Sunday, April 12, 2009

ARTIKULASIKAN KONSEP SATU MALAYSIA

Ruhanie Ahmad

Konsep Satu Malaysia yang diumumkan oleh Datuk Seri Mohd Najib Tun Razak minggu lalu adalah bukti keprihatinan kepimpinan beliau terhadap destini negara-bangsa Malaysia, perpaduan, kemakmuran, keamanan, keselamatan, kecemerlangan, keunggulan dan kelangsungannya di hari muka.

Konsep sosio-politik yang berteraskan cita-cita untuk membina satu era baru di Malaysia menerusi satu transformasi yang besar ini bermatlamat untuk mewujudkan sebuah kerajaan yang mengutamakan prestasi berpaksikan keutamaan rakyat.

Najib telah merincikan konsep ini menerusi blog peribadinya, 1 Malaysia. Contohnya, pada 5 April 2009, Najib menghuraikan aspek-aspek budaya kecemerlangan. Pada 8 April 2009, beliau pula menghuraikan maksud nilai-nilai ketabahan.

Ini bermakna budaya kecemerlangan dan nilai-nilai ketabahan adalah antara ciri-ciri teras kepada Konsep Satu Malaysia. Pastinya dalam siri tulisan Najib selanjutnya beliau akan menghuraikan ertinya perpaduan dalam kepelbagaian (unity in diversity) yang mendasari elemen kemajmukan rakyat Malaysia dan lain-lain aspek kenegaraan yang sewajarnya menjadi perisian serta input kepada Konsep Satu Malaysia.

Rakyat jelata Malaysia juga perlu menyumbangkan dayausaha mereka untuk memperdalami dan merincikan konsep ini. Dayausaha ini pasti dapat membantu kepimpinan Najib untuk segera menterjemahkan konsep ini menjadi dasar dan program perjuangan nasional yang efektif dan bermanfaat dalam tempoh terdekat ini.

Oleh sebab itu, sama-samalah kita bangkit dan bertindak. Kita yang terdiri daripada golongan akademik, profesional, pemimpin gerakan akar umbi, aktivis belia, aktivis pelajar, elit politik yang merentasi ideologi, dan seluruh rakyat jelata wajar bergabung tenaga dan minda untuk menghalusi konsep ini dengan seberapa segera.

Kita rincikan konsep ini, kita hayati cita-citanya, kita terokai input dan perisian yang sewajarnya, dan akhir sekali kita ketengahkan penemuan daripada dayausaha kita ini kepada pihak kerajaan untuk menjadikannya kepada dasar dan program nasional yang kita perlukan.

Namun adalah penting jika dayausaha ini kita laksanakan dengan bersandarkan kepada prinsip dan semangat Perlembagaan Persekutuan, Rukunegara dan Wawasan 2020 supaya Konsep Satu Malaysia ini tidak meminggirkan ciri-ciri asas dan utama kepada kenegaraan, perpaduan dan kemajuan Malaysia seluruhnya. Dengan cara ini, moga-moga usaha untuk mengeksploitasikan Konsep Satu Malaysia kononnya sebagai sinonim dengan Konsep Malaysian Malaysia akan menjadi usaha yang terpencil dan dengan sendirinya ditolak oleh majoriti rakyat jelata Malaysia.

29 comments:

Parpu Kari said...

salam dato ron,

DENGAN IZIN YA SAYA NAK CERITAKAN APA YANG BERLAKU DI BUKIT GANTANG!

http://parpukari.blogspot.com/2009/04/skandal-pas-judi-dan-arak-truth.html

Mika Angel-0 said...

Satu Malaysia Dan Unity Government?

Ku Li Denies Praising New Cabinet Line Up

KUALA LUMPUR, April 11 (Bernama) --
Guar Musang Member of Parliament Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah has denied that he had praised the new Cabinet as neat and capable as reported by the media Saturday.

In a press conference at his office here, he said the capability of the new Cabinet had yet to be seen and it was not fair for him to judge them at this point of time.

"After all it's going to be performance oriented, that's good, but let us see after six months whether they are able to perform the way they are supposed to," he said.

Razaleigh said it is the hope of many including himself that the new Cabinet will be able to bring back the confidence of the people towards the country's leadership, without which, a lot of problems, namely corruption, racial disharmony and economic could not be tackled effectively.

He also said there was a need to reform the education policy and system, specifically the PPSMI (teaching of Science and Mathematics in English).

He said the PPSMI was not successful especially with rural students, who he said had become victims of the policy.

"We cannot continue this experiment and there must be readiness on the government's side to abandon it," he said.

Commenting on the early moves by Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak as the new Prime Minister, he said the release of the 13 ISA detainees was a good move but questioned why all the other detainees were not freed.

"Why are they so selective? Release only a few and did not release the rest?"

"People's lives and freedom cannot be used as a political ploy
," he said.

Responding to a question by reporters, Razaleigh said he still believed in the forming of a Unity Government as it would help to bring in fresh ideas.

"It's not new (the concept of Unity Government), it was tried by Tun Razak from 1974 to 1978," he said.

He also said he hoped that the new prime minister would respond positively to the idea as PAS had also agreed to it.

"With Barisan Nasional losing five states in the last general election, with all this issues coming out, like racial and religious problems, I think it's best to put our heads together and map out the future of this country by bringing all the leaders from all sections and parties together," he said.


nota:
(case study: ambil perbankan islam tetapi tolak syariah islam?)

Thai PM Apologises To Asean And Dialogue Partners
From Yong Soo Heong and D. Arul Rajoo

PATTAYA, April 11 (Bernama) -- Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has apologised to Asean leaders as well as Asean dialogue partners who had arrived here for the 14th Asean Summit and related summits today only to find that their meetings had to be cancelled because of potential threats to their safety following the presence of unruly demonstrators.

Asean's dialogue partners include China, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, India and Australia.

Abhisit also announced that the state of emergency in Pattaya and Chon Buri had been lifted, just seven hours after the demonstrators had laid siege to the venue of the summits.

"I have apologised to all of them, except to Australia. They all understand the situation and expressed their understanding on the matter," said a calm but weary-looking Abhisit, who left without taking questions from the media at the briefing.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd did not arrive today as the East Asian Summit was only scheduled to take place Sunday as originally planned.

The announcement by Abhisit tonight was made during a surprise appearance at the media centre of the Pattaya Exhibition and Convention Hall (PEACH), which hours earlier had been overrun by anti-government protestors after they broke through the security cordon.

The "Red Shirts" demonstrators, who are aligned to former prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, wanted him to resign and cancel the summits as they claimed that he had been elected illegitimately.

Abhisit labelled those who had declared "victory" following the cancellation of the summits as enemies of Thailand.

"Whoever declared this cancellation as a victory are enemies of the country," said Abhisit, who had earlier been airlifted to the nearby Utapao Airport to send off his VIP guests.





kepada allah berserah

Si Tampok Manggis said...

Dato"

Meneliti komen sokongan Kickdefella, seperti petikan di atas membuat saya menilai kembali samaada Najib wajar diberi peluang. Najib Ada kelayakan sebagai pentadbir yang berkebolehan. CVnya begitu menarik. Di permulaan kerjayanya di dalam kabinet Malaysia, dia cemerlang. Kalau saya tidak silap, khidmatnya turut cemerlang sebagai Menteri Besar Pahang di awal kerjaya politiknya dulu. Dia layak membawa perubahan yang di sebut-sebut.

Selain dari itu apa pilihan yang rakyat Malaysia ada? Merubah kerajaan? Secara logiknya saya berpendapat ini cuma akan berlaku sekiranya proses pendemokrasian Malaysia yang lebih baik berlaku. Kalau pun Pakatan mahu membawa perubahan, Pakatan kena menang pilihanraya. Sekurang-kurangnya 2 tahun lagi.Kenapa bazirkan masa tersebut. Baik kita gunakan untuk menangani krisis ekonomi yang sedang membungkam negara.

Najib berpeluang mengubah ke arah Malaysia yang lebih baik sekiranya dia ada iltizam yang kuat. Dia mampu melakukannya sekiranya dia tidak terus bergayut kepada sokongan UMNO yang telah semakin reput. Najib seharusnya percaya bahawa dia akan mendapat sokongan rakyat sekiranya dia mampu membawa perubahan. Akan berbondong-bondong rakyat jelata menyokongnya sekiranya dia bertindak di luar kongkongan UMNO. Majoriti rakyat yang menyokong Pakatan Rakyat akan menyokong Najib kalau Najib membuat perkara yang betul. Najib tidak perlu kekal dengan perjuangan UMNO yang memperjuangkan ketuanan UMNO bertopengkan ketuanan Melayu. Kedaulatan Rakyat yang perlu diperjuangkan Najib kalau dia mahu terus berkuasa.

baca selanjutnya http://sitampokmanggis.blogspot.com/2009/04/pm-malaysia-keenam-najib-tun-razak.html

Jiwa Merdeka said...

Salam,

Apa yang dikatakan konsep "satu Malaysia" agaknya hanyalah satu "lintasan fikiran" yang belum dikaji, direnungkan dan dirumuskan dengan matang. Pengisian konsep itu pun nampaknya hanya secara runcitan dan belumn tuntas. Jadi kalau begitu, konsep itu saya kira masih sukar untuk disampaikan dan diartikulasikan kepada rakyat.

Ia agaknya masih bersifat slogan untuk keperluan segera saja.

Mika Angel-0 said...

Dunia Vacuum
(deritalah kamu bila lalai sejarah)

Mana ada perdana menteri yang boleh mengartikulasi konsep satu malaysia sebelum Najib, Kuda Kepang.

Silakanlah berusaha menjayakan teori-teori lain saperti ramai orang siam masih mahu penjenayah dan perompak mantan perdana menterinya berkuasa sebagai perdana menteri semula?

Thailand announces state of emergency in capital
By GRANT PECK, Associated Press Writer Grant Peck, Associated Press Writer
9 mins ago

BANGKOK – Thailand's embattled government, humiliated by demonstrators who shut down a 16-nation Asian summit, declared a state of emergency in the capital Sunday in an attempt to stem the tide of protest across the country.

Bands of red-shirted anti-government protesters roamed areas of Bangkok as the emergency decree was announced, with some smashing a car they believed was carrying Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, and others beating up motorists who hurled insults at them.

The emergency decree bans gatherings of more than five people, forbids news reports considered threatening to public order and allows the government to call up military troops to quell unrest.

"The government decided to impose the state of emergency because we want to return the country to normalcy," Abhisit said on national television. "The government will try every way to prevent further damage. I ask the people to support the government in order to restore order in the country."

Earlier Sunday, a protest leader who spearheaded Saturday's demonstrations, Arisman Pongruengrong, was taken into custody and flown by helicopter to a military camp for questioning, said police spokesman Maj. Gen. Suport Pansua.

Abhisit also vowed swift legal action against other protesters who stormed the venue of an East Asian Summit in the beach resort of Pattaya on Saturday, forcing the summit's cancellation. Thai authorities had to evacuate the Asian leaders by helicopter.

Abhisit spoke on television as fears mounted that the country could face violence or a military crackdown in coming days.

"The next three to four days will be crucial for the government to prove itself in restoring peace and order in the country," Abhisit said. "The government will take action against those who were involved in the incident yesterday without bias."

Demonstrators from the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship say Abhisit's four-month-old government took power illegitimately and want new elections. They also accuse the country's elite — the military, judiciary and other unelected officials — of undermining democracy by interfering in politics.

Editorials in Bangkok newspapers Sunday lashed out at both the protesters for destroying Thailand's international reputation and the government for a massive security breakdown.

Tourism Council of Thailand Chairman Kongkrit Hiranyakit predicted that the country would lose at least 200 billion baht ($5.6 billion) as foreign tourists shunned the country.

"Some tourists want out quickly for fear that protesters may go on to block the airport like last year. Incoming tourists are questioning security and canceling bookings," he said.

At Saturday's summit, more than 1,000 demonstrators broke through a wall of unarmed soldiers, smashed through the convention center's glass doors and ran through the building, blowing horns, waving Thai flags and shouting demands for Abhisit to resign.

They declared victory after Abhisit canceled the summit, where leaders of regional powers China, Japan and India, and the U.N. secretary-general and president of the World Bank, planned to discuss the global financial crisis.

China's Premier Wen Jiabao had planned to announce generous aid packages at the summit, including a $10 billion fund for investment in infrastructure, the official Xinhua News Agency reported in Beijing.

It was not immediately clear if China would go ahead with the planned investment.

"We have won. We have stopped them from holding a summit," Jakrapob Penkair, a protest leader, said in Bangkok on Saturday. "But we have not achieved our goal yet. We will continue to protest in Bangkok until Abhisit resigns."

Abhisit later denounced the protesters as the "enemies of Thailand."

Political tensions have simmered since former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was removed by a military coup in 2006. Thaksin opponents marched last year to remove Thaksin's allies from power, even shutting down the country's main international airport for about a week in November. After a court ordered the removal of the previous pro-Thaksin government for election fraud, Abhisit was appointed by Parliament in December — sparking Thaksin supporters to take to the streets.

Their numbers grew to 100,000 in Bangkok last week.

Abhisit imposed a state of emergency in Pattaya after the summit was overrun Saturday, but revoked it six hours later after the Asian leaders were safely airlifted to a nearby military airport.

The ongoing protests could prompt the military to intervene — a high possibility in a country that has experienced 18 military coups since the 1930s.

"The situation has gotten completely out of hand. Violence and bloodshed is very much possible" if Abhisit does not resign or dissolve Parliament, said Charnvit Kasetsiri, a historian and former rector of Bangkok's Thammasat University. "If the government cannot control the situation, military intervention is not out of the question."



Sila tengok kegilaan orang siam yang kejam kepada rakyat orang islam di negara sendiri. Thaksin pembunuh orang islam pattani saperti musa hitam di memali:

Thailand: Investigate Krue Se Mosque Raid
No Justice Two Years After Deadly Clashes in South
April 27, 2006

Two years after the Thai army raid on Krue Se mosque in Pattani, which left 32 insurgents and three Thai security officers dead, the government has yet to initiate criminal investigations into the events, Human Rights Watch said today.

An independent judicial inquiry into the events at Krue Se and 10 other armed clashes the same day is necessary to provide justice for the victims of human rights abuses, Human Rights Watch said. This would also address the wider problem of impunity for government forces in the south, and function as a confidence-building measure for the Muslim community.

“The Krue Se raid stands as testament to the failure of Thailand’s leaders to make justice a priority in the south,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The authorities have ignored the recommendation of the fact-finding commission to start judicial proceedings against those responsible.”

On April 28, 2004 Islamic insurgents launched well-planned and almost simultaneous pre-dawn attacks on 11 government locations and security checkpoints in Pattani, Yala and Songkhla provinces in southern Thailand. Thai authorities reported that 107 insurgents and five members of the security forces had been killed. These were the bloodiest clashes since a new wave of separatist insurgency was launched in Thailand’s Muslim-dominated region in January 2004.

Viewers in Thailand and abroad watched a live broadcast from Tambon Tanyongluloh in Pattani province, where assailants attacked a police and military checkpoint and then seized Krue Se mosque. The army and police surrounded the mosque and made various attempts to enter it, but were met with gunfire. Tear gas was used to no avail. Finally, after a nine-hour siege, the army launched a final attack. All insurgents inside the mosque were killed.

A commission appointed by the government found that the violence was started by the insurgents, but that security officials acting under the orders of Gen. Pallop Pinmanee had used excessive force and heavy weapons disproportionate to the threat posed by the assailants. The commission, citing United Nations standards for the use of force and firearms, concluded that, “Because the deaths of the insurgents were inflicted by actions of state officials who claimed they were fulfilling their official duties, the process of verifying this must be conducted through the justice system.”

Human Rights Watch has obtained an unabridged copy of the July 2004 “Independent Commission of Enquiry into Facts about the Krue Se Mosque Case” – only a censored version of the report had been released to the public. The report names the responsible military and police officials at the scene. In addition to the above, it concluded that:


All those killed in the mosque were insurgents and none were “innocent”.

The security officials were faced with a highly dangerous and volatile situation, but were not properly trained or prepared to handle such an incident.
The insurgents were not as heavily armed as the military claimed.
The crowd of civilians that gathered near the standoff at the mosque did not pose a threat to security officials.
Gen. Pallop had ignored a directive from Chavalit to resolve the situation by surrounding the mosque and entering into negotiations.
The commission noted that “the tactic of laying siege to the mosque, surrounding it with security forces, in tandem with the use of negotiation with the assailants, could have ultimately led to their surrender.”
After the raid, Gen. Pallop was ordered by Deputy Prime Minister Yongchaiyudh to leave the south immediately, for disobeying orders not to storm the mosque. He subsequently tendered his resignation, but Chavalit and Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra rejected the offer. Gen. Pallop remains on active duty as the Deputy Commander of the International Security Operations Command. No military or police official has been disciplined or prosecuted for the events at Krue Se or elsewhere on April 28, 2004.

“The report is a serious and balanced description of events, though because of political pressure it was overly cautious in determining individual responsibility for abuses,” said Adams. “The report called for justice to be done to help repair relations with the local population. This has not happened.”
The report offered no opinion about the veracity of widespread allegations that security forces executed some insurgents who had survived the final government assault on the mosque. Human Rights Watch said it is particularly important that an independent judicial inquiry address this issue.

When the commission’s report was released, the prime minister said mistakes needed to be used as “a lesson” to avoid making the same mistakes again. “The Krue Se incident could be taken as a lesson in training our officials to look for more peaceful methods,” Thaksin said. Yet he also said he would not blame officials in charge under such tense circumstances, sending a signal that officials should not undertake serious investigations.
Lessons were not learned quickly enough. On October 25, 2004, Thai security forces brutally cracked down on demonstrators in Tak Bai district, Narathiwat province. Seven protesters were shot dead, and at least 78 others were suffocated or crushed to death as they were being detained and transferred to detention facilities.

Human Rights Watch also pointed out that although there were 11 armed clashes in three provinces that day, the Thai government has only appointed a commission to investigate the Krue Se incident. There have been no investigations into the scores of deaths in the other 10 cases, to establish the responsibility of the insurgents or the government for possible abuses.

Lawyers for relatives of the insurgents told Human Rights Watch that prosecutors have used delaying tactics to avoid serious investigations or bringing charges against military and other officials. Soldiers and police officers summoned in civil suits have not appeared, claiming that they had to work on other assignments or had been relocated to other provinces. Public prosecutors have delayed proceedings, using excuses such as not having documents ready.

In an attempt at reconciliation, the government has offered compensation to the families of all who died at Krue Se, including the insurgents. Human Rights Watch commended this move, but pointed out that compensation was not a substitute for serious investigations and appropriate prosecutions. Many state officials – in Bangkok and in the southern border provinces – have suggested to Human Rights Watch that financial compensation is sufficient.

“If crimes have been committed, financial compensation alone does not equal justice,” said Adams. “There is now a widespread frustration among Muslim communities in southern Thailand that the security forces can operate with impunity and that the authorities try to buy their way out of legal accountability.”

To avoid a repetition of the events at Krue Se, Human Rights Watch called on the Thai government to ensure proper adherence to and training in the U.N. Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials – which require, whenever the use of force is unavoidable, that law enforcement officials act in proportion to the seriousness of the offense with an objective to minimize damage and injury.

After the Krue Se incident, in 2004 the Thai National Security Council published a list of measures it said should be taken to address the resentment in the south against injustice and human rights abuses by Thai authorities. They conceded that government abuses were among the factors fueling an increasingly brutal insurgency in the southern border provinces. Militants have carried out a string of bombings, the beheading of Buddhists, attacks on teachers and civil servants and arson of schools.

Among the measures were:


State officials must endeavor in any way they can to build trust among the locals and officials, and among the locals themselves. They should encourage people from different religions to live together in peace. They should revamp the bureaucratic system in the region and include mechanisms to facilitate the understanding of the differences in ideas, religion and culture in the area.
The state must ensure that it will provide security as well as justice for the people in the area.
In particular, state officials must treat suspects or anyone connected with criminal proceedings in a fair and transparent manner.
Officials who are problematic must be removed or transferred.
The state must give clear progress reports to the public on cases that are related to the problems in the south, such as that of lawyer Somchai Neelapaijit.
Victims from the violence, be they state officials or local citizens, must be compensated by the state.
“The Thai National Security Council’s proposals are very sensible,” said Adams. “It is time for them to be implemented.”

amirhamzah64 said...

Salam Datuk,

Satu Malaysia: Gagasan Baru Cerita Lama!

"'1 Malaysia' atau 'Satu Malaysia 'adalah gagasan baru kepimpinan Perdana Menteri baru, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak. Pelaksanaan pelbagai program, yang lebih adil dan saksama terhadap semua etnik, selaras dengan konsep 'Satu Malaysia' mampu menyatukan pelbagai kaum di negara ini, kata Timbalan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

Konsep 'Satu Malaysia' adalah bertemakan perpaduan rakyat dan mengiktirafkan sumbangan semua kaum. Parti-parti komponen BN - MCA dan MIC - melahirkan keyakinan mereka terhadap kepimpinan Perdana Menteri baru, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak dan memuji konsepnya mengenai 'Satu Malaysia'.



Jika konsep 'satu Malaysia' ini bertujuan untuk perpaduan saya sangat menyokong jika sistem sekolah yang ada di negara ini berdasarkan bukan sahaja satu sukatan pelajaran tetapi juga satu aliran dan satu bahasa pengantar. Sekolah wawasan seperti mana yang dicadangkan semasa Tun Mahathir dahulu perlu dikaji semula. Ini bermakna SRJK (C) dan SRJK (T) dihapuskan dan sekolah-sekolah Menengah Tinggi Cina turut dihapuskan. Hanya satu jenis sistem pendidikan sahaja yang ada. Bersediakah wahai MCA dan MIC?

Jika konsep 'satu Malaysia ' ini bertujuan untuk perpaduan rakyat pelbagai kaum saya sangat menyokong jika semua minda rakyat Malaysia menerima tanpa bahas hak-hak istimewa orang Melayu dan kedaulatan 9 orang Raja-Raja Melayu seperti yang tercatat di dalam perlembagaan. Masing-masing kaum menjaga sensitiviti kaum masing-masing kerana selama 52 tahun kemerdekaan negara ,Melayu tidak pernah merampas hak-hak kaum lain di negara ini.

Konsep 'Satu Malaysia' ditunjangi oleh dua prinsip utama iaitu sikap saling hormat menghormati antara satu sama lain dan keyakinan antara satu sama lain.Apabila kita sudah menghormati antara satu sama lain bererti kita sudah mempunyai sikap terbuka untuk menghayati konsep perpaduan dalam kepelbagaian.

Adalah amat penting juga konsep tersebut menjamin tidak ada masyarakat yang terpinggir daripada apa jua bentuk pembangunan yang harus dinikmati oleh semua kaum. Jika itu juga tujuannya tumpuannya adalah untuk masyarakat Melayu dan India. Kedua-dua kaum ini masih agak jauh tertinggal berbanding dengan kaum Cina dalam serba serbi.

Najib sebenarnya membawa gagasan baru dengan nafas baru. Gagasan lama telah pun dirintis oleh ayahandanya Allahyarham Tun Abdul Razak melalui Dasar Ekonomi Baru -DEB
(1970 - 1990). Matlamat akhirnya DEB adalah PERPADUAN. DEB diasaskan kepada peristiwa 13 Mei 1969 disebabkan faktor jurang ekonomi yang luas antara kaum tertentu. Hingga sekarang faktor itu tidak selesai. Maka 'satu Malaysia' semestinya menjadi penyambung hasrat bapanya yang melihat hak-hak peribumi terutama kek pembahagian ekonomi orang Melayu dipertingkatkan.

Konsep 'Satu Malaysia' akan menjadi lebih bermakna jika ianya memberi lebih banyak peluang kepada orang Melayu tanpa merampas hak-hak orang lain. Memperbanyakkan lagi peluang-peluang perniagaan dan pertumbuhan bandar-bandar Melayu diseluruh negara. Membasmi kemiskinan Melayu di luar bandar dan bandar. Membantu lebih banyak peluang anak-anak Melayu mendapat kemahiran dan peluang melanjutkan pelajaran ke Universiti.

MARA dan UDA perlu dihidupkan semula peranannya dengan membantu Melayu dengan lebih berkesan. FELDA dan FELCRA perlu dibuka semula kepada rakyat seperti mana bapanya dahulu. Kalau bukan anaknya siapa lagi yang hendak meneruskan hasrat bapanya yang belum lagi kesampaian.

Maka Gagasan -Satu Malaysia ini adalah satu gagasan Tun Abd.Razak yang diberi nafas baru oleh anak sulungnya. Cuma Najib perlu sesuaikan dengan keadaan yang telah jauh berubah. Jauh berubah dengan keadaan dan zaman bapanya pada tahun 1970an.

Adakah 'Satu Malaysia' Gagasan Najib boleh menyaingi 'Harapan Baru Untuk Malaysia' Gagasan Anwar?

Amir Hamzah
Batu Pahat
www.amirhamzah64-segalanyamungkin.blogspot.com "

pakbelalang said...

Kita terima konsep SATU MALAYSIA dengan syarat jangan diungkit-ungkit tak habis-habis tentang hak istemwa orang Melayu yang memang sudah termaktub dalam perlembagaan.

Kita tidak "selfish". Hak bangsa lain kita hormati. Mereka nak kaya raya atas usaha mereka tidak siapa yang boleh pertikaikan.

spotthebloggers@gmail.com said...

Laman blog anda telah disenaraikan di dlm:

http://spotthebloggers.blogspot.com

Sila emailkan bantahan sekiranya tidak mendapat izin/perkenan dari anda. Komen/cadangan dialu-alukan. T.k.

BHM said...

Salam ziarah...

http://aspirasi-baru.blogspot.com

ASPIRASI BARU - "Menyusuri Transformasi, Menterjemah Aspirasi"

Mika Angel-0 said...

Sdr Ruhanie Ahmad,

Cerita Berjela I
(bab ekonomi Islam semestinya)

Perbankan Islam masih goyah
Oleh WAN NAJIB WAN DAUD
najib.daud@utusan.com.my

SERDANG 12 April - Sistem perbankan Islam global memerlukan sekurang-kurangnya 50 tahun lagi untuk menjadi sebuah sistem kewangan yang setanding dan stabil seperti sistem kewangan konvensional sedia ada.

Ahli ekonomi dan juga Profesor Pelawat dari Universiti New Orleans Amerika Syarikat (AS), Prof. M. Kabir Hassan berkata, sistem kewangan Islam yang wujud ketika ini masih lagi goyah malah mendakwa ia turut mencedok idea sistem konvensional.

Beliau mengakui tempoh 50 tahun itu merupakan satu tempoh yang lama tetapi ia merupakan satu jangka waktu yang diperlukan untuk membaiki dan membetulkan sistem kawal selia sistem kewangan itu.

"Kita tidak boleh meniru kawal selia sistem kewangan konvensional dengan sewenang-wenangnya untuk membantu sistem kewangan Islam. Kita sebaliknya memerlukan kawal selia tersendiri bagi perbankan Islam," katanya.

Beliau berkata demikian selepas menyampaikan ceramah umum bertajuk 'Sistem Kewangan Islam Boleh Menjadi Jalan Penyelesaian Kepada Krisis Kewangan Dunia' di Universiti Putra Malaysia di sini baru-baru ini.

Menurut M. Kabir, sudah tiba masanya bagi sarjana atau pakar perbankan Islam membetulkan sebarang masalah yang terdapat di dalam sistem itu.

"Hasil kajian dan pemerhatian saya mendapati ada sistem kewangan Islam yang diguna pakai tidak sesuai digunakan di negara-negara tertentu," katanya.

Tambahnya, negara Islam yang mempunyai kepakaran dalam bidang perbankan Islam harus mempunyai model pelaksanaan yang baik sebelum mempromosikan penggunaannya di kalangan dunia Barat.

Beliau memberitahu, untuk jangka masa pendek sistem kewangan Islam memerlukan sistem perbankan tiga peringkat bagi mengukuhkan lagi industri itu.

Menurutnya, tiga peringkat yang dicadangkan itu ialah mengguna pakai sistem seperti bank konvensional yang mana orang ramai boleh menyimpan wang di bank dan bank terbabit pula menggunakan deposit tersebut bagi menampung keperluan mereka.

Katanya, perbankan Islam juga boleh mengguna pakai institusi seperti Mudarabah yang mana orang ramai menyimpan wang mereka dan wang yang dikumpulkan itu digunakan bagi tujuan membangunkan pelbagai perkara.

''Selain itu, pengwujudan sistem seperti modal teroka atau Musyarakah, yang membabitkan pembiayaan projek infrastruktur perlu dipertimbangkan,'' jelasnya.

Pakar ekonomi itu juga berkata, kawal selia perlu diwujudkan oleh kerajaan dan institusi kewangan kerana sistem yang digunakan bagi perbankan konvensional sedia ada tidak sesuai bagi keperluan perbankan Islam.

"Kita memerlukan sistem kita sendiri tanpa perlu bergantung kepada perbankan konvensional untuk membantu sistem kewangan Islam," katanya.

Ujarnya, langkah seumpama itu perlu dibuat kerana Barat juga sukar menerima perubahan terhadap sistem kewangan konvensional yang diguna pakai beratus-ratus tahun lamanya, meskipun terbukti sistem sedia ada menjadi punca kepada krisis kewangan global.


Sdr Ruhanie,

Satu Malaysia macam mana yang hendak didirikan bilamana nilai-nilai Islam dan juga Melayu gagal dalam membangunkan parti parti politik yang kononnya memperjuangkan tamadun masyarakat Malaysia yang berteraskan Islam?
Masyarakat mana yang boleh dikatakan Islam bilamana ada satu peraturan khas untuk yang kaya dan satu lagi yang menindas golongan miskin: masih ada orang dari lembaga displin UMNO berkata sebegini:

He also said that being the adviser to several universities, he found that corrupt practices were also taking place in higher learning institutions.

"These includes plagiarism, and in awarding contracts," he said, adding that the trend was a cause for concern at a time when universities were heading towards greater autonomy. -- Bernama
(Tan Sri Megat Najmuddin Megat Khas)

Mika Angel-0 said...

Cerita Berjela II
(wang ihsan politk umno)

‘In many cases, it does not amount to graft’
By ANIZA DAMIS

2009/04/11

A new Umno leadership lineup is in place. The president has said the party must “change or perish”. But what is it that must change? ANIZA DAMIS speaks to Umno Disciplinary Board member Tan Sri Megat Najmuddin Megat Khas about money politics, corruption, and transparency. Q: Now that a new lineup of Umno has come in, does it make any difference to the fight against money politics?

A: The Umno leadership, in the main, has sent the right signals. But my worry is the leadership at the middle and ground level. The struggle of Umno at the moment has become somewhat muted. People are wondering, what are we struggling for? What is the perjuangan?

When you talk about perjuangan Melayu, it becomes almost racist. And I don’t think that that gels very well with the younger set nowadays. I think we have to become less racist, and more inclusive. To do that, you have to attract all these young people. And to attract the young people, you cannot have this struggle for money – this perjuangan for material things.

It stinks. If everything you want to do in Umno needs to be funded heavily by the powers that be, something’s wrong somewhere.


Q: How did this new ‘struggle’ come into being?

A: I was in the frontline of politics for a decade in the mid- 80s to the mid-90s, and I could see things moving in that direction. The economy was booming, and everyone was bedazzled by material things. Development was moving at a fantastic pace, and people were becoming rich overnight. Money was becoming the new icon. Not only was it the non- Muslims who were worshipping it, but the Muslims were also worshipping it. That of course became a part of the ethos in Umno as well. They go in there, and when they feel that they have the political connections, they will get contracts, pro jects. And of course, there was this rush to become Umno leaders. Because they see Umno leaders become a wakil rakyat, member of Parliament, or ministers, and suddenly become very rich: they move into big houses, have big cars, and can afford to travel overseas.


Q: Is politics supposed to be a career or a devotion?

A: I think it should be a devotion. You should be moved by the spirit to serve society, rather than to serve yourself.

But having said that, I think politicians must be well-paid; at the moment they are paid peanuts.

So, the problem is, if you become a member of Parliament, you’re an honest man, and straight man; but because of the demands on you and the demands on your time and also on your pocket, you tend to look elsewhere to look for money to fund your activities.

The grassroots should not expect politicians to be rich and to be so generous in giving out money – it sets a strain on them.


Q: Having tried to do so much to eradicate the Umno elections of money politics, yet, there are still rumours, stories, accusations, and allegations that so-and-so won not under his own steam. What does that mean? Does that mean that the perception is greater than the reality?

A: If you were to believe all the rumours and reports that are made, you would think that money politics or political corruption is rampant in Umno. That’s why I welcome Najib’s resolve to change the way we choose our leaders. I think that’s good; we should have 60,000 people rather than 2,000 choosing the leaders. It’s time.

That will go a long way to reducing it to a tolerable level.

Of course, if we can eradicate it completely it’ll be fantastic, but I don’t know of any country in the world where corruption is not present. So, by changing the system of choosing the leaders, that will go a long way to reduce the incidence of money politics.


Q: How do you know that by opening up voting from 2,500 to 60,000, that all it will achieve is that people will just have to spend more?

A: Well, we’ll see. We have to do something about it. We have to come up with a new system; if the system doesn’t work, we’ll change it again. We’ll fine-tune it.

Maybe it’s also time for Umno to have more quality in its membership – maybe membership should be by invitation, rather than by opening up to every Tom, Dick and Harry, for RM1 a year. And make it a bit more elitist.

At the moment, but we just don’t have the quality people in Umno. People are shying away from Umno. The academi cians, the professionals – especially the younger ones – are not coming into Umno.


Q: Umno is the leading political party of the nation. But three million members is not representative of 27 million citizens – so, if it’s even more elitist and more exclusive, would it even be at all representative?

A: We can have a two-tier kind of membership, like in many socialist countries. In Singapore they have the cadre system, where the cadres are identified from a young age. Upon them leaving school, they are hand-picked to be a member of the pyramid club, which is a young club catering for potential leaders in Singapore.

I don’t know why we are so afraid of elitism and rewarding excellence. I think we need to have really capable leaders. We need the best and the brightest to be in politics, government, and judiciary. Not those from the bottom of the barrel. This goes especially for politics, because you sit at the top of the pile, and if you have mediocre people going out there that’ll be the end. We must have really good, sincere, bright, intelligent, educated people up there.


Q: In any society, the bright ones are like big pebbles – they’ll rise to the top. But if you are expecting sincere, honest people, they are going to fall on the wayside once they meet up with the ‘real system’.

A: That’s why the problem is systemic.

The politics is based on patronage, and you’ve got to get away from that. That is the fundamental change that we must do in Umno.


Q: How do you get away from the culture of patronage?

A: That is the 64 billion Dollar question.

You’ve got to change the system of choosing top leaders and the system on the ground as well.

At the moment, if you are a branch chief, you keep away all the bright young sparks from coming into the branch; you don’t register them, you refuse them, you don’t encourage them to come in.

Sometimes, a branch or division chief can be there for 25- 30 years. So, there’s no change, because he has kept everything – he’s guarding his turf so well. And, as you know, branch and division chiefs have got their powers. And they don’t encourage young bright sparks to come in, because they’d be a threat to them. This is almost a culture in Umno.


Q: How do you break the hold that these chiefs have?

A: That’s where the top leadership has got to play their role. They can actually force the branch chief to take in a number of young people. Maybe we could get young people and allot them to the branches, if there is resistance at that level for young people to come in.


Q: So, there has to be a quota system for young people?

A: It’s up to the young people, which division or branch they want to go. We have to distribute talent around the country, and hope that they’ll come up through a system of mer itocracy in the party.

There cannot anymore be a system of patronage.


Q: Should there be a regular turnover system, by which a branch or division chief cannot hang on to their job for 25-30 years?

A: I think there should be a cap on the number of years that a branch or division chief can hold on to his position.


Q: And what should that cap be?

A: Maybe two or three terms. Three terms would be good enough, because we’re talking about nine years. It’s almost a decade – it’s good enough; after all, the President of America is eight years.

You’ve got to allow young people to come up. And then of course, you can have a planned succession – you can groom young people to become leaders. Give them a chance!


Q: Is there a succession plan now, from the bottom?


A: Nothing.


Q: Why?

A: You have to struggle your way up. If you want to be a branch chief, you’ve got to struggle, and convince people that you’re the right one. The same thing if you want to be a youth chief – you have to struggle by yourself. There’s no planning at all.


Q: Why?

A: Because that’s the way it is! That how the system works. The system is like that.


Q: How was it last time?

A: Well, last time, people had different mindsets. You’re talking about the days of Tunku Abdul Rahman, and Tun Razak and Tun Hussein. They were a very different breed of people.

This was before the age of rampant, unfettered ma terialism. Those were the days when we were quite happy to earn whatever we earned; because things were quite cheap, and we could survive very well – especially civil servants and politicians.

There was less demand from them as well. My father was a politician, and member of Parliament. He was quite generous – he spent his own money – but the demands on them weren’t that great. Because the schools were well-funded, and they didn’t have too much technology involved in it; the hospitals were adequate, and the religious places of worship were quite well-funded in those days. But in this modern age, everyone wants money. Even the imam and the bilal and everybody involved in the running of a masjid needs mon ey.


Q: Umno president Datuk Seri Najib Razak said he wanted to get rid of the quota system in nominations. How useful would that be, actually?

A: It’ll be very useful.

At the moment, if you want to get a nomination, you have to spend a lot of money. You have to get so much nominations as well, especially for the presidency, deputy-presidency and even vice-presidency. And this is where the buying and selling (of votes) happens. You want a nomination, you’ve got to pay for it. It becomes a trade.

It must be done away with. Maybe a small number of nominations (to get through) – that should be good enough. There has to be a decent number of nominations; but not to the extent of what it is now.


Q: But if you don’t have to pay at the nomination stage, you might still have to pay at the election stage. Doesn’t that just mean that getting rid of the quota system just saves a candidate money, rather than saving the system from cor ruption?

A: Oh, that’s a tough question! (laughs) That is one way of looking at it. But if the candidate does not spend money, then the expectations of the people down there will not be so much as well, right?

You say that it would save money. Then we’d be getting candidates who are not so rich; those who are brainy, not inclined towards business, inclined towards serving the people, and having the passion to serve the people and the passion for the upliftment of their own kind.

If you have people who spend money – invest in their own election, they will look at it as a business transaction. “This is my investment, and when I get into power, I want to recoup my investment, and make some profit as well.”


Q: That’s kind of like saying that, “If we get rid of the quota system, you still have to pay; it’s just that you just have to pay less.”

A: That’s why it’s important to have the disciplinary committee, to ensure that this habit of paying your way into positions in Umno is looked on and investigated and acted upon. We must have this, because money politics will not go away totally. There’s no such thing as a perfect system. Whatever system that you have, there’s no perfection. All man-made systems are fallible; there’s no such thing as a water-tight or foolproof system. We are racking our brains to think of what kind of system we want to have, that can work, that can be acceptable to the majority of the members.


Q: What have you thought of so far?

A: One the things is no big nominations, no quota system, let more people vote for the top leadership – 60,000 as opposed to 2,000, which is a huge difference. We’ll see how it goes. But at the grassroots level, the leadership must play a role now, in getting new, bright, young members, so that they can be the next generation of leaders within Umno. We must look for quality.


Q: How does the Disciplinary Board do its job? How do you detect cases of corruption? It seems to me that the only time you’re going to hear of something is if someone’s dissatisfied with what he’s got.

A: That’s the wrong perception. The MACC is doing a very good job, helping us in many ways.

They always have the first bite at the cherry, because they’ve got a far bigger force that we. We are basically a very small number, and we have to depend on reports and complaints from the grassroots, and from people who are dissatisfied – especially from the losers. They are the best source of complaints. They know what’s going on, they are involved down there, and if what they say is true, then we’ll investigate. And we’ll charge these so-called winners.


Q: Does that mean that the MACC has corresponding files to what the disciplinary board has, or is it that the disciplinary board has corresponding files to the MACC?

A: They have passed various kind of complaints to us; not just on money politics. Abuse of power, and sometimes they even report on wrong procedures in the AGMs of various branches. And, of course, taking the delegates at the division level overseas, to Medan or Palembang. That doesn’t really come under the purview of MACC.


Q: Why does it not come under the purview of the MACC?

A: It’s very difficult to say that it is corruption under the Act. The question of intent and the question of proof, evidence, is very critical for criminal acts under the MACC. Whereas, for us, our standard of proof is just a Balance of Probabilities, and we can just take in extraneous evidence and circumstantial evidence as well. But for the MACC, they have to prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt, which is far more difficult.


Q: “Money politics” is such a euphemism. Why doesn’t Umno just call it “corruption” outright?

A: If you look at political corruption, it’s very severe and very serious.

But for us, even if you organize a gathering, spend money to feed the people, and then stand up there and campaign, that is actually money politics. That’s not really corruption; you’re just feeding the people. (laughs)


Q: It corrodes a certain amount of society, doesn’t it?

A: But you’ve got to look at the Malay culture as well. The first thing we do when people come to our house is to feed them. Is that wrong?

Let’s say you’re campaigning, and you’re asking this guy to come to your house, so you say, “Listen and vote for me.” And you provide a nice spread. Is that corruption?


Q: And so, you become so well-known for the food that you serve, that people will come just for that, not because people want to listen to you?

A: (laughs) Well, that’s very difficult. When I was a politician, I used to gather them around and have makan and teh tarik until late at night, and it became almost a culture when I was a division chief. And I enjoyed it tremendously.

Is that corruption? They’re all looking forward to coming and meeting me, on a regular basis. Is that wrong?


Q: At what point would you say the things you lay out on your table actually pays for the friendship?

A: It has to be very overt. It has to be where the intention is actually to campaign for yourself or for your gang. And if you stand up and give a speech to campaign for you and your gang, then it is an abuse of the system, and is in fact money politics. Because you are spending money, and you are campaigning at the same time.


Q: If you don’t refer to it outright as corruption, people are going to say, “Well, it’s not too bad, it’s just paying for someone’s meal. It’s not corruption.”

A: It’s difficult. It’s in our Asian culture to feed people when they gather round. Do you expect them to pay for their own meal? It has never happened in our whole history – we are not the Dutch or the Scots! (laughs)

You can’t say that’s corruption. It’s cutting it a bit too far to define that as corruption.

Under the definition of corrupt acts in the Anti-Corruption Act, corruption can extend to the giving of food. But I don’t think the MACC’s (Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission) looking for that. If they are going to investigate all kenduris and all forms of tahlils and gatherings as corrupt acts, then they will be so busy with that and not going for the big corrupt acts.


Q: There were 900 cases that the disciplinary board was looking into. How many of these reports are still active?

A: There are a lot of reports. But if you look at them, most are just complaints, with no specifics in them, and it’s very difficult sometimes.

Out of 900, I think Tan Sri Abu Zahar has investigated nearly 200. All are ready for hearing now. But the rest of it is still being looked at. Probably half of them are just trivial reports without substance, and we’ll just throw them away. We just can’t be looking at every little complaint, especially those without specifics.


Q: How many of your findings did you forward to the MACC?

A: When it comes to reporting political corruption, a lot of people go to the MACC first. If we feel that there are serious cases, we will give to them. But so far, we have not passed any case to the MACC. Most of the cases that come under our purview are not serious enough to merit an MACC in vestigation.


Q: People ask, why is it that Umno or the disciplinary board would protect its own, and not volunteer names?


A: We don’t protect our own. As you can see for yourself, the bigger the fish, the less protection is afforded, because you should know better.

If you look at the high-profile cases, if you look at it closely, it doesn’t merit being charged under the Anti-Corruption Act, because of the paucity of direct evidence.

But even in these high-profile cases, the MACC has already had first bite at the cherry. They in fact investigated these cases first. And when they find, in their opinion, that it is not feasible for them to charge these people with corruption, then they pass the case to us. It’s not the other way around. Because they have the machinery to investigate fully. We don’t.


Q: Let’s then look at how Umno deals with corruption. Why is it that a corrupt leader is only suspended?

A: For them to be suspended as a member of the party and to be stopped from contesting is a big blow to them.

We are not an enforcement agency under the government, or under any Act. We don’t have the powers to put them in jail. We don’t even have the powers to subpoena people to force people to give evidence.

Our name for it is “money politics”. “Guilty of money politics”. Because, in many cases, it doesn’t really amount to corruption, you see.

Even if they are guilty of a corrupt act, but, if the evidence doesn’t show that, MACC will not take any action.


Q: Within the confines of Umno, could you define what “corruption” means?

A: As I said, you cannot equate money politics to cor ruption. If anybody is found guilty of corruption under the definition of the Anti-Corruption Act, we’ll pass it to the MACC.


Q: Let’s look at corruption not as a legal definition, but as a moral definition.


A: I think the word “corruption” doesn’t come at all into the Umno. Only “money politics”. That means that you are guilty of spending money in your campaign and in the run-up to the elections.

It’s well and good to talk about corruption, but it’s very difficult to get the takers to give evidence. Because in most cases it’s done in a closed room, only two persons are involved, and sometimes there is no meeting of eyes as well. They just remit the money into a bank account. So it’s not easy to distinguish between what amounts to money politics and what amounts to corruption, in terms of evidence.


Q: In terms of evidence, perhaps that’s so. But in terms of intention, is or is not money politics a giving out of something with the intention of personally benefiting from this giving out?


A: Yes. But it’s a matter of evidence, you see.

Say I’m a division chief, and I am fighting for my political life, and I take a lot of delegates away for a nice big holiday, but there is no evidence that I am ‘belanja’ (treating) them – that I am spending money on them. Somebody else is spending the money. It’s very difficult to link that to say that I am corrupt, because somebody else is paying for it. How do you prove it? It’s very difficult.


Q: So, if the disciplinary board were to look at a case, that means there’s no hard evidence?

A: For us, we can presume. There is a presumption of guilt. If we can establish that there is a connection between the principal and that guy who paid for it, even if that connection is not entirely clear as daylight, it’s okay. We can make that presumption. But under the Corruption Act, you cannot.


Q: But if you want to impress upon the members that corruption is a bad thing, you can’t differentiate between money politics and corruption. You have to at least ac knowledge the immorality of it.

A: When you say it is corruption, it is “rasuah”. Rasuah has got terrible connotations. It’s got criminal connotations, and I don’t think, for me to belanja people – so that they will look at me more benignly and in a more positive light – amounts to corruption. Especially if I get somebody else to pay for it! (laughs)


Q: If you want to fight it, you can’t hide from the con notations. Maybe the party needs to expand on its definition on what money politics is, or the degree by which you disapprove of money politics.

A: You see, the basic fact is, as a politician, you need to campaign, you need to meet people, and to explain to them your manifesto, your dreams, your plans. And if you forbid candidates from campaigning, and say that campaigning amounts to corruption – it’s too much. You’re going over the top. Because it’s the very nature of politics that you’ve got to meet people, you’ve got to convince people.

That’s why it’s very difficult to label all cases of money politics as political corruption. If you’re looking at it from the point of view of we, who sit on the disciplinary committee, then you’ll understand what I’m talking about. Because there are certain areas, certain things that are done, which does not really amount to corruption, in our eyes.

So, we cannot label that as corruption.


Q: So, how do you fight corruption in this country?

A: We have to get away from this culture of materialism. Although corruption is not yet a way of life – it is only a fact of life – but if we are not careful, it can become a way of life. And to me, the place to start is the political leadership.

There should not be rampant corruption in the political system. The rot starts from the top, as you know. And if you want the government servants and all the way down the line to not be corrupt, then people should not have the perception of you being corrupt in the first place.

I have all this while been advocating for transparency in the political funding process. There is no transparency at all in the party. Where is the money coming from? How it is being spent? If you look at the so-called audited statements of the accounts of all the political parties, there’s no transparen cy.

It doesn’t make sense!

Our election laws are very weak. There’s no proper audit on what’s being spent, on any of the elections or by- elections.

The danger is, we don’t know where the money is coming from; whether it’s coming from the triads, gangsters, drug- dealers, or from the CIA or Mossad – God forbid. We just don’t know.

I am the president of the Federation of Public-listed Companies. Why is it that for us as public-listed companies, it is incumbent upon us to be totally transparent, disclose every sen we spend? We are also supervised and surveyed to such a great extent, so-much-so that now, in terms of corporate governance in this country, we are up there with the rest of the world. But what about political governance? The per ception below of all these party members is that, “A political party has got a lot of money.”

In the last election, you can see for yourself that PKR was spending a lot of money. Where is that money coming from? And where is Umno’s money coming from? If we look at the accounts of Umno at the general assembly, you’d be amazed – we don’t have that much money. (laughs)


Q: How receptive have people been to this suggestion for transparency?

A: There’s going to be a lot of resistance to this.

I was involved in Transparency International’s Crinis Project (to promote transparency and accountability in political financing in Latin America). I think it should be done here.

But I think it’s going to be a long, tough haul, with many mountains to climb. Because, firstly, when we tried to do a survey and give questionnaires to all the treasurers of all the political parties, we were met with a blank, brick wall. Nobody responded.

All the political parties were not forthcoming as far as their accounts were concerned.


Q: In Umno, is there currently a practice of declaring assets?

A: No. That’s only for Cabinet ministers, I think. They are sent to the Prime Minister.


Q: Why has Umno not instituted this as a common prac tice?

A: I don’t think there’s any political party in the world that demands that of their leaders.


Q: If you’re honest, sincere, and committed to getting only the best, what’s so hard about it?

A: The top leadership must declare their assets first. They must be the catalyst for change.


Q: Do you think they would?

A: Well, you ask the top leadership. They have to lead by example. Kepimpinan melalui teladan.

I think the laws have got to be changed as well, because there are no laws asking for it. If it is not under the law, it’s not incumbent upon the leaders to declare their assets.


Q: Do we have enough clean political leaders to start the ball rolling?

A: This is a very loaded question. If I say, “No”, then they will all come down on me. If I say, “Yes”, then some of them will come down on me.

So, I would say, “Yes.” (laughs)

If we talk about transparency, then we have to talk about transparency in the political process.

I think there are enough capable, intelligent, and honest leaders out there to get this moving.


Q: Is there enough of an expectation from the grassroots to force the leadership to do that?

A: If the grassroots is not organized, it’s going to be very difficult to force any changes. When you talk about the grassroots within the party, it’s going to be very difficult. Because they are all motivated by self-interest.

Let’s put it frankly: politics is all about self-interest. So, it’s going to be very difficult for them to move such a thing. But the population at large, the people at large, civil society, must push for this.


Q: You said the struggle has changed; that it’s now for money. So, what should the struggle of the younger gen eration be, and what does Umno have to do?

A: I think the younger people are aware of the excesses of the past. We have ridden roughshod over people’s human rights; the Internal Security Act (ISA) has become such a big rallying point for the opposition. And corruption has become such a big rallying point for the opposition to go against.

We must get rid of all of this first.

This system of warlord-ism within and without the party that’s created by the national constitution that we have must be looked upon again, to see whether we can actually find a national consensus to reduce the number of warlords in this country.

We have too many states, too much government, too many government officers, too many government departments, too many authorities that don’t have the authority, actually. We have a huge bureaucracy, and we’ve got far too many politicians for a democracy.

If you really want to be lean and mean, then all this has to be addressed.

Young people want a new, fresh way of governance. Because even the youngsters are experiencing corruption. It’s something that’s fundamental to their thinking that we must change.

The more warlords you have, the more chances you have of corruption.


Q: If Umno is able to reform its system to reduce money politics, would that be enough to save it?


A: I think the noises coming from the new leadership at present is very encouraging.

Everybody agrees that Umno needs to change drastically. Drastic changes have to happen within the party. And until and unless these things are done, I don’t think the change that we want so much will happen. It has to be drastic, fundamental, changes.

To go forward, we must get rid of the warlords, who have a vested interest in stopping us from making these changes.


Q: Doesn’t the board also have to be transparent?

A: This is a lesson for us in the disciplinary board, because we have tried not to give all the facts and all the reasoning for why we did this and did that, because we didn’t want to expose too much.

It may reflect very badly on the party (if we expose everything), but what has happened is that people have become cynical about us. They think it’s selective pros ecution.

So, although sometimes it may be counter-productive for us to be too open in discussing things, we have to move forward.

But we are a disciplinary board of a political party; we are not an enforcement agency. And for us, there is the dilemma here, on whether we need to be totally transparent, in our report as well as in our investigation process.

This concerns our credibility. How the board works and how we come to a decision has to be made public, because whatever happens, although we are just a political party and this is an internal thing, we have to be more transparent, because the populace expects it.


Q: Is there anything that’s holding the board back from being transparent? Are you bound by anything?

A: No, we are not. We can be transparent. But maybe we have not been imbued with the passion for transparency as yet. We want to protect our party still. And even the government has got the Official Secrets Act. So, things are not that transparent within the government system either.


Q: You don’t have to wait for the government to do it, do you?

A: Exactly. But we don’t want to hurt people as well. This is a very Malay trait – we don’t want to hurt people.

But to me, it is better to hurt those people who are more or less guilty, rather than to hurt the perception of people about the party.

It’s not easy, because it involves the changing of the mindset and attitudes. We have always maintained ourselves as an internal thing, and because of that, we’ve felt that we didn’t need to be totally transparent.


Q: Thinking that you are just an internal system is where you are getting it wrong. Because the nation has to put up with the leaders that Umno puts up. Yet at the same time, you don’t feel that you are answerable to we, the people.

A: We have to discuss this with the leadership, and see what the leadership wants. Because this kind of thing affects the party’s image.

I know the need for us to be transparent; but as to what extent we need to be transparent… We don’t want to cut off our own noses to spite our own face. (laughs)


Q: The president has called for change. “Change or perish.” How much support is there for that?

A: I think there’s a lot of support.

The middle and lower levels are very looking forward to that. And I think the general populace is looking forward to that.

I am very confident of it, because Najib has been very well briefed as to what’s happening everywhere, especially from our disciplinary board. And he has a bunch of very bright people around him, who know the score.

I think he will take the necessary action. It takes a lot of courage, and it takes a lot of forward-thinking as well on his part to bring about these meaningful changes within the political system of Umno.

And he’s right: if Umno doesn’t change, it will be changed for sure. And some people are even thinking that change is the way it should be; because Umno is very resistant to change. And we must get away from that.

Even right-thinking, senior people who have been Umno supporters all this time are thinking, “If Umno doesn’t change, maybe it should be changed.”

But let’s see these words translated into deeds. Let’s hope that he has the necessary courage in himself, to bring about drastic, painful changes within Umno.


Q: When you say the disciplinary board briefed him, what did you brief him about?

A: Not briefed him. We gave him reports. My chairman Tengku Ahmad Rithaudeen sees him on a regular basis – because he also wants feedback.


Q: And what kind of feedback do you give?

A: Well, he’s just been PM only recently, but before that, we have been giving him feedback on the investigations that we are doing, just to forewarn him and Pak Lah that something is going to happen. Thus far, he hasn’t interfered with what we are doing; he’s just said, “If you’ve got the evidence, do it.”

Before he took over he actually asked us for suggestions as to what changes need to be made. We have given him, as individuals and as a group, suggestions as to what need to be done.


Q: What were those suggestions?

A: My suggestion was to make the party smaller. Only 10 per cent. Because actually the most active members of Umno are these 10 per cent. The other 90 per cent are like lallang sometimes.

If all Umno members in Kelantan were to actually support Umno, we would have won Kelantan.


Q: It’s a condition of membership that members must vote during the elections, although it doesn’t say that you must vote for your own party…

A: Ya. (laughs)

The same thing in Kedah. So, you can see for yourself, that despite the fact that we have 3.2 million members, the only really solid ones are the 10 per cent.


Q: Wouldn’t it be a great upset for all these people to be given the boot?

A: This is the problem that comes to mind. But the way is to have a second-tier kind of membership, where they are more involved in welfare work, looking after the people on the ground. Finance them, rather than get them involved in the political side of things. Let’s not forget: Umno has been doing a lot of welfare work all these years. Supporting the masjid, anak yatim, people who are sick. The branch chief is supposed to look after his area and the residents in his area. And in certain cases, the branch chief is also the village head. In urban areas, we have residents’ association, and they are active in the residents’ association.

They should concentrate on that, rather than concentrate on being a small-time politician.


Terima Kasih

ajoi said...

dato'
apakah ada udang di sebalik batu atas cadangan zahid hamidi mahu mengadakan askar wataniah di setiap kawasan parlimen?? adakah mahu menang pilihan raya akan datang dengan undi pos??. perkara sebegini menimbulkan wasangka terhadap BN yang sanggup memanipulasi segala perkara demi survival mereka walaupun dengan cara penipuan.fikirkan dan renungkan.

cmk said...

Salam Datuk Kuda Kepang,

Saya tidak ambil kisah apa saja konsep yang ingin diutarakan, baik Satu Malaysia, atau Harapan Baru Untuk Malaysia, atau Mahathirisme. Semuanya akan kelihatan amat baik dan hebat di atas kertas, lebih-lebih lagi tatkala konsep itu mula dijaja oleh para penyokong dan media.

Malangnya segala konsep yang bakal dijaja itu belum tentu 100% mematuhi syariah. Dari zaman Tunku sampailah zaman Najib, kerajaan BN jelas mengamalkan Islam separuh-separuh.

Kalau kita selalu mengatakan PAS tidak ikut Islam, apakah UMNO itu benar-benar ikut Islam walhal UMNO pun 2x5 PAS saja.

Tolonglah wahai DS Najib, sedarlah bahawa tiada satu pun konsep dalam dunia ini yang boleh menyelamatkan manusia. Tolonglah kembali kepada ayat-ayat Allah dan sunnah Nabi. Biarlah kita dikatakan kembali kepada zaman silam tetapi pengorbanan kita itu lebih diberkati di dunia dan akhirat.

Kita sering mengimpikan syurga Allah tetapi kita sering memilih untuk pergi ke syurga melalui jalan neraka... boleh sampaikah kita ke syurga melalui jalan neraka..?

wak-labu said...

PAS dan UMNO siang malam membahaskan soal, hudud, hadhari dan negara Islam.

Kaum kafir sudah bersatu dalam DAP, dibantu pula PAS dan PKR, maka laum kafir ini akan bertambah kuat.

Sekarang mereka sudah berani menuntut berbagai perkara yang sangat menguntungkan mereka, dan sebalik nya sangat merugikan kaum melayu/Islam.

Kebodohan kaum melayu/Islam ini akhirnya akan menjadikan kaum melayu/Islam menjadi HAMBA KAUM KAFIR.

Parpu Kari said...

SALAM LAGI SEKALI DATO RON, WAH LAMA TAK NAMPAK POSTING BARU YA
KISAH BENAR, BACA DI SINI!

http://parpukari.blogspot.com/2009/04/suratkhabar-cina-lapor-berita-palsu.html

zeme said...

Salam Datuk,

Saya ingin cadangkan, konsep "Satu Malaysia" diubah kepada konsep "Bersatu Malaysia".

Persepsi kepada "Satu Malaysia" lebih mencerminkan kesamarataan dan ini akan lebih memberikan signifikasi yang kurang jelas kepada konsep tersebut yang pada dasar mudah untuk difahami ia menyamai konsep "Malaysia Malaysian".

Persepsi kepada "Bersatu Malaysia" adalah lebih menyeluruh dengan adaptasi emosi dan rasional mengajak seluruh lapisan rakyat yang berjiwa Malaysia didahului oleh barisan pemimpin untuk bersatu membina jatidiri Malaysia sebenar dalam satu konsep memupuk perpaduan yang utuh dan bersatu teguh.

Jadi pada hemat saya, "Unity Malaysia" adalah lebih kompromi berbanding "One Malaysia".

Wasalam.

Mika Angel-0 said...

Sdr Ruhanie Ahmad,



Lu rugilah!
real action taking place
in political kingdom of malaysia boleh!

master scholar...summa cum laude


a memo check
bila tak bee-z
perlu khidmat nashihat
kerja minizoo bukit takal
dan sepuluh budak hitam.

syoru free. bonus pun ada
- kurang manis.

say,
if someone offer you
a downpayment of 10 million dollars
to testrun a program to remove
a presiden of umno
you ambil tak?

halal and toyyiban!

consultant fee do not include all expenses to cover accessory and ancillary equipments.

thinking out loud for a master scholar
is hard work and lots of fun
for a consultant Ruhanie Ahmad

terima kasih

kepada allah berserah

ChengHo said...

Konsep 1Malaysia tidak akan berjaya selagi anak anak kita tidak dididik disekolah yg sama dgn menggunakan kaedah dan bahasa yg sama
Apa yg terjadi sekarang adalah kesan dari penukaran konsep pendidikan negara yg meletakkan sekolah kebangsaaan tidak menjadi pilihan pertama ibubapa untuk menghantar anak anak mereka belajar
Orang orang china akan menghantar anak anak mereka kesekolah china , orang orang india kesekolah tamil dan orang orang melayu yg elit kesekolah suwasta yg berteraskan bahasa Inggeris
Guru guru sekolah kebangsaan tidak membantu integrasi national ini apabila mereka menterjemahkan pelaksanaan konsep pendidikan national mengikut citarasa tersendiri
Konsep pendidikan national ini bertambah tenat apabila Anwar Ibrahim semasa menjadi menteri pelajaran memperkenalkan konsep penerapan nilai nilai Islam yg kalau dikaji dengan terperinci telah menyeleweng dari nilai nilai keislaman sejagat

pakbelalang said...

Najib surprises Sikhs at Vasakhi celebration


KUALA LUMPUR: Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak joined the Sikh community in its Vasakhi Day celebration yesterday.

“I gave late notice as I did not want any pomp and pageantry. I did not want the red carpet, bunga mangga or kompang.

“I wanted to meet you in a natural way and take part in the daily activities so I can better understand the aspirations and hopes of the Sikh community and all communities.

comment:

Yes, yes, yes, Najib. No more red carpet. No more bunga manggar. No more kompang.

This pomp and pageantry is out dated. It must apply to all leaders who are making their working visits or having official public functions except maybe if there are special campaigns to promote new products or services invited by corporations.

Likewise, having full page coloured congratulatory message to welcome leaders for "public" functions must be banned, except maybe message from corporations to open their new factories or launching new products or services. That is part of their advertising and promotional expenses and it doesn't come from public funds.

pakbelalang said...

My personal opinion about Ahmad Said as Mentri Besar of Trengganu is that he is not the right leader to helm the state administration, period.

I think he is still suffering from "kejutan budaya" after being appointed as Menteri Besar to replace Idris Jusoh.

Maybe he is also suffering from inferiority complex. There is something that is lacking in his personal traits.

Looking at the latest political development in Trengganu, I think Ahmad Said is facing personality clash and is unable to get the respect from most of his BN colleagues because of the way he carries himself as Menteri Besar.

Najib and Mahyuddin have to step in and quickly resolve this leadership crisis in Trengganu.I believe the situation would become more serious if there are "invincible hands" taking advantage to get involve in the crisis.

It does not augur well for state BN if the problem continues to drag on indefinitely without any concrete solution.

Trengganu has got a lot of potential to progress faster than any other states especially in tourism sector. But unfortunately the state leader running the show is not able to have the right vision and take advantage to capitalise the natural resources that are "freely" available.

It looks like the present Menteri Besar does not have the "intellectual" capacity to move the state forward. What a pity!!

mie said...

Salam Dato,
Konsep 1 Malaysia nampaknya menenggelamkan Wawasan 2020 dan Islam Hadhari.
Apakah kesinambungan konsep 1 Malaysia akan terjamin sekiranya PM 7 mengambilalih kelak.
Sekian.

nalapambu said...

PAS dan PKR akan tetap terus unggul selagi kaum cina dan india terus menyokong nya.

UMNO akan tetap terus ditolak oleh kaum cina dan india.

Penyokong UMNO boleh cakap apa saja yang mereka suka terhadap Pakatan Rakyat, tetapi sokongan kaum cina dan india semakin bertambah teguh terhadap Pakatan Rakyat.

TS Muhyiddin Yassin TPM menyatakan UMNO cuma ada masa dua tahun sahaja untuk pulih, jika gagal dipulih dalam masa dua tahun ini, UMNO akan berkubur.

Kepada juak2 UMNO sekelian, berusahalah bersungguh2 pulih kan UMNO jangan terlalu sibuk dengan hal Pakatan Rakyat.

UMNO sedang menghadapi saat2 maut - Pakatan Rakyat sedang menuju kearah kemenangan pada PRU13 akan datang.

nalapambu said...

Mula2 TDM dipaksa berundur, UMNO sudah berada dalam keadaan parah, digantikan dengan DSAAB yang kunun nya "Mr.Clean", Satu penggal sahaja, "Mr.Clean" memerintah UMNO hampir tumbang pada PRU12.

Riyuh rendah pencacai2 UMNO menyalak menghalau DSAAB supaya segera berundur juga. Kunun untuk selamatkan UMNO.DSAAB berundur dan DSNTR pula ditabalkan sebagai Presiden UMNO yang ke6.

Malangnya UMNO masih tidak berubah, rakyat masih meminggir kan BN/UMNO, 5 PRK diadakan, BN/UMNO cuma menang 1 kerusi sahaja - itu pun di kawasan perintah BN/UMNO yang paling mundur.Hari ini keadaan BN/UMNO makin bertambah parah.

Tan Seri Muhyiddin Yassin TPM menyatakan bahawa BN/UMNO cuma ada masa DUA tahun sahaja untuk di pulihkan.Malang nya pencacai2 UMNO masih lagi TIDAK SEDAR dan masih tidak mahu mengaku bahawa BN/UMNO sudah NAZAK.

pakbelalang said...

Saya ingat Barisan Nasional jangan berkempen di Penanti. Biarlah Anwar berkempen.

Bagi depa menang. Ini semua strategy Anwar supaya dia dapat perhatian berterusan dari rakyat.

Tujuannya adalah untuk mengalih perhatian rakyat supaya berpihak PKR.

BN boleh bertanding tapi tidak payahlah berkempen di jalanan seperti Anwar.

Cukuplah. Habiskan masa dan wang sahaja.

Parpu Kari said...

DATO RON, HATS OFF TO YOU DATO, SEMALAM U BETUL2 ROCKS LA DATO...I AM YOUR BIG FAN NOW DATO! INI ADA SESIKIT ULASAN TENTANG ISU SEMALAM DATO!

Semalam aku tengok rancangan agenda awani di saluran 501, aku ingatkan rancangan boring, tapi bila aku tengok ada Lokman Adam, ada Dato Ron, aku pun teruja gak la nak tengok, sekali Mat Kencing dalam seluar pun ada la! Uiks! Muahahahahha, aku masih tak leh nak lupakan insiden itu!
So, aku pun teruskan melihat rancangan yang membincangkan tentang isu ISA, aku tak nak ulas panjang-panjang la, korang boleh nilaikan sendiri bagaimana panel-panel ini menangani isu ISA ni.

Apa yang menarik perhatian aku ialah tentang mamat kencing dalam seluar ni, dia ni muka dah la nampak bodoh tahap bahalol punya, pastu hujahan dia langsung tak kena pada tempat! Oh my god, dia ni orang tengah bercakap dia masuk terus, bagus al juburi makin lama makin banyak bebal kau bela dalam group kau! He he he

Aku respek dengan Dato Ron dan Lokman Adam, mereka steady dan tak emosional macam 'Mat Lembu' kencing dalam seluar tu! Penjelasan kedua mereka tentang isu ISA adalah memang jelas sekali, Dato Ron sarankan supaya ISA dikekalkan, saudara Lokman pula telah meyarankan supaya Dato Seri Najib memperhalusi lagi proses undang-undang ISA, namun beliau juga mahu ISA dikekalkan!

Sekarang ni aku nak cerita pasal kebebalan ketua kepada sebuah Partai yang seksnya bebas ni, Sekali pandang saja kita dah nampak si mamat kencing dalam seluar ni amatlah dangkal dan dungu orangnya!

Hujahan dia dengan mudah saja dipatahkan oleh dato Ron dan Lokman, tetapi semangat belakang kasi si 'kencing dalam seluar' ni tetap utuh, dia cuba pertahankan cadangan dia untuk memansuhkan ISA, namun sebab dan alasan yang di beri oleh 'Mat Lembu' ni adalah amat lemah dan tak leh masuk akal.

Si ketiak tengit ni telah memberi contoh tentang negara lain yang dah tak gunakan ISA, apa? negara lain? Mamat ni tau ke apa yang dia cakapkan ni? Aku percaya la kalau korang tengok cara mat kencing dalam seluar ni cakap semalam confirm ramai yang akan tinggalkan Parti Sex Bebas ni!

Syabas YB B.A.B.I. anda mempunyai seorang pendekar yang bahalol dan tongong nak mapos...Muahahahahahahaa

Bagi aku pulak isu ISA ni simple je dan aku setuju dengan saranan saudara Lokman Adam tu, perbaiki la proses ISA tu, tetapi ISA mesti dikekalkan, bayangkanlah tanpa guna ISA pun dah ramai baring atas jalan, kalau takde ISA mau depa baring kat mana depa suka kot! He he he

Kalau niat dalam hati tak jahat, ISA bukan masalahnya, tapi kalau ada niat tak baik dan nak menghancurkan negara maka kamu akan melihat ISA ni sebagai satu ancaman! There is nothing wrong for Malaysia ada ISA!

Semalam bila Lokman nak bagitau tentang negara yang mengamalkan undang-undang seperti ISA ni, tak sempat la sebab si Mat Lembu kencing dalam seluar ni asyik dok bercakap je, tak nak bagi orang lain cakap langsung! Mamat shamsul ni memang ada attitude problem la.

Si mat kencing dalam seluar ni cakap kalau negara nak maju kena mansuhkan ISA, what? kalau ISA mansuh negara boleh maju ya? Dia kata ISA dah tak relevan sekarang ni, kalau takde ISA maka negara akan makmur! Memang bebal tahap gaban la si mamat penakut ni, apa kena mengena ISA dengan kemajuan dan kemakmuran?

Lepas tu dia cakap kita kena tengok standard negara kita ni, banyak orang seluruh dunia kutuk ISA katanya, sekali Dato Ron tepis dia dan Dato cakap, kenapa harus kita ambil contoh negara lain, negara kita ada standard kita sendiri, kenapa nak tiru negara lain? Kalau nak tiu pun nak tiru sapa? Amerika? Depa kan ada Guantanmo Bay! Syurga untuk Al Juburi sebab banyak orang kena liwat kat situ. undang-undang tu lagi zalim, dia letak kau kat pulau dan tak bagi sesiapa pun jumpa kau kat sana tau, keluarga sendiri pun tak boleh!

Lokman Adam ada menyentuh tentang isu masa beliau di tahan di bawah ISA satu masa dahulu, beliau telah menceritakan bagaimana ISA ni berbeza dengan Guantanamo bay, yang kena tahan di ISA ni boleh jumpa keluarga seminggu sekali, kalau kat teluk Guantanamo, takde chance beb!

Aku respek la kat saudara Lokman Adam ni, dia memang layak jadi Exco Pemuda Umno la, dan dia ni pun aku rasa satu hari nanti boleh lead pemuda la! bagusnya Lokman Adam ni kerana walau telah di tahan di bawah ISA beberapa kali pun beliau masih menyokong akan dasar ini cuma saranan beliau berkali-kali adalah untuk memperhalusi proses ISA ni!

Tahniah juga saya ucapkan pada Dato Ron, kerana belaiu begitu tegas sekali dan belaiu telah berjaya menampakkan ketua AMK tu macam budak tak pas SRP je...Muahahahhahaha

Wahai Mat Kencing dalam seluar, hang ni baik berhenti je la, bukan apa kesian jugak aku tengok kau ni, kau ni bukan tak pandai brader, cuma bebal je di tambah dengan dangkal sikt peh, what a combination man! Makin banyak hang cakap makin bengap la nampak kau ni! Kami tak akan lupa sampai bila-bila pun insiden kau kencing dalam seluar akibat ketakutan yang terlampau!

Muahahahahahahaha!

kudakepang said...

Saudara Parpu Kari

Saya ucapkan jutaan terima kasih atas posting anda mengenai progam dalam Astro Awani malam semalam. Saya sekadar menjalankan tugas saya kepada agama, bangsa dan negara. Apa yang saya hujahkan pun berasaskan kebenaran bukannya berasaskan prasangka siasah yang sempit dan dangkal.

Salam takzim dan salam perkenalan
Ruhanie Ahmad

Mika Angel-0 said...

Sdr Ruhanie Ahmad,

Saya benar-benar ingat anda nak tempeleng budak sebelah itu - bukan Sdr Suhaimi Sulaiman.

Syabas!

SirLancelot said...

tabik datuk ron,anyway,just to remind you also please don't be emotional yourself

politik said...

aku harap negara aman sentosa tiada lagi kata mengadu domba


Cheers,
Melayu Boleh