By Deborah Loh
deborahloh@thenutgraph.com
ARE things really so bad that Malaysians need a Race Relations Act? Some might say it's the politicians who need to be legislated, not the average Ali, Ah Chong and Muthu who, even if not the best of friends, would refrain from making racial slurs in public.
But such a law has been proposed, and we are now grappling with the question of what form or shape it would take. Some argue that until constraints like preferential policies for Malays are resolved, the law would not be anti-discriminatory and, therefore, pointless.
Others, mainly those from the government, envision the law as one that places limits on statements concerning race and is proactive in building better ties among the people.
What this piece of proposed legislation will look like is still speculative as the idea was only recently mooted. But things have reached a point where many feel that racial integration, interaction and discourse have to be protected by law or be left to the wolves.
Dealing with tensions
According to MCA Youth chief Datuk Liow Tiong Lai, who was the first to announce the proposed act on 14 Sept 2008, the cabinet identified it as a possible solution to deal with future tensions caused by racist statements.
Liow: The act must not silence non-Malay groups The cabinet, says Liow, who is also the health minister, began discussing the matter after the furore caused by the "pendatang" and "penumpang" remarks by (now former) Umno Bukit Bendera division chief Datuk Ahmad Ismail during a ceramah on 23 Aug in the run-up to the Permatang Pauh by-election.
The remark, which was reported by a Chinese daily and picked up by the other media, triggered a firestorm of protests from the Chinese community and political parties, including Gerakan and MCA, which ultimately pressured the Umno Supreme Council on 10 Sept into suspending Ahmad for three years.
"The cabinet talked about it and agreed that Malaysian politicians should stop playing the race card. Whatever the Chinese community says about Malays, the Malays will find out and whatever Malays say about Chinese, they will know because of the internet," Liow told The Nut
Graph in a phone interview.
Unity, culture, arts and heritage minister Datuk Seri Mohd Shafie Apdal said at a press conference on 16 Sept that the race relations act would be "more specific" in dealing with uttered words rather than the current broad ambit of "posing a threat to the country" under the Internal Security Act.
Whether this means that the ISA could supplement the future race relations act is unclear; even the home affairs minister doesn't have it quite figured out yet.
"Generally, the idea is to create an environment of good relations between the races on the basis that our diversity is our strength. What I know from acts in other countries is that they put down the principle and basis for good race relations, and if there are breaches, there is the penal punishment for it," minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar said at a press conference on 18 Sept.
"The act will also be comprehensive in that it will build positive race relations. It should not just punish but shape a harmonious Malaysian society."
Syed Hamid and Shafie's ministries are working together to draft the act.
Thinking before speaking
It's fine, if not a little factitious, to pass legislation telling Malaysians to get along with each other and instituting programmes for them to work at being harmonious.
Syed Hamid: The act will not be solely punitive but will promote racial harmony But it's worrisome if the proposed law could end up regulating speech to the point that communities will be unable to speak up for their interests.
"The act should not silence the non-Malay races to speak up for their own concerns; that would be wrong and better not to have the law at all," Liow says.
Gerakan Youth chief Datuk Mah Siew Keong holds a similar view. "The proposed act should stop people from going overboard with race rhetoric but balance is also needed so as not to curb democratic space for people to raise their views or concerns," he tells The Nut Graph.
Mah says the act should not be the sole solution in governing race relations, but instead should be complemented by other means such as the code of conduct for Barisan Nasional politicians, which was proposed by Gerakan acting president Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon on 3 Sept.
The act, which could define efforts to strengthen inter-racial harmony, could also supplement other laws, such as the Sedition Act, Public Order (Preservation) Act 1958, and the Education Act, as reportedly suggested by foreign minister and Umno supreme council member Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim on 20 Sept.
A jarring contradiction
In the Malaysian context, debate on the act will inevitably stumble over what to do with the New Economic Policy (NEP) and the special position of the Malays enshrined in the Federal Constitution.
Syed Hamid said race relations laws in other countries will be referred to in the process of drafting the act. He specifically mentioned the United Kingdom Race Relations Act 1976.
P Ramasamy wants meritocratic policies first However, the British law is clearly anti-discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, nationality, ethnicity and national origin. It covers the fields of employment, provision of goods and services, education and public functions.
Asked whether such a model would be feasible for Malaysia, Syed Hamid said: "It's too early for you to say it's not suitable."
Two academics, one now a politician, argue that the only kind of race relations act worth implementing is one that truly guarantees the equality of all Malaysians.
Prof Dr P Ramasamy, the Penang deputy chief minister and DAP deputy secretary-general, says new policies that ensure meritocracy in civil service recruitments, government contracts and education must first be in place before introducing a race relations act.
"Their (the government's) idea of a race relations act seems self-defeating from the start. Only with fair policies can you then have a legislation that people can resort to.
"My starting point on how to improve race relations would be to ensure that all Malaysians have equal rights," the former Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) political scientist tells The Nut Graph.
Universiti Malaya Associate Law Prof Dr Azmi Sharom concurs. "It is pointless unless you deal with the big issues of employment, education and government treatment. And you cannot deal with these until you decide what you want to do with the NEP.
"The danger here is that once we start talking about this, you'll end up bringing in Article 153 (of the Constitution that protects the special position of the Malays), and that will be misconstrued as hate speech. So given this current context, a race relations act could do more harm than good," Azmi says.
Azmi Sharom: The act may do more harm than good (Source: Projectmalaysia.org) When will the country reach a stage when these things can be discussed without prejudice? MCA's Liow feels it is important to test the waters early.
Asked about the constraints posed by the NEP to the act, he said: "Policies can change over time. Nothing is meant to be stagnant. People are now more globalised. We should look forward rather than maintaining the status quo.
"I expect this debate to be controversial, but we must look ahead. It's still early, so it's good to have debate and public input on this proposed act."
A middle way?
Race relations should take a conciliatory approach and on this premise, Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) commissioner Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria thinks the NEP should not be a constraint.
"The NEP in its essence is about poverty eradication, irrespective of race. The special position of the Malays in the Constitution is not about ethnic superiority, but their being disadvantaged in certain areas. And while race is a key factor, inequality is also a class issue," says Denison, who is also principal research fellow at UKM's Institute of Ethnic Relations.
He observes that the race-related complaints which have come into the open do not begin in direct opposition to the position of Malays, but are only later distorted as such.
"Non-Malays only raise questions when their own rights are violated in cases of demolition [of temples], custody and property rights in a marriage, and claiming the body at the point of death," he tells The Nut Graph in an interview.
Therefore, the proposed act should allow for a race relations tribunal or commission with legal powers to hear, mediate and resolve racial disputes. Denison proposes that the government set up a consultative committee to explore this option.
He envisions the tribunal as a mechanism to address the grievances of those who feel marginalised or abused because of their race. It would have the power, like the Consumer Claims
Tribunal, to hand down decisions.
Denison proposes a tribunal to mediate racial dispute. Disputes such as the right of the Bar Council to hold a forum on the impact of conversions on non-Muslim spouses, allegations concerning the azan issue made against Seputeh Member of Parliament Teresa Kok, teachers using racial slurs on their pupils, racist speech by politicians, even grievances raised by the Hindu Rights Action Force are some of the cases which could be heard by the tribunal, Denison explains.
It would give both sides in a conflict the chance to be heard and, in the process, the tribunal could promote better understanding and education of cultural differences. It could also be an avenue for Malays who complain of discrimination in private sector companies run by other races.
"The scope of the tribunal would have to be worked out in relation to existing laws and to other procedures related to the internal disciplinary measures of government departments. But the idea is to resolve conflict from the start, because after that, a lot of it is not really race-related but it becomes a matter of pride or saving face," Denison adds.
This would be similar to the UK's Commission for Racial Equality, which has the power to conduct formal investigations besides doing research, education and providing assistance to any organisations on managing race relations. Other examples Malaysia can look to include the New South Wales' Community Relations Commission which has a crisis management plan to deal with communal tensions; and the Race Relations Conciliator office in New Zealand which has procedures to handle complaints, and also to promote appreciation of human rights.
With no shortage of progressive models to emulate, the question is whether the political will in Malaysia is strong enough to see it through.
(http://www.thenutgraph.com/)
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Time for the JHEOA to take a lead from the Orang Asli
by Dr Colin Nicholos
The article titled “20,000ha gazetted for Orang Asli reserve” (New Sunday Times 21.9.2008) and the accompanying features appear as if the Department of Orang Asli Affairs is going on a PR campaign to promote itself as the godfather of the Orang Asli (something at least one previous Director-General has been fond of claiming).
I can understand why it has to. The Department has come under fire not just from the Orang Asli themselves but from some government agencies as well who feel frustrated by the obstacles placed by the JHEOA in their genuine efforts to help the Orang Asli. I can personally attest to this.
But it is one thing to blow your own trumpet and quite another if in doing so you mislead the public.
For example, the Department proudly proclaims that “almost 20,000ha of land – twice the size of Kuala Lumpur International Airport and the vast land surrounding it – had been gazetted as Orang Asli reserve in Peninsular Malaysia”.
The truth is, a decade ago there was an additional 1,062 hectares of Orang Asli reserve which today has been lost to the Orang Asli.
In fact, KLIA was the homeland of two Temuan settlements that had to unwillingly make way for the airport and be resettled in a swampland 40 km away.
The Department also boasts that 31,000 hectares of land had been approved for gazetting but have yet to be formally gazetted by the states. The truth is: much of these approvals were done in the 1960s and 1970s. Decades have passed and the simple paperwork of putting out a gazette notice was not done in al these cases. As a result, due to the insecurity placed on their lands over time, the Orang Asli have lost 6,932 hectares of their traditional lands to others, often without them knowing it, let alone being consulted.
This has prompted one Court of Appeal judge in the landmark Sagong Tasi land rights case to chastise the JHEOA for making the Orang Asli victims of the Department’s negligence in not gazetting or under-gazetting Orang Asli lands.
It is also easy for the JHEOA to lay the blame for such non-action on the premise that it is federal agency while land is a state matter. If Felda, also a federal agency, succumbed to such defensive justification, the many thousands of Felda settlers would not be land-owners or even millionaires today. Why the double standards?
The JHEOA admits that poverty and hardcore poverty remain a sad situation for the Orang Asli. That a people who make up only 0.6 per of the national population should account for 20 per cent of the nation’s hardcore poor (and 46 percent of the nation’s poor), is not something anybody should be proud of. Especially for a department that has been directed by law to be responsible for the “protection, wellbeing, and advancement” of the Orang Asli, and which has been endowed with generous government funds for this purpose for the last five decades.
Yet, the basic structures that keep Orang Asli families in poverty are still in place. A case in point is the agricultural development programmes that the JHEOA touts about as a success story.
RM30 million in dividends for 2008 may sound like a lot of money. But when divided by 10,000 households, and into monthly payments, it works out to only RM500.00 per month – not enough to keep the household above the official poverty line.
But should it be so? Orang Asli who manage and sell their oil palm or rubber on their own smallholdings have been raking between RM2000 to RM3000 per month during the same period.
It is no wonder then that several Orang Asli communities have asked for these JHEOA-manoeuvred ‘agricultural development projects’ to be given back to them to manage on their own. They can see for themselves the rotten deal they are getting.
But they face uncompromising resistance from the so-called management agencies who prefer to keep the we-do-everything-for-you-for-a-fat-fee concept. The Jakun community in Bekok have been forced to take this matter to court to assert their right to work their own fields. Others, as in Betau and Buluh Nipis in Pahang, have been detained by the police, for wanting to assert their agricultural independence.
It is clear that the top brass in the JHEOA are unable to see this fundamental flaw in the development programme of the Orang Asli. And as to why many Orang Asli still live in poverty when they should not.
It is also easy to see why certain officers at the local level do not want to do away with this scheme, and why it remains a favoured programme of the JHEOA.
So, in light of the above, it is no wonder then that many Orang Asli have become more conscious of their situation and have begun to assert their right to land and economic justice.
To accuse them of being easily influenced by outsiders who harbour certain agenda or by international-linked NGOs who aspire to become heroes and champions of human rights, not only reflects the Department’s ignorance of the Orang Asli situation today but also reveals a closed mind incapable of seeing viewpoints other than the official propaganda.
The Orang Asli and natives of Sabah and Sarawak (collectively referred to as the Orang Asal) are no longer the timid natives roaming around in loin-cloths in the forest, waiting for handouts from the government.
They have participated actively in national and international fora and have made their demands clear. Orang Asal leaders have also been active in international standard-setting deliberations such as the UN Convention of Biological Diversity and the Framework Convention on Climate Change as well as in several regional initiatives on a host of issues involving indigenous peoples. Many of these interventions are available in published documents.
In fact, Jannie Lasimbang, an Orang Asal from Sabah is one of the 5 experts sitting on the Geneva-based Expert Mechanism on Indigenous Peoples Rights established under the UN Human Rights Council.
So perhaps the JHEOA should take a cue from the Orang Asal and go international. Then it would know that after 24 years of debate, discussion and consensus among indigenous peoples in the world, the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was finally adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 13 September 2007. Malaysia is a signatory to this convention.
The articles of the Declaration – which speak of self-determination, recognition of land rights, and the need to get free, prior and informed consent before any activity involving indigenous peoples – is now international customary law, which the government is obliged to follow.
International customary law also recognizes native title i.e. the right of the Orang Asli to own their traditional lands which they hold by custom. Our courts have also recognised native title based on common law.
Thus, for the Director-General to brush aside native customary rights as being the prerogative of the Borneon states only, frightens me into thinking that more and more Orang Asli lands are going to be lost due to fiduciary neglect resulting from an uninformed perception of the Orang Asli land issue.
It is time for the JHEOA to raise its awareness to the level of the Orang Asli and to work towards justice.
Colin Nicholas
Coordinator
Center for Orang Asli Concerns
Mobile: 013-3508058
http://www.coac.org.my/
Sept 20, 2008
The article titled “20,000ha gazetted for Orang Asli reserve” (New Sunday Times 21.9.2008) and the accompanying features appear as if the Department of Orang Asli Affairs is going on a PR campaign to promote itself as the godfather of the Orang Asli (something at least one previous Director-General has been fond of claiming).
I can understand why it has to. The Department has come under fire not just from the Orang Asli themselves but from some government agencies as well who feel frustrated by the obstacles placed by the JHEOA in their genuine efforts to help the Orang Asli. I can personally attest to this.
But it is one thing to blow your own trumpet and quite another if in doing so you mislead the public.
For example, the Department proudly proclaims that “almost 20,000ha of land – twice the size of Kuala Lumpur International Airport and the vast land surrounding it – had been gazetted as Orang Asli reserve in Peninsular Malaysia”.
The truth is, a decade ago there was an additional 1,062 hectares of Orang Asli reserve which today has been lost to the Orang Asli.
In fact, KLIA was the homeland of two Temuan settlements that had to unwillingly make way for the airport and be resettled in a swampland 40 km away.
The Department also boasts that 31,000 hectares of land had been approved for gazetting but have yet to be formally gazetted by the states. The truth is: much of these approvals were done in the 1960s and 1970s. Decades have passed and the simple paperwork of putting out a gazette notice was not done in al these cases. As a result, due to the insecurity placed on their lands over time, the Orang Asli have lost 6,932 hectares of their traditional lands to others, often without them knowing it, let alone being consulted.
This has prompted one Court of Appeal judge in the landmark Sagong Tasi land rights case to chastise the JHEOA for making the Orang Asli victims of the Department’s negligence in not gazetting or under-gazetting Orang Asli lands.
It is also easy for the JHEOA to lay the blame for such non-action on the premise that it is federal agency while land is a state matter. If Felda, also a federal agency, succumbed to such defensive justification, the many thousands of Felda settlers would not be land-owners or even millionaires today. Why the double standards?
The JHEOA admits that poverty and hardcore poverty remain a sad situation for the Orang Asli. That a people who make up only 0.6 per of the national population should account for 20 per cent of the nation’s hardcore poor (and 46 percent of the nation’s poor), is not something anybody should be proud of. Especially for a department that has been directed by law to be responsible for the “protection, wellbeing, and advancement” of the Orang Asli, and which has been endowed with generous government funds for this purpose for the last five decades.
Yet, the basic structures that keep Orang Asli families in poverty are still in place. A case in point is the agricultural development programmes that the JHEOA touts about as a success story.
RM30 million in dividends for 2008 may sound like a lot of money. But when divided by 10,000 households, and into monthly payments, it works out to only RM500.00 per month – not enough to keep the household above the official poverty line.
But should it be so? Orang Asli who manage and sell their oil palm or rubber on their own smallholdings have been raking between RM2000 to RM3000 per month during the same period.
It is no wonder then that several Orang Asli communities have asked for these JHEOA-manoeuvred ‘agricultural development projects’ to be given back to them to manage on their own. They can see for themselves the rotten deal they are getting.
But they face uncompromising resistance from the so-called management agencies who prefer to keep the we-do-everything-for-you-for-a-fat-fee concept. The Jakun community in Bekok have been forced to take this matter to court to assert their right to work their own fields. Others, as in Betau and Buluh Nipis in Pahang, have been detained by the police, for wanting to assert their agricultural independence.
It is clear that the top brass in the JHEOA are unable to see this fundamental flaw in the development programme of the Orang Asli. And as to why many Orang Asli still live in poverty when they should not.
It is also easy to see why certain officers at the local level do not want to do away with this scheme, and why it remains a favoured programme of the JHEOA.
So, in light of the above, it is no wonder then that many Orang Asli have become more conscious of their situation and have begun to assert their right to land and economic justice.
To accuse them of being easily influenced by outsiders who harbour certain agenda or by international-linked NGOs who aspire to become heroes and champions of human rights, not only reflects the Department’s ignorance of the Orang Asli situation today but also reveals a closed mind incapable of seeing viewpoints other than the official propaganda.
The Orang Asli and natives of Sabah and Sarawak (collectively referred to as the Orang Asal) are no longer the timid natives roaming around in loin-cloths in the forest, waiting for handouts from the government.
They have participated actively in national and international fora and have made their demands clear. Orang Asal leaders have also been active in international standard-setting deliberations such as the UN Convention of Biological Diversity and the Framework Convention on Climate Change as well as in several regional initiatives on a host of issues involving indigenous peoples. Many of these interventions are available in published documents.
In fact, Jannie Lasimbang, an Orang Asal from Sabah is one of the 5 experts sitting on the Geneva-based Expert Mechanism on Indigenous Peoples Rights established under the UN Human Rights Council.
So perhaps the JHEOA should take a cue from the Orang Asal and go international. Then it would know that after 24 years of debate, discussion and consensus among indigenous peoples in the world, the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was finally adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 13 September 2007. Malaysia is a signatory to this convention.
The articles of the Declaration – which speak of self-determination, recognition of land rights, and the need to get free, prior and informed consent before any activity involving indigenous peoples – is now international customary law, which the government is obliged to follow.
International customary law also recognizes native title i.e. the right of the Orang Asli to own their traditional lands which they hold by custom. Our courts have also recognised native title based on common law.
Thus, for the Director-General to brush aside native customary rights as being the prerogative of the Borneon states only, frightens me into thinking that more and more Orang Asli lands are going to be lost due to fiduciary neglect resulting from an uninformed perception of the Orang Asli land issue.
It is time for the JHEOA to raise its awareness to the level of the Orang Asli and to work towards justice.
Colin Nicholas
Coordinator
Center for Orang Asli Concerns
Mobile: 013-3508058
http://www.coac.org.my/
Sept 20, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
Suhakam: Exclusion from welfare and poverty eradication programmes is a human rights violation
EDITOR, NEWS DESK
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRESS STATEMENT
SUHAKAM: EXCLUSION FROM WELFARE AND POVERTY ERADICATION
PROGRAMMES IS A HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION
Siti Nurbaiyah has effectively written an article of the practical realities and difficulties faced by urban poor families in Kuala Lumpur. Her story in the new straits times (page 22) on 18 September 2008 highlighted the shocking finding of how 30 hardcore poor families in Taman Sentul Utama have not been able to access welfare assistance either through religious institutions or through the Department of Social Welfare. This is shocking especially when the federal government has made poverty eradication its number one priority. In addition, the Prime Minister has set the target of zero hardcore poverty by 2010.
There is a major gap between policy makers, service delivery and implementation institutions and the very poor at the bottom of society. While we might have impressive statistics or targets, at the ground we see a tremendous contrast. The poor are alienated and distant from the very institutions that were established to resolve their problems.
The poverty line income or income measure for hardcore poor and poor is unrealistic. The family of Rosnaini Abu Hassan whose only source of income is from her son, who earns RM850, is statistically non-poor and definitely not hardcore poor. But look at their predicament. Their house rent alone comes to RM450. They have an elderly mother who is 88 years old and an 18 year old son who is disabled.
By official government statistics, they are non-poor but in reality they are very poor in an urban environment with increasing prices and cost of living.
This is a similar problem faced by many other families who are with low income in urban areas. Their lives are hard and often, the opportunity to build their capability and capacity is not there. There are similar cases not just among poor Malay Muslims but also among many displaced plantation workers who are Hindus and Tamil. Both groups of communities are among the urban poor struggling to survive in a modern city like Kuala Lumpur.
But central to all this is why are these families unable to access the Department of Social Welfare for direct assistance or unable to access poverty eradication programmes for the urban poor? Access and inclusion are the cornerstones of empowering the poor and fundamental to a human rights approach. It is not through hand outs but a way out for the families so that they can break the cycle of poverty and share the rich quality of life that a sizable section of Malaysian society enjoys. Why are the requests from the poor not heard or entertained? Is there some form of discrimination because they are poor or powerless? Why is this so when there is so much funds being set aside both by the public and private sector.
Therefore, SUHAKAM calls on the relevant public sector agencies, especially the Department of Social Welfare and the Social Development Section of the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL), to review this situation and ensure that through effective delivery and implementation these poor families at Taman Sentul Utama are not further marginalised from development. Development is a fundamental human right and the poor must be given opportunities to enhance their economic and social rights.
SUHAKAM also calls on the government to immediately establish a taskforce especially in the urban areas which are under the purview of local governments to identify the poor and ensure that the poor have access to a better quality of life.
In addition SUHAKAM calls on the Economic Planning Unit to review the poverty line income and methodology in identifying the real poor. In addition to income measure, other qualitative or quantitative indicators must be used to ensure greater inclusion and access especially to the suffering sections of our society, which ever ethnic, religious or linguistic group. We must establish fair and equitable mechanisms in addressing the root issues and concerns of the urban poor in Malaysia.
A team from SUHAKAM (Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Working Group (ECOSOC)) will visit Taman Sentul Utama sometime next week and would discuss with some of the residents on the reasons for their inability to access the services of the Department of Social Welfare and poverty eradication programmes meant for the urban poor. We would contact the local residents and we hope to go to the ground and study the situation of why they are unable to access these provisions. We will then make appropriate recommendations to all the relevant agencies and departments concerned.
…END…
“HUMAN RIGHTS FOR ALL”
Statement by
DATUK DR. DENISON JAYASOORIA
Chairman of the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Working Group (ECOSOC)
Human Rights Commission of Malaysia
18 September 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRESS STATEMENT
SUHAKAM: EXCLUSION FROM WELFARE AND POVERTY ERADICATION
PROGRAMMES IS A HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION
Siti Nurbaiyah has effectively written an article of the practical realities and difficulties faced by urban poor families in Kuala Lumpur. Her story in the new straits times (page 22) on 18 September 2008 highlighted the shocking finding of how 30 hardcore poor families in Taman Sentul Utama have not been able to access welfare assistance either through religious institutions or through the Department of Social Welfare. This is shocking especially when the federal government has made poverty eradication its number one priority. In addition, the Prime Minister has set the target of zero hardcore poverty by 2010.
There is a major gap between policy makers, service delivery and implementation institutions and the very poor at the bottom of society. While we might have impressive statistics or targets, at the ground we see a tremendous contrast. The poor are alienated and distant from the very institutions that were established to resolve their problems.
The poverty line income or income measure for hardcore poor and poor is unrealistic. The family of Rosnaini Abu Hassan whose only source of income is from her son, who earns RM850, is statistically non-poor and definitely not hardcore poor. But look at their predicament. Their house rent alone comes to RM450. They have an elderly mother who is 88 years old and an 18 year old son who is disabled.
By official government statistics, they are non-poor but in reality they are very poor in an urban environment with increasing prices and cost of living.
This is a similar problem faced by many other families who are with low income in urban areas. Their lives are hard and often, the opportunity to build their capability and capacity is not there. There are similar cases not just among poor Malay Muslims but also among many displaced plantation workers who are Hindus and Tamil. Both groups of communities are among the urban poor struggling to survive in a modern city like Kuala Lumpur.
But central to all this is why are these families unable to access the Department of Social Welfare for direct assistance or unable to access poverty eradication programmes for the urban poor? Access and inclusion are the cornerstones of empowering the poor and fundamental to a human rights approach. It is not through hand outs but a way out for the families so that they can break the cycle of poverty and share the rich quality of life that a sizable section of Malaysian society enjoys. Why are the requests from the poor not heard or entertained? Is there some form of discrimination because they are poor or powerless? Why is this so when there is so much funds being set aside both by the public and private sector.
Therefore, SUHAKAM calls on the relevant public sector agencies, especially the Department of Social Welfare and the Social Development Section of the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL), to review this situation and ensure that through effective delivery and implementation these poor families at Taman Sentul Utama are not further marginalised from development. Development is a fundamental human right and the poor must be given opportunities to enhance their economic and social rights.
SUHAKAM also calls on the government to immediately establish a taskforce especially in the urban areas which are under the purview of local governments to identify the poor and ensure that the poor have access to a better quality of life.
In addition SUHAKAM calls on the Economic Planning Unit to review the poverty line income and methodology in identifying the real poor. In addition to income measure, other qualitative or quantitative indicators must be used to ensure greater inclusion and access especially to the suffering sections of our society, which ever ethnic, religious or linguistic group. We must establish fair and equitable mechanisms in addressing the root issues and concerns of the urban poor in Malaysia.
A team from SUHAKAM (Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Working Group (ECOSOC)) will visit Taman Sentul Utama sometime next week and would discuss with some of the residents on the reasons for their inability to access the services of the Department of Social Welfare and poverty eradication programmes meant for the urban poor. We would contact the local residents and we hope to go to the ground and study the situation of why they are unable to access these provisions. We will then make appropriate recommendations to all the relevant agencies and departments concerned.
…END…
“HUMAN RIGHTS FOR ALL”
Statement by
DATUK DR. DENISON JAYASOORIA
Chairman of the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Working Group (ECOSOC)
Human Rights Commission of Malaysia
18 September 2008
Monday, September 15, 2008
Meeting GMI representatives on the ISA detentions: Some Reflections
By Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria
Representatives from Gerakan Mansuhkan ISA visited Suhakam today at 2.30pm and handed over a four page memorandum entitled ‘Stop using the ISA once for all and release all the ISA detainees immediately”. Their presentation was clear and well articulated on the unjustified and indefensible use of the ISA on Raja Petra, Tan Hoon Cheng and Teresa Koh. On behalf of Suhakam I received the memorandum and heard the presentations.
In my opinion no other piece of legislation has drawn so much of public attention, debate and grassroots mobilisation as the Internal Security Act (ISA) in Malaysia. The most recent use has drawn the open criticism of not just opposition politicians, civil society leaders but also all the major party leaders from component parties of the Barisan National namely the MCA, MIC and Gerakan. This is rare on a critical matter which is cutting party lines to what is the new political reality, expectations and directions forward in formulating a greater democratic society in Malaysia. The resignation of a cabinet Minister on this matter further strengthens the argument that use of the ISA did not even receive the support of members of the Abdullah administration.
Suhakam’s stand on the ISA and preventative detentions without trial is very clear. The ISA must be repealed as preventive detentions are a violation of human rights. Therefore in the case of Raja Petra and YB Teresa Koh they should be released immediately or charged in an open court. Holding them under the ISA is unacceptable.
The reason for detention of journalist Tan Hoon Cheng as given by Home Minister is illogical, irrational and violates the reason given by authorities justifying preventive legislations. ISA cannot be used for the protection of an individual. The Police should resort to other forms of protection in the life of the journalistic if she was at risk. The article by Ms Tan entitled ‘My 18 hours under the ISA (Malaysiakini) describing her experience does in no way reveal that she was being protected.
While it is the people’s wish for the release of those recently detained nonetheless the authorities must assure the safety and well being of the detainees. In this context access for lawyers and family members is of utmost importance. As one of the GMI members raised it, is very necessary that YB Teresa must have female Police officials at all times as women detainees have had bad experiences of being stripped as indicated by two GMI representatives.
GMI requested Suhakam to make immediate representation to the Prime Minister, Home Minister and the Inspector General of Police for the release of the detainees. They also suggested that Suhakam must undertake immediate inspection of the detention centres where Raja Petra and YB Teresa are in order to provide an independent assessment of their safety and condition of the detainees.
The GMI representatives urged Suhakam to establish a special committee and facilitate regular dialogues with spouses of ISA detainees. In addition this committee could review all the current ISA cases. They highlighted that over 60 people are currently detained and their families are having a very difficult time. In addition they suggested that there must be a monthly case review of the ISA detainees who are at Kamunting.
As Malaysia seeks to be a developed nation by 2020 we must review our understanding of democratic values and principles. We must be more tolerant of different ideas and views. We need to be open in our discussions. We must reason out our views and seek to understand the views of others. We must agree to disagree with grace, understanding and respect.
We must foster a democratic society where human rights’ promotion and protection is the foundation. This is what a majority of Malaysians are aspiring for today and therefore we strive hard to restore justice and fairness for all.
Representatives from Gerakan Mansuhkan ISA visited Suhakam today at 2.30pm and handed over a four page memorandum entitled ‘Stop using the ISA once for all and release all the ISA detainees immediately”. Their presentation was clear and well articulated on the unjustified and indefensible use of the ISA on Raja Petra, Tan Hoon Cheng and Teresa Koh. On behalf of Suhakam I received the memorandum and heard the presentations.
In my opinion no other piece of legislation has drawn so much of public attention, debate and grassroots mobilisation as the Internal Security Act (ISA) in Malaysia. The most recent use has drawn the open criticism of not just opposition politicians, civil society leaders but also all the major party leaders from component parties of the Barisan National namely the MCA, MIC and Gerakan. This is rare on a critical matter which is cutting party lines to what is the new political reality, expectations and directions forward in formulating a greater democratic society in Malaysia. The resignation of a cabinet Minister on this matter further strengthens the argument that use of the ISA did not even receive the support of members of the Abdullah administration.
Suhakam’s stand on the ISA and preventative detentions without trial is very clear. The ISA must be repealed as preventive detentions are a violation of human rights. Therefore in the case of Raja Petra and YB Teresa Koh they should be released immediately or charged in an open court. Holding them under the ISA is unacceptable.
The reason for detention of journalist Tan Hoon Cheng as given by Home Minister is illogical, irrational and violates the reason given by authorities justifying preventive legislations. ISA cannot be used for the protection of an individual. The Police should resort to other forms of protection in the life of the journalistic if she was at risk. The article by Ms Tan entitled ‘My 18 hours under the ISA (Malaysiakini) describing her experience does in no way reveal that she was being protected.
While it is the people’s wish for the release of those recently detained nonetheless the authorities must assure the safety and well being of the detainees. In this context access for lawyers and family members is of utmost importance. As one of the GMI members raised it, is very necessary that YB Teresa must have female Police officials at all times as women detainees have had bad experiences of being stripped as indicated by two GMI representatives.
GMI requested Suhakam to make immediate representation to the Prime Minister, Home Minister and the Inspector General of Police for the release of the detainees. They also suggested that Suhakam must undertake immediate inspection of the detention centres where Raja Petra and YB Teresa are in order to provide an independent assessment of their safety and condition of the detainees.
The GMI representatives urged Suhakam to establish a special committee and facilitate regular dialogues with spouses of ISA detainees. In addition this committee could review all the current ISA cases. They highlighted that over 60 people are currently detained and their families are having a very difficult time. In addition they suggested that there must be a monthly case review of the ISA detainees who are at Kamunting.
As Malaysia seeks to be a developed nation by 2020 we must review our understanding of democratic values and principles. We must be more tolerant of different ideas and views. We need to be open in our discussions. We must reason out our views and seek to understand the views of others. We must agree to disagree with grace, understanding and respect.
We must foster a democratic society where human rights’ promotion and protection is the foundation. This is what a majority of Malaysians are aspiring for today and therefore we strive hard to restore justice and fairness for all.
September 15, 2008
Stop Using the ISA once and for all. Release all ISA detainees immediately!
Released by:-
GERAKAN MANSUHKAN ISA
(ABOLISH ISA MOVEMENT)
MEMORANDUM TO
MALAYSIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (SUHAKAM)
Gerakan Mansuhkan ISA (GMI) or Abolish ISA Movement which consists of more than 83 non-governmental organisations, political parties, trade union, human rights bodies, women and student bodies, and the undersigned Civil Society Organizations, express our utter disgust over the use of the Internal Security Act (ISA) on 58-year-old editor of popular news portal Malaysia Today, Raja Petra Kamaruddin, Tan Hoon Cheng, 33, a senior journalist for the Chinese language Sin Chew Daily and DAP MP and Selangor senior state exco Teresa Kok, 43.
1. ISA is unjustified and indefensible
The use of ISA is totally unjustified and indefensible. There are ample other laws that can be used without having to violate the detainee’s right to trial. It is regretful that the government decided to switch from the use of the court of law to the use of the ISA in dealing with Raja Petra, YB Teresa Kok and Tan Hoon Cheng. The use of the ISA is in stark contradiction with the Federal Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It only goes to show that despite being a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council, the Malaysian government pays scant respect to human rights.
The ISA crackdown began with Raja Petra, 58, who has targeted government figures on his website Malaysia Today. He was detained at 1.10pm on 12 September 2008. Tan Hoon Cheng, 33, a senior journalist for the Chinese language Sin Chew Daily, was later arrested at about 8.30pm. She was detained in connection with her report regarding the derogatory remarks made by an UMNO leader against the Chinese community which led to a national uproar. Close to midnight, DAP MP and Selangor senior state exco Teresa Kok, 43, was detained outside her condominium. The arrests elicited a round of strong protests from all quarters, including those within the BN component parties.
The three of them were arrested under Section 73(1) of the Internal Security Act 1960. Under section 73(1), the police can detain a person for a maximum of 60 days for investigations. Based on the outcome of the probe, a person can be detained for two years without trial, and the two-year term can be renewed indefinitely.
The recent arrest is a clear example of police abuse of power and unaccountable arbitrary powers to arrest and detain a person without any grounds and justification in Malaysia. The Royal Commission on police in its 2005 report echoed concerns that the existence of preventive detention laws in Malaysia have given rise to police abuse of power and arbitrary action. Amnesty International in its report “Towards human rights base policing” highlighted the fact that there is a perception that the police is being dominated for political reason by a single political party. This perception was further confirmed by the Royal Commission on police when it called for the accountability of the Special Branch in recognizing that the agency may be manipulated by a party in power for political purposes.
The ISA is contrary to fundamental principles of international law, including the right to liberty of the person, to freedom from arbitrary arrest, to be informed of the reasons for arrest, to the presumption of innocence, and to a fair and open trial in a court of law. The act also promotes a climate of impunity and arbitrariness in a nation that just celebrated its 51st anniversary of Independence.
After continuous pressure from the local and international civil society organization’s Sin Chew Daily News reporter Tan Hoon Cheng has been released on 13 September in Bukit Mertajam at 4.15pm.
Currently, Raja Petra Kamaruddin and MP Teressa Kok are still being held under police custody. They both have been denied access to lawyers and families. We still have not been informed of their status. Today, GMI received a call from Madam Marina Lee, wife of Mr. Raja Petra Kamaruddin, about his condition. Madam Marina told GMI that Mr. Raja Petra is now undergoing a hunger strike and this may put him in a weaker state of health. She believes that the police should allow family to visit him as they will be able to convince him to stop his hunger strike which might cause damage to his health.
2. Who is Raja Petra Kamaruddin and why was he arrested?
Raja Petra Kamaruddin is the convener of the website "Malaysia-Today", which has unveiled numerous cases of corruption and abuse of power by the government. This is the second time Raja Petra has been detained under ISA, which allows for indefinite detention without trial. His first arrest under the ISA was on April 11, 2001 and he was released after 53 days in detention. This time, RPK was arrested at 1.10pm on Friday September 12, 2008, under Section 73(1) of the ISA for allegedly being a threat to security, peace and public order. He is alleged to have posted articles deemed seditious and that also belittle Islam. The Department of Islamic Development (Jakim) and several Muslim organizations lodged a police report against him for allegedly insulting Malays, Muslims and Islam.
The two articles that were cited are "I promise to be a good, non-hypocritical Muslim" and "Not all Arabs are descendants of the Prophet". Many people – Muslims included – who read them found nothing offensive in them about Islam. It seems to be a case of simply finding an excuse – any excuse – to arrest him, because his political writings have frequently embarrassed government leaders. Excuses related to religion, especially Islam, have, in the past, usually been emotive enough to gain public sympathy.
3. Who is Teresa Kok and why was she arrested?
Teresa Kok is the Member of Parliament for Seputeh, and a senior Executive Councilor of the Selangor State Government. She was arrested under the ISA at 11.18pm, Friday September 12, 2008, for allegedly causing tension and conflict among races as laid out in the notice issued by the Special Branch police to her next of kin. Kok had "acted in a way which threatened national security, which warranted arrest under Section 73(1) of the ISA", by being involved in "activities which can cause tension and conflict among races and religions." It was claimed by former Selangor Menteri Besar, Dr. Khir Toyo, that she organized a petition against mosque officials in Kota Damansara, Sri Serdang and Puchong Jaya to lower the volume of the azan (call to prayer) at a mosque.
Teresa Kok has denied organizing any such petition; Abdul Rahman Nasir, head of the Masjid Kinrara committee (the mosque in question); and YB Siti Mariah of PAS who is the MP for Kota Raja, has also denied that Teresa Kok was involved in any such petition, which was actually initiated by an individual in the community. The petition was not to lower the volume of the azan itself but that of the ceramah delivered after the prayers.
4. Security and well being of detainees must be guaranteed
GMI is extremely concerned about the well being of the detainees. The history of the ISA reveals that many detainees were subjected to torture, inhuman and degrading treatments, especially during the first few weeks of detention. The ISA provides for 'preventive detention' without trial for an indefinite period. It violates fundamental rights such as the right to trial, the right to legal counsel, the right to defend oneself in open court and the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. It goes against the principles of justice and undermines the rule of law.
5. The detention and release of Tan Hoon Cheng
Tan Hoon Cheng, a journalist with a local newspaper, Sin Chew Daily News, was arrested under the ISA at 8.30pm, Friday September 12, 2008 at her home in Penang. She is believed to have been arrested due to her report of the statement made by Ahmad Ismail, a member of the ruling party, the United Malays National Organization (UMNO). Ahmad was reported as having made a statement that Chinese Malaysians are "squatters" in the country. She was released after being detained for 16 hours. Home Affairs Minister Syed Hamid Albar claimed the decision to detain her was made by the police, not him.
He further claimed that she was detained to ensure her own safety, as her life was in danger. This is preposterous and totally absurd and brings new meaning to the word detention. How would a person be protected by detaining her under the ISA, interrogating har and depriving her of sleep?
Sin Chew has defended Tan by stating that Ahmad himself did not deny the report; he merely said it was the context of the report that was wrongly reported. The article was about the Permatang Pauh by-election campaign and was therefore not the focus of the story. The report was factual, with no manipulation of words to play up the issue. Finally, she was not the only one who reported it - journalists from other newspapers were present and all affirmed that they had heard the same remarks.
We wish to read the excerpt of a question asked by the press to Syed Hamid Albar:
Q: Is Ahmad Ismail above the law?
A: He has been punished so far as the party is concerned. At the same time there is a report against Ahmad Ismail and we are investigating it. I don’t think we treat politicians differently. We have taken action. That politician has been suspended three years by the party. He lost all his position. At the same time there is a police report of sedition made against him..
6. No One is Above the Law?
Based on this, perhaps Ahmad Ismail is not above the law but his party is! Raja Petra has also been charged for sedition and criminal defamation. Why then is he being detained under ISA when he has these charges upon him? Should not he and Teresa deserve the right to defend themselves just as Ahmad did? The arbitrary nature of ISA provides room for such travesty of justice. The lack of judicial check on ISA permits ambiguity and baseless unproven allegations.
Therefore, GMI calls on SUHAKAM:
To urge the government to release Raja Petra and Teresa as well as all other ISA detainees in Kamunting detention camp immediately or charge them in court of law;
To use its power to visit detention places to ascertain the whereabouts of Raja Petra Kamaruddin and Ms. Teresa Kok, and make immediate visits to detainees and ensure that detainees are free from torture and all other forms of inhuman and degrading treatment;
To have a monitoring mechanism to ensure detainee’s rights are upheld.
To reject any notion of the government to use ISA as a crackdown on dissidents
To ensure the well-being and welfare of the detainees and families of ISA detainees including from the harassment and mental torture of the Police Special Branch, Detention Camp and Ministry of Internal Security;
For the interim, to get the government to allow the detainees rights to have legal access and medical access and also urge the Home Minister to allow the family to visit the detainees;
To ensure that the government implements recommendations made by the Royal Commission to improve the operations and management of the Police to establish an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commissions (IPCMC);
To strongly urge the government to stop using ISA once and for all, respect basic human rights, rule of law and repeal the ISA.
Syed Ibrahim Syed Noh
Chairman GMI
This Memorandum is also endorsed by:
1. Alaigal
2. All Women’s Action Society (AWAM)
3. Amnesty International Malaysia
4. Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ)
5. Civil Rights Committee , Kl-Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (CRC, KLSCAH)
6. Community Development Centre (CDC)
7. Food Not Bomb (FNB)
8. Jaringan Rakyat Tertindas (JERIT)
9. Jemaah Islah Malaysia (JIM)
10. Monitoring Sustainability of Globalization (MSN)
11. Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM)
12. Pusat Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor (Empower)
13. Research for Social Advancement (REFSA)
14. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
15. TENAGANITA
16. Writer Alliance for Media Independence (WAMI)
17. Women’s Aid Organization (WAO)
18. Worker Organization Malaysia (WOM)
19. Youth For Change (Y4C)
20. Youth Section of The Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall
21. Youth Section of Malacca Chinese Assembly Hall
22. Youth Section of Negeri Sembilan Chinese Assembly Hall
23. Youth Section of The Federation of Chinese Associations, Johor state
15 September 2008
Friday, September 12, 2008
SUHAKAM Expresses Great Concern in the use of the ISA on Raja Petra Kamaruddin
Suhakam Press Release
While SUHAKAM appreciates the government's responsibility to maintain peace and stability, we express great concern with the arrest of Raja Petra Kamaruddin under Section 73 (1) of the Internal Security Act. Suhakam has consistenly held that the ISA and all other preventive laws should be abolished. These laws are a violation of human rights. Suhakam feels that there are enough laws to deal with all kinds of offences and therefore the authorities should charge individuals concerned in an open court or release them.
Suhakam also expresses concern with warning letters issued to three publications namely the Sin Chew Daily, The Sun and Suara Keadilan as it is a curtailment of freedom of expression. Nevertheless Suhakam feels that all Malaysians should handle racial and religious issues with great care and mutual respect without emotional or political overtones.
Statement issued jointly by
Tan Sri Simon Sipaun, Dato Michael Yeoh
and Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria,
All Commissioners of Suhakam
September 12, 2008
While SUHAKAM appreciates the government's responsibility to maintain peace and stability, we express great concern with the arrest of Raja Petra Kamaruddin under Section 73 (1) of the Internal Security Act. Suhakam has consistenly held that the ISA and all other preventive laws should be abolished. These laws are a violation of human rights. Suhakam feels that there are enough laws to deal with all kinds of offences and therefore the authorities should charge individuals concerned in an open court or release them.
Suhakam also expresses concern with warning letters issued to three publications namely the Sin Chew Daily, The Sun and Suara Keadilan as it is a curtailment of freedom of expression. Nevertheless Suhakam feels that all Malaysians should handle racial and religious issues with great care and mutual respect without emotional or political overtones.
Statement issued jointly by
Tan Sri Simon Sipaun, Dato Michael Yeoh
and Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria,
All Commissioners of Suhakam
September 12, 2008
Indigenous Peoples Call for application of Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples to Malaysian law and policies
by Indigenous Peoples Network of Malaysia
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia – In celebration of the first year anniversary of the United Nations Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP), the Jaringan Orang Asal SeMalaysia (JOAS) will be hosting a series of events on indigenous peoples and rights in Malaysia from 10-13 September 2008. These events will culminate in the handover of a memorandum on indigenous peoples rights to DYMM Seri Paduka Baginda Yang Dipertuan Agung.
Since June 2008, representatives from different indigenous peoples organisations across Malaysia have been reviewing national and state laws in the areas of adat and customary law, land and resources and development policies and assessing them against the Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP)
Adopted on 13 September 2007 by the United Nations General Assembly, the DRIP presents a set of minimum standards for how governments should treat indigenous peoples and is intended to help address the social and economic marginalization faced by indigenous communities.
The Declaration describes the rights of indigenous peoples, and their rights to identity, language, education and their traditional lands. It also emphasizes their rights to be involved in all decisions and matters that affect them as well as their right to pursue their own vision of economic and social development.
Malaysia has been a strong supporter of the DRIP, backing it as early as 2006 when it was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council and then voting twice in favor of the Declaration's adoption by the General Assembly. The adoption of this instrument is the clearest indication yet that Malaysia and the international community are committed to the protection of the individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples.
Representatives from different Orang Asli, Kadazandusun, Murut, Dayak and Orang Ulu groups will be deliberating on the final draft of the memorandum from 10-12 September 2008. JOAS will present a memorandum based on the review to DYMM Seri Paduka Baginda Yang Dipertuan Agung at the Royal Palace on 13 September 2008 on behalf of the indigenous peoples of Malaysia. Indigenous peoples as well as supporters are invited to join the group on the walk to the Royal Palace.
In conjunction with the anniversary of the DRIP, a public exhibition will also be held from 10-14 September 2008 at Annexe Central Market, to raise general awareness on indigenous peoples of Malaysia, their contributions to Malaysia as well as current challenges and issues facing these communities.
((JOAS Sept 3, 2008)
Monday, September 08, 2008
Forest based communities & their struggles for survival in modern Malaysia
by Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria
However native and indigenous people claim that the state has no rights to take their land as they have occupied it for generations. Most often these communities who are still forest based do not have the political power or the economic base to fight the dominant force of the state and private sector in making legal claim for their traditional lands.
Living for generations in the forest
The forest and the land is the identity of these people. They have been living in the forest for generations. The American anthropologist Prof Dr Peter Brosius in undertaking his doctoral research lived for three years between 1984 and 1987 and documented the movements of the Penan communities in the Belaga district over seven generations. This is an amazing study through oral tradition which describes in detail concerning the Penan community and their land.
The work of Prof Brosius shows that while they may not have legal documentation of land ownership, however they have resided on it for generations. It is in this land that they have their history, their burial grounds, their hunting and foraging land. It is their heritage and identity.
These lands which were customarily and traditionally indigenous land are currently legal battle grounds on ownership especially when the state is giving these lands to private sector companies for timber harvesting or plantation development or for dam developments. Blockades and dynamic civil society mobilisation has kept the plight of forest based communities in the forefront of public advocacy as human rights violations of indigenous people in Malaysia.
On August 12, 2008 when the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia held a dialogues session, talk and launch of a legal study by Prof Dr Ramy Bulan of the Law Faculty, University Malaya on native customary land rights in Sarawak at Kuching over 100 rural community leaders came and made a case for the state government of Sarawak to recognise their customary rights to their traditional land. They were uncompromising in their demand for justice.
People mobilisation
Local village communities and families are being mobilised through empowerment programmes which creates awareness and consciousness in standing up for your rights. Local communities are losing trust in their politicians who are holding public office. Locals are feeling that the state is protecting their interest in a conflicting situation. These local leaders are now directly entering public policy forums to champion their rights and needs.
Unfortunately because state governments have failed to recognise the land claims of forest based communities, these communities continue to remain in a state of poverty. No amount of ‘a welfare approach or hand out method’ can empower their communities.
The state must work with these communities recognising their claim to the land and working in partnership with the local leaders to bring them out of poverty. This last frontier will not be easy for the state to eradicate. The structural injustices must be first set right before wholistic development can take place.
First Hand Exposure of Abject Poverty
I had an opportunity to see for myself in the interiors of Sarawak how the forest was being totally cleared for plantation development and how the Penans were being displaced in their own traditional lands.
Although I made the visit in September of 2006 I can still remember the long drive on a timber company’s road in Sarawak. We drove for more than two hours from the main road before we came to the Penan community settlement. All along the way it was like a narrow highway. Traffic was heavy with lot of lorries’, with the ones coming in empty but the ones going out loaded with timber.
During the visits to their long houses one sees their poverty, their simple house structures with no modern assets, they have no water or electricity. Access to health care and primary education is quite a distance away. Using the minimum development index of the Millennium Development Goals these forest based communities have very little access to poverty eradication programmes, education or health care.
Another major problem which was highlighted by local natives was the problems associated with the registration of births and securing their identification cards. This is the most basic for with out an identification card, forest communities will not be able to travel to town for fear of being detained as illegal immigrants or exercise their legal rights to make claims for their land or even participate in elections. This matter must be addressed through a national comprehensive registration exercise to document all forest based communities in Malaysia.
On one spot we stopped and viewed the scenery and there were no trees left. It was like driving through desert land. It was a devastation of the forest. We also saw indigenous people walking alongside the road, others waiting for a lift from the timber lorry or timber company van.
Penans are dependent on the forest for gathering of forest products for sale and dependent on the forest for food. With this displacement through deforestation, plantation or dam developments their livelihood means is totally destroyed. This is a violation of human rights as starvation and further marginalisation of these communities will take place.
They do not have any alternative means of earning an income. They have not been trained to cultivate the land as small oil palm holders or other cash crops. The preparation for transition through mind set change and skills training cannot take place overnight. The state and its agencies must work with the people who love their forest to ensure their development takes into account the need to integrate their development line with their wishes.
Forced relocation or displacement without taking the human rights and dignity of these communities is indeed an inhuman and unjust act. We in Malaysia must not go down in history in a similar way as many other developed countries who have robbed the natives of their land. Malaysia has the opportunity to deal fairly and justly the forest based communities in our own land.
Pathway towards self determination
At the heart of the forest based communities struggle for self determination is this right to their land. This is the case for the Orang Aslis of Peninsular Malaysia and similar to other indigenous communities both in Sabah and Sarawak.
The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People which was adopted by the UN General Assembly on September 13, 2007. Malaysia was among 143 countries which voted in favour. Although it is non binding text, nonetheless it provides nation states which an international benchmark to examine their national legislations and procedures. Article 26 of this declaration calls on states to give legal recognition and protection to lands by giving due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous people concerned.
In addition to right to land the right development is imperative. Prof Amartya Sen developed the notion that poverty is a deprivation of basic capabilities rather than merely low income. He says “deprivation of elementary capabilities can be reflected in premature mortality, significant undernourishment (especially of children), persistent morbidity, wipespread illiteracy and other failures”. These basic needs must become basic rights to forest communities and it is the duty and responsibility of the state that no section of Malaysian society remain a state of deprivation.
Malaysia must ensure that there are concerted efforts towards this end which will recognise their ownership to land, respect them as fellow human beings and citizens. We must ensure that they too will have a share in the economic success of Malaysia becoming a development nation by 2020.
--------------------------
Suhakam publications for further study: (http://www.suhakam.org/)
Penan in Ulu Belaga: Right to Land and Socio-Economic Development (2007)
Penan Benalih, Blockade Issue (2007)
Legal perspectives on Native Customary Land Rights in Sarawak (2008)
Published in Asiaviews (August 2008 issues) (www.asiaviews.org)
Malaysia has an outstanding track record in poverty eradication and socio economic upliftment. Poverty data indicates that only 3.6% of the households are currently below the poverty line in Malaysia. Low poverty figures are largely due to macro economic policies which has facilitated economic development with equitable distribution. The figures are staggering and Malaysia is often referred to by international bodies such as World Bank as a success story.
Furthermore poverty figures are also low because of the way poverty is measured in Malaysia. We are still using the indicator of a minium basket of goods similarly used by the poorest nations in the world and not the indicators of quality of life as the basic bench mark as used by development nations. If our bench mark is very low then we are doing very well but if we raise the bench mark then we will see many new poor emerging like the urban poor and other deprived communities.
While the success story is true at the national level when average statistical data is used however at the micro community level there are examples of socio economic deprivation, injustice and exploitation. Public policy target must not be political slogans of ‘zero poverty’ as the poor will always be with us but the way we redefine it to capture the real struggles of ordinary people at the bottom of the development pyramid.
One such community at the bottom of Malaysia’s success story, who are experiencing alienation from mainstream development are forest based communities. Other micro poor communities are fishing communities. However the focus of our reflection is on forest communities.
People of the forest
Forest based communities are people still living in the forest and are dependent on forest products for their livelihood support. Some are settled communities cultivating the land and still foraging of the land. A small section continues to be nomadic and totally dependent of the forest for their survival. The life in comparison to other Malaysians is very basic and can be regarded as still primitive.
Statistically these communities are small communities like the Orang Asli community of Peninsular Malaya who make up of about 150,000 or the Penan community of Sarawak in the island of Borneo who comprise only of about 15,000 people. Both Sabah and Sarawak have many other sub ethnic indigenous groups who are forest based. Their struggles are similar to the Penans.
The forest communities’ fight for survival in modern Malaysia is real due to conflicting interest. The state operates under the current laws which define ownership in a way which does not give adequate respect to customary ownership. The state tends to lease out the forest to private sector companies for the wider good of the state to generate economic wealth.
Malaysia has an outstanding track record in poverty eradication and socio economic upliftment. Poverty data indicates that only 3.6% of the households are currently below the poverty line in Malaysia. Low poverty figures are largely due to macro economic policies which has facilitated economic development with equitable distribution. The figures are staggering and Malaysia is often referred to by international bodies such as World Bank as a success story.
Furthermore poverty figures are also low because of the way poverty is measured in Malaysia. We are still using the indicator of a minium basket of goods similarly used by the poorest nations in the world and not the indicators of quality of life as the basic bench mark as used by development nations. If our bench mark is very low then we are doing very well but if we raise the bench mark then we will see many new poor emerging like the urban poor and other deprived communities.
While the success story is true at the national level when average statistical data is used however at the micro community level there are examples of socio economic deprivation, injustice and exploitation. Public policy target must not be political slogans of ‘zero poverty’ as the poor will always be with us but the way we redefine it to capture the real struggles of ordinary people at the bottom of the development pyramid.
One such community at the bottom of Malaysia’s success story, who are experiencing alienation from mainstream development are forest based communities. Other micro poor communities are fishing communities. However the focus of our reflection is on forest communities.
People of the forest
Forest based communities are people still living in the forest and are dependent on forest products for their livelihood support. Some are settled communities cultivating the land and still foraging of the land. A small section continues to be nomadic and totally dependent of the forest for their survival. The life in comparison to other Malaysians is very basic and can be regarded as still primitive.
Statistically these communities are small communities like the Orang Asli community of Peninsular Malaya who make up of about 150,000 or the Penan community of Sarawak in the island of Borneo who comprise only of about 15,000 people. Both Sabah and Sarawak have many other sub ethnic indigenous groups who are forest based. Their struggles are similar to the Penans.
The forest communities’ fight for survival in modern Malaysia is real due to conflicting interest. The state operates under the current laws which define ownership in a way which does not give adequate respect to customary ownership. The state tends to lease out the forest to private sector companies for the wider good of the state to generate economic wealth.
However native and indigenous people claim that the state has no rights to take their land as they have occupied it for generations. Most often these communities who are still forest based do not have the political power or the economic base to fight the dominant force of the state and private sector in making legal claim for their traditional lands.
Living for generations in the forest
The forest and the land is the identity of these people. They have been living in the forest for generations. The American anthropologist Prof Dr Peter Brosius in undertaking his doctoral research lived for three years between 1984 and 1987 and documented the movements of the Penan communities in the Belaga district over seven generations. This is an amazing study through oral tradition which describes in detail concerning the Penan community and their land.
The work of Prof Brosius shows that while they may not have legal documentation of land ownership, however they have resided on it for generations. It is in this land that they have their history, their burial grounds, their hunting and foraging land. It is their heritage and identity.
These lands which were customarily and traditionally indigenous land are currently legal battle grounds on ownership especially when the state is giving these lands to private sector companies for timber harvesting or plantation development or for dam developments. Blockades and dynamic civil society mobilisation has kept the plight of forest based communities in the forefront of public advocacy as human rights violations of indigenous people in Malaysia.
On August 12, 2008 when the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia held a dialogues session, talk and launch of a legal study by Prof Dr Ramy Bulan of the Law Faculty, University Malaya on native customary land rights in Sarawak at Kuching over 100 rural community leaders came and made a case for the state government of Sarawak to recognise their customary rights to their traditional land. They were uncompromising in their demand for justice.
People mobilisation
Local village communities and families are being mobilised through empowerment programmes which creates awareness and consciousness in standing up for your rights. Local communities are losing trust in their politicians who are holding public office. Locals are feeling that the state is protecting their interest in a conflicting situation. These local leaders are now directly entering public policy forums to champion their rights and needs.
Unfortunately because state governments have failed to recognise the land claims of forest based communities, these communities continue to remain in a state of poverty. No amount of ‘a welfare approach or hand out method’ can empower their communities.
The state must work with these communities recognising their claim to the land and working in partnership with the local leaders to bring them out of poverty. This last frontier will not be easy for the state to eradicate. The structural injustices must be first set right before wholistic development can take place.
First Hand Exposure of Abject Poverty
I had an opportunity to see for myself in the interiors of Sarawak how the forest was being totally cleared for plantation development and how the Penans were being displaced in their own traditional lands.
Although I made the visit in September of 2006 I can still remember the long drive on a timber company’s road in Sarawak. We drove for more than two hours from the main road before we came to the Penan community settlement. All along the way it was like a narrow highway. Traffic was heavy with lot of lorries’, with the ones coming in empty but the ones going out loaded with timber.
During the visits to their long houses one sees their poverty, their simple house structures with no modern assets, they have no water or electricity. Access to health care and primary education is quite a distance away. Using the minimum development index of the Millennium Development Goals these forest based communities have very little access to poverty eradication programmes, education or health care.
Another major problem which was highlighted by local natives was the problems associated with the registration of births and securing their identification cards. This is the most basic for with out an identification card, forest communities will not be able to travel to town for fear of being detained as illegal immigrants or exercise their legal rights to make claims for their land or even participate in elections. This matter must be addressed through a national comprehensive registration exercise to document all forest based communities in Malaysia.
On one spot we stopped and viewed the scenery and there were no trees left. It was like driving through desert land. It was a devastation of the forest. We also saw indigenous people walking alongside the road, others waiting for a lift from the timber lorry or timber company van.
Penans are dependent on the forest for gathering of forest products for sale and dependent on the forest for food. With this displacement through deforestation, plantation or dam developments their livelihood means is totally destroyed. This is a violation of human rights as starvation and further marginalisation of these communities will take place.
They do not have any alternative means of earning an income. They have not been trained to cultivate the land as small oil palm holders or other cash crops. The preparation for transition through mind set change and skills training cannot take place overnight. The state and its agencies must work with the people who love their forest to ensure their development takes into account the need to integrate their development line with their wishes.
Forced relocation or displacement without taking the human rights and dignity of these communities is indeed an inhuman and unjust act. We in Malaysia must not go down in history in a similar way as many other developed countries who have robbed the natives of their land. Malaysia has the opportunity to deal fairly and justly the forest based communities in our own land.
Pathway towards self determination
At the heart of the forest based communities struggle for self determination is this right to their land. This is the case for the Orang Aslis of Peninsular Malaysia and similar to other indigenous communities both in Sabah and Sarawak.
The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People which was adopted by the UN General Assembly on September 13, 2007. Malaysia was among 143 countries which voted in favour. Although it is non binding text, nonetheless it provides nation states which an international benchmark to examine their national legislations and procedures. Article 26 of this declaration calls on states to give legal recognition and protection to lands by giving due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous people concerned.
In addition to right to land the right development is imperative. Prof Amartya Sen developed the notion that poverty is a deprivation of basic capabilities rather than merely low income. He says “deprivation of elementary capabilities can be reflected in premature mortality, significant undernourishment (especially of children), persistent morbidity, wipespread illiteracy and other failures”. These basic needs must become basic rights to forest communities and it is the duty and responsibility of the state that no section of Malaysian society remain a state of deprivation.
Malaysia must ensure that there are concerted efforts towards this end which will recognise their ownership to land, respect them as fellow human beings and citizens. We must ensure that they too will have a share in the economic success of Malaysia becoming a development nation by 2020.
--------------------------
Suhakam publications for further study: (http://www.suhakam.org/)
Penan in Ulu Belaga: Right to Land and Socio-Economic Development (2007)
Penan Benalih, Blockade Issue (2007)
Legal perspectives on Native Customary Land Rights in Sarawak (2008)
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Injustice to a Malaysian Citizen: Issues and Remedies
By Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria
This morning I read a tragic story of M.Rajeshavari (22) in the Sunday Star entitled “Malaysian spends 11 months at depot for illegals”. M.Rajeshavari was arrested in Brickfields for being thought be a foreign national as she could not produce her identification card (IC) or remember the number. She was not able to speak in the Malay language. At the point of arrest she was six months pregnant.
Thinking she is a foreign national authorities brought her before the court and she was then sent to the Lenggeng immigration depot in Negeri Sembilan. According to the Star story Rajeshavari kept telling the officials that she is a Malaysian and that she lost her IC.
Her freedom came when she was sent to a clinic for food poising and through their assistance and NGO assisted Rajeshavari to trace her birth certificate number through her Tamil school and subsequently got the Registration department to give the IC details and certification that she is a Malaysian citizen. It took the NGO a week to trace the details and secured Rajeshavari’s release.
Like a Tamil Drama
What a story? More like a Tamil movie or drama but this has taken place in Malaysia while we celebrated 51 years of our independence. A Malaysian women and her child were in detention for eleven months.
How could this happen?
What does citizenship mean in this context?
Is there no way for authorities to verify if Rajeshavari was claiming to be a malaysian and that she has lost her IC?
Can the authorities not be able to check if there was no IC number? Can’t one use thumb print?
If the individual cannot speak the Malay language, why was not a translator available to communicate? How does immigration communicate with other foreign nationals who have been detained?
Eleven months has passed, is Rajeshavri as a human being important? What about the child? What of stateless people?
What needs to be done to prevent a reoccurrence?
How can we ensure that the Ministry of Home Affairs and Internal Security and its departments like immigration and registration department are able to be more compassionate?
Should not the relevant authorities have officers who can speak languages like Tamil, Chinese, Myanmar or Bangladesh languages and be more foreign national sensitive? If not, have a panel or work with NGOs who have such expertise.
Violation of Citizenship Rights
This is a major violation of human rights of a citizen of Malaysia. While not having documents is an offence but to be detained for eleven months is a travesty of justice. How could we repay Rajeshvari for the trauma, nightmare, psychological pressure and despair? It is the poor and low income families with little education who become victims of our rules and standards. It is therefore necessary to assist the poor through access to legal counsel and advice to prevent another human being to undergo such an experience in modern Malaysia.
A sorry or apology alone is insufficient. Some form of compensation from the Federal government is urgently necessary to undo this great injustice to two Malaysians. The federal Government should investigate on how a bureaucratic mishap like this could take place. If there is any negligence on the part of any public officials then appropriate action must be taken to display that the Malaysian federal Government is truly a Caring Government.
As she is unemployed and a single mother the Ministry of Women, family and Community Development should come with compassionate assistance. In addition the government through the Department of Social Welfare must undertake follow up and ensure that she will be able to adjust back to normal life. Furthermore NGOs could continue to provide support care and the private sector could assist through employment opportunities.
Through these measures and many more would Rajeshavri and her son Logekali experience some justice and compassion. They will be able to rediscover that in Malaysia there are public officials who truly care and respect basic human rights for all human beings.
This morning I read a tragic story of M.Rajeshavari (22) in the Sunday Star entitled “Malaysian spends 11 months at depot for illegals”. M.Rajeshavari was arrested in Brickfields for being thought be a foreign national as she could not produce her identification card (IC) or remember the number. She was not able to speak in the Malay language. At the point of arrest she was six months pregnant.
Thinking she is a foreign national authorities brought her before the court and she was then sent to the Lenggeng immigration depot in Negeri Sembilan. According to the Star story Rajeshavari kept telling the officials that she is a Malaysian and that she lost her IC.
Her freedom came when she was sent to a clinic for food poising and through their assistance and NGO assisted Rajeshavari to trace her birth certificate number through her Tamil school and subsequently got the Registration department to give the IC details and certification that she is a Malaysian citizen. It took the NGO a week to trace the details and secured Rajeshavari’s release.
Like a Tamil Drama
What a story? More like a Tamil movie or drama but this has taken place in Malaysia while we celebrated 51 years of our independence. A Malaysian women and her child were in detention for eleven months.
How could this happen?
What does citizenship mean in this context?
Is there no way for authorities to verify if Rajeshavari was claiming to be a malaysian and that she has lost her IC?
Can the authorities not be able to check if there was no IC number? Can’t one use thumb print?
If the individual cannot speak the Malay language, why was not a translator available to communicate? How does immigration communicate with other foreign nationals who have been detained?
Eleven months has passed, is Rajeshavri as a human being important? What about the child? What of stateless people?
What needs to be done to prevent a reoccurrence?
How can we ensure that the Ministry of Home Affairs and Internal Security and its departments like immigration and registration department are able to be more compassionate?
Should not the relevant authorities have officers who can speak languages like Tamil, Chinese, Myanmar or Bangladesh languages and be more foreign national sensitive? If not, have a panel or work with NGOs who have such expertise.
Violation of Citizenship Rights
This is a major violation of human rights of a citizen of Malaysia. While not having documents is an offence but to be detained for eleven months is a travesty of justice. How could we repay Rajeshvari for the trauma, nightmare, psychological pressure and despair? It is the poor and low income families with little education who become victims of our rules and standards. It is therefore necessary to assist the poor through access to legal counsel and advice to prevent another human being to undergo such an experience in modern Malaysia.
A sorry or apology alone is insufficient. Some form of compensation from the Federal government is urgently necessary to undo this great injustice to two Malaysians. The federal Government should investigate on how a bureaucratic mishap like this could take place. If there is any negligence on the part of any public officials then appropriate action must be taken to display that the Malaysian federal Government is truly a Caring Government.
As she is unemployed and a single mother the Ministry of Women, family and Community Development should come with compassionate assistance. In addition the government through the Department of Social Welfare must undertake follow up and ensure that she will be able to adjust back to normal life. Furthermore NGOs could continue to provide support care and the private sector could assist through employment opportunities.
Through these measures and many more would Rajeshavri and her son Logekali experience some justice and compassion. They will be able to rediscover that in Malaysia there are public officials who truly care and respect basic human rights for all human beings.
Friday, September 05, 2008
ISA used to punish human rights activists
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL PRESS RELEASE
4 September 2008
Malaysia: Internal Security Act used to punish human rights activists
New information about the arbitrary detention of five Malaysian government critics obtained by Amnesty International researchers highlights the need for the Malaysian parliament to immediately abolish the country’s Internal Security Act, Amnesty International said today.
A recent Amnesty International mission to Malaysia researching the human rights situation there established that the sole reason for the detention of five members of Hindu Rights Action Force (HINDRAF), a group dedicated to defending the rights of Malaysia’s ethnic South Asians, was for expressing concerns about the marginalization of ethnic South Asians within Malaysian society and specifically for organizing rallies.
“The detentions illustrate exactly what is wrong with the Internal Security Act,” said Donna Guest, Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific Deputy Director. “These men are being treated like criminals, but they have never been charged, much less convicted, of a crime. They should be released immediately.”
The government has accused the five of being “leaders and legal advisers of an organization which affects national security of Malaysia through having illegal assemblies, sending of memorandum, forums whose activities incite racial sentiment and hatred towards government among Indians”.
HINDRAF had organized a series of meetings and rallies, culminating in a protest demonstration of some 20,000 people in Kuala Lumpur on 25 November 2007. The five men, Ganabathirau Veraman, Kenghadharan Ramasamy, Manoharan Malayalam, Uthayakumar Ponnusamy and Vasantha Kumar Krishnan, are currently being held at Kamunting Detention Centre, Perak State.
“If the Malaysian opposition parties are serious about reforming the country’s political system, they need to start the process to abolish this draconian legislation,” Donna Guest said. “The ISA has been used for too long to stamp out legitimate criticism of the government.”
Background Information
In 2007, the government demolished a number of Hindu temples to make way for development projects, despite petitions by local Hindu communities. HINDRAF organized series of meetings and rallies, culminating in the protest demonstration of some 20,000 people in Kuala Lumpur on 25 November 2007.
In October 2007, local authorities destroyed an 80-year old Hindu temple in Taman Karuppiah, Shah Alam on the eve of the Hindu Deepavali festival. Police shot at devotees trying to stop the demolition, injuring several of them, and arrested at least 14. When lawyers Ganabathirau, Manoharan, Uthayakumar and HINDRAF leader Waytha Moorthy came to the Police Station to seek bail for the 14 in detention, the police also arrested them. They were released the next day.
Two days before a planned demonstration in the Batu Caves Hindu temple, Uthayakumar, Ganabathirau and Waytha Moorthy were arrested and detained for sedition. They were subsequently released. When the Hindu devotees gathered in the temple, in the early hours of 25 November, police dispersed them using chemically laced water and tear gas. Police then arrested a number of the devotees, most of whom have subsequently been released.
On 11 December, Uthayakumar was arrested for sedition and fined* 50,000 Malaysian Ringgits (£7,400) despite the maximum bail for sedition being at 5,000 Malaysian Ringgits (£740). He posted bail but was immediately re-arrested. He was released the next day. On 13 December, police arrested Ganabathirau, Kenghadharan, Manoharan, Uthayakumar and Vasantha Kumar. Waytha Moorthy, who was in the United Kingdom at the time of arrests, is seeking asylum there.
Lawyers of the HINDRAF detainees filed a writ of Habeas Corpus, but this was dismissed by the Federal Court on 15 May 2008. Based on a different set of grounds, their lawyers filed another Habeas Corpus on 4 August. A decision is expected by the Ipoh High Court on 8 September.
At least 65 people are being held at Kamunting Detention Centre under the administrative detention provisions of the ISA. The Internal Security Act allows the police to arrest individuals they believe have acted, or are “about to” or “likely to” act in a way that would threaten Malaysian security, “essential services” or “economic life” (Article 73 (1)b).
Detainees can be held for up to 60 days for investigation by the police, after which time the Home Minister can issue a two year detention order under the ISA. The two year detention can be renewed indefinitely without the detainee ever being charged with a crime or tried in a court of law.
As such the ISA is contrary to fundamental principles of international law, including the right to liberty of the person, to freedom from arbitrary arrest, the presumption of innocence, and the right to fair and open trial in a court of law.
END/
*correction- he was not fined but released on bail for RM50,000
Public Document
****************************************
For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in London, UK, on +44 20
7413 5566 or email: press@amnesty.org
International Secretariat, Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW, UK
http://www.amnesty.org/
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Anwar does not have the people's mandate to form the Federal Government
By Datuk Dr Denison Jayasooria
Politics in Malaysia has changed radically since March 8, 2008. The BN has fallen from its once strong position as the people’s choice government. Prior to this the Alliance and later the Barisan National with representatives from all the communities was the only real option at both the state and federal levels.
This situation has changed with the loss of two third majority in parliament and five states to Pakatan coalition. Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim in his dynamic leadership style has made a tremendous comeback in a huge way capturing the imagination and hearts of people. His recent victory at Permatang Pauh and entry into Parliament further enhances his position as alternate national leader.
These are Dato Seri Anwar’s achievements which the people have given him. They were not secured through political manipulation but inspite of the heavy odds against the Pakatan the ordinary voters gave to him and his team. However the current attempt to do ‘a political coup’ by getting forty Members of parliament to cross over to his coalition is an act which is not respecting the wishes of the people.
A foundational leadership quality is patience. Waiting for your time is most critical. Patience is a real virtue but more that this leadership quality is respecting the wishes of the people. This is the most sacred democratic principle. Political expediency in a manipulative way will never be long lasting. We have to learn the lessons from many countries that have undergone military coups. Respecting democracy and democratic principles is fundamental.
Dato Seri Anwar and his team of politicians must never underestimate the people. On March 8, 2008 the voters did something that most Malaysians did not imagine would happen. The transition of power at the state government went on smoothly. But Anwar’s team does not have the mandate for the federal government and therefore his attempts to undertake a coup by Sept 16, 2008 is not in the best interest of the nation.
In the interim period to the next general elections, the opposition leader and his members in the parliament must devote much attention of being an effective opposition including establishing a shadow cabinet. Articulating alternative public policies, challenging existing ones, monitor performance of Ministries and their delivery systems is urgently needed. Be the voice and conscience of the nation in parliament. Organise public gathering to articulate public concerns and remedies.
But most of all settle policy differences among the various component parties within the Pakatan on critical matters pertaining especially to religious freedom, fundamental liberties, and alternative development plans which are inclusive for all Malaysian. Run the five Pakatan states differently from those run by the Barisan National upholding your promises and venture to undertake independent impact assessments of projects undertaken illustrating difference in governance, integrity, public accountability and public participation both at the State and local government levels.
Capturing the federal government through a General election is a more honourable way rather than just getting MPs to betray their party, their constituencies and their conscience.
Politics in Malaysia has changed radically since March 8, 2008. The BN has fallen from its once strong position as the people’s choice government. Prior to this the Alliance and later the Barisan National with representatives from all the communities was the only real option at both the state and federal levels.
This situation has changed with the loss of two third majority in parliament and five states to Pakatan coalition. Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim in his dynamic leadership style has made a tremendous comeback in a huge way capturing the imagination and hearts of people. His recent victory at Permatang Pauh and entry into Parliament further enhances his position as alternate national leader.
These are Dato Seri Anwar’s achievements which the people have given him. They were not secured through political manipulation but inspite of the heavy odds against the Pakatan the ordinary voters gave to him and his team. However the current attempt to do ‘a political coup’ by getting forty Members of parliament to cross over to his coalition is an act which is not respecting the wishes of the people.
A foundational leadership quality is patience. Waiting for your time is most critical. Patience is a real virtue but more that this leadership quality is respecting the wishes of the people. This is the most sacred democratic principle. Political expediency in a manipulative way will never be long lasting. We have to learn the lessons from many countries that have undergone military coups. Respecting democracy and democratic principles is fundamental.
Dato Seri Anwar and his team of politicians must never underestimate the people. On March 8, 2008 the voters did something that most Malaysians did not imagine would happen. The transition of power at the state government went on smoothly. But Anwar’s team does not have the mandate for the federal government and therefore his attempts to undertake a coup by Sept 16, 2008 is not in the best interest of the nation.
In the interim period to the next general elections, the opposition leader and his members in the parliament must devote much attention of being an effective opposition including establishing a shadow cabinet. Articulating alternative public policies, challenging existing ones, monitor performance of Ministries and their delivery systems is urgently needed. Be the voice and conscience of the nation in parliament. Organise public gathering to articulate public concerns and remedies.
But most of all settle policy differences among the various component parties within the Pakatan on critical matters pertaining especially to religious freedom, fundamental liberties, and alternative development plans which are inclusive for all Malaysian. Run the five Pakatan states differently from those run by the Barisan National upholding your promises and venture to undertake independent impact assessments of projects undertaken illustrating difference in governance, integrity, public accountability and public participation both at the State and local government levels.
Capturing the federal government through a General election is a more honourable way rather than just getting MPs to betray their party, their constituencies and their conscience.
Monday, September 01, 2008
OBSERVATIONS ON THE 2009 BUDGET
By Denison Jayasooria
The 2009 Budget is very comprehensive and addresses critical concerns at a cross sectoral levels, taking into account increasing prices, inflation and its impact on ordinary Malaysians. It is without doubt that the poor and low income families are at the heart of a positive and direct impact of the budget.
There is specific mention of welfare recipients, the poor, farmers, fishermen, disabled people, Orang Asli, lower ranking civil servants and pensioners. The Prime Minister has taken the trouble to make specific reference to these groups who are the most vulnerable sections during our current economic crisis. This is indeed a plus point for the Federal Government.
Our PM must be congratulated for a caring government which is compassionate to its people and responsive to the ordinary peoples needs and concerns. There is no doubt that the PM has sought to reach out to the grassroots with some good news during a difficult economic and political situation in Malaysia.
There are so many goodies in the 2009 budget that it would be difficult to mention all, however let me highlight some of the salient points which caught my eyes as I heard and read the PM’s speech.
Addressing people’s Needs
Among the specific measures which will have an impact is the change in the eligibility criteria for welfare assistance. The current household income of RM400 is increased to RM720 in Peninsular and RM830 for Sarawak and RM960 for Sabah. This is very timely but I think PM should have considered an additional variation for urban-rural figures for Peninsular. I would think the eligibility for the Klang valley could be at RM960 like that for Sabah. The Federal Government could review this as the deprivation in our major centres is really affecting the very poor households.
While some would say that RM150 is too little a monthly allowance for unemployed disabled people but this is the first time this is made available. This will complement welfare assistance grant mentioned earlier.
The exemption on electricity bills of RM20 or less will assist the real poor. In a similar way some basic provisions for water must be granted in the sameway. The additional measures on poverty eradication in general and specific improvements of basic amenities in Sabah and Sarawak are indeed welcomed.
The measures along the lines for food security are really timely especially the assistance to padi farmers and fishermen. At the same time a more integrated rural development plan must be redeveloped to reduce rural-urban migration and in effect make the rural more attractive with growth centres. This can be an outflow of the economic growth corridors
Greater investment to the rural economy is essential. In addition a more specific and targeted programmes to assist forest based communities to have a more stable source of income through settled agriculture is urgently needed. This is urgently needed in Sabah and Sarawak.
Too much on infrastructure and little mention of Quality Improvements
One of our major problems in Malaysia is improvement of quality. We have good infrastructure. However the 2009 budget has failed to clearly spell out quality improvements. This can be seen in the specific allocations made to Ministry of Education, Ministry of Higher Education and the Police Force. Every thing seems to be pointing to physical structure and contracts.
I really thought the 2009 budget will shift the focus to further enhancing quality. I am not sure if in the details of the budget these finer points are mentioned however the general public should be made aware of what is the Federal Governments plans and allocation to improve the quality, research and development and in the case of the Police the improved forensic science and investigation capabilities of police men and women.
Untapped potential of the Voluntary sector
The third sector is the voluntary or civil society sector. This is indeed a very large sector which complements the government in providing direct services to people in need and at the grassroots. At the sometime we have the advocacy and people empowerment NGOs. They too play a very important role in fostering a just and equitable society.
The 2009 budget makes very little reference to this sector. I feel the PM has missed this opportunity to further strengthen this sector as a co partner in development especially in working alongside the poor, disadvantaged and low income families.
While there is reference to Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia to undertake Urban microcredit financing programme and reference to NGOs in conservation works of heritage sites, there is no specific reference to this huge sector and army of volunteers and advocates. It might be thought that the voluntary sector especially social and welfare voluntary organisations have on going allocations. However these are currently very small allocations. A specific mention in the 2009 Budget will further energize this section to greater heights of service.
The Federal government must urgently review this matter and build the capacity of the voluntary and civil society sector and recognise them as equal partners in development.
In contrast the 2009 budget makes very strong reference to Corporate Social Responsibility and makes huge provisions to encourage private sector involvement. I think this is very strange. While the GLC are one of the biggest companies in the country, why allocate RM20 million to them to do work in schools through the PINTAR Foundation.
Further more the Ministry of Education has an allocation of RM31 billion. How is this money spent? Why is there more need to be done in improving the quality of education by private and voluntary sector? Should we not hold the Ministry more accountable for delivering higher standards?
Furthermore to allocate RM50 million to palm oil plantations to undertake community programmes is also another large sum allocated. Should not these rich companies be responsible to provide for their workers and children living in plantations? This is both their legal and moral obligation.
Please do not get me wrong, I am all for the private sector for greater involvement in social services and community work but they should be compensated more indirectly rather than direct federal grants. A fundamental approach through tax rebates and incentives should be the approach to get big companies especially the public listed involved in social projects. Cash grant must be given to the voluntary sector including matching grants to money NGOs have raised.
Furthermore the voluntary sector needs to strengthen professional practice including a better pay structure for the full time staff including training opportunities. These are essential for the future and further budgets can take advantage not only to recognise this sector but provide sufficient funds and resources.
Fostering Respect for Divergent Views
The Prime Minister is right in his position of preventing any group from ‘attempting to seize power through illegitimate means’. His call for ‘a collective responsibility’ to foster ‘peace and prosperity of the nation’ which is needful guiding principle for nationbuilding. However his remarks on the opposition, its ‘populist claims’ and indication that their views ‘would undermine the Government’s financial position’ and ‘bankrupt the nation’ is a political swipe which does not foster greater openness for alternative ideas and divergent views.
If indeed any suggestions by the opposition made are inappropriate then a more substantive analysis as such be presented rather than just a simplistic statement. The Malaysian nation is now more matured and therefore calls for a more intellectual and rigorous approach to economic options. A new dimension of political debate among members of parliament is urgently necessary.
I think in this context three matters which would require further debate and discussion. First, is the matter of reduction in fiscal deficit. Yesterday I was on a panel at Astro on the budget with YB Dato Prof Ismail Salleh and he indicated that during recession periods the Government could have a higher deficit. Malaysia tends to take pride at an overall reduction of deficit from 4.8 in 2008 to 3.6% for 2009. So is fiscal deficit good and for 2009 should government have taken liberty for an even higher deficit to spur the markets or induce it further? This urgently requires further unpacking and rationalisation.
The second is what should be the allocation size of the operating expenditure and that of development expenditure. For 2009 RM154.2 billion is allocated for operating and RM53.7 billion for development. Should the development portion be much higher? How could we reduce operating expenditure?
Third, there is reference to the National Energy Plan. This is indeed urgent and timely especially in the context of depleting oil and gas resources. The PM draws our attention to ‘developing viable alternative energy sources such as solar, wind and biofuels, apart from exploring nuclear energy’. This is definitely in line with global trends however we must ask the difficult question, why is the Sarawak state government not developing along the federal lines? Their option is to build more hydro dams and they have plans for another 12 new dams in addition to the Bakun dam? Their justification is that Peninsular Malaysia will not be able to generate required energy levels and therefore the best and cheapest option is hydro dams. However the dams cause tremendous damage to the environment and displace forest based communities. What is the way forward in this context?
While these questions might sound like basic economic questions, I think there must be more debate on public spending and how money is spend and what is its net impact for the people of Malaysia. There must be more rigour from our MPs to debate the budget and other options available and tested during the debate time in the House.
With a majority in Parliament the Prime Minister’s bill on the 2009 budget will be carried in the House. However I hope that the Federal government will continue to have multi-level consultations and dialogues to keep Malaysian society informed but at the same time create the avenue to receive feedback. One major political crisis of our time is the disconnection between the top leadership and the grassroots.
I would tend to believe that all, including those in a government position, the backbenchers and members of the opposition will responsibly debate in the best interest of all Malaysians. In addition every Malaysian must develop our thinking ability and hold all our leaders both the Federal Government and the opposition in check and balance – holding them accountable for the common good of all Malaysians.
The 2009 Budget is very comprehensive and addresses critical concerns at a cross sectoral levels, taking into account increasing prices, inflation and its impact on ordinary Malaysians. It is without doubt that the poor and low income families are at the heart of a positive and direct impact of the budget.
There is specific mention of welfare recipients, the poor, farmers, fishermen, disabled people, Orang Asli, lower ranking civil servants and pensioners. The Prime Minister has taken the trouble to make specific reference to these groups who are the most vulnerable sections during our current economic crisis. This is indeed a plus point for the Federal Government.
Our PM must be congratulated for a caring government which is compassionate to its people and responsive to the ordinary peoples needs and concerns. There is no doubt that the PM has sought to reach out to the grassroots with some good news during a difficult economic and political situation in Malaysia.
There are so many goodies in the 2009 budget that it would be difficult to mention all, however let me highlight some of the salient points which caught my eyes as I heard and read the PM’s speech.
Addressing people’s Needs
Among the specific measures which will have an impact is the change in the eligibility criteria for welfare assistance. The current household income of RM400 is increased to RM720 in Peninsular and RM830 for Sarawak and RM960 for Sabah. This is very timely but I think PM should have considered an additional variation for urban-rural figures for Peninsular. I would think the eligibility for the Klang valley could be at RM960 like that for Sabah. The Federal Government could review this as the deprivation in our major centres is really affecting the very poor households.
While some would say that RM150 is too little a monthly allowance for unemployed disabled people but this is the first time this is made available. This will complement welfare assistance grant mentioned earlier.
The exemption on electricity bills of RM20 or less will assist the real poor. In a similar way some basic provisions for water must be granted in the sameway. The additional measures on poverty eradication in general and specific improvements of basic amenities in Sabah and Sarawak are indeed welcomed.
The measures along the lines for food security are really timely especially the assistance to padi farmers and fishermen. At the same time a more integrated rural development plan must be redeveloped to reduce rural-urban migration and in effect make the rural more attractive with growth centres. This can be an outflow of the economic growth corridors
Greater investment to the rural economy is essential. In addition a more specific and targeted programmes to assist forest based communities to have a more stable source of income through settled agriculture is urgently needed. This is urgently needed in Sabah and Sarawak.
Too much on infrastructure and little mention of Quality Improvements
One of our major problems in Malaysia is improvement of quality. We have good infrastructure. However the 2009 budget has failed to clearly spell out quality improvements. This can be seen in the specific allocations made to Ministry of Education, Ministry of Higher Education and the Police Force. Every thing seems to be pointing to physical structure and contracts.
I really thought the 2009 budget will shift the focus to further enhancing quality. I am not sure if in the details of the budget these finer points are mentioned however the general public should be made aware of what is the Federal Governments plans and allocation to improve the quality, research and development and in the case of the Police the improved forensic science and investigation capabilities of police men and women.
Untapped potential of the Voluntary sector
The third sector is the voluntary or civil society sector. This is indeed a very large sector which complements the government in providing direct services to people in need and at the grassroots. At the sometime we have the advocacy and people empowerment NGOs. They too play a very important role in fostering a just and equitable society.
The 2009 budget makes very little reference to this sector. I feel the PM has missed this opportunity to further strengthen this sector as a co partner in development especially in working alongside the poor, disadvantaged and low income families.
While there is reference to Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia to undertake Urban microcredit financing programme and reference to NGOs in conservation works of heritage sites, there is no specific reference to this huge sector and army of volunteers and advocates. It might be thought that the voluntary sector especially social and welfare voluntary organisations have on going allocations. However these are currently very small allocations. A specific mention in the 2009 Budget will further energize this section to greater heights of service.
The Federal government must urgently review this matter and build the capacity of the voluntary and civil society sector and recognise them as equal partners in development.
In contrast the 2009 budget makes very strong reference to Corporate Social Responsibility and makes huge provisions to encourage private sector involvement. I think this is very strange. While the GLC are one of the biggest companies in the country, why allocate RM20 million to them to do work in schools through the PINTAR Foundation.
Further more the Ministry of Education has an allocation of RM31 billion. How is this money spent? Why is there more need to be done in improving the quality of education by private and voluntary sector? Should we not hold the Ministry more accountable for delivering higher standards?
Furthermore to allocate RM50 million to palm oil plantations to undertake community programmes is also another large sum allocated. Should not these rich companies be responsible to provide for their workers and children living in plantations? This is both their legal and moral obligation.
Please do not get me wrong, I am all for the private sector for greater involvement in social services and community work but they should be compensated more indirectly rather than direct federal grants. A fundamental approach through tax rebates and incentives should be the approach to get big companies especially the public listed involved in social projects. Cash grant must be given to the voluntary sector including matching grants to money NGOs have raised.
Furthermore the voluntary sector needs to strengthen professional practice including a better pay structure for the full time staff including training opportunities. These are essential for the future and further budgets can take advantage not only to recognise this sector but provide sufficient funds and resources.
Fostering Respect for Divergent Views
The Prime Minister is right in his position of preventing any group from ‘attempting to seize power through illegitimate means’. His call for ‘a collective responsibility’ to foster ‘peace and prosperity of the nation’ which is needful guiding principle for nationbuilding. However his remarks on the opposition, its ‘populist claims’ and indication that their views ‘would undermine the Government’s financial position’ and ‘bankrupt the nation’ is a political swipe which does not foster greater openness for alternative ideas and divergent views.
If indeed any suggestions by the opposition made are inappropriate then a more substantive analysis as such be presented rather than just a simplistic statement. The Malaysian nation is now more matured and therefore calls for a more intellectual and rigorous approach to economic options. A new dimension of political debate among members of parliament is urgently necessary.
I think in this context three matters which would require further debate and discussion. First, is the matter of reduction in fiscal deficit. Yesterday I was on a panel at Astro on the budget with YB Dato Prof Ismail Salleh and he indicated that during recession periods the Government could have a higher deficit. Malaysia tends to take pride at an overall reduction of deficit from 4.8 in 2008 to 3.6% for 2009. So is fiscal deficit good and for 2009 should government have taken liberty for an even higher deficit to spur the markets or induce it further? This urgently requires further unpacking and rationalisation.
The second is what should be the allocation size of the operating expenditure and that of development expenditure. For 2009 RM154.2 billion is allocated for operating and RM53.7 billion for development. Should the development portion be much higher? How could we reduce operating expenditure?
Third, there is reference to the National Energy Plan. This is indeed urgent and timely especially in the context of depleting oil and gas resources. The PM draws our attention to ‘developing viable alternative energy sources such as solar, wind and biofuels, apart from exploring nuclear energy’. This is definitely in line with global trends however we must ask the difficult question, why is the Sarawak state government not developing along the federal lines? Their option is to build more hydro dams and they have plans for another 12 new dams in addition to the Bakun dam? Their justification is that Peninsular Malaysia will not be able to generate required energy levels and therefore the best and cheapest option is hydro dams. However the dams cause tremendous damage to the environment and displace forest based communities. What is the way forward in this context?
While these questions might sound like basic economic questions, I think there must be more debate on public spending and how money is spend and what is its net impact for the people of Malaysia. There must be more rigour from our MPs to debate the budget and other options available and tested during the debate time in the House.
With a majority in Parliament the Prime Minister’s bill on the 2009 budget will be carried in the House. However I hope that the Federal government will continue to have multi-level consultations and dialogues to keep Malaysian society informed but at the same time create the avenue to receive feedback. One major political crisis of our time is the disconnection between the top leadership and the grassroots.
I would tend to believe that all, including those in a government position, the backbenchers and members of the opposition will responsibly debate in the best interest of all Malaysians. In addition every Malaysian must develop our thinking ability and hold all our leaders both the Federal Government and the opposition in check and balance – holding them accountable for the common good of all Malaysians.
COMMENTS ON THE MID TERM REVIEW OF THE NINTH MALAYSIA PLAN
By Denison Jayasooria
General Positive comments
The MTR9MP is very well written and documented in terms of its development plan, analysis and projections for the next two and half years using the five major thrust areas. The illustrative diagrams also provide clarity of trends, outcomes and projections including allocations of resources. This document is easy to understand and the general public will be able to comprehend the intentions of the Federal Government over the next two and half years.
Poverty Eradication
It is indeed commendable that the incidence of poverty has dropped from 5.7 to 3.6. However the figures does indicate that it is still alarming in Sabah at 16% and Sarawak at 4.2%
Having stated this point the MTR9MP does not take seriously the price rise and increase in cost of living. The PLI is still based on the old figures and therefore this statistical comfort is misguided and disconnected from the realities on the ground. While the federal Government has had many dialogues & discussions on price rise and many different initiatives in reducing its impact on the poor and low income, not adjusting the PLI is a serious miscalculation.
This desire to reach zero hardcore poverty is giving wrong focus on agencies to meet statistical targets which is disconnected with the grassroots. Issues related to increasing disparity between the rich and poor are also not provided. MTR9MP only provides mean income figures across the races but fails to give us other important targets such as income difference between the top 20, middle 40 and bottom 40% of the people according to race.. ‘gini coefficient’ figures are however provided (page 59). The selective release of official data is unacceptable as it does not provide opportunity for the Malaysian public let alone Members of Parliament to make an accurate assessment.
A commendable release of new data by the federal Government is the sub-ethnic break down of mean income of groups in Sabah and Sarawak (page 59). This disaggregated documentation of data will enable effective targeting. More data pertaining to poverty, equity, employment, education should be released.
In the section on Moving Forward (2008 to 2010) in poverty eradication, an integrated approach to enabling micro targeting of the poor is indicated. This is the way forward as poverty is multifaceted and therefore require multiple agency involved an integrated approach will make a significant impact.
In addition government agencies must engage civil society and grassroots organisations to be actively involved in a community development approach. Very often this is currently lacking as the priority of many of the agencies is to do single targeting of hardcore poor in a casework style rather than through community mobilisation and empowerment. In this context the approach adopted by AIM in local grassroots mobilisation and capacity building of the poor and women has proved very effective.
If an integrated and community based approach is adopted then the threefold area such as infrastructure, income generating and human capital development will be enhanced.
In a similar way the approach adopted for the urban poor too is in the right direction namely income generation and employment, basic facilities such as housing, in addition building human capital through training and provision of micro credit.
However the major problem in the urban poor area is who is really responsible for implementation and delivery. This aspect has not been effectively addressed since the release of OPP3 in 2001 when public policy recognised that urban poverty is a new are of concern due to urbanisation and modernization.
Indian community
MTR9MP provided the Federal Government an excellent opportunity to address the socio economic imbalances and the grievance of the Indian community however the development plans (MTR9MP) continue to provide recycled views and has disappointed the low income and marginalised sections of the Indian community who had shown a public display of their unhappiness with the federal Government in November 2007.
Federal government has made some efforts in addressing Indian youth issues through skills and entrepreneurship training. MTR9MP has reaffirmed that 3,000 Indian youths will be reached. In additon MTR9MP broke new ground in providing skills training to 6,260 and micro credit of RM 3 million through Yayasan Tekun (page 58). This is indeed credible and more such programmes must be organised in order to reach a larger number of indian youths through out the whole country.
MTR9MP continues to reaffirm increasing the share of equity ownership to 1.5% by 2010 (page 64). Since the Third Outline Perspective Plan (2001-2010), Government documents states this policy intension however no clear programmes, approaches or institutions or mechanisms have been indicated. In 1999 Indian equity ownership was 1.5% and Federal Government target was to raise it to 3% by 2010 (OPP3 para 4.18, page 92).
By MTR9MP it is indicated that Indian equity ownership has dropped to 1.1%. This is a clear indication that the Indian community does not have the capacity nor the extra cash to participate in the economy in a big way. The MTR9MP once again does not provide any specific steps in this direction other than setting the target. Target is not enough, concrete action is essential
Federal Government must give a clear plan in enabling the Indian community to increase their equity share. What concrete steps, action plans must be in place. A decade will pass by 2010 when the Federal government via the OPP3 acknowledged the weak equity and economic position but in concrete terms. MTR9MP indicates ‘special assistance… to raise equity ownership’ but what is it?
Document does not give details on civil service recruitment which is a major concern, intake to public universities and institutions, nor details on access to micro credit for small business development, now allocations for vernacular school education.
The real issues raised by the Indian community are not addressed through MTR9MP. This is a major concern on how the Federal Government can be so disconnected to the tears, aspirations, concerns of this section of Malaysian society. What more need to be done in terms of documentations, concrete grassroots presentation, public display before the fundamental needs are addressed?
Weakness of the Document
First, document does not articulate how national unity will be enhanced. In my opinion national unity is not an underpinning principle like Rukunegara and Islam Hadhari as national unity is a vision and goal to achieve. Therefore the diagram on page 4 of the MTR9MP is misleading and conceptually inaccurate. My early comments on the 9MP is that the articulation of National Unity is weak as it is not even listed as one of the main thrust of socio-economic development plan. This weakness in conceptualisation, articulation and execution in the MTR9MP continues and therefore there must be greater debate and discussion on this theme.
Second, another major weakness of the MTR9MP is that it did not release the basic tables which were done in the MTR7MP and MTR8MP. MTR9MP does not give adequate quantitative data and statistics which is needed for independent analysis and comment. For example while there is a table on registered professionals but no tables on employment by sector and ethnic groups nor employment by occupation and ethnic groups.
This trend is a major concern that while the Federal Government says on the one hand that they are transparent with data but each year the data released is lesser and lesser. Just standing policy intensions and plans is inadequate. Government must release basic data that can be used by others to make analysis and conclusions.
In this context the MTR9MP is only 135 pages in contrast to MTR7MP was 392 pages where else MTR8MP was 485 pages. Federal Government must ensure that Parliament is provided with adequate details for further analysis, debate and deliberation. This is good for the nation and in the best interest of all Malaysias.
General Positive comments
The MTR9MP is very well written and documented in terms of its development plan, analysis and projections for the next two and half years using the five major thrust areas. The illustrative diagrams also provide clarity of trends, outcomes and projections including allocations of resources. This document is easy to understand and the general public will be able to comprehend the intentions of the Federal Government over the next two and half years.
Poverty Eradication
It is indeed commendable that the incidence of poverty has dropped from 5.7 to 3.6. However the figures does indicate that it is still alarming in Sabah at 16% and Sarawak at 4.2%
Having stated this point the MTR9MP does not take seriously the price rise and increase in cost of living. The PLI is still based on the old figures and therefore this statistical comfort is misguided and disconnected from the realities on the ground. While the federal Government has had many dialogues & discussions on price rise and many different initiatives in reducing its impact on the poor and low income, not adjusting the PLI is a serious miscalculation.
This desire to reach zero hardcore poverty is giving wrong focus on agencies to meet statistical targets which is disconnected with the grassroots. Issues related to increasing disparity between the rich and poor are also not provided. MTR9MP only provides mean income figures across the races but fails to give us other important targets such as income difference between the top 20, middle 40 and bottom 40% of the people according to race.. ‘gini coefficient’ figures are however provided (page 59). The selective release of official data is unacceptable as it does not provide opportunity for the Malaysian public let alone Members of Parliament to make an accurate assessment.
A commendable release of new data by the federal Government is the sub-ethnic break down of mean income of groups in Sabah and Sarawak (page 59). This disaggregated documentation of data will enable effective targeting. More data pertaining to poverty, equity, employment, education should be released.
In the section on Moving Forward (2008 to 2010) in poverty eradication, an integrated approach to enabling micro targeting of the poor is indicated. This is the way forward as poverty is multifaceted and therefore require multiple agency involved an integrated approach will make a significant impact.
In addition government agencies must engage civil society and grassroots organisations to be actively involved in a community development approach. Very often this is currently lacking as the priority of many of the agencies is to do single targeting of hardcore poor in a casework style rather than through community mobilisation and empowerment. In this context the approach adopted by AIM in local grassroots mobilisation and capacity building of the poor and women has proved very effective.
If an integrated and community based approach is adopted then the threefold area such as infrastructure, income generating and human capital development will be enhanced.
In a similar way the approach adopted for the urban poor too is in the right direction namely income generation and employment, basic facilities such as housing, in addition building human capital through training and provision of micro credit.
However the major problem in the urban poor area is who is really responsible for implementation and delivery. This aspect has not been effectively addressed since the release of OPP3 in 2001 when public policy recognised that urban poverty is a new are of concern due to urbanisation and modernization.
Indian community
MTR9MP provided the Federal Government an excellent opportunity to address the socio economic imbalances and the grievance of the Indian community however the development plans (MTR9MP) continue to provide recycled views and has disappointed the low income and marginalised sections of the Indian community who had shown a public display of their unhappiness with the federal Government in November 2007.
Federal government has made some efforts in addressing Indian youth issues through skills and entrepreneurship training. MTR9MP has reaffirmed that 3,000 Indian youths will be reached. In additon MTR9MP broke new ground in providing skills training to 6,260 and micro credit of RM 3 million through Yayasan Tekun (page 58). This is indeed credible and more such programmes must be organised in order to reach a larger number of indian youths through out the whole country.
MTR9MP continues to reaffirm increasing the share of equity ownership to 1.5% by 2010 (page 64). Since the Third Outline Perspective Plan (2001-2010), Government documents states this policy intension however no clear programmes, approaches or institutions or mechanisms have been indicated. In 1999 Indian equity ownership was 1.5% and Federal Government target was to raise it to 3% by 2010 (OPP3 para 4.18, page 92).
By MTR9MP it is indicated that Indian equity ownership has dropped to 1.1%. This is a clear indication that the Indian community does not have the capacity nor the extra cash to participate in the economy in a big way. The MTR9MP once again does not provide any specific steps in this direction other than setting the target. Target is not enough, concrete action is essential
Federal Government must give a clear plan in enabling the Indian community to increase their equity share. What concrete steps, action plans must be in place. A decade will pass by 2010 when the Federal government via the OPP3 acknowledged the weak equity and economic position but in concrete terms. MTR9MP indicates ‘special assistance… to raise equity ownership’ but what is it?
Document does not give details on civil service recruitment which is a major concern, intake to public universities and institutions, nor details on access to micro credit for small business development, now allocations for vernacular school education.
The real issues raised by the Indian community are not addressed through MTR9MP. This is a major concern on how the Federal Government can be so disconnected to the tears, aspirations, concerns of this section of Malaysian society. What more need to be done in terms of documentations, concrete grassroots presentation, public display before the fundamental needs are addressed?
Weakness of the Document
First, document does not articulate how national unity will be enhanced. In my opinion national unity is not an underpinning principle like Rukunegara and Islam Hadhari as national unity is a vision and goal to achieve. Therefore the diagram on page 4 of the MTR9MP is misleading and conceptually inaccurate. My early comments on the 9MP is that the articulation of National Unity is weak as it is not even listed as one of the main thrust of socio-economic development plan. This weakness in conceptualisation, articulation and execution in the MTR9MP continues and therefore there must be greater debate and discussion on this theme.
Second, another major weakness of the MTR9MP is that it did not release the basic tables which were done in the MTR7MP and MTR8MP. MTR9MP does not give adequate quantitative data and statistics which is needed for independent analysis and comment. For example while there is a table on registered professionals but no tables on employment by sector and ethnic groups nor employment by occupation and ethnic groups.
This trend is a major concern that while the Federal Government says on the one hand that they are transparent with data but each year the data released is lesser and lesser. Just standing policy intensions and plans is inadequate. Government must release basic data that can be used by others to make analysis and conclusions.
In this context the MTR9MP is only 135 pages in contrast to MTR7MP was 392 pages where else MTR8MP was 485 pages. Federal Government must ensure that Parliament is provided with adequate details for further analysis, debate and deliberation. This is good for the nation and in the best interest of all Malaysias.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
