Stand Up, Speak Out

In today’s news, New Straits Times quoted:

“Grassroot leaders of Gerakan and MCA believe their Chinese-based parties will bounce back before the next general election.”

Parti Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia have been formed dunring the year 1968. It begun as a MULTI-RACIAL party. And today, after 40 years of existence, the media regarded Gerakan as a Chinese-based party.

Yes, I cannot help but to admit that majority of the party members are Chinese. That is one of the reason people regard Gerakan as a Chinese-based party.

During the 12th General Elections, one of the community leaders in Penang quoted that Penang’s Chief Minister have to be trilingual. If Gerakan is a multi-racial party and it is destinied to hold the CM’s position (that was before the elections), they shouldn’t have been using ‘language’ as one of the main criteria in the selection of CM. It might be the community leader who said that, but Gerakan hasn’t been loud enough to deny the issue.

We need to stress out that Gerakan is a MULTI-RACIAL party; just as the public knows that Nike sells sportswear, Nokia produces mobile phones and Dell manufactures computers. Unless Gerakan does that, it will soon become irrelevant like other BN multi-racial entities (Berjaya, Akar, PPP, SNAP).

But what effort have we done to tell the public that Gerakan is a multi-racial party? How are we going to brand ourselves as a multi-racial party? What actions needed to be done?

Updated
The topic of the Teh Tarik Forum for this week has been changed to:
No Apology from Pak Lah - Is Judicial Appointments Commission Enough to Restore Confidence in the Judiciary?

Lee Kah Choon had late last month announced his resignation from all Gerakan posts, including as the deputy secretary-general and a member of the party’s two decision-making bodies, the Central Committee (CC) and the Central Working Committee (CWC), after its poor performance in the March 8 general election. 

This week, Lee accepted the offer to be appointed as the Director of Penang Development Corporation (PDC), Chairman of the executive committee of InvestPenang.

I will not elaborate further on this issue as I have noticed this topic has been on a number of blogs since the past few days. Instead, I just want to create a discussion among the readers of this blog regarding this case.

Some say that his action contravened the principle and spirit of the party’s general directive & betrayed Gerakan. Therefore, he should be sacked or in the other way around, he should resign as a member.

Ironically, a few stated that he did the right thing by accepting a job to serve the Penangites. They said that InvestPenang and PDC has nothing to do with politics.

What is your opinion?

From the Sun, April 18, 2008: 

A study has found young Malaysians in the peninsula to be generally optimistic about the state of national unity in the country, predicting that this would improve slightly within the next 10 years.
The study was conducted by the Centre for Public Policy Studies (CPPS) of the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute and the National Young Lawyer’s Committee (NYLC) of the Bar Council.
However, there were disturbing trends and underlying currents of ethnic tension that must be urgently addressed to avoid further racial polarisation, said former NYLC chairman Edmund Bon during the launch of the study today.
Bon said: “While the government had initiated various programmes to promote national unity, these were only surface solutions and did not address the underlying problems affecting the Malaysian community.”
Of the 1,000 respondents most of the 300 rural respondents seemed to be more optimistic about unity in the country and gave higher ratings to issues of harmony and race, while urban respondents showed a greater level of dissatisfaction.
Respondents from within the Central and Southern regions seemed to be less optimistic about national unity than those in the East and West of peninsular Malaysia.
Chinese were quite pessimistic about their future in the country, followed by the Indians. Malays were generally satisfied with their life in the country.
The study showed that Chinese were dissatisfied with economic policies and had a strong aversion to education in Malaysia, preferring foreign education over local.
The Chinese however ranked lower than Indians and Malays when it came to mingling with friends of different religions.
Those in the younger age group (18 to 24) were less likely to mix with others of different ethnicity relative to those in the 25 to 35 age group, indicating increasing racial polarisation amongst the young.
The research also indicates the disparity between what young Malaysians experience and what they perceive, because those who had healthy interethnic relationships at a personal level, gave lower ratings for unity at the national level. Respondents from rural areas and Malays rated religious harmony significantly higher than Chinese and Indians.
Also, a total 75% Malays say they have never been unfairly treated based on their race as opposed to 45% Chinese and 49% Indians, while on account of religion, 82% of Malays say they have never before been unfairly treated, as opposed to 53% each for both Chinese and Indians.
Among the suggestions given to improve national unity was the need to boldly examine public policies that adversely affect the socio-economic, and socio-political fabric, especially those related to provisions of equal opportunity and equal access to all.
These include:
> Economic Policies;
> Education Policies;
> Religious Policies;
> Racial Harmony; and
> National Unity Policies.
The objective of this quantitative survey was to unearth young Malaysians’ life values in the present and for the future, and to understand their attitudes towards national unity in Malaysia.
A number of factors contribute to national unity, namely a feeling of ownership of the country, aspirations for the future, racial and religious harmony, economic and education policies and experiences of unfair treatment. These factors were explored individually to assess the state of national unity in Malaysia.

The results of the survey are encouraging in that the young citizens of all races are optimistic on the state of national unity in Peninsula Malaysia.  With this positive note, we hope the Government will genuinely work on it to encourage further integration among the youth of various races.
 
During the last General Elections, the youth had played an important role in breaking down the hegemonic rule of BN.  The youth of all races and religions and of all economic and educational backgrounds, came together and stood up for their rights and fought against injustices.  Can this feeling of the youth be harnessed for the good of the country?  We, in BN, did not see this.  Now we see it, can the Government do something about it?
 
Mr Edmund Bon was right in saying that Government’s approach in getting youth together has been surface-deep.  The areas Government should look at are that of education which should bring the students of all races together again and of economic policies which should be more equitable regardless of race, especially in the implementation of the NEP.
 
The Raja Muda of Perak, Raja Dr Nazrin Shah is right to say that national unity or racial harmony in Malaysia depends on the stability of the Malay mind.  This is a question of feeling secured in this country.  No politicians should under-estimate this.  While promoting for a more open, equal and just society, we should not neglect the “feeling of insecurity” of the Malays.  That does not mean that in order not to make Malays feel insecure, politicians should call for the “Ketuanan Melayu”.  In doing so, they will commit the same mistake of UMNO and will be rejected by the youth and all Malaysians.
 
The world has changed.  We all Malaysians must change or will be left behind by history.

The Story
In March 1988, Salleh, the then Lord President, had written to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on behalf of the judges expressing disappointment with accusations made by then Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad (now Tun) against the judiciary. Two months later, Salleh was suspended; and High Court of Malaya Chief Justice Tan Sri Abdul Hamid Omar was appointed acting Lord President. Salleh was brought before a tribunal for misconduct. He filed a suit in the High Court and called the tribunal “unconstitutional”. He also applied for an interim stay against the tribunal. Initially, it was denied, until 5 Supreme Court judges convened and granted Salleh an interlocutory order against the tribunal. This order was later reversed. In August 1988, Salleh was officially removed from his post of Lord President. The five Supreme Court judges who granted Salleh the order: Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin, Eusoffe, Tan Sri Wan Hamzah Mohamed Salleh, Wan Suleiman and Seah were suspended. In October, Wan Sulaiman and Seah were sacked while the other 3 judges were reinstated. This series of events later became known as the judicial crisis of 1988, from which the judiciary has never recovered.

After Two Decades 
And after two decades, in April 2008, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi called the six judges who were sacked or suspended in 1988 “towering judicial personalities” in the Bar Council dinner at the JW Marriot Hotel and said that the nation never fully recovered from the judicial crisis 20 years ago.Below are the excerpts of the few quotes from Pak Lah’s speech.
“For many, the events of 1988 were an upheaval of the nation’s judicial system. Rightly or wrongly, many disputed both the legality and morality of the related proceedings. For me, personally, I feel it was a time of crisis from which the nation never fully recovered.”

“For me and for many other Malaysians, these towering judicial personalities represent a very different era for the nation’s judiciary. Many felt that the judiciary then was a venerable institution which could be trusted to deliver justice. Some even hailed Malaysia’s judiciary as a model for other countries – independent and credible.”

“Let us move on. I do no think it is wise or helpful to revisit past decisions as it would only serve to prolong the sense of crisis – something our nation can do without. The rakyat wants movement and progress, not continuing strife.”

“For Tan Sri Eusoffe and Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman and their families, I know this sentiment is made too late. For Tun Salleh Abas, Tan Sri Kamaruddin, Tan Sri Wan Hamzah and Datuk George Seah, although this acknowledgement is 20 years too late, it is made with much hope that a measure of the pain and loss may yet be healed.”

“Gentlemen, I do not presume to equate your contributions, pain and loss with mere currency, but I hope that you could accept this as a heartfelt and sincere gesture to mend what has been.”

There was no apology in Pak Lah’s speech but it did not matter. The regret and the admission of wrongdoing on the part of the executive were evident from the choice of words and the manner of delivery.   

Judicial Reform 
Apart from that Abdullah and his team in the Government made the first move towards the judicial reform by announcing that the Government would set up a Judicial Appointments Commission to identify and recommend candidates for the Bench, and strengthen the principle of separation of powers.He also announced that the Government will begin reviewing the salaries of judges with the aim of attracting and retaining the country’s best talent.

The question is, how long can Pak Lah be persistent?

From NST > Sunday Interview (06/04/08)

A month after its disastrous outing in the March 8 general election, Gerakan secretary-general Datuk Seri Chia Kwang Chye tells TAN CHOE CHOE that the party would move forward and rebuild by going back to its core values and seeking new talents

Q: What is the sentiment like in the party now?

A: We ’re going round the country, meeting members, organising and rebuilding. It’s been meeting after meeting. The turnout had been surprisingly good —packed rooms in Perak, Penang, and Kuala Lumpur — despite the short notices.I think the (election) results created a sense of urgency among members and this is a positive thing. We need to galvanise it into a new energy to move the party forward.

We can either cry over spilt milk or turn this defeat into something positive.

Q: What is this new direction for Gerakan?

A: From the feedback, we know Gerakan’s core values are intact.

We ’re proud that we still have a positive political culture among our members.

I believe people voted against Barisan Nasional and, of course, Gerakan is in the way. A lot of people have expressed sympathy, support and regret. But we have become less vocal.

And while we maintained our political culture and values, we did not impose them —we did not tell our component partners that these are the values of a Malaysian society; that they should practise them too.

We should see how we can have a healthier political culture within BN —that will be our new mission as a component party.

Wewant to move forward by going back to our core values, political culture and ideology.

To rebuild, we also need new talents; younger leaders and grassroot members.

Q: (Acting president) Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon and (Gerakan adviser) Datuk Seri Dr Lim Keng Yaik said the arrogance of certain Umno leaders had angered voters. Would the results have been different if Gerakan had spoken up about this earlier?

A: The results are multi-factorial. The major factor is the anti-BN wind that’s sweeping across the country, caused by political events in the past two years. We know some statements made by our component parties were extreme and we have expressed our opinion, but maybe not loud enough.

Perhaps if we had been more vocal, it could have reduced the catastrophe; checked the anti-BN wind that was blowing.

I don’t like to blame anybody because what’s important is to examine ourselves first. Ifwe had not done our best to correct something which was very different from our core values, perhaps we should make a more concerted and stronger stand and make it known that this is something which we cannot tolerate. We will do it now, to whatever limit we can.

Q: Gerakan has often been touted as a Chinese-based party, so what are these core values? Are they still of multi-culturalism, multi- racialism?

A: Our slogan has always been to build a fair and just Malaysia. We have embraced the Vision 2020 and we’ve almost adopted the (concept of) Bangsa Malaysia. You can call it Bangsa Malaysia or Malaysian. Whatever it is, we should have a common identity and common goal to move forward.Gerakan’s ideals are still based on multi-ethnicity.

A: Our mistake is thatwe have not championed the Malaysian cause more strongly. I think there’s a growing group, especially the young, who’re very different. They think Malaysian. But it’s better late than never.

We were the first few to approach politics from a solely nonethnic viewpoint—the Malaysian way. But we’ve lost the initiative.

The voters now don’t care of what colour or creed the candidates are.

It’s a wake-up call and we want to seize (back) the initiative.

Q: What made the party lose the initiative? Is it complacency?

A: We can say it’s complacency, maybe it’s because of economic development. The emphasis on ideological and philosophical base (of the party) has weakened, not only in Gerakan, but in other parties too.

At the same time, issues of religion and language have brought in two extremes. One is a more negative, narrow, conservative group which is more inward-looking visà- vis their own religion.

Then there’s a younger group who feel we should tolerate and accept Malaysia as a multi-ethnic society, respect everyone’s differences.

Yes, we have lost focus, perhaps because we have not emphasised enough on Bangsa Malaysia. We have always maintained it in our national conferences, (but) the question is how to translate this down to the grassroots.

Q: Some people are saying that Koh Tsu Koon’s indecision over his successor was one of the main contributors to Gerakan’s poor outing.

A: My answer is still the same.

(The results) have multiple causes.

Some are more dominant.

Q: So you won’t deny it?

A: This is one of the factors that many people have told me. The reason I don’t want to say this is because I’m (one of) the interested parties. If I agree too much, then people will say it’s sour grapes.

That ’s why I’m not saying anything.

Q: You say Gerakan champions multi-ethnicity. But whywere only Chinese candidates fielded in the last general election?

A: Perhaps, we have become too idealistic and alienated from the reality. There is a difference between form and content.Content is that if we are Malaysian-thinking, I don’t see you as a Chinese, but a Malaysian. So it doesn’t matter whether I field a Chinese, Indian or Malay as a candidate.

But society is not ready for it. So it seems we have to go back to form —to be multi-ethnic.

Being Malaysian and being multi- ethnic is different. The latter means I have to have Indian, Malay and Chinese candidates, but the former means it doesn’t matter what colour, creed or even gender.

But the reality doesn’t permit that, so we should be more realistic and pragmatic.

Q: Both Dr Toh Kin Soon (Gerakan veteran) and (national youth vice-chairman) S. Paranjothy commented on the Hindraf issue last year but only Paranjothy was referred to the disciplinary committee. How would you explain this?

A: There’s a difference between party discipline and the merit of the statements. We may agree with the content, but disagree with the party discipline actions.

But it’s over already. We’ll find better ways to handle (such issues).

But issues like this, seemingly small, added up. It’s like the one that broke the camel’s back. We don’t know which one, but it’s the last straw.

Q: Somepeople think parties like DAP and Keadilan are more multi- ethnic than what Gerakan has become.

A: Who has the longer record as a Malaysian party and has been championing multi-ethnicity and a Malaysian Malaysia? I won’t say we are the only ones butwe have a longer history and we’re able to mix and struggle with Malaysians of multi-ethnicity —use non-Chinese if you like, although I don’t like the word. This is something that ’s not easy to forge.We ’ve proven our political culture and we can work together.That is not something that many parties can claim.

Q: Dr Toh Kin Soon suggested that Gerakan leave BN if it can’t push through the reforms needed.

A: Different people have pointed out different options for us —stay in BN, join the opposition, or go independent.

At this juncture, the time is not right (to leave).

We will continue to reform from within until such time that it can’t be done. Then, it (leaving) is something we have to rethink.

To move forward, we have to think of how to unite all Malaysians to think as Malaysians and to look at this country as belonging to all of us.

Q: How about merging with component parties of similar ideology, like PPP?

A: We ’ve always had good working relationships with our component parties. If the time or situation permits a merger, then so be it. But I will not force the issue now.

Q: How would you describe the road ahead for Gerakan?

It’s going to be long, tough, and lonely because we’ve set ourselves high ideals. When I say lonely, it’s lonely in the sense that you’re the only one…what Malaysian society are you talking about, (when) nobody talks about it.

Q: So we are going to see a more vocal Gerakan in the future?

A: You ’re seeing it already. Butwe don’t want to be vocal for the sake of being vocal, but based on the values and ideology we believe in.

If it’s not good for Malaysians, we have to speak up.

Q: Will it be difficult, given BN’s norm of discussing things behind closed doors?

A: If we can resolve behind closed doors, we will do it. But if it comes out in the public, if certain people have amassed wealth that’s beyond their means and glaringly displaying it, then do you stillwant to keep quiet?

Q: How is Gerakan adapting to the role of opposition in Penang?

A: We ’re watching. We’ll set up our own committee to monitor DAP and see how it performs.

On the 6th of March 2008, DAP’s 23 parliamentary and state candidates in Penang made their pledge at the Penang Esplanade.

Part of DAP candidate’s pledges to the people if they were elected as representatives were:
- To promote greater efficiency, accountability and transparency.
- Provide a credible check-and-balance in both state assembly and parliament to ensure people’s interests are put at the top priority and not political interests.
- Champion for justice, fairness and equality for all regardless of race, gender, creed, status or belief.

On the first day when DAP formed the Penang state government, they waived all summons issued by the local council against hawkers and parking offenders.

Then they claim to have canceled the state EXCOs’ official cars which have been purchased by the previous government.

And recently, they efficiently formed a special panel headed by Deputy Chief Minister I Mohammad Fairus Khairuddin will comprise Deputy CM II Dr P. Ramasamy and exco member Phee Boon Poh to investigate the “land improprieties” during the previous government’s practices.

When it comes to the recent malicious short message (SMS) has been circulating that accuses Koh Tsu Koon of cheating the people of Penang by placing a 1.52ha piece of land at Rifle Range in the name of Umno Youth deputy chief Khairy Jamaluddin, Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng has been keeping quiet since a few weeks ago. If he is to promote greater efficiency, people’s interests are put at the the top priority and not political interests & champion for justice, fairness and equality for all regardless of race, gender, creed, status or belief; he should have called for a stop on the issue and make clear of the issue. As a matter of fact, the land was registered to the Penang Island Municipal Council (MPPP).

Another case is on the RapidPenang’s bus drivers who were threatened with parangs by their rival’s bus drivers. RapidPenang has since then divert their picking and dropping passengers’ spot to another location which has caused inconvenience. If the DAP were talking about putting people’s interests at the top priority, they should have handled the issue ASAP as it concerns the public’s safety and convenience.

To promote greater efficiency, accountability and transparency.
Are they really sincere in promoting greater efficiency, accountability and transparency? Or are there any political motives behind their actions? If they hold to their pledges, they should have make clear of the issue instead of letting it floating around the SMSes for weeks. All they have to do is to clarify the ownership of the land with the Land Office and send a press statement to the press. Maybe, this issue brings benefit to the DAP-PKR government if the rumours keep on spreading among the public.

Provide a credible check-and-balance in both state assembly and parliament to ensure people’s interests are put at the top priority and not political interests.
This case has shown that the new state goverenment put their political interests as their top priority. I am sure people of Penang can judge this case fairly.

Champion for justice, fairness and equality for all regardless of race, gender, creed, status or belief.
Justice, fairness and equality for all regardless of race, gender, creed, status or belief? It is already a fact that the land was registered to the MPPP. They didn’t hold to their pledge to fight for justice for Koh since they promised to fight for all.

It seems like they have kept their pledges and promises by waving the local council’s summons, canceling the purchase of the EXCO’s official car. But, they didn’t make clear of a rumuor. They didn’t quickly solve the issue concerned with the public’s safety and convenience. And again, can they really be trusted to keep their pledges?