Posts Tagged ‘discrimination’

Respect or fear?

August 25th, 2010
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


Ex-PM Mahathir: “And respect only comes if we are strong and in power.” – from Malaysian Insider.

Me says: “fear comes if we are strong and in power”.

Reinvention of meritocracy deserves Nobel Prize

August 25th, 2010
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


Someone, please, nominate ex-PM Mahathir for Noble Prize! Reinventing (or misleading) the meaning of a word surely deserves some sort of accolade. We can put an entry in our Malaysia Book of Record for a start. Can also contact dictionary publishers to update their dictionary with new meaning for meritocracy. Malaysia Boleh!

I really feel pity to hear him say this which is putting down his own adapted race:

“It implies dominance by the race with the greatest merit in every field; in education, in business and in all fields of human endeavour “

Really, the statement should be nominated for joke of the year!

Meritocracy allows for change and competition. There’s no guarantee that meritocracy means one race will prevail in all fields of human endeavour, all the time.  By saying the above, is he saying that the Malays are genetically weak? not able to compete in any field? Always going to need a stick to stand properly? That one race (presumably the Chinese) are always superior to the rest? What kind of finding is this?

There’s a reason why we have “sell-by” date. Things don’t usually work well after that.

As for the use of religion as political tool, well, the focus on Malay first itself already going against the religion. On one hand you say you are Muslim with all the good virtues/values of your religion, and on the other hand, you discriminate by putting your race above others, which doesn’t look like fair to me. Really contrast like white and black. Hope you guys can clarify this part because it doesn’t gel.

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad mocked proponents of meritocracy today, calling them racist and decried Malays who support meritocracy as having misplaced pride.

Dr Mahathir also described his Umno party as weak and mismanaged.

The former prime minister blasted advocates of meritocracy, calling them “meritocrats” who are pushing for dominance by one race in all aspects of the country.

Mahathir’s diatribe will likely embolden supporters of conservative Malay NGOs such as Perkasa which has already threatened several times to punish the Najib government over potential reforms intended to make Malaysia a developed high income nation.

“Today we see a lot of Malay NGOs trying to defend the Malay position. Invariably they have been labelled racists,” said Mahathir (picture) on his blog today. “The unfortunate truth is that those who labelled them are equally racists because of their advocacy of meritocracy.”

“If ‘Malaysian Malaysia’ conjures equality between races, ‘Meritocracy’ implies something stronger,” he added referring to the DAP’s old slogan.

“It implies dominance by the race with the greatest merit in every field; in education, in business and in all fields of human endeavour.”

Dr Mahathir said that the campaign for meritocracy is not a campaign against racism but a campaign by racists against racists.

“The meritocrats are as much racists as the Malay NGOs, and Perkasa,” he said. “Incidentally by writing this I know the meritocrat racists will condemn me as racist. So be it.”

The attack on meritocracy by Dr Mahathir comes as the nation grapples with a brain drain that has seen talent from all races abandon the country out of frustration due to decades of government administration that favoured ethnicity and political connections over ability.

The lack of a meritocratic culture and loss of talent is widely acknowledged as the main reason the country has fallen behind its regional peers such as Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan in terms of development and per capita income and is caught in a middle income trap.

Bloomberg columnist William Pesek recently blamed four decades of affirmative action for Malaysia’s  lack of competitiveness.

Dr Mahathir also took a swipe at his party Umno, calling it “weak” and “mismanaged”.

“That is why today we have Perkasa and other Malay NGOs who are as openly concerned about the Malays as Umno once was,” he said. “The condemnation by those said to be advocating meritocracy is because they see the racism of the meritocrats, just as the Malays of 1964 saw the racism of ‘Malaysian Malaysia’.”

Islamist party PAS also did not escape coming under fire from the veteran politician who said that it was using religion for political gain.

“There are quite a large number of Indian Muslims in Malaysia but they do not figure in the political party said to be Islamic,” he said.

“The party, by using Islam, knows full well they are appealing to Malays almost exclusively. But the intention is not to defend the Malays but merely to gain their support. One can say they are not Malay racists. Rather they are Malay political opportunists.”

Dr Mahathir said that Malays who protested against meritocracy were condemned as racists and many therefore dared not support the race based New Economic Policy (NEP).

“Some, perhaps due to mistaken pride have begun to support meritocracy, undermining the Malay position further,” said Dr Mahathir.

Church gets approval after 20 years!

August 24th, 2010
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


Nope, this is not a movie or story in Talibanesque settings. It right here in our own Bolehland, errr, TakBolehland in this case.  I guess the RM200k donation will go a small way to alleviate the misery of those rakyat.

Maybe PERKOSA can highlight to us how this delay is justifiable or tramples on those rights they always talk about. Maybe they didn’t get any contract from this?

Just reading this article shows you the gap between ideal and reality. And we are expected to be thankful and grateful???

It remains one of the non-Muslims’ gravamina that they find it increasingly difficult to build their places of worship. But recently, the Johor state government not only approved the building of a church, it also contributed RM200,000 to its construction.

ON Aug 1, the congregation of my church, the Holy Light Church (English), Johor Baru (HLCE), was elated to learn at a special fund-raising service that Johor Mentri Besar Datuk Abdul Ghani Othman had granted a sum of RM200,000 towards the construction of our first church building.

A member of the congregation, Suzie Teo, who shed tears of joy upon hearing the announcement, said: “We are overwhelmed by the Mentri Besar’s kind gesture. What was initially a pipe dream is now a dream come true.

“I am so touched to learn that after waiting for 20 years, the Johor state government has not only approved our application but has also decided to partially contribute towards the construction cost of RM3mil.”

Indeed, the Mentri Besar’s thoughtful gesture in our time of need, which is not given at election time, will go a long way to assure the HLCE congregation that the state government is not just a government of one particular race or religion, but that of all Johoreans.

In fact, as we look back at the last 20 years, the entire journey is one of faith, which is obviously not suitable for the faint-hearted lacking any tenacity to persevere from the application stage to the final approval.

It was in September 1989 that HLCE acquired this piece of agricultural land in Pandan, next to the Ponderosa Golf Resort, measuring 8.925 acres. As the HLCE congregation has been worshipping on rented premises since 1952, it is hoped that a permanent place of worship would be erected on this land.

In 1991, the HLCE applied to the Johor state authority to convert the land use from “agriculture” to “religious use”, but this was turned down in 1993. In August 1993, the HLCE received notice that the land would be compulsorily acquired for a joint-venture project between a state agency and a private developer. The HLCE then filed a suit in 1995 against the state government challenging the validity of the acquisition. At this time, I had already moved from Kuala Lumpur and started worshipping at the HLCE.

When I brought to the attention of then Mentri Besar Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin that the land belonged to a church, Muhyiddin immediately instructed that the land acquisition be withdrawn. When Ghani became the Mentri Besar in 1995, he arranged for the withdrawal of the acquisition to be officially gazetted on Sept 3, 1996.

Being only too aware that it would be near impossible for the state authority to convert the land use to religious use over a piece of property measuring about nine acres, the HLCE then had it sub-divided equally into two plots.

Over the years, the HLCE applied for the two plots to be separately converted for institutional and religious purposes. In 2000, the state government approved the piece meant for institutional use. It was not until April 2008, and that also only after the personal intervention of Ghani, that the other piece was converted for religious use.

In June 2010 and early this month, the state security committee and the Johor Baru City Council respectively approved the building plans for the new church sanctuary. Piling work is expected to commence in October.

As shown above, the application and approval process for the erection of non-Muslim places of worship is most cumbersome. As it is almost unheard of that state governments would alienate lands for building non-Muslim places of worship, most lands involved are private lands. Hence, the necessity of having first to convert the land use to religious use before a place of worship can be erected thereon.

Only after the land conversion is approved can one submit the building plan for approval by the local authority. It must be emphasised that when applying for both the land conversion and building plan approvals, the entire approval process is repeated in that the approvals of the district and state security committees are mandatory for both stages. It is also open knowledge that representatives from the Islamic Affairs Department would sit in these committees.

It follows that it is not unusual to take at least five to 10 years from the time the application is submitted until the project finally comes to fruition. Perhaps what creates the most resentment among non-Muslims is the fact that the erection of their places of worship is treated as a security threat.

In the last general election and even today, it remains one of the non-Muslims’ gravamina that they find it increasingly difficult to build their places of worship. They are upset that the approving authorities have scant regard to Articles 3 and 11(3) of the Federal Constitution which guarantee them the right to profess and practise their religions as well as to establish and maintain institutions for religious purposes.

In the case of the HLCE, it had to seek the assistance of various high-ranking government officials and politicians in the last 20 years. While I find them most understanding and helpful, the same cannot be said of the junior and local government officers. As the civil service is almost mono-religious and often devoid of multi-religious sensitisation, it is understandable if they feel that it is against their religion to support the erection of other places of worship.

So when applications are so frequently turned down and approvals are so difficult to obtain, it is axiomatic that the only human reaction is, of course, to convert, albeit illegally, houses, shoplots and commercial premises into worship places.

In the true spirit of the Federal Constitu tion, I wish to reiterate my calls made over the years on the need to establish a non-Muslim Affairs Committee/Department in each state to deal with all matters relating to non-Muslim places of worship.

I understand this has been done in Selangor and Penang. In fact, it was reported that since Pakatan Rakyat took over Selangor, the state government has approved 86 non-Muslim places of worship, comprising 42 Hindu temples, 26 Chinese temples, 13 churches and five gurdwaras.

So if the Barisan state governments want to capture the hearts and minds of non-Muslims, this is one area of contentment which needs their serious and immediate attention.

As a start, the federal government should ensure that any guidelines on non-Muslim places of worship imposed by the National Council for Local Government under Article 95A of the Federal Constitution are adhered to and implemented properly by the respective state governments and local authorities.

There should be relaxation with regard to limitations placed on size, height, length and width of all places of worship, regardless of the religion.

In my opinion, we should also not have too wide a buffer zone between two different places of worship if we want to encourage tolerance and understanding in our multi-racial and multi-religious society, particularly among our young people.

At state level, the state governments should allocate sufficient development funds and ensure that it is built into the structure/local plans and planning approvals requiring developers to set aside ample lands for the erection of places of worship in new housing townships.

If I am not mistaken, the current permitted ratio for the number of non-Muslim places of worship in a housing development is one house of worship for every 2,600 followers of that faith.

This formula should be reviewed because it is neither equitable nor constitutional as it ought to be needs-based, that is, according to the needs of each religious community in that area.

One must also take into account that unlike the Muslims who are homogeneous, followers of Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism and Christianity are not, and within them, there are different sectors and denominations.

In this regard, I am confident that many of our Muslim brethren are sympathetic to the predicament faced by non-Muslims. It is hoped that those in high places will appreciate that withholding and delaying the approval for the erection of non-Muslim places of worship is both unjust and unconscionable.

In fact, all religions teach their followers to be good. It is, therefore, in the national interest to have a society which is religious as this will in turn bring about a healthy nation imbued with the highest moral and ethical standards.

A fortiori, at this Internet age, having a religious society founded on strong spiritual values is the elixir to corruption of morality and mores among our young people.

As a matter of record, it will not be complete without my expressing on behalf of the HLCE congregation our gratitude to Ghani for the financial grant and his kind assistance. Thank God too, for a moment, I thought our church building would not even materialise during my lifetime!

> The writer is a senior lawyer. He can be contacted at Twitter@rogertankm or www.roger tan.com.

Racism Complaint against SMK Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Kulai

August 16th, 2010
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


if this is true, its a disgrace for the namesake of the school. TAR will be turn over in his grave.

I did a search and from the school website, you can find the HM’s name (assuming its updated):

http://www.starputra.edu.my/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4&Itemid=2

*note that this info is available on public domain.

HM’s name: 10) Pn Hjh Siti Inshah bt Mastor  01.03.2010  – KINI

The name sounds like originate from across the selat melaka. And Hajah some more! Fasting month some more! What a pity.

Just when we think can safely and quietly enjoy this month without any problem, along comes another irritant to spoil the mood.  So, what’s next? A transfer to another school?

Is this the kind of teachers/staff that we want to be involved in politics, dear Education Minister?

from HRP website:
http://www.hrp-my.org/2010/08/14/umno-smk-school-headmasters-racist-remarks-malay-sian-police-refuse-to-allow-police-report/

UMNO SMK school headmaster’s racist remarks. Malay-sian police refuse to allow police report.
August 14, 2010  

one-malaysia3

I’m a 16 year old student from SMK Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra,Kulai.  I was very offended by the speech that was given by our school principle on the “pelancaran hari kemerdekaan”she raised many discipline matters but the way she said it was a great shock 2 us. Even the teachers are offended she used certain phrases such as india balik india cina balik cina,wearing sami strings r like dog collar if u add on a bell n also various others 2. We have also organised a press conference on saturday 14 August 2010.We are trying 2 do everything possible when our parents went 2 the police station 2 launch a report the school pengetua was already there and the policemen kept asking our parents 2 talk and sort this out, they did not accept the complaint that was handed in by our parents. In this kind of case we feel un secure and offended. this can lead the students in racial fights and even more. As a student we try to be unite and follow the theme of 1 Malaysia if this is the situation there are no point of saying 1 Malaysia the principle should be a role model of the school and for the students but this is not the proper way of a speech. This doesn’t show any characteristic of a moral value. Please sir, we need all the help we can get we would be
grateful if there was something that sir can do to help us.

Thank you.
Student

SMK.Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, Kulai, Johor.

from the star:
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/8/16/nation/6860583&sec=nation

School head under probe over racist remarks
By MOHD FARHAAN SHAH

KULAIJAYA: Police are investigating a school principal who allegedly used racist remarks against non-Malay students during a Merdeka celebration at the school here recently.

Kulaijaya deputy OCPD Asst Supt Mohd Kamil said police had received 12 reports against the principal since Saturday and that the case was being investigated under Section 504 of the Penal Code.

Over 50 parents and students had lodged the reports against the principal, who allegedly described the non-Malays as “penumpang” (passengers) in the country during her speech at the start of the celebration on Aug 12.

“I was shocked that my principal had used such a word against non-Malay students in our school.

“This is not the first time that she had made racist comments against Chinese and Indian students in our school,” said 17-year-old student Brevia Pan.

She added that the principal, who joined the school early this year, would only target Chinese and Indian students.

“During the Merdeka celebration, she had told non-Malay students to go study in a Chinese school or go back to China,” she told reporters in a press conference organised by Senai assemblyman Ong Kow Meng.

Another student, Ashvini Thi-na­karan, 17, said many Malay students were influenced by the principal’s remarks and made similar comments and called them names.

“Before she came to my school, all the students got along well,” she said. Her father R. Thinakaran, 47, said this was a serious matter and that principals should not behave like this.

“This principal has caused racial disharmony at the school,” he said, adding that if no action was taken, he would take his daughter out of the school.

Ong called for stern action against the principal, adding that such school heads and educators would affect the minds of students. 

Undergrads can’t but teachers can?

August 11th, 2010
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


Today’s news that undergraduates won’t be allowed to actively take part in politics smacks of discrimination, in my opinion. Just few weeks ago, teachers were given leeway (with some rules to be followed) to be involved in politics, which for me, is definitely a wrong move. I wonder if the authorities will listen to the public feedback before making decisions arbitrarily.

I think the AUKU law will be hard to implement. You want to regulate or monitor hundreds of thousands of students, of which some will be updating the FB or Twitter status with support for some political party? You want to monitor blog for some words that may remotely show support for a political party? I think its a waste of time. You can restrict in terms of physical involvement like talking in public talks or campaigning during elections, but beyond that…can forget it. Student can still talk politics with circle of friends or family members, read political news on the net, and make own decisions.

I think the worse possible move has been already done, which is allowing teachers to take part in politics. Imagine, you say a 23 year old undergraduate is immature to be active in politics, but a 24 year old freshie teacher suddenly becomes mature and can be active in politics?

Also, as it is, many political parties already infiltrated IPTAs, as can be seen during the student election campaigns which has factions. Then, we notice the youth or putera/puteri arms of political parties engage with university students often. So, what can be said about this?

In the end, its just another law that is a mockery.