2010年9月23日星期四

“回中国论”校长等级太高 慕尤丁辩称教部无权对付

“回中国论”校长等级太高
慕尤丁辩称教部无权对付
2010年9月23日
傍晚 6点34分
分享 284
虽然在野党的再三施压,两名发表“回中国论”的中学校长依然未遭对付,其中吉打州武吉士 南卯国中校长温古阿斯南更已重返该校掌校。面对排山倒海的压力,副首相兼教育部长慕尤丁今日出人意表的辩称,教育部无权对付温古阿斯南。

muhyiddin attend anti corruption seminar 230910 01慕尤丁(左图)今午为第10届贿赂罪行区域研讨会开幕后,向记者指出,教育部无法定夺发表种族主义 言论的温古阿斯南的命运,理由是该名校长的公务员等级过高,已超出教育部长的权力管辖范围。

“我相信校长的公务 员等级是52级,教育部长不能对48级及以上的公务员,做出任何决定。”

“只有公共服务局的纪律局主任,才有权 对付这种等级的公务员。”

调查报告交
公务局定夺

muhyiddin attend anti corruption seminar 230910 02目前担任公共服务局纪律局主任者,就是公共服务局总监阿布巴卡(Abu Bakar Abdullah)。

慕尤丁说,教育部已完成针对该名校长的调查,并已把调查报告呈予公共服务局,以让后者决定 进一步的行动。

“这是该局的权限,我已宣布把报告交给该局,所以现在就等待该局要做的任何决定。”

根据英文媒体早前报道,公共服务局已经接获教育部的调查报告,这份报告共有6寸厚。

马华宣称校长没有返校

由于中央政府 在两名校长发表种族性言论后,一直没有对付两人,在野党已经多番表达不满,社青团更在今日提呈备忘录给吉打教育局,敦促该局革除 该名温古阿斯南的职务。

媒体是在日前揭发,温古阿斯南在开斋节假期结束后,一如往常地重返学校掌校。

不过,吉打州马华却宣称,经过马华与教育局查证后,该名校长在开学第二天已再度被调回双溪大年的瓜拉慕达县教育局,以等 待调查完毕后发落。

传调离校长以冷却争议

《当今大马》早前报道,两名发表种族性言论的中学校长,将有截然不同的遭遇,柔佛古来国中女校长茜蒂英莎预料将面 对惩罚,但吉打武吉士南卯中学校长温古阿斯南却将获准保留原职,进一步掀起人们对教育部惩罚标准的疑问。

根据 《当今大马》了解,一旦公共服务局调查发现,茜蒂英莎(Siti Inshah Mansor)发表种族主义言论罪成,那么她将面对处分。

至于茜蒂英莎的同僚温古阿斯南(Ungku Aznan Ungku Ismail),虽然传言他将被撤换,但相信他将能保留原职。

虽然教育部对外宣称,温古阿斯南已经暂时停职,不过其实 他已经被调任到双溪大年的瓜拉慕达县教育局。有传言指称,此举是要确保该名校长在调查期间,暂时远离媒体和政治人物的目光,以待该课题冷却后,重新回返学 校。

据悉温古阿斯南在事故发生数天后,已经在一个特别会面中,向该校的学生道歉,希望藉此解决争议。

两校长相继发表回中论

温古阿斯南是因为目睹华裔学生在学校食堂内享用早餐,在隔一天的朝会上,指责该批华裔学生不尊敬回教徒, 并声称他们应该回中国。

在温古阿斯南事故后,茜蒂英莎却又在 一个学校的公开活动上,发表类似的种族性言论,而且比起温古阿斯南的言论,来得更为过火。

茜蒂英莎除了叫华裔生 回中国和宽柔独中外,更形容印裔生戴在手上的宗教绳,象狗链一样,引起华印裔学生与家长强烈不满。

尽管女校长 已在周一的周会道歉,但不被学生接受。

黄明志写歌轰校长掀波

namewee nah 020910在发生两起杏坛丑 闻后,争议性的网络歌手黄明志在Youtube上发布最新的音乐短片《呐!》,声称本身 看到媒体报道两名校长失言的事件,感到“心情很热”,并扬言要将这首饶舌歌送给所有带着种族歧视的人士。

他在 歌曲中大肆抨击茜蒂英莎、温古阿斯南及“寄居论”主角阿末依斯迈等,但因为在歌曲中穿插着不少粗俗的英语和马 来语词句,结果掀起轩然大波,先后遭到警方和通讯及多媒体委员会调查。

由于政府迅速援引煽动法令调查黄明志,但 对两名校长的调查却进展不大,一些舆论质疑,政府采取双重标准。

If It's a Problem.........

If It's a Problem, Don't Recognise It! By Kee Thuan Chye

Idris Jala was interviewed on BFM 89.9 this morning. During the time of the interview I twitted that people who heard the interview should read an article by Kee Thuan Chye before they make up their minds about what Idris Jala said. But for some reason people who wanted to read it could not access the Facebook page. So here it is re-produced. If you missed the BFM interview you might be able to get it as a podcast eventually at www.bfm.com.my For some reason it wasn't there when I looked just now.

If It's a Problem, Don't Recognise It!

By Kee Thuan Chye

Idris Jala is a good speaker. If you listen to him and you don't watch it, he will sell you an idea.

That's what he did - or tried to do - when he gave the keynote address at the “We Are Malaysia” event hosted by UCSI University on Malaysia Day.

He spoke of 1Malaysia and its aims, and how national unity can be achieved. One of the central aims of 1Malaysia is upgrading the diverse population's attitude towards one another from tolerance to acceptance and, eventually, the celebration of diversity. And one of the central strategies of achieving that is the recognition that, in Idris' own words, “in life, there are only two types of issues”.

Sounds rather pat, as if coming from a self-enrichment guru. But as I said, Idris Jala (left) is a seller of ideas.

What are these two types of issues?

Problems and polarities. A problem, expounded Idris, is something that can be solved. A polarity is something that cannot be solved but must be managed. The examples of polarities he gave are old and young, urban and rural, good and evil, rich and poor. Like the North and South Poles, they cannot be removed; therefore a balance must be struck between them.

To illustrate further, he gave the example of his wife and him. She is fastidious in wanting him to place his socks in a proper basket for washing, but he is used to leaving them all over the house. Despite her repeated attempts to get him to conform, he is incorrigible. She on her part takes an inordinate amount of time to get ready when they have a function to attend. It annoys him that because she can't decide on what to wear, they often turn up late.

“That's the situation,” said Idris, “but if we tried to solve it, we could end up in divorce.”

Extending the idea to a wider realm, Idris said race and religion are also polarities, which means they cannot be solved.

“If you try to solve them,” he said, “you could get something like Hitler's Final Solution and the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia.”

On that UCSI occasion, Idris got away with not having to answer questions from the floor as there is usually no provision for such in a keynote address. But if there had been, the key question would be: Isn't this all just a game of semantics? How do you decide what is a problem and what is a polarity? Or is there really no difference between the two?

Let's look at the issue of race in the present context. Let's bring in Perkasa, which insists that the 30 percent equity for bumiputeras must be upheld in the New Economic Model (NEM). For want of an opposing camp, let's bring in the MCA, which recently called for the 30 percent to be gradually reduced.

Is this situation of two opposing viewpoints over a racial issue a problem or a polarity? What does it translate into when from this dispute, policy has to be made?

Policy is policy. It provides a guideline for operations to be performed and actions to be taken. It provides a clear-cut solution. It does not merely manage. So how will it solve this Perkasa-MCA dispute?

If Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak decides to listen to Perkasa and includes the 30 percent in his NEM, the MCA might have something to say. Not to mention other groups opposed to Perkasa as well. But since the MCA is a Barisan Nasional partner, Najib or his deputy, Muhyiddin Yassin, can ask its party leaders to shut up and toe the coalition line, and chances are they will obey. Is that managing the issue or solving it?

While we mull over this, let's consider another point - for an issue to be resolved, it calls for negotiation and sometimes arbitration. There was negotiation between the two differing groups over the ge tai issue in Penang last week and the outcome was satisfactory to both sides. Do we say they found a solution to the issue or that they merely managed it? Does it matter what we call it?

It's all semantics. And semantics are of no practical use. Sometimes, semantics create further problems. In any case, the fact that you enter into a negotiation shows that you want to find a solution. If after negotiating, you still can't find it, you may seek an arbiter.

For racial disputes, there is already an arbiter. And that, plain and simple, is the constitution. So how we solve or manage - whichever word you want to use - racial disputes should be guided by that arbiter.

Article 153 of the constitution is the bone of contention. But as lawyer Azzat Kamaluddin (left), who also spoke at the “We Are Malaysia” event, astutely pointed out, there is no mention in that article of special rights for the Malays.

Clause 1 of Article 153 states: “It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the states of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article.”

Note that there is only mention of “special position”. And the second part says, significantly, that the Agong shall also be responsible for safeguarding “the legitimate interests of other communities”. It's not all one-sided.

Azzat pointed out that “everyone stops at Clause 1”. But if they were to look at Clause 2, they would see clearly that the special provisions for Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak pertain only to positions in the public service; scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities; and permits and licences for the operation of any trade or business.

And in these areas, the provisions have to be “of such proportion as [the Agong] may deem reasonable”. In other words, it's not carte blanche.

Look also at Clause 5, which states that Article 153 “does not derogate from the provisions of Article 136”.

What does Article 136 say?

It says: “All persons of whatever race in the same grade in the service of the federation shall, subject to the terms and conditions of their employment, be treated impartially.” This is another limit to the scope of Article 153.

If the government follows the rule of law and interprets the constitution as it should be interpreted, we wouldn't have a racial problem. Yes, problem. Let's call a spade a spade. The racial problem we have now is mostly the result of what the government has done and not done.

It has not followed the rule of law. It has not told Perkasa to grasp the proper provisions of Article 153. Instead, it has been affirming that Perkasa's doing the right thing - only a few days ago, Deputy Education Minister Puad Zarkashi said Perkasa was championing the people's rights as spelt out in the constitution. Perhaps Puad hasn't read beyond Clause 1. Perhaps he doesn't understand it fully.

In terms of what the government has done, it has chosen to take sides to formulate policies that are contrary to the spirit of the constitution. For instance, is the discount for bumiputeras purchasing property constitutional? If so, where is it written in that sacred document?

The government favours one race and marginalises the other races. With regard to the civil service, it has not upheld Article 136 of the constitution, which calls for impartial treatment for civil servants of all races. Over the past four decades, the promotion of civil servants to the highest positions has been almost totally confined to those of one particular race. Is that impartial treatment?

As for religion, it is again the government that has created problems. Just to name two, one is its action to deny Christians the right to use the word “Allah”; the other, and more far-reaching, action is declaring Malaysia an Islamic state, as Najib did in 2007 when he was Deputy Prime Minister.

“Islam is the official religion and we are an Islamic state,” he said.

He must surely have read Article 3 of the constitution but chose to ignore what it says: “Islam is the religion of the federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the federation.”

Nowhere is it stated that Malaysia is an Islamic state.

But by his declaration, Najib caused fresh anxieties to surface and made the issue of religion more contentious. In extreme situations, the provisions of Article 3 have been disrespected. A recent example is Perkasa's lodging of a police report against a church in Shah Alam for planning to stage a Christian play during Ramadan on the grounds that it was seditious and insulting to the sultan.

That police report became a problem to the church. How would it be solved? In an ideal Malaysian setting, the government would have stepped in and told Perkasa to respect Article 3. But of course, it did not. For the church and other Christian groups, these problems will continue to crop up in future and there will be no solution in sight if the government stays silent.

Is the government silent because it now believes it can call such a problem a polarity? And with a polarity, which cannot be solved, the less said about it, the better? Similarly, in the case of the Johor school principal who allegedly made racist remarks, it is better to let the issue be until the public forgets about it?

If so, 1Malaysia is not about taking a radically honest approach towards national unity and the celebration of diversity. It seems to shy away from calling a problem a problem and solving it. Calling it a polarity merely adds a new twist to the propaganda.

So, if Idris Jala comes to your neighbourhood and tries to sell you that idea, be sure to ask him some difficult questions. He's a good speaker and can easily mesmerise his audience. His words may sound pretty until you probe them for substance. If you do, you might find that they amount to nothing more than public relations prattle.


http://niamah.blogspot.com/2010/09/if-its-problem-dont-recognise-it-by-kee.html

2010年9月14日星期二

Transcripts – New York Times/IHT interview Lee Kuan Yew

The following is the transcript of the interview Seth Mydans had with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, for the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune. The interview was held on 1 September 2010.

Mr Lee: “Thank you. When you are coming to 87, you are not very happy..”

Q: “Not. Well you should be glad that you’ve gotten way past where most of us will get.”

Mr Lee: “That is my trouble. So, when is the last leaf falling?”

Q: “Do you feel like that, do you feel like the leaves are coming off?”

Mr Lee: “Well, yes. I mean I can feel the gradual decline of energy and vitality and I mean generally every year when you know you are not on the same level as last year. But that is life.”

Q: “My mother used to say never get old.”

Mr Lee: “Well, there you will try never to think yourself old. I mean I keep fit, I swim, I cycle.”

Q: “And yoga, is that right? Meditation?”

Mr Lee: “Yes.”

Q: “Tell me about meditation?”

Mr Lee: “Well, I started it about two, three years ago when Ng Kok Song, the Chief Investment Officer of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation, I knew he was doing meditation. His wife had died but he was completely serene. So, I said, how do you achieve this? He said I meditate everyday and so did my wife and when she was dying of cancer, she was totally serene because she meditated everyday and he gave me a video of her in her last few weeks completely composed completely relaxed and she and him had been meditating for years. Well, I said to him, you teach me. He is a devout Christian. He was taught by a man called Laurence Freeman, a Catholic. His guru was John Main a devout Catholic. When I was in London, Ng Kok Song introduced me to Laurence Freeman. In fact, he is coming on Saturday to visit Singapore, and we will do a meditation session. The problem is to keep the monkey mind from running off into all kinds of thoughts. It is most difficult to stay focused on the mantra. The discipline is to have a mantra which you keep repeating in your innermost heart, no need to voice it over and over again throughout the whole period of meditation. The mantra they recommended was a religious one. Ma Ra Na Ta, four syllables. Come To Me Oh Lord Jesus. So I said Okay, I am not a Catholic but I will try. He said you can take any other mantra, Buddhist Om Mi Tuo Fo, and keep repeating it. To me Ma Ran Na Ta is more soothing. So I used Ma Ra Na Ta. You must be disciplined. I find it helps me go to sleep after that. A certain tranquility settles over you. The day’s pressures and worries are pushed out. Then there’s less problem sleeping. I miss it sometimes when I am tired, or have gone out to a dinner and had wine. Then I cannot concentrate. Otherwise I stick to it.”

Q: “So…”

Mr Lee: “.. for a good meditator will do it for half-an-hour. I do it for 20 minutes.”

Q: “So, would you say like your friend who taught you, would you say you are serene?”

Mr Lee: “Well, not as serene as he is. He has done it for many years and he is a devout Catholic. That makes a difference. He believes in Jesus. He believes in the teachings of the Bible. He has lost his wife, a great calamity. But the wife was serene. He gave me this video to show how meditation helped her in her last few months. I do not think I can achieve his level of serenity. But I do achieve some composure.”

Q: “And do you find that at this time in your life you do find yourself getting closer to religion of one sort or another?”

Mr Lee: “I am an agnostic. I was brought up in a traditional Chinese family with ancestor worship. I would go to my grandfather’s grave on All Soul’s Day which is called “Qingming”. My father would bring me along, lay out food and candles and burn some paper money and kowtow three times over his tombstone. At home on specific days outside the kitchen he would put up two candles with my grandfather’s picture. But as I grew up, I questioned this because I think this is superstition. You are gone, you burn paper money, how can he collect the paper money where he is? After my father died, I dropped the practice. My youngest brother baptised my father as a Christian. He did not have the right to. He was a doctor and for the last weeks before my father’s life, he took my father to his house because he was a doctor and was able to keep my father comforted. I do not know if my father was fully aware when he was converted into Christianity.”

Q: “Converted your father?”

Mr Lee: “Yes.”

Q: “Well this happens when you get close to the end.”

Mr Lee: “Well, but I do not know whether my father agreed. At that time he may have been beyond making a rational decision. My brother assumed that he agreed and converted him.”

Q: “But…”

Mr Lee: “I am not converted.”

Q: “But when you reach that stage, you may wonder more than ever what is next?”

Mr Lee: “Well, what is next, I do not know. Nobody has ever come back. The Muslims say that there are seventy houris, beautiful women up there. But nobody has come back to confirm this.”

Q: “And you haven’t converted to Islam, knowing that?”

Mr Lee: “Most unlikely. The Buddhist believes in transmigration of the soul. If you live a good life, the reward is in your next migration, you will be a good being, not an ugly animal. It is a comforting thought, but my wife and I do not believe in it. She has been for two years bed-ridden, unable to speak after a series of strokes. I am not going to convert her. I am not going to allow anybody to convert her because I know it will be against what she believed in all her life. How do I comfort myself? Well, I say life is just like that. You can’t choose how you go unless you are going to take an overdose of sleeping pills, like sodium amytal. For just over two years, she has been inert in bed, but still cognitive. She understands when I talk to her, which I do every night. She keeps awake for me; I tell her about my day’s work, read her favourite poems.”

Q: ‘And what kind of books do you read to her?”

Mr Lee: “So much of my time is reading things online. The latest book which I want to read or re-read is Kim. It is a beautiful of description of India as it was in Kipling’s time. And he had an insight into the Indian mind and it is still basically that same society that I find when I visit India. “

Q: “When you spoke to Time Magazine a couple of years ago, you said Don Quixote was your favourite?”

Mr Lee: “Yes, I was just given the book, Don Quixote, a new translation.”

Q: “But people might find that ironic because he was fantasist who did not realistically choose his projects and you are sort of the opposite?”

Mr Lee: “No, no, you must have something fanciful and a flight of fancy. I had a colleague Rajaratnam who read Sci-Fi for his leisure.”’

Q: “And you?”:

Mr Lee: “No, I do not believe in Sci-Fi.”

Q: “But you must have something to fantasise.”

Mr Lee: “Well, at the moment, as I said, I would like to read Kim again. Why I thought of Kim was because I have just been through a list of audio books to choose for my wife. Jane Austen, Emily Bronte, books she has on her book shelf. So, I ticked off the ones I think she would find interesting. The one that caught my eye was Kim. She was into literature, from Alice in Wonderland, to Adventures with a Looking Glass, to Jane Austen’s Persuasion, Pride and Prejudice, and Sense and Sensibility. Jane Austen was her favourite writer because she wrote elegant and leisurely English prose of the 19th century. The prose flowed beautifully, described the human condition in a graceful way, and rolls off the tongue and in the mind. She enjoyed it. Also Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales. She was an English Literature major.”

Q: “You are naming books on the list, not necessarily books you have already read, yes?”

Mr Lee: “I would have read some of them.”

Q: “Like a Jane Austen book, or Canterbury Tales?”

Mr Lee: “No, Canterbury Tales, I had to do it for my second year English Literature course in Raffles College. For a person in the 15th Century, he wrote very modern stuff. I didn’t find his English all that archaic. I find those Scottish poets difficult to read. Sometimes I don’t make sense of their Scottish brogue. My wife makes sense of them. Then Shakespeare’s sonnets.”

Q: “You read those?”

Mr Lee: “I read those sonnets when I did English literature in my freshman’s year. She read them.”

Q: “When you say she reads them now, you’re the one who reads them, yes?”

Mr Lee: “Yes, I read them to her.”

Q: “But you go to her.”

Mr Lee: “Yes, I read from an Anthology of Poems which she has, and several other anthologies. So I know her favourite poems. She had flagged them. I read them to her.”

Q: “She’s in the hospital? You go to the hospital?”

Mr Lee: “No, no, she’s at home. We’ve got a hospital bed and nurses attending to her. We used to share the same room. Now I’m staying in the next room. I have to get used to her groans and grunts when she’s uncomfortable from a dry throat and they pump in a spray moisture called “Biothene” which soothes her throat, and they suck out phlegm. Because she can’t get up, she can’t breathe fully. The phlegm accumulates in the chest but you can’t suck it out from the chest, you’ve got to wait until she coughs and it goes out to her throat. They suck it out, and she’s relieved. They sit her up and tap her back. It’s very distressing, but that’s life.”

Q: “Yes, your daughter on Sunday wrote a moving column, movingly about the situation referring to you.”

Mr Lee: “How did you come to read it?”

Q: “Somebody said you’ve got to read that column, so I read it.”

Mr Lee: “You don’t get the Straits Times.”

Q: “I get it online actually. I certainly do, I follow Singapore online and she wrote that the whole family suffers of course from this and she wrote the one who’s been hurting the most and is yet carrying on stoically is my father.”

Mr Lee: “What to do? What else can I do? I can’t break down. Life has got to go on. I try to busy myself, but from time to time in idle moments, my mind goes back to the happy days we were up and about together.”

Q: “When you go to visit her, is that the time when your mind goes back?”

Mr Lee: “No, not then. My daughter’s fished out many old photographs for this piece she wrote and picked out a dozen or two dozen photographs from the digital copies which somebody had kept at the Singapore Press Holdings. When I look at them, I thought how lucky I was. I had 61 years of happiness. We’ve got to go sometime, so I’m not sure who’s going first, whether she or me. So I told her, I’ve been looking at the marriage vows of the Christians. The best I read was,” To love, to hold and to cherish, in sickness and in health, for better or for worse, till death do us part.” I told her I would try and keep you company for as long as I can. She understood.”

Q: “Yes, it’s been really.”

Mr Lee: “What to do? What can you do in this situation? I can say get rid of the nurses. Then the maids won’t know how to turn her over and then she gets pneumonia. That ends the suffering. But human beings being what we are, I do the best for her and the best is to give her a competent nurse who moves her, massages her, turns her over, so no bed sores. I’ve got a hospital bed with air cushions so no bed sores. Well, that’s life. Make her comfortable.”

Q: “And for yourself, you feel the weight of age more than you have in the past?”

Mr Lee: “I’m not sure. I marginally must have. It’s stress. However, I look at it, I mean, it’s stress. That’s life. But it’s a different kind of stress from the kind of stress I faced, political stresses. Dire situations for Singapore, dire situations for myself when we broke off from Malaysia, the Malays in Singapore could have rioted and gone for me and they suddenly found themselves back as a minority because the Tunku kicked us out. That’s different, that’s intense stress and it’s over but this is stress which goes on. One doctor told me, you may think that when she’s gone you’re relieved but you’ll be sad when she’s gone because there’s still the human being here, there’s still somebody you talk to and she knows what you’re saying and you’ll miss that. Well, I don’t know, I haven’t come to that but I think I’ll probably will because it’s now two years, May, June, July, August, September, two years and four months. It’s become a part of my life.”

Q: “She’s how old now?”

Mr Lee: “She’s two-and-a-half years older than me, so she’s coming on to 90.”

Q: “But you did make a reference in an interview with Time magazine to something that goes beyond reason as you put it. You referred to the real enemy by Pierre D’Harcourt who talked about people surviving the Nazi, it’s better that they have something to believe in.”

Mr Lee: “Yes, of course.”

Q: “And you said that the Communists and the deeply religious fought on and survived. There are some things in the human spirit that are beyond reason.”

Mr Lee: “I believe that to be true. Look, I saw my friend and cabinet colleague who’s a deeply religious Catholic. He was Finance Minister, a fine man. In 1983, he had a heart attack. He was in hospital, in ICU, he improved and was taken out of ICU. Then he had a second heart attack and I knew it was bad. I went to see him and the priest was giving him the last rites as a Catholic. Absolutely fearless, he showed no distress, no fear, the family was around him, his wife and daughters, he had four daughters. With priest delivering the last rites, he knew he was reaching the end. But his mind was clear but absolutely calm.”

Q: “Well, I am more like you. We don’t have something to cling to.”

Mr Lee: “That’s our problem.”

Q: “But also the way people see you is supremely reasonable person, reason is the ultimate.”

Mr Lee: “Well, that’s the way I’ve been working.”

Q: “Well, you did mention to Tom Plate, they think they know me but they only know the public me?”

Mr Lee: “Yeah, the private view is you have emotions for your close members of your family. We are a close family, not just my sons and my wife and my parents but my brothers and my sister. So my youngest brother, a doctor as I told you, he just sent me an email that my second brother was dying of a bleeding colon, diverticulitis. And later the third brother now has got prostate cancer and has spread into his lymph nodes. So I asked what’re the chances of survival. It’s not gotten to the bones yet, so they’re doing chemotherapy and if you can prevent it from going into the bones, he’ll be okay for a few more years. If it does get to the bones, then that’s the end. I don’t think my brother knows. But I’ll probably go and see him.”

Q: “But you yourself have been fit. You have a stent, you had heart problem late last year but besides that do you have ailments?”

Mr Lee: “Well, aches and pains of a geriatric person, joints, muscles but all non-terminal. I go in for a physiotherapy, maintenance once a week, they give me a rub over because when I cycle, my thighs get sore, knees get a little painful, and so the hips.”

Q: “These are the signs of age.”

Mr Lee: “Yeah, of course.”

Q: “I’m 64. I’m beginning to feel that and I don’t like it and I don’t want to admit to myself.”

Mr Lee: “But if you stop exercising, you make it worse. That’s what my doctors tell me, just carry on. When you have these aches and pains, we’ll give you physiotherapy. I’ve learnt to use heat pads at home. So after the physiotherapy, once a week, if I feel my thighs are sore, I just have a heat pad there. You put in the microwave oven and you tie it around your thighs or your ankles or your calves. It relieves the pain.”

Q: “So you continue to cycle.”

Mr Lee: “Oh yeah.”

Q: “Treadmill?

Mr Lee: “No, I don’t do the treadmill. I walk but not always. When I’ve cycled enough I don’t walk.”

Q: “That’s your primary exercise, swimming?”

Mr Lee: “Yeah, I swim everyday, it’s relaxing.”

Q: “What other secrets, I see you drink hot water?”

Mr Lee: “Yes.”

Q: “Tell me about it.”

Mr Lee: “Well, I used to drink tea but tea is a diuretic, but I didn’t know that. I used to drink litres of it. In the 1980s, I was having a conference with Zhou Ziyang who was then Secretary-General of the Communist Party in the Great Hall of the People. The Chinese came in and poured more tea and hot water. I was scoffing it down because it kept my throat moistened, my BP was up because more liquid was in me. Halfway through, I said please stop. I’m dashing off. I had to relief myself. Then my doctors said don’t you know that tea is a diuretic? I don’t like coffee, it gives me a sour stomach, so okay, let’s switch to water.”

Q: “You know you had the hot water when I met you a couple of years ago and after I told my wife about that, she switched to hot water. She’s not sure why except that you drink hot water, so she’s decided to.”

Mr Lee: “Well, cold water, this was from my ENT man. If you drink cold water, you reduce the temperature of your nasal passages and throat and reduce your resistance to coughs and colds. So I take warm water, body temperature. I don’t scald myself with boiling hot water. I avoid that. But my daughter puts blocks of ice into her coffee and drinks it up. She’s all right, she’s only 50-plus.

Q: “Let me ask a question about the outside world a little bit. Singapore is a great success story even though people criticize this and that. When you look back, you can be proud of what you’ve done and I assume you are. Are there things that you regret, things that you wished you could achieve that you couldn’t?”

Mr Lee: “Well, first I regret having been turfed out of Malaysia. I think if the Tunku had kept us together, what we did in Singapore, had Malaysia accepted a multiracial base for their society, much of what we’ve achieved in Singapore would be achieved in Malaysia. But not as much because it’s a much broader base. We would have improved inter-racial relations and an improved holistic situation. Now we have a very polarized Malaysia, Malays, Chinese and Indians in separate schools, living separate lives and not really getting on with one another. You read them. That’s bad for us as close neighbours.”

Q: “So at that time, you found yourself with Singapore and you have transformed it. And my question would be how do you assess your own satisfaction with what you’ve achieved? What didn’t work?”

Mr Lee: “Well, the greatest satisfaction I had was my colleagues and I, were of that generation who were turfed out of Malaysia suffered two years under a racial policy decided that we will go the other way. We will not as a majority squeeze the minority because once we’re by ourselves, the Chinese become the majority. We made quite sure whatever your race, language or religion, you are an equal citizen and we’ll drum that into the people and I think our Chinese understand and today we have an integrated society. Our Malays are English-educated, they’re no longer like the Malays in Malaysia and you can see there are some still wearing headscarves but very modern looking.”

Q: “That doesn’t sound like a regret to me.”

Mr Lee: “No, no, but the regret is there’s such a narrow base to build this enormous edifice, so I’ve got to tell the next generation, please do not take for granted what’s been built. If you forget that this is a small island which we are built upon and reach a 100 storeys high tower block and may go up to 150 if you are wise. But if you believe that it’s permanent, it will come tumbling down and you will never get a second chance.”

Q: “I wonder if that is a concern of yours about the next generation. I saw your discussion with a group of young people before the last election and they were saying what they want is a lot of these values from the West, an open political marketplace and even playing field in all of these things and you said well, if that’s the way you feel, I’m very sad.”

Mr Lee: “Because you play it that way, if you have dissension, if you chose the easy way to Muslim votes and switch to racial politics, this society is finished. The easiest way to get majority vote is vote for me, we’re Chinese, they’re Indians, they’re Malays. Our society will be ripped apart. If you do not have a cohesive society, you cannot make progress.”

Q: “But is that a concern that the younger generation doesn’t realize as much as it should?”

Mr Lee: “I believe they have come to believe that this is a natural state of affairs, and they can take liberties with it. They think you can put it on auto-pilot. I know that is never so. We have crafted a set of very intricate rules, no housing blocks shall have more than a percentage of so many Chinese, so many percent Malays, Indians. All are thoroughly mixed. Willy-nilly, your neighbours are Indians, Malays, you go to the same shopping malls, you go to the same schools, the same playing fields, you go up and down the same lifts. We cannot allow segregation.”

Q: “There are people who think that Singapore may lighten up a little bit when you go, that the rules will become a little looser and if that happens, that might be something that’s a concern to you.”

Mr Lee: “No, you can go looser where it’s not race, language and religion because those are deeply gut issues and it will surface the moment you start playing on them. It’s inevitable, but on other areas, policies, right or wrong, disparity of opportunities, rich and poor, well go ahead. But don’t play race, language, religion. We’ve got here, we’ve become cohesive, keep it that way. We’ve not used Chinese as a majority language because it will split the population. We have English as our working language, it’s equal for everybody, and it’s given us the progress because we’re connected to the world. If you want to keep your Malay, or your Chinese, or your Tamil, Urdu or whatever, do that as a second language, not equal to your first language. It’s up to you, how high a standard you want to achieve.”

Q: “The public view of you is as a very strict, cerebral, unsentimental. Catherine Lim, “an authoritarian, no-nonsense manner that has little use for sentiment”.”

Mr Lee: “She’s a novelist, therefore, she simplifies a person’s character, make graphic caricature of me. But is anybody that simple or simplistic?”

Q: “Sentiment though, you don’t show that very much in public.”

Mr Lee: “Well, that’s a Chinese ideal. A gentleman in Chinese ideal, the junzi (君子) is someone who is always composed and possessed of himself and doesn’t lose his temper and doesn’t lose his tongue. That’s what I try to do, except when I got turfed out from Malaysia. Then, I just couldn’t help it.”

Q: “One aspect of the way you’ve constructed Singapore is a certain level of fear perhaps in the population. You described yourself as a street fighter, knuckle duster and so forth.”

Mr Lee: “Yes.”

Q: “And that produces among some people a level of fear and I want to tell you what a taxi driver said when I said I was going to interview you. He said, safer not to ask him anything. If you ask him, somebody will follow you. We’re not in politics so just let him do the politics.”

Mr Lee: “How old is he?’

Q: “I’m sorry, middle aged, I don’t know.”

Mr Lee: “I go out. I’m no longer the Prime Minister. I don’t have to do the difficult things. Everybody wants to shake my hands, everybody wants me to autograph something. Everybody wants to get around me to take a photo. So it’s a problem.

Q: “Yes but…”

Mr Lee: “Because I’m no longer in charge, I don’t have to do the hard things. I’ve laid the foundation and they know that because of that foundation, they’re enjoying this life.’

Q: “So when you were the one directly in-charge, you had to be tough, you had to be a fighter.”

Mr Lee: “Yes, of course. I had to fight left-wingers, Communists, pro-Communist groups who had killer squads. If I didn’t have the guts and the gumption to take them on, there wouldn’t be the Singapore. They would have taken over and it would have collapsed. I also had to fight the Malay Ultras when we were in Malaysia for two years.”

Q: “Well, you don’t have a lot of dissidents in prison but you’re known for your libel suits which keeps a lot of people at bay.”

Mr Lee: “We are non-corrupt. We lead modest lives, so it’s difficult to malign us. What’s the easy way to get a leader down? He’s a hypocrite, he is corrupt, he pretends to be this when in fact he’s that. That’s what they’re trying to do to me. Well, prove it, if what you say is right, then I don’t deserve this reputation. Why must you say these things without foundation? I’m taking you to court, you’ve made these allegations, I’m open to your cross-examination.”

Q: “But that may produce what I was talking about, about a level of fear.”

Mr Lee: “No, you’re fearful of a libel suit? Then don’t issue these defamatory statements or make them where you have no basis. The Western correspondent, especially those who hop in and hop out got to find something to show that they are impartial, that they’re not just taken in by the Singapore growth story. They say we keep down the opposition, how? Libel suits. Absolute rubbish. We have opponents in Parliament who have attacked us on policy, no libel suits against them and even in Parliament they are privileged to make defamatory allegation and cannot be sued. But they don’t. They know it is not true.”

Q: “Let me ask a last question. Again back to Tom Plate, “I’m not serious all the time. Everyone needs to have a good laugh now and then to see the funny side of things and to laugh at himself”.”

Mr Lee: “Yes, of course.”

Q: “How about that?”

Mr Lee: “You have to be that.”

Q: “So what makes you laugh?”

Mr Lee: “Many things, the absurdity of it, many things in life. Sometimes, I meet witty people, have conversations, they make sharp remarks, I laugh.

Q: “And when you laugh at yourself as you said?”

Mr Lee: “That’s very frequent. Yeah, I’m reaching 87, trying to keep fit, presenting a vigorous figure and it’s an effort and is it worth the effort? I laugh at myself trying to keep a bold front. It’s become my habit. I just carry on.”

Q: “So it’s the whole broad picture of things that you find funny?”

Mr Lee: “Yes, life as a whole has many abnormalities, of course.”

Q: “Your public life together with your private life, what you’ve done over things people write about you and Singapore, that overall is something that you can find funny?”

Mr Lee: “Yes, of course.

Q: “You made one of the few people who laugh at Singapore.”

Mr Lee: “Let me give you a Chinese proverb “do not judge a man until you’ve closed his coffin. Do not judge a man.” Close the coffin, then decide. Then you assess him. I may still do something foolish before the lid is closed on me.”

Q: “So you’re waiting for the final verdict?”

Mr Lee: “No, the final verdict will not be in the obituaries. The final verdict will be when the PhD students dig out the archives, read my old papers, assess what my enemies have said, sift the evidence and seek the truth? I’m not saying that everything I did was right, but everything I did was for an honourable purpose. I had to do some nasty things, locking fellows up without trial.”

Q: “For the greater good?

Mr Lee: “Well, yes, because otherwise they are running around and causing havoc playing on Chinese language and culture, and accusing me of destroying Chinese education. You’ve not been here when the Communists were running around. They do not believe in the democratic process. They don’t believe in one man, one vote. They believe in one bullet, one vote. They had killer squads. But they at the same time had a united front exploiting the democratic game. It gave them cover. But my business, my job was to make sure that they did not succeed. Sometimes you just got to lock the leaders up. They are confusing the people. The reality is that if you allow these people to work up animosity against the government because it’s keeping down the Chinese language, because we’ve promoted English, keeping down Chinese culture because you have allowed English literature, and we suppress our Chinese values and the Chinese language, the Chinese press, well, you will break up the society. They harp on these things when they know they are not true. They know that if you actually do in Chinese language and culture, the Chinese will riot and the society must break up.”

Q: “So leadership is a constant battle?”

Mr Lee: “In a multiracial situation like this, it is. Malaysia took the different line; Malaysians saw it as a Malay country, all others are lodgers, “orang tumpangan”, and they the Bumiputras, sons of the soil, run the show. So the Sultans, the Chief Justice and judges, generals, police commissioner, the whole hierarchy is Malay. All the big contracts for Malays. Malay is the language of the schools although it does not get them into modern knowledge. So the Chinese build and find their own independent schools to teach Chinese, the Tamils create their own Tamil schools, which do not get them jobs. It’s a most unhappy situation.”

Mdm Yeong: “I thought that was the last question.”

Q: “This is the last part of the last question. So your career has been a struggle to keep things going in the right way and you’ve also said that the best way to keep your health is to keep on working. Are you tired of it by this point? Do you feel like you want to rest?”

Mr Lee: “No, I don’t. I know if I rest I’ll slide downhill fast. No, my whole being has been stimulated by the daily challenge. If I suddenly drop it all, play golf, stroll around, watch the sunset, read novels, that’s downhill. It is the daily challenge, social contacts, meeting people, people like you, you press me, I answer, when I don’t…. what have I got tomorrow?”

Mdm Yeong: “You have two more events coming up. One is the Radin Mas Community.”

Mr Lee: “Oh yeah. I got it.”

Mdm Yeong: “And then you have other call, courtesy call on the 3rd.”

Mr Lee: “We are social animals. Without that interaction with people, you are isolated. The worst punishment you can give a person is the isolation ward. You get hallucinations. Four walls, no books, no nothing. By way of example, Henry Kissinger wants to speak to me. So I said okay, we’ll speak on Sunday. What about? We are meeting in Sao Paolo at a J P Morgan International Advisory Board. He wants to talk to me to check certain facts on China. My mind is kept alive, I go to China once a year at least. I meet Chinese leaders. So it’s a constant stimulus as I keep up to date. Supposing I sit back, I don’t think about China, just watch videos. I am off to Moscow, Kiev and Paris on the 15th of September. Three days Moscow, three days Kiev, four days Paris. Moscow I am involved in the Skolkovo Business School which President Medvedev, when he wasn’t President started. I promised to go if he did not fix it in the winter. So they fix it for September. I look at the fires, I said wow this is no good.”

Q: “It’s not going to be freezing if there are fires.”

Mr Lee: “No but our embassy says the skies have cleared. Kiev because the President has invited me specially and will fly me from Moscow to Kiev and then fly me on to Paris. Paris I am on the TOTAL Advisory Board together with Joe Nye and a few others. They want a presentation on what are China’s strengths and weaknesses. That keeps me alive. It’s just not my impressionistic views of China but one that has to be backed by facts and figures. So my team works out the facts and figures, and I check to see if they tally with my impressions. But it’s a constant stimulus to keep alive, and up-to-date. If I stop it, it’s downhill.”

Q: “Well, I hope you continue. Thank you very much, I really enjoyed this interview.”


http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/09/transcripts-new-york-timesiht-interview-lee-kuan-yew/



2010年9月4日星期六

Educationist says racist remarks in schools nothing new

Kuala Lumpur, Aug.28 (ANI): A former teacher and former president of the National Union of the Teaching Profession (NUTP), the country’s largest teachers organisation, P. Ramanathan, has said racist remarks are nothing new as they were common among teachers and pupils and often practised by all ethic groups.

“This was usually a form of letting off steam due to unfairness in the way the school is administered. The use of double standards which favour certain groups also result in such remarks and comments. Some teachers and pupils are taken to task by the headmaster for certain activities while others who do similar mistakes are not punished,” the New Strait Times quoted the Malya Indian academic, as saying.

“Things like this, which lead to frustration, result in such remarks,” he added.

“However, the difference is that some say it loudly while many just whisper among their own racial groups,” he said.

Ramanathan said that during his 35 years of teaching and active involvement in the NUTP, there were many such cases that were dealt with within the ambit of the school regulations.

“We never went to the media, and always settled them amicably among ourselves without much fuss,” he added.

Ramanathan was commenting on the case of a school principal in Kulaijaya, Johor, who had allegedly used racist remarks on August 12. (ANI)



More at : Malay Indian educationist says racist remarks in schools nothing new http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/malay-indian-educationist-says-racist-remarks-in-schools-nothing-new_100419536.html#ixzz0yXLPw5Lk


http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/malay-indian-educationist-says-racist-remarks-in-schools-nothing-new_100419536.html

Anwar relieved that Realmild 'truth' is out

Anwar relieved that Realmild 'truth' is out

E-mail Print

By FMT Staff

SHAH ALAM: Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim is relieved that yesterday’s disclosure of the facts behind the shares deal in Realmild (M) Sdn Bhd, in the Kuala Lumpur High Court, has confirmed his 1999 testimony to be true.

He said the revelation by former chairman of the Penang Malay Chambers of Commerce, Abdul Rahman Maidin, that 70% of the shares were in former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s name proves that he (Anwar) had no self-interest in the company.

Blogging his comments last night, Anwar said: “All this while Umno has been fabricating lies alleging that I had an interest and through it (Realmild) controlled Malaysian Resources Corporation Berhad (MRCB).

“In my 1999 testimony at the Kuala Lumpur High Court, I confirmed that the biggest shareholder in Realmild was Mahathir himself, who held 70% of the shares. I had no interest in the company.

“Only after this disclosure was made did Mahathir ask Abdul Rahman to takeover the shares and only at that point was it revealed that Umno owned the shares.

“Abdul Rahman’s testimony yesterday reaffirms my earlier confession (on the issue)” wrote the former deputy prime minister who is presently the PKR chief.

Anwar was commenting on Abdul Rahman’s testimony in a RM10 million commercial crime case filed against him by a former Realmild director Khalid Ahmad.

Realmild is the biggest shareholder in MRCB and Abdul Rahman was once its chief executive officer.

During the proceedings in the Kuala Lumpur High Court yesterday, Abdul Rahman confessed to being shocked to discover that the Realmild shares he was holding on to was in fact Umno’s.

As a result of this, Abdul Rahman said he had lost RM40 million when the 7.101 million Realmild shares which he bought from Khalid was owned by Umno.

“When I tookover the Realmild shares, it was based on corporate and commercial perspective.

"I looked for the funds to secure the shares and did so through my own financial ability and without assistance from any political entity,” Abdul Rahmad had reportedly said in response to a question in the court.



http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/fmt-english/politics/pakatan-rakyat/9913-anwar-relieved-that-realmild-truth-is-out

Everyone in M’sia is racist except certain people

By Suresh Kashuerin, Free Malaysia Today

By Suresh Kashuerin

COMMENT It’s incredible that one line in Malay in the Namewee video – You tak baca? Siapa buat Malaysia kaya? – (You didn’t read? Who made Malaysia rich?) could cause such uproar among the guardians of Malay pride. Is it a case of “siapa makan cili rasa pedasnya (if the cap fits, wear it). Where were these same guardians of Malay pride when school principal Siti Inshah Mansor abused her Indian and Chinese pupils in outrageous language? There wasn’t even a peep out of them. She wasn’t accused of racism. In fact, she’s even being treated by the Education Ministry with kid gloves despite non-Malay uproar. It wouldn’t be surprising if she’s kicked upstairs soon as one of those modern-day heroines in Malay celluloid.

Then, there was the later case of a principal up north who advised the Chinese pupils of the school to go back to China since AirAsia flights were now every cheap. This was after they were caught eating at the school canteen by the principal during the fasting hours. They were accused, in some kind of warped logic, of not respecting the holy Muslim fasting month of Ramadan.

What their own gnawing hunger has got to do with Ramadan and respect was not explained to the errant students.

Now, there’s a real possibility that this Namewee character will be charged soon with sedition. This emerged after police, who don’t seem to have better things to do with their time, grilled him for three hours. Sedition, put simply, is the act of stirring up rebellion against the state.

Within any context, a racist can be defined as one who denies others their place in the sun. Déjà vu? If one stands up for his or her place in the sun, without denying others their rights, the question of being racist does not arise.

In Malaysia, the definition of racism is the reverse.

Ibrahim Ali and Mahathir Mohamad of Perkasa routinely twist and turn every issue into a racial issue in order to play to the gallery and force the Malays to circle their wagons under one platform, that is, Umno. They are hailed as great heroes standing up for Malay rights.

Their hidden agenda is to mask the “thievery” that goes on under the guise of development. Government procurements and contracts cost twice, thrice and even up to 10 times what it should cost the taxpayer. So, behind the rhetoric and polemics generated by Ibrahim and Mahathir to pull the wool over the people’s eyes, they are in cahoots with their “comrades in crime” who steal the people’s sweat from the public treasury.

When Hindraf Makkal Sakthi kicked up a fuss over the continuing marginalisation of the Indian underclass in the country, they were accused of being racists. The New Economic Policy (1970-1990) pledged, among others, that poverty would be eradicated irrespective of race, religion, class and caste.

Elsewhere, when Hindraf pointed out that Article 153 of the Federal Constitution provides for the legitimate aspirations of the non-Malays and non-Natives, they were accused of questioning Malay special privileges. In fact, Article 153 doesn’t mention special privileges at all.

Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim himself, ironically fighting on a platform of change and reform, accused Hindraf of being racists and questioning Malay rights and privileges. He was playing to the gallery, like Umno, to project himself as the great protector of the Malays but at other people’s expense.

Hindraf was further accused of stoking racism when it stressed that Article 153 only mentions a reasonable proportion for the Malays and Natives in four specific areas, namely intake into the civil service; intake into government-owned institutions of higher learning and training privileges; government scholarships; and opportunities created by the government to do business.

The implication is that Article 153 is a “sapu bersih” (clean sweep) policy which gives a licence to commit the worst transgressions in the name of race.

Ninety per cent of the staffing strength in the civil service today is Malay, a number which is way above the 60% they represent in the population. When this was pointed out, the Chief Secretary to the federal government explained with a straight face that intake was based purely on merit and that there was no quota system. In short, the Malays and Natives don’t need the protection of Article 153 to secure jobs in the civil service.

Again, the NEP pledged that there would be no identification of race with economic function and place of residence.

It’s like a “heads I win, tails you lose” kind of policy in government. This means certain people are always on the winning side while others are forced to be born losers all the time through no fault of their own. This is not racism, according to the perpetrators.

On the other side of the South China Sea, there has been no Borneonisation of the federal civil service as pledged by the Malaysia Agreement. Almost all the top jobs are held by Malay civil servants from Peninsular Malaysia in the fashion of the British colonialists.

The federal government is also not being shared equally by Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak.

In politics, the local proxies of the ruling elite in Putrajaya are used to prevent the majority community – Dayak in Sarawak and the KadazanDusunMurut in Sabah – from heading the state administrations or being appointed as governors or ambassadors.

At the board level in Petronas, and its numerous subsidiaries, there’s not even one person from Sabah or Sarawak. When queried recently in Parliament, the reply from the federal government is that race is not used by Petronas as a criterion in appointments to the board. If that’s the case, why is that all Petronas board members, and subsidiaries, are from the same community? Not racism!

Everyone in M’sia is racist except certain people


READ MORE HERE.


http://malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/newscommentaries/34281-everyone-in-msia-is-racist-except-certain-people


http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/fmt-english/opinion/comment/9950-everyone-in-msia-is-racist-except-certain-people

School head in Kulaijaya under probe over racist remarks

School head in Kulaijaya under probe over racist remarks

Kuching
Monday, 16th August 2010

"Pelajar-pelajar Cina tidak diperlukan dan boleh balik ke China ataupun Sekolah Foon Yew. Bagi pelajar India, tali sembahyang yang diikat di pergelangan tangan dan leher pelajar nampak seakan anjing dan hanya anjing akan mengikat seperti itu."

By Student of Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, Kulai


Throughout my entire life, I had never came across of such School Principal. No matter who he was, whether a Malay, India, Chinese, Iban or kadazan, he is not fit to live in Malayssia

(The Star) KULAIJAYA: Police are investigating a school principal who allegedly used racist remarks against non-Malay students during a Merdeka celebration at the school here recently.

Kulaijaya deputy OCPD Asst Supt Mohd Kamil said police had received 12 reports against the principal since Saturday and that the case was being investigated under Section 504 of the Penal Code.

Over 50 parents and students had lodged the reports against the principal, who allegedly described the non-Malays as “penumpang” (passengers) in the country during her speech at the start of the celebration on Aug 12.

“I was shocked that my principal had used such a word against non-Malay students in our school.

“This is not the first time that she had made racist comments against Chinese and Indian students in our school,” said 17-year-old student Brevia Pan.

She added that the principal, who joined the school early this year, would only target Chinese and Indian students.

“During the Merdeka celebration, she had told non-Malay students to go study in a Chinese school or go back to China,” she told reporters in a press conference organised by Senai assemblyman Ong Kow Meng.

Another student, Ashvini Thi-na­karan, 17, said many Malay students were influenced by the principal’s remarks and made similar comments and called them names.

“Before she came to my school, all the students got along well,” she said. Her father R. Thinakaran, 47, said this was a serious matter and that principals should not behave like this.

“This principal has caused racial disharmony at the school,” he said, adding that if no action was taken, he would take his daughter out of the school.

Ong called for stern action against the principal, adding that such school heads and educators would affect the minds of students.


Taken From Malaysia-Today

http://www.bukittunggal.com/2010/08/school-head-in-kulaijaya-under-probe.html

Stocktaking Malaysia

Stocktaking Malaysia

Not Malaysia's finest moment.

Not Malaysia's finest moment

LAST year, the Merdeka Day spirit was dampened by the actions of the Shah Alam residents who used a severed cow head to protest the relocation of a Hindu temple to their largely Muslim neighbourhood. This year, the run-up to Merdeka saw a school head in Kulaijaya, Johor, who, besides other slurs, told her charges that non-Malay Malaysians are just passengers in this country.

These are not the only issues that beleaguer our nation as we celebrate our 53rd year of independence. From race politics to human rights to plunging foreign direct investments (FDI), there’s a whole host of challenges our young nation is facing.

And so, more than half a decade after we gained independence, how far we have come as a nation and where we are headed?

A glossy surface

A ranking of #37 is proof of our integrity?

Confirmation bias at work?

Of course, there has been progress. Our country is modern, it’s infrastructure admirable. The middle-class has grown while the lower income group is aided with public health, education and housing. We are apparently the 37th best country in the world to live in, and this is supposedly proof that we are not corrupt.

Malaysia has also improved in its competitiveness rankings from 18th place last year to 10th this year, the IMDB World Competitiveness Yearbook 2010 said. That’s progress, considering that Malaysia was ranked 22nd in 2006. The government attributes this improvement partly to initiatives like the Government Transformation Programme and the National Key Result Areas.

We also weathered the 1987 currency crisis, and the 2008 global financial crisis. The local economy is now exceeding expectations, with Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth hitting 9.5% for the first half of this year, thanks to domestic demand and exports. It’s a good performance and a sign that our recovery is on track, analysts say, given that the rest of the world economy is still struggling with uncertainty.

These are the kinds of indicators the government blows its trumpet over. However, competitiveness rankings merely indicate the ease of starting or doing business in a country. At the same time, GDP figures don’t tell the full story of whether a country’s wealth is being equally shared.

Additionally, do these measurements really tell us anything about the nation’s soul?

The underbelly

There are other studies that suggest another story about Malaysia (© Lainie Yeoh)

There are other indices and reports that suggest another story about Malaysia.

Take the Gini coefficient of income disparity, where a higher score closer to 1.0 indicates greater inequality. It’s been noted that despite the New Economic Policy, we’ve not made progress in reducing the gap between rich and poor, not only between the different races but within the same race.

Our overall Gini coefficient in 1990 was 0.442 and remained on the increase till 2004, when it was 0.462. It came down to 0.441 in 2007. The government plans to reduce the gap to 0.35 by 2020, as stated in the Mid-Term Review of the Ninth Malaysia Plan. But will we get there when suggestions for meritocracy and liberalising the economy are not discussed rationally but instead slammed as seditious?

Then there is data that tells of how we value our women. Malaysian women remain economically disadvantaged. Their participation in the Malaysian workforce hasn’t changed much since 1980, when women made up 44.1% of the workforce. In 2008, female labour participation was only slightly up at 45.7%. And yet, studies have shown that the more women are able to work, the more the economy benefits as do their families.

Marina Mahathir (right) negotiating with a police officer (© pic  courtesy of Sheiko Reto)

Marina Mahathir (right) negotiating with a police officer (© pic courtesy of Sheiko Reto)

Women are also increasingly discriminated, especially Muslim women who don’t have the same freedoms as non-Muslim women, activist Datin Paduka Marina Mahathir has noted.

Malaysia intends to have 30% of women in decision-making positions under the Ninth Malaysia Plan. But with only 10% of Parliament comprising women, and 8% of 505 state seats occupied by women assemblypersons, we are below the world average of 16%.

Women’s low participation in the workforce and in politics earned Malaysia 101th place in the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index 2009. Malaysia’s ranking on this score has been steadily declining since we were ranked 72 in 2006.

Malaysia’s poor civil liberties and human rights track record is also well-documented, in its treatment of migrants and refugees, handling of human trafficking, and use of repressive laws. There has been little progress whether under prime ministers Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi or Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

Partially free, partially not?

Partly not free? (© publik15 | Flickr)

International human rights monitor Freedom House ranks Malaysia as a “partly free” country in its Freedom in the World 2009 survey. In its press freedom rankings for 2010, it ranks Malaysia as “not free” at a position of 141 out of 196 countries, and 31 out of 40 countries in the Asia Pacific. Reporters Without Borders marked an increased score in Malaysian press freedom in 2009, but the country’s position was still low at 131 out of 175 countries.

Telling figures

Our track record on human rights, including political and press freedom, has some impact on our standing in other indices, such as the Corruption Perception Index (CPI), and FDI. Corruption finds a comfortable environment when a government rules without transparency and with impunity, when the media is curbed from reporting fearlessly, when critics are regularly silenced, and when judicial independence is suspect.

So it’s little wonder that Malaysia doesn’t show improvement on the CPI, which gauges the perceived level of corruption in the public sector. We were 43rd place out of 179 countries in 2007 and have slid to 56th out of 180 in 2009.

Corruption is of course not the sole reason why Malaysia‘s FDI has plunged, but it does have a part in affecting confidence. We recorded our largest FDI drop — the biggest decline in Southeast Asia — of 81% from US$7.32 billion to US$1.38 billion between 2008 and 2009, according to the World Investment Report 2010. What a height to fall from when Malaysia was once a regional powerhouse. We are now only just a little better than Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos, Brunei and Timor Leste in attracting FDI.

And not too dissimilar with our brain drain problem, there is also more Malaysian money flowing out (US$8.04 billion) in overseas investments than there is foreign money coming in (US$1.38 billion). Do Malaysians not have confidence in their own country anymore?

Where confidence lies

Muslims visiting the Hindu temple in Shah Alam (pic courtesy of Maz Hamzah)

If there is confidence, it lies in the things that can’t be quantified, like the fact that Malaysians were living as 1Malaysia long before it was made a propaganda slogan. It’s in citizens who take it upon themselves to be peacemakers. Like the predominantly Muslim-Malay group who visited the Hindu temple in Shah Alam that was at the centre of the cow-head protest. Or the Fast for the Nation, Peace for Malaysia event on Malaysia Day, 16 September, in 2009.

Often, it is citizens, not politicians, who make a difference. Indeed, from the indicators cited, it is the politicians in power who seem bent on undermining what this country is capable of.

And so as a citizen, what would you do to make Malaysia a better place? Also, as a citizen, if you could make one suggestion for how the people in power can improve our nation, whether politically, economically or socially, what would it be?

This Merdeka, and onwards, let’s remember that independence isn’t about relinquishing control to the powers-that-be. Independence is about reclaiming power and control over the nation we call home.


http://www.thenutgraph.com/stocktaking-malaysia/