PP3739/12/2003 ISSN 0127 - 5127 / RM3.00 / 2003:Vol.23No ... · Ananda Krishnan who were all...

Aliran Monthly : Vol.23(10)

PP3739/12/2003 ISSN 0127 - 5127 / RM3.00 / 2003:Vol.23No.10

Where Have TheWhere Have TheWhere Have TheWhere Have TheWhere Have TheCapitalistsCapitalistsCapitalistsCapitalistsCapitalistsGone?Gone?Gone?Gone?Gone?


hen MahathirMohamad was ap-pointed Prime Ministerin 1981, his stated eco-

nomic vision involved three goals:first, to develop an industrialisedeconomy; second, to create a dy-namic, entrepreneurial commu-nity with the capacity to competeinternationally; and finally, andprobably most importantly forhim, to nurture a new class of in-ternationally recognisedBumiputera capitalists.

Some of these policies werestrongly opposed, not just by gov-ernment critics but also membersof his first cabinet, one reason whyMahathir moved to concentratepower within government in theoffice of the Prime Minister.Mahathir would later justify thisconcentration of power as ameans to help him achieve indus-trialised nation status for Malay-sia by 2020 and to fulfil his visionof creating this new class of dy-namic, entrepreneurial Malaycapitalists.

To aid his vision of creating hugecompanies with internationalreputations led by Malay capital-ists, Mahathir appointed his closeally, businessman DaimZainuddin, as finance minister in1984. Both men were captivated

with business and developing theKuala Lumpur Stock Exchange(KLSE) as an avenue to help cre-ate domestic capitalists and largeconglomerates. The high degree ofautonomy that the prime ministerhad within the state allowed himto selectively distribute govern-ment-created concessions to a se-lect group of businessmen who,by the mid-1990s, were in controlof a number of huge quoted con-

COVER STORY

Corporate Malaysia Under Mahathir:

Where Have All theCapitalists Gone?by Terence Gomez

WWWWW

glomerates. These conglomerateswere also rapidly built up throughtheir relatively easy access toloans from government-controlledbanks.

As for the KLSE, between 1989and 1993, equity market capitali-sation as a percentage of grossdomestic product (GDP) in-creased from 105 per cent to 342per cent. By the mid-1990s, the

Wan Azmi Wan Hamzah Amin Shah


In our cover story, Terence Gomez discusses the riseand demise of many of Malaysia’s domestic capi-talists spawned during the Mahathir years. Wherehave all of them gone, he asks. They either fadedaway when their political patrons disappeared orwere removed from the scene. Yet another group oftycoons failed to survive the 1997 financial crisisdue to their over-extended operations.

In a follow-up article, Sivarajan reports on the plightof 150 urban pioneers in Shah Alam who were or-dered to vacate their premises without sufficientnotice. Fortunately, Justice Suriyadi ruled the resi-dents have equity over the land as they had workedand developed the area. Moreover, the developer hadindirectly recognised this by offering the residentscompensation of house rent.

Anil Netto wonders how a private Norwegian-basedfirm obtained the commercial rights to an improvedbreed of tilapia fish, which is widely farmed in theregion. The selective breeding had been carried outby the Worldfish Center, now based in Penang andwas supposed to be in the public realm.

Fan Yew Teng and K George continue our discus-sion about the transition in political leadership. Fanchallenges the new prime minister to get seriousabout corruption, which he has declared waragainst. The first step, Fan suggests, is to make theACA truly independent.

Aliran’s oldest member, George, who at 80-plus issenior to Mahathir, jogs our memory about the an-tics of the former premier and is relieved that thatera is over.

Finally, we present six pages of your letters, most ofwhich are in response to our special issue on theMahathir legacy. Keep those letters coming.

C O N T E N T S

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

EDITOR'S NOTE

COVER STORYCOVER STORYCOVER STORYCOVER STORYCOVER STORY••••• Where Have All TheWhere Have All TheWhere Have All TheWhere Have All TheWhere Have All The

Capitalists Gone?Capitalists Gone?Capitalists Gone?Capitalists Gone?Capitalists Gone? 22222

FEATURESFEATURESFEATURESFEATURESFEATURES••••• Judge Grants Crucial InjunctionJudge Grants Crucial InjunctionJudge Grants Crucial InjunctionJudge Grants Crucial InjunctionJudge Grants Crucial Injunction 99999

••••• Look Mom, It's GeneticallyLook Mom, It's GeneticallyLook Mom, It's GeneticallyLook Mom, It's GeneticallyLook Mom, It's Genetically

Altered Fish!Altered Fish!Altered Fish!Altered Fish!Altered Fish! 1 11 11 11 11 1

••••• Freedom To DissentFreedom To DissentFreedom To DissentFreedom To DissentFreedom To Dissent 1 31 31 31 31 3

••••• Dominance And Its DilemmasDominance And Its DilemmasDominance And Its DilemmasDominance And Its DilemmasDominance And Its Dilemmas 1 51 51 51 51 5

••••• I Am Neither A Terrorist NorI Am Neither A Terrorist NorI Am Neither A Terrorist NorI Am Neither A Terrorist NorI Am Neither A Terrorist Nor

A SponsorA SponsorA SponsorA SponsorA Sponsor 1 81 81 81 81 8

••••• Some Hope For Foreign Workers?Some Hope For Foreign Workers?Some Hope For Foreign Workers?Some Hope For Foreign Workers?Some Hope For Foreign Workers? 2 42 42 42 42 4

••••• Exit Of A Self-Made DictatorExit Of A Self-Made DictatorExit Of A Self-Made DictatorExit Of A Self-Made DictatorExit Of A Self-Made Dictator 3 73 73 73 73 7

••••• Can UMNO Wipe Out Corruption?Can UMNO Wipe Out Corruption?Can UMNO Wipe Out Corruption?Can UMNO Wipe Out Corruption?Can UMNO Wipe Out Corruption? 4 04 04 04 04 0

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

••••• LettersLettersLettersLettersLetters 2 82 82 82 82 8

••••• Current ConcernsCurrent ConcernsCurrent ConcernsCurrent ConcernsCurrent Concerns 3 43 43 43 43 4

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

••••• Poem: Illegal ImmigrantPoem: Illegal ImmigrantPoem: Illegal ImmigrantPoem: Illegal ImmigrantPoem: Illegal Immigrant 2 62 62 62 62 6

••••• Keep Irene FreeKeep Irene FreeKeep Irene FreeKeep Irene FreeKeep Irene Free 3 53 53 53 53 5

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

Published byPublished byPublished byPublished byPublished by

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

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

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

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


KLSE’s market capitalisation rela-tive to GDP had emerged as thehighest in Southeast Asia. TheKLSE had also emerged as thefourth largest bourse in Asia andthe 15th largest in the world interms of market capitalisation.

By early 1997, Malaysia’s leadingcorporations included a numberof firms controlled byBumiputeras, almost all of whomwere well-connected to one of thethen three most powerful politi-cians in Malaysia – Mahathir,then deputy prime minister andfinance minister Anwar Ibrahim,and then government economicadvisor Daim Zainuddin. TheMalays in control of major firmsincluded Halim Saad, TajudinRamli, Wan Azmi Wan Hamzah,

Samsudin Abu Hassan, HassanAbas, Ahmad Sebi Abu Bakar andAmin Shah Omar Shah, who wereclosely associated with Daim;Ishak Ismail, Mohamad SaritYusoh, Kamaruddin Jaafar,Kamaruddin Mohd Nor andRashid Hussain, who were linkedwith Anwar; while those whowere close to the prime ministerincluded his sons, Mirzan andMokhzani Mahathir, as well asthe late Yahya Ahmad, BasirIsmail and Mohd Noor Yusof.

Among the more independentbusiness figures in the corporatesector who had emerged as busi-nessmen of some repute prior toMahathir’s ascendancy to the pre-miership were Tunku Abdullah,Shamsuddin Abdul Kadir and

Azman Hashim, but all three wereknown to be intimate friends of theprime minister.

A number of well-connected non-Malays also quickly evolved asowners of large enterprises dur-ing Mahathir’s tenure. Thesebusinessmen included VincentTan Chee Yioun, Ting Pik Khiing,Francis Yeoh, Lee Kim Yew and T.Ananda Krishnan who were allreputedly aligned with Mahathirand Daim, while Tong Kooi Ong,Quek Leng Chan and T.K. Limwere associated with Anwar. Al-most all these Malay and non-Malay businessmen who wereamong Malaysia’s leading corpo-rate figures before the 1997 cur-rency crisis had been privy to statepatronage in some form, specifi-cally the award of privatised con-tracts.

However, since the rise of mostkey businessmen was linked tothe patronage of influential poli-ticians, wealth accumulation de-pended on whether their patronsremained in power. After Anwarwas removed from office in Sep-tember 1998, thus allowingMahathir to concentrate evenmore power in the office of theprime minister, most Malay andChinese businessmen associatedwith the ex-deputy prime minis-ter have had to struggle to protecttheir corporate interests. Similarly,when Daim fell out of favour withMahathir in 2001, corporate assetsowned by his business allies andproxies were taken over by thegovernment. These political fall-outs between Malaysia’s leadingpoliticians were sparked mainlyby the impact of the 1997 crisis onthe corporate sector.

The currency crisis had a profoundimpact on domestic capitalists, es-

Quek Leng Chan

Ting Pik Khiing

Ananda KrishnanFrancis Yeoh


pecially well-connected business-men. With the rapid fall in the valueof equity quoted on the KLSE,many well-connected companiesfell off the list of the top 100Malaysian firms, far more rapidlythan they got there. Chinese capi-talists appeared to have fared bet-ter in the crisis, as did government-owned listed companies.

By the beginning of 2001, accord-ing to one study of the wealthiestbusiness people in Malaysia, noMalay figured among the richest10 businessmen, in terms of thetotal value of corporate assets theyowned (see Malaysian Business 1February 2001). This study indi-cated that, apart from one ethnicIndian, the remaining top 10wealthiest corporate figures wereall ethnic Chinese. Of the top 20,only three businessmen wereBumiputeras, while 16 were eth-nic Chinese.

By 2003, all these three Malay busi-nessmen, Tajudin Ramli, HalimSaad and Rashid Hussain, hadlost control of their corporate as-sets. The currency crisis, asMahathir would fervidly stress,was the primary reason for his fail-ure to develop domestic capital-ists. It was, however, questionable

if the prime minister had helpednurture entrepreneurial compa-nies that could weather crises.

Despite this further concentrationof power in the office of the execu-tive in the post-crisis period thatfacilitated, among other things,controversial ‘bailouts’ of selectbusinessmen, the governmentalso introduced new policy initia-tives and corporate governancemeasures to deal with the prob-lems exposed in the corporate sec-tor.

In February 1999, the governmentproposed the Malaysian Code ofCorporate Governance which hastwo primary objectives. First, toencourage disclosure to ensurethat investors are aware of the waytheir company is being managed.The second objective of the Codeis remind company directors oftheir responsibilities.

The four principles of corporategovernance set out in theMalaysian Code refer to:

• effective leadership by direc-tors of companies

• transparency in determiningthe remuneration of directors

• ensuring the accountability ofdirectors through adequate in-ternal controls and an inde-pendent external audit, and

• the promotion of dialogue be-tween a company’s manage-ment and its investors.

The new regulations to enforcecorporate governance do not,however, have provisions to actagainst certain corporate prac-tices common in Malaysia but notaccepted in other countries. Oneexample is the practice by a ma-jority shareholder to inject a pri-vately held asset into the quotedfirm, a corporate manoeuvre thatis not permitted in the UnitedStates as it is seen as a “self-serv-ing deal”. This practice had led toa number of major controversiesin Corporate Malaysia, specifi-cally during the 1980s when thestock market emerged as an av-enue for businessmen to raisefunds quickly.

In Malaysia, the institutions es-tablished to ensure proper corpo-rate governance have the capac-ity to perform effectively, have agood reputation for regulating thefinancial market. But because of

Enterprise Reform InThe Post-Crisis Period

Tajudin RamliHalim Saad Rashid Hussain

... lost control of their corporate assets by 2003


the hegemony of the executiveover the state, the relevance andeffectiveness of these institutionsdepends primarily on the will ofkey government leaders to enforcecorporate governance. Simplyput, regulatory institutions can -and usually - act independentlybut are also used as tools by pow-erful politicians for vested inter-ests. These politicians can ensurethat these regulatory institutionsdo not act against favoured busi-nessmen, in spite of evidence ofcorrupt practices.

Thus, the maneuvering of corpo-rate assets at the behest of politi-cal leaders indicates that throughostensible enforcement of corpo-rate governance, politicians incontrol of the executive have trans-ferred corporate assets into thehands of their allies. Moreover,while the selective imposition ofrules and regulations on someenterprises has helped create theimpression of an increasinglywell-governed corporate sector, ir-regularities continue to occur,mainly to serve powerful vestedinterests.

Although the development of theCorporate Malaysia has beenstrongly influenced byMahathir’s policies, and he alonedominated the state, this concen-tration of political power has notcontributed to concentration ofcorporate equity in the hands ofan elite group. Towards the endof Mahathir’s tenure, there wasevidence not of wealth concentra-tion but of rather wide dispersalof ownership of corporate equity

of the top 100 quoted firms. In2001, a list compiled by MalaysianBusiness (2 January 2001) of thecountry’s 20 wealthiest businesspeople indicated that their com-bined wealth amounted to RM41.7billion, only about 10 per cent ofthe KLSE’s market capitalisation.More importantly, it does not ap-pear that any of these 20 wealthi-est business people hold corpo-rate equity in trust for influentialpoliticians.

This lack of wealth concentrationis primarily due to conflicts amongMalaysia’s political elites. Between1997, when the currency crisis oc-curred, and 2001, two influentialpoliticians, Anwar and Daim, whohad significant indirect controlover important corporate enter-prises, had been marginalized byMahathir. The vast corporate assetsowned by their business allies havebeen re-allocated to government in-stitutions or other private individu-als, an indication of the capacity ofthe former prime minister to con-trol how companies are developed.

Businessmen, particularly Chi-nese entrepreneurs, who had lit-tle or no links with politicians,appear to have been able to retaincontrol over their companies,mainly by conforming to statepolicies. But the fall of the Anwar-linked T.K. Lim, for example, sug-gests that it is not too difficult for

the government to remove corpo-rate assets at will. This indicatesthat even those firms that are sus-tainable in spite of their rentierorigins could be dismantled ortaken over following power strug-gles in UMNO. Another exampleof a prominent businessman whois widely believed to have relin-quished control of his corporateassets because of a fall-out withMahathir is Rashid Hussain.

By the beginning of this decade, areview of the top 10 firms listedon the KLSE, in terms of marketcapitalisation, indicated that thegovernment has majority owner-ship of six of these quoted firms.These companies include formerpublic utilities like Telekom Ma-laysia (at number 1) and powersupplier Tenaga Nasional (atnumber 3), the country’s leadingbank, Malayan Banking (atnumnber 2), the national oil cor-poration Petronas’ gas producer,Petronas Gas (at number 4), thenational shipping line MalaysianInternational Shipping Corpora-tion (MISC) (at number 6), and thewell-diversified, but predomi-nantly plantation-based SimeDarby (at number 7). Governmentfirms also have a stake in Com-merce Asset-Holding (at number8), which owns Malaysia’s sec-ond largest bank, BumiputraCommerce Bank, an enterprisethat emerged out of the merger

Political Conflicts,Policy Response

And WealthD e c o n c e n t r a t i o n


between government-owned BankBumiputra and Bank of Com-merce. The other three firms in thetop ten – Resorts World (atnumber 5), Genting (at number 9)and YTL Corporation (at number10) – are owned by ethnic Chi-nese. Genting and Resorts World,involved in the casino and leisureindustries, are part of the samegroup owned by Lim Goh Tong.The YTL group, involved in theconstruction, property develop-ment and power secctors, isowned by Yeoh Tiong Lay and hisfamily.

Two other conspicuous pointsabout the top ten companies isthat, first, one of them is ownedby a foreign enterprise. Second, inspite of phenomenal state supportfor the development of Malaycapital, no Bumiputera individualhas emerged with a controllinginterest in any of the top 10 com-panies.

The failure of the government’spolicy to develop Bumiputera en-trepreneurs, in spite of the phe-nomenal amount of privileges ac-corded to a select number of busi-nessmen, was due to the mannerof implementation of this policy.The government had selectedthese so-called “winners” in anon-transparent manner, and ac-corded them numerous conces-sions, particularly privatisedprojects, to facilitate their rapidexpansion.

Moreover, since there was littleclear focus in enterprise expan-sion by many well-connectedBumiputeras, and since politicalpatronage also involved easy ac-cess to loans and governmentprivileges, there appeared to belittle caution in the manner they

developed their companies. Thisstyle of growth contributed to theirrapid collapse when the currencycrisis occurred in 1997.

Another key reason for the declineof most leading Bumiputera busi-nessmen is that since most of themwere closely linked to – and de-pendent on – senior politicians,their corporate activities were of-ten influenced by politicians andaffected by political crises. In1993, for example, Daim ensuredthat Renong, controlled by HalimSaad, divested ownership of thethen highly profitable media com-panies, NSTP and TV3, to busi-nessmen linked to Anwar. Anwarhad then forged close ties withDaim to mount his bid for the postof deputy president of UMNO.When Anwar and Daim fell frompower, so too did businessmenlinked to them.

Malay capitalists that have re-mained relatively independentappear to have fared better.Shamsuddin Kadir, for example,who developed Sapura Telecom-munications and Uniphone Tel-ecommunications, remained un-affected by the 1998 political cri-sis in UMNO. Tunku Abdullah,who controls the Melewar group,has not been very dependent onany leading UMNO politician forcontinued business support andprivileges. Moreover, MalaysianAssurance Alliance (MAA),Abdullah’s main listed enterprise,has remained focused on the in-surance industry.

Another factor contributing to thefailure to develop Bumiputerabusinessmen is that many of them

were involved in sectors most af-fected by the currency crisis. Thispoint also highlights another cru-cial fact – none of the Malay busi-nessmen who had emerged asowners listed in the KLSE top 100have shown a capacity to venturesuccessfully into manufacturing.Most of them have focused insteadon finance, construction, propertydevelopment and telecommunica-tions. Shamsuddin Kadir’s tel-ecommunications enterpriseswere probably the onlyBumiputera firms actively in-volved in manufacturing.Shamsuddin, however, has sincedivested his interests in this sec-tor.

A further important feature of thelargest publicly-listed firms isthat, even among the top 100,barely 20 list manufacturing as aprimary activity. Most of these 20companies are foreign-owned –Rothmans, Nestle, Malayan Ce-ment, Carlsberg, Guinness An-chor, RJ Reynolds, MalaysianOxygen, Kedah Cement and Shell.Three of these 20-odd firms belongto Hong Leong group – MPI (elec-tronics), OYL (air-conditioning),Hong Leong Industries (tiles) –probably one of the few entrepre-neurial conglomerates in Malay-sia. Ethnic Chinese own most ofthe other domestic manufacturingfirms in the top 100 KLSE list.

There is, however, no evidence ofintra-ethnic business cooperationinvolving members of the Chinesecommunity, though it is widely be-lieved they work together to pro-tect common economic interests.The key factor that explains theircapacity to thrive in theMalaysian economy is that theyhave been forced to compete, es-pecially after the introduction of

Link To SeniorP o l i t i c i a n s


affirmative action through theNew Economic Policy (NEP). Thispoint was clear to Mahathir, whoof late had been persistently coun-selling Malay businessmen toemulate the ‘Chinese-way’ of do-ing business, a style characterisedby exposure to competition.

Mahathir would also eventuallyacknowledge that those business-men privy to government patron-age had failed to live up to the faithhe had in them to serve as the van-guard of Malaysian capital. Prob-ably in recognition of this fact,there has been a recent shift by thegovernment from support for thecreation of conglomerates to thepromotion of small and medium-scale enterprises (SMEs). Tai-wan’s economy, dominated bySMEs – nearly 98 per cent of allfirms in this country fall underthis category – which had alsoapparently weathered the cur-rency crisis well, became the newmodel for enterprise development.

There was also growing attemptsby state to encourage firms to re-duce their dependence on loansto generate growth. In this regard,Taiwanese firms were again seenas models to be emulated. Corpo-rate debt in Taiwan was amongthe lowest in East Asia. Moreover,while the average overall debts ofTaiwanese firms was only about30 per cent of equity, corporatedebt of South Korean companieswas sometimes four times thevalue of assets.

Although there is now this newfound emphasis to aid SMEs, thisis not to mean that Mahathir hasdispensed totally with his desireto create Malay capitalists. By2003, a hitherto obscure, reclusivebusinessman, Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary, had quickly emerged asa major corporate figure, buildingup a highly diversified corporatebase, akin to the UMNO-linkedRenong group, controlled by theparty’s proxy, Halim Saad.

Apart from having a major inter-est in Malaysia Mining Corpora-tion (MMC), Syed Mokhtar is re-portedly a shareholder of PernasInternational Holdings (32%), IJMCorp (20%), Padibernas Nasional(33%), Malakoff (23%), JohorTenggara Oil Palm (36.5%),Fiamma Holdings (18.7%) andAmtek Holdings (50%) (see TheStar 30 August 2003). Syed alsocontrols Port of Tanjung Pelepasand Johor Port and is set to par-ticipate in the construction of an-other of Mahathir’s pet projects,the multi-billion ringgit BakunDam project (see Asian Wall StreetJournal 3 September 2003).

Syed Mokhtar has claimed that“by the time I met the PM, in early1997, I was already a successfulbusinessman.... But we have neverabused the relationship. He givesus a fair hearing but there is nogreen lane with him” (quoted inFar Eastern Economic Review 26May 2003). Mahathir, meanwhile,continues to call on Malay busi-

nessmen to aspire to become ma-jor corporate figures like SyedMokhtar.

With Mahathir’s departure asprime minister, and although hissuccessor, Abdullah AhmadBadawi, has openly stated that heintends to deal with corruption,this is unlikely to put an end tothe development of well-con-nected firms. Abdullah’s son hasrecently – and quickly – emergedas a prominent figure in the do-mestic corporate scene.

Moreover, in spite of the promo-tion by the press of the idea thatcorporate governance in Malay-sia will improve appreciably,structural reforms necessary topromote transparency and ac-countability in government are notbeing implemented. The concen-tration of power in the executiveand the lack of autonomy of regu-latory institutions to act againstcorruption and business activitiesnot in the interests of CorporateMalaysia do not serve to inspireconfidence that genuine reformsare imminent after Mahathir’s re-tirement as prime minister.

Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary

q


6 November 2003, Shah Alam6 November 2003, Shah Alam6 November 2003, Shah Alam6 November 2003, Shah Alam6 November 2003, Shah Alam

This morning, Judge Suriyadi, thejudge known for his courageousjudgements, called for a standdown and inquired about thelarge crowd present at the ShahAlam High Court.

Yes, the crowd was huge. Morethan 150 urban settlers from Kg.Rimba Jaya had gathered at about8.30 am at the Shah Alam HighCourt entrance, holding bannersto highlight their cause.

This morning the fate of theirhomes was to be decided by thecourts. Among the large crowdwere Parti Sosialis Malaysia’schairperson Nasir Hashim andtreasurer A.Sivarajan. Alsopresent were members of the PSMSubang Branch, who haveworked hard to empower theRimba Jaya settlers.

Today the court was to hear aninterim injunction against theShah Alam Town Council (MBSA)preventing it from demolishing 12homes in Kg.Rimba Jaya. The set-tlers were represented by comradeTeng Chang Khim while Sharizalappeared for the MBSA . The casewas stood down momentarily till11.00 am to allow other cases tobe heard. This was only the be-ginning of a very interesting morn-ing. Court Room 1 was packed

with many more waiting outside.

Teng, in his opening presentation,went straight to the point in high-lighting the discrepancies in theMBSA notice. The notice claimedto be using the Emergency Ordi-nance, Clearance of Squattersregulation 1969. The counselpointed out that these sections ofthe regulation clearly point outthat, “in the event the private landis in question, the landownerthrough proper legal proceduresis to demolish buildings regardedas ‘squatters’ in his land. Failingwhich, he could request the as-sistance of the local council to doso.”

Teng further pointed out that the1969 regulation was meant to beexecuted under Emergency condi-tions and was thus not relevantunder current conditions. Previ-ously, the Emergency Ordinancehad been used to evict manysquatter settlements although theEmergency had long ended.

Justice Suriyadi then took centerstage and put things in perspec-tive. He agreed with Teng that thesettlers (peneroka) - though they donot hold — legal title to the land— do have equity over the land asthey have worked and developedthe area. The judge further estab-lished that the developer too hasaccepted this right of equity, as

compensation of house rent for 18months had been offered to thepeneroka.

The validity of the MBSA noticewas then torn apart by the Judge.Sharizal, MBSA’s counsel, re-vealed innocently that the MBSAacted on a directive from theSetiausaha Kerajaan Negeri (SUK)Selangor. He said there was a di-rective from the State Exco dated7 October 2003 directing theMBSA to go to the land and de-molish the houses.

This revelation raised eyebrows,as it clearly contradicted the Clear-ance of Squatters Regulation 1969,which requires the MBSA to de-cide. Why was there an overrid-ing directive from the SUK? It wasa question Sharizal failed to an-swer.

The MBSA counsel was furtherlost for words when JusticeSuriyadi asked him whether thelocal council had carried out anystudy or survey at the kampungto enable it to exercise its discre-tionary powers in coming to aninformed ‘opinion’.

The MBSA took a second beatingwhen the court was made awarethat the MBSA notice had no dateon it. Why was there no date onan official letter? Sharizal triedhard to convince the judge that be-

COMMUNITIES

Judge Grants Crucial InjunctionGovt’s “Zero Squatter” Policy put in the spotlight

by Sivarajan


low the notice was a column forthe person who serves the noticeto write the date upon service.

Unfortunately, the MBSA coun-sel’s attempt only backfired onhim, when Justice Suriyadi notedthe words ‘notis ditampal’ (noticepasted) on the letter. The judge hitout at the MBSA for behaving irre-sponsibly as the regulationclearly states that the notice mustbe “served” on the occupant of thehouse. A claim of “notis di tampal”cannot be accepted.

The judge further explained thatpeople were very mobile thesedays and travelled far to make aliving. “If someone has been awayfor two months for Haj and youbreak down his house in his ab-sence claiming you sudah tampalthe notice, is it acceptable?“

Frequent peals of laughter couldbe heard among the urban pio-neers whenever the MBSA coun-sel was cornered and unable toanswer the judge’s questions.Looking pale and sweaty, he wasseen rummaging through hisdocuments several times.

Justice Suriyadi took time from thelegal aspects of the case to exam-ine the situation on the ground.“Why did the urban pioneers re-ject your offer for compensationand the offer to buy the low costflat?” he asked.

The Kg.Rimba Jaya settlers wereonly offered RM400 per month asrental money for 18 months. Theywere also offered low cost housesat RM35,000. The developer alsoclaimed to have arranged 100%loans from AM Finance for thehousebuyers provided that theywere eligible to receive the loan .

“RM 400 sebulan manacukup…mahu cari rumah dekat ShahAlam atau Klang?” Justice Suriyadicontinued. “Sekarang sewa satubilik pun sudah RM 250; satukeluarga sewa rumah macam mana?”

“Lagipun, you kata loan untukmereka yang layak - bagaimanaorang yang sudah berumur 50tahun lebih? Kebanyakan merekakalau setinggan adalah orangberpendapatan rendah. Kalaugaji sebulan RM1000, mahu bayaransuran bulanan rumah lebihkurang RM400 hingga RM 500,apa mahu makan? Adakahmereka layak mendapat loan?”

“So counsel,” said the learnedjudge, as he looked at the MBSAcounsel, “tell me why should thepeople accept the offer? Why doyou think this is a good offer? Con-vince me!”

The way the MBSA rushed thenotice was also questioned. Theoffer to the urban pioneers wasmade by the developer on 14 Au-gust 2003. Suddenly, the State Excodirects the MBSA on 7 October2003 to demolish the houses.Which means that a space of lessthan two months after the offerwas made, the landowner wouldhave made an application to thelocal council or the SUK request-ing it to demolish the houses.

“For the families who have beenliving there for more than 50years, you only give them lessthan two months to accept theoffer and vacate” the judgeasked. “Dua bulan mana cukup,kadangkala you peguam pun mintacase postpone nak jumpa client punmahu tiga bulan! Ini banyakkeluarga dengan anak -anak pula,you ingat senang mahu cari tempat

tinggal yang lain?”

The MBSA, grilled by the judge,finally claimed that they were onlycarrying out the directive of theState Government, SUK in linewith its Squatter Free Policy 2005.

But “walaupun nak menempatkansetinggan ini baik plan dia, tapi itutidak bermaksud semua perundanganboleh diketepikan” Thus based onthe arguments mentioned, JusticeSuriyadi granted an interim in-junction to the Kg . Rimba Jayaurban pioneers.

The hearing for the case wasfixed on 30 March 2004. Al-though it was expected that theMBSA would appeal to the KLAppeals Court, it was neverthe-less a great victory for thepeneroka. There were smiles andcheers all round as they steppedout of the court room.

The victory earned by the RimbaJaya peneroka extends beyondtheir kampung as their case haslaid a foundation to examine thegovernment’s discriminatory“Squatter Free Policy 2005”.Many such cases in the KlangValley are ongoing on as poor ur-ban pioneers are evicted forciblyonly to receive meagre compensa-tion and pigeon-hole flats andhomes.

Commenting on the decision, PSMChairperson Nasir said, “JusticeSuriyadi has once again made alandmark judgement which willgive hope to the many poor set-tlers around the country.” We willclaim the victory today and con-tinue to defend the homes tomor-row, he said.

Source: PSM.


s rising demand for fishputs pressure on globalsupply, more developingnations are turning to

aquaculture or farmed fish. Butlike other farmed animals andcrops, farmed fish has also be-come a target for controversial ge-netic tinkering - and ultimately, forownership claims on genetically“improved” breeds.

Genetically modified (GM) rain-bow trout, carp, tilapia and aba-lone are now being developedaround the world. Cuba, for in-stance, is involved in GM tilapia.

But since GM food has been suf-fering setbacks in the market, sci-entists have also been stepping upefforts to produce genetically im-proved breeds of fish.

Saying that their work has noth-ing to do with GM, these scien-tists use biotechnology meanssuch as sex manipulation, poly-ploidy, hybridisation and geneticchanges.

These also make the fish moreamenable to patenting than themore traditional selective breed-ing, say some researchers. “Thetrend towards the patenting of fishgenetic resources, and even thepatenting of new breeds of fish isaccelerating,” observed re-searcher Anna Rosa Martinez, ina study commissioned by the

Chennai- and Brussels-based In-ternational Collective in Supportof Fishworkers (ICSF).

The Barcelona-based researchernoted that the expectations oflong-term productivity increasesfrom the use of fish genetic re-sources have led to the extensionof property rights over them—ina process that parallels that ofplant genetic resources for agri-culture.

Some of the other implications offarmed fish also raise ethical con-cerns, activists say. These includethe potential loss of biodiversity,the threat of contamination of wildfish by farmed fish, and the out-break of disease.

Many also worry about whethergenetic research would lead to thepatenting of strains of geneticallyimproved fish and the transfer of“ownership” or commercialrights of such fish from the publicto the private domain.

Much attention has focused on aspecies of fish known as tilapia,which is widely regarded as idealfor breeding. They grow fast,waste little food, and require littleattention. Tilapia are said to besimilar to rats in their ability toadapt and can take advantage ofwhatever they find to feed on - andthat is precisely why they can poserisks to the balance of natural eco-

systems.

The International Centre for Liv-ing Aquatic Resources Manage-ment (ICLARM), now known asWorldFish Centre, initiated a ma-jor international collaborative ef-fort, the Genetically ImprovedFarmed Tilapia (GIFT) project, in1988 in the Philippines. Theproject was aimed at providingincreased income and improvednutrition for the poor as well astransferring scientific knowledgeand technology.

Wild Nile tilapia was collectedfrom rivers in Egypt, Ghana, Sen-egal and Kenya. Together withfour Philippine commercialstrains, these were crossed to es-tablish a broad genetic platformfor the later selection programmerun by the GIFT-project.

In 1998, after six generations ofselective breeding, the rights to the

BIOTECHNOLOGY

Look Mom, It ’s Genetical lyAltered Fish!by Anil Netto

AAAAA


fish, which had shown 85 percentimproved growth compared towild tilapia, were handed over tothe non-profit GIFT FoundationInternational Inc (GFII). GFII wasset up to “continue the research,market the fish, and use the rev-enues generated to further re-search work on tilapia”.

A Norwegian biotechnology com-pany, Genomar ASA, started acollaborative research pro-gramme with the GFII in 1999.“GenoMar then resumed all com-mercial rights to the GIFT foun-dation fish and received a copy ofall the latest families,” saidMorten Hoyum, vice presidentand chief operating officer ofGenoMar, responding to queriesfrom IPS.

Since then, GenoMar has intro-duced state-of-the-art DNA “tag-ging” of the fish in its breedingscheme and is now developing the14th generation, said Hoyum.GenoMar has maintained the fullgenetically diverse platform andhas also done extensive researchon saline tolerant fish that can beutilised in brackish water, headded.

“According to the agreements,ICLARM or now the WorldfishCentre has some fish from Gen-eration 9 that was moved to Ma-laysia,” said Hoyum.

The Worldfish Centre’s assistantdirector-general (international re-lations), Modadugu V Gupta,clarified that the GIFT tilapia thatis with the Worldfish Centre isbeing given to any governmentthat requests it.

“Genomar can claim that whatthey are developing started withthe GIFT fish; they are further im-proving it under their name,”Gupta told IPS, when asked why

the commercial rights had beentransferred to a private firm. “Like-wise, many other countries whichreceived the germplasm or fishfrom us are continuing their ownresearch, further improvement.The GIFT fish is still in the publicdomain,” he insisted.

Hoyum agrees that the WorldFishCentre, with headquarters here inPenang, has the rights to the fishrecently transferred to Malaysia.This fish, however, “was just or-dinary (Generation 9 GIFT tilapia)fish that has been available in thePhilippine market as fingerlingsas well. The same fish was alsoprovided to the Bureau of Fisher-ies and Aquatic Resources in thePhilippines.”

But Hoyum asserted that, accord-ing to the spirit of the agreementwith GenoMar, Worldfish Centre“should not use the fish for com-mercial activities but would befree to use it for scientific and re-search purposes”.

Genomar has already entered intocommercial ventures using thetrademark name GenoMar Su-preme Tilapia in the Philippines,Brazil and China, a major market.

Gupta, who is also on the boardof GFII, declined to furnish a copyof the agreement between GFIIand GenoMar, describing it as“confidential”.

As a member of the ConsultativeGroup on International Agricul-tural Research (CGIAR), an asso-ciation of public and private mem-bers supporting a system of 16 in-ternational food and environmen-tal research centres, WorldfishCentre has endorsed the group’sintellectual property rights (IPRs)policy.

The CGIAR says it is promoting

the transfer of intensified produc-tion systems for the benefit of thepoor, noted Martinez, but “its IPRpolicy is highly controversial”.

On one hand, she observed, it wasdesigned to prevent others fromobtaining intellectual propertyrights on genetic resources as col-lected and provided by genebanks. On the other, it allows forthe “defensive patenting” of in-house developed technologiesand products. “It legitimates thepatenting of genetic resources,”she said.

The Convention on Biodiversity,adopted in 1992, upholds the con-servation of biological biodi-versity, the sustainable use of itscomponents and the fair and eq-uitable sharing of the benefitsarising from the utilization of ge-netic resources. But in practice,many signatory governments aredriven by market principles andthe rules of the World Trade Or-ganisation (WTO).

“The CGIAR should not be in-volved in assisting the privatisa-tion of common goods - such asfish stocks - removing them fromcontinued free access byfisherfolk,” Patrick Mulvany, foodsecurity policy adviser of the In-termediate Technology Develop-ment Group, told IPS. ITDG is aBritish-based group promotingthe use of sustainable use of tech-nology to reduce poverty.

“As a public research body theCGIAR should insist that theproducts of its research remain inthe public domain,” he added. –IPS

IPS-Inter Press Service is a globalnews agency that focuses on globalevents and processes relevant espe-cially to the South.Website: www.ipsnews.net


reedom is an innate hu-man yearning, God-en-dowed and God-in-spired you may add. In

days bygone, such yearnings wereexemplified by struggles againstgross denial of freedom such ascolonialism and imperialism,slavery and apartheid, and allforms of feudal subjugation. Thestruggle for freedom in such his-torical contexts was central to up-holding the dignity of Man andWoman, and the rights of commu-nities and nations.

Freedom is both the anti-thesis ofsubjugation by evil and unjustforces as well as the laurels of vic-tory over them. Freedom shouldbe explored in its numerous di-mensions, and the discussionshould not be detracted by oppres-sors of freedom who would verymuch wish to derail the conceptof freedom from its central anduniversal core. Freedom has more often than notbeen won at enormous costs toindividuals, communities andnations: on suppressed mutinieson slave-ships bound for Europeand North America, then on theAmerican Civil War battlefields,and in recent times on Robben Is-land of South Africa, Kamuntingand Sungei Buloh Prison of Ma-laysia (the last two, not won!).

Freedom has inspired legions ofgreat men and women, many for-

ever unknown to history. A few ofthe known: in the west, AbrahamLincoln, Martin Luther King,Malcom X, Vaclav Havel; in theThird World, Jose Rizal, Sun YatSen, Mahatma Gandhi, Sukarno,Steve Biko, Nelson Mandela, CheGuevara, Kim Dae Jung and AungSan Suu Kyi. It is a good enoughspread of skin colours,nationalities, and violent andnon-violent proponents, but alsoa reflection of a common univer-sal human yearning for Freedom— common among pure-bloodedAsians with pure Asian values(not the “Asian values” of the gut-ter kind, promoted to justify po-litical persecution and oppres-sion).

Freedom must be won for all peo-ples of a nation, not just for a few,or a section; it is not just a victoryagainst external subjugation butagainst internal oppression in anominally independent nation.The struggle for freedom is indeeda very long process: the glowing

frontiers of ever more freedoms yetto be won after initial signal vic-tories. In the case of the UnitedStates, it was not just about gain-ing independence from the Brit-ish Crown, but it was also a con-tinuing struggle through theAmerican civil war, through to thelatter day civil rights movementand continues to this day.

It is sadly true in the case of ThirdWorld countries too: havingbeaten off overt colonialism andimperialism, authoritarianismand feudalism cloaked in shadesof democracies — attempt to de-prive their subjects of freedomand inalienable rights. The denial and suppression of thefreedom of expression in someThird World countries has sappedthem of their vitality. Instead ofthe development of the democraticspace and the full intellectual po-tential of their citizenry, many aThird World country has spunmalignant webs of social and po-litical corruption and economicfeudalism, even surpassing those

DEMOCRACY

Freedom To Dissentby Tanjong Po

FFFFF

A Long Process


of their former Western colonialmasters. Gargantuan physicaledifices are erected phallic-like inmodern times which fail to con-ceal abject poverty (povertyequates lack of freedom). Here inthe shanty towns and slums, thegreat intellectual potential of anation is wasted forever. Thanksto Hollywood and the free west-ern media, the world can marvelat the evil social dichotomy,which local eyes refuse to see,much less admit.

When there is no place for free-dom of expression, there is nocompelling necessity to think.There is only the right thing to do:to chant the correct politicalmantras of the day, self-applaud-ing and to be applauded. Whenthe intellectual space is so dimin-ished and intellectuals are shack-led, it is the height of naivety forthose in power to pretend they cancatapult their crimped societiesinto the global village and the in-formation age and be in the racefor high technologies and lucra-tive export markets.

Where in the modern worldis there a “clever” society or na-tion — where there are peoplewho are able to think but do nothave the freedom to express —which has achieved the peaks ofscholarship (read world class in-stitutions of higher learningwhich will beckon knowledgehungry students to their shores)?

Has any genius created the con-ditions where you are only al-lowed to think and express in thephysical sciences and technology,without concomitant intellectualengagement in the social sciences

and humanities? Yes, perhaps, inthe brave new world of Orwellrediscovered and modern dayBolehland! The Soviets sent up thefirst cosmonauts only to see theirversion of Bolehland crumble in30 short years.

Can other aspiring Bolehlands dobetter than the Soviets, and notcrumble in a much shorter time?Even Bolehland people under-stand that in the information agea nation will not go anywherewithout learning. But it needsworld class learning, not fourth-rate thinking dictated by the GreatLeader. If democracy is about the peace-ful contest of diverse or conflict-ing ideas, it can only operate prop-erly with freedom of expresion. Ofcourse you have modified democ-racies, fifth generation, so ad-vanced that no pre-requisitessuch as freedoms need be at-tached! The world applauds suchBolehland democracies!

Freedom of expression is that in-dispensable check against abuseof state and institutional power,prejudices, outright public lies,and extremisms of all forms. In theopen contest of ideas, better pub-lic policy choices are more likelyto be made, and unjust positionsbecome untenable. A more cohe-sive social consensus is morelikely from a fairer debate on aspectrum of ideas in any commu-nity.

The abusers of power naturallyfear freedom of expression; no so-cial input and no social consen-sus is deemed necessary whenyou have total legislative, execu-tive and judicial powers, because

the powers-that-be are deemed tobe the consensus! Better publicpolicy is never top priority any-way. How then do you promotesocial purpose withoutsome intellectual basis? Denial of freedom of expression,a strong damper of thinking, isnaturally meant to suppress dis-sent. Intellectual dissent is oftenthe prelude to social and politicalactivism. Here lies an effectiveway of stopping people from par-ticipating meaningfully in thepolitical process. Bled anaemic ofmore diverse thoughts and ideas,social, artistic and technologicaldevelopments are all held back.The same intellectual spirit is for-tunately (or unfortunately foroppressors), also the essential in-gredient of social and technologi-cal creativity and resourcefulness.Intellectual dissent is such a valu-able asset to any progressive soci-ety that it should be channelledthrough free media, academic andother wholesome social mecha-nisms instead of being bottled upby overwhelmingly regressivelegislation. How else do youthen retain high calibre people inyour country, much less dream ofluring people back home? Thus for the sake of communitiesand nations, shall we say not just“freedom”, but freedom to consentand dissent!

Intellectual Dissent

Tanjong Po is the pseudo-Tanjong Po is the pseudo-Tanjong Po is the pseudo-Tanjong Po is the pseudo-Tanjong Po is the pseudo-nym of a Kuching-basednym of a Kuching-basednym of a Kuching-basednym of a Kuching-basednym of a Kuching-basedAliran Monthly reader, whoAliran Monthly reader, whoAliran Monthly reader, whoAliran Monthly reader, whoAliran Monthly reader, whowrote this piece in responsewrote this piece in responsewrote this piece in responsewrote this piece in responsewrote this piece in responseto “Why Freedom is Goodto “Why Freedom is Goodto “Why Freedom is Goodto “Why Freedom is Goodto “Why Freedom is Goodfor You” by Caro. L. (Aliranfor You” by Caro. L. (Aliranfor You” by Caro. L. (Aliranfor You” by Caro. L. (Aliranfor You” by Caro. L. (AliranMonthly Vol. 23:5)Monthly Vol. 23:5)Monthly Vol. 23:5)Monthly Vol. 23:5)Monthly Vol. 23:5)

F r e e d o mOf Expression

q


he past year has been amomentous one inworld affairs. In the nor-mal rhythm, the pattern

was set in September, a monthmarked by several important andclosely related events. The mostpowerful state in history an-nounced a new National SecurityStrategy asserting that it willmaintain global hegemony perma-nently: any challenge will beblocked by force, the dimension inwhich the US reigns supreme. Atthe same time, the war drums be-gan to beat to mobilize the popu-lation for an invasion of Iraq,which would be “the first test [ofthe doctrine], not the last,” theNew York Times observed afterthe invasion, “the petri dish inwhich this experiment in pre-emptive policy grew.” And thecampaign opened for the mid-term congressional elections,which would determine whetherthe administration would be ableto carry forward its radical inter-national and domestic agenda.

The new “imperial grand strat-egy,” as it was aptly termed atonce by John Ikenberry, presentsthe US as “a revisionist state seek-ing to parlay its momentary ad-vantages into a world order inwhich it runs the show,” a “uni-polar world” in which “no stateor coalition could ever challenge”it as “global leader, protector, andenforcer. These policies arefraught with danger even for the

US itself, he warned, joining manyothers in the foreign policy elite.

What is to be “protected” is USpower and the interests it repre-sents, not the world, which vigor-ously opposed the conception.Within a few months, polls re-vealed that fear of the UnitedStates had reached remarkableheights, along with distrust of thepolitical leadership, or worse. Asfor the test case, an internationalGallup poll in December, barelynoted in the US, found virtuallyno support for Washington’s an-nounced plans for a war carriedout “unilaterally by America andits allies”: in effect, the US-UK“coalition.”

The basic principles of the impe-rial grand strategy trace back tothe early days of World War II,and have been reiterated fre-

quently since. Even before the USentered the war, planners andanalysts concluded that in thepostwar world the US would seek“to hold unquestioned power,”acting to ensure the “limitation ofany exercise of sovereignty” bystates that might interfere with itsglobal designs. They outlined “anintegrated policy to achieve mili-tary and economic supremacy forthe United States” in a “GrandArea,” to include at a minimumthe Western Hemisphere, theformer British empire, and the FarEast, later extended to as much ofEurasia as possible when it be-came clear that Germany wouldbe defeated.

Twenty years later, elder states-man Dean Acheson instructed theAmerican Society of InternationalLaw that no “legal issue” ariseswhen the US responds to a chal-lenge to its “power, position, andprestige.” He was referring spe-

INTERNATIONAL

Dominance And Its Dilemmasby Noam Chomsky

TTTTT

Imperial Strategy


cifically to Washington’s post-Bay of Pigs economic warfareagainst Cuba, but was surelyaware of Kennedy’s terrorist cam-paign aimed at “regime change,”a significant factor in bringing theworld close to nuclear war only afew months earlier, and resumedimmediately after the Cuban mis-sile crisis was resolved.

A similar doctrine was invoked bythe Reagan administration whenit rejected World Court jurisdictionover its attack against Nicaragua.State Department Legal AdviserAbraham Sofaer explained thatmost of the world cannot “becounted on to share our view”and “often opposes the UnitedStates on important internationalquestions.” Accordingly, we must“reserve to ourselves the power todetermine” which matters fall “es-sentially within the domestic ju-risdiction of the United States” —in this case, the actions that theCourt condemned as the “unlaw-ful use of force” against Nicara-gua; in lay terms, international ter-rorism.

Their successors continued tomake it clear that the US reservedthe right to act “unilaterally whennecessary,” including “unilateraluse of military power” to defendsuch vital interests as “ensuringuninhibited access to key markets,energy supplies and strategic re-sources.”

Even this small sample illustratesthe narrowness of the planningspectrum. Nevertheless, the alarmbells sounded in September 2002were justified. Acheson and Sofaerwere describing policy guidelines,and within elite circles. Other

cases may be regarded as worldly-wise reiterations of the maxim ofThucydides that “large nations dowhat they wish, while small na-tions accept what they must.” Incontrast, Cheney-Rumsfeld-Powell and their associates are of-ficially declaring an even more ex-treme policy. They intend to beheard, and took action at once toput the world on notice that theymean what they say. That is a sig-nificant difference.

The imperial grand strategy isbased on the assumption that theUS can gain “full spectrum domi-nance” by military programs thatdwarf those of any potential coa-lition, and have useful side ef-fects. One is to socialize the costsand risks of the private economyof the future, a traditional contri-bution of military spending andthe basis of much of the “neweconomy.” Another is to contrib-ute to a fiscal train wreck that will,it is presumed, “create powerfulpressures to cut federal spending,and thus, perhaps, enable the Ad-ministration to accomplish itsgoal of rolling back the New Deal,”a description of the Reagan pro-gram that is now being extendedto far more ambitious plans.

As the grand strategy was an-nounced on September 17, theadministration “abandoned aninternational effort to strengthenthe Biological Weapons Conven-tion against germ warfare,” advis-ing allies that further discussionswould have to be delayed for fouryears. A month later, the UN Com-mittee on Disarmament adopteda resolution that called forstronger measures to preventmilitarization of space, recogniz-

ing this to be “a grave danger forinternational peace and security,”and another that reaffirmed “the1925 Geneva Protocol prohibitingthe use of poisonous gases andbacteriological methods of war-fare.” Both passed unanimously,with two abstentions: the US andIsrael. US abstention amounts toa veto: typically, a double veto,banning the events from reportingand history.

A few weeks later, the Space Com-mand released plans to go beyondUS “control” of space for militarypurposes to “ownership,” whichis to be permanent, in accord withthe Security Strategy. Ownershipof space is “key to our nation’smilitary effectiveness,” permitting“instant engagement anywhere inthe world... A viable prompt glo-bal strike capability, whether nu-clear or non-nuclear, will allowthe US to rapidly strike high-pay-off, difficult-to-defeat targets fromstand-off ranges and produce thedesired effect... [and] to providewarfighting commanders the abil-ity to rapidly deny, delay, deceive,disrupt, destroy, exploit and neu-tralize targets in hours/minutesrather than weeks/days evenwhen US and allied forces have alimited forward presence,” thusreducing the need for overseasbases that regularly arouse localantagonism.

Similar plans had been outlinedin a May 2002 Pentagon planningdocument, partially leaked,which called for a strategy of “for-ward deterrence” in which mis-siles launched from space plat-forms would be able to carry outalmost instant “unwarned at-tacks.” Military analyst WilliamArkin comments that “no targeton the planet or in space would

U n i l a t e r a l i s m

Forward Deterence


be immune to American attack.The US could strike without warn-ing whenever and wherever athreat was perceived, and it wouldbe protected by missile defenses.”Hypersonic drones would moni-tor and disrupt targets. Surveil-lance systems are to provide theability “to track, record andanalyze the movement of everyvehicle in a foreign city.” Theworld is to be left at mercy of USattack at will, without warning orcredible pretext. The plans haveno remote historical parallel.Even more fanciful ones are un-der development.

These moves reflect the disdain ofthe administration for interna-tional law and institutions, orarms control measures, dismissedwith barely a word in the NationalSecurity Strategy; and its commit-ment to an extremist version oflong-standing doctrine.

In accord with these principles,Washington informed the UN thatit can be “relevant” by endorsingWashington’s plans for invadingIraq, or it can be a debating soci-ety. The US has the “sovereignright to take military action,”Colin Powell informed the Janu-ary 2003 Davos meeting of theWorld Economic Forum, whichalso strenuously opposed Wash-ington’s war plans. “When wefeel strongly about something wewill lead,” Powell informed them,even if no one is following us.

Bush and Blair underscored theircontempt for international lawand institutions at their AzoresSummit on the eve of the invasion.They issued an ultimatum - not to

Iraq, but to the Security Council:capitulate, or we will invade with-out your meaningless seal of ap-proval. And we will do sowhether or not Saddam Husseinand his family leave the country.The crucial principle is that theUS must effectively rule Iraq.

Since the mid-1940s, Washingtonhas regarded the Gulf as “a stu-pendous source of strategic power,and one of the greatest materialprizes in world history” - in Ei-senhower’s words, the “most stra-tegically important area of theworld” because of its “strategicposition and resources.” Controlover the region and its resourcesremains a policy imperative. Af-ter taking over a core oil producer,and presumably acquiring its firstreliable military bases at the heartof the world’s major energy-pro-ducing system, Washington willdoubtless be happy to establishan “Arab façade,” to borrow theterm of the British during their dayin the sun. Formal democracy willbe fine, but only if it is of the sub-missive kind tolerated in Wash-ington’s “backyard,” at least ifhistory and current practice areany guide.

To fail in this endeavor would takereal talent. Even under far lesspropitious circumstances, mili-tary occupations have commonlybeen successful. It would be hardnot to improve on a decade of mur-derous sanctions that virtuallydestroyed a society that was, fur-thermore, in the hands of a vi-cious tyrant who ranked withothers supported by the currentincumbents in Washington: Ro-mania’s Ceausescu, to mentiononly one of an impressive rogues

gallery. Resistance in Iraq wouldhave no meaningful outside sup-port, unlike Nazi-occupied Eu-rope or Eastern Europe under theRussian yoke, to take recent exam-ples of unusually brutal states thatnevertheless assembled an amplearray of collaborators andachieved substantial successwithin their domains.

The grand strategy authorizesWashington to carry out “preven-tive war”: Preventive, not pre-emptive. Whatever the justifica-tions for pre-emptive war maysometimes be, they do not hold forpreventive war, particularly asthat concept is interpreted by itscurrent enthusiasts: the use ofmilitary force to eliminate an in-vented or imagined threat, so thateven the term “preventive” is toocharitable. Preventive war is, verysimply, the “supreme crime” con-demned at Nuremberg.

That is widely understood. As theUS invaded Iraq, ArthurSchlesinger wrote that Bush’sgrand strategy is “alarminglysimilar to the policy that imperialJapan employed at Pearl Harbor,on a date which, as an earlierAmerican president said it would,lives in infamy.” FDR was right,he added, “but today it is weAmericans who live in infamy.” Itis no surprise that “the globalwave of sympathy that engulfedthe United States after 9/11 hasgiven way to a global wave of ha-tred of American arrogance andmilitarism,” and the belief thatBush is “a greater threat to peacethan Saddam Hussein.”

Source: ZNetThis is the first of a two-part com-mentary, the final part will be car-ried in our next issue.

Preventive War

Contempt ForInternational Law

q


am Mohammad IqbalB.A. Rahman, 46 yearsold, from Indonesia. I aman Islamic teacher cum

preacher, married (two wives andhave 12 children). I migrated toMalaysia legally with genuinedocuments, and have lived inMalaysia for the past eighteenyears or so with my family.

On 30 June 2002, about 12 police-men from the Special Branch sur-rounded the building where I wasconducting an afternoon prayer inShah Alam, Selangor. Immedi-ately, after my prayer, I was ar-rested by the policemen and wastaken to the Police Remand Cen-tre (PRC), Bukit Aman, KualaLumpur. I was unjustly remandedthere, from the above mentioneddate to 21 August 2001under theInternal Security Act (ISA). To mygreatest surprise, it was duringone of the interrogation which Iwas subjected to when I protestedto them just to know the rationalebehind my arrest and unlawfuldetention, that I was told I hadbeen arrested in connection to ter-rorism and sponsoring of Islamicmilitant groups.

After interrogations, on 21August2001 I was transferred from thePRC, Bukit Aman to the DetentionCamp in Taiping. I was hand-cuffed and forced to put on a darkspectacles as if I was an armedrobber by six dreadful policemenfrom the Special Branch and some

of them were armed to the teeth.This ugly scenario is better expe-rienced than imagined.

I was dumped in the detentioncamp in Taiping from 21 August2001 to 18 August 2003 under thedeceitful cum obnoxious ISA.Without being taken to court fortrial even though I was accusedas a terrorist and sponsor of theIslamic militant groups. Instead,on 18 August 2003, I was trans-ferred back to the Police RemandCentre in Bukit Aman, KualaLumpur.

A notice was brought to me — thewording was to that I had com-pleted two years in detention —which I signed after perusal.

I was then taken to the Immigra-tion Headquarters, Damansara,Kuala Lumpur and from there Iwas handed over to the Immigra-tion by the Police and they swungto action immediately. A noticewas brought to me by the Immi-gration, stating that my resident’spermit had been cancelled. I pro-tested and demanded justice,since the offences which they al-legedly claimed that I committedhad not been buttressed, neitherhad they provided any evidenceto substantiate their claims.Above all, I had not been taken tocourt let alone indicted. Irrespec-tive of all my protests and theabove-mentioned reasons, theywere bent on cancelling my resi-

dent’s permit and they mountedpressure on me to sign to which Ilater succumbed.

I want to bring to the attention ofhuman rights groups, religiousgroups and the general public thedegree of injustice and the blatantviolation and abuse of my humanrights. I am denied access to mydoctor, even when I was indis-posed. No proper medication, in-adequate food — what is servedis very poor. I was denied free-dom of movement, freedom of as-sociations and freedom of religion.I am unjustly and unlawfully keptin detention without trial. And,above all, I was separated from myfamily and I am the bread winnerof the family. Thus they are sub-ject to an untold hardship. I wastold several times that they wantto deport me back to my country,Indonesia, but until now, I am stillin detention. All those injusticeshave been meted out to me in thename of terrorism, by theMalaysian government. I am nei-ther a terrorist nor a sponsor. Is-lamic doctrines totally and un-equivocally condemn any act ofterrorism.

DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL

“I Am Neither A TerroristNor A Sponsor”

IIIII

q

Mohammad Iqbal's wife, Fatimah


I was bemused by a columnist inThe Star whose musings clearlybelied a glibness about howsmooth the transition of leader-ship from Mahathir to Abdullahwas. To be sure, Malaysia’s recordof leadership succession has beenquite remarkable for a ‘ThirdWorld’ country; it has had fourtransitions of leadership. Now,into the middle of its fourth dec-ade of independence, chances arethat the affable Pak Lah will duly

ensconce himself as premier, al-beit rather fortuitously after threedeputy premiers had fallen by thewayside. Not quite so smooth, re-ally.

As is our wont, Malaysians havesubjected themselves to bouts ofrumour-mongering and extrava-gant speculation long before theevent of Pak Lah’s succession.One interesting early rumour wasthat some 20-odd divisions ofUMNO were ready to call an EGMof the party to ask Che Det to re-

main in the job. Nothing of thatsort happened of course and in theevent we know that the GreatPumpkin Spirit did not hesitate totake the good doctor away onHalloween night… to Spain, Imean!

Then there was much talk thatbecause Pak Lah had not (and stillhas not) named his deputy, politi-cal jockeying and factional in-fighting for the Number Two spotin the party would make for a cha-otic transition. Again, nothing ofthat sort happened. All contend-ers and factions have remained re-markably supportive of the newlyanointed PM and show no signsof being embroiled in internalstruggles despite his reluctance toname a deputy.

Now, of course much speculationis rife as to whom Pak Lah is likelyto anoint to be Number Two andmuch speculation too about whenthis will happen. Defence minis-ter Najib Abdul Razak isn’t coyabout his ‘frontrunner’ position(ever since Mahathir suggestedhis name) and has made subtlenoises to the press that he is in-deed an eligible candidate. ButPak Lah so far has refused to fallfor the Najib bait. To compoundthe issue, rampant rumours sug-gest that the two wives don’t getalong. Mahahtir owes a huge dueto Tun Abdul Razak, who resur-rected him from the ashes of po-litical oblivion, but Pak Lah hasno such utang budi. To my mind,Najib’s future remains somewhatiffy.

Or would Pak Lah prefer awoman deputy? If so, this wouldmake him a most progressive PM.Hence, Rafidah Aziz, the seniorwoman minister, would seem

A SmoothTransition?

Najib ... subtle noisesAbdullah ... who will be his deputy?


most suitably poised for the job,baubles, bangles and all. Nah, saythe pundits, she won’t past mus-ter with the UMNO rank and file.UMNO is so sexist that you’llnever see the day when a womanwill be an education minister, afinance minister, deputy PM andGod forbid, Numero Uno!

So would Pak Lah then choosethe most senior man in the pack?That would be Ku Li. With hisvast experience, and past acco-lade of Baba Ekonomi Bumiputera,Razaleigh clearly qualifies ex-cept for that conspicuous fauxpas and brief dalliance with theopposition during the S46 pe-riod. But does anyone still re-member that S46 thingy? Seemslike it never happened now thatthe spirit of 46 has all but evapo-rated and Ku Li seems comfort-ably reunited with the party.Very comfortable indeed, nowthat his nemesis has actuallyleft the stage! When you have thestamina and stay the course,surely you’re should be in forsome reward. Come to think ofit, Pak Lah was himself a “TeamB” man for a while under Ku Li.Hmmmm….

Other potential contenders in-clude the other two UMNO Veeps,Muhiyiddin and Mat Taib. But, Ithink not. The pundits have it thatdubious dealings in the past (let’sput it that way) disqualify thesetwo. But could the scenario besomething of a rank-and-file up-rising to demand a candidate oftheir choice? This did happenedin 1976 when Hussein Onn tookthe reins of power only to be toldhe had to choose from amongMahathir, Ghafar or Razaleighfor his deputy, while his own pre-ferred candidate was the lucklessGhazali Shafie. This could hap-pen again if the anointed PM isconsidered to be too ‘weak’ or doesnot have a clear heir apparent.Pak Lah – the fourth ofMahathir’s deputies – does in-deed have to live down quite hardthe image of being a last choiceand of lacking charisma, unlike adeputy such as Anwar Ibrahim.

Now this brings me to the nextsubject—the 11th General Elec-tion. And this will also answer thequestion of when the deputy willbe chosen. Since Pak Lah faces theproblem of being picked by anoutgoing PM and never really

winning his spurs for the job, hehas to establish a legitimacy andauthority not just with his partybut with the other BN partners aswell.

What better way than to get hismandate through leading the BNparties to victory in the next gen-eral election. Indeed, he has littlechoice. Imagine appointing awhole new cabinet on the thin le-gitimacy of a hand-me-down au-thority of the previous PM. Howwould he justify removing minis-ters he dislikes and putting inones he likes? Pak Lah needs ageneral election to give him thatauthority, only then can he trulyclaim to have made that transitionas leader of the country.

So, when is the general election?Again, this is the subject of much,much speculation. ButMalaysians are truly expert onsuch predictions. They havehoned it down to a fine art. Theydo it by a process of elimination

Q Q Q Q Q

M u s i n g sOn The Hustings

Rafidah ... poisedRazaleigh ... vast experience


before a general election and thiscan be done by the stroke of akingly pen, duly guided by hishumble servant, the prime minis-ter. But is the BN ready and canits component parties negotiateand allocate the seats within amonth? If this is a tall order, thenit would seem to me that March isthe likely date for the 11th generalelection.

The controversy continues tobrew at the time of writing.Abdullah inherits the sticky prob-lem of the award of the RM14.5billion project of the double track-ing railway running from PadangBesar to Johor Baru. This will beMalaysia’s largest infrastructureproject to date. The 600-plus kilo-metre track will form part of a5,000km trans-Asia link betweenSingapore and Kunmin. And thecontract has been awarded to twoMalaysian companies, MalaysianMining Corp Bhd (MMC) andGamuda Bhd. All seeminglylaudable, except for one thing.

The government had already is-sued Letters of Intent to IndianRailway Construction (Ircon)and China Railway EngineeringCorp (CREC) before the contractwent to MMC-Gamuda. Thiswas to be a G-to-G deal whichwas hammered out over threeyears of intensive negotiations.As primary industries minister,Lim Keng Yaik avers, “I fearChina and India might retali-ate.” (New Straits Times, Nov. 12).Lim is understandably worriedthat palm oil exports to boththese countries may suffer be-cause of this episode.

and most times can get it right.Let’s see if I can do this here bystating the following obviouspoints:

1 . Going by the five-year limit, ageneral election is due by No-vember next year since the lastwas held in November1999.

2. General elections are usuallyheld during school breakswhen both manpower andschools as polling stations areavailable.

3 . The school holidays fall onDecember 2003, March 2004and August 2004.

By eliminating August, which istoo far away for Pak Lah who isanxious to establish his authorityearly, we can safely go for eitherDecember 2003 or March 2003.Even should he choose non-school breaks, certain dates areout – around Hari Raya on about25 November, or around ChineseNew Year on 22 January. Thisleaves December as a highly prob-able date if Pak Lah wants a quickmandate for his leadership.

Indeed parliament has alreadyjust adjourned sine die. All thatremains is to dissolve parliament

My concern is more with a possi-ble breach of trust by the previousregime and the udang behind thelate awarding of a contract to acompany tied to the rising lumi-nary of the bumiputera businessworld, Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary.Why this late decision? What wasthe basis of the decision? Thelower tender sum alone? Was theexpertise of the contracting par-ties considered or what? To any-one with a cursory awareness ofbusiness norms, surely the dealsmacks of favoritism, dare we say,cronyism.

The Indian government is under-standably unhappy with thewhole distasteful affair. Ircon setup office more than two years agoand brought in its own staff toprepare documents, presenta-tions, soil tests, land surveys andthe like. Indian premier Vajpayeehad also signed the MOU with hiscounterpart Mahathir amidstmuch fanfare in May 2001 inKuala Lumpur. (NST, Nov. 4). Theepisode promises to become a dip-lomatic incident if it is not one al-ready.

A little information about SyedMokhtar Al-Bukhary, the new starof Malay business may be perti-nent, so our readers can gauge forthemselves how this tycoon quali-fies for the double tracking job.This 52-year old hails from Kedahand the record shows a meteoricaccumulation of a multi-billionringgit business empire since hisforay into the rice dealing busi-ness in Johor in 1990.

The tycoon was able to lay his

Q Q Q Q Q

Double Timing OnDouble Tracking

Q Q Q Q Q

This Is NoAli Baba…

Lim Keng Yaik ... worried


hands on a mega project when hiscompany Seaport Terminal wasawarded a 30-year concession tobuild and operate the Port ofTanjung Pelepas (PTP), whichmade him a substantial majorityshareholder. PTP has corneredthe business of the MaerskSealand and Evergreen linesmuch to the chagrin of Singapore.Syed Mokhtar proceeded to ac-quire 19.9% share in MalaysianMining Corporation via hiswholly-owned company, SyarikatImpian Teladan Sdn. Bhd. He alsoowns SKS Ventures, which wasawarded the task of building thesite for a 2100MW gas-firedpower station at Tanjung Bin,Johor. He has a 32% share inPERNAS through his own com-pany, Syarikat Ratu Jernih andhas an interest in Fiamma Hold-ings Berhad, where a 18.68%share is held by him through histwo companies, Syarikat PerdanaPadu Sdn. Bhd. and Corak KukuhSdn. Bhd.

Syed Mokhtar’s latest business‘killing’ came when Gulf Interna-tional Investment Group Capital(GIIG), jointly owned by him andDubai-based Mohamed Ali

Alabbar, won a contract to de-velop a RM7.6 billion aluminiumsmelter in Bintulu, Sarawak. Thesmelter will consume up to 50 per-cent of the power output from theRM9 billion Bakun hydroelectricdam in the east Malaysian state.According to reports quotingSarawak’s Deputy Chief MinisterGeorge Chan, GIIG acquired a 60percent stake in the Bakun projectfor RM945.42 million from theMinistry of Finance Inc., whichcontrols the remaining 40 percent.

On the positive side, theAlbhukary Foundation com-pleted the RM70 million IslamicArts Museum in Kuala Lumpurat the height of Asian Crisis in1998.

Well, well, now that all theTajuddin’s and Ramli’s havefaded, perhaps this new ‘dar-ling’, from the state of the ex-pre-mier, with a partner by the curi-ous name of Ali Alabbar may bea sop yet for the ex-prime minis-ter ’s unfulfi l led dreams ofMelayu baru.

While on the subject of businesspersonalities, a figure that hasmade the news through the Sec-ond Board listed company

SCOMI is one KamaluddinAbdullah. Nothing spectacularabout the person as such, com-pared to a Syed Mokhtar, exceptthat Kamaluddin is the only sonof the present prime minister.

What has been spectacular is themanner in which SCOMI shares,in which Kamaluddin has a con-trolling interest, have over a shortperiod of time seen an 11-fold in-crease in price. SCOMI was onlylisted on the Second Board inearly May this year but its sharehas already risen from a lowlyRM1.80 to a heavenly high ofRM16.80 — that is a gain of about833 per cent!

To be sure, the oil and gas com-pany seems to be expanding andrecently acquired the Singaporecompany Oiltools which is ex-pected to boost its profit by 50%.But in truth, this is only a small-ish company on the second boardwhich had little business on itsshort track record.

But do the speculators and punt-ers know a thing or two about thiscompany which I don’t? Could itbe that they think “the PM's son'scompany” will be bestowed fa-vours, concessions, contracts,whatever, well beyond the busi-ness norm, in the near future?

D.L. Daun

Q Q Q Q Q

Super Stock SCOMI

Syed Mokhtar Al-Bukhary ... new star


“Libertyof thought

meansliberty

to communicateone's thought.”

AM 2003: 23(10)

Send this form andpayment to

ALIRAN DISTRIBUTIONBUREAU

103, MEDAN PENAGA,11600 JELUTONG,PENANG, MALAYSIA

Salvador de Madariage1886 - 1973

Spanish diplomat, writer, critic

Please send this gift subscription to :

Mr./Ms.

Address

Occupation Tel. No.

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

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

amounting to RM payable to Aliran.

This gift subscription is paid for and presented by:

Mr./Ms.

Address

Date Signature

ONE YEARONE YEARONE YEARONE YEARONE YEARRM25.00

S $ 2 8AIRAIRAIRAIRAIR

US$25US$28

US$30

SEASEASEASEASEAU S $ 2 1U S $ 2 1

U S $ 2 1

TWO YEARSTWO YEARSTWO YEARSTWO YEARSTWO YEARSRM50.00

S $ 5 0AIRAIRAIRAIRAIR

US$44US$50

US$54

SEASEASEASEASEAUS$38US$38

US$38

SUBSCRIPTION RATESCOUNTRYCOUNTRYCOUNTRYCOUNTRYCOUNTRYMALAYSIA

SINGAPORE & BRUNEI

ASIA & THE PACIFICEUROPE & EGYPT

AFRICA, NORTH AMERICA,SOUTH AMERICA, HAWAII

GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONORDER FORM

Mr./Ms.

Address

Occupation Tel. No.

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

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

TOTAL Enclosed : Money Order / Postal Order / Cheque

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

ALIRAN MONTHLY SUBSCRIPTION FORM

AM 2003: 23(10)

AM 2003: 23(10)

AM 2003: 23(10)

A GIFTof one publication

of your choiceif you subscribe to

AliranMonthly

N O W(Tick one)

PandanganALIRAN

The NEP:Development andAlternativeConsciousness

RM

RM

RM


The writer of your reply to myletter has apparently missedthe main point of myletter (AM 23:5) in which Iurge that to raise the con-sciousness of your readers onthe plight of the foreign work-ers and to help them, Aliranmust arm itself with good andcredible information and argu-ments.

The reply by the Aliran’s con-tributor gives the reader theimpression that the foreignworkers were cheated to cometo work in Malaysia becausethe promised minimum salaryof RM700 cannot be enforcedin Malaysia. He comes to thisconclusion solely based on thefact that the local authoritiesclaimed that they have no ju-risdiction over the contractwhich binds the employer topromise a minimum income ofRM700 per month, because itis signed in Burma. Followingthat Aliran’s contributor wenton to make a bold assumption(totally without basis) that allother partners in the recruit-ment exercise besides theworkers know of this fact.Aliran’s contributor maintainsthat since they knew the con-tract could not be implementedand still sent the workers over,the local and foreign agentshave enticed them to come to

Malaysia to work.

Aliran’s contributor could onlyhave consulted a lawyer to findout whether the local authori-ties’ claim is true or not. A con-tract can be signed in a foreigncountry and yet governed byMalaysian laws and can be en-forced in Malaysian courts. Ina recent High Court case inPenang, the High Court Judgehad no hesitation in holdingthat the Malaysian employer isliable to pay the foreign Indianworkers the guaranteed salaryof RM750 per month with over-time to be calculated. Althoughthe contract document was notsigned by the workers and wasonly signed by the Malaysianemployer, the court neverthe-

less held that there is a bind-ing contract between the for-eign workers and theMalaysian employer. Thus if acontract document signed byonly one party can be enforcedin Malaysian courts, whatmore if it is signed by bothparties!

The Aliran’s contributor isaware of this recent High Courtcase since that case was quotedin his reply. With this courtjudgement in mind, one wouldfeel something amiss readingthe following quote: “It ap-pears that the Malaysian au-thorities, Malaysian employersand the recruitment agents areall to be blamed because all ofthem probably know that there

LABOUR

Some Hope For ForeignW o r k e r s ?


is no way the RM700 wage canbe enforced in Malaysia. Howcan the Myanmar EmploymentAgency give an assurance tothe workers they will be paidRM700 in Malaysia when theyjolly well know that there isnothing they can do to compelMalaysian employers to hon-our that assurance? In thatsense, the workers were en-ticed with the so-called RM700guarantee as all the other par-ties knew there was nothing toensure compliance in Malay-sia.” It is unfair for the Aliran’scontributor to arrive at such aconclusion and to embark on afinger pointing exercise.

In my opinion it would bemore constructive to publicisethe judgement of the High

Court case widely not only tothe foreign workers but also tothe Malaysian authorities, theforeign governments fromwhich the workers came fromand the recruitment agencies.If the practices and proce-dures of the foreign govern-ments differ from thatadopted by the Indian govern-ment as described in the recentHigh Court case, it would beuseful to persuade these for-eign governments to reviewtheir practices and proceduresso that they will be consistentwith the principles of lawenunciated by the High CourtJudge in the said case.

I believe that the existence ofthe flow of immigrant labourfrom poorer to richer coun-

Aliran Replies: Practical Problems

tries, either done “legally” or“illegally”, is part of the dis-tortion in our present worldeconomic order of unequal dis-tribution of wealth. The flowof immigrant labour happensnot just in Malaysia but also inother Asian countries, Europeand elsewhere. This problem israpidly getting out of controldue to globalisation takingplace. However it is not a sim-ple question of telling the em-ployers ‘don’t hire these for-eign workers’ or telling the for-eign workers ‘don’t ’ comehere’. It would be timely ifAliran can publish a compre-hensive and objective article onthis issue.

CHIA Yong TaiAugust 28 2003

The unexpected and welcomecourt judgment only came after ourreply to your original responsewas written. We were pleasantlysurprised and we did highlightand welcome this decision as apostscript in reply. You are rightto say this court decision shouldbe publicised to all quarters.

In practice, however, there aresome major practical problemsfor workers who want to go tocourt to enforce their employ-ment contract. Apart from thelanguage barrier, the workerscannot afford lawyers to go tocourt. Even if they did find alawyer, once their work permitsare withdrawn or expire, it isvery difficult to get extendedpermission to stay back andfight a prolonged case. For in-

stance, they cannot find otherwork while staying on a tempo-rary permit. Also, it is hard forthem to find volunteer lawyersto help prepare a case or to makea complaint to the relevant au-thorities due to lack of confi-dence, fear of repercussions, orsimply plainignorance of theirrights.

Also, your letter does not ad-dress the issue of some agentsand middle-men making ludi-crous amounts in commission,fees and profits from the traffick-ing of migrant labour. The“agents’ commission”, in thecase of the Burmese workers inquestion, had to be borne by theworkers themselves. Many mi-grant workers spend their firstyear in Malaysia just repaying

their debts on loans taken to fi-nance their trip here. Why domigrant workers have to stumpout so much cash just to comeand work here when the cost ofan airticket is relatively low?

We are not against migrant labour;in fact, we sympathise with themas they often come here to seekwork out of sheer desperation. Butas things stand now they havefew rights under the law and havevery little capacity to enforce suchrights; hence they are easily ex-ploited. If Malaysia is seriousabout human rights, we must im-mediately ratify the InternationalConvention on the Protection ofthe Rights of all Migrant Workersand Members of their Families(MWC), which entered into forceon 1 July 2003.


I came here from Sumatra where my family’s quite poor,Our house is ten square metres, two windows and a door.The roof is thatched with lallang, the walls are split bamboo;But its got a cement `dapor’ and the floor is cement, too.

We live on rice and vegetables, or vegetables and rice,But we sometimes have an egg or two, if we can find the price.And sometimes there might be a fish, if it will take the bait,But there’s little time for fishing as I’m always working late.

I heard that in Malaysia, a worker such as me,Could afford to buy a motor-bike, or even a T.V.,That shoes are made of leather, and that employers pay,Enough to buy real cigarettes and eat meat twice a day.

I thought I’d like to try it, and make money while I can,So I went up to the city and I found a middle-man.Who, for nearly all my savings, would arrange a boat that night,Well, I didn’t stop to argue as a fortune was in sight.

So I found myself next morning, with ten others, on the shore,And a minibus was waiting there to take us to Johore.The plantation was a big one, and the houses there were grand,But the bus drove right on past them, which I couldn’t understand.

It took us to the jungle edge, and stopped there by a shed,And that is where we had to stay, with four planks for a bed.Its roof was aluminium and it had two concrete drains,It reminded me of home but was much dryer when it rains.

Ah Kow was the contractor. He fed us with meat,And biscuits, bread and Maggi Mee, and soup with chickens’ feet.Three meals a day he gave us, with no limit to the rice,And sugar in our coffee — it seemed like paradise!

Our work was cutting bunches down from off the oil palm trees,And carry to the roadside, which was painful for the knees.Then pick up all the fruitlets, and put them in a sack,But squatting down to pick them up was hard upon the back.

Ah Kow paid us ten cents a bunch, though he got seventeen,But he had lots of expenses, I think you know what I mean.He could settle Immigration, and had friends in the Police,And he must be influential, for they left us all in peace.

Illegal Immigrantby Richard Jones


I worked there for a year or more and never went to town,And only bought some `Kretek’ when Ah Kow’s truck came round.He kept my money for me, and gave old clothes to wear,And bought my friend some clippers so that he could cut my hair.

When I’d got my second thousand I decided to go home.(In Rupiahs that’s a million, which I never thought I’d own!)So Ah Kow arranged some transport, and with several other men,We drove back to Malacca. It was three hours’ drive again.

We met the boat at midnight at an isolated beach,And they said they’d take us back for just two hundred ringgit each.We left without our lights on, with a prayer upon our lips,But no one could have heard it, for we met two bigger ships.

They stopped us and they boarded us and robbed us with no fuss,Leaving us with just our clothing and some money for a bus.I’d bought a small transistor and a kettle for my mum,And for my little sister, some sweets and chewing gum.

They took it all onto their boats, and left us, then and there,And I overheard our boatman say, “Please don’t forget my share”.So one year’s work was wasted, all that sweating in the sun,But you can’t do much about it when you’re looking at a gun.

We only came to work here, and not to rob and steal,But if this is how we’re treated, just imagine how we feel.My friends lost all their money, but for me that’s not quite true,For those robbers hadn’t found the thousand ringgit in my shoe!

That story happened years ago and I’m much wiser now,I came again, but legally, when someone showed me how.With a ticket and a passport and a permit in my name,I flew to Kuala Lumpur and I started work again.

This time I was a labourer on a construction site,And I made a thousand monthly, by working day and night.The foreman took me home one day, and there I met his daughter,(She was nice, but not as beautiful as those across the water).

Still, beggars can’t be choosers and I thought I saw a chance,So I arranged to meet her later and I started a romance.My plan was working perfectly and soon I did the trick,That forced her parents both to say we must get married — quick!

With wife and child Malaysian I knew I could face,The relevant officials and persuade them of my case.It worked as I expected and, before a year was through,I was a legal citizen with NRIC (Blue).

Now I’m a Federal Citizen and join them when they shout:-“Save Malaysia for Malaysians, keep those Indonesians out.

The sun

and

the moon

are not

mirrored

in cloudy water.

Thus

the almighty

cannot be

mirrored

in a heart

that is

obsessed by

the idea of

me and mine.

— Ramakrishna


This is in response to your arti-cles titled “The Mahathir Legacy”,“De-Mahathirising Malaysia”and “Midwife, Nanny....”.

To the writers who contributedsuch articles, a word of thanksbecause they are not only educa-

tional but also perhaps open theeyes of Malaysians in matters ofdissatisfaction or injustice.

But don’t you think that it is abso-lutely unnecessary to ‘open oldwounds’ when you have alreadygot yourselves a new PM? As inyour PM’s words: “work withme” - doesn’t this mean that youlook ahead and help develop yourcountry further?

Come on, Malaysia, let bygones bebygones and live for the future.What is past is past and nothingcan turn things around exceptfurther advancement towards“Vision 2020”. Live for the future!

Salmonmaple

Muzaffar Tate’s piece was a bril-liant exposition of a very complex

matter for many people. No doubtfor a historian like him, the cruxof the matter is very simple. Youranalysis is hard to surpass.

Tahir

I am most impressed withMuzaffar Tate’s summary of theMahathir legacy. It is my opinionthat it is indeed a fair piece of writ-ing and you have given creditwhere it is due. Some may feel thatyour opinion is biased, but I begto differ.

I expect the person who holds themost important position in thecountry to give his very best in allareas. He should not expect thepublic to wipe out and forget theunchecked errors and mistakes (ifI may put it that way) just becauseof the good that he has done forthe country. It is his job, duty andresponsibility.

Politics as they often say is ‘dirty’,and it may be no different in an-other country. However, most ofour politicians are still not at thelevel of professionalism onewould expect. It is for this reasonthat the Leader should take extracaution in his actions and I relatethis to what you have mentionedabout accountability and trans-parency, politics and morality.

Another area which I feel thatMahathir has failed is the delicateand sensitive racial issue. After 22years, every Malaysian knowsthat segregration is at its worseand he has often “allowed “UMNO politicians to abuse thisissue for very obvious reasons.

Ordinary Malaysian

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

No Need To OpenOld Wounds

Hard To Surpass

Important ToRemember Errors


I am saddened by Andrew Aeria’scomments about Tun Dr MahathirMohamad. Most of us will notdeny the fact that Mahathir him-self may not be perfect as he oftenadmitted himself during his 22-year reign.

Having said that, I feel that theissues raised by Andrew may notbe totally palatable to the major-ity of our people, who still loveand loathe Dr Mahathir for what-ever he is worth. However, I dobelieve that Andrew’s criticalcomments on the failures of theMahathir administration are rel-evant to the critics of DrMahathir’s style of political lead-ership. I am sure there are manyothers out there who share simi-lar perceptions of the kind thatthat has clouded the mind andheart of Andrew, who has openlyand unreasonably condemned DrMahathir using the most subtleand sarcastic of overtones.

I do not blame Andrew for his criti-cal approach to our national is-sues. He may have been politicallyand socially westernised by vir-tue of his education abroad.Andrew should have been en-trusted with an opposing politi-cal power base in order that hiscritical voice may be heard as anelected representative in Parlia-ment, rather than remaining be-hind the scenes in Aliran. Howabout standing for the cominggeneral election, Andrew?

We have been trying to livepeacefully though there aremany issues confronting us. Byand large, the government un-der the political sharing power

concept of the Alliance and theBarisan Nasional, which hasbeen mandated by the peopleover the last 46 years, has beenextremely successful in devel-oping Malaysia into a stable andsovereign state, earning the re-spect of other friendly nations.

We do not deny that there are alsoothers within the global politicalarena who are critical and agi-tated by Mahathir’s style of lead-ership and his personal, charis-matic approach to internationalissues of significance to Malaysiaand other less fortunate thirdworld countries.

We should appreciate the manymonumental success stories of ournation and recognise our respon-sibility to uphold allegiance to thecountry of our choice. Where is ourconscience, when we throwstones in the glass house that welive in? Why should we betray ourown subconsciousness and col-laborate with the political and eco-nomic agenda of the western pow-ers in condemning our govern-ment and elected leaders?

Each and everyone of us is enti-tled to the freedom of our expres-sion, though that does not meritus to condemn the righteousnessof our beloved leader, Tun DrMahathir Mohamad, who hadcontributed immensely to thiswonderful country. I urge all sen-sible and peace lovingMalaysians to bid Tun DrMahathir and Tun Dr SitiHasmah, a peaceful and wonder-ful retirement. To both of them -may Allah swt continue to blessboth of you with good health andhappiness.

Mustapha Ong

Your goodbye letter to Mahathiris well said but I think there ismore about this so-calledMalaysian hero - or shall I sayBolehman - who has wasted thepeople’s money on mega projects.Anyway thank God this chapteris over and pray to God his suc-cessor will have some sense inproviding Malaysians on thewhole with better living standardsand using the people’s money fora good cause.

I think a follow-up of all the viewsshould be published so thatyounger Malaysians will knowand learn as I am teaching my 9-year-old child how to value agood leader.

Ravianan

That was a really good letter toyour retiring prime minister.Sadly, I guess he will not read itas he perceives every unkind re-mark in websites not toeing gov-ernment thinking as unworthy ofhis attention. Many of you whopenned articles are true blueMalaysians and ought to beproactive in your endeavour topromote justice and equality toyour fellow men and women irre-spective of race, colour and reli-gion.

Siew Wah

It is foolish to be emotional in yourwriting. I had expected a more ma-

Thank God ThisChapter Is Over

Mahathir WillProbably Not Read It

Foolish To BeE m o t i o n a l

Treat Tun MahathirWith Respect


ture and realistic piece fromAliran. Yes, Mahathir has hisweaknesses but you have sadlymissed the forest for the trees.

I am apolitical but realistic. If evenhis political enemies will miss hispresence and the ever-ready-to-criticise Australian press cannotbut admit that he has done impec-cably well for the rakyat, Malay-sia and the region, I wonder howyou could be so blind as totrivialise him.

Lastly, I will get my friends to stoptheir subscription. It is not thecomments that is a bother buttheir depth.

Azman Awalludin

Please stop talking s*** in yourarticles; no wonder your circula-tion is so limited and the govern-ment doesn’t remove your licence.Nobody listens to you!

Fong Sai Yuk

I was a victim of the 1997/98 “eco-nomic terrorism” that virtuallybankrupted the whole country. Iforsaw this coming in October1997 after reading the book “TheTheory of Reflexivity” by GeorgeSoros where he proved his theorythat it is “sentiments” that deter-mine values in the money marketand stock market. He took creditfor devaluing the financial mar-kets of Soviet Union causing thenation to go bankrupt.

Interestingly, George Soros could

only achieve his aims on Malay-sia after the former Finance Min-ister legalised short selling in thestock market. Around the sametime during her visit to Singapore,US State Secretary, MadelineAlbright sang her song “Don’t cryfor me Aseania”. Yes, by October1997, I expected an attack on ourfinancial system and it hap-pened. My investment in Indone-sia went bust. Nonetheless, I amfully convinced that the Asian cri-sis was an economic sabotage tobankrupt some countries withMalaysia included. As I see it, ourPM acted decisively to save thenation and he steered the economyback on course to the chagrin ofGeorge Soros and the former USadministration.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not anardent admirer of Dr Mahathir. Buthe deserves the credit for his ac-complishments. A friend oncetold me that if people find mis-takes in you, then you know youare working. He has evidentlyprospered the nation by creatingopportunities and megaprojectsand therefore it is fruitless to harpon some failed projects. I was im-poverished by economic maraud-ers but I know who I should blameand definitely not Dr Mahathirwho has influenced me to be am-bitious and visionary.

So my advice is: give credit whereit is due.

Bob OngNew Zealand

I applaud Francis Loh’s brief ex-pose (Mahathir and the BN’s he-gemony) - a brilliant example ofclarity with brevity.

Despite the humiliating realisa-tion that much of what is written,with insight, conviction and pas-sion will have no discernible im-pact on this country, I hope thatsuch writers will never lose hopeand never stop thinking and writ-ing, in the pursuit of truth.

In Singapore and Malaysia, wehave seen subtle variations of thedictum “Power corrupts and ab-solute power corrupts absolutely”and authority has been heavilyvested in the state as opposed tothe individual. Both thestrongmen, LKY and M, have be-come identified so closely with“their” governments that, at times,they may have confused chal-lenges to their continued rule asthreatening state stability.We shallnot have long to observe howindispensible indeed they wereand whether there is more to themthan met the eye.

Alas, the ordinary man, it is said,has a casual acceptance of ap-pearances. And whatever revela-tions are to come, life will go backto whatever it was. Or will it?

Peter Ramanathan

I have always been wary aboutgovernment having unlimited ac-cess to my personal particulars viathe much touted hi-tech MyKad.Any junior government clerk canpeek into personal matters likeyour illness or bank account num-bers as there is no local equiva-lent of a Data Protection Act. Iharboured a nagging suspicionthat my private life is not privatefrom Big Brother. My privatenightmare is confirmed when thepowers-that-be have woken up to

N o b o d yListens To You!

Give CreditWhere It Is Due

Brilliant Expose

Invasion Of Privacy?


table a Personal Data ProtectionBill in Parliament next year.

What remedy does the data-com-promised citizen have until then?Why was the Data Protection Actnot passed before the MyKad wasstarted?

R J NoelKuching

I refer to Aliran Monthly Vol. 23(9)at page 39 where the heading ofthe article reads: Who Lied AboutUMNO?

In his book entitled May Day ForJustice the former Lord Presidentof the Supreme Court of Malaysia,Tun Salleh Abas expressed the fol-lowing view:

“I have no doubt - and few wouldnow disagree - that it was theUMNO saga that led to my de-struction as a judge.”

Now, fifteen years later, I think wehave concrete proof from thehorse's mouth (through an ironyof fate) that Tun Salleh Abas’ de-duction was right on target.

Following the death of the late Tan

Sri Harun Hashim, the Diarist ofThe New Sunday Times penned theundermentioned paragraph in hiscolumn on page 10 of 5 October2003 which reads:

“After Harun declared UMNO il-legal, he only sought the Diarist’sopinion on what was next. TheDiarist speculated and also toldTun Salleh Abas what could hap-pen in the event they persisted intheir plan to have a full court hear-ing of the UMNO case. Tun DaimZainuddin had intimated to theDiarist the Government’s plan.They were simultaneouslyalarmed, sceptical and rathernaïve. The rest is history.”

I would like to point out the word“ they” deliberately used by theDiarist in his conversation withTun Salleh Abas. It is now clearthat “they” referred to the twosenior judges of the SupremeCourt who were subsequently re-moved from high office.

Former Prime Minister,Dr.Mahathir seems to prefer the le-gal interpretations of Section 9 ofthe Courts of Judicature Act 1964and Article 131A of the FederalConstitution of the AG Lord Presi-dent to the unanimous view of thefive members of the Supreme Courton the same Section and Article.In short, the vote was 1 to 5 and 1prevailed!

Dato Sri George SeahPetaling Jaya

The following is a translatednews report from Metro regardinga Socso claim I made:

A safety officer from a housing

development firm was disap-pointed when his claims towardsthe state Socso here was rejected.

Ahmad Bazer Mohamaed Yusoff45, claimed that Socso rejected hisclaims with the reason that theaccident which he met with threeyears ago does not come underthe society’s enactment.

Ahmad reiterated that on 23 May2002 he was knocked down by acar while walking towards his carafter conducting his prayers at aSurau at the Block D1, BandarBaru Prai. “I was unconscious dueto the accident and was sent bythe passers-by to the SeberangJaya hospital. There I receivedtreatment for my cracked rightwrist and also received 10 stichesunder my right eyebrows. I wasalso forced to take medical leavefrom 23 May 2001 till 26 June 2001due to my condition”.

“On 11 June 2001 I submitted myclaims to Socso.” I then received aletter dated 26 July 2001 fromSocso stating that my claims wererejected as the accident which hadhappened to me was not a work-ing hazard.

Ahmad said that he wrote an ap-peal letter to Socso on 28 August2001 which again was turneddown. According to him he wasasked to attend a trial by Socso at27 September 2003 but this wasthen postponed to another datewhich is on 17 November 2003.

Ahmad said “This is not becauseof money but it is based on hu-man rights”. He said “Just imag-ine that as a Muslim, I did myprayers and did not even knowthat I will be knocked down by acar. Even the factory workers are

Straight From TheHorse's Mouth

No Socso Coverage?


provided buses to go to mosquefor the Friday prayers. Say if oneof the buses met with an accidentthen all the workers will not beentitled to Socso claims. If that isso, it would be ridiculous”.

Meanwhile according to a stateSocso spokesman, Socso does notcover a worker in any way for go-ing to conduct prayers which isdeemed a personal commitment.The spokesman said, “Under Sec-tion 24(1) of the Act, coverage isgiven for travel to and from work,during working hours and travelin the course of carrying out workinstructions”.

The spokesman also said,“Prayers is not covered because itis a personal business which isdistinct from the working hoursand this covers all races in thecountry”.

Ahmad BazirSg. Petani

Thanks for Francis Loh’s schol-arly analysis of current Malaysianpolitics and the last general elec-tion. Through your scientific ap-proach, you have contributed tothe understanding of the unfold-ing mosaic of Malaysian politics,which is a complicated blend ofrace, religion and other elements.But I have a query on your sepa-ration of Malay voters and Chi-nese voters in the section underthe sub-title “BN’s Narrow Winin 1999", where you stated:

”Careful studies by the contribu-tors to New Politics in Malaysiareveal that the Malay voters in the

59 large Malay-majority seatssplit their votes between the BN/UMNO (49%) and the BA/PAS(51%). .....the Chinese in the 24Chinese majority seats similarlysplit their votes between the BN(51%) and the BA (45%).”

My question is: Is it possible toascertain the racial identity of thevotes cast in the ballot boxes? Ifso, has such an exercise been car-ried out whereby votes in eachballot box have been separatedinto different racial groups andtallied up for each group? If not,how did you get your percentagefigures? What do you mean by“contributors to New Politics”? Who are these people?

Kim Quek

F Loh replies to Kim Quek:F Loh replies to Kim Quek:F Loh replies to Kim Quek:F Loh replies to Kim Quek:F Loh replies to Kim Quek:

Voting ballots in Malaysia, I’mconfident, are not marked by theethnic background of voters. Tal-lying of votes cast according toethnic background, therefore, isnot technically possible.

If the electoral constituencies inMalaysia were mono-ethnic incomposition, then we could useelectoral constituencies as prox-ies for ethnic group. However, allparliamentary constituencies inMalaysia are multi-ethnic in com-position, to a greater or lesser ex-tent.

Given these two conditions andpersonnel constraints, the re-searcher who wishes to under-stand the extent to which ethnicbackground determined votingbehaviour has to resort to ap-proximations.

In the Peninsula, which was the

focus of our study, we discoveredthat the 144 parliamentary seatswere made up of 98 seats withMalay majorities; 24 with Chinesemajorities; and 22 seats where noethnic group constituted a major-ity. For analytical purposes, theMalay majority seats were furtherdivided into two types: 59 seatswith large (more than 67 percent)Malay majorities and another 39with small (from 50-66 per cent)Malay majorities. We used thisgroup of 59 seats with large Malaymajorities as a proxy for Malayvoters and concluded that “theMalay voters…split their votesbetween the BN/UMNO (49%)and the BA/PAS (51%)”.

In the case of the Chinese, we dis-covered that there were only 12seats with large Chinese majori-ties (more than 67%) and another12 seats with small Chinese ma-jorities (50-66%). We consideredthe sample of 12 seats too smalland so added the large-majorityand small-majority seats together.Our proxy for Chinese voters,therefore, are these 24 Chinese-majority seats. It was on this ba-sis that we concluded that theChinese “split their votes betweenthe BN (51%) and the BA (45%)”.No doubt, this estimation for theChinese is less accurate than theone used to determine Malay vot-ing behaviour.

In addition to this observation oftrends at the macro-level, severalof the contributors to our volumeNew Politics in Malaysia furtherconducted studies in particularconstituencies. As we’re aware,each constituency is made up ofseveral polling districts where thevotes are counted. The ethnicbreakdown of each polling districtis available to the researcher. Since

Is It PossibleTo DetermineVo t e r s ’ Race?


the voters in a particular pollingdistrict usually come from thesame kampong, new village, es-tate or housing estate, and veryoften are of the same ethnic group,analysis of voting behaviour atthis level – the polling district -can be used as yet another ap-proximation of how the ethnicgroup, albeit at a specific locale,voted. Our research of severalChinese-majority and mixed seatsindicate that the Chinese splittheir votes right down the middle.

Based on the totality of the stud-ies we conducted, we are confi-dent of our argument that therehas emerged New Politics in Ma-laysia, a politics wherein therenow exists an opposition politicsespecially in the non-formal realmof politics, but which was alsomade evident in the realm of for-mal electoral politics in the 1999elections. There has occurred fer-ment and fragmentation.

Finally, the contributors to the vol-ume New Politics in Malaysia (Sin-gapore: Institute of SoutheastAsian Studies, 2003) comprised 12Malaysian academics most ofwhom are attached to UniversitiSains Malaysia. Several of themwrote accompanying pieces in the

Aliran Monthly vol 23 no 6 whichcarried the cover story which Iwrote and which prompted youto write. Thank you for your letterand the opportunity to clarify.

Francis Loh

Malaysia must not recognize theUnited States-backed Iraqi Gov-erning Council despite an appealfrom the Iraqi Charge d’ Affairshere, Dr Mahmoud KhalidAlmsafir.

Giving it recognition will meanendorsing an illegal occupationand legitimising Bush’s doctrineof preemptive doctrine. It wouldbe an act of betrayal to Iraqis as awhole who have been the victimsof genocidal US terror for over 22long years. It will definitely notin anyway result in gaining theirindependence, but losing it alto-gether.

The Interim Government doesnot represent the Iraqi people.Only a Government elected bythe Iraqi people can be consid-ered as representing the coun-try. This is a matter of principle.We do not want to be a party toAmerican hegemonic war thatlooks set to consume the UnitedStates itself, the aggressor. Ma-laysia must remain committed toupholding the principles of theUnited Nations charter. Malay-sia must steadfastly oppose UShostile foreign policy towardsany country.

The situation in Iraq today callsfor the United Nations to immedi-ately convene an Iraqi NationalConference to select a provisional

W i t h h o l dR e c o g n i t i o n

Government that will have sover-eign rights to draw up a new con-stitution, gain public confidenceand give it legitimacy.

After 22 years of war, includingthe War with Iran that they foughtfor the US and suffered roughly 7million casualties, Iraqis were stillable to rebuild their country de-spite being punished with harshsanctions that claimed manyhundreds of thousands of lives asa direct result.

When will the US learn that de-mocracy cannot be ushered in atgunpoint? America dropped mil-lions of tons of bombs over a pe-riod of 14 years. Yet today, Bush’scombative foreign policy is col-lapsing and the US administra-tion is deep in quagmire. Today,all the sophisticated weaponrythe Occupying forces boastedabout is unable to save them as aguerilla war unfolds with mor-tars, rockets and ‘improvised ex-plosive devices’.

Malaysians sympathise with Ira-qis who have continued to sufferthrough so many wars. But as longas the United States calls the shotsfor the Iraqi Governing Council,no country will recognize theCouncil - not until a free and fairelection is held under UN super-vision.

Meanwhile, Malaysia’s dealingwith the Interim Government can-not be official - thus the decisionnot to hold bilateral talks withthem during the OIC was a cor-rect decision.

Sarajun Hoda Abdul HassanEx President -

Malaysia-Iraqi FriendshipBukit Mertajam


Aliran is deeply concerned withthe continued use of the ISA todetain individuals under suspi-cion of involvement in JemaahIslamiah (JI), the alleged regionalmilitant Islamic group.

The most recent detainees are stu-dents aged between 16 and 21years of age. They include AhmadMuaz bin Al Bakry, 20;Muhammad Radzi bin AbdulRazak, 19; Nurul Mohd Fakri binMohd Safar, 17; Mohd Akil binAbdul Raof, 21; Eddy Erman binShahime, 19; Muhammad Ariffinbin Zulkarnain, 18; Abi Dzar binJaafar, 18; Faiz Hassan binKamarulzaman, 17; MohdIkhwan Abdullah, 19; AhmadFirdaus Kamaruddin, 18; AminAhmad, 20; Shahrul Nizam AmirHamzah, 21; and MuhammadTarmizi Nordin, 16.

These detainees were students ofthe Abu Bakar Islamic Universityand University of Islamic Studies

in Karachi, Pakistan. Having beenpreviously arrested by Pakistanisecurity forces on suspicion of Is-lamic militancy, these studentswere subsequently released inPakistan and sent home to Malay-sia where they were promptly de-tained under the ISA upon arrivalon 10 November 2003 for sus-pected involvement in militantactivities.

Aliran is concerned about themental and physical well being ofthese students currently in policecustody. Three of these studentsare below the age of 18 and henceare ‘children’ according to theMalaysian Child Act 2001. Sub-jecting a child to arbitrary deten-tion is not in the best interests ofthe child. It contravenes the Con-vention on the Rights of the Childto which Malaysia is a signatory(albeit with reservations).

While understanding the concernof the government regarding mili-tant groups and their activities,there are sufficient laws in thecountry to deal with such indi-viduals without resorting to the

use of arbitrary detention.

Aliran calls upon the Prime Min-ister Abdullah Badawi to eitherhave the students charged in opencourt or have them released im-mediately. It really does not bodewell for our government whenteenagers/children are detainedunder the ISA. Aliran reiterates itscall to abolish the ISA.

Aliran Executive Committee18 November 2003

Aliran is appalled by the FederalGovernment’s recent decision totake over the Seremban-PortDickson highway simply ‘be-cause the concessionaire, SPDHSdn Bhd, is losing money due topoor toll collection’. The 30km-long highway had failed to attracta high volume of motorists as thetoll rate was considered high.

The government’s takeover of thehighway goes against the veryphilosophy of normal business -that one has to take risks andlosses. This controversial takeovergives the wrong message that it’sall right to fail in a venture becausethe government will be there toback you up. Surely, this is notwhat the much-touted MalaysiaInc. of the previous prime minis-ter is all about - or is it?

Why should taxpayers, particu-larly road users who have paidtheir road tax, be compelled to footthe bill in the form of a govern-ment takeover of failed privatisedhighway projects?

Aliran Executive Committee13 Nov 2003

A record of A record of A record of A record of A record of Aliran'sAliran'sAliran'sAliran'sAliran's stand on current affairs. stand on current affairs. stand on current affairs. stand on current affairs. stand on current affairs.Highway Takeover

Sends Wrong Message

ISA Used ToDetain Students,

Including Children


Dr. Irene Fernandez, the Directorof Tenaganita, a women’s non-governmental organization(NGO), was found guilty of ‘mali-ciously publishing false news’,and sentenced to 12 months im-prisonment on October 16 2003.She is out on bail, pending theoutcome of her appeal at the HighCourt

The jail sentence on IreneFernandez, a defender of humanrights, for highlighting the de-plorable conditions and treat-ment of migrant workers in de-tention camps through a memo-randum, has shocked, outragedand disappointed us. A jail sen-tence for a memorandum is un-precedented.

In 1996, Irene Fernandez wascharged under Section 8A(2) of thePrinting Presses and PublicationsAct (1984). The charges againstIrene Fernandez were brought fol-lowing Tenaganita’s release of aMemorandum entitled, “Abuse,Torture and Dehumanized Treat-ment of Migrant Workers at De-tention Camps”. The memoran-dum was submitted to variousMinistries and relevant agencies,including the Chief of the PoliceForce. A press conference washeld to highlight the findings.

The memorandum was compiled1 ) from over 300 interviews of mi-

grant workers, after their re-lease from detention camps inMalaysia in 1994 & 1995.

2) The Sun journalists’ investiga-tions into conditions at theSemenyih Camp.

The interviews were carried out

to gather primary data forTenaganita’s research on HIV/AIDS and Mobility.

A memorandum is a tool of advo-cacy, universally used by organi-zations to highlight to governmentfindings of research and to makerecommendations for policychanges. The Tenaganita Memo-randum called on the governmentto set up a Royal Commission ofInquiry to investigate the issuesand concerns raised in the memo-randum.

The trial conviction demonstratesthat there is no protection for hu-man rights defenders to articulateconcerns over human rights vio-lations. Such a trend not only cur-tails constructive criticism but hasserious implications for all organi-zations involved in promotionand protection of rights of peopleand for research.

We appreciate the Prime Minis-ter’s recent call on the need fortruth and the direction the PrimeMinister has set for the nation.However, this call will be mean-ingless when activists are pros-ecuted and criminalized andwhen freedom of expression iscurtailed.

This trend taken by the state isbeing further strengthened wherenow, Irene as a human rights de-fender is stopped from travelingoverseas. The passport applica-tion to attend crucial meetingsoverseas was rejected by the Mag-istrate’s court with vehement ob-jection from the Attorney Gener-al’s office. This rejection has nowdenied Irene the opportunity to

enhance human rights promotioninternationally. The continuedcurtailment of travel will only fur-ther erode confidence of peoplenationally and globally on thegovernment and institutions thatshould ensure justice and rightsare upheld.

In order to ensure the commitmentmade by the Prime Minister, wethe endorsed NGO’s call on thegovernment to respect freedom ofexpression and hear out organi-zations working with communi-ties when they raise issues of con-cern and violations of rights. It isonly when an enabling environ-ment is created that organizationsand activists can bring the truthto light.

We urge the government:1 . To investigate the allegations

of abuse and torture in deten-tion camps, rather than uselaws to silence criticism.

2 . Ensure Irene is free from im-prisonment.

3 . Release her passport so thatshe can travel to continue tofulfill her role and responsi-bilities as an internationallyrecognized human rights de-fender.

4. Protect human rights defend-ers so that good governanceand transparency can beachieved within a democracythat respects freedom of expres-sion

5 . Invite the UN Special Repre-sentative on Human RightsDefenders to Malaysia for fur-ther dialogue as an importantgesture to her request and toensure protection for defend-ers of human rights.

The above joint statement wasendorsed by 91 Malaysian civilsociety groups

18 Nov 2003

Keep Irene Free,Defend The Defenders


There is a serious anomaly in theway assets are declared by Cabi-net ministers at present, for in-stance. Members of the Cabinetare required to declare their assetsto the prime minister. If, for onereason or another, a prime minis-ter does not want to question theill-gotten wealth of a minister orthat a particular minister is livingway beyond his means, the peo-ple are kept in the dark about it.Who benefits and who loses then?

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

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

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

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

selves, including of course UMNOpoliticians.

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

Fan Yew Teng, a former mem-Fan Yew Teng, a former mem-Fan Yew Teng, a former mem-Fan Yew Teng, a former mem-Fan Yew Teng, a former mem-ber of parliament, is a politi-ber of parliament, is a politi-ber of parliament, is a politi-ber of parliament, is a politi-ber of parliament, is a politi-cal commentator and writer.cal commentator and writer.cal commentator and writer.cal commentator and writer.cal commentator and writer.

A n o m a l y

CAN UMNO WIPE OUT CORRUPTION? Continued from page 40

vise ways and means to circum-vent existing weak rules and regu-lations.

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

Q: What do you think of Dr M’s legacyQ: What do you think of Dr M’s legacyQ: What do you think of Dr M’s legacyQ: What do you think of Dr M’s legacyQ: What do you think of Dr M’s legacynow that he is about to retire?now that he is about to retire?now that he is about to retire?now that he is about to retire?now that he is about to retire?

A: He came into the scene two decades agoin a breeze - with promises of reforms. Butinstead he put all promises asunder by de-stroying the very things he promised to saveamongst others the institutions of govern-ance; press freedom and freedom of expres-sion. (He released political prisoners in animmediate move then).

His selfish penchant for mega projects and glorifying monu-ments has now ballooned to a staggering public debt, which henow nonchalantly, leaves to Pak Lah, the unenviable task todeal with.

Q: What about his outburst on the Jews?Q: What about his outburst on the Jews?Q: What about his outburst on the Jews?Q: What about his outburst on the Jews?Q: What about his outburst on the Jews?

A: It is nothing but pure and utter sensationalism – primarily todeflect attention to his misdeeds and the stench from the rot in hisown backyard arising from among others cronyism, corruption,nepotism and repression of his critics and the opposition.

Q: What of press freedom in Malaysia?Q: What of press freedom in Malaysia?Q: What of press freedom in Malaysia?Q: What of press freedom in Malaysia?Q: What of press freedom in Malaysia?

A: Foreigners do not understand the exact extent of press con-trol in Malaysia under him. My view is that the control of themedia here by Dr Mahathir rivals only that of North Korea.

Anwar Ibrahim

Q & A With Anwar Ibrahim

q


“Thank God, the man has vacatedhis chair,” said a friend of mine,commenting on over two monthsof fanfare to bid farewell to PrimeMinister, Seri Dr Mahathir. Neverbefore has this nation witnessedsuch non-stop celebration, acco-lades, praises, and even sheddingtears as a prelude to send off anyof our other leaders. Mahathir’scontrolled mainstream mediamanaged to project him almost asa demi-God.

Was all this hullabloo spontane-ous? I wonder! Many people doknow that Mahathir is capable ofchanging his mind at the lastminute. So, it cannot be ruled outthat there was some hiddenagenda to ensure he did keep hisword this time round.

Although there were persistentattempts to portray him as ‘the’absolute statesman, I wish to re-call some of his antics.

Those who followed Mahathir’sstyle of premiership have no doubtthat he is obsessed with for power,fame, prestige, luxury and wealth.He is also seen as ruthless. His in-terpretation of rule of law is Ruleby Law. To him natural justice andsocial justice are strange notions.Human rights and democracy, inhis opinion, impede progress andprosperity. If and when necessary,he could stretch the truth and

break promises.

Immediately after Mahathir wassworn in as the fourth Prime Min-ister, he ordered the release of 22ISA detainees. He introduced theslogan — Bersih, Cekap danAmanah — as a guideline for thecivil service. The wearing of name

tags and punching in and outbecame compulsory even for theministers. At a press conference,the new PM declared he woulderadicate corruption. Should hefail, he would bring the fear ofGod. Many people became so ex-cited that they thought the 4th PMwas Godsent! When I discussedmy impressions about the PMwith the first Aliran president, his

POLITICS

Exit Of A Self-Made Dictator

by K George

Initial Actions As PM

To him natural justice and social justice are strange notions.


reply was : Don’t believe him(Mahathir). He is a hypocrite. Didnot later events confirm this pre-diction? Since then, for over twodecades we had been facing shockafter shock.

The first shock was for his pred-ecessor. When Tun Hussein Onnappointed Mahathir - the thirdVice President of UMNO - as DPMthere was reportedly an agree-ment between them: whenMahathir becomes the next PM,he would appoint TengkuRazaleigh as his DPM. HoweverMahathir appointed Tan Sri MusaHitam instead. They both had apleasant “honeymoon” for sometime. Then differences started.But by 1986, Musa became so dis-tressed that he could not carry on.His resignation was hand-writtenon a piece of paper. The reason hehe gave was “irreconciliable dif-ferences”.

Malaysian judiciary was wellknown in the developing worldfor its integrity and independence.But Mahathir had been an ardentcritic of our judiciary. He went onrepeating (just to mislead the peo-ple) that judges had no right toquestion the laws passed by theParliament. But he never stoppedhis criticism of the judiciary.

Disgusted, the Lord President, TunSalleh Abas addressed a letter tothe Agung requesting him to in-tervene. That letter was drafted ata meeting of a number of judges atwhich Justice Hamid Omar wasalso present. Mahathir managedto persuade the Agung to set up a

tribunal. It is now history thatJustice Hamid Omar ( who wasnot only junior to Salleh Abas, buthad earlier agreed to the letter tothe Agung) chaired the tribunalwhich decided to dismiss SallehAbas and two other senior judgesas well. The principles of Rule ofLaw and Natural Justice werethrown to the wind in 1988.

After Mahathir became the PM,UMNO started having two camps- Team A and Team B. In 1987,Tengku Razaleigh contested forthe UMNO president’s postagainst Mahathir, who won by 43votes. That is known to all of us.But how did Mahathir won thatelection is not known to manypeople. The story goes as follows:The night before the election, afew of Mahathir’s supportersmade a survey. They even pen-etrated the Team B camp. By mid-night, they were convincedMahathir would lose by 10 percent of the votes. They met AnwarIbrahim who had already won thepost of UMNO Youth Chairman-ship. They suggested Anwar joinTeam B which he rejected outright.But Anwar was prepared to sur-render his Youth Chairmanshipto Najib, on condition he agreedto offer to Mahathir the 43 voteshe was controlling. The deal wasacceptable to Najib. Then Najib letdown Razaleigh whose camp wasalready preparing for the victoryprocession the next day. Well, issuch a person suitable to be thedeputy of the new PM?

When the High Court was satis-

fied that there was unauthorisedparticipation in the 1987 UMNOGeneral Assembly, the Judge ob-served according to the party’sconstitution it could be declaredvoid. Lawyer Gopal Sri Ram rep-resenting the respondents (TeamA) in a suit filed by Team B, imme-diately submitted that the courtcould do so. The Judge obliged.Thus, the nation witnessed thedemise of the UMNO, the domi-nant governing party. Immedi-ately Mahathir applied for a newparty in the name of UMNO Baru.It was a Saturday. And on Mon-day the party was registered. Hethen ensured all his political en-emies, including Bapa Merdeka,were kept out of the new party.

Malay unity was shattered. Theunity a suffered further setbackafter Anwar was dismissed fromthe Cabinet and UMNO. He wassubjected to ugly scandalisation,arrested, thrown into a cell, hand-cuffed and blindfolded, and thenwas dealt lethal blows by the thenIGP. Anwar’s eye was seriouslyhurt, he fell unconscious. Tendays later, Mahathir told us theeye injury was self-inflicted. Whata lie!

Mahathir ordered the arrest of 106Malaysians on 27 October 1987and the suspension of three news-papers. The victims were from allwalks of life – politicians, tradeunionists, NGO leaders, academ-ics and social activists. Main-stream media became pliant. Fearloomed all over Malaysia. No-body dared to question. Then hewent on taking control of the po-lice, the Attorney General’s cham-bers, and the Anti-Corruption

M a h a t h i rAnd The Judiciary

UMNO ElectionIn 1987

The Musa Episode

Mass ArrestsUnder ISA

F o r m a t i o nOf UMNO Baru


Agency (ACA). The Election Com-mission was already under con-trol. With the dismissal of TunSalleh Abas and two other seniorjudges, Mahathir establishedhimself as a de facto dictator. Thejudiciary had lost its independ-ence and integrity.

Mahathir is on record as havingdirected the attorney general notto proceed with certain criminalcharges, and stopped the ACAfrom investigating certain corrup-tion charges.

Anwar, who bartered his UMNOYouth chairmanship for 43 votes,thinly ensuring Mahathir’s vic-tory in the 1987 UMNO elections,is now languishing in SungaiBuluh prison on cooked-upcharges.

Soon after he became Prime Min-ister, Mahathir ventured into thestockpiling of tin and rubber as achallenge to America. It was a co-lossal failure, costing the nationhundreds of millions of ringgit.With his knowledge and ap-proval, Bank Negara indulged inforex trading. This too was a fail-ure. Today our national debtstands at 182.1 billion ringgit. Inspite of all of these failures,Mahathir has been portrayed asan ‘economic wizard’ by our pli-ant mass media.

Some eminent economists agreethat the pegging of the Ringgit tothe US Dollar in 1998 was a cor-rect decision. At the same timehardly any of them think much ofhis other economic policies. Beinga committed capitalist, social jus-tice has always been beyond his

comprehension. He indulged incronyism and nepotism, empha-sizing the creation of Malay mil-lionaires. In 1983, at a seminaron privatisation, he promisedtransparency and open tenders.But he never kept his promise. Awell known economist, K.S. Jomosaid,” Public assets were priva-tised at discount, butrenationalised at premiums thatwere enjoyed by the non-perform-ing beneficiaries”. Let me quotejust one example; The GovernmentMedical Store (GMS) was priva-tised in 1994 and handed over toSouthern Task Sdn. Bhd., a sub-sidiary of Renong ( an UMNO-linked company) very quietly. Thegovernment hospitals were di-rected to continue to buy the medi-cines only through GMS. The firstthing Southern Task did was tohike up the price of its medicines.The price of morphine ( a medi-cine to relieve the severe pain ofcancer patients) was pushed upsome 10 times (Speaking Truth toPower, by Jeyakumar Devaraj, pg114-115) .

Petronas makes billions ofringgitin profit every year, butits accounts are kept in the dark.

Bank Bumi became almost bank-rupt three times. There wereother companies like Renongand several others that have lostheavily. Mahathir used the peo-ple’s money to bail them out. Hewent on constructing white el-ephants such as the Twin Tow-ers, Putrajaya, KLIA and the For-mula One racetrack – squander-ing billions and billions of ourmoney. While thousands ofMalaysians do not have a basicminimum wage and others areliving in slums and under tin-roof shelters, he built a palacecosting over RM 200 million forthe Prime Minister – and shame-lessly put the blame on Anwar!Mahathir’s Perwaja adventureis “a spectacular failure havinglost more than RM 10 billion,”says Jomo. Thank God he hasvacated his position. Let ushope from now onwards themedia will start reporting thetruth. For our fifth PerdanaMenteri wants to hear the truth.

In conclusion, I wish to quote fromthe FEER, October 9, 2003, “I mustbe the only dictator in history tohave to win an election before Istart dictating.” q

M a h a t h i r ’ sEconomic Policy


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

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

Mahathir was reported to havetold an UMNO gathering, “I haveurged, pleaded, cried. This timethere is no more urging, no morepleading, no more crying. I askfor your support and the supportof all UMNO members for the ac-tion which we will take againstthose engaging in corruption.”

On the surface, Mahathir’s wordson the subject of money politics andcorruption in UMNO sounded ear-nest enough, although they werenot as melodramatic as the occa-sions when he cried.

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

Surely the new UMNO leader,Abdullah Badawi, who is also thecountry’s prime minister, can se-

riously reduce money politics notonly in UMNO but in the wholecountry, if he is serious and sin-cere about it. After all, he has allthe powers, hasn’t he?

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

Merely telling UMNO membersthat the party is serious about curb-ing money politics to prevent thepeople from losing faith in UMNOis not enough.

There are at least three things thatUMNO and its leader can andshould do if they are really, reallyserious about curbing money poli-tics in UMNO and the country.First, make it legally obligatory ofall UMNO officials, from the partypresident down to the committeemember at branch level, to declaretheir own financial assets as wellas those held by their immediatefamily members — like wives,sons, daughters, grandchildren

and sons-in-law to the Anti Cor-ruption Agency (ACA).

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

This means that all Cabinet min-isters, deputy ministers, parlia-mentary and political and privatesecretaries, Members of Parlia-ment, Chief Ministers andMenteris Besar, State Assembly-men/women, State Exco Mem-bers, appointed members to city,municipal, town and local coun-cils will have to declare their as-sets to the ACA. This should in-clude all civil servants and judges.Any Malaysian who wants toknow the financial assets of anyminister or any local councillor ora judge or the attorney-generalshould have the right to obtainsuch yearly updated informationfrom the ACA.

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

ACCOUNTABILITY

Can UMNO Wipe Out Corruption?by Fan Yew Teng

TTTTT

B e l l y a c h e

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

PP3739/12/2003 ISSN 0127 - 5127 / RM3.00 / 2003:Vol.23No ... · Ananda Krishnan who were all...

Documents

Transcript of PP3739/12/2003 ISSN 0127 - 5127 / RM3.00 / 2003:Vol.23No ... · Ananda Krishnan who were all...