childhood. Born into a middle-class Chinese but English-speaking family, I grew up with all the privileges of imported books, computers, piano/violin lessons and tuition teachers. My parents insisted that I should be exposed to a multi-racial education in a national school. In my time, my urban national school (a missionary school) was a truly happy place – where the Malays, Chinese and Indian students were roughly equal in proportion. We played and laughed with each other, and studied the history of the world together during Form 4, with one interesting chapter dedicated to Islamic history.

Though 75% of my teachers were Malays, I never really noticed. My Malay teachers were the
kindest to me – teaching me well and offering me every possible opportunity to develop. I led the district teams for English and Bahasa Malaysia debating competitions. I was the only non-Malay finalist in the Bahasa Malaysian state-level elocution competition. My Malay teachers encouragedme to transfer to a government residential school (sekolah berasrama penuh) so as to enable me to maximise my academic potential. I refused because I was happy where I was, so they made mehead prefect and nominated me as a ‘Tokoh Pelajar Kebangsaan’. Till this day, I am absolutely certain that it was the kindness of all my Malay teachers which made me a true Malaysian. I excelled at school and was offered a Singaporean government scholarship to study overseas. I turned them down because I wanted to ensure that I would remain a ‘true Malaysian’ in the eyes of Malaysia. So I accepted a Malaysian government scholarship to study at Oxford University. Throughout my three years as an undergraduate, the officers at the MSD looked after me very well, and was always there to offer support.

I graduated with first class honours, and was offered a job with a leading investment bank. The JPA released me from my bond, so as to enable me to develop my potential. I shall always be grateful for that. I worked hard and rose in rank. My employer sent to me to Harvard University forpostgraduate study and I climbed further up their meritocratic ladder. Now I am 31 years old and draw a comfortable monthly salary of US$22,000. Yet, I yearn to return home. I miss my home, my family, my friends, my Malaysian hawker food and the life in Malaysia. I have been asked many times by Singaporean government agencies to join them on very lucrative terms, but I have always refused due to my inherent patriotism. I really want to return home. I have been told by government-linked corporations and private companies in Malaysia that at best, I would still have to take a 70% pay cut if I return to Malaysia to work. I am prepared and willing to accept that. My country has done a lot for me, so I should not complain about money. But of late, my idealistic vision of my country has really come crashing down, harder and faster than ever before.

I read about the annual fiasco involving non-bumiputera top scorers who are denied entry to critical courses at local universities and are offered forestry and fisheries instead. (My cousin scored 10A1’s for SPM and yet was denied a scholarship). I read about UMNO Youth attacking the so-called meritocracy system because there are less than 60% of Malay students in law and pharmacy, whilst conveniently keeping silent about the fact that 90% of overseas scholarship recipients are Malays and that Malays form the vast majority in courses like medicine, accountancy and engineering at local universities. I read about the Higher Education Minister promising that non-bumiputera Malaysians will never ever step foot into UiTM. I read about a poor Chinese teacher’s daughter with 11A1’s being denied a scholarship, while I know some Malay friends who scored 7A’s and whose parents are millionaires being given scholarships.

I read about the brilliant Prof. K.S. Jomo, who was denied a promotion to Senior Professor (not even to Head of Department), although he was backed by references from three Nobel Prize winners. Of course, his talent is recognised by a prestigious appointment at the United Nations. I read about UMNO Youth accusing Chinese schools of being detrimental to racial integration, while demanding that Mara Junior Science Colleges and other residential schools be kept only for
Malays. I read about the Malay newspaper editors attacking the private sector for not appointing enough Malays to senior management level, whilst insisting that the government always ensure that Malays dominate anything government-related. I read that at our local universities, not a single Vice-Chancellor or Deputy Vice-Chancellor is non- Malay.

I read that in the government, not a single Secretary-General of any ministry is non-Malay. The
same goes for all government agencies like the police, armed forces, etc. I read about UMNO screaming for the Malay Agenda, but accusing everyone else of racism for whispering about equality. I read about a poor Indian lady having to pay full price for a low-cost house after being
dispossessed from a plantation, whilst Malay millionaires demand their 10% bumiputera discount when buying RM2 million bungalows in a gated community. I read about my beloved national schools becoming more and more Islamic by the day, enforced by overzealous principals.I read about my Form 4 World History (Sejarah Dunia) syllabus, which now contains only one chapter of world history, with Islamic history covering the rest of the book. As I read all this, I tremble with fear. I love my country and long to return. I am willing to take a 70% pay cut. I am willing to face a demotion. I honestly want to contribute my expertise in complex financial services and capital markets. But really, is there a future for me, for my children and for
their children? I am truly frightened.

I can deal with the lack of democracy, the lack of press freedom, the ISA, our inefficient and bureaucratic civil service, our awful manners and even a little corruption. But I cannot deal with racism in my homeland. I think this is the single biggest factor which is keeping people like myself away. And bear in mind – there are so many of us (researchers, scientists, bankers, economists, lawyers, academics, etc.). What people read about in Malaysia (like Dr Terence Gomez) is but the tiniest tip of the iceberg. You will be amazed to know about Malaysians denied JPA scholarships (which would have made them civil servants), took loans to attend Ivy League universities, but who are later asked to advise our government (on IT, economics, etc.) at fees running to millions of US dollars. Such information will never be published because it is politically incorrect. As a Christian, I pray for God’s blessing on this great country of ours. I pray that He blesses our leaders with the foresight and humanity to see that this will not work and cannot continue. I pray that they will have the strength to make our country.

Call upon the State Goverment to degazett the 6000 parking lots immediately - September 4, 2006

Call upon the State Government to degazett the 6000 parking lots immediatelyThe Majlis Bandaraya Ipoh (MBI) scheduled implementation of the new coupon parking system on 1/9/06 has now been postponed to the 16th September06. The reason given by the MBI for the postponement is to restudy the areas where the coupon parking system would be implemented. The MBI is concerned with the wide objections by many quarters to the new coupon parking system. Many of the new lots proposed are in and around residential areas, new villages and non-commercial areas and this is an unnecessary inconvenience and a financial burden to residents.The DAP and also all its elected MP’s and Assemblyman have demanded the MBI should restudy and or cancel the proposed implementation of the new parking system. As this stand is what the ratepayers of Ipoh want and a popular issue some MCA and Gerakan assemblyman are also agreeing with our views. The MCA assemblymen for 1) Tebing Tinggi 2) Tronoh and Gerakan assemblyman for Canning Garden and the appointed MCA councilors of the MBI are also asking the MBI to restudy the implementation of the new coupon parking system. This assemblyman and local councilors “cannot blow hot and cold at the same time”. 1) Why did both political parties agree to the gazette of the new parking lots? When the MBI increase the gazette parking lots from 6000 to 12,000 why did the MCA and Gerakan politicians agree to the proposal? If they had objected to the increase of gazette parking lots from 6000 to 12,000 we would not be facing this issue. Thus the best option is to degazett the new 6000 parking lots.2) MCA Assemblyman supporting the new parking coupon system. We take it the other MCA assemblyman in the Kinta Valley area namely in the constituency of 1) Buntong 2) Kepayang 3) Simpang Pulai who are silent on this issue as agreeing to the implementation of the new coupon parking system.3) MCA and Gerakan -What is your policy, principle and stand on the issue of new parking coupon system ? Some assemblyman and appointed councilors are objecting to the new system while others are silent. We see an inconsistency on their policy, principle and stand on this issue. Don’t mislead the people. For political support the MCA and Gerakan are with the people by objecting to the coupon system. But they also owe an explanation as to why they agreed initially to the new 6000 parking lots?We challenge the MCA and the Gerakan to summon an emergency full board meeting of the MBI and cancel the new 6000 gazetted parking lots. Has the MCA and the Gerakan the political will to do this? Or they are just objecting as a way to divert and cover up the wrongs they have done by in the first place agreeing to the extension of the gazette parking lots from 6000 to 12,000? If the appointed councilors were unable to undo their mistake the best would be for them to honorably resign.We also ask all ratepayers to phone and ask their 22 appointed councilors to act in the interest of the ratepayers by 1) canceling the proposed new coupon parking system 2) take immediate steps to degazett the 6000 parking lots which are in residential or new villages areas or not in commercial areas and are out of the inner city area. Further the State Urban and Local Government Committee Chairman Datuk Chang should undo the grave mistake of the appointed councilors have done by agreeing with the MBI masters for the extension of gazetted parking lots from 6000 to 12,000. The other 2 exco-members from MCA should also raise this matter on 6/9/06 that is the next Perak exco-meeting and persuade the state government to degazett the 6000 lots.It also quiet clear that the MBI is interested in increasing its parking revenue. It now receives about RM250,000 a month. Datuk Bandar has confirmed that collection of parking monies will increase by an extra RM2million with the introduction of the coupon parking system. But this should not be the criteria. The Menteri Besar (MB)of Perak has said this “we are not supposed to make money from parking. The rates are supposed to discipline people so that they don’t park too long”. So what are the MBI masters and the 22 appointed councilors up to?

MBI - Parking Bay - August 28, 2006

MBI urged to postpone the proposed scratch and display system as the new parking charges and to implement it only when a full and through study is made by an expert independent who has full knowledge on the parking meters.

The Majlis Bandaraya Ipoh( MBI) has now confirmed that the scratch and display system as the new parking charges would be implemented as from 1st September2006. Total gazette parking bays in the Ipoh City area is 12,000. Presently the coin slotting parking system is operative in only 6000 parking bays in the city area. The MBI now wants to expand its coverage to all the balance 6000 parking lots and these areas are Tambun, Bercham, Menglembu, Ipoh Jaya and other areas. Almost all the proposed new 6000 parking bays are located not in the inner city area but in areas near to residential houses. As it is this parking bays are not frequently used. The proposed minimum charge in the scratch and display system is 30sen for 30 minutes. This charge is higher then in the inner city where it’s only 10sen for 10 minutes under the present coin slotting system. In fact in the residential areas parking charges should be cheaper then in the inner city area which is supposed to be busier. Many rate payers from out side the inner city area have called us to complain on the proposed new parking system which is unfair and unreasonable to them. We welcome the recent statement by the Perak Menteri Besar(MB) who said that “we are not supposed to make money from parking. The rates are supposed to discipline people so that they don’t park too long” . In this respect we feel the MBI’s new scratch and display system is definitely contrary to the statement of the Menteri Besar. It looks like the MBI is more interested in increase its revenue. The MBI has provided the following information on the parking income for the year 2006 as follows.

2006 MONTH TOTAL AMOUNT RM
January 229,000.00

February 233,000.00

Mac 276,000.00
April 209,000.00
May 209,000.00

June 238,000.00

July 231,000.00

On 24August06 in a written reply to YB Keong Meng Sing(Menglembu) the MBI have reiterated that the parking revenue would be increasing with the increase in coverage area. We demand that the MBI take heed of the MB’s advice. Increasing parking revenue should be secondary and priority should be the comfort and convenience of the ratepayers. The MBI must seriously reconsider the proposed scratch and display system as the new parking charges in and around residential areas. Fake CouponsOn the issue of fake coupons the Dato Bandar has mentioned that “council enforcement officers would be equipped with scanning devices to detect fake coupons”. The Dato Bandar should realize that in other local councils which have the scratch and display system fake coupon could not be detected and arrested easily. Thus what can be done to overcome fake coupons is to install hologram in the coupons which is hard to fake. One hologram costs nearly 30sen- but this is expensive and not practical. Thus it’s almost impossible to check a fake coupon. We feel enough study has not been done by the MBI to ascertain and confirm whether MBI would be making a loss eventually in the proposed scratch and display system. Some more then 10 years ago the MBI had introduced the “Pay and display system” in some parts of Ipoh. Why was this done away? This system is similar to the present system in many ways. Littering would be a big problem with the scratch and display system as the new parking charges. What strategies have the MBI has to contain this littering? The scratch coupon is costlier then the punch hole coupon, which is the type used in Singapore. This punch hole system has more security features and thus will prevent fraud then the scratch and display coupons system.MBI full board meetingWe urge the 22 appointed local councilors to speak out at its full board meeting tomorrow. The councilors must ask the MBI to postpone the scratch and display system as the new parking charges and to implement it only when a full through study is made by an expert independent who has full knowledge on the parking meters. The study must be made public. DAP representatives and ratepayers would be present at the full board meeting to hear the appointed councilors articulate on behalf of the ratepayers. The DAP is disturbed. We feel this new parking system need to be re looked and restudied before its implemented fully. We are given to understand that the MBI had conducted a public study on the new parking system. Apparently the scratch and display system as the new parking charges could work well together with the existing coin slotting system. The rate payers of Ipoh are interested to know who conducted this study. What is the cost? What has been learnt and implemented? Finally when will this report be made public?

Panel Code and CPC amendment - August 27, 2006

KUALA LUMPUR, IPS: Malaysia’s parliament has passed a set of amendments to the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code that even some highly critical opposition lawmaker’s say are “fantastic and phenomenal” for bettering citizen’s fundamental rights over police powers.

The changers are part fulfillment of Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi’s election pledge to reform society and promote transparency, accountability and human rights.

However human rights activists and lawyers say translating the “fantastic” legal changes into everyday police procedures to protect and promote the individuals human rights is a major challenge.

The wide ranging amendments, in the making for two years, were done after consultations with 67 NGOs and 35 individuals, most of them being human rights activists.

The amendments infuses human rights principles into the criminal justice system, curtails police powers of arrest and detention and gives detainees more rights to see family, hear the charges, call a lawyer and even refuse to confess.

“We were several decades behind other countries in humanizing our laws. But now we have made the necessary legal changes,” said opposition lawmaker M. Kulasegaran.

“The challenge now is to make it work,” he told IPS.

“The vast majority of the proposed changes are positive improvements over the current position. The Bar Council commends and congratulates the Select Committee for introducing these progressive changes,” said Bar Council president Mr Yeo Yang Poh.

Under the changes police must inform an arrested person the reasons for the arrest.

The person has reasonably and immediate right to contact family, friends or legal counsels.

The taking of cautioned statements that was often done under duress or inducement has been abolished outright.

Detention period has been limited from a flat two-week to a graded system according to the severity of the alleged offense.

Magistrates have been given powers to inquire and record reasons for detention and other statements from detained persons.

Police powers to search detained people have been curtailed, tightened and divided into four categories namely, pat down, strip, intimate and intrusive.

Intimate search requires presence of a senior officer and intrusive search can only be done by medical personnel.
Besides promoting human rights, other legal changes introduce new offences to better protect women and children.

A new Section 375 makes it an offence for a person in authority to use his position to have sexual relations with a woman. It will be considered as having committed rape.

Another section 375A provides for a five-year jail term for any man who “hurts the wife or puts her in fear of death, or of being hurt, with a view of having sex.”

Rape is punished with 20 years in jail with a minimum provision of five years.

Rape that leads to the death of the victim is punished with not less than 15 years’ jail and a maximum of 30 years and whipping by cane.

The changes were proposed by a Parliamentary Select Committee that Mr Abdullah created a year after coming to office. The committee toured the country inviting public comments in a transparent way before making the changes.

While welcoming the changes lawyers also voiced their fears that the government has also introduced “sweeping” amendments to fight “terrorism” in a country where terrorism is and has never been a serious public issue.

The changes allow police to intercept communication between suspected terrorist and arrest suspects without a warrant.

A ‘terrorist act’ is loosely defined as an action done with the “intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.”

Critics say major changes protecting human rights is good but worry that other draconian laws like the Terrorism Act and Internal Security Act (ISA), that allows for detention without trial, remain and is a threat to fundamental liberties.

“The power granted under the terrorism provisions are similar to the ISA law,” said Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, president of the opposition Peoples Justice Party.

“Under the ISA, the police have been granted absolute powers that have resulted in thousands of people being detained on suspicious ground for threatening national security. We have many evidences that the ISA has been abused,” Dr Wan Azizah said.

While more legal changes are needed to protect individual liberties, lawyers said, the challenge now is to make the changes work at every level.

“The danger is that these changes that promote human rights might just sit in shelf and the old ways of arrest first and investigate later would continue,” said lawyer S. Sivanesan, senior leader in the opposition Democratic Action Party or DAP.

“The law might have changed but the police mindset has not changed,” he said.” They will stick with the old ways.”

Lawyers are urging the government not to have the legal changes “will work by itself” attitude but to actively publicize the benefits of the amendments.

They say corruption, police obstinacy and public ignorance will defeat a good set of laws.

“We need to retrain the police and create a new mindset within the force to respect human rights,” Sivanesan told IPS.

Above all lawyers want to see that the new rules for arrest and detention are enforced in the police force and offenders adequately punished.

“We urgent need an independent oversight committee to check and balance abuses in the police force,” said another lawyer K. Uthayakumar who heads a campaign to set up a permanent oversight committee to check the police force.

“The police force is one institution that is most resistance to change,” he said adding it is the government’s duty to enforce change and not delay any longer setting up an oversight committee.

The government has promised to set up an oversight committee after two commissions of inquiry into the police force recommended such an organisation but the take off has been delayed because of stringent opposition from the police force.

Amendment to the legal profession act - July 2, 2006

The Malaysian Bar is governed by the Legal Profession Act 1976(LPA). The objects and the powers and the purpose of the of the Malaysian Bar are inter alia : -

(a) to uphold the cause of justice without regard to its own interests or that of its members, uninfluenced by fear or favour;

(b) to maintain and improve the standards of conduct and learning of the legal profession in Malaysia;

(c) to facilitate the acquisition of legal knowledge by members of the legal profession and others; (d) where requested so to do, to express its view on matters affecting legislation and the administration and practice of the law in Malaysia; etc

The Malaysian Bar is an Independent Bar which is dedicated in providing continuing legal education, information about the law, programs to assist lawyers and judges in their work, and initiatives to improve the legal system for the public and serving the public and the profession by promoting justice, professional excellence and respect for the law.

Many of the proposed amendments on the LPA are overdue for a long time. The proposal to reduce the Annual General Meeting (AGM) quorum from the present 20% of the total membership to 500 members is most welcome. The present membership of the Bar is more then 12,000. In the past, many AGM’s had to be adjourned due to the stringent and ridiculous requirement of 20% of the total membership for a valid AGM. Section 46(1)A of the LPA is now proposed to be repealed. Many cases have been filed in court to challenge this provision but were unsuccessfull. Young lawyers of the Bar (those below 7 years of practice at the Bar) have been advocating for this provision to be repealed for a long time. Last year a few meetings were held between the Bar and the present defacto Law minister which has now cumulated to these amendments. With this proposed amendment, the requirement that a person must be or has been an adovacate and solicitor for a period of not less then 7 years in order to be eligible for a membership of the Bar Council or a Bar Committee is removed.

How ever the government has not gone far enough in the proposed amendments. For example the failure to delete the restrictive provision of Section 46(1) B and C of LPA. As it stands Section 46(1) B, and C bars a person who is either an elected member of House of Parliament or state assembly or any one who holds office in a trade union or any political party. This provision is unfair and undemocratic. Lawyers are mature and should be given their right to elect who they feel who can articulate for them. This section is archive and is out dated provision which the government should have the foresight to do away with.

Admission as an Advocate and Solicitor in special Cases

The recent application of Cherie Blair the wife of the Prime Minister of Britain to appear as lead counsel in the Malaysian courts was dismissed. Tun Ahmad Fairuz the Chief Justice acknowledged that Cherie Blair had the special qualifications or experience as required by section 18 of the act. But however on the issue of local expertise under section 18(1)(b) the court said there such experts were available in Malaysia and thus disallowed Cherie Blair to appear in out Malaysian Courts. Cherie is a Barrister and a Queen Counsel. She is also a Recorder( a permanent part time judge) and Chancellor of Liverpool John Moores University and governor of London school of Economics and the Open University. She sspecializing in human rights law, public and private law public international law, in this capacity has sometimes represented claimants taking cases against the UK government.With the above credentials it’s a real surprise Cherie was disallowed to appear for her clients in Malaysia. A total policy of non interference in choosing one’s lawyer should be the rule of the day. Why should the LPA or the Courts decide who best or which lawyer is the best that can and should represent a litigant? A total review of Section 18 is required. In fact this provision is out dated in the modern era of globalization section 18 is untenable.

The English Guardian newspaper noted that the last time Cherie Blair had been in Kuala Lumpur, more than 1,000 luminaries of the local legal establishment queued to hear her deliver a lecture about the role of the judiciary, an event organized by a leading member of the country’s royal family.

In fact if Cherie had been allowed to appear in Malaysian Courts this would have enhanced the image and confidence in the Judiciary. By disallowing a foreign lawyer who is competent to appear and argue her clients case is definitely sending wrong signals to the legal fraternity and the public at large. The decision of our apex court ia repugnant and unacceptable in dispensing justice. Where and what justice is there for litigants to engage any lawyer they want?

Besides the Malaysian public also lost an oppourtunity to get close to the British first lady. Malaysia cold have exploited the immense publicity she generates. Toursim Malaysia lost a chance, so did the country’s best hotels and shopping centers. If we had allworked together we could have used her presence to enhance Malaysia’s international profile. We have missed a golden opportunity because of narrow thinking on our bench.

Need to establish a Permanent Judicial Commission

The present system of selection, appointment and promotion of Judges is neither transparent nor accountable. Also the present system can be manipulated. We need an open system where all judicial selection, appointments, promotion and transfer of Judges can easily be ascertained and verified.

Former Attorney General Tan Sri Abu Talib has even said in a recent interview in Mingguan Malaysia I quote “saya ada diminta memberikan pandangan mengeni beberapa orang yang dicadang mahu dilantik sebagai hakim, dan lepas saya memberi pandangan, mereka itu tidak jadi dilantik. Tetapi apakala saya bersara nampaknya mereka ini telah dilantik dan sekarang menduduki tempat yang sangat tinggi” English translation- “I was asked for my views on several persons to be appointed as judges, and after I gave my views they were not selected. After I retired they have been appointed as Judges some even occupying top levels in the Judiciary.

The statement by Abu Talib is shocking and disturbing. The Government must state who are this Judges and why they were selected? What special situations have changed for those who were disapproved were then selected when Abu Talib retired. The confidence in the Judiciary would be drastically eroded unless an open and frank disclosure of all selection appointmen and promotion of Judges is disclosed.

In America they have the Wisconsin Judicial Commission which applies in all the states. Their task is to enforce high standards of Judicial behavior, both on and off the bench, without compromising judicial independence. They strive to maintain public confidence in the judiciary by providing a forum for the expeditious and fair disposition of complaints of judicial misconduct and disability.

Allegations of impropriety by Malaysian Judges are in the air again. In recent days there has been much discussion on whether the Malaysian Judiciary has been tainted by corruption. Even a former judge Syed Idid came forward to mentioned that he forwarded a petition in 1996 to the then Chief Justice(Tun Mohd Eussof Chin). In the petition 12 Judges were said to be involved in corruptive practice. Of the 12, some are still serving as Judges in the country. Syed Idid was eventually forced to resign as a Judge and consequently lost his pension and said be became an “invisible man to many”

Tun Eussof Chin when commenting on the above allegation said the matter was extensively investigated by the ACA. The former Attorney General the late Mokthar Addullah had said Syed Ahmads accusations were baseless and warranted no further action. Present defacto Law Minister Dato Seri Nazri agreed with Eussof Chin and reiterated “there was no need to probe further”. How ever Tan Sri Abu Talib is on record to have said that the allegations were never properly investigated. Syed Idid has further mentioned that when he met Abdullah( former AG) in 2000 he asked Abdullah “was there a pistol at your neck when you did what you did to me” Abdullah replied “No, it was a cannon”

The people have a right to know now who are the 12 names mention in the letter. Have they retired, or were they prompted, are they sitting on the Federal Court, if so how is their conduct? These are issues od great public interest and the government is bound to explain perhaps in the form of a white paper. The allegations have cast a big and dark cloud over the judiciary, the government must act now to clear the doubts.

Mr.Speaker, we inherited a great judiciary upon independence, names like Raja Azalan Shah now HRH Sultan Perak, tun Suffian ,Eusofee Aboolcader, Peh Swee Chin, and many more were held in high esteem. The people were proud of them and venerated them. Today the people hold our Judiciary in contempt. They sneer at the very mention of the court. Allegations that Judges can be bought have appeared in newspapers and astonishingly nothing is done. No investigation. In fact responsible judges and minister rush to scream “case closed” don’t open it. Is this behavior that will build confidence or further erode the confidence people should have in the judiciary.
Who is speaking and telling the truth? To get to the bottom of all this allegations which have tarnished the Judiciary it’s only appropriate if a Royal Commission of Inquiry is establish to fully investigate the allegations of wrong doings in the Judiciary. The setting up if the Commission would throw into light the wrongs if any and mechanism could be found to address the mistakes. Failure to set up a commission would only result in the man in the street to think the government of the day has some thing to hide,

Water Bill - The Great Leap Backward - May 8, 2006

The Water Bills is “A Great Leap Backward” for Malaysia. The two Water Bills will compromise our national sovereignty, does not provide the highest level of consumer protection and has no regards for the management of water catchment areas, upstream of water intake and the water treatment plants. Furthermore it will cost Malaysians RM100 billion without any guarantee of access to safe, affordable water in adequate quantities. Contrary to what the Minister says, the Malaysian water sector is highly profitable. Lembaga Air Perak made RM50 million profit, Penang, RM50 million, Terengganu, RM77 million, and Kelantan RM70. Therefore, water is a profitable sector and the Bills allows for a back door privatisation. If oil was the black gold in the 20th century, then water is the blue gold of the 21st century. In future, water will be employed as international trade and investment agreements to control its flow.If the Minister is serious about not privatizing water – make it into law and many problems will be solved. Malaysia aspires to be a developed nation in 2020, yet this government is unable to guarantee that water is an entitlement to its citizens. It is universally accepted that water is a basic necessity and a Human Right. Many countries in the world including the Netherlands and Uruguay have made laws by Parliaments that have ensured that water is provided by the state and privatisation is illegal. Institut Kefahaman Islam Malaysia (IKIM) noted, “Water consumption in fast-industrialising Malaysia rose 8% a year between 1981 and 2001. Water consumption will increase by 4% between 2003 and 2010. On the other hand, the sources of fresh water will become critical due to intensive urbanisation, deforestation, water diversion and the leaching of waste material from industrial discharge and industrial farming into the river.All major religions emphasise the importance of water as life – giving. These religions emphasis that water cannot be treated as a commodity and provided on a commercial basis. Water is a gift from God and is to be shared among all. IT is not a product that is created by humans. Seventy-five per cent of the human body comprises water. It is a medically and scientifically proven fact that water is essential to life and healthy living. In fact, IKIM also states that, “Islam ascribes the most sacred qualities to water. It is a source of life, of sustainability and purity.”If water is privatized, which the WSI 2006 Bill provides for, then water will be delivered only to those who are able to pay for it. As such the public will have to spend and suffer more due to the increase in their cost of living.Malaysia plans to spend up to RM100 billion (half the cost of the 9th Malaysia Plan) over the next 45 years to build new infrastructure and refurbishment in the water supply and sewerage sector. The water and sewerage sector has been neglected by the government in their failure to invest, upkeep and maintain periodically the water and sewerage infrastructure. Furthermore, the Bills are so flawed that they will not address the fundamental problems in the water and sewerage sector. Thus, the problems in the water and sewerage sector are voluntarily self – inflicted by “Napoleon’s with eyes wide open.” The Barisan Nasional government cannot claim that it is not responsible for the current problems. The Barisan Nasional government is the cause of these problems. We thank the Minister for his openness in engaging civil society through the more than 50 so called public consultations. However, out of the 350 recommendations from civil society and various industry groups, only 3 minor changes were accepted. Leaders of civil society are crying foul that the Minister is not working in tandem with the demands of the Prime Minister’s call for the Rakyat to work with him and not for him. It appears that the Minister only works for himself and his interest. What has happened to the other recommendations? A detailed explanation is required from the Minister on why only these three recommendations were taken and not the others. During the so called intellectual discourse with civil society, the Minister had mentioned repeatedly that he wanted to leave a legacy through an excellent Water Services Industry Bill. However, the Minister and the Ministry’s action and conduct to date have been nothing but a let down to the water sector and consumers in this country. The only legacy that the Minister will leave is the whole sale legalized sell-out of the Malaysian water sector to foreigners and thus Malaysia’s Great Leap Backward to colonial times.

Issues of National Sovereignty

Mr. Speaker, The Water Services Industry Bill 2006 (WSI) presented by the government today for second reading will endanger national sovereignty and water security in the country. Specifically Malaysia’s international commitments to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), namely the General Agreement on Trade in Services, will compromise Malaysia’s sovereignty and hand over Malaysian water in a silver platter to foreign corporations. This Parliament must not go down in the history of this country as the Parliament that sold our national sovereignty to foreigners. Unfortunately, the most pertinent matter, namely the awarding of license to water operators is solely in the hands of the Minister. The Minister can award the license to anyone in the terms and the conditions that he deems fit. Thus, it does not prevent a fully or majority owned foreign operator to obtain a license to operate the management and supply of water and sewerage in Peninsular Malaysia and the Federal Territory of Labuan. Why nothing is spelt out in the act to ensure that all material time that this essential and strategic sector remains within the power and jurisdiction of the Federal or state government. What Clause 4 is missing is ensuring that this sector is properly is at all material time in the hands of the Federal and/or state hands. The word “Person” is not defined in the WSI Bill 2006. How will the Minister ensure that foreign operators cannot bid for the license? What the average Malaysian worries is that the government will loose control of the water sector as it is forced to give in to international players in this sector as Malaysia has signed the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) which progressively opens up the services sector including the water sector. General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)The Malaysian government’s commitment not to liberalise the water sector is untenable. In the real politics of WTO negotiations, trading off the competitive advantage of one country for another is a key feature. So the YB Minister’s statements don’t hold water. The Malaysian government had similarly made a commitment not to commit any plurilateral undertakings. However, the Minister of International Trade and Industry (MITI) had in the Hong Kong World Trade Organisation (WTO) Ministerial in December 2005 submitted Malaysia to the plurilateral process. The fact of WTO negotiations is such that developing countries like Malaysia and others, very often come under pressure to open up their service sectors, as a ‘trade-off’ for developed countries’ concession in other areas such as agriculture and better market access for industrial goods. Given that Malaysia’s main exports are agriculture (Agreement on Agriculture) and manufacturing products (Non Agricultural Market Access), this ‘trade-off’ can be an extremely powerful tool for industrialised countries to extract services offers in the sectors of their choice. By committing a services sector to liberalisation a WTO Members (such as Malaysia) is legally bound by GATS to provide national treatment and market access to all foreign service suppliers of other Members in that sector. For example, Malaysia has made some commitments in opening its private hospital services. It therefore cannot restrict, for instance, any foreign based medical laboratories from providing electronic diagnostic tests to customers in Malaysia. Furthermore, once a GATS commitment is made, it cannot be withdrawn or modified, unless compensation is given to all Members affected. Therefore, it is important to realise that by making a commitment, a government is effectively “locked” into its schedule, which limits its future policy options. The GATS is essentially about progressive liberalisation. We reiterate that the only manner to ensure that water resources and management remains in the hands of the nation is define the word “person” in the Water Services Industry Bill (WSI) 2006 as “state party” and “fully owned state corporation”We are not against liberalization. However, water is a strategic resource and cannot be owned or managed by foreign corporations. We know for a fact that: The European Commission has made bilateral and plurilateral requests on environmental services including drinking water and sewerage. The European Commission (EC) in its bilateral requests and offer process to Malaysia is entitled: ‘GATS 2000, Request from The EC and its member states to Malaysia’ Water for Human Use and Wastewater management, which includes “Water collection, purification and distribution services through mains. The Mode used is Mode 3, which demands Malaysia to take commitments under Market Access and National Treatment. At the plurilateral level the EU, the United States and 10 other countries have requested the liberalisation of the sewerage sector.In this regards our parliaments and legislature would be potentially reduced to powerless institutions. Elected representatives’ role in charting the future of their nations would essentially be an exercise in futility. In fact, the WTO dispute mechanism would effectively veto power over parliaments and government policies, administrative actions, regulations and rule. The use of multilateral trade rules in undermining government policy making constitutes economic colonization of nation states. If the Bill is passed this Parliament will go down in history as the Parliament that sold out the nation’s sovereignty. The Right to water of the future generations of Malaysians will be perpetually mortgaged. Thus, we parliamentarians, who are duty bound to safeguard the sovereignty of this nation will ensure that water security and national sovereignty will be compromised.Our concern is shared by the Coalition Against Water Privatisation and the

Utusan Malaysia. The “Rencana Pengarang” in Utusan Malaysia on the 4th of May, 2006 stated that:

Di sinilah kita dapat saksikan bahawa tidak semua industri boleh dibuka kepada pasaran dunia walaupun dasar liberalisasi dan globalisasi menuntut tindakan sedemikian…
Tetapi tanpa kajian mendalam pun kita boleh mengesan bahawa liberalisasi dan globalisasi mutlak, tanpa hemah hanya menguntungkan pihak negara-negara maju berbanding negara-negara kecil… Dalam hal ini, kita dapat mengesan bahawa pelbagai pihak di negara-negara lebih maju akan mengenakan tekanan kepada Malaysia untuk membuka industri bekalan air supaya menjadi milik asing… Tetapi kita mesti mengambil berat tentang keutuhan kedaulatan negara bagi melindungi kepentingan nasional dan warganegara. Apabila sesebuah industri dipastikan sebagai strategik, kerajaan mesti bertegas mempertahankannya… Sememangnya pihak asing yang berkepentingan akan mengemukakan hujah-hujah bagi mem pengaruhi rakyat tentang kelebihan liberalisasi dan globalisasi. Tetapi kita pula mesti berhati-hati mematahkan hujah-hujah mereka dengan sentiasa memikirkan kepentingan negara dan rakyat… Andainya kita lemah dalam berhujah dan rakyat pula menerima pemilikan asing terhadap industri strategik, maka kedudukan kedaulatan negara pasti terjejas…

The statement clearly says that Parliamentarians must protect the interest of the country and in this specific case, the sovereignty of the nation and the water security of its people. Therefore the Bill should be amended to protect and promote the interest of the nation.

Issues on resource allocation

The government has indicated that it will spend RM100 billion over the next 45 years in the water and sewerage sector. We support the public sector reforms in the water and sewerage sector to ensure and efficient and effective quality delivery system to meet the rising demands of Malaysian citizens. Furthermore, the long term availability and sustainability of water supply and the conservation of water resources must be of paramount importance. The proposed Bill is silent on water demand management. It does not require the water operators to have a water demand management plan which is standard in all other water bills in developed countries. Water operators are concerned about profitability. However, the government must be concerned about water availability and sustainability. Therefore, it must require that water operators put in place water demand management as in most developed countries. Otherwise, the government will be liable to continue sourcing for new water sources such as the Pahang – Selangor inter – state water transfer project which comes at a tremendous cost, causes serious environmental and social damage and yet not assure water availability in the long term. Other simple and creative ways of sourcing water such as using rain water, making it compulsory for all building to have dual piping, with treated water for drinking and raw water for other use must be introduced.The problem with non revenue water has to be addressed immediately. The main reason for NRW is underinvestment by the Barisan government into the water infrastructure. Negeri Sembilan has the highest NRW at 50% in Peninsular, with Penang having the lowest NRW at 19%. We should have achieved single digit NRW if the government have been pro – active and serious in managing water. The two states where water has been privatized also has dismal NRW, with Johor at 36% and Selangor at 37%.This demonstrates that Penang has most efficient method of managing water. The government’s attempt of privatizing water, as in the case of Syabas and Syarikat Air Johor, has nothing to do with efficiency but rather the transfer of wealth to an appointed private sector player. This is demonstrated by the fact that one director of a privatized water firm earn RM2.2 million and the another director earns RM2.1 million in director’s fees.Will the RM100 billion and the Water Bills be a cure all for the water and sewerage current inadequacies in Peninsular Malaysia? Or will it be another “mumbo – jumbo” experience IWK, Putra and Star LRT?

Issues on environmental protection

The 9th Malaysia Plan provides startling figures on the availability of water for Malaysia. The most frightening figure is for Selangor. The industrial, economic, political and administrative centre of Malaysia will only have 3% water reserves in 2010. With continued uncontrolled logging of forests especially in reserve forests, degazettment and subsequent development of catchment areas, pollution of rivers, the water sources of Peninsular Malaysia are fast depleting. We ask the Minister, is 3% is a safe reserve margin for a state like Selangor, Kuala Lumpur and Putrjaya? The accepted reserve margins are 17%.Why has the reserve amount fallen drastically for Selangor, Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya from 2005 to 2010?The Water Bills do not provide any authority to the Minister to manage the water sources, the catchment areas and the rivers. Can the Minister assure continued safe raw water to the water operators?What has the Ministry done to date to increase the reserve margin?

Source: 9 Malaysia Plan, pg. 386The water catchment areas and rivers are the most important source of raw water for water operators. Yet the Bills give no provision for the Minister to regulate these aspects. The Bills must manage water and sewerage in its totality.

Issues on consumer rights

The various clauses relating to consumer standards are extremely weak. It does not offer the consumer any protection. The various clauses such as the Section 33, Section 41, Section 88 and 89, and Section 68 are extremely weak. The Human Right to Water is denied through Section 88 and 89 which provides automatic disconnection which is both unfair and unreasonable. The draconian act of cutting water supply should not be an option included in the Bills. We cite Rajah Ramachandran - vs - Perbadanan Bekalan Air Pulau Pinang Sdn Bhd. This Water Bills are also a way of saving Indah Water Konsortium. IWK services are governed by local council Act and should not be governed by the Water Bills. This relationship is parasitic one. The technology currently used originated in the 1920s, i.e. the lowest technology levels are currently being used. Our water treatment plants are not built to treat toxicity. Therefore, the water supplied is not guaranteed to be free of toxicity. Below we provide the Clauses, which relate to consumer protection to demonstrate how weakly they are worded, rendering them totally ineffective.

WSI Section 33

A service licensee providing water supply services or sewerage services has a general duty to - (a) deal reasonably with consumers; and (b) adequately address consumer complaintsThis is a very general and fuzzy requirement on the part of the service licensee to consumers.

WSI Section 41
The water distribution licensee shall, when supplying water to any premises, ensure that at the time of supply the quality of water supplied complies with the minimum quality standards as prescribed by the Minister. Water Quality – minimum quality standards as prescribed by the Minister. This statement does not ensure that water quality in Malaysia is of the highest standards.

WSI Section 88 and 89Right to Water is Denied
Section 88 (1) Any sum of money in respect of – water supplied or services rendered in connection with such supply; orthe provision of sewerage services, shall be payable, within thirty days from the date of presentation of the bill, to the service licensee and if such sum is not so paid, the sum shall be recoverable by the service licensee through civil action in court.

Section 89 (1) Subject to subsection (2), a water distribution licensee may – disconnect the supply of water to a consumer by severing the service water pipe or cut off the water supply including the right to reduce the supply of water or pressure of the water supply; andtake such other means as it deems fit and proper.Provides for automatic disconnection of water supply after 30 days. The Bill does not make it mandatory for the water operators to resolve the matter with the consumer such as sending notices, rescheduling payment, providing for flexible payments, etc.

WSI Section 68
“The Commissioners may develop consumer standards on its own initiative or upon recommendation from the Water Forum…” There is no guarantee that the highest consumer standards will be developed.

WSI Section 69Water Forum should eclusively
The Commission shall designate a body to be know as the “Water Forum” for the purposes of this Act by notifying the body in writing, if the Commission is satisfied that – the membership of the body is open to all persons; the body is capable of performing as required under the relevant provisions of this Act; and the body has a written constitution.The Water Forum is open to any “relevant persons”. This creates barriers to civil society is setting best practices and highest standards as they will be confronted by the industry players even at the conceptual stage. Water Forum will be weighted in favour of industry.

SPAN Section 15
There is also no explicit statement that among the functions of the Commissioners is to protect the consumer interest.

2080 Civil Servants Yet To Declare Assets

KUALA LUMPUR, March 29 (Bernama) — Up to Dec 31, a total of 2,080 civil servants have yet to declare their assets, said the Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Abdul Rahman Suliman. The number represents officers being taken disciplinary action or those newly appointed. Replying to Datuk Richard Riot Jaem (BN-Serian) in the Dewan Rakyat Wednesday, he said the asset declaration was made mandatory to ensure and enhance integrity within the civil service. Replying to Datuk Rosli Mat Hassan (BN-Dungun), Abdul Rahman said about 983,784 civil servants had declared their assets, pointing to the fact most civil servants adhered to the requirement. He said, the heads of department are responsible to peruse the declaration and ensure that the public servant had acquired the assets through legal means. While replying to M. Kulasegaran (DAP-Ipoh Barat), he said among the criteria taken into consideration by the heads of department to check on the assets include the financial standing, the method it was procured and the efficiency of the officer involved.
– BERNAMA

Kula vs Samy April 6, 2006

Yesterday while debating the 9th Malaysia Plan among other matters i raised was the fact that the Indian equity stake had dropped from 1.5% to 1.2% and the delay in enhencing the equity stake to 3% by 2020 and not as promised by year 2010 by the government. I was asked as to why I was only blaming the Governments failure in uplifiting the Indian equity participation. To this I retorted that Dato Samy is one the richest man among the Indian community in Malaysia. I also stated that from a letter addressed to the Prime Minister and a copy which was exteded to me it stated the properties of the Minister which are all kept in the Ministers “isteri simpinan”. This is when he BN MP’s started hurling abuses when I mentioned the allege properties Samy is connected to which are a RM5 million house in Ipoh, a public hall in Sg.Siput worth 6million, and a church valued at RM3.8 million at First Garden in Ipoh. To day Dato Samy attended parliament. He normally speaks to me but today he refused even to see me while I was in the house. I was hopping he will clear the air by making a statement in the house as provided for under the Parliament Standing Orders. But when he step out of the House the jouranilist were prevented from putting any questions by his political secretaty on the above allegation to Samy. One journalist even was warned that if she write any thing about the above, a defamation suite would be filed. The political secretary proudly asserted that yesterdays fiasco was not reported in any of the local press as he had phoned and warned the editors of the severe consequence if they disobeyd. In any case all the 3 night Chinese press yesterday TV3 carried the news. Are Ministers above the law? Has Samy declared to the Prime Minister as regards his material assets as required? Will the ACA take necessary action?

Farmers Bercham April 11, 2006

Farming community been given a raw deal by the State Government of Perak. A total of 20 farmers have been farming on state land for more then 20 years on a 20-acre area located near the Bercham area, Ipoh. Also there are some small-scale industries located on this 20 area land. On this farmland the farmers have been cultivating various types of cash crops including fruit trees. To this farmers, farming are the only source of income. But all this is going to change soon. All the farmers and others on the land have got evection notice Unknown to the farmers the whole 20acres was applied to be alienated to the State Secretary (Incorporation) Perak (SSI) in 2003. The state exco approved the alienation of the whole 20 acres to SSI on 2ndJuly03. The purpose of alienation as stated in the approval letter dated 12August03 is that the land is to be converted for housing and small industries. The SSI is a body incorporated as an arm of the state government to hold both movable and immovable properties. To date the public is unaware if any of its business ventures have been successful or it’s just an Ali Baba company. To the best of our knowledge the SSI has no known expertise in the business arena. Without any housing development experience why did the state government alienate this 20 acres of prime land to SSI? Having been alienated this land the SSI like all other government agencies entered into a joint venture with a private company to develop this land. The Prime Minister while delivering his speech on 31stMarch06 in Parliament on the 9thMalaysia Plan had specifically mentioned the importance of agriculture and its expected annual growth rate of 5% per year. In fact RM11.4 billion had been set-aside under this plan to propel the growth of the agriculture sector. This allocation is 70% more then what was allocated under the 8thMalaysia Plan. Having given so much of initiative the Perak state government is just doing the opposite. Most of the 20-acre agricultural land is very near a lime stone hill thus its not very suitable for housing. In fact is dangerous to residents who build houses very near lime stone hills as many people have been killed when lime stone hills give way. To date the state government has not consulted the affected farmers of their views.The local assemblyman in 2003 was YB Tan Chee Meng who is now the assemblyman for Kepayang and a state exco member. The present state assemblyman for Bercham is from the BN-MCA. The question is why did the local assemblyman agree to abandon the farmers in favor of the land to be alienated to the SSI? Both assemblymen must state their stand openly on this issue. We urge both of them to speak in the state assembly sitting tomorrow in urging the state government to drop the proposal to develop the 20-acre agriculture land? The public need answers on the following:

1) Why the SSI failed to consult with the farming people who are residing on the 20-acre land?

2) Will the farmers be provided with alternative land and or compensation?

3) What are the terms and conditions of the joint venture?

4) Who benefits from this deal and how much?

5) Was the choice of the private developer done at arms length?