by Kee Thuan Chye
MalaysiaKini
Oct 27, 10 8:08am
COMMENT Every time an Umno general assembly rolls into town, the mainstream newspapers will be filled to overflowing with coverage of the event. Pages and pages will be devoted to the speeches and debates as well as photographs of the gathering.
But if you were to dig up your old newspapers of at least the past two or three decades to refer to the reports on the Umno general assemblies, you’d find that the basic issues and the exhortations of the party leaders are virtually the same.
At each assembly, the things that are said appear to be variations on the same themes – the Malays need to work harder and improve themselves; they need to be on guard against external threats; their rights will never be taken away from them; Umno will forever protect the Malays; at the same time, the Malays must understand that they live in a multi-racial society so Umno will also see to the interests of the other races…
There is always a heavy emphasis on the issue of race, and of the Malays in relation to the other races in Malaysia. Somehow, even though it is the dominant party in government, Umno can’t seem to get past that and focus instead on national issues that affect the entire population or discuss intelligently the issues of the day from a broader perspective.
Its president would utter some platitude about Umno having to show leadership and be sensitive to the other races, and then stridently champion the Malay Agenda. As the president has also always been the country’s prime minister, you’d have to look at the assembly as theatre, the president as an actor, to suppress any suspicion of schizophrenia.
Imagine this happening in Singapore, with the ruling party there championing Chinese supremacy. Or the ruling party in Australia championing the whites. Not so easy, is it?
The Hokkiens might say of the 2010 Umno General Assembly proceedings that it was all “kong lai, kong khee, kong siang mi knia.” (transliterated: Talk come, talk go, talk same things.) This is something Umno’s permanent chairman, Badruddin Amiruldin, can probably relate to; after all, when he told MCA president Chua Soi Lek, “Please don’t disturb the 30 percent which belongs to the Malays”, he did so in Hokkien.
More than that, his remark aptly summed up the theme and tenor of the assembly – the party’s fixation on the 30 percent. It didn’t matter to all present that Badruddin should instead have said that the 30 percent belongs to the ‘bumiputeras’. The significant difference was significantly overlooked, but hey! when they’re all imbued by the same party spirit, who cares about the details?
Institutionalising cronyism
Going by the quality of this year’s debates and the proposals of some delegates, Umno has not changed a bit. If a party member had been transported from the 1980s into the 2010 assembly, he would have felt quite at home.
Umno vice-president Mohd Shafie Apdal said some sensible things about the need to be inclusive and not be jealous of the success of others. So did Khairy Jamaluddin when he expressed the need to appreciate the feelings of the other races for whom Malaysia is also their home and their country.
“We often hear grouses about the civil service being dominated by Malays,” he said. “Are we to believe that there are only a few non-Malays who are qualified to hold senior civil service positions?”
Many at the assembly, however, took the non-inclusive stance and in so doing provided some entertainment, albeit unwittingly.
Former Sabah chief minister Salleh Said Keruak said there should not be open tenders for government projects. Instead, contracts should be given to Umno leaders’ followers. And this must be ensured by the setting-up of a system. Talk about institutionalising cronyism!
Johor delegate Ayub Jamil wanted affirmative action included in all the Economic Transformation Programme (ETP) initiatives announced by the government. If that were done, how would the private sector be attracted to invest in them? What about foreign investors? Wouldn’t they prefer countries that don’t impose such a condition?
Malacca delegate Hasnor Sidang Hussein actually blamed the non-Malays for the failure of the Malays to achieve the 30 percent – by not providing the Malays help in this regard. But was that ever part of the deal? Since it’s not, why don’t we write a new ‘social contract’ and put that clause in?
Reezal Merican Naina Merican from Penang called for BN component parties to show Umno fairness and justice. Now, that was sumptuous. Fairness and justice from these powerless partners who can’t say anything that Umno doesn’t like without being told to shut up?
How have they been unfair and unjust to Umno? Oh, is it about Chua Soi Lek questioning the 30 percent? It’s always about the 30 percent, isn’t it? That’s not just what the Umno General Assembly revolved around; it seems the whole world does, too. Questioning the 30 percent is unfair and unjust.
Negeri Sembilan representative Jalaluddin Alias blamed Umno’s partners in BN for the coalition’s poor showing in the 2008 general election. To him, Umno was above blame because it managed to win 68 percent of its seats. It was evidently immaterial to him that in 2008, Umno lost 30 of the parliamentary seats it had held before that. Those losses must have been the fault of the component parties as well.
For the next general election, he urged the Umno leadership to take away the seats lost by its coalition partners in 2008 and give them instead to Umno candidates. This, he said, would ensure a BN victory. Hallelujah! Yes, indeed!
Yet even as he showed no quarter for the component parties, he acknowledged that “if MCA doesn’t support us, we cannot win”. So, let’s get this right – take away their seats and still ask for their support? What do you call someone who comes from Klinggong and who exhibits a twisted logic?
Strong graphic language
Numerous other delegates defended the government’s recently announced projects. They seemed to speak through more than one orifice.
Among these was Umno Youth deputy chief Razali Ibrahim who said mega-projects like the proposed 100-storey Warisan Merdeka tower would help Malaysia become a high-income nation because they would attract funding from the private sector and thereby help the government save money, which it could then use to solve the people’s problems.
Brilliant! And would he be the one who will guarantee the participation of the private sector? And also see that the money saved is channelled towards the needy?
Let’s save the best for last. This year, Umno president Najib Razak came out strongly to defend the rights of the Malays. He assured them that their rights were enshrined in the federal constitution, and these could not be easily taken away from them because any amendment to the related article would have to get the consent of the rulers. He said the chapter on the rights issue was now closed and there should be no more questioning of it.
To be sure, there is absolutely no mention of ‘rights’ in the federal constitution. So it was another significant difference that was significantly overlooked, but when the actor is in the mood for a theatre performance, who cares about the details?
All this is really old hat. The surprising element is that what Najib said about defending Malay rights totally contradicts his 1Malaysia concept and the inclusiveness it advocates. But it’s theatre, and he’s performing to a Malay audience. Why not, eh? Why is there a need to be consistent, anyway? Especially when you are the leader of the most powerful party in the country?
And while you’re at it, why not use strong graphic language to rally party members to maintain control of the government after the next general election, no matter what: “Even if our bodies are crushed and our lives lost, brothers and sisters, whatever happens, we must defend Putrajaya.”?
Did somebody say this was a statement advocating violence? Rubbish! In fact, it was so unimportant it was omitted in mainstream media reports. Malaysiakini was, however, not discerning enough and decided to run it, so the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) had to investigate the news website. Probably to find out if Malaysiakini was qualified to make sound editorial judgements.
But the Straits Times of Singapore reported it, too. So how? Now it looks like Najib’s unimportant statement will be read in other countries, too, because the Straits Times is an influential paper. Will potential foreign investors be confused about which the real Najib is – the one who is global-minded and assures them of a level investment field or the one who talks about crushed bodies and lost lives?
What about local investors? Will they now be inspired to strongly support the ETP? Will they be filled with confidence that no matter what, the government will not change, the political situation will be stable, and investments will be safe?
Well, it looks like the 2010 Umno General Assembly has been another reaffirmation of business as usual, and that all’s well with the Umno empire. The racial policies will remain, regardless of the ETP and the New Economic Model (NEM). It’s all back to status quo. And Putrajaya is guaranteed.
No wonder former president Mahathir Mohamad said, “It feels like the Umno of old.” Coming from someone who brought the country to where it is, that’s really ominous.
#1 by yhsiew on Saturday, 30 October 2010 - 12:12 pm
///you’d find that the basic issues and the exhortations of the party leaders are virtually the same.///
How can the racists change their “spots”.
#2 by DAP man on Saturday, 30 October 2010 - 3:10 pm
Calling all Chinese in the MCA and Gerakan – why not you all potong and join UMNO?
Why be traitors to your own race?
#3 by Loh on Saturday, 30 October 2010 - 10:20 pm
After a while, UMNO will claim that the 30% was a social contract.
Nobody was able to stop UMNO change the constitution, and the constitution to UMNO is the social contract. Yet Razak was cunning to get the conference of rulers involved. In a democracy when the constitution could be amended when 2/3 of the MPs so decide it would be unconstitutional to bestow veto power to the conference of rulers. Further with constitutional amendment in 1992 the King is obliged to assent decisions of the parliament within a certain period. Thus to remove Article 153, the parliament should do it in two steps. First, it should remove the provision with regards to a reference to be made to the conference of rulers. That would become law after a while even without the King’s signature. The next amendment would remove that article , if 2/3 of the MPs so decide.
#4 by drngsc on Sunday, 31 October 2010 - 8:25 am
After 53 years still no new ideas. Just race and ” gomen help me ” mentality. How to go into ” high income ” economy?
#5 by HJ Angus on Sunday, 31 October 2010 - 9:08 am
the 30% demand is part of the Never Ending Parasites syndrome and it gets worse.
The basic reason is the policy never creates capacity but just consumption in luxury lifestyle, trophy wives and flaunting of wealth.
I guess that the recipients are so busy in activities of the conspicuous consumption lifestyle that they have no time to engage in improving themselves but use mainly the gears of the patronage system to further their aims.
Not only that but at each major function those further down the feeding trough jostle for their turn as they wait impatiently for their turn at the main table of greed and opulence.
The only way to end the frenzied feeding is to take away the trough and channel aid to only those Malaysians in dire need.
#6 by ktteokt on Sunday, 31 October 2010 - 11:29 am
Jellyfishes will remain jellyfishes, no matter after how many centuries of evolution they have undergone. The only thing they know is how to propagate and propagate in mass numbers, but whatever they reproduce, they are but jellyfishes!!!!! The 70 million population announced by TDM had given them a busy time propagating but UMNO failed to see the quality factor over the quantity factor!!!!!!
#7 by Loh on Monday, 1 November 2010 - 9:59 pm
No contract entered by any person should be binding to his descendents, unless specified. The social-contract was meant to be for 15 years; so it was within the lifetime of most of the people then. The citizenship right acquired by the citizens after 1957 are their natural birth rights. It is nonsensical to demand compensation on the argument as to how the law was put in place.
The agreement to place Malays on a special position was meant to be based on needs, and hence according to the Reid Commission, that would be phased out eventually, based on a review of the situation. If the assistance was meant for Malays, clearly it cannot be made available to those who are not pure Malays. Mamakthir said that Malays are weak and non-competitive; that should be the outcome of genes inherent in Malays. When the gene pool is enlarged like in the mix-blood UMNO leaders, the President, deputy President and four-fifth of the Vice Presidents cannot be weak genetically speaking and they are rich.
The social contract to assist Malays might be extended to the descendant’s of Malays who were Malayans in 1957, but it should not be extended to Malays who became Malayans after 1957. Likewise it is for Malaysians in the case of natives of Sabah and Sarawak after 1963. The entitlement is personal to holders. Thus those who came in through Project M in Sabah cannot be classified as bumiputras.
#8 by Loh on Monday, 1 November 2010 - 10:00 pm
The inclusion of pseudo-Malays dilutes the entitlement shares of pure Malays. In fact, Malays have their name spoiled and dignity demeaned because UMNO leaders worked against their interest. Firstly, UMNO created the populist programmes which are like sugar-coated poisons. In lowering the passing marks for universities examinations, sub-standards graduates were produced. For some time these graduates passed off as genuine degree holders. When they ended up as teachers, students suffer; with bad teachers the students could double their effort but do not gain commensurately. When the foul practises get institutionalised, licensed professionals chose administrative duties to hide their shortcomings. But as the certification process became suspect Malay graduates from local universities became unemployable. They have been profiled as such. Malay parents whose children were at local universities had naturally felt elated when told of special tutorials before examinations, and examinations were just a repeat of tutorial exercises. They gave their votes to UMNO in election for enforcing the privilege of NEP at the taste of the sugar; they did not even realise that the poison hit them later.
#9 by Loh on Monday, 1 November 2010 - 10:02 pm
The intake of academicians in local universities shows a 90% share by Malays. If university teachers are the best brains in the country, and since there is no monopoly of brain power by race, accepting nonetheless mixed–blood Malays are better than pure Malays, only 60% of the universities teaching staff should be Malays. Thus 30% of the university Malay academicians are only second-best who are employed because non-Malays are unwelcomed. These 3,500 Malays academicians in Malaysian universities would have contributed more in general civil services than hogging the posts in universities. At the salary of say RM 60,000 per person per year, they cost the government 210 million a year. If these 3,500 are given a life time pension now at a cost of 210 million a year Malaysian universities can practise true meritocracy. But with that UMNO cannot demonstrate that it practises ketuanan melayu. For the purpose of impressing on voters to vote UMNO, the majority of the students the Malays do not have the opportunities to study with the best teachers the country could offer.
#10 by Loh on Monday, 1 November 2010 - 10:03 pm
Most of current top UMNO leaders have been trained overseas and they survived true competition outside the country. They should appreciate the virtue of competition and meritocracy, and they would not agree privately at Mamakthir’s claim that meritocracy is racism. If scholarships were awarded on pure meritocratic basis founded on academic results, 20% of the scholarships now awarded to Malays would go to non-Malay scholars. With that 8 out of 10 Malays who obtained government scholarships for overseas studies would be really confident of their capability rather than having doubts hanging in their mind that they are the product of NEP. Well, that could be the intention of UMNO to make Malays tied to its apron strings. That serves to support Mamakthir statement that those who benefited from NEP would be selfish not to support its continuation. Malays are tied to UMNO and they must be eternally grateful.
Mamakthir started the negotiated contract rather than public tender in the name of helping bumiputras. The first such project was the Daya Bumi building at the old Kuala Lumpur railway station. It was 400 million ringgit. Since then projects in the billions are dished out to friends and cronies. The new secretary general of the Ministry of Primary Industries revealed that the award of projects on independent power producers which have 40% excess capacity is the result of the negotiated contract. The harm to the nation might end when the contracts expired in 2015. Mamakthir did not only cause hardship to the nation during his 22 years reign. The harm extends beyond his term.
#11 by Loh on Monday, 1 November 2010 - 10:04 pm
The Prime Minister alone has the sole authority on how PETRONAS is run, and the accounts are for his eyes only. The parliament has the MPs elected to represent them. But these MPs do not have a right to oversee PETRONAS activities. 40% of government revenue came from PETRONAS contribution of taxes and transfer. The operational revenue of PETRONAS could be as high as the government budget. How such revenue is spent is answerable to one person. He could be as powerful as the Sultan of Brunei in terms of spending oil revenue. That would not change unless UMNO is dethroned.
In the early days of NEP, PNB was established to hold shares in trust for Malays in pursuance to the objective of the 30% target. The government at that time did not think through how such shares should be handed over to Malays. Now, the government is happy to be having government linked companies to play with. The GLC is funded by the government but they are operated as private companies. The CEO and the board of governors have the full authority on how the company funds are managed. These companies do not just produce their core goods and services, they purchases services and contracts. As companies’ operations are not for public view, they have as much negotiated deals as government projects, and yet they needed no parliament approval. The CEOs of GLCs are appointed by the PM, and they dance to his tune.
#12 by Loh on Monday, 1 November 2010 - 10:07 pm
In the early days of NEP, PNB was established to hold shares in trust for Malays in pursuance to the objective of the 30% target. The government at that time did not think through how such shares should be handed over to Malays. Now, the government is happy to be having government linked companies to play with. The GLC is funded by the government but they are operated as private companies. The CEO and the board of governors have the full authority on how the company funds are managed. These companies do not just produce their core goods and services, they purchases services and contracts. As companies’ operations are not for public view, they have as much negotiated deals as government projects, and yet they needed no parliament approval. The CEOs of GLCs are appointed by the PM, and they dance to his tune.
PNB declared that it would use its own money, not government funds, to build the RM 5 billion ringgit 100-storey building. If PKFZ is any guide, the final cost could be 10 billion or more. PNB are holding equity capital on behalf of Malays. Shouldn’t Malays tell UMNO that they prefer to have the shares capital distributed to them so that they could on the own invest, rather than having the CEO and a few persons playing with RM 5 billion worth of share capital.
#13 by Loh on Monday, 1 November 2010 - 10:08 pm
The government has not include shares held by GLCs as those accrued to Malays towards the 30% equity target. Indeed once the 30% target has been achieved, the issue of how to distribute those shares would arise. The longer the government denied such inclusion, the longer the powers-that-be can play with the companies. In the interest of claiming what are rightly held in trust for Malays, the Malays should demand that the government clearly account for what they have. Share capital in other listed companies that are held by individual Malays or mixed bloods are just like shares capital held by UMNO in the names of a few ‘Malay’ individuals, the Malays at large have no claim on them. Some UMNO members were up in arms against studies by academicians which concluded that the 30% target had been surpassed. Little do they know that in fighting for the decadent NEP to remain, they forgo their chance to claim the shares which are held in trust for them, at least in their name.
UMNO members cannot see through the tricks of their leaders. But Malays of other political parties cannot be naïve. They should ask for distribution of GLCs shares, now.
#14 by Loh on Monday, 1 November 2010 - 10:09 pm
Prime Minister Najib alone has the sole authority on how PETRONAS is run, and the accounts are for his eyes only. The parliament has the MPs elected to represent them. But these MPs do not have a right to oversee PETRONAS activities. 40% of government revenue came from PETRONAS contribution of taxes and transfer. The operational revenue of PETRONAS could be as high as the government budget. How such revenue is spent is answerable to one person. He could be as powerful as the Sultan of Brunei in terms of spending oil revenue. That would not change unless UMNO is dethroned.