Wednesday 25 July 2007

Dr.M : Malay will Regress without NEP

Ethnic Malays Have Frittered Away Opportunities, Mahathir Says
By Stephanie Phang and Angus Whitley (Bloomberg)

Mahathir speaks in an interview
July 19 (Bloomberg)
-- Ethnic Malays have blown the opportunities given to them under the country's 36-year-old affirmative action policy and still need preferential treatment, former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said.

NEP Privileges
The race-based program gives the group privileges over ethnic Chinese and Indians for government contracts, homes and company shares in a bid to redistribute wealth. Without the policy, ethnic Malays, or Bumiputeras, will slip further behind, risking a return to racial violence in the Southeast Asian nation, Mahathir, 81, said in a July 17 interview.

Malays have not responded to NEP
``The Malays have not responded to the efforts made by the government and because of that, the disparity remains,'' said Mahathir, who stepped down in 2003 after 22 years in power. ``When you're coming up from behind to catch up, you have to run faster, you have to make more effort.''


NEP Hindered Malaysia Trade Talks with US
Mahathir and his successor, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, scrapped some elements of the 1971 New Economic Policy program to lure investment. The program hindered Malaysia's trade talks with the U.S. this year, while opposition parties and some analysts say the rules crimp competition and should be dropped completely.

NEP? Charity?
``There's more than enough headway given to the Bumiputeras now,'' said Maznah Mohamad, a senior research fellow at the University of Singapore. ``The NEP has been reduced to a kind of charity scheme. That is not good for any economy.''


Bumiputeras, which literally mean ``sons of the soil,'' are given more places in public universities and discounts on home purchases. Hypermarkets and department stores must allocate 30 percent of shelf space for goods made by Bumiputera suppliers, and foreign retailers have to set up local companies that are 30 percent-owned by Bumiputera shareholders.
The program was devised after bloody clashes between ethnic Malays and Chinese on the streets of Kuala Lumpur in 1969.

Selling Contracts
Some ethnic Malays failed to develop their own business expertise, choosing to sell to other races the government contracts set aside for them, or auction specially allocated permits to import cars, Mahathir said.

Proverty Rate
The poverty rate in 2004 among Bumiputeras was 8.3 percent, compared with 2.9 percent for ethnic Indians and 0.6 percent for Chinese, according to the government. Ethic Malays owned 19 percent of the nation's corporate equity that year, while the Chinese had 39 percent and Indians 1.2 percent.

The greatest failure of Malaysia, which this year marks 50 years of independence from British rule, is not correcting the economic disparity, Mahathir said.

Still, pursuing the policy risks angering local Chinese and Indians, he said. Without it, Malays, who account for about 60 percent of the 27 million population, may struggle, he said.

`Bad Results'
``That is the dilemma,'' Mahathir said from his office on the 86th floor of the Petronas Twin Towers in Kuala Lumpur. ``We can say let's take it away, then I'm quite sure they will regress. One way or the other, we are going to get bad results.''

Policies favoring ethnic Malays led to ``significant protectionism'' in industries including automobiles, agriculture, services and in government contracts, Thierry Rommel, the European Commission's envoy to Malaysia, said last month.

Malaysia must reconsider the program to facilitate a Southeast Asian free-trade accord with the European Union, Rommel said.

The Malaysian government's reluctance to change policies that benefit the Malay majority and yield to demands to increase access to government contracts are among the issues that delayed the signing of a free-trade agreement with the U.S., its largest trade partner, this year.
Missed Deadline
The two nations missed a March 31 deadline to complete the talks and now plan to reach an agreement in the first half of 2008. Malaysia has ruled out discussing policies that favor its Malay majority in the talks.

``The domestic policies will be outside the ambit'' of the free-trade agreement, Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak told reporters in Kuala Lumpur on July 17. ``We hope that eventually we will find an agreement with the United States.''

But is it True that NEP has yet to be achieved?
Concern about the race-based policy's validity grew last year after a report by the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute said Malays may own as much as 45 percent of Malaysia's corporate equity, higher than the government's estimate of 19 percent in 2004 and surpassing the New Economic Policy's goal of 30 percent.

Source : Bloomberg
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=am0uXeUgf8tE

Read also news by Mahathir in Malaysiakini

Monday 23 July 2007

Hisham: MCA Stop making statements on secular state

MCA to stop making statements on Malaysia being a secular state: Umno Youth Chief Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein

Ranau: Umno Youth Chief Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein Friday asked MCA to stop making statements on Malaysia being a secular state. He said though it was nothing new, such claims would not benefit anyone.
"I'm not naive enough to allow this issue to go on," he told reporters when asked to comment on the issue after opening the Ranau Umno delegates conference.

So is Malaysia a secular State?
MCA Secretary-General Datuk Ong Ka Chuan had said the party had ample evidence to show that Malaysia was a secular state, including several important events leading to the country's independence and formation of Malaysia.
He had cited notes prepared by the Colonial Office dated May 23, 1957 at the London Conference Talks.

But Najib claim Malaysia was never a Secular State
Various groups have also disagreed with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak's remarks that Malaysia was never a secular state, saying that the Deputy Prime Minister had ignored the country's constitutional history and social contract.

Bar Council President : Malaysia was not an Islamic State
Bar Council Malaysia president Ambiga Sreenevasan had said one only need to look at the Articles in the Federal Constitution, the system of government and administration of justice to show that Malaysia was not an Islamic state.

Najib had said Malaysia is an Islamic state that adheres to the fundamentals of Islam and having a Constitution which states Islam as the official religion. He said that being an Islamic state did not mean that the rights of non-Muslims were not respected.

.- Bernama

What MCA Replied in their Website
:A secular state is the basis of our Federal Constitution


Having reviewed the archives involved in the process of drafting the Federal Constitution, MCA Secretary General Dato’ Ong Ka Chuan stressed that Malaysia is a secular state, as this was the consensus and social contract agreed upon by our forefathers.

According to the Alliance’s memorandum to Reid Commission dated 27 September 1956 on page 19, “The religion of Malaysia shall be Islam. The observance of this principle shall not impose any disability on non-Muslim nationals professing and practising their own religion, and shall not imply the State is not a secular State.” This was an unequivocal original intention of UMNO, MCA and MIC.

Reid Reports 1957 did not provide an article declaring Islam as the religion of the Federation. Justice Abdul Hamid from Pakistan opined that the Alliance’s proposal should be adopted because it was ‘innocuous’.

Ong mentioned that, the deliberations by the Working Party (comprising the Alliance, Rulers’ representatives & High Commissioners), held meetings after reviewing the Reid Report.
The first meeting held on 22 February 1957 attended by Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Abdul Razak, Tun Omar Ong Yoke Lin, Tun V.T. Sambanthan and others stated that the Alliance desired a statement to be inserted that ‘… the States should be secular, ...’

During the 19th meeting held on 17 April 1957, the Chief Minister (Tunku) said, however that ‘the whole Constitution was framed on the basis that the Federation would be a secular State.’
Notes prepared by the Colonial Office dated 23 May 1957 at the London Conference Talks mentioned, ‘The members of the Alliance delegation stressed that they had no intention of creating a Muslim theocracy and that Malaya would be a secular State.’

Furthermore, when Tun Tan Siew Sin spoke in Parliament on 10 July 1957 in support of the Constitutional bill that although Islam would be the official religion, he said that ‘this does not in any way derogate from the principles, which has always been accepted, that Malaya will be a secular state and that there will be a complete freedom to practise any other religion’.

Dato’ Ong Ka Chuan concludes that the documents and facts shown above have given a true picture for Malaysia, whereby a secular state is the foundation of the formation of Malaya, and this consensus made by our forefathers, who shed much sweat and toil in the progress of peacefully negotiating for independence, should always be remembered and obeyed.
-MCA online-

What the Opposition Say

Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein Is Wrong To Say That Article 121(1A) Makes Malaysia An Islamic State And Should Learn From His Own Father And Malaysia’s 3rd Prime Minister, Tun Hussein Own, Who Declared That Malaysia Is Not An Islamic State.
Press Statement
by Lim Guan Eng, DAP

(Petaling Jaya, Tuesday): Education Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein is wrong to say in the Utusan Malaysia today that Malaysians have no right to question, oppose or challenge BN’s position that Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution makes Malaysia an Islamic state. Hishamuddin appears to have forgotten that it was his own father, former Prime Minister Tun Hussein Onn who declared that Malaysia is not an Islamic state.

As a lawyer, Hishamuddin should know that the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the federation as stated in Article 4 (1). No one is questioning Islam as the religion of the Federation under Article 3. However at no point was Malaysia an Islamic state nor Article 121(1A) made Malaysia an Islamic state as it only removed the previous control and jurisdiction of civil courts over syariah courts. It is ridiculous how Hishamuddin can stretch, distort and even pervert Article 121(1A) as converting Malaysia into an Islamic state.

Hishamuddin should learn from his father that our Federal Constitution is secular with Islam as the religion of the country. Tun Hussein Onn’s position is similar to the stance taken by our first Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman and 2nd Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak. This was reaffirmed by the highest court of our land, the Supreme Court in the Che Omar Che Soh case in 1988. In that judgment, Tun Salleh Abas ruled that the syariah law was not the basic law of the land and that the constitution was the supreme law. Unless there is a constitutional amendment Malaysia is and never was an Islamic state.

For Hishamuddin to even bar Malaysians from discussing Article 121(1A) is not only undemocratic, it also violates the basic human rights of freedom of speech. Even the Sedition Act or Article 10(4) of the Federal Constitution made no mention of not being able to discuss Article 121(1A). There are four sensitive matters that even Parliamentarians do not enjoy immunity and can not question relating to citizenship rights under Part III of the Federal Constitution, the position of national language and mother tongue-language under Article 152, special position of Malays under Article 153 and the status of Rulers under Article 181.

No mention is made of Article 121(1A) precisely because any questioning is not related to challenging the status of Islam as the religion of the Federation. Any questioning of Article 121(1A) relates to the rights of non-Muslims when matters relating to Islam are decided by the syariah courts. In matters affecting non-Muslims DAP adopts the position that if the religion of the subject-matter is not in dispute then the syariah courts have the right of jurisdiction. However if the religion of the subject-matter is in dispute and affects non-Muslims, then the civil courts should decide.

DAP does not oppose Islam as the religion of the Federation. However DAP strongly opposes Malaysia as an Islamic state where Islam is the main guiding philosophy for BN which is not stated in our constitution but seen as discriminatory towards non-Muslims.

DAP urges MCA, Gerakan, MIC and SUPP to oppose Hishamuddin’s extremist attempt to rewrite history and pervert our Constitution without making the necessary constitutional amendments that make Malaysia an Islamic state. DAP support the rights of NGOs in Article 11 to hold forum to promote the right to religion and basic rights of non-Muslim in consonant with our basic human and constitutional right of freedom of religion.

DAP strongly condemns the attempts by extremist Muslim organizations and regrets that PAS and UMNO has united to restrict the democratic right of expression, erode the rights of non-Muslims and turn Malaysia into an Islamic state. If non-Muslims can not even question Article 121(1A) when they are adversely affected and their right to freedom of religion, then BN must bear full responsibility for turning Malaysia into an Islamic state where non-Muslims do not enjoy equal political and economic rights.

So is Malaysia a Secular State? Your Say?

Source : Malaysia Today, Malaysiakini and
MCA website,
http://www.mca.org.my/ENGLISH/COMMENTARIES/Pages/AsecularstateisthebasisofourFederalConstitution.aspx

DAP Malaysia Website
http://www.dapmalaysia.org/english/2006/july06/lge/lge404.htm