Wednesday 21 April 2010

Honour Among Thieves - The BN's "social contract"

Art Harun has come up with this well written piece debunking the "social contract" as Umno defines it, and the apparent compromise of the "Malays" with the "nons" (which is actually far from the truth).

Good one, Art - more has to be done to discredit the so called "social contract" as per BN's definition.

I used to write a lot on the "social contract" a couple of years ago and was ridiculed for the things I said.

As far as I'm concerned, it was more of a agreement among thieves- Brits included. At least the Brits helped develop a good system which ran on autopilot after "independence" and died for it on the beaches of Normandy on D-Day...

The the BN pirates only sat pretty, hijacked the system and took the credit of "independence" for themselves - while the real fighters were erased from the history books.

I really hope more people will take on the Umno goons and Mahathir cronies on this matter - and Pakatan Rakyat is doing nothing about it!

Bravo!! Keep at it, Art!!


Tuesday, April 20, 2010

The Bastardisation of the "Social Contract" - part 1

In "The Social Contract - correcting the misconceptions", I have sought to explain what the social contract is all about.

I do not want to repeat what I had written before. However, I wish to revisit several salient points about the social contract.

Social contract is a legal theory or concept. It does not exist in reality. It is a branch of legal, social or even political philosophy. This theory seeks to explain or rationalise why we, human beings, would band together and form a State.

It also seeks to rationalise why we would then agree to surrender our liberty, freedom and the ability to do whatever we like to the State when we, the human beings, were all born free and by our nature do not like to be restricted and constrained.

The philosophers surmised that we do so because we by nature are social creatures. We do so because we want to live together as a society. Furthermore, we do so because the State promises us some benefits. In fact we expect the State to give us the benefits that we want. That is why we surrender or agree to surrender some of our freedom, liberty and free will to the State.

That is why, in theory, we do what we do.

However, it is not a one way or unilateral agreement. There is supposed to be an exchange of promises between us, the people, and the State. For example, we promise not to steal and if we steal we promise to abide by the law which would send us to prison. In return, the State promises to protect our property from being stolen by other people.

That is the social contract as a legal theory.

In reality, that social contract does not exist, in writing or otherwise.

Now, the social contract which is so much talked about in Malaysia is a bastardisation of the theory of the social contract. Why do I say so?

It is simple. The theory of social contract postulates an agreement between the people of a State and the State. However the social contract which is so well loved by some people in Malaysia is a supposed agreement between the respective leaders of the three major communities among themselves which happened prior to our independence.

That in itself is the hijacking of the theory of social contract.

Apparently, the three community leaders met to decide the whole future of Malaysia before and after independence. And what they had agreed would bind all of us till kingdom come.

Apparently too, the Malay leader was generous enough to confer citizenship to the non-Malays who were not qualified for citizenship.

The two non-Malay leaders, out of sheer gratitude to the Malays (who were represented by the said Malay leader) for doing so, agreed that the Malays should have "special rights." These special rights were then spelt out in the Federal Constitution.

This brings the oft-repeated argument that the Malays have sacrificed a lot in agreeing to "grant" citizenships to the non-Malays who were otherwise "not qualified" to gain one. Therefore the non-Malays should respect the Malay's special "rights".

Over the years, these special rights were apparently challenged by the non-Malays, and even by some Malays themselves. So, according to some people, this is unacceptable. This is unconstitutional. This constitutes a breach of the so called social contract.

What does history show us about this bastardised version of the social contract?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd), while debating our Independence Bill reported to the British Parliament:

"There were extreme views on the part of some sections of Malayan* (*I think when he said "Malayan", he was in fact referring to the Malays) opinion which are opposed to any political advance on the part of the Chinese people in Malaya. There were equally strong views held by some of the Chinese population demanding absolute jus soli citizenship for anybody born in the Federation and the complete abolition of any distinction between the races.

The constitutional Commission had to find a solution which would work and which would find general acceptance, and in our view it has fully succeeded in its task. The present Federation Constitution represents a genuine compromise worked out between differing sectors. The citizenship proposals, I believe, are a triumph of good sense and tolerance, amidst widely conflicting views, and I believe that the balance struck between Malay and Chinese has been found to he a wise balance.

There are solid guarantees of fundamental liberties to meet Chinese fears of discrimination, with reasonable arrangements to safeguard the special position of the Malayans without injustice to other races. I am conscious that these two aspects of the settlement arouse particular interest in the House, and I hope that I may be forgiven if I devote a moment or two to those two most important matters.

Now, a word about the balance achieved between the rights of Malays and Chinese. The special position of the Malays was recognised in the original treaties made by His Majesty in previous years, and Her Majesty Queen Victoria and others with the Malay States. It was reaffirmed when these treaties were revised. It was confirmed in the 1948 Agreement, and reference was expressly made to it in the terms of reference of the Reid Commission. So the Malay privilege clauses in the articles of the Constitution do not, in the main, introduce any precedent, but give recognition in the Constitution to the existing situation. Most hon. Members will, I think, know something of what these privileges are

As I said, I believe that a fair balance has been struck between the interests of Malays and Chinese, and I indicated how the special position of Malays enshrined in the new Constitution did not create a precedent because it had been provided for in very many other treaties and arrangements. I was about to say what form these special privileges had taken. In most States in Malaya, there are extensive Malay reservations of land. Elsewhere in States, there are systems of quota for admissions to the public service, a certain proportion having to be Malays. There are quotas for permits or licences to carry on certain businesses. There is preferential treatment for Malays in the granting of scholarships and bursaries and, generally, in education.

The Reid Commission found very little opposition in any quarter in Malaya to the continuance of the present system for a time, and it made certain recommendations which hon. Members will have read. The Alliance Government—this was accepted by the three parties composing the Alliance—wanted a number of changes, which have been made. They relate mostly to quotas in the public service, to permits, scholarships, and land reservations. Very generally, the proposal to review the quotas after fifteen years has been dropped. The responsibility of the High Commissioner is transferred to the Head of State, but—and it is a genuine safeguard for other races—the Head of State will act on the advice of the Cabinet, and the Cabinet is bound to be sensitive to the feeling of public opinion at any time."

Yes, there was indeed a compromise by the various communities. And there was, at the end of the day, "a triumph of good sense and tolerance, amidst widely conflicting views." Meanwhile, "the balance struck between Malay and Chinese has been found to be a wise balance."

It should be noted that the special positions of the Malays had always been recognised by the British from day one. These have been specified in various treatises. And there were recognised in the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948, an agreement which preceded our independence.

All that the Reid Commission did was to continue to give cognisant to those special positions. There were no new position or right added as part of a compromise. To say therefore that citizenships were offered to the non-Malays in exchange of those special positions were not accurate. That is because those positions were already there and recognised from day one.

It is also wrong for anybody to say that the granting of citizenship to the non-Malays was a sacrifice by the Malays of their "natural claim to the land of Malays ("Tanah Melayu"). That could not be farther from the truth.

That arrangement, from historical evidence, was a "compromise" which was achieved after intense negotiations between the major communities and the Reid Commission. Being a compromise, all parties - not the Malays alone - achieved certain demands while letting go some of their demands.

For example, not all non-Malays managed to obtain citizenship. On this, the said Alan Lennox-Boyd explained:

"Under this compromise, anyone who is now a citizen of the Federation or who was born in the Federation and is over 18, or is born there after 31st August next, will have citizenship of the Federation as a right."

There was a balance achieved between the demands of the non-Malays and the absolute birth rights of the Malays. That is why it was called a compromise.

The citizenship was not a gift by the Malays. Nor was it a total surrender by the non-Malays of their minority rights in exchange for citizenship as screamed about by Perkasa, Dr Ridhuan Tee Abdullah and even Tun Dr Mahathir. The special "rights" of the Malays was not a concession by the non-Malays. They had always been there in the first place.

The Constitution was drafted to reflect this harmonious co-existence of all the major races in the then Malaya. It spells out all the rights and positions of the various communities who were expected to lead a peaceful and prosperous co-existence. The Constitution was designed to make the yet unborn Malaysia a fair and progressive country.

As stated by Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas (the MP from Lincoln):

"The test for the Federation will be whether it can become a real nation in other words, whether the Chinese people in Malaya can become full citizens and work with the Malays, the Indians and the Eurasians to make a new nation. I hope that they can."

Have we, as a nation, passed the test?

It is also not out of place to mention here that in drafting the Constitution, the fathers of our independence were astute enough to consider each community's services and contributions to this land. This goes towards achieving the balance which I was referring to earlier. In other words, no one community could claim exclusivity towards the country as it was.

Miss Joan Vickers, the MP for Devonport noted:

"We should remember, in considering these different races, the part that they play. The Malayans are the indigenous people of the country, but we have to remember that had it not been for the Chinese the country would certainly not have been as prosperous as it is today. They opened up jungle roads and worked in the tin mines, and the prosperity of Malaya owes a great deal to the Chinese.

Furthermore, we had the Indians who, in a rather different way, as a result, in the beginning, of a contract system between the Indian Government and the Government of Malaya, have played their part in the prosperity of the country. In a great many cases they did not make Malaya their home and returned to India at the end of their contract.

We also owe a great deal to the Portuguese Eurasians in Malaya. Theirs is a very old community. They still keep something of their mother tongue, and very strongly to their own Roman Catholic religion. They have proved loyal and faithful civil servants in a great many of the States. Generally speaking, whichever State they have resided in, they have taken a leading part and have always been loyal to either the British resident or adviser, or whoever they have been serving.

Finally, I hope that in due course, the Orang Bukit will be able to be brought into the community, because I believe that through living in the deep jungles they have very remote ties with their own country, and they could be a source of trouble. I should like to pay tribute to them for what they did during the very difficult period when the Chinese guerillas were in the jungle, when they gave considerable help in tracking the enemy."

As evident, everyone's contribution was considered. And it was all done in the name of accommodating, to the fullest of possibility, every community's demands, rights and positions. Wherever there was a seeming imbalance, a check and balance mechanism was inbuilt within the Constitution in itself.

To state all the mechanism of check and balance in the Constitution would make this article too long. Suffice if I point out that among others, an independent judiciary (which then includes the right to appeal to the Privy Council), was a part of that mechanism. As stated by the MP for Crosby, Mr Graham Page:

"Finally, I would draw attention to an important safeguard to the minorities. That is in the retention of the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council."

(Of course, some time ago, someone had to dismantle the Privy Council appeal process and the whole judiciary too leaving the government to lord all over the Judges!)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Social Contracts, Social Betrayals and NEP ....

Where is the Spirit of Merdeka?

The Pirate and "Social Contractor".

The "Social Contract" - A Malaysian "Cold War"?

The "social contract" - A Dead-end Roadmap to Piracy



Monday 5 April 2010

What's up, DBKL?? Can't do Your WORK??

Saturday April 3, 2010
Church in a dilemma over wall and barricade
By PRIYA MENON
priya@thestar.com.my

THE Jesus Caritas Catholic Church parishioners have not been able to conduct service for months now after its certificate of fitness was put on hold over several problems.

The problems involving the remodelling of the 30-year-old church stems from neighbours, a wall as well as a barricade built within the church grounds without permission.

The church began renovations in 2006 with three main entrances, in Jalan Metro Prima main road, Jalan Mergastua and Jalan Kuang Cermin.

A monsoon drain built on the church land forced the engineers and consultants to build a RM30,000 bridge across it to connect the entrance of the church to Jalan Kuang Cermin.

No access: The fencing blocking the bridge connecting the church and Jalan Kuang Cermin

However, residents have blocked the entrance with a fence and boom gate as well as a guardhouse further down the road. They have an approval from the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) despite the sanctioned proposal for the church’s entrance.

“They were given the approval for a guardhouse even after our building proposal was approved by the DBKL,” said the consultant architect for Kiet Hiew Architect, Z.S Zackaria.

Along Jalan Mergastua, a big wall has been built inside the church compounds by some neighbours.

The wall is blocking the exit from the church leading to Jalan Mergastua. Just behind the two- metre wall outside the church, the end lot neighbour has placed his dog’s kennel at his convenience.

“The neighbour’s workers came in through our hoarding and began laying bricks for the foundation. I confronted them saying that they are trespassing on private property but they ignored me,” said Zackaria.

When the matter was brought up, Zackaria’s engineers devised a plan for the church cars to exit to Jalan Metroprima through a sound barrier built some time ago in front of the church.

However, DBKL’s public works department director Siti Saffur said it was too dangerous.

To resolve the matter, all parties have agreed to a meeting with the DBKL planning department, the public works department and the consultants.

The church committee has taken the matter up to Deputy Federal Territories and Urban Wellbeing Minister Datuk M. Saravanan who also chairs the temple and devotional sites committee.

Saravanan has urged the church committee to write a letter asking for the barricades on both sides to be removed.

Saturday 3 April 2010

FEAR, SIEGE, MUDSLINGING, THREATS & THUGGERY

A long time ago in a "debate" in response to an article by RPK(when I used to actively comment on MalaysiaToday), a commenter had said that he would rather "swing from trees than allow leadership of anybody other than Malay/Muslims (meaning Umno, I suppose)- even if it were to promise progress or riches".

In the aftermath of 308, I had written about the possible sequence of events in Umno, likened to that of the stages of grief in death of a loved one - and if we look back at events, it appears that it is true. But I was wrong to think that they had gotten over it - it seems like they never got past "anger".....
It is this constant sense of paralyzing distrust, fear, siege-mentality, insecurity and helplessness which Umno has imposed by design upon the Malay psyche which has led to this- and it serves the agenda of plunder perpetrated by certain quarters. (I do not mean to imply that DAP makes it any easier for them either) It is these very sentiments which drive many to defend the shallow ideas which Umno propagates. As a result of this very paralyzing mindset, those who propose changes that are progressive, are viewed as adversaries and not partners in nation-building.
It is for this reason that parties who aren't in power are, more often than not, persecuted at their attempts for changes.

What is meant to be addressed in the following piece is the state of affairs with "Malay politics" and the mindset advocated by the warlords who today impede the progress of this rich & blessed land- and rendered it accursed.

These days, we hear a lot about the Najib administration attempting to change the political culture and attitudes of the Umno members - and facing much resistance. This was apparently the very same hurdle which the previous administration faced, rendering it impotent.
UMNO (as a whole) is resisting the change which even many of their members themselves advocate- and it isn't that they cannot, but that they fear (& do not understand) what is being told to be a "new political culture". This "new" thing which "Umno" fears is the loss of power to maintain the feudal culture of patronage which destroys the economy and the very soul of the nation.

As such, there are many so called "ultras" from the "right wing" of Umno who staunchly support the likes of Ibrahim Ali and Mahathir who advocate the "protectionism", racism and paralysis of the Malay mind - in the name of "Ketuanan Melayu". Anyone who tend to disagree with their ideas are perceived to be "enemies" who are consequently demonized as those seeking to "grab power" and emasculate/subjugate the "Malay". What these so-called, self-proclaimed "Malay nationalists" do not seem to care about is how they make fools of themselves in the eyes of those
who see through their rhetoric and infantile economic theories.

Since the rise of the internet as a force to be reckoned with in national politics, Umno has been forced to accept it -despite the fact that it still fails to grasp its nature. Gone are the days when they called dissenters/bloggers, unemployed housewives or "berok-berok". Instead, we have people like KJ attending forums addressing this "new media" many Umno guys opening Facebook accounts or starting to tweet.

It is all well and good for supporters and politicians of Umno to take on the onslaught of the "new" media. However, there is a problem with their approach, which to me is governed by fear and the siege-mentality - and it renders all their efforts at being "IT savvy", utterly meaningless.. They do not really "debate" issues- but rather, use the web to confront,
attack and/or belittle those who challenge their ideas. Any inquiry into the ideas that they advocate is perceived as an attack on the Malay leadership!! (Maybe they are very insecure and have "issues" with rejection, and hence lash out like a kid).
It is this very phenomenon that has led to the proliferation of the so-called NGOs which are so obviously sponsored by "certain parties" to defend their agenda of greed and corruption - disguised as "Malay Nationalism".

Rational debate is often virtually impossible, and what is often supposed to be a debate, descends into abuse and mudslinging- like as if they believe that it helps in "progress". It's often as if they get this weird sense of achievement in "winning" a mudslinging contest!!
Every so often, attempts to engage with Umno supporters end up in verbal abuse, vulgarities and threats of ISA/ arrest, or even personal bodily harm! (You could ask "Bongkerz" about his recent tete-a-tete with "Aizley", who is apparently an ex-RMC guy- and shamelessly issued threats!!) Let us also not forget the persistent threats another 513 by these guys ...... like the shamefull & cowardly bloodbath using "security personnel" (allegedly planned) was their "all-time high" achievement!!! It therefore shouldn't come as much of a surprise that some "security personnel" these days arrest even lawyers who are doing their job, using the (sorry excuse of laws called) ISA/Police Act/DDA etc to assert their power and intimidate citizens.

Things don't look very good for the future of Malaysia, should Umno encourage the thuggery which many so-called NGOs and their supporters advocate - even if KJ and his minions attends umpteen forums and tweet a thousand tweets, Mahathir blog a thousand entries or Rais Yatim advises against Facebook. Until and unless Umno can change their culture, attitude and approach towards nation building - them "embracing" the internet as a means of communication, education, or even propaganda is going to draw more ridicule locally- and consequently, worldwide.
They seem to have have lost the plot- nation-building isn't just about financial stability, but also freedom, rule of law, justice, a civilized culture and accountability. Somehow, these values didn't quite make it to the list in Mahathir's "Wawasan 2020". I'm not so certain what Najib means by his Malay first, Malaysian next conviction in his "1-Malaysia" campaign - but after
the Perak coup d'etat, I seriously doubt that these concepts figure there either...

Meanwhile, let's just have some kacang/roti canai and see how our VVIPs hang out & watch "Malaysia Boleh" Lotus F1 team does with our millions of tax ringgit at the Sepang Circuit ...... maybe we can all "get-off" on that at least.

Thursday 1 April 2010

ZUL NOORDIN‘S PARLIAMENTARY FALLACY

ZUL NOORDIN‘S PARLIAMENTARY FALLACY

The only question Noordin should answer today is why he waited so long to divulge information which might have been pertinent to the investigation. If they were factual links of a conspiracy why didn’t he reveal them sooner?

By P. Balasubramaniam

On March 24th, Member of Parliament Zulkifly Noordin claimed he had been instructed to implicate Datuk Seri Najib Razak and his wife Rosmah Mansor in the murder of the Mongolian model Altantuya Shaariibuu. The mainstream media picked up on Noordin’s statement, using it in an attempt to paint Altantuya’s murder as part of a conspiracy to undermine Najib Razak’s position as the Deputy Prime Minister and future Prime Minister.

Whatever Noordin says should in no way distract Malaysians from the facts of this case and the pressing need to re-open the investigation into the murdered Mongolian woman.

Furthermore Noordin is foolish to think that he is somehow in a unique position to make such a daring allegation. The basic facts of this gruesome murder and conspiracy that are in the public domain already demonstrate a clear link between Najib Razak, his wife, the heinous crime and its subsequent cover-up. There was no need for him, of all people, to have been chosen as the revealer of all this ignominy. Nor is it reasonable that his services were needed to concoct a false link given how strong the actual links really are.

The only question Noordin should answer today is why he waited so long to divulge information which might have been pertinent to the investigation. If they were factual links of a conspiracy why didn’t he reveal them sooner? If these links could possibly have exonerated your client, Azilah, from the charge that he faced, are you not duty bound as his attorney to have pursued them to the fullest extent to save Azilah from the cruel fate that he now faces?

Before further confusion arises from Noordin’s grandstanding let me review the established facts of the case and reiterate my willingness to clarify these facts to the Malaysian authorities:

1. Musa Safri is Najib Razak’s aide-de-camp and a superior officer to Azilah and Sirul, who now face capital punishment for the murder of Altantuya.

2. Azilah and Sirul were Najib’s bodyguards at the time of the murder. Najib recently denied this fact once again in an interview in the Economist yet ***

3. Musa Safri ordered Azilah and Sirul to help Razak Baginda “solve the problem” with the Mongolian girl.

4. Sirul confessed to having been offered a sum of between RM50,000 to RM100,000 to eliminate Altantuya, or as Sirual described it, “selamatkan”.

5. Sirul, at the end of the trial, said in court… “I am just a black sheep that has to be sacrificed to protect unnamed people who have never been brought to court or questioned”.

6. Razak Baginda and Najib Tun Razak are close associates. Both were intrinsically involved in the purchase of Scorpene submarines and Sukhoi jets for the Malaysian armed forces.

7. Razak Baginda’s company, Perimekar Sdn. Bhd., received substantial commissions for these two deals.

8. Altantuya was Razak Baginda’s mistress at some point in time. Her services as a French and Russian translator were used by Razak Baginda in negotiations for the purchase military hardware.

9. Altantuya had alleged she was owed some commissions for her role in these deals.

10. Najib Tun Razak was the Defence Minister during the period these deals were taking place.

11. Altantuya had travelled to Kuala Lumpur in October 2006 to secure payment of her commissions from Razak Baginda, who had employed my services to keep her away from him.

12. I was called as a witness for the prosecution during the trial of Azilah, Sirul and Razak Baginda and gave evidence in court.

13. I also affirmed a statutory declaration in July 2008 in which, inter alia, further links were established in respect of the relationship between Najib Tun Razak and Altantuya.

14. I retracted this first SD within 18 hours by producing another one, and then went missing with my family immediately thereafter.

15. I have since revealed everything that happened since I released the first SD including evidence of threats, harassment and bribery orchestrated by influential people to ensure my silence.

16. I have identified a number of personalities involved in my removal from Malaysia after I released my first SD and have provided details of payments made to me by these personalities.

17. None of the personalities mentioned by me have denied their involvement in these matters.

18. A police report has been lodged based on my revelations but no police action has been taken to date.

19. A report has also been lodged with the MACC but no action has been taken to date despite my willingness to assist so long as reasonable precautions are taken to ensure my personal safety.

These are simply facts of the case which are known to everyone yet ignored by the courts, the Malaysian authorities and perhaps also YB Zulkifly Noordin. Furthermore in light of these very public facts and allegations key individuals linked to the crime and cover up have neither refuted nor denied the statements made against them:

1. That I myself had seen a message from Najib on Razak Baginda’s handphone, in the presence of a lawyer, which said…. “Seeing IGP at 11 am, everything will be OK…be cool”. This occurred on the morning of Razak Baginda’s arrest for allegedly abetting the murder of Altantuya Sharibu.

2. Raja Petra Kamarudin’s SD stating Rosmah was at the scene of Altantuya’s murder and detonation.

3. That Deepak and Dinesh Jayakishan were representing Rosmah and and/or Najib’s family in seeking to negotiate a ‘deal’ in order to entice me to retract my first SD.

4. That I was subjected to mental pressure by thinly veiled threats against my family, which were made personally by Datuk Nazim Tun Razak (Najib’s Razak’s brother) the day I released my first SD.

5. That Rosmah had invited me for breakfast after I retracted his first SD in order to thank me for doing so.

6. That Deepak organised the application for and securing of passports for my wife and children so that they could leave the country that very same day.

7. That Deepak or Dinesh had organised transportation for me and my family from Kuala Lumpur to Singapore in a van, and thence to Bangkok, Kathmandu, New Delhi and finally Chennai.

8. That Deepak Jayakishan made substantial payments to me to keep me away from Malaysia until Najib Razak became the Prime Minister.

9. My production of copies of various cheques for substantial sums drawn on the accounts of Deepak Jayakishan and Carpet Raya Sdn Bhd in support of my allegations that he had been paid off to leave the country.

10. My identification of the person who was in a blue Proton Saga the day Altantuya was abducted outside Razak Baginda’s house by Sirul and Azilah as one Nasar Safri, Najib’s right hand man.

In October 2009 I recorded an interview in the presence of my lawyer, Americk Sidhu Singh and two other prominent Malaysian attorneys explaining in detail what happened to me after July 3, 2008 when I publicized my first Statutory Declaration. The transcript of this lengthy interview is available online.

I then offered to give a complete statement to the MACC with only one stipulation – that my personal safety be guaranteed. Instead the MACC offered to conduct the interview within the Malaysian High Commission in Singapore, which is virtually identical to conducting the interview inside Bukit Aman itself. Knowing what I have endured for the past 18 months and that witnesses have recently been killed while in MACC custody, the MACC’s offer is foolish and reflects how unwilling they are to take my statement.

Given the interest Zulkifly Noordin has taken in the Altantuya murder mystery I would ask him to raise these important matters with Prime Minister Najib Razak when he sees him next.