Enough of this nonsense! Malaysia was created as a secular nation —Clive Kessler

Enough of this nonsense! Enough already!

Malaya and then Malaysia was created as a secular nation.

Denial of this basic fact has become commonplace in recent times. 

The pioneers in promoting the revisionist myth that there was or is nothing secular in the nation’s origins or about its Constitution have been the creative legal innovators and myth-makers of the PPMM: Persatuan Peguam Muslim Malaysia (Malaysian Muslim Lawyers Association) –- notably Datuk Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar — and their like-minded associates in CENTHRA, the Putrajaya-based and Saudi-friendly Centre for Human Rights and Advocacy, headed by on Azril Mohd Amin.

Their lead is followed, and their disruptive views are echoed, by a horde of Utusan Malaysia scribes and ideologues and, in their wake, a claque of well-connected writers and publicists and ambitious politicos.

In the absence of any clear refutation, their increasingly unchallenged view now threatens to become “the default position”, the received and undeniable truth.

But are they right?

 In short, no. And for three main reasons.

1.  The explicit and the implicit.

A key and basic tenet of their position is that the word “secular” can nowhere be found in the Constitution. Therefore, they hold, the Constitution and nation cannot be secular. It is in no way tainted in even the slightest way by any suggestion of secularist principles or ideas.

And since it — the word — cannot be found there, and since Article 3 affirms that, in its public international personality, Islam is the emblematic religion of the state, then (so they argue) Malaysia must be, on core constitutional and historical grounds, an Islamic state — or, at the very least, one that has been authoritatively launched from birth on an irrevocable path towards becoming an Islamic state based upon Shariah law.

 Some now even go further. They now argue that, since Article 3 is allegedly “the best known” article of the Constitution in public consciousness (on what grounds or empirical evidence they claim this they do not say), it follows that Article 3 is the key or central article of the Constitution as a whole and that, in resolving all contested matters, Article 3 (in their own strong, revisionist sense of its meaning) takes precedence over and must “trump” all other legal arguments and considerations and constitutional niceties.

Is this supposed primacy of Article 3 explicit?

No. Just implicit, implied, inferred.

These authors are in fact very familiar with the idea of the explicit and the implicit, of what is tersurat and what is also tersirat, what is in the words and what is behind them, “between the lines."

These same authors and creative doctrinal and Constitutional myth-makers are elsewhere quite happy to argue that the controversial idea of Ketuanan Melayu — which did not exist when the basis and terms of the Constitution were negotiated between 1955 and 1957, and which only achieved currency after it was coined by Tan Sri Abdullah Ahmad in 1986 — is a foundational principle of the Constitution.

How do they argue this?

They say that, while the term itself is not used and does not appear explicitly in the Constitution, the idea is there, implicit and immanent, in Article 153 (the “Malay special rights” provision) and in the web of meanings linking that Article to other related articles of the Constitution.

The idea, they insist, is there behind the words and between the lines.

They cannot find it there explicitly. They impute its presence, and in that way “build back” this post-1986 idea into the foundational meaning and conceptual texture of the Constitution. Even though the word itself cannot be found there!

On these inferred or imputed grounds they insist that Ketuanan Melayu is a key constitutional principle, that it is, and always has been, a part of the “social contract” that enabled the Constitution to be adopted and promulgated — and that people are now obliged in perpetuity to uphold that constitutionally “retrofitted” principle or doctrine as part of the nation’s founding “social contract”: as a key principle of the nation’s core official character and identity.

The stark contrast of approach here in these two related matters (their anti-secularist, pro-Islamic state reading of Article 3 and the imputing or inferring of Ketuanan Melayu as constitutionally based and embedded) proves one thing: that their ways of arguing are not consistent and principled but arbitrary and opportunistic.

That is no basis for solemn and serious Constitutional reasoning.

2.  History

Article 3 does not say that Malaysia is a secular nation, but it does say that Islam is its official emblematic religion: therefore Malaysia is in no way secular. On far stronger and clearer Constitutional grounds, it can be said to be Islamic: even an Islamic state, or one in the making.

That is the revisionist position.

It is one that is ignorant of history.

It is one that is even based upon a wilful refusal to acknowledge the history of the Constitution and its origins in the so-called “Merdeka Process” and “Merdeka Agreements."

To serious scholars the facts are clear and well-known.

That the ideologues and revisionists do not care to accept them is another matter. But not one that adds any credence to their position or authority to their arguments.

The entire “Merdeka Process” was quite explicitly about creating Malaya as a modern, progressive, democratic and secular nation.

For a while it was thought that the word secular might be used explicitly in its Constitution. But, to allow for certain Malay sensibilities (including the fairly widespread Malay misunderstanding of the term “secular” as meaning or entailing “atheistic”), it was decided that the idea would be left unsaid — largely because it did not need to be spelled out.

But the secular idea was basic to the emerging Constitution and pervasive within it. The proposed basis of nationhood could not be seen or understood as anything but a modern secular Constitution: one that sought and was designed to create a progressive nation prospectively grounded in the popular sovereignty of its people, all of its people.

Nor, equally, in a balanced way, was there to be any formal mention of Islam as a key principle in the Constitution. This, it was felt, would add further weight to the Constitution’s and the nation’s secular, plural, inclusive and democratic character.

This was how things stood until the final evening of the long drafting deliberations of the Reid Commission. That was what the members of the Commonwealth-based Commission had thrashed out and agreed upon.

Suddenly, at the last moment, something happened.

Some say that he had been lobbied heavily. Others say that a personally bitter argument erupted over Kashmir between the Indian member of the Commission, Judge B. Malik, and the Pakistani member, Judge Halim Abdul Hamid.

At all events, on the last evening the Pakistani member broke ranks. He would no longer be bound by the agreements already reached.  The Constitution might remain implicitly secular, he conceded, but there should be some mention of Islam as the formally emblematic religion of the new state, as part of its international identity and personality in the world family of nations.

Held over a barrel, and with their bags already packed, the other members of the Commission agreed to accommodate Judge Halim Abdul Hamid’s last-minute requirement — on the understanding that the added affirmation was to be purely nominal or symbolic: that it would have no flow-on effects upon any other Constitutional matters, and that it would not compromise or diminish (as had been agreed in extended discussions) the modern, democratic and secular character of the Constitution as a whole and of the nation to be founded upon it.

On that basis, and with little choice in the matter in the face of one man’s sudden intractability, the other members of the Commission agreed to Judge Abdul Hamid’s extraordinary last-minute requirement.

But what is significant now is not the dramatic personal ins-and-outs of the Reid Commission and its workings.

It is what followed from that last minute accommodation of Judge Abdul Hamid’s exercise of a shock, peremptory veto.

Many, especially the negotiators for Umno's partner parties, were deeply disquieted by this last-minute development. So they sought and received formal assurances — which, on the grounds that they were sincerely meant and offered and so would remain binding, they accepted.

This assurance was approved and issued by Tun Abdul Razak, on behalf of Umno and his successors who would later lead it, in the form of a document (now a key part of the official collection of British government published documents recording the decolonization process in Malaya) that was intended as a codicil, or accompanying explanatory document, to the Constitution itself — and specifying the terms of the agreement of all parties to it.

As is well-known, the Alliance Memorandum stated that “although the religion of Malaysia would be Islam, the observance of this principle shall not impose any disability on non-Muslim nationals professing and practising their own religion, and shall not imply that the State is not a secular State.”

If there is any such thing as a Malayan and Malaysian “social contract” by which people remain bound, this is surely a key part of it.

“Pacta servanda sunt” is a key principle of law: solemn agreements are to be solemnly observed and punctiliously upheld.

Those who these days loudly shout that “the social contract” must be respected and that it entails, and has always entailed, general acceptance by all Malaysians (and especially non-Malays), in perpetuity, of the doctrine of Ketuanan Melayu would do well to recall and abide by that obligation here in this matter.

They owe it not only to others, especially their non-Malay and non-Muslim fellow citizens.

They owe it to themselves, if they are to live honourably and honestly and decently with their own recent political past — with themselves.

3.  Context.

To assess accurately whether or not Malaysia is foundationally a secular or an Islamic state, it helps to consider its Constitution.

Not just legally, in lawyer-like manner, clause by clause but more broadly. Historically.

In the light of comparative political and Constitutional and social and intellectual history.

There is no need to try to hunt down, as the decisive and tell-tale indicator, whether the word “secular” appears in its political or conceptual lexicon.

And there is no need to get too fancy or philosophical about this matter.

All one has to ask is:

What kind of a Constitution is Malaysia’s?

Is it culturally and doctrinally and conceptually a Buddhist Constitution?

Is it a Hindu Constitution?

Is it an Islamic Constitution?

The answer is no, three times no.

What is it then?

It is a modern, liberal-democratic Constitution.

A modern Constitution, born of a modern and progressive and largely secular age, one that is couched in secular terms, and formed upon secularist assumptions.

There is no other way to understand or classify or to typify it.

It was drafted and promulgated and enacted as the modern Constitution of, and for the continuing growth and development of, a modern, progressive, inclusive, pluralistic but cohesive, and secular society and nation.

A Constitution that — while it acknowledges and finds an honoured place for the ancient royal mystique and semi-sacred aura of its traditional Malay rulers, for their world-focusing daulat — was nevertheless founded upon the consent of its many and diverse subjects; meaning, on the principle of “popular sovereignty” (here the modern Malay word, often confusingly, is kedaulatan).

But remember, as one always must, that daulat and kedaulatan, despite their being linguistically and etymologically cognate terms, are two entirely different things.

They are born of, stem from, and are anchored within two entirely distinct, different and mutually incommensurate universes of political meaning.

The rulers have daulat, the nation is built upon and (like all modern nations) is an expression of the sovereignty of its people.

That is where modern political legitimacy comes from.

The Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is a Constitution that rests upon and which affirms the principle of popular sovereignty.

That is what modern Constitutions and nations are. That is their “ontology”.

And, yes, Malaysia’s Federal Constitution is — or was by initial intention and design — a secular Constitution. One for a society that was, or was to become, an increasingly secular nation.

One that would not be hostile to religion but hospitable and equitably hospitable to religious and human diversity.

Malaysia and its Constitution were incontrovertibly established as secular, on secular foundations and principles and assumptions.

The struggle these days — and it is now no easy struggle — is to keep it that way.

4.  In conclusion

So what can one say about the claim that Malaysia is not, and never was and was never intended to be, a secular state?

That its Constitution is not secular and makes no provision or space for secular principles?

That Article 3 establishes Malaya and Malaysia as, at least prospectively but irrevocably, an Islamic state operating on the basis of Shariah law?

That the doctrine of Ketuanan Melayu, of Malay ascendancy and primacy and domination, is a key principle of the Constitution, one that is deeply and pervasively embedded throughout its many clauses and pages?

Simply, that this claim is a crude “try-on."

An outrageous, and outrageously over-reaching, “ambit claim."

A third-rate “con job."

One that could persuade only the ignorant.

And that is precisely to whom it is these days addressed and targeted.

Clive Kessler is Emeritus Professor of Sociology and Anthropology at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/enough-of-this-nonsense-malaysia-was-created-as-a-secular-nation-clive-kess#sthash.KxCW1osO.dpuf

My heart goes out to you, Indira...Zaid Ibrahim

I ask myself: what kind of country have we become to produce such harsh laws and heartless judges?

M. INDIRA Gandhi’s case never fails to make me feel angry and very sad.

It’s heart-wrenching to know that a mother has been denied custody of her child simply because her ex-husband, Muhammad Riduan Abdullah (K. Pathmanathan), converted their daughter, then aged 11 months, to Islam.

An emotional Indira Gandhi was seen at the Court of Appeal after a three-judge panel ruled that the civil courts have no jurisdiction over the matter of her children’s conversion.

The unilateral conversion of the minor, made soon after the parents’ divorce, has been held to be valid by the court. In a majority decision, Court of Appeal judges Balia Yusof Wahi and Badariah Sahamid denied Indira the right to be with her daughter, to live and care for her — to hug her as other mothers would do — forever.

It has been almost nine years since Indira separated from Riduan, and I expect that the Court of Appeal decision will be upheld by the Federal Court. I ask myself: what kind of country have we become to produce such harsh laws and heartless judges? If Indira had been a Muslim mother, and the former husband did the unilateral conversion of the daughter to say Christianity, would the decision still be the same?

Of course not. Indira did not get justice because she is not a Muslim.

I have made reference to Indira’s case in the books I have written, and I will not dwell on the law any further. I just feel sick, thinking how the legal system cannot grant relief to a mother who has been deprived of her daughter for so many years.

What kind of judges have we produced? Do they not feel the need to be human and compassionate? Have they become comfortably numb, ensconced in the multimillion-ringgit Palace of Justice? Don’t tell me the law, and please don’t tell me they had no choice.

The word “parent” used in the Constitution could easily be interpreted to mean the plural (“parents”), and such a construction is commonly used in other jurisdictions. If plural can serve the interests of justice, why not do it?

I remember very well, in my short stint as minister, that when I asked the Attorney-General’s Chambers if we could make a Constitutional amendment to ensure that the conversion of minors occurred only with the agreement of both parents — and to make it very clear to judges like Balia Yusof and Badariah — I was told that a Cabinet Committee had already been formed under the chairmanship of Datuk Seri Najib Razak, who was deputy prime minister at the time.

This was in 2008. Najib was probably too busy to worry about changing the singular to the plural when bigger things like 1MDB had to be implemented.

I wonder if these judges have children of their own. I don’t know if Balia Yusof or Badariah are parents. If they are, how can they not feel the pain felt by Indira? How would these judges feel if their spouses, on divorce, converted to another religion and at the same time converted their young children without them knowing? What would they do? Would they say that singular means singular and nothing more can be done?

The Court of Appeal judges now want Indira to go to the Syariah Court for relief. It’s a proposition that’s ridiculous and without legal basis. I urge her not to waste her time. The civil courts have made it very clear, in this case and in that of Lina Joy’s, that they will not touch on the conversion of a Muslim, regardless of what the issues are.

They will come up with some excuses that will ultimately pass the problem to the Syariah Court. But the Syariah Court (being a religious court) will not even listen to Indira’s plea, and they have a legal right to do that. Why should they do the work of the civil courts?

Indira, I don’t know you, but I share your pain. My mother, who passed away last year, always reminded me that, as parents, we must never be separated from our children.

Nothing is crueller to children than to deprive them of the love of their mothers. My parents divorced when I was young mainly because they were poor and had to work in different places, but they did their best to make sure we got to see them whenever possible.

My case was different from Indira’s, as neither of my parents would dream of separating us using religion.

Even if they did, our courts and our judges in those days would never have allowed it. Back then, judges dispensed justice with their hearts, but not now.

I would like to appeal to all Malaysians who care about this case to start raising funds; not to cover the legal costs of the appeal to the Federal Court, which will be futile, but to make a film about the tragedy suffered by Indira.

The world must know the story of how a nation lost its soul and how justice became so alien to our elites, who now care for nothing but themselves.

Let the arguments put forth by Indira and the decisions of the judges be documented and aired for the world to see. If Indira’s lawyers agree with this initiative, start the fund rolling. I am sure we can raise enough for a good film about love and wickedness. Let it be shown in New York and London.

Indira must fight her battle beyond the shores, and we must help her.

DEATH OF AN EMPIRE (called Bolehland)

Parti Sosialis Malaysia
·
DEATH OF AN EMPIRE (called Bolehland)

Did I not tell you about this senile Empire ?
With its pompous guardians constipating at its door steps
Festered with collusions, greed, profits, demi-gods and lost horizons
But did I also not tell you how they fervently dig graves for others ?
Too sedated and too dumb to realize that’s their very own

Did I not tell you how their bastion of power crumbling like nine pins ?
Yet they think that’s progress
So they pride over slogans and promises
Destroying the very dreams that they ever fostered
So the Empire continues to wallow in jaundiced gusto
Shackling the innocents at every twist and turn of time
Claiming victory for placid democracy and justice
Now you are witnessing the Empire’s bleeding‘broken chain of
command’

Of misdirected priorities and competing opportunists
Flip flop decisions, casting aspersions and intense blame games
Stumbling to exaggerate warped truths and pampered agencies
Clamoring to ‘catch the eye’ of their godly master
You should see within their rabid ranks
How hidden agenda craftily designed
To wrest power and orchestrate character assassinations
Inventing and reinventing scapegoats
Conjuring wild scenarios to nurture foul intentions
Staging a ‘siege mentality’ through traitorous media pimps
So they declare war against their people
Yet so afraid of their own shadows
So they shut themselves in fortresses of bodyguards, gangsters in
government uniforms and black magic
Imbuing demented underlings to do their warped biddings

HARK !!!

Did you not hear the cries of the down trodden
And the roar of defiance transcending all bounds
Hacking away the chains of oppression and exploitation
Persevering through ‘thick and thin’ over smoking gas canisters, chemical
waters, battering rams, beaten bodies, cracked heads,broken ribs, open wounds and mammoth arrests
Yet waves upon waves of humanity continue to throttle the Empire
Yet its lackeys living in total denial and false comfort
Clutching onto illusions and blatant lies of lost paradise
So the struggle grows in ever fiery circles

Paralyzing the capitalists, opportunists, jingoists, racists and power brokers
BUT THEN, when the Empire and it’s lackeys are all dead and gone
and broken into smithereens
Will you then resurrect another Empire of the same ?

NAY !!…. A THOUSAND NAYS !!… A BILLION MANIFOLD NAYS !!!

For the empowered masses will surely summon the marrow of your very existence
To deal a crushing death blow
To all pretensions and exploitations
To rebuild rainbow societies of hope and love
Where we are one in all and all in one
As one big universal  family

Nasir....

Questions to ponder BY ZAINAH ANWAR

Sunday Star July 26

I am beginning to feel as if this country and its rakyat are being crushed and pummeled by wrecking balls. The wrecking ball of race and religion, of insatiable greed, of desperation to stay in power, of never-ending sense of entitlements, of unpunished crimes and abuses, of ideology over rational thinking, justice, and fair play.

These concerns are nothing new. What’s new is the breathtaking scale, the endlessness of it all, and the shamelessness with which the perpetrators display their unscrupulous, destructive and criminal behaviour, in words and deeds.

The seeds of this rot were sown a long time ago. A party that has been in dominant power for over 50 years breeds its own seeds of destruction. For too long, too many of its leaders and party apparatchiks have been getting away with all manner of transgressions that they believe they are immune to any form of retribution.

I was in Geneva two weeks ago and UN officials and activists I met were all asking what was happening to Malaysia. How did things get this bad? We were once a model country that others looked up to as a prosperous, progressive, politically stable, multi-ethnic society. We are after all a high middle-income developing country, not a basket case.

Now we are looking more and more like another banana republic, with scandals galore making global headlines. The deep concern many feel that these wrecking balls could lead to an implosion of everything that we have built over the decades is real. And what is scary is that there are people who are priming for trouble to break.

The Low Yat plaza riot will not be the last in their scheme of things. Thank God, the IGP and his forces acted fast in nipping the problem in the bud and stating the facts clearly and unambiguously. It was a crime; not about one race trying to cheat another. All those who exploited the situation by making hate speech to manufacture racial conflict must be charged for their role in inciting violence. Lessons must be learnt fast if we want to stop those determined to destroy the country in order to remain in power and preserve what they believe are their lifetime entitlements - on nothing but the basis of birth.

As desperation over the inevitable closing chapter sets in, there will be more attempts to ignite fires of racial conflict. The truth is the ruling elite is becoming more and more beleaguered – under the weight and scope of the 1 MDB scandal, plummeting popularity and legitimacy to govern, and finding itself devoid of new blood, new ideas; and certainly bereft of courage and will to bring the transformation needed to win back public support.

It is then much easier to dive into its old bag of tricks. Let’s manufacture more threats to add to the standard “Malays under threat”, “Islam under threat”. Now its “national security under threat” as more and more damning evidence of mind-blowing brazen sleaze and corruption among the very powerful is revealed.

Who is really threatening whose survival? And what has happened to the warnings given at the UMNO General Assembly last year that UMNO must “change or be dead”? It looks like the choice UMNO has made is very clear. It is committing hara-kiri. So stop manufacturing enemies elsewhere.

Unless a new breed of young far-sighted leaders come forward with the will and courage to change the system – political and economic – to become more inclusive, more just, more honest, more transparent, we are really seeing the end of a long era in Malaysian politics.

Time has run out for this old form of authoritarian politics and rule by a privileged elite out to enrich themselves and their cronies. In their magisterial book, “Why Nations Fail”, Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson argue with evidence across history and geography that authoritarian “extractive” political and economic institutions designed by elites in order to enrich themselves and perpetuate their power at the expense of the majority of the people are bound to run out of steam.

The pride we have in our beloved country is that was NOT our history. That was not how Malaysia began. But today this is where we are heading. Just look at the MARA scandal. An agency set up to redress a historical economic injustice against the Malays ends up led by people cheating the very group they are supposed to help, pocketing millions in barefaced shenanigans. A policy vehicle pumped with hundreds of millions of taxpayers money to eradicate poverty on the basis of race gets abused by the privileged elite of that race. This is yet another case of pagar makan padi. Those entrusted to protect you, instead betray you. And there are many more such scandals, just waiting to be surfaced.

Let’s ask some hard questions here. Why after decades of rigourous development planning, 40% of Malaysian households earn only about RM1,847 a month? Why after more than four decades of the NEP, 75.5% of those at the bottom are Bumiputeras? Why in spite of the billions poured into education and boarding schools, 64.3% of the Bumiputera workforce have only SPM qualifications? Why some 90% of the unemployable university graduates are Bumiputras? Why of the $54 billion worth of shares pumped to Bumiputera individuals and institutions between 1984 and 2005, only $2 billion remained in Bumiputera hands today? And why oh why should the Bumiputeras continue to raise a begging bowl and ask for more of the same kind of handouts from the same ruling elite? The bottom 40% get crumbs, while the cronies laugh their way to the bank.

The Malays should be asking these questions of the party that proclaims itself to be the protector of the race, and without it in power, the Malays will supposedly perish. Bah humbug, I say.

Malaysia to fall into ‘stupid state’ before Talibanism digs in, Marina Mahathir

June 13 ― Pointing to the recent social media frenzy over the “vagina shape” of a champion Malaysian gymnast at the SEA Games, Datin Paduka Marina Mahathir said the country was in greater danger of descending into stupidity before becoming a Taliban state.

The prominent social activist blamed the country’s political leaders for fuelling the pettiness of some Muslims who had panned gold medallist Farah Ann Abdul Hadi for purportedly showing her aurat with her figure-hugging sports attire.

“No, I don’t think we’ll be a Taliban state yet; we’ll be a stupid state first,” Marina said at a panel discussion at the Cooler Lumpur Festival here today, when asked if the public outrage indicates that Malaysia will become a Taliban state eventually.

“The trouble is, our top leadership, we do have small and petty-minded people. They see these leaders saying things ― ‘bocor’ lah, ‘ni lah’, crosses on ‘telekungs’ for instance ― nobody laughs at them.

“In another country, people would point at the politicians and say, ‘What a dumb thing to say’. But here they don’t,” she added.

National news agency Bernama reported Tuesday Sabah Community Development and Consumer Affairs Minister Datuk Jainab Ahmad Ayid as reminding Muslims to beware of “telekung” (prayer garments for Muslim women) that have a cross pattern.

He reportedly claimed that this showed attempts to deviate Muslims from their faith, as the cross is the religious symbol for Christianity.

Marina also said today that those who call Farah Ann’s outfit “haram” (forbidden), despite the 21-year-old recently winning a gold medal in floor exercise at the SEA Games in Singapore, forget that it is also “haram” to humiliate people in public.

“Some people started talking about what she wore, ‘showing off her private parts’, but they don’t think it’s controversial to say that. They think it’s normal to do, then they’re shocked that people are telling them off,” said the eldest daughter of former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad at the panel discussion called “What would you write about if you weren’t afraid?”

Farah Ann has received a slew of criticisms from fellow Muslims who attacked her for showing her aurat and the “shape of her vagina” after Buletin TV3 uploaded Wednesday a photograph of her in a leotard on its Facebook page.

Both Muslim women and men are prohibited in Islam from exposing their aurat, though criticisms are more often targeted against women. The definition of the aurat, however, is debatable. 

Other Muslim Facebook users, however, have come to Farah Ann’s defence and told the athlete to ignore her critics.

Youth and Sports Minister Khairy Jamaluddin, who is also Umno Youth chief, tweeted yesterday: “In gymnastics Farah wowed the judges and brought home gold. In her deeds only the Almighty judges her. Not you. Leave our athletes alone”.

Marina said today that people seem to fear diverse views and opinions about religion.

“People are scared of their own religions. They don’t want to learn more about it, they don’t want to express doubt. But it’s only when you have doubt that you start asking for more information. I find that’s the greatest fear,” said the activist.

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/malaysia-to-fall-into-stupid-state-before-talibanism-digs-in-says-marina-ma#sthash.8jNSIFZB.dpuf

Mohd Nazifuddin Najib, second son of PM Najib implicated in a scam

Mohd Nazifuddin Najib, second son of PM Najib, implicated in a USD 1.7 uFun Club unlicensed financial services scam in Thailand.

The Ponzi scam involves a pyramid get-rich-quick scheme, which have 645 participating investors screaming for Nazifuddin's blood and Thai police rounding up local members of the scam.

The financial racket go as far back as mid-2013, when uFun Club was just starting.

The scheme was initially sold as a real-estate investment opportunity, through the company Sagajuta (Sabah) Sdn Bhd.

A uFun Club marketing spiel from May 2014 reads:
UFUN Group Ltd is a company which triggered the idea of some Taikunproperty States Saga Million Shd.Bhd.

Together Dato ‘Dr Warren (Money Master) has been working with the company owners Sagajuta Sdn. Bhd Managing Director Datuk Raymond Tan Boon Siew and Executive Chairman Nazifudin bin Dato ‘Seri Najib bin Tun Razak in which they have a multi millionare One Borneo Sabah building, One Embroidery, One GateWay, Tuaran huge project and projek2 ago and has been completed.

UFUN Group Ltd in its early stages is as real estate agent only where he has worked at the company Saga Juta Sdn. Bhd act with promoting and selling property owned Sagajuta Sdn Bhd.

Sabah Borneo One such project, Knit One, One Likas, GateWay Tuaran to outside investors from China, Taiwan and Hong Kong, and received good response.

Another spiel from August 2015 states:

COMPANY BACKGROUND
UFUN Group Ltd is a company that triggered his idea by Property tycoon ie a total of 6 people and founded by Dato ‘Dr Warren (Money Master).

They are multi millionare and has collaborated with the company owner Sagajuta Sdn. Bhd namely Dato ‘Raymond Tan Boon Siew and Cairman Dato’ Nazifuddin bin Dato ‘Seri Najib bin Tun Razak who built One Borneo Sabah, One Embroidery, One getway Tuaran and large projects.

Prior to uToken, uFun Club and Sagajuta (Sabah) Sdn Bhd had their investors invest in “e-shares”:

UFUN CLUB cooperate with companies Sagajuta Sdn Bhd to create a business that uses e-share system recently launched on May 27, 2013.

The owner of the company Dato Raymond Chan Boon Siew and Chairman Nazifudin Bin Dato Seri Najib Tun Razak.

“E-shares” obviously sounded too Ponzi’esque, hence the uToken facade was brought into the picture.

Mohd Nazifuddin is credited as the Executive Chairman of Sagajuta (Sabah) Sdn Bhd.

Sagajuta (Sabah) Sdn Bhd are a property developer, with several projects currently in the works

Auditor-General Report 2014: 8 Ways Taxpayers Money Was Mismanaged

On April 6, the first series of the Auditor-General report 2014 was tabled, and some shocking (or perhaps not) details were revealed.

The first report contains observations from 17 programmes of 14 Federal ministries and departments and the management of two Government companies. Some of the prevailing issues found in these programmes and departments are improper payment, work not adhering to specifications, unreasonable delays, unreasonable price, management of contracts, weaknesses in revenue management and weaknesses in management of Government assets.

Here are 8 of the most alarming ways taxpayers money is wasted based on the A-G report for 2014:

1. Kelantan Matriculation College

Total cost: RM155 million
Ministry of Works/Ministry of Education

Kelantan Matriculation College was constructed to accommodate 3,000 students with Malaysian Certificate of Education in its Matriculation Programme as a preparation for enrollment to Public Higher Education Institutions. The Public Works Department (PWD) was appointed as the implementing agency on behalf of the Ministry of Education Malaysia (MOE).

The completion was targeted to be at 102 weeks, but after five extensions, the project was only completed 103 weeks and was only able to accommodate up to 2,000 students.

The quality of the construction and mechanical and electrical works are found to be unsatisfactory, and the design was inappropriate.

2. Broadband project in East Malaysia

Total cost: RM88.13 million
Ministry of Communications & Multimedia Malaysia

The amount was paid to three contractors, namely Esajadi Sdn Bhd, Jaring Communications Sdn Bhd and Celcom Axiata Berhad, to install 935.6 km of fibre optic network in East Malaysia.

However, the actual distance was only 890.23 kilometres, 45.37 km short.

3. Wisma Transit Kuala Lumpur (WTKL)

Total cost: RM66 million
Ministry of Defence

The Wisma Transit Kuala Lumpur (WTKL) is a transit camp for army that was going through a major refurbishment and improvement, which was due to complete in early 2002.

According to the Auditor-General’s report, the project encountered problems and was only fully completed and handed over to the Army in September 2008, and fully operational by January 2009.

The audit also found that 33% of the rooms were unusable due to damages.

4. BR1M claimed more than once

Total loss: RM3 million (2012 – 2014)

Ministry of Finance

The audit revealed that thousands of recipients of the 1 Malaysia People’s Aid (BR1M) cashed their hand-outs more than once, while some even claimed aid up to four times.

During BR1M voucher distribution, payment was made to approved applicants by cross-checking their names to the list, without checking the online database. This move gave the opportunity to BR1M recipients to claim more than once.

In 2014, 28 people claimed thrice, while nine claimed BR1M four times due to the loopholes.

5. Procurement of furniture for Battalion Camp 5

Total cost: More than RM760,000
Ministry of Home Affairs

Battalion Camp 5, located in Simpang Renggam, Johor, was undergoing an improvement, and the report found that the procurement management of furniture was less than satisfactory.

It was found that the payment of RM760,150 was made before the furniture was supplied and supported by forged documents.

Furthermore, local bidders were not invited to give their quotations, which triggered an investigation by the Ministry and also the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).

6. Malaysian Armed Forces’ chartered flights

Total loss: More than RM375,000
Ministry of Defence

The Malaysian Armed Forces forked out over RM112 million to charter flights from Malaysia Airlines and AirAsia to shuttle its personnel between Peninsular Malaysia and East Malaysia.

However, due to 1,079 “no show passengers” between 2011 and September 2014, the ministry has suffered a loss of RM375,262.

7. Perbadanan Nasional Berhad (PNS)

Government companies

Perbadanan Nasional Berhad (PNS) was found to have approved RM111.4 million in 534 Franchise Financing Scheme from 2012 to June 2014.

The approvals were not based on clear evaluation criteria and the monitoring mechanism was also not fully implemented. This posed a high risk of unpaid borrowers for the company.

To make matters worse, the audit also revealed that the financial performance of PNS subsidiary companies was unsatisfactory. Investment recorded was RM29.66 million, while investment cost was RM61.33 million.

8. People’s Housing Programme (PPR) in Sabah

Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government

The audit found that some People’s Housing Programme (PPR) in Sabah projects were completed after delays of between 614 and 2,504 days. The delays occurred at PPR projects in Papar, Tawau and Sandakan.

The longest delay was more than six years. Furthermore, the quality of the construction was found to be unsatisfactory, and the construction designs and plans approved by the superintending officer were impractical, incomplete and inappropriate.
Based on the auditor-general’s report, there are still many improvements to be made by the government to eradicate corruption, wastage and negligence and to increase transparency in government’s spending.

In order for corrective actions to be taken and improvements to be made, a total of 109 recommendations were made by the National Audit Department.

With the implementation of GST, the people’s expectation is even higher than before. The government is expected to be more prudent in their spending and be more transparent in everything.