It is all very well for Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to claim that Malaysia’s system of governance, which is based on moderate Islam, could be copied by other countries, especially Islamic nations.
Najib explained how good and effective governance could deliver the goods and services to the people.
He said, “A good system allows the people to participate in the system, it empowers the people to decide their own destiny.”
Najib delivered his talk at the Global Movement for Justice, Peace and Dignity Conference, in Istanbul, which was recorded by BBC World News.
He said the success of a system was not just about numbers but also about whether it could improve the quality of life, and about good values, ensuring fairness, rule of law, being inclusive, having social safety net and caring for the poor.
“These are the things that we have put in place in Malaysia. So, in this regard, I believe we have something to offer to the world.”
In Najib’s Malaysia, Malay and Muslim are indistinct. The levels of aggression and intolerance shown by some Malays towards non-Malays and non-Muslims have risen. Malays who make racial and religious slurs go unchecked, despite Najib’s promises to eradicate extremism.
Former Prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad rammed through Malaysia’s ambitious modernisation programme and gave Islam a dominant role.
Muslim values, identity and institutions were all important. New links were forged with other Muslim nations.
At the same time, “affirmative action” policies, which were initiated in the 70s projected the Malays into a privileged position in government, education and the bureaucracy.
These affirmative action policies treat non-Muslims as second-class citizens. This new Malaysian identity, based on Islam, changed the character of many of our institutions like the civil service, schools and other institutions.
Swept by the ‘new order’, Muslims became more conservative, influenced perhaps by peer pressure than desire.
Government institutions like the civil service or armed forces, started to shed their non-Malay characteristics, which previously represented a true diverse Malaysia. The imbalance was acute.
How can these affirmative action policies agree with Najib’s assertions that there is fairness, good values, rule of law, being inclusive and all the other criteria he stated?
Moreover, model nations do not prevent freedom of speech and expression and punish those who dare to be different.
To secure Malay votes, Umno pitted itself against PAS in the fight to prove who is more holier than thou.
Malaysians who once thrived in a multicultural society have to observe set guidance on how to behave during non-Muslim religious festivals. Other religions have to compromise their own set of beliefs to fall in line with the Muslim rules of behaviour.
Even if we were to exclude the non-Muslims in the equation, let us observe how Najib’s definition of his model Muslim nation is accepted by the Muslims.
Child marriages are allowed by the state. Beer drinking among the Muslims seems to take precedence over serious cases of incest, underage rape and sexual molestations. Men who want to enter polygamous relationships frequently break the law so they can marry subsequent wives.
Divorced women and their children are not given full protection under syariah law and there is no will to resolve the serious land inheritance laws under Faraid.
Part of the problem is the Fatwa council, which has banned yoga and if possible might even want to ban our thoughts.
Muslims in this so called model nation is subject to two sets of laws. One glaring example of the depths of this problem is in the case of rape of underage children. They are tried under civil law and not syariah law.
If it were under syariah law, how does one find the four witnesses to the act? In most cases, it is highly probable that the victims will be charged for being complicit. Even when tried under civil law, there is still no justice for the child as the rapist receives mild sentences.
The constitution says that all Malaysians have religious freedom but non-Muslims are subject to a lesser version of the constitution.
For secular liberals, this “Islamisation” of Malaysian society and politics eroded our once-liberal traditions.
The NGO called Sisters in Islam, which seeks to defend women’s rights within the framework of Islam is given a hard time by the more extremist elements in the country.
Does Najib think all of the above describe a model nation?
Najib said that the next stage of the transformation was to become a high-income nation.
He will not achieve this because he is highly obsessed with chasing numbers and image
.Former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad is strongly opposed to the idea of highway nationalisation.
However, PLUS Expressways Bhd has received approval from its shareholders on a RM23bil takeover bid by major shareholders United Engineers Malaysia (UEM) and the Employees Provident Fund (EPF). This would result in the delisting of PLUS while paving the path for the government to solve the problem of increasing toll charges.
The UEM group is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Khazanah Nasional Berhad, and the EPF is one of the government investment arms. It will be much more convenient for them to discuss how to modify the contract behind closed doors. Also, the government would no longer have to worry about the increase in toll charges every three years. It is a big headache as raising charges might cause public discontent, while maintaining charges requires the government to pay heavy compensation.
Although Mahathir has championed and defended the privatisation policy implemented during his term of office, it is undeniable that the country and the people are still paying the price for his arbitrary and wrong decisions, and the government does not know how to deal with the problems created and left behind by him.
Privatisation was a trend during the 1980s, with Japan being a good example of a country which had achieved great success with it.
However, I believe that no privatisation policy in the world is like that in Malaysia, where the contracts often benefit the private companies instead of the government.
For example, the contract stated that the government must pay compensation if the traffic flow does not reach a certain volume. The government is the loan guarantor of the project, and also provides low-interest loans. If a project fails, the government will have to take over the company involved. Some examples are Perwaja Steel Sdn Bhd, Indah Water Konsortium Sdn Bhd and the Light Railway Transit (LRT) companies. So far, the government has spent RM11 billion to bail out seven privatisation companies which were mismanaged and had financial difficulties.
According to Mahathir, there is no free lunch in the world, and thus, users have to pay. So far, however, no officer has admitted liability and responsibility for the financial fiasco, but the government has used national resources to clean up the mess.
If the projects succeed, the entrepreneurs make big money; if the projects fail, they just leave them to the government. Who would support such kind of privatisation arangement?
In comparison, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak's Economic Transformation Programme (ETP) is more pragmatic, and beneficial to the country and the people.
The Performance Management and Delivery Unit (Pemandu) in the Prime Minister's Department is responsible to draw up workable development and business plans and members of the private sector are encouraged to invest. Whether the plans succeed or not, the private companies, instead of the government, would have to take the responsibility.
Another burden of the country is the domestic vehicle programme. The national car maker is still unable to drive smoothly on its own, and needs to be supported by the people even it has been established for almost 30 years.
If Mahathir had not promoted nationalism and provided incentives to attract foreign investors to set up the local vehicle assembly plants, Thailand would not have become the vehicle manufacturing centre of the region today.
The national cars are not cheap, while foreign cars are expensive because of taxes. Two generations have been bearing the "car debts" for national cars. When would it end?
If the national cars could not be exported, they could always rely on the domestic market. If the market is not opened up, Proton can never find a foreign partner. What else can Proton do other than buying a design from Japanese car maker Mitsubishi for its new car Inspira?
As it is better to just get it over with, rather than prolong the agony, the government must cut off from the failed policies implemented during the Mahathir administration and pursue its own way.
As a Saudi national was about to be arrested for an alleged plot in Texas to assassinate former President Bush, and weeks after the horrible shooting spree that left 6 dead and a congresswoman seriously wounded, Georgia Congressman Paul Broun reportedly chuckled after a constituent asked, "Who's going to shoot Obama." He then stated:
The thing is, I know there's a lot of frustration with this president. We're going to have an election next year. Hopefully, we'll elect somebody that's going to be a conservative, limited-government president that will take a smaller, who will sign a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare.
Only after a national firestorm and Secret Service attention to his constituent, did Broun's office state what the Congressman should have said at the time:
I deeply regret that this incident happened at all. Furthermore, I condemn all statements - made in sincerity or jest - that threaten or suggest the use of violence against the President of the United States or any other public official. Such rhetoric cannot and will not be tolerated.
Congressman Broun's initial mishandling of the event needs to be examined in context. He is not merely a harsh critic of the President. He is something more (or in this case less)--someone who demonizes and deligitimizes the democratically elected head of state, as someone who deserves not just disagreement, but suspicion or contempt, if not downrightaggression.
On November 10, 2008 Broun had this to say about the President-elect's national service corps--an idea shared by President Bush:
That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did. When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist.
Broun also stated. "I don't know" when asked whether or not President Obama was an American citizen or a Christian, but did opine that he is a Socialist. He also talked about how the President's policies would kill old people.
The Christian Science Monitor counted six incidents in the last year (I excluded Congresswoman Giffords attack by a deranged gunman) where politics turned into bona fide violence or threats. Broun apparently belongs to a political subgroup on the right (and there were those like it on the left against President Bush) that stoke the fires against the President not just on the merits or deficits of his policies, but rather on sheer demonization as well. Many conservatives, including Karl Rove, Rudy Guilliani and John McCain reject such tactics (See videos below). But other's like Broun embrace it. Broun only backtracks once he is exposed and the immediate political costs outweigh the benefits.
The problem is that when political leaders who should know better embrace exhortations to violence, "sucession," guns at town halls, "Second Amendment remedies," or bizarre tactical falsehoods like those of 9/11 truthers or birther conspiracists, they not only connect with their base, they green light extremists who see our elected officials and the institutions they inhabit as legitimate targets for contempt or even aggression. To be sure we must protect free speech, as the Supreme Court held in Terminiello v. Chicago, 373 U.S. 1 (1949), "a function of free speech under our system is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger." Even at a time of great national division, when almost one in five folks say that both President Bush and Obama are, or could be the anti-Christ, elected officials should still responsibly stir constituents to action--even anger as part of an effort to make positive change. To be sure Conservatives have many important arguments that strike a chord with millions of Americans and those positions need to be fully examined in the marketplace of ideas. However, a Congressman who seemingly tolerates with a chuckle the assassination of our sitting head of state, does something else and should be condemned for it across the political spectrum.
Prof. Brian Levin on MSNBC "Hardball" with Chris Matthews, Feb. 25, 2011
John McCain's Dignified Position on Political Disagreement With Mr. Obama
No comments:
Post a Comment