Konflik kepentingan, integriti dan kepentingan seluruh negara menjadi persoalan

Jika ini bukan konflik kepentingan, maka apakah erti tersebut? Menteri Undang-undang Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar  berkata saham yang dimiliki oleh Azam “tidak mahal” apabila ia diperoleh pada 2016 — berharga antara 30 sen dan 33 sen setiap satu — dan bahawa satu juta unit bernilai RM330,000 pada masa - 

https://www.theborneopost.com/2022/01/08/wan-junaidi-azam-bakis-saham-hanya-rm330k-mampu-dan-tidak-mahal/ 

Kami mohon untuk tidak bersetuju sebagai MP Sungai Buloh R Sivarasa memberitahu FMT bahawa "Menteri Undang-undang Wan Junaidi telah salah fakta dan undang-undangnya dalam mempertahankan penyerang rasuah Azam Baki atas pemilikan saham korporatnya". Ringkasnya, Wan Junaidi silap mengenai nilai saham yang dimiliki Azam, begitu juga dengan undang-undang pemilikan saham oleh penjawat awam.

Rekod menunjukkan bahawa saham dan waran telah dibeli di bawah nama Azam antara 2015 dan 2016 dalam dua syarikat senarai awam. Menurut Sivarasa, nilanyanya kira-kira RM2 juta.

Untuk rekod, Azam berkata dia tidak membeli saham tersebut. Sebaliknya abangnya telah menggunakan akaun sahamnya untuk membelinya. Sivarasa berkata Wan Junaidi juga tidak mengendahkan Pekeliling Perkhidmatan 3/2002, yang menetapkan had RM100,000 ke atas nilai saham yang boleh dimiliki oleh penjawat awam dalam satu syarikat.

Beliau juga berkata tiada lagi rekod pemilikan saham Azam selepas 2016, menunjukkan bahawa saham itu telah dilupuskan. “Di mana wang itu?” katanya, sambil menambah perkara ini perlu disiasat.

Suruhanjaya Sekuriti (SC) telah menjelaskan bahawa ia tidak menemui bukti dagangan proksi oleh Tan Sri Azam Baki kerana ketua pesuruhjaya Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia mengawal sepenuhnya akaun dagangan saham yang didakwanya membenarkan abangnya menggunakannya.

Penjelasan itu adalah untuk kenyataannya pada 18 Januari 2022 di mana ia berkata Azam tidak melanggar Seksyen 25(4) Akta Industri Sekuriti (Depositori Pusat) 1991.

Suruhanjaya Sekuriti berkata kesimpulan ini adalah kerana Azam dinamakan sebagai pemegang akaun dan mempunyai kawalan ke atas akaun dagangan tersebut.

Kedua, ketua pesuruhjaya SPRM dikatakan telah mengendalikan akaun tersebut, "di mana beliau telah memberi arahan untuk membeli, menjual dan memindahkan sekuriti daripada akaun tersebut."

“Oleh itu, SC membuat keputusan bahawa tiada pelanggaran seksyen 25(4) Akta Industri Sekuriti (Depositori Pusat) 1991,” kata pengawal selia secara ringkas. Memandangkan Suruhanjaya Sekuriti telah secara rasmi menyatakan bahawa tiada bukti muktamad bahawa seksyen telah dilanggar, maka secara inferens, Azam adalah pemilik benefisial dengan berdagang secara sah dalam akaunnya sendiri. Oleh itu, tidak diragukan lagi bahawa Azam berbohong kepada Lembaga Penasihat Pencegahan Rasuah bahawa abangnya menggunakan akaunnya untuk membeli saham dan saham itu adalah milik abangnya. Dipendekkan cerita, - jika Azam telah memberitahu kebenaran dari awal, maka dia tidak perlu mengingati apa-apa dan tidak juga 'perlu bercakap satu lagi pembohongan untuk menutup pembohongan pertama, kemudian pembohongan lain, dan seterusnya. Bukankah lebih mudah untuk memberitahu kebenaran daripada berbohong?'

Ahli Parlimen Damansara Tony Pua merumuskannya dengan terbaik apabila beliau dipetik sebagai berkata bahawa "tidak hairanlah ketua pesuruhjaya SPRM Azam Baki tidak mahu hadir di hadapan Jawatankuasa Pilihan Parlimen (PSC), kerana Azam "tidak dapat meluruskan ceritanya".

“Pertama, (Azam) mendakwa saham itu milik abangnya, yang menggunakan akaunnya.

"Kemudian, apabila SC menyiasat, mereka mendapati tiada salah laku kerana mereka mendapati tiada dagangan proksi kerana Azam menjalankan urus niaga saham itu sendiri," Yang berkata, dua kesalahan juga tidak menjadikan satu betul. Akibatnya, dakwaan Azam bahawa dia telah memindahkan saham kepada abangnya juga disyaki. Jika dia benar-benar melakukan itu, Azam mungkin mahu membebaskan dirinya daripada menjelaskan bagaimana dia mempunyai cara untuk membeli saham itu dan melanggar peraturan perkhidmatan awam.

Jadi, ia kembali kepada perkara pertama mengenai caj konflik kepentingan. Tambahan pula, kini nampaknya Azam seolah-olah berbohong untuk melarikan diri dari sebarang siasatan lanjut. Oleh kerana itu, keputusan SC hanya membawa kepada siasatan lanjut mengenai kemungkinan pelanggaran 'undang-undang dan peraturan lain'.

Ini menimbulkan persoalan - apa yang salah dengan seseorang yang enggan mengakui bahawa mereka telah ditangkap berbohong, seperti dalam kes Azam Baki? Mungkin Menteri Undang-undang kita mungkin ada jawapan yang lebih baik. Sekiranya kita tidak lupa, beliau juga dipuji pada September 2021 kerana merujuk bahawa "Keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur bahawa anak-anak yang dilahirkan di luar negara kepada ibu Malaysia juga layak mendapat kerakyatan adalah menyerlahkan," hanya untuk kita berasa kecewa bahawa kerajaan, JPN dan Kementerian Dalam Negeri telah memfailkan usul untuk meminta penangguhan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi kerana pendengaran rayuan kerajaan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi dijadualkan pada 22 Mac tahun depan di Mahkamah Rayuan. “Peguam Negara Tan Sri Idrus Harun dipetik dalam mesej teks kepada FMT pada hari yang sama bahawa notis rayuan telah difailkan pada sebelah pagi dan beliau berkata tiga menteri persekutuan, termasuk menteri undang-undang Datuk Seri Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar, telah secara terbuka menyokong keputusan itu.” Sungguh 'pertemuan rapat' jenis flip-flop. Kita tidak boleh tidak takut bahawa kisah Azam Baki ini mungkin berakhir dengan 'kesimpulan yang serupa'. Kepada Menteri Undang-undang kita Wan Junaidi. Kami berdoa agar 'episod gelap' ini disinari oleh pertimbangan yang baik dan rasa tanggungjawab dan komitmen beliau terhadap pembaharuan seperti yang dijanjikan oleh kerajaan PN2.0. Bukti telahpun dilihat dengan jelas. Kami percaya Menteri Undang-undang kami lebih mengetahui apa yang perlu dilakukan, selepas semua kebenaran ini muncul. 

Walaupun Azam mampu untuk membeli saham seperti yang didakwanya, rakyat Malaysia yang berfikiran benar tidak mampu untuk mempercayai bahawa sesiapa pun berada di atas undang-undang, paling tidak ketua pesuruhjaya SPRM Tan Sri Azam Baki.

Menurut petikan daripada Lord Hewart - "Keadilan bukan sahaja mesti dilakukan, tetapi juga mesti dilihat untuk dilakukan" di Malaysia ketika kita kini berada dalam kesempitan yang teruk dan di bawah penelitian oleh seluruh dunia mengenai 'sesuatu yang benar-benar busuk hingga ke inti. '.
Konflik kepentingan menjadi persoalan dan begitu juga integriti dan kepentingan seluruh negara.

***** ENGLISH *****

If this wasn’t a conflict of interest, then what is it ?

Law Minister Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar was quoted as saying the shares owned by Azam were “not expensive” when they were acquired in 2016 — priced between 30 sen and 33 sen each — and that the one million units were valued at RM330,000 at the time - https://www.theborneopost.com/2022/01/08/wan-junaidi-azam-bakis-shares-only-rm330k-affordable-and-not-expensive/

We beg to disagree as  Sungai Buloh MP R Sivarasa told FMT that “Law minister Wan Junaidi has got his facts and law wrong in defending top graft-buster Azam Baki over his ownership of corporate shares”. In short, Wan Junaidi was wrong on the value of shares owned by Azam, as well as on the laws on share ownership by public servants.

Records show that shares and warrants were bought under Azam’s name between 2015 and 2016 in two public-listed companies. This, Sivarasa said, would have been worth some RM2 million.

For the record, Azam has said that he did not purchase the shares and that his brother had used his share account to purchase them. Sivarasa said Wan Junaidi had also ignored Service Circular 3/2002, which sets a RM100,000 cap on the value of shares that a civil servant can own in a single company.

He also said there are no more records of Azam’s share ownership after 2016, indicating that the shares had been disposed of. “Where is the money?” he said, adding this needs to be probed.

The Securities Commission (SC) had clarified that it found no evidence of proxy trading by Tan Sri Azam Baki as the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission chief commissioner was in full control of a share trading account he claimed he let his brother use.

The clarification was for its statement on 18^th January 2022 in which it said Azam did not breach Section 25(4) of the Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991.

The Securities Commission said this conclusion was because Azam was named as the account holder and had control of the said trading account.

Secondly, the MACC chief commissioner was said to have operated the said account, “in that he had given instructions to buy, sell and transfer securities from the said account.”

“Therefore, the SC arrived at the decision that there was no breach of section 25(4) of the Securities Industry (Central Depositories) Act 1991,” the regulator said briefly.

Since the Securities Commission had officially stated that there was no conclusive evidence that section was violated, then by inference, Azam was the beneficial owner by legally trading in his own account.

Therefore, it goes without saying that Azam lied to the Anti-Corruption Advisory Board that his brother used his account to buy the shares and the shares belonged to his brother.

To cut a long story short, - if Azam had told the truth from the beginning, then he didn’t have to remember anything nor ‘have to tell another lie to cover the first lie, then another lie, and so on. Isn’t it so much easier to tell the truth than it is to lie?’

Damansara MP Tony Pua sums it up best when he was quoted as saying that “it is no wonder MACC chief commissioner Azam Baki does not want to appear before the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC), since Azam “cannot get his story straight”.

“First, (Azam) claimed that the shares belonged to his brother, who used his account.

“Then, when the SC investigated, they found no wrongdoing because they found no proxy trading as Azam carried out the share transactions himself,”

That said, two wrongs also don’t make one right.

Consequently, the claim by Azam that he had transferred the shares to his brother is also suspect. If he had indeed done that, Azam probably wanted to exonerate himself from explaining how he had the means to buy the shares and was in violation of civil service regulations.

So, it is back to square one on the conflict-of-interest charges. Furthermore, it now appears Azam seemed to lie to escape any further probes. As it is, the SC decision only leads to further investigations on possible violations of ‘other laws and regulations’.

This begs the question - what is wrong with someone who refuses to acknowledge they have been caught lying, as in the case of Azam Baki ?

Perhaps our Law Minister may have a better answer. Lest we forget, he was also commended in September, 2021 for alluding that the “The Kuala Lumpur High Court’s decision that children born overseas to Malaysian mothers are also eligible for citizenship is illuminating,” only for us to be utterly dismayed that the government, NRD and the Home Ministry had filed a motion to seek a stay of the High Court's decision as the hearing of the government's appeal against the High Court ruling is scheduled for March 22 next year at the Court Of Appeal.

“Attorney-General Tan Sri Idrus Harun was quoted in a text message to FMT on the same day that the notice of appeal had been filed in the morning and he said three federal ministers, including law minister Datuk Seri Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar, had openly supported the decision.” What a ‘close encounter’ of the flip-flop kind.

We cannot help but dread that this Azman Baki saga may end up in a ‘similar conclusion’.

Over to our Law Minister Wan Junaidi. We pray that this ‘dark episode’ be illuminated by his good judgement and sense of duty and commitment to the reforms as promised by the PN2.0 government. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

We believe our Law Minister knows best what to do, after all these truths have surfaced.

Even if Azman could afford to buy the shares as he claimed, right-thinking Malaysians cannot afford to believe that anyone is above the law, least of all the MACC chief commissioner Tan Sri Azam Baki.

To borrow a quote from Lord Hewart - “Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done” in Malaysia when we are now in dire straits and under scrutiny by the whole world over ‘something is really rotten to the core’.

Conflict of interest is in question and so is the integrity and interests of the whole nation.

The Rejected and the Dejected

 The Rejected and the Dejected

What normally happens to ‘rejected goods’ ?

Often when a shipment is rejected at the receiver it causes lost time, additional fuel costs and wasted products.
From a sustainability perspective, this can negate prior cost savings and fuel efficiency. Carriers end up losing out on their next shipments, spending more in fuel for reroutes and the disposition process can hold up their truck for weeks in some cases.
From the shipper’s perspective, product rejections can incur additional shipping costs and waste entire truckloads of product, and even strain the relationship with a customer. 

In short, ‘Rejected Goods’ reflect poorly on the supplier and manufacturer – the ‘Product Owner’.

What then could be worse than ‘rejected goods’ ?

For Malaysia, it came in the form of ‘rejected Ambassadors’
Obviously, there are ‘defects’ in the quality of the aspiring or proposed candidates.

It was reported by a credible news portal on 9^th November 2021 that Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob has named Pasir Salak MP Tajuddin Abdul Rahman as the new ambassador-designate to Indonesia, according to government sources.

Indonesian news agency Antara reported Tajuddin's rumoured appointment last month and the former Prasarana chief was also spotted among Ismail Sabri's entourage during the prime minister's first official visit to Jakarta.

"Basically, the prime minister has put forward Tajuddin's name, and it's pretty much confirmed unless the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or (Indonesian president) Jokowi rejects him.”

However, this appointment appeared to have hit a snag with ongoing speculation of considerations being done by the Foreign Affairs Ministry as to whether he should be the country’s ambassador to Indonesia.

Sources from Wisma Putra told ‘The Vibes’ how their ministry was told to review the decision of Tajuddin being appointed as ambassador.

Datuk Seri Tajuddin Abdul Rahman himself chose neither to deny or confirm if he is the government’s choice as the ambassador to Indonesia and even tried to pass the buck by stating that “I don’t want to say anything, it’s not nice for me to say anything. You have to ask that question to the prime minister. If not, it will cause an unnecessary controversy, people will say this and that, you know how it is in Malaysia, all sorts of things can be written.”

Whatever the reasons, it was another disastrous case of ‘national embarrassment’ for Malaysia, if not humiliation for the PN Government of Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Ismail Sabri Yaakob.

If one ‘national embarrassment’ were not bad enough, it took two to tango when it was revealed that the foreign ministry was also told to review the possibility of Padang Rengas MP Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz as the ambassador to Switzerland.

When Pakatan came into power after the 14th General Election in 2018, Dr Mahathir made it clear that politicians would no longer be allowed to be appointed as ambassadors, and that the ministry itself requested that there should not be any political nominees for overseas postings.

But as is the practice, the ministry does not publicise any nomination for an ambassadorship, even if it involves one of their career diplomats. There is a simple reason for this. The receiving state would have to agree first to Malaysia’s nominee and then only can the official announcement be made.

The process is pretty straight forward. It is usually Wisma Putra that will submit the name of the person nominated to be the ambassador, with the Prime Minister’s approval, to the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong. It is the prerogative of the King to give his consent to the proposed name.

To put it simply, ambassadors are emissaries of the state. An ambassador carries with him credentials from the King as the Malaysian head of state to present to the host country’s head of state.

It is a job requiring dignity. It is about sending a representative to a country whose bilateral relations we treasure and one that takes care of Malaysia’s interests abroad. It is not just out of respect to the receiving country but also out of respect to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the institution of the monarchy.

The person that the Malaysian government nominates to be an ambassador must be a suitable candidate with the right background. The choice should also reflect the kind of bilateral relations that Putrajaya has with the receiving state.

Any host government would naturally conduct a background check on an ambassador nominee, just as we do in Malaysia – the Royal Malaysia Police is given that task before we accept any foreign ambassador.

Just put yourself in the shoes of the foreign government if the sending state’s nominee is a non-diplomat and a high-profile person.

“Any government will look at the CV, do a background check. Their own intel will have all the information, especially what’s put out there on social media.

“If the nominee is a politician, the receiving state will question if the move is a political expedient. Naturally they will question how Malaysia views bilateral relations with the host country,” said a diplomat.

When a receiving country says no, whether explicitly or through silence, it is an embarrassment to the Malaysian government. A huge one.

Consider too what the foreign government must have felt. They must have considered it very carefully before taking this course of action. No government wants to be put on the spot. This is not just about the image of this country - this is about being respectful of another country.

Well, the Malaysian government should have known better. It reflects poor judgment on our part. We should have known not to put the receiving state in such a difficult position that it actually – gently – refused our nomination.

We should not treat ambassadorships like “jobs for the boys”, and that applies to appointing special advisors to some office.

It’s time we sensitised ourselves again to this age-old tradition.

After consent is given, the Malaysian mission will be directed to send a Third Persons Note to the foreign ministry of the receiving state, which will then communicate to Malaysia whether the nomination is accepted.

To conclude, how low can the ‘Keluarga Malaysia’ Government go ?
When once bitten it was not twice shy ?
When twice bitten, it still wants to try ?
Rejection is bad enough.
Dejection is even worse, for Malaysia and Malaysians.
Don’t you agree ?
‘Keluarga Malaysia’ – what a big joke !

➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖

 (Versi Bahasa)

Yang Ditolak dan Yang Dikecewakan

 

Apakah yang biasanya berlaku kepada 'barangan yang ditolak'?

Selalunya, apabila penghantaran ditolak, akan membuatkan penerimanya kehilangan masa, kos penghantaran dan produk yang disia-siakan.

Dari perspektif kemampanan, ini boleh menafikan penjimatan kos dan kecekapan kos penghantaran sebelumnya. Penghantar akhirnya kehilangan penghantaran seterusnya, membelanjakan lebih banyak bahan api untuk laluan semula dan proses pelupusan boleh menahan trak mereka selama berminggu-minggu dalam beberapa kes.

Dari perspektif penghantar, penolakan produk boleh menyebabkan kos penghantaran tambahan dan membazirkan keseluruhan trak produk, malah merenggangkan hubungan dengan pelanggan.

Ringkasnya, 'Barang yang Ditolak' mencerminkan dengan buruk pada pembekal dan pengilang - 'Pemilik Produk'.

Apakah yang lebih buruk daripada 'barangan yang ditolak'?

Bagi Malaysia, ia datang dalam bentuk 'Duta yang ditolak'

Jelas sekali, terdapat 'kecacatan' dalam kualiti calon yang bercita-cita atau yang dicadangkan.

Dilaporkan oleh portal berita, pada 9 November 2021 bahawa Perdana Menteri Ismail Sabri Yaakob telah menamakan Ahli Parlimen Pasir Salak Tajuddin Abdul Rahman sebagai duta baru yang dilantik ke Indonesia, menurut sumber kerajaan.

Agensi berita Indonesia Antara melaporkan bahawa pelantikan Tajuddin yang dikhabarkan bulan lalu dan bekas ketua Prasarana itu turut ditemui dalam kalangan rombongan Ismail Sabri semasa lawatan rasmi perdana menteri ke Jakarta.

"Pada asasnya, perdana menteri telah mengemukakan nama Tajuddin, dan ia cukup banyak disahkan melainkan Yang di-Pertuan Agong atau (Presiden Indonesia) Jokowi menolaknya."

Bagaimanapun, pelantikan ini nampaknya telah melanda dengan spekulasi berterusan pertimbangan yang sedang dilakukan oleh Kementerian Luar Negeri sama ada beliau patut menjadi duta negara ke Indonesia.

Sumber dari Wisma Putra memberitahu ‘The Vibes’ bagaimana kementerian mereka disuruh menyemak semula keputusan Tajuddin dilantik sebagai duta.

Datuk Seri Tajuddin Abdul Rahman sendiri memilih untuk tidak menafikan atau mengesahkan sama ada beliau adalah pilihan kerajaan sebagai duta ke Indonesia malah cuba untuk lulus dengan menyatakan bahawa “Saya tak nak cakap apa-apa, tak elok saya cakap. apa sahaja. Anda perlu bertanya soalan itu kepada perdana menteri. Jika tidak, ia akan menimbulkan kontroversi yang sepatutnya tidak berlaku, orang akan berkata ini dan itu, anda tahu bagaimana keadaan di Malaysia, macam-macam boleh ditulis.”

Walau apa pun alasannya, ia adalah satu lagi kes 'memalukan negara' bagi Malaysia, jika tidak menghina Kerajaan PN Perdana Menteri Dato' Sri Ismail Sabri Yaakob.

Jika satu 'memalukan negara' tidak cukup teruk, ia mengambil masa untuk mendedahkan bahawa kementerian luar juga diberitahu untuk mengkaji kemungkinan Ahli Parlimen Padang Rengas Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz sebagai duta ke Switzerland.

Apabila Pakatan berkuasa selepas Pilihan Raya Umum ke-14 pada 2018, Dr Mahathir menjelaskan bahawa ahli politik tidak lagi dibenarkan untuk dilantik sebagai duta, dan kementerian itu sendiri meminta supaya tidak ada calon politik untuk penempatan di luar negara.

Tetapi seperti yang diamalkan, kementerian tidak menghebahkan sebarang pencalonan untuk jawatan duta, walaupun ia melibatkan salah seorang diplomat kerjaya mereka. Terdapat sebab mudah untuk ini. Negara penerima perlu bersetuju terlebih dahulu dengan penama Malaysia dan kemudian barulah pengumuman rasmi boleh dibuat.

Prosesnya agak lurus ke hadapan. Biasanya Wisma Putra akan menyerahkan nama orang yang dicalonkan untuk menjadi duta, dengan persetujuan Perdana Menteri, kepada Yang Di-Pertuan Agong. Ia adalah hak prerogatif Raja untuk memberi perkenan kepada nama yang dicadangkan.

Ringkasnya, duta adalah utusan negara. Seorang duta membawa bersamanya tauliah daripada Raja sebagai ketua negara Malaysia untuk disampaikan kepada ketua negara tuan rumah.

Ia adalah pekerjaan yang memerlukan maruah. Ia adalah mengenai menghantar wakil ke negara yang hubungan dua halanya kami hargai dan yang menjaga kepentingan Malaysia di luar negara. Ia bukan sekadar menghormati negara penerima tetapi juga menghormati Yang di-Pertuan Agong dan institusi beraja.

Orang yang dicalonkan oleh kerajaan Malaysia untuk menjadi duta mestilah calon yang sesuai dengan latar belakang yang betul. Pilihan itu juga harus mencerminkan jenis hubungan dua hala Putrajaya dengan negara penerima.

Mana-mana kerajaan tuan rumah secara semula jadi akan menjalankan pemeriksaan latar belakang ke atas calon duta, seperti yang kita lakukan di Malaysia – Polis Diraja Malaysia diberi tugas itu sebelum kita menerima mana-mana duta asing.

Letakkan sahaja diri anda dalam kedudukan kerajaan asing jika penama negeri yang menghantar adalah bukan diplomat dan orang berprofil tinggi.

“Mana-mana kerajaan akan lihat CV, buat semakan latar belakang. Intel mereka sendiri akan mempunyai semua maklumat, terutamanya apa yang dipaparkan di media sosial.

“Sekiranya penama adalah ahli politik, negeri yang menerima akan mempersoalkan sama ada langkah itu adalah tindakan politik. Sememangnya mereka akan mempersoalkan bagaimana Malaysia memandang hubungan dua hala dengan negara tuan rumah,” kata seorang diplomat.

Apabila negara penerima berkata tidak, sama ada secara jelas atau senyap, ia memalukan kerajaan Malaysia. Yang besar.

Pertimbangkan juga apa yang mesti dirasai oleh kerajaan asing. Mereka mesti mempertimbangkannya dengan teliti sebelum mengambil tindakan ini. Tiada kerajaan mahu diletakkan di tempat kejadian. Ini bukan hanya tentang imej negara - ini tentang menghormati negara lain.

Sepatutnya kerajaan Malaysia lebih tahu. Ia mencerminkan penilaian yang buruk di pihak kita. Kita sepatutnya tahu untuk tidak meletakkan negara penerima dalam kedudukan yang sukar sehingga ia sebenarnya – dengan lembut – menolak pencalonan kita.

Kita tidak seharusnya menganggap jawatan duta seperti "pekerjaan untuk kanak-kanak", dan itu terpakai untuk melantik penasihat khas ke beberapa pejabat.

Sudah tiba masanya kita menyedarkan diri kita semula kepada tradisi lama ini.

Selepas persetujuan diberikan, perwakilan Malaysia akan diarahkan untuk menghantar Nota Orang Ketiga kepada kementerian luar negeri penerima, yang kemudiannya akan memaklumkan kepada Malaysia sama ada pencalonan diterima.

Kesimpulannya, sejauh manakah Kerajaan ‘Keluarga Malaysia’ boleh pergi?

Apabila sekali digigit ia tidak dua kali malu?

Apabila dua kali digigit, ia masih mahu mencuba?

Penolakan sudah cukup teruk.

Kekecewaan lebih teruk lagi, bagi Malaysia dan rakyat Malaysia.

Adakah anda tidak bersetuju?

‘Keluarga Malaysia’ – Lawak besar yang amat melucukan!

 

Destroying Malaysia - Are We On The Way To Be A Failed Nation?

 Destroying Malaysia - Are We On The Way To Be A Failed Nation?

 

Destroying Malaysia - Are We On The Way To Be A Failed Nation?

SEREMBAN: Former Bank Muamalat Bhd chief executive officer Datuk Mohd Redza Abdul Wahid has apologised to the Agape Community Church and the Wah Chai Association on behalf of the Islamic banking community after the bank allegedly rejected a cheque issued by the religious group.

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2021/12/27/former-bank-muamalat-ceo-says-sorry-over-non-halal-cheque-issue?fbclid=IwAR17ve1xqeP1r2K6KoN-LXtXqTd7NDEAZNta6rfv6VxswVdH0DyyY3g9PLM

The news grab provided above is a consequence of an officer of Bank Muamalat rejecting a Maybank cheque which their customer wanted to bank-in, on the ground that the cheque was not halal. The cheque was eventually accepted after the bank’s HQ intervened. It was pretty obvious though  that the bank’s HQ intervened only after it dawned on them that the escalating bad press it was receiving did not auger well for their image and the  image of the Islamic banking community in Malaysia.

This article however is not so much about how non-muslims in Malaysia are being discriminated against and their legitimate rights under the federal constitution  eroded through the ever increasing imposition of halal haram policies. This article is about nation building and the part the Malaysian government played or did not play in it. It is an article about missed opportunities and the sad consequences thereof which we are seeing today.

May The 13^th Incident (Peristiwa 13 Mei)

The Malaysian nation, if anyone cared enough to admit it, did not start off well. Less than 6 years after the nation was born, it was rocked by race riots that was later on referred to as the May the 13^th Incident (Peristiwa 13 Mei) or the May the 13^th Tragedy. What caused the riots is debatable but the consequence was clear: Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia’s 1^st Prime Minister was forced to resign as prime minister in favour of his then deputy Tun Abdul Razak Hussien on Sept 22, 1970. It was a coup d’etat that allegedly was backed by the army and the police.

And, just like the Kampung Medan, Petaling Jaya riots in 2001, armed forces personnel and members of the PDRM brought in to quell the rioting were said to have shown bias treatment, resulting in unwarranted injuries and deaths. There was however no reports of any government inquiries made to investigate the alleged bias behaviour of the armed forces and the PDRM dispatched to the scenes of the rioting.

Tunku Abdul Rahman also stepped down as UMNO’s president in 1971. 

Dr. Kua Kia Soong, writing in his book the May 13: Declassified Documents On The Malaysian Riot 1969 said that the riot was caused by the ‘ascendant state capitalist class’ within UMNO who wanted to implement the Malay agenda.

Supposedly, through affirmative policies of the Malay agenda, the widening socioeconomic gap between the Chinese and the Malays would be arrested and over time, reduced.

For the Malay agenda to be successfully implemented, peace and stability must prevail in the country. There was a need to promote harmony among the various racial groups in the country and for all Malaysians to move forward, united as one nation.

The Rukun Negara (RN)

One of the hoped for catalyst for the moving forward as a nation was the national principle, otherwise known as the Rukun Negara.

The Rukun Negara (National Principles) was declared on 31 August 1970 to commemorate the 13th anniversary of the Independence of Malaya. It was introduced following the May 13 incident in 1969 which had weaken unity among the races in Malaysia. The purpose of the RN was to promote strong unity among Malaysians. The principles contained therein clearly are keys to harmony and unity and for the sake of the success and stability of the country.

The principles and the ideals contained therein are as follows:

· Achieving and fostering better unity amongst the society;

· Preserving a democratic way of life;

· Creating a just society where the prosperity of the country can be enjoyed together in a fair and equitable manner;

· Ensuring a liberal approach towards the rich and varied cultural traditions;

· Building a progressive society that will make use of science and modern technology.

These ideals were / are to be achieved through the application of the 5 principles namely:

· Belief in God

· Loyalty to the King and Country

· Supremacy of the Constitution

· Rules of Law

· Courtesy and Morality

The Rukun Negara, which used to be found on the back cover of school’s exercise books, to reinforce classroom teachings of the values enshrined in it, is now largely forgotten or ignored. One thing for certain, political leaders within successive governments especially those from Malaya have shown themselves to be not interested in the Rukun Negara and not interested in promoting it and the values contained therein.

A video clip that was trending in social media recently features current Prime Minister talking about the Malay Agenda and stirring up feelings of anger and resentment against the non-malay Malaysians.

https://www.facebook.com/100074003274426/videos/346532906936088/

The New Economic Policy (NEP)

On the heels of the Rukun Negara came the New Economic Policy (NEP), the body of the supposedly affirmative policies that was to address the problem of the huge socioeconomic gap between the bumiputra and the Chinese (and to facilitate the Malay agenda). It was launched in 1971, coinciding with the 2^nd Malaysia Plan and it was supposed to last until the end of the 5^th Malaysia Plan which was in 1990.

In 1970 and the years before, poverty rate in Malaysia stood at 49.3%, impoverishing some 791,800 households. The vast majority of the poor were Malays and the ethnic races of Sabah and Sarawak.

The NEP had twin objectives :  to eradicate poverty among Malaysians regardless of race and to restructure society so as to eliminate the identification of race with economic function. Supposedly, the NEP was intended to cultivate and foster conditions for national unity by eliminating inter-ethnic resentment caused by big gaps in the socioeconomic status between the various racial groups. In reality, the NEP was largely pro-Malay and its primary function was to promote the Malay agenda.

There is no doubt that the NEP had managed to largely eliminate hardcore poverty among the Malays. The Malay middle class has grown, the economy has diversified, and Malaysia has become an upper middle-income nation but there were also failures. While the middle class among the non-Bumiputeras had adapted as best as they can to this racially discriminatory policy, the working class, and the poor among the non-Bumiputeras had to cope with a life of abject poverty and marginalisation.

The UMNO-led government (pro-Malay) policies not only resulted in discrimination of the Chinese and the other non-Malay races in Malaysia but it had cause inter-ethnic resentment and mutual suspicions to fester.

The Kampung Medan riots in Petaling Jaya in 2001 was attributed to the festering discontentment and to urban poverty and strangely, it involved the Malays. It was said that the riot was one sign that the NEP, which was supposed to have achieve its objectives (and then expired) in 1990 was a failure. The Malays who benefited most from the NEP were members of the ruling elites in UMNO, the group which Dr. Kua Kia Soong refered to as the ascendant state capitalist class (and the members of the royal families). Many rural Malays and the urban poor Malays continue to struggle with poverty.

In August 2008, 18 years after the original expiry date of the NEP, Najib Tun Razak, then PM of minister announced that he will replace the NEP with the New Economic Model (NEM). The Malay agenda was and still is very much in the heart of the NEM and in Najib’s words the affirmative policies ‘will be better targeted’, whatever that means.

In short, the New Economic Policy which started out with the best intentions became a polarising policy associated with discrimination on one hand and entitlement as to rights on the other.

Nazir Tun Razak, brother to former Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak has been quoted as saying the principles in the NEP no longer work and have instead led to dysfunctional politics and growing divisions among Malaysia’s communities.

Biro Tata Negara (BTN)

In 1981, the Unit Penyelidikan Belia, which was a unit under the Youth Ministry, was renamed as the Biro Tata Negara (BTN) and transferred to the Prime Minister Department. BTN's stated objective is to nurture the spirit of patriotism and commitment to excellence among Malaysians, and train leaders and future leaders to support the nation's development efforts. BTN's programmes are controversial, and many accuse them of explicitly promoting the Ketuanan Melayu philosophy and the former governing coalition Barisan Nasional (BN). 

In late 2009, it became the subject of great controversy, when many allegations of racism and political propaganda appeared in quick succession. Blogger Din Merican, in a blog posting dated 5^th October 2010 called the BTN a taxpayer funded hate machine.

PM Mahathir Mohammad, former PM Muhyiddin Yassin and Ahmad Maslan were among the government leaders that were quick to defend the monstrous BTN.

During the Pakatan Harapan (PH) administration, the BTN was brought into the Ministry of Youth and Sports portfolio and was eventually abolished under its minsiter, Syed Saddiq. But the damage had been done. Generations of Malay civil servants who were indoctrinated with the Ketuanan Melayu philosophy through the training module of the BTN are now firmly embedded and entrenched in the civil service. One of the result of the BTN brainwashing is the near homogeneous civil service that we have today, one that is also imbued with Islamic values, Islam being the religion of the Malays.

Restrictions On Malaysian Christians

In 2007, Syed Hamid Albar, then the home minister, prohibited the Roman Catholic Church's Herald newspaper from using the word "Allah". The Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur, Murphy Pakiam, filed a lawsuit to overturn his decision. In 2009, the High Court found the Roman Catholic Church's use of the word constitutional, a ruling that sparked mob vandalism and arson directed at both Christian and Muslim properties. The dust on the Jill Ireland and the Allah’s saga, which started in 2008, despite Jill’s victory in the High Court in March 2021, has not settled yet because the federal government had chosen to file an appeal with the Court of Appeal. This case is expected to see closure only when it reaches the federal court.

There had also two been cases of high profile disappearance of Malaysians in what was considered by many a consequence of them practising their religion.

Zamri Che Mat who disappeared on the  24^th Nov 2016 and Pastor Raymond Koh who disappeared on 13^th Feb 2017 are still officially missing today and the government has not shown the requisite will power to locate these two gentleman.

In Apr 2011, as the ruling coalition Barisan Nasional commenced preparations for the PRU-13 in 2013, Idris Jala, then minister in the Prime Minister’s Department issued a 10-Points Resolution, offering it as a solution to the impasse over the use of the word Allah and the Malay bibles. It was quickly dismissed by the Council Of Churches Malaysia (CCM) Youth who said that the "quick-fix" proposal ignored the the overt and covert manner which the government had discriminated against the Christian citizenry for close to 40 years.

Until today, the Christians in Malaysia are nowhere near a position where their rights to freely profess their religion is fully respected. Social media is replete with postings and comments deriding Christianity. On the 26^th August 2020, parliament house became the preferred forum for PAS MP Nik Muhammad Zawawi Nik Salleh (Nik M Z) to offend the Christians by saying that the Christain Bible is distorted.

The Malaysian government did nothing substantive to reprimand Nik M Z.

In May 2014, then IGP Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar refused to carry out an order of the Ipoh High Court, issued in the case of M Indira Ghandi. In the case, M Indira Ghandi had filed a suit against her ex-husband for the unilateral conversion of her daughter to Islam by her ex-husband Muhammad Ridhuan Abdullah and for the return of her daughter into her custody.

The reason given by the IGP was there was a conflicting order from the Syariah High Court.

In April 2016, the federal court ordered the IGP to arrest Muhammad Ridhuan Abdullah but until today, he is still at large and M Indira Ghandi still has not gain custody of her daughter.

Zakir Nair - Controversial Preacher

In April 2017, then Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) Ahmad Zahid Hamidi confirmed that Zakir Naik, a controversial islamic preacher who hails from India was given a PR status in Malaysia since about 5 years before.

Zakir Naik is notorious for his harsh criticisms of non-Islamic religions and their followers, in his preaching and public talks. His teachings had caused fear and resentment among non-muslims in Malaysia. He also happened to be a fugitive from the laws of his home country where he is wanted for spreading extremism and money laundering. India has repeatedly requested the Malaysian government to extradite him to India but to no avail.

In Malaysia, he has been known to be accorded VVIP and/or star treatment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDa9t7qzKlo

Discrimination In Commerce And Industries

In Feb 2015, Ismail Sabri Ya’akob, then Agriculture and Agro-based Industries Minister had called on Malays, who form the majority in the country, to use their "power" to force the Chinese minority to cut prices. 

In July 2015, there was a rioting at Low Yat Plaza in Kuala Lumpur. At least 5 people were injured in the riotings. The Malay Mail on the 14^th July reported the incidents in these words, ‘Low Yat was about racism, deal with it’.

In the aftermath of the incident, Ismail Sabri Ya’akob suggested that a Malay-only digital mall should be set-up to provide a place for Malays to compete against the Chinese traders. Today, Ismail Sabri Ya’akob is the prime minister of Malaysia and the one-race digital mall sited at Mara Digital Mall is struggling to survive.

In August 2019 Pusat Kecemerlangan Melayu, Akademi Pengajian Melayu, Universiti Malaya in collaboration with Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Universiti Putra Malaysia and the Sultan Idris Education University organised what came to be known as the Malay Dignity Congress 2019.

It was easily the most high profile and most brazen act of racism that Malaysia has ever seen. More than a few eye brows were raised among non-malay Malaysians with many asking if this Malay Dignity Congress is a regressive step in multi-racial, multi-religious Malaysia.

Organisers of the event responded by saying that the congress is a “response to challenges against Malays”. Prof Datuk Zainal Kling, who heads the event’s secretariat, reportedly said there are many questions which not only belittle Malays but also question the Malays’ bumiputera rights, the position of the royalty as well as question Islam and cultural issues such as the national language.

It was singularly disappointing that institutions of higher learning like Universiti Malaya, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Universiti Putra Malaysia and the Sultan Idris Education University were among the organisers of the congress.

Anybody looking in from outside would no doubt get the impression and racial discrimination had become institutionalised in Malaysia.

With this extremely poor record in nation building on the part of the federal government and its leaders, Sarawakians must ask this question: Why do our GPS state government continue to support and collaborate with a party that very obviously has nothing good and beneficial to offer multiracial, multicultural and multireligious Sarawak?

Sarawakians are invited to ponder on this question and on the part that we played in the answer to the question - through out votes.