Mahathir says those who want to take away Malay rights are selfish

Dr M says those who want to take away Malay crutches are selfish
By Leslie Lau

KUALA LUMPUR, April 17 — Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad continued to stir the debate over the special rights of the Malays today by describing those who advocate the removal of affirmative action policies that benefit Bumiputeras as selfish.

“In making use of the provision for the ‘special positions’ of the Malays, the post-1969 leaders came up with affirmative action.

“These are undoubtedly ‘crutches’ and crutches should be discarded as soon as strength is gained. Only the selfish would advocate throwing away the crutches of others simply because they have already made good use of their own,” the former prime minister wrote in a posting on his blog today.

The debate over the special rights of Malays has gained traction since Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak introduced the outline of his New Economic Model (NEM) which promises the continuation of affirmative action which is based on needs and not race.

The PM has been sensitive to the potential controversy over such an inclusive approach by arguing that a needs-based approach would still largely benefit Bumiputeras.

But a number of Malay groups have been advocating an entrenchment of NEP-style affirmative action policies as part of Malay special rights even though the PM has admitted the current approach of giving a leg-up to Malays and Bumiputeras has promoted rent-seeking and patronage.

Dr Mahathir argued today that while the constitution did not mention Malay rights, “the mention of the special position of the Malays implies recognition of certain positions and privileges that they hold.”

“The leaders of the time, the Tunku, Tun Razak, Tun Sambanthan and Tun Tan Siew Sin understood the ‘special position’ of the Malays as the indigenous people of Tanah Melayu, the ‘Malay Land’.

“For this recognition by the non-Malay leaders, something had to be done to reciprocate their acceptance. The Tunku agreed to waive the conditions for becoming citizens so that one million non-Malays could become citizens with all the citizenship rights, ignoring the required qualifying conditions.”

Social contracts, Dr Mahathir pointed out, are obviously unwritten, and is an understanding based on trust.

He said it was a measure of Malay trust of the non-Malays that they were prepared to give up what they had gained in the fight against the Malayan Union to accommodate those whose loyalty to the country was unproven.

Since last year, the Najib administration has been walking a tightrope in gradually liberalising the economy, introducing a number of measures to allow the economy to embrace a more free-market approach.

In trying to open up the economy Najib has also had to manage the emergence of Malay groups such as Perkasa who advocate fighting for Malay rights.

Dr Mahathir has emerged as an important patron of Perkasa, a group which has warned that the Chinese community were determine to take control of the country.

Perkasa, while not openly endorsed by Najib, consists of mainly Umno members who still wield influence in the ruling party.

A growing number of non-Malays and even Malays, particularly those born in the country after Merdeka, are unhappy with the perception among such groups like Perkasa who appear to see affirmative action policies as part of Malay rights.

Handling of Capitalism: Dr Mahathir

KUALA LUMPUR: Capitalism must be very carefully handled although it is a good system, said former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Dr Mahathir said events that led to the present global financial crisis, which affected the West very much showed that uncontrolled capital could actually destroy even the big economies.

Capitalism has many different interpretations, some declare it as complete free movement of capital into a country to invest and exploit while others feel that there should be some control over the movement of capital.

"Because capital is a very powerful instrument...it actually can destroy an economy as much as it can build an economy. Many countries now especially in Asia are wary of complete free flow of capital," he said from Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, in a question and answer session about the future of capitalism, in a video conference interview.

The session was conducted by Dr Frank-Jurgen Richter, the President and founder of Horasis: The Global Visions Community, an independent international organisation committed to enacting visions for a sustainable future, in conjunction with the Plus International Expressway Conference and Exhibition 2101, which ended here today.

Talking further about the cause of the present financial crisis, Dr Mahathir who is in the capital city of the Balkan state for a visit, said that governments in many countries abdicated their role because they decided that the market will control the economy and the market would play the role of regulating itself.

"But the market is about making money. So, when they saw a chance to abuse the system to get money for themselves...they did not hesitate," he said.

As such, Dr Mahathir said that governments need to regulate the functions of banks and make sure banks did not lend far too much money.

"The crisis started because too much capital (was) lend out without any proper consideration as to the prudence of lending money to the people, who actually turned out unable to pay their debts," he said.

Answering a question on the rise of protectionism in the United States and Europe, Dr Mahathir
pointed out that most countries in the world including East Asia had the tendency to protect certain industries regarded as of national character or very crucial to the economic growth of their country.

"So we had to accept that there cannot be really total openness...some countries will try to protect not by tariffs or physical blockage but by having certain conditions such as qualities...specification, etc...which means in effect you have become protectionist," he said.

On China, Dr Mahathir urged those who had the idea that China posed a threat to the world, to re-think about it.

"Because China is there and will be there, no matter what you do, and is going to be a great world power...but I think to curb China's growth and all that is not the right approach.

"You have to accept that China is going to be very strong economically and strong economies obviously must have strong military capability to protect themselves. This is not a threat to the world," said Dr Mahathir.- Bernama

The courts and the Law — Dr Mahathir Mohamad

I think it was the President of the Bar Council who pointed out that the law provides for a judge to accuse a person with contempt of his court and to punish him.

I am not disputing this legal provision. But we know of the cynical reference to some laws being an ass. In fact many lawyers would claim that the Internal Security Act which provides for detention without trial as bad law, and many have urged that the law be removed from the statute books.

The reason cited is that without a hearing in a court of law, the executive has assumed the role of prosecutor, judge and executioner. In today’s society this is a denial of justice.

But the same people, who strongly object to the ISA, support the law providing for contempt of court in which the aggrieved judge becomes the prosecutor, the judge and the executioner.

Clearly we are seeing double standards in the implementation of justice.

To say that the judge knows best as to the culpability of the accused person is to once again breach the principles of justice. A judge should not know and prejudge a case. He should be quite ignorant of the case coming before him and he should allow himself to decide simply based on the evidence put before him, the words of the witnesses and the pleadings of the prosecutor and the counsel for the accused person.

If a judge is also a witness to the case then he would be biased and cannot possibly do justice to the case.

There is certainly a need for a law against contempt of the court but it should follow the same procedures as applicable to all other cases including being heard by other than the aggrieved judge.

The charge should be made properly. There should be no arbitrary arrest before a charge is made. The accused person should be given his right to hear the charge and to state his defences before a judge who is not personally involved.

Court procedures would take time but in the case of Matthias Chang, there was really no hurry as he was in fact given one week to pay the fine or be jailed. In fact when he turned up on the stipulated day the judge was not available and he was told to come back the next day.

Yet when he willingly went back the next day to surrender, he was told that his arrest would be made in the car park.

I suppose this is again standard procedure but it would amount to additional punishment because it would humiliate him.

At the time of writing this in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, I am told he is unconscious because he had chosen to protest by fasting against the injustice of the way the law was used by the judge.

The Government may not be moved by his act but if it does not then it would compare very badly indeed against the British Raj which responded humanely to the fast by Ghandi.

Matthias' health in poor form

He is 'weak and dehydrated', says lawyer of Dr Mahathir's ex-political secretary

FIGHTING FOR A CAUSE: Chang in hunger strike in prison

KUALA LUMPUR: Matthias Chang's condition has taken a turn for the worse.

His lawyer, Manjit Singh, told The Malay Mail this morning that the lawyer was "weak and dehydrated" due to his selfimposed hunger strike.

Despite his condition, 60-year-old Chang, the former political secretary to Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, is adamant to continue with his hunger strike in protest against a month-long sentence for contempt.

"He is expected to be sent to the hospital soon," he said when contacted at 11am today.

"He doesn't want to stop his hunger strike, contending that it was a matter of principles. He is adamant, arguing that he has done nothing wrong."

His persistence has caused anxiety for his family members and friends.

Yesterday, Manjit had told The Malay Mail that Chang's health was "rapidly deteriorating" in the Kajang prison. Doctors at Serdang hospital were alarmed when Chang insisted on being returned to prison despite not having fully recovered.

Incarcerated on Friday, Chang was rushed to the Serdang hospital on Monday afternoon and placed on intravenous (IV) drips. When these IV drips were stopped, Chang still refused to consume anything and insisted on returning to his prison cell, reasoning that he could recover faster there.

"Chang returned to the Kajang Civil Prison on Wednesday morning but it was quite premature because he did not receive a clean bill of health to leave," he said.

"But because of his persistence, it's back to square one with the doctors saying that his condition is a cause for concern."

Stating his client has been frequently visited by family and friends at prison and the hospital, Manjit said the RM20,000 fine was not the issue.

"Many of his friends have come forward with the money. But, he has refused their offer. Not that he doesn't have the money either," said Manjit.

Instead of being in the comfort of his home a long time ago, Chang instead chose to share his cell with fellow inmates.

"Being a man of principles, Chang refuses to give in to injustice. That's why he's still on hunger strike.

"His family, relatives and friends are looking at alternative options of helping him without his consent. This is workable. Actually, anyone can pay the fine."

Chang was cited for contempt on March 25 when he refused to apologise after a spat with High Court judge Noor Azian Shaari and a lawyer during crossexamination in his breach of contract and defamation suit against American Express (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd.

He was ordered to serve a month-long sentence after refusing to pay the RM20,000 fine for contempt.

Listen to Perkasa : Dr. M

PETALING JAYA: Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has advised Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak not to ignore Malay rights movement Perkasa as it has become a force to be reckoned with.

The former prime minister said Najib should listen to views expressed by Perkasa, which is a mouthpiece of the Malay community.

“Listen to their views, whether it is sane or insane. Failure to listen will result in lost votes as the Malays are his core constituents.

“The Government is listening to the grouses of other communities and it should also listen to the grouses of the Malays,’’ he said when opening Perkasa’s first AGM at Putra World Trade Centre yesterday.

Dr Mahathir said the recent sprouting of Malay-based NGOs like Perkasa that expressed views on political issues affecting the community reflected erosion of confidence in Umno.
Sound advice: Dr Mahathir making his point clear during Perkasa’s inaugural assembly in Kuala Lumpur yesterday. — AP

“For 50 years we did not see the existence of such NGOs because Umno had always championed Malay issues,’’ he said, stressing that the New Economic Policy had never hindered development.

Dr Mahathir also revealed that certain quarters had advised him against attending the Perkasa event, claiming that it would tarnish his name and reputation. “Perkasa is not an extremist or a violent group; its objective is to defend and protect the rights of the Malays.”

Noting that Malaysia did not record significant growth over the last six years at a time when racial bickering took centre stage, Dr Mahathir said sensitive religious and racial issues should be discussed behind closed doors for the sake of stability.

He also chided detractors who made unfounded claims that Malays had grabbed everything from scholarships to government projects.

On Kulim-Bandar Baru MP Zulkifli Noordin’s revelation in Parliament that Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had conspired to topple Najib by linking him to the murder of Altantunya Shaaribuu, the former premier said he was not surprised. “Even when he was serving as my deputy, he conspired to topple me.

“He is nice in front of me, but behind my back, he was plotting my downfall with someone from Negri Sembilan,’’ he revealed.

Dr Mahathir said Anwar would cry conspiracy when he was caught in a position where he could not explain himself.

Earlier, Perkasa president Datuk Ibrahim Ali took a swipe at DAP for propagating its Malaysian Malaysia agenda.

Without naming PAS, Ibrahim also hit out at “a certain Islamist party for selling out religion” for selfish gains.

He also chided Anwar for getting foreigners to condemn Malaysia over his sodomy trial.

Ibrahim expressed full support for Najib, stressing that Perkasa was not a political party and that it wished to see Umno return to its original struggle to defend the Malays.

Perkasa presented the inaugural Bintang Perkasa award to Dr Mahathir, whom it described as the nation’s greatest statesman.

Najib urged to safeguard Malay rights

KUALA LUMPUR: Prime Minister and Umno president Datuk Seri Najib Razak has proved in his one year at the helm of the country that he is a leader with ideas.

This was the accolade given to Najib by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the country's longest-serving prime minister.

"He is a better leader," Dr Mahathir said when asked for his opinion on Najib's performance over the last one year.

"I feel he has some good ideas," he said after opening the inaugural annual general meeting of Pertubuhan Pribumi Perkasa Malaysia (Perkasa) here yesterday.

Earlier in his speech, Dr Mahathir said he hoped Najib, who is also Barisan Nasional chairman, could win back the confidence of the Malays in Umno and the BN-led government.

"I hope that just as he is now listening to the grouses brought up by the various races in the country, he will not forget to listen to the grievances of the Malays.

"He should also ensure that the rights of the needy are not taken away and given to those who are well to do."

Mahathir to Open Inaugural Perkasa Assembly

By Zainal Epi
Former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad will officiate at Perkasa’s inaugural assembly on March 27, replacing Sultan of Selangor Sultan Sarafuddin Idris Shah.

Perkasa president Ibrahim Ali said Mahathir will be given a warrior’s welcome in line with the spirit of protecting Malay rights as enshrined in the Constitution.

“It will be a grand opening for Perkasa as this is its first assembly,” the Independent Pasir Mas MP said.

Sultan Salahuddin had said in a statement that he withdrew from officiating at the assembly to avoid any misinterpretations.

The sultan said Ibrahim should not be blamed for issuing the invitation card as he had indeed agreed to come but changed his mind later.

Perkasa will also hold its first election of office-bearers as well as chart its future course in championing the rights of the Malays.

Some 10,000 members and observers, coming from all over the country including Sabah and Sarawak, are expected to turn up at Putra World Trade Centre for the event.

Election for office-bearers is expected to be a tame affair as many members had said they would leave it to Ibrahim to pick his choice.

Posts open for election are president, deputy president, five vice-presidents, including one each from Sabah and Sarawak, and 15 central committee members.

Under Perkasa’s constitution, the president is given the right to appoint seven to the central committee, a secretary-general, a treasurer and an information chief.

So far, no nominations were received as the members felt that it was best to endorse the present protem committee for a two-year term.

Perkasa was formed in the wake of Barisan Nasional's dismal performance in the March 2008 general election and following Umno’s decision to champion the cause of Malaysians and not only Malays.

In Perkasa, regarded as a right-wing group, the disgruntled Malays have found a platform to continue their fight for their cause.

Marina Mahathir's banned article

The Marina Mahathir's article which The Star refused to publish!
Marina Mahathir wrote an exceptional article for her regular column in
the Star but alas, the newspaper refused to publish it.

Fortunately for us, The Malaysian Insider has published it as: The
column that wasn’t, obviously a jab at The Star for denying the
publishing of Marina's latest article in her Star column.

I won’t say much about it here so you need to read it yourself.
However I venture to post here some selected extracts of her writing:

… most people are ignorant about their religion and tend to leave
these matters to those they believe know best. Thus if the State Mufti
or religious adviser says it’s a good law, they are unlikely to
challenge him. Thus are religious laws passed unscrutinised.

Until, that is, something happens, such as when someone gets convicted
of a syariah crime and punishment is meted out. Who knew that people
could get caned for drinking, or for having a baby out of wedlock
until the recent cases of Kartika and the three women?

Not only are these laws not debated when they are being made, they
can’t be debated afterwards either, unlike civil laws. To do so,
according to some people, is akin to arguing with God …

If one believes that syariah laws are superior to civil laws, should
they not be held to higher standards? Should they not be subjected to
more rigorous debate than civil laws out of fear that they may be
unjust? If syariah courts are deemed superior to civil courts, should
not their processes be more transparent and efficient? How is it that
there are innumerable women having to undergo tremendous suffering
because syariah court orders to their divorced husbands to pay child
maintenance cannot be enforced?

How is it also that we suddenly hear about women being caned without
any information about the processes they went through? Did they have
the benefit of legal representation and heard in an open court? If
they did, who were their lawyers and what defence did they mount?

Surely the best court of law is one that strives for justice, which
shows it is fair to all parties. In this case, on whose behalf was
justice served?

I have no problems with syariah laws if their foundation is justice,
equality and non-discrimination for all, even non-Muslims. But when
their intent, processes and enforcement are unfair, they only give the
impression that Islam is unjust and discriminatory. Surely to give
such an image of Islam is a sin.

As I mentioned, I won’t comment on the questions she poses. I merely
want to put the above extracts in juxtaposition with another article
(below), also by The Malaysian Insider titled: Government woos
conservative base with canings - extracts follow:

The caning of three women under Islamic law is the latest move by the
government to woo conservative Muslims, a risky tactic that could
cause a backlash by ethnic minorities and damage economic reforms.

The first ever canings of women in traditionally moderate Malaysia
were carried out in February after syariah court sentencing for
adultery. Another woman faces caning for drinking beer.

The canings came hot on the heels of a row over the use of the word
‘Allah’ by Malay-speaking Christians that triggered attacks on
churches and mosques and ahead of another court case this week over
Christians’ right to use the word.

PAS officials say Umno’s approach on the canings was a political ploy
to win over the 15 per cent of Malays who remain undecided as well as
to split PAS from its ethnic Chinese allies.

“The caning issue is just political bait,” said Dr Dzulkifli Ahmad, a
senior PAS official.

In closing, I beg Marina Mahathir’s permission to quote once again her
final sentence in her article, namely: Surely to give such an image of
Islam is a sin.

The article:
MARCH 3 – When we want to compete with anyone in any field, we seek those who are better than us. And we keep going until finally we are recognised as the best.

For example, a tennis player starts at the unranked bottom and tries to play and win against better players until, finally, there is nobody to beat.

We do not, however, insist that everybody comes down to our level or to play badly in order for us to win.

This is what puzzles me about the syariah courts in our country. In 1988, a clause was inserted into our Constitution that has been interpreted as having erected a “Berlin Wall” between the syariah and the civil courts.

Basically, Article 121(1A) said “the courts referred to in Clause (1) shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the syariah courts.” This has caused untold problems because real life sometimes dictates that some issues cross over both jurisdictions. But leave that aside for a moment.

Although the new clause did not say that the two separate courts were equal to one another, there are some people who are of the view that the syariah court is superior to the civil courts simply because syariah law is deemed of a higher order than civil laws.

This is because apparently God made syariah laws while mere human beings made the civil laws. Never mind the fact that human beings have been changing syariah laws over the years, for instance, by loosening laws that protected women from losing all their property to their divorced husbands.

Like other laws in this country, syariah laws have to be drafted, tabled and passed through our various lawmaking bodies, whether at the State or Federal levels. This process leaves a lot of human fingerprints all over them.

Civil laws are drafted, tabled and passed through Parliament. The difference is that at the tabling stage, they have to be debated before they are passed. The quality of the debate may be sometimes wanting but debated they are. This process provides some sort of ‘quality control’ over the laws so that they are hopefully current, reflect realities and are just.

The same does not hold true of syariah laws. When they get tabled at State Excos, non-Muslims do not participate because there is the notion that they cannot partake in any such debate.

That leaves only the Muslim Excos, few of whom are women. This means that if a bill affects women, the opinions of the female minority in the Exco can be ignored.

Furthermore, most people are ignorant about their religion and tend to leave these matters to those they believe know best. Thus if the State Mufti or religious adviser says it’s a good law, they are unlikely to challenge him. Thus are religious laws passed unscrutinised.

Until, that is, something happens, such as when someone gets convicted of a syariah crime and punishment is meted out. Who knew that people could get caned for drinking, or for having a baby out of wedlock until the recent cases of Kartika and the three women?

Not only are these laws not debated when they are being made, they can’t be debated afterwards either, unlike civil laws. To do so, according to some people, is akin to arguing with God. (There are, however, some who think that God welcomes such arguments just so that He can prove He is right).

If one believes that syariah laws are superior to civil laws, should they not be held to higher standards? Should they not be subjected to more rigorous debate than civil laws out of fear that they may be unjust? If syariah courts are deemed superior to civil courts, should not their processes be more transparent and efficient? How is it that there are innumerable women having to undergo tremendous suffering because syariah court orders to their divorced husbands to pay child maintenance cannot be enforced?

How is it also that we suddenly hear about women being caned without any information about the processes they went through? Did they have the benefit of legal representation and heard in an open court? If they did, who were their lawyers and what defence did they mount?

Surely the best court of law is one that strives for justice, which shows it is fair to all parties. In this case, on whose behalf was justice served?

I have no problems with syariah laws if their foundation is justice, equality and non-discrimination for all, even non-Muslims. But when their intent, processes and enforcement are unfair, they only give the impression that Islam is unjust and discriminatory. Surely to give such an image of Islam is a sin.

Dr M officially opens the Lotus F1 Racing factory

Tun Dr. Mahathir, ex-Prime Minister of Malaysia, today conducted the official opening of the Lotus Racing factory in Hingham, Norfolk. Malaysia’s longest serving Prime Minister, and one of Asia’s most influential political figures, was joined by Lotus Racing Team Principal Tony Fernandes, Deputy Team Principals Kamarudin Meranun and SM Nasarudin and Chief Technical Officer Mike Gascoyne for the official ceremony to declare the factory open.

During his tour Tun Dr. Mahathir was given a detailed explanation of the different aspects of a modern Formula One team factory. He was then seated in the Lotus Cosworth T127 Chassis 02 while the engine was fired up, giving the team’s esteemed guest a very rare insight into the conditions the team’s drivers, Malaysia’s Fairuz Fauzy, Italy’s Jarno Trulli and Finland’s Heikki Kovalainen work in at races and tests.

Tun Dr. Mahathir created the vision for the establishment and growth of motorsport in Malaysia, and therefore the birth of the Lotus Racing team. This visionary spirit was the driving force for the establishment of the Malaysian Grand Prix, held at the world-renowned Sepang International Circuit which was also created and built under his Premiership.

Tony Fernandes and fellow Lotus Racing shareholders Kamarudin Meranun and SM Nasarudin were honoured that Tun Dr. Mahathir oversaw such an important milestone in the team’s development, saying “It is very exciting for us and the team that Tun Dr. Mahathir has been able to come to Norfolk to officially open our factory. He is the Father of motor racing in Malaysia, the visionary behind the birth of the Sepang International Circuit and the Malaysian Grand Prix and has given us all the inspiration to reach for the skies and achieve our dreams – as such it is a tremendous honour for us to welcome him here and we are extremely proud he has opened our factory today. ”

Lotus Racing completed its first official test last week in Jerez and now moves to Barcelona for the final official test before the season kicks off in earnest in Bahrain from March 12th – 14th