Friday, December 18, 2015

Suffering Slings and Arrows: Why Keadilan talk to PAS

My Fellow Malaysians, Friends and Colleagues,

I am grateful for the kind invitation to attend Selayang DAP’s fundraising dinner tonight.

I thank all of you for your generous support to fund our struggle for a better Malaysia. As you are all aware we don’t get 2.6 billion ringgit donations. So we are thankful for your contributions which we treasure very much. They are more valuable than any funding from an Arab donor.

Many ask why is Dr Wan Azizah, Azmin Ali, Rafizi and other Keadilan leaders talking to PAS? I have read the comments in the social media; we are power-crazy, we want to get to Putrajaya so much we throw away our principles, we are prepared to make a deal with the devil. This is my personal view of the answers to these questions.

I agree one must never compromise on principles. I like to explain that we have not forsaken our principles. There is a difference between a political coalition and an electoral pact.

A political coalition is an agreement for cooperation between different political parties with a common political agenda and policy. Upon winning the elections the coalition will form the government and implement the common policy.

An electoral pact on the other hand is an agreement amongst political parties with different policies usually opposition parties agreeing not to contest against each other to ensure a one-to-one fight with the ruling party. Upon winning each party maintains its own policies.

DAP, Keadilan and Amanah have formed a political coalition, Pakatan Harapan. Upon winning the elections these three parties shall form the Government and implement the Common Policy Framework. This Government will not include PAS. They have reneged on the concept of the welfare state and put back into the front burner their avowed objective of establishing an Islamic State. They do not share our Common Policy Framework. It is however, proposed that Pakatan Harapan have an electoral pact with PAS.

Why do we Keadilan want to suffer the slings and arrows, endure whips and scorns by continuing to engage PAS? Is it true we are so afraid of losing, we must have PAS on our side? Have we no pride and dignity?

It is our leader, Anwar Ibrahim whom Hadi Awang gave a tongue lashing and dressing down. Hadi got Anwar to go all the way to Terengganu where he scolded him for 45 minutes like a school teacher dressing down a schoolboy. Anwar told us that he had never been scolded like that. Do you think Anwar Ibrahim, former acting Prime Minister, former Deputy Prime Minister, Opposition Leader, International Statesman, has no dignity, no pride?

It is our President, Dr Wan Azizah that Hadi humiliated. Hadi said she is not qualified to be the Menteri Besar. You think she is not hurt? You think she has no feelings? It is blood like yours and mine that runs through her veins.

You think our leaders and Keadilan members are not angry? It is our Leader and our President who were insulted. It is our party against which Hadi put up 7 candidates. He called our candidate “pill kuda.” It is our party that lost in the three corner fights. Do you think we don’t know why and who is responsible for our parliament candidates losing in Kelantan while PAS won all the state seats in the same parliament constituencies? Why then do we still want to engage PAS?

It is because Anwar realises that if we want our country to change we must avoid three corner fights. Three-corner fights only benefit UMNO/BN as seen in Kota Damasara in the last election. It is because Wan Azizah realises that if we really want a better life for our children we have to engage PAS. We cannot allow our intuitions and emotions to blind us. It is so easy to say fight but it is very difficult to hold back and think through. What are the alternatives if we do not engage with PAS? What is the cost and benefit if Pakatan harapan does not have an electoral understanding with PAS?  

Firstly: as Gobind Singh just told you Najib Tun Razak has enacted more repressive and oppressive Acts than any other prime minister. We are not a democracy. Democracy allows motions of no confidence to be debated. The opposition leader of South Africa visited Malaysia recently. He filed a motion of no confidence against the president. The vote failed but at least it was allowed to be debated. Here it is buried at the bottom of the agenda.

We are under an oppressive and repressive authoritarian regime. They use all means fair and foul (mostly foul) to retain power. Myanmar just completed its elections. International observers reported it was a free and fair election. The results prove it. There is no free and fair election here. Our Parliament just approved delineation of 10 new state seats in Sarawak which is designed to ensure BN remains in power.

Those who condemn us talk about not compromising principles. That we should fight according to the rules. You cannot fight using the Queensbury Rules against an opponent who breaks every rule in the book. They will amend the Constitution to change the parliamentary boundaries if they can get back the two-thirds majority. In the last Parliament sitting, some of the PAS MPs who were absent or abstained from voting on critical bills, looked quite lost sitting with the opposition. If the 15 PAS MPs cross over, BN will regain the two-thirds majority. We have to engage with them so BN does not get the two thirds and changed the parliament boundaries to keep BN in power for forever.

Secondly: don’t get carried away with the success of people power toppling authoritarian regimes. In the Philippines Corazon Aquino defeated Ferdinand Marcos in 1985 because the various opposition parties got together to support her. In Kenya the opposition leaders formed the National Rainbow Coalition to support Mwai Kibaki to win over the regime-sponsored candidate, Uhuru Kenyatta.

For every one successful opposition coalition defeating an incumbent authoritarian regime there are many more spectacular failures due to the inability of the opposition to come together. In South Korea, neither Kim Dae Jung nor Kim Young Sam was willing to yield in the quest to become president, allowing the regime candidate, Roh Tae Woo to win the 1988 election with only 36% of the vote.

One must remember that authoritarian regimes uses repression, oppression, and other brutal methods. They ban political parties, jail the opposition, suspend basic civil rights, imposed restrictions to prevent coordination and mobilization by groups and individuals.

Voters would only dare to switch their support from the existing regime if there is a unified opposition coalition they believe can form the next government. No one would like to be visited by reprisals from a vengeful autocrat in daring to vote for a fragmented opposition.

No regime change ever occurred without the opposition uniting and coordinating their efforts.  
Thirdly: we must not forget the demographics. In 1970 our population was made up of 44.32% Malays, 34.34% Chinese, 8.99% Indians, 11.89% non-Malay Bumiputras, 0.67% others. In 2010, the percentage of Malays increased to 55.07%, Chinese reduced to 24.34%, Indians dropped to 7.35%, non-Malay Bumiputras maintained at 11.94% and 1.3% others. For GE13, 52.63% of the voters were Malays, 29.68% Chinese, 7.31% Indians, 8.96% non-Malay Bumiputras and 1.43% others. It is clear that Malay voters will be the deciding force in the coming elections.

More importantly for Peninsula Malaysia, out of 165 parliament seats, BN won 66 out of 81 rural seats, 14 out of 44 semi-urban seats but only 5 out of 40 urban seats. Upon looking at the ethnic majority, BN won 77 out of 114 Malay majority seats while DAP nil, Keadilan 17 and PAS 20. There are only 22 Chinese majority seats and DAP won all of them. There are no Indian majority seats. There are 29 mixed seats, DAP won 9, Keadilan 11, PAS 1 and BN 8. We do not include Sabah and Sarawak because there are different considerations involved.

It is clear we can win all the urban Chinese seats and all the mixed seats but if we cannot win the Malay majority seats we cannot form the Government. We have to win a substantial number of the 114 Malay-majority constituencies.

However, the trend is against us, despite the corruption and the high costs of living, Malay support for BN increased from 57% in GE12 to 59% in GE13 while Malay support for PR dropped from 32% to 30%. A swing in the Malay votes of 15% in Kedah and 11% in Perak was sufficient for BN to take back these two states. A 10% swing in Malay support is needed. If Pakatan Harapan obtains 40% of the Malay votes, we can form the Government but we will not win GE14 if the Malay votes are split three ways.

Fourthly: time is against us. Some say forget PAS, work on winning Malay support for the next election, if we do not win this forthcoming one then the one following. Due to the demographics, I mentioned earlier, Chinese population from 32.8% in 1983 dropped to less than 25% in 2013 and is projected to drop further to 20% by 2030, while the Malay and Bumiputra ethnic community is growing at a faster rate than the others. The number of Chinese majority seats are dwindling with each election. There were 26 Chinese majority seats in GE12 but only 22 in GE13. Serdang, Rasah, Kluang and Taiping have become mixed seats when previously they were Chinese majority seats. Lumut has become a Malay-majority seat and Raub is close to becoming a Malay-majority seat with 49.8%. With this trend UMNO will obviously focus more on Ketuanan Melayu and their brand of political Islamism to maintain Malay support. They will retain their stranglehold on power unless there is a change in the mind set and strategy by the opposition. The window of opportunity is closing by the day.

Fifthly: in engaging PAS, we are not seeking to win over Hadi Awang, we are seeking to win the hearts and minds of the voters in 114 rural Malay-majority seats while holding on to the gains we have made. We have to win over the 47% Malays who voted for PAS in the last election, the 1 million members, their families, friends and supporters.

We cannot close the door and allow PAS to dictate the narrative. They are saying they were kicked out of Pakatan because they are defending the race and religion. Hadi’s hudud bill is even further down the agenda than Kak Wan’s motion of no confidence. Now he says wants to be UMNO’s adviser.

We want to show that even while the door remains open, Hadi prefers to play catching-catching with Najib, dancing under the coconut tree like some Bollywood movie. No one will be surprised when they catch each other just before GE14 but we want the Malay voters to see their champion for what he really is.

We will have to draw the line sometime with PAS but until then we have to give Hadi enough rope to show he is pushing PAS into the arms of UMNO not because of race or religion but politics. His rejection of an electoral pact with us will reveal it is not a refusal due to principle but is mere intransigence on his part. We have to create the environment for Keadilan and Amanah to explain that not all that have been said by the others lead to Malay salvation on this earth or hereafter.  

Therefore we are engaging with PAS not because we are compromising our principles. We are engaging with them out of principled prudence. By negotiating for a one-on-one contest we are not giving up any principles. Instead we are seeking to attain a higher principle of bringing our nation closer to a multiracial, multi-religious and inclusive society. There is a time to fight and there is a time to talk. Whether to talk is often a conflict between principle and pragmatism.

An example is Nelson Mandela who was imprisoned for twenty-three years. He always refused to negotiate with the regime. However, in 1985 he asked himself whether it was time to change his strategy. If he did not start a dialogue soon, both sides would be plunged into a dark night of oppression, violence and war. In 1989 Nelson Mandela met with F.W. de Klerk. By 1990 Nelson Mandela was released. The parties were able to agree to a new constitution which guaranteed equal rights for blacks and whites.

It is difficult dealing with someone who has deliberately inflicted harm on us and is intending to do so, it is our intuitive and emotional response to fight back. A Havard Law School professor, Robert Mnookin asked “Should you bargain with the Devil?” He said if he is to give a one sentence answer it is “Not always but it is more often than we feel like it.”

Anwar Ibrahim, Wan Azizah, Azmin Ali, Rafizi and Keadilan realise as leaders, we have an obligation to engage in rational analysis. We don’t have the right to act solely on our gut feelings or personal moral beliefs. We have to think things through, to consider the costs and benefits of the alternatives. It is a painful choice between principle and pragmatism. To what extent should we focus on looking backwards to seek satisfaction for past wrongs and to what extend should we focus on the future to seek a just resolution. It is a bitter pill to swallow. We swallow our pride not because we have done anything wrong but for the greater good to move the nation forward.

In closing, a quote from Andrew Carnegei:
 “The morality of compromise sounds contradictory. Compromise is usually a sign of weakness, or an admission of defeat. Strong men don’t compromise, it is said, and principles should never be compromised. I shall argue that strong men, conversely, know when to compromise and that all principles can be compromise to serve a greater principle.”

Thank you.

William Leong
MP Selayang
Member Majlis Pimpinan Pusat
Parti Keadilan Rakyat  
17 December 2015

Tuesday, November 3, 2015

Budget Speech

Vote according to your Conscience: Reject the 2016 Budget
Honourable Tan Sri Speaker,
I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the 2016 Budget.
2 I urge the Honourable Members of this August House especially those on the right of this hall, to vote according to your conscience and reject the 2016 Budget.
3 Firstly, it is uncertain the Honourable Member from Pekan retains the confidence of the majority of the Dewan Rakyat. It is a fundamental principle of the Westminster parliamentary democratic system and an express requirement of our Constitution that the Prime Minister must retain the confidence of the majority in the Dewan Rakyat. The Motion of No Confidence submitted by the Honourable Member from Petaling Jaya Selatan is buried at the bottom of the Order Paper, item 27 out of 30 items. It will not see day light. The Honourable Speaker suggests the Opposition Leader inform him of the Barisan Nasional MPs who support the Motion of No Confidence she submitted before he decides to table the Motion. This is not the practice of a 1st World Parliament. It is not even done in a 3rd World Parliament or any parliamentary democracy.
4 The textbook Erskine May on “Parliamentary Practice” states that a Motion of No Confidence must be debated immediately and takes priority over other motions. The Speaker is to take action immediately upon receiving such a motion because it is a motion submitted by the potentially next government. The Speaker is to inform the Government of the day and the Government of the day has to decide on the date for the debate without delay. Failure to do so is an admission that the prime minister has lost the confidence of the House. It will be an illegitimate Government. An illegitimate Government has no moral authority to collect one ringgit of tax from the citizens nor to spend one ringgit of the taxpayers’ money.
5 Secondly, there is a crisis of confidence in the leadership of the Honourable Member from Pekan. The 1st Cause is the Honourable Member from Pekan used his powers as Prime Minister to interfere with criminal investigations against him. This is a corrupt practice under section 23 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act. The Honourable Member from Sungai Petani has in his speech provided the details and events on the sacking of the Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers who dare to ask questions on 1MDB, the removal of the Attorney-General, disbanding of the Special Task Force, transfer of the MACC directors, Special Branch directors and the police investigating the MACC officers. The PAC could not carry on with its investigation of 1MDB after the Prime Minister appointed 4 PAC members to the Cabinet. The special strategic communications director, the Member from Kota Belud and Minister of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government said that the Prime Minister had to “take out people” after an alleged charge sheet against the Prime Minister emerged.
6 The 2nd Cause is the lack of a full and frank disclosure on the state of Government finances. The Government has not provided a full disclosure of the RM42 billion loans owed by 1MDB, a wholly-owned company by the Ministry of Finance and the RM2.6 billion in the Prime Minister’s private account. The Prime Minister should have given immediately a full and complete explanation when the Wall Street Journal published the article in July. The people also waited in vain for him to give his explanation in his 2016 Budget speech. His prolonged and protracted silence only leads to the inference that there is everything to hide. This has led to the declining confidence in his leadership.
7 The Prime Minister also did not include in this Budget, information on two further matters which affects the confidence and trust of the people in the Government. This lack of openness in the Budget process leads to loss of faith and confidence in the Government’s management of the people’s money and the economy. The Government use off-budget mechanisms to finance government projects. The PAC in its report on Pembinaan PFI Sdn Bhd found that PFI was used to raise RM27 billion to finance projects and activities. Although the projects were identified as part of the 10th Malaysia Plan, the expenditure funded by PFI was not tabled to Parliament. PAC found the PFI programme to be an off-budget government loan. The off-budget expenditure created doubts as to the integrity of the figures produced in the budget, they did not reflect the real financial standing of the Government, its contingent liabilities, deficit calculation and level of government debt. The actual deficit and government debt would be higher if the PFI debt is taken into account. PAC in its report made recommendations for the provisions, expenses and debts of PFI to be tabled for approval by Parliament. PAC further recommend that all forms of off-budget expenditures should also be reported to Parliament. Unfortunately, the 2016 Budget has not complied with these recommendations.
8 The Government did not provide full disclosure of the amount of guarantees, letters of comfort and other forms of expression of financial support given for loans taken by statutory bodies and government-linked companies. Irrespective of whether it is a guarantee, letter of comfort or other form of letter of support, the Government in the end has to pay if the GLC defaults. There have been too many cases of this nature in the past. The Government lost RM3 billion for Pewaja, RM12 billion for PKFZ, RM20 billion in the several restructuring exercises of MAS and now the potential liability of RM42 billion for 1MDB. It is shocking to see in Attachment 6 to the Federal Government Financial Statement of 2014 that the total amount of government guarantees to statutory bodies and GLCs is RM850 billion (RM850,035,142,802.34). This will be substantially more once letters of comfort and other forms of letters of support are given to show the total amount of the Government’s contingent liabilities. This will far exceed the 55% GDP limit placed on Government debt. It makes a mockery of the members of parliament to debate late into the night for the payment of RM500 bonus to government servants while the executive commits the Government to billions in debt for GLC without the approval or knowledge of parliament.
9 The 3rd Cause is the abuse and breaking down of our nation’s institutions. The independence of the Judiciary was destroyed in the 1980’s by the then prime minister. What little hope of the judiciary’s redemption was shattered by the Court’s convicting opposition leader, Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim. International jurists have remarked that he should not have been convicted. Recently the Court of Appeal delivered a decision that the Peaceful Assembly Act does not contravene the Constitution. This contradicts the decision of an earlier but different panel of the Court of Appeal, leading to uncertainty in the law. The former prime minister, Tun Ahmad Badawi sought to correct this wrong by enacting the Judicial Commission Act. This has been set back by the recent revelation that the Judicial Appointments Commission’s recommendation for the elevation of Justice Mohd Hishamuddin Mohd Yunus to the Federal Court in 2013 was rejected by the Prime Minister. The most cable and respected judge was passed over many times. Another example of the breaking down of our institutions is Bank Negara Malaysia. The integrity of Bank Negara Malaysia, an internationally respected institution has been irreparably damaged. Questions remained unanswered, how BNM allowed RM2.6 billion to be transferred into the Prime Minister’s private bank account. There appears to be a lack of oversight by BNM. Now it appears by the Attorney-General’s rejection of BNM’s recommendation to charge 1MDB that BNM is also incompetent and cannot even carry out a proper investigation to enforce its exchange control regulations.
10 The 4th Cause, is that Government responded to the 1 MDB revelation by investigations, arrests and detention of opposition politicians, activists, students, academicians, banning of newspapers and blogs and race-based mobilization. This has raised concerns of security and stability.
11. All these four causes have combined to affect the confidence of both local and foreign investors. MIDF Equities reported on 3 August 2015 that an estimated outflow of RM11.7 billion surpassing the RM6.9 billion outflow in the whole of 2014. It has led to the plunging value of the Ringgit which is described as due to “sentiments.” Fitch Ratings and economists have also described the Government’s 2016 estimated revenue to be “optimistic.” The use of these words is a polite form of euphemism for loss of confidence. Subsidies for petrol, sugar, cooking oil and rice have been removed. BR1M does not provide full relief for the rising costs of living and burden of GST. Price increases mean consumers are more careful in spending, which in turns leads to an economic slowdown as the domestic market lacks stimulation. It means that the Malaysian business will be negatively affected. The Malaysian Employers’ Federation (MEF) reported in July that 10,000 people have been retrenched due to the declining value of the ringgit, escalating prices and economic slowdown and more will no doubt follow.
12 The revenue estimates for the 2016 Budget is indeed “optimistic” based on an 8.9% growth on company income tax and 44% increase in GST and not realistic when GDP growth is only expected to be 4-5%. Any hope that private consumption will help to sustain growth needs to overcome several challenges. The high level of household debt which is more than 80% of GDP will act as a dampener on private consumption and domestic demand. Stagnant wages are likely to weaken demand. The problem of high household debt and stagnant wages are due to structural problems. Real wages in manufacturing and the service sector have not increased significantly. This has contributed to a brain drain of Malaysians of all ethnicities. Wages are held down by the high importation of cheap low-skilled foreign labour. The lack of political will and inadequate resources for investment on improving skills of the workforce, limited development of English-proficiency, problem solving and creative thinking and lack of other soft skills have led to the declining standards and productivity of the Malaysian workforce. The proposed increase of minimum wages from RM900 to RM1,000 and from RM800 to RM900 in Sabah and Sarawak will not resolve the problems without a holistic, strategic and sustained combined effort of the Government and the industries. There is none in this Budget.
13 The temporary cash payments in the form of BR1M have no meaningful contributions to reduce household debt or to adequately cover the rising cost of living and inflation. The increase in toll rates, removal of rice subsidy will more than take back the increase in BR1M payments. The executive director of MIER, Zakariah Abdul Rashid has described BR1M as “helicopter raining money.” It is a populist move with no positive impact on productivity and without any “multiplier effect.” What is needed is a sustainable social safety net to address the current economic difficulties faced by the middle and lower income groups. This is not found in the 2016 Budget.
14 I therefore ask the Members of this August House to vote against the 2016 Budget according to your conscience. You cannot in good conscience allow the needs of one man to prevail over the needs of thirty million. Allow one man to keep his job while thousands will lose theirs. I know party discipline require you to vote on party lines. My respected colleagues on the right side of this August House, you have until now turned a blind eye to the destruction of our constitutional safeguards, institutions and democracy. You have closed your minds to the truth. You have dutifully acted as a rubber stamp to wastage and excesses.
15 Today I ask you to open your eyes and open your minds. Open your eyes and look at the Merdeka Centre report- only 23% support this Government. Malay support has sunk to 31%. Open your mind and accept the significance of the unprecedented case of the Rulers Conference issuing a statement for the 1MDB investigations to be carried out, completed and those involved punished. Remember your oath to faithfully discharge your duties when you were elected as a member of parliament. Your duty is to exercise reason and good judgment in the best interest of the nation. You duty is to act according to the clearest conviction of your judgment and conscience. It is not to obey blindly, vote according to dictation and act for the best interest of one individual.
16 Those of you constrained to vote against your conscience, to vote against your heart and mind, to vote for the Budget and to retain the Honourable Member from Pekan, know when our economy lies in ruins, when heads of families are without jobs, when people are unable to make ends meet, know the people have - in their hands the power to vote. The people will vote against corruption, vote against abuse, vote against oppression, the people will vote you out of power.
17 For these reasons, I reject the 2016 Budget. Thank you.
William Leong Jee Keen
MP Selayang
2 November 2015

Ucapan Debat Bajet 2016 : Menolak Bajet 2016

Mengundi Mengikut Hati Nurani : Menolak Bajet 2016

Yang Berhormat Tan Sri Yang Di Pertua,

Saya mengucapkan ribuan terima kasih kerana diberi peluang untuk membahaskan Bajet 2016.
2 Saya meminta Ahli-Ahli Yang Berhormat di Dewan yang Mulia ini terutama rakan-rakan di depan saya untuk mengundi mengikut hati nurani dan menolak Bajet 2016 (dengan izin “to vote according to your conscience and reject the 2016 Budget”).

3 Alasan pertama untuk menolak bajet 2016 adalah tiada kepastian Yang Berhormat Pekan masih ada sokongan majoriti Dewan Rakyat. Prinsip asas sistem kerajaan demokrasis berparlimen Westminster dan satu keperluan yang nyata Perlembagaan kita ialah perdana menteri perlu sokongan majoriti Dewan Rakyat. Dua Usul Tidak Percaya telah dibawah. Usul Tidak Percaya (Motion of No Confidence) yang dikemukakan oleh Ahli Yang Berhormat dari Petaling Jaya Selatan terbenam di bawah Kertas Perintah. Perkara 27 daripada 30 perkara, ia tidak ada peluang untuk dibahas. YB Yang DiPertua meminta Ketua Pembangkang, Ahli Berhormat Permatang Pauh, untuk memkemukakan ahli-ahli Parlimen Barisan Nasional yang menyokong Usul Tidak Percaya dibawah oleh Ketua Pembangkang, sebelum keputusan diambil untuk membenarkan Usul tersebut untuk dibahas. Ini bukan amalan demokrasi berparlimen.

4 Saya yakin Yang Berhormat Tan Sri Yang Di Pertua mengikut buku teks “Parliamentary Practice” oleh Erskine May. Usul Tidak Percaya perlu dibahaskan dengan segera dan diberikan keutamaan daripada usul-usul lain. Mengikut dengan izin “Parliamentary Practice and Convention” Kerajaan wajib menentukan tarikh dan maklumkan kepada speaker bila usul akan dibahas dengan segera. Ini adalah sebab kegagalan berbuat demikian adalah pengakuan bahawa perdana menteri telah hilang sokongan majority legislatif. Ia akan menjadi satu Kerajaan yang tidak sah (dengan izin “a government lacking legitimacy”). Satu Kerajaan yang tidak sah tidak mempunyai kuasa moral untuk mengutip satu ringgit cukai daripada rakyat ataupun untuk membelanjakan satu ringgit wang pembayar-pembayar cukai.

5 Alasan Kedua, adalah terdapat krisis keyakinan terhadap kepimpinan (dengan izin “a Crisis of Confidence in the Leadership). Sebab Pertama adalah siasatan jenayah terhadap Perdana Menteri telah diganggu. Ahli Yang Berhormat dari Sungai Petani telah merujuk kepada pemecatan Timbalan Perdana Menteri dan Menteri-Menteri lain yang berani menyoalkan 1MDB, penyingkiran Peguam Negara, pembubaran pasukan petugas khas, pemindahan pengarah-pengarah SPRM, pengarah-pengarah Cawangan Khas kepada jabatan di bawah Pejabat Perdana Menteri yang belum wujud dan polis menyiasat pegawai-pegawai penyiasat SPRM. PAC tidak boleh meneruskan siasatan selepas Perdana Menteri melantik 4 ahli PAC kepada Kabinet. Pengarah komunikasi strategik khas, Ahli dari Kota Belud dan Menteri Kesahteraan Bandar, Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan telah dilapor berkata bahawa Perdana Menteri terpaksa “take out people” selepas kertas pertuduhan yang didakwa terhadap Perdana Menteri muncul. Tindakan ini adalah kesalahan dibawa seksyen 23 Akta Surhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009;

6. Sebab Kedua adalah kekurangan penjelasan menyeluruh (full and frank disclosure) mengenai keadaan kewangan Kerajaan. Kerajaan tidak memberikan penjelasan menyeluruh tentang hutang RM42 bilion 1MDB dan RM2.6 bilion dalam akaun peribadinya. Perdana Menteri. Sepatutnya penjelasan penuh dan lengkap perlu dimaklumkan dengan segera selepas artikel Wall Street Journal diterbitkan pada bulan Julai. Rakyat juga telah menanti-nantikan Yang Berhormat Pekan memberikan penjelasan penuh dalam Ucapan Bajet 2016, tetapi malangnya ini tidak berlaku. Berdiam diri berpanjangan dan berlarutan hanya membawa kesimpulan bahawa ada segala-galanya yang hendak disembunyikan (dengan izin “the prolonged and protracted silence only give rise to the inference that there is everything to hide”). Oleh yang demikian kesan adalah keyakinan terhadap kepimpinan terjejas and makin menurun;

7 Keyakinan juga terjejas kerana Kerajaan menggunakan mekanisme off-budget untuk membiayai projek-projek kerajaan. PAC dalam laporannya mengenai Pembinaan PFI Sdn Bhd mendapati bahawa PFI telah digunakan untuk meminjam RM27 bilion untuk membiayai projek-projek dan aktiviti-aktiviti. Walaupun projek-projek telah dikenal pasti sebagai sebahagian daripada Rancangan Malaysia Ke-10, perbelanjaan yang dibiayai oleh PFI tidak dibentangkan ke Parlimen. PAC mendapati program PFI sebagai suatu pinjaman kerajaan off-budget. Perbelanjaan off-budget menimbulkan keraguan mengenai integriti angka-angka dalam bajet yang tidak memberikan kedudukan sebenar kewangan kerajaan, liabiliti kontinjen (“contingent liability”), pengiraan defisit dan tahap hutang kerajaan. Defisit dan hutang Kerajaan yang sebenar akan menjadi lebih tinggi jika hutang PFI diambil kira. PAC dalam laporannya membuat cadangan-cadangan bagi peruntukan, perbelanjaan dan hutang PFI dibentangkan untuk kelulusan Parlimen.  PAC selanjutnya mengesyorkan bahawa semua bentuk perbelanjaan off-budget juga hendaklah dilaporkan kepada Parlimen.  Malangnya, ini tidak dipatuhi bagi Bajet 2016.

8 Keyakinan terhadap Kerajaan juga terjejas sebab Kerajaan tidak menyediakan penjelasan lengkap tentang contingent liability, selain daripada jaminan, surat “letters of comfort” dan lain-lain bentuk sokongan kewangan yang diberikan untuk pinjaman-pinjaman yang diambil oleh badan-badan berkanun dan syarikat-syarikat berkaitan kerajaan (“GLC”) harus dibentangkan. Kerajaan perlu membayar hutang jika GLC ingkar. Terdapat terlalu banyak kes seperti pembayaran RM3 bilion bagi Pewaja, RM12 bilion bagi PKFZ, RM20 bilion dalam beberapa penyusunan semula MAS dan kini potensi liabiliti sebanyak RM42 bilion untuk 1MDB. Adalah mengejutkan untuk melihat dalam Lampiran 6 kepada Penyata Kewangan Kerajaan Persekutuan 2014 bahawa jumlah jaminan kerajaan kepada badan berkanun dan GLC adalah RM850 bilion (RM850,035,142,802.34). Ketaralah jumlah “contingent liability” adalah lebih apabila letter of comfort dan lain-lain bentuk surat sokongan diambil kira. Ini tidak harus berlaku. Ini tidak adil kepada ahli-ahli parliament yang membahas sehingga lewat malam tentang kenaikan gaji pejawat awam atau bonus lima ratus ringgit tetapi hutang berbilion-bilion GLC diberikan tanpa kelulusan atau pengetahuan ahli-ahli parlimen;  

9 Sebab Ketiga adalah penyalahgunaan dan penghancuran institusi negara kita. Kebebasan Badan Kehakiman telah dimusnahkan oleh bekas Perdana Menteri pada zaman lapan pulohan. Apa harapan pemulihan telah berkecai dengan sabitan Mahkamah terhadap Ketua Pembangkang, Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, peguam-peguam dari perbadanan perundangan antarabangsa berkata kesabitan Ketua Pembangan tidak wajar. Juga Makahmah Rayuan engan mengikut keputusan yang telah diberikan oleh panel Makahmah Rayuan yang lain dan memutuskan bahawa Akta Perhimpunan Damai tidak melanggar Perlembagaan. Keputusan ini bercanggah dengan keputusan Makahmah Rayuan pertama. Bekas Perdana Menteri Yang Berhormat Tun Ahmad Badawi berusaha untuk membetulkan badan penghakiman dengan menggubal Akta Suruhanjaya Kehakiman. Matlamat ini tidak dapat dicapai kerana baru-baru ini didedahkan bahawa nama Hakim Mohd Hishamuddin Mohd Yunus telah dicadangkan oleh Suruhanjaya Pelantikan Kehakiman untuk pelantikan ke Mahkamah Persekutuan pada tahun 2013 tetapi Perdana Menteri tidak memihak kepada perlantikan beliau. Hakim yang paling rajin, adil dan dihormati telah dilangkau banyak kali. Lain adalah integriti Bank Negara Malaysia, institusi peringkat antarabangsa yang dihormati telah dirosakan. Nampaknya ada kekurangan pengawasan BNM dalam pemindahan RM2.6 bilion dalam akaun peribadi Perdana Menteri. Sekarang ternyata dengan penolakan Peguam Negara terhadap siasatan BNM untuk mendakwa 1MDB. Ini merupakan BNM tidak tahu atau dengan izin “incompetent” menjalankan siasatan.    
10 Sebab Keempat adalah Kerajaan sedang melakukan penyiasatan, penangkapan dan penahanan ahli-ahli politik pembangkang, aktivis-aktivis, pelajar-pelajar, ahli-ahli akademik, pengharaman akhbar dan blog-blog dan mobilisasi berasaskan kaum. Ini telah menimbulkan kebimbangan keselamatan dan kestabilan;

11. Semua empat sebab telah bergabung untuk menjejaskan keyakinan pelabur tempatan dan asing. MIDF Equities melaporkan pada 3 Ogos 2015 bahawa anggaran aliran keluar sebanyak RM11.7 bilion melebihi aliran keluar RM6.9 bilion di seluruh 2014. Ia menyebabkan nilai Ringgit menjunam. Pakar ekonomi memanggil nya sebagai “sentiment.” Fitch Ratings dan ahli-ahli ekonomi juga berkata anggaran hasil Kerajaan 2016 adalah “optimistik”. Perkataan “sentiment” dan “optimistic” adalah istilah berhemah yang bermaksud mereka tidak ada keyakinan kepada anggaran yang diterbitkan. Memang “optimistic” untuk meramalkan hasil Kerajaan naik dengan kenaikan cukai pendapatan syarikat sebanyak 8.9% dan GST 44% dan tidak realistic bila ramalan pertumbuhan KDNK adalah hanya 4-5%. Kenaikan harga bermakna pengguna lebih berhati-hati dalam perbelanjaan, yang akan membawa kepada kelembapan ekonomi kerana pasaran domestik tidak mempunyai rangsangan.

12 Ini bermakna bahawa perniagaan rakyat Malaysia akan terjejas secara negatif. The Malaysian Employers’ Federation (MEF) melaporkan pada bulan Julai bahawa 10,000 orang telah diberhentikan berikutan penyusutan nilai ringgit, harga yang semakin meningkat dan kelembapan ekonomi;

13 Gaji bertakung dan perusahaan tidak dapat naik rantai nilai (dengan izin “move up the value chain”). Ini adalah sebab tahap produktivit buruh rendah, ketidakcekapan pengunaan sumber, proses inovatif yang tidak cukupi, kekurangan kemahiran dan penting sekali kebergantungan kepada pekerja asing berkemahiran rendah. Kebergantungan kepada pekerja asing berkemahiran rendah serta ketiadaan dasar yang komprehensif telah menyumbang kepada peningkatan bilangan pekerja asing berkemahairan rendah. Pada masa ini daripada jangkaan 6 juta pekerja asing lebih daripada 4 juta adalah tanpa izin. Oleh yang demikian cadangan Bajet 2016 untuk menaikan gaji minima daripada RM900 kepada RM1,000 dan daripada RM800 kepada RM900 di Sabah dan Sarawak, tidak akan menyelesaikan masalah. Usaha perlu dilaksanakan secara holistic, bersepadu dan disokong diperingkat Kerajaan, industry dan perusahaan;

14 BR1M tidak dapat membantu golonggan berpendapat rendah menampong kenaikan kos saraf hidup yang tinggi selepas subsidi di mansuhkan dan sekarang kadar tol telah naik dan subsidi beras dimansuhkan. Pengarah eksekutif MIER, Zakariah Abdul Rashid berkata BRIM adalah langkah populist dan merupakan “helicopter raining money.” Bayaran ini hanya menaikan kadar inflasi, tidak ada kesan positif terhadap produktiviti, tidak memberikan “multiplier effect.” BRIM adalah langkah sementara dan bukan penyelesaian. Apa yang diperlukan ialah satu jaringan selamatan sosial yang bekesan untuk menampong kos hidup yang semakin naik dan membebankan rakyat;
15 Oleh yang demikian saya meminta Ahli-Ahli Dewan yang Mulia ini untuk menolak Bajet 2016 mengikut hati nurani. Takkan kepentingan seorang keperluan tiga puluh juta rakyat dikorbankan. Takkan sebab mengekalkan jawatannya seorang, beribu-ribu dibiarkan kehilangan kerja mereka. Saya tahu ahli-ahli parliament di depan saya ada kekangan untuk membuat keputusan mengikut suara hati. Walaubagaimana pun, saya merayu jangan menutup mata kepada kemusnahan perlembagaan, institusi-institusi negara dan demokrasi. Jangan menutup hati dan minda kepada kebenaran.

16 Buka mata dan lihat laporan Merdeka Centre – hanya 23% menyokong Kerajaan.  Sokongan orang Melayu telah jatuh ke 31%. Buka minda dan menginsafi nasihat Persidangan Raja-Raja (Rulers Conference) dalam kenyataan untuk siasatan dijalankan, diselesaikan dan mereka yang terlibat dihukum. Jangan lupakan sumpah sebagai ahli parlimen untuk bertindak demi kepentingan negara pada keseluruhannya. Tanggungjawab adalah membuat pertimbangan yang terbaik untuk rakyat. Bukan untuk taat membuta tuli, undi mengikut imlak dan bertindak untuk kepentingan seorang individu.

17     Jikalau anda mengundi menentang hati nurani, menentang hati dan minda, sedar diri apabila ekonomi kita jatuh merundum, ketua setiap keluarga hilang mata pencarian, rakyat mengalami kesusahan menampong kos sara hidup tinggi, diperingatkan – dalam tangan mereka adalah kuasa untuk mengundi. Pada ketika itu rakyat akan mengundi menentang rasuah, mengundi menentang penderaan, mengundi menentang penindasan, rakyat akan mengundi anda dari kuasa.

18 Atas alasan-alasan yang diberikan, saya menolak Bajet 2016. Terima kasih.

William Leong Jee Keen
Ahli Parlimen Selayang

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

梁自坚吁峇南人改变思维 助民联落实改朝换代


暂圈定6候选人 蓝眼攻打峇南3选区


Lapok Baram needs clean water supply, says Selayang MP

Posted on March 16, 2015, Monday

Leong (seated, second right) with others pose for a photo after their press conference yesterday.
MIRI: The Ministry of Public Utilities (Water Supply) has been asked to find ways to supply clean pipe water for those living in Lapok Baram and its surrounding areas.
Selayang MP William Leong, who made this call, said he was surprised to see the poor conditions and lack of many basic necessities of those living in rural areas when he went to Long Lama on Saturday to launch the PKR Baram election machinery.
“When we came back from Long Lama after our function on Saturday, we stopped over in Lapok. We saw a lot of water tanks that people use to store rain water. Initially, we thought they used them for drinking, cooking and other things,” he told a press conference here yesterday.
However, they were surprised to learn that some villagers did not dare to drink the rainwater from the tanks as it was not hygienic.
“They claimed that at night, they heard rats and cats on their rooftops, which made them scared of drinking water from the tanks,” he said.
He said the ministry concerned should look into the request to help connect these rural areas with clean water for hygienic reasons.
On another matter, Leong said PKR is always ready and prepared to work with the state government to bring development to the people in Baram and eradicate poverty.
However, he said PKR would not support the government if the development they intended to bring would displace thousands of people and cause misery.
“Nobody objects development, but if the development will displace over 20,000 people in Baram and cause misery then no one will accept this,” he said.
Present at the press conference were Miri MP Dr Michael Teo, PKR Baram chairman Roland Engan and PKR Baram information chief Dennis Along.

Monday, March 9, 2015

Apa yang boleh saya lakukan untuk bebaskan Anwar? - William Leong

Apa yang boleh saya lakukan untuk bebaskan Anwar?

Malam ini malam ke-28 Anwar Ibrahim, yang menjadi tahanan politik di Penjara Sungai Buloh, tidur dihurungi nyamuk di atas lantai dingin dan keras dengan sakit tulang belakang yang dialaminya dan beliau akan berkeadaan begitu untuk 5 tahun lagi. Seperti Prometheus, Anwar dihukum kerana memberi api Harapan kepada rakyat Malaysia, membuka mata kepada Kebenaran dan membebaskan minda dari Prasangka. Mereka memenjarakan Anwar kerana takut kalah dalam pilihanraya akan datang. Tetapi semangat dan matlamat kita akan akan mendorong kita ke arah kemenangan.  Walaubagaimanapun, kita mesti bekerja keras.

4 Cabaran
Anwar mendedikasikan dirinya berjuang menentang kezaliman, korupsi, ketidaksamarataan dan ketidakadilan. Masalah kita bukan berasaskan perkauman. Masalahnya ialah masalah Malaysia. Hanya apabila kita juga berfikir dan bertindak sebagai rakyat Malaysia barulah kita dapat menyelesaikan masalah itu. Tetapi, ada golongan tertentu yang tidak mahu menyelesaikannya. Mereka mengasing-asingkan kita. Orang muda disuruh berkorban untuk kaum sendiri supaya mereka mendapat manfaat dari jurang minda dan perkauman yang ditanam.

Demi masa depan, kita perlu menangani cabaran besar dan kita harus bersedia. Isu-isu seperti ketidaktelusan pilihanraya termasuk persempadanan dan pengundi, akses dan eksploitasi media, tahanan aktivis dan pemimpin dari parti pembangkang, halangan untuk mengadakan perhimpunan adalah antara cabaran tersebut. Pada masa yang sama, kita juga berhadapan dengan mereka yang menghina kaum dan agama lain serta mencetuskan kebimbangan dan keresahan tetapi dibiarkan begitu sahaja oleh pihak berkuasa. Untuk mencapai kemenangan, kita memerlukan mobilisasi yang kuat, kerjasama, kepakaran dan semangat kewiraan yang luar biasa yang lebih dari sistem demokrasi yang biasa. Tetapi kita perlu terlebih dahulu menangani 4 cabaran.

Cabaran 1: Memupuk Kesedaran Politik Dalam Kalangan Pengguna Media Sosial
Internet telah terbukti berupaya menumbangkan rejim diktator seperti kebangkitan dunia Arab, Revolusi Jingga di Ukraine dan Revolusi Ros di Georgia. Media sosial menjadi alat yang paling penting bagi menentang rejim otoritarian tetapi hanya berkesan jika wujud kesedaran politik dalam kalangan pengguna internet. Biarpun di dunia internet, perubahan politik sukar berlaku tanpa penyebaran dan penyemaian idea berkenaan. Untuk memenangi hati dan minda mereka, akses kepada maklumat tidaklah sepenting akses kepada komunikasi. Minda seseorang berubah apabila sahabat, ahli keluarga dan rakan sekerja berkongsi dan menyetujui pandangan politik tertentu. Kita tidak boleh mengandaikan perbuatan mereka yang klik "suka" atas laman media sosial sebagai membantu dalam membawa perubahan politik. Memberi pendapat dan berkongsi pandangan seseorang adalah lebih berkesan. Menurut Steve Jobs "Kepercayaan itu bukan bersandar pada teknologi. Kepercayaan itu bersandar pada manusia."

Biarkan Orang Awam Meneliti Penghakiman Secara Menyeluruh
Sebelum hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan habis membaca alasan penghakiman dan menjatuhkan hukuman lagi, perang media sosial sudahpun bermula. Mereka cuba menapis, mengecam dan menyebar maklumat palsu kerana mereka tahu alasan yang diberikan nampak lemah jika diteliti. Malah, kini Ketua Polis Negara sedang memerhatikan anda melalui Facebook dan Twittter dan menyiasat ahli-ahli Parlimen yang memberi komen mengenai keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan di laman media sosial. Ketua Hakim Negara Tun Ariffin Zakaria, dan Peguam Negara Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail memberi amaran kepada para peguam dan orang awam supaya tidak mengkritik sistem kehakiman atas alasan ia akan mengikis keyakinan awam terhadap pentadbiran kehakiman.. Shafee Abdullah mahukan Christopher Leong and Ambiga Sreenevasan, iaitu mantan Presiden dan Presiden Majlis Peguam didakwa kerana komen mereka dianggap menghina mahkamah. Tetapi pada masa yang sama Shafee Abdullah dan pemuda UMNO ke sana sini berforum dan berseminar untuk menegakkan benang yang basah dan menyerang Anwar yang tidak dapat mempertahankan diri sendiri.

Bagi saya, kritikan haruslah diteruskan agar ketidakadilan dapat diperbetulkan dan keyakinan awam terhadap pentadbiran kehakiman dapat dikembalikan. Biarpun mereka berkuasa untuk menakutkan kita dan menyembunyikan kebenaran di dalam negara, tetapi mereka tiada kuasa dan tidak dapat menghalang kebenaran daripada didedahkan di luar negara. Pemerintah-pemerintah Amerika Syarikat, British, Australia, Kanada, New Zealand, Jerman, Switzerland, Kesatuan Eropah dan banyak lagi negara lain mengkritik keputusan mahkamah dalam masa yang singkat dan telah menghantar pemerhati untuk hadir dalam pembicaraan kes Anwar. Mereka semua merumuskan bahawa Anwar tidak sepatutnya didakwa, dan tentu sekali tidak wajar diputuskan bersalah. Begitu juga, pertubuhan hak asasi manusia antarabangsa yang mempunyai kredibiliti seperti  Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch dan Federasi Antarabangsa Hak Asasi Manusia  juga menyatakan yang sama. Suruhanjaya Juri Antarabangsa (ICJ) dan Persatuan Antara Parlimen-Parlimen (IPU). Peguam Diraja Australia Mark Trowell, yang juga mewakili Persatuan Antara Parlimen-Parlimen, LAWASIA dan Majlis Peguam Australia berpendapat, keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan dibuat dalam keadaan kekurangan analisis fakta secara menyeluruh dan mahkamah telah menolak atau mengabaikan bukti yang dapat membangkitkan keraguan serius mengenai kesahihan bukti dan kredibiliti pengadu.

Apabila orang baik tidak berbuat apa-apa, kejahatan akan bermaharajalela. Kita bersekongkol dengan ketidakadilan jika kita berdiam diri dalam kes Anwar. Tidak ada penghinaan Mahkamah jika penghakiman dikritik dengan niat yang baik. Prosiding di Mahkamah terbuka ialah asas ketelusan dan keyakinan awam terhadap kehakiman. Prinsip keterbukaan mensyaratkan bahawa alasan penghakiman merupakan maklumat awam, maka ia tertakluk kepada penelitian parti-parti, media, majlis peguam, sarjana perundang-undangan dan juga orang awam. Orang awam harus dibenarkan untuk membincangkan dan menerbitkan penghujahan berkenaan dengan penghakiman, pemeriksaan dan keputusan berkaitan. Lord Atkin pernah menyebut Keadilan haruslah dibenarkan untuk berdepan dengan pengamatan dan komen orang biasa yang kuat berbicara secara hormat”.Jeremy Bentham juga pernah berkata "Dalam kegelapan kerahsiaan, kepentingan jahat wujud dalam segala bentuk dan dan segala kemungkinan. Hanya dalam ruang di mana wujud publisiti maka ketidakadilan kehakiman dapat disemak. Tanpa publisiti tiada keadilan."

Cabaran Kedua: Takutkan Kesia-Siaan
Beberapa malam sebelum ini, saya sedang mengagihkan buah oren di pasar malam sebagai sebahagian dari budaya Tahun Baru Cina apabila seorang gadis muda datang kepada saya dan bertanya: "Apa yang boleh saya lakukan untuk bebaskan Anwar?" Saya beritahu gadis tersebut, perkara terbaik boleh dilakukannya untuk membebaskan Anwar adalah dengan menentang ketidakadilan. Pertahankan hak anda. Apabila kita melibatkan diri dan menyuarakan apa yang betul, kita telah menyingkir kuasa pihak yang menzalimi kita, yakni pihak yang bertanggungjawab memenjarakan Anwar. Kuasa pihak yang zalim bergantung kepada sokongan rakyat. Kalau rakyat menyokong penindas maka penindas akan berkuasa. Tetapi kalau rakyat tidak lagi menyokong mereka, maka sebesar manapun mereka akan hancur berkecai.

Pada 1 Disember 1955, Rosa Parks ditahan kerana enggan memberikan tempat duduk dalam bahagian bas yang tergolong sebagai kulit berwarna kepada orang kulit putih. Tentangan Rosa Parks bangkit sebagai simbol gerakan hak sivil. Presiden Amerika Syarikat Lyndon Johnson dalam ucapannya bertajuk “We shall Overcome” berkata: "Wira sebenar perjuangan ini ialah orang kulit hitam Amerika. Tindakan dan protes, keberanian berdepan dengan risiko keselamatan sehingga membahayakan nyawanya telah memberikan kesedaran seluruh bangsa. Demonstrasi sedemikian rupa membangkitkan kesedaran terhadap ketidakadilan dan mendorong perubahan dan pembaharuan. Tindakannya telah membuahkan sesuatu yang baik untuk Amerika." Akhirnya, Rang Undang-Undang Hak Sivil diluluskan pada tahun 1965, kemudian pada tahun 2008, warga Amerika memilih seorang Presiden berdasarkan keupayaannya dan bukannya berdasarkan warna kulitnya. Keberanian seorang wanita telah menyedarkan seluruh bangsa.

Apa yang diperlukan adalah seorang gadis muda, seperti gadis berkenaan yang menerima buah oren mandarin saya, untuk berdiri berdepan dengan kezaliman. Setiap kali seseorang berdiri, dia mencipta gelombang harapan. Apabila sejuta orang berdiri, gelombang tersebut menjadi arus yang kuat dan berdaya yang mampu menumbangkan tembok kezaliman yang paling kuat. 

Cabaran Ketiga: Komitmen Yang Lembap
Cabaran ketiga berkenaan dengan bahayanya komitmen yang lembap, yakni kekurangan komitmen yang kuat dan tegas. Sering kali saya diberitahu penyokong berniat baik supaya saya menyuarakan pandangan ini dan itu. Kita sedang menunggu seseorang yang lain untuk mengatakannya atau melakukannya. Kita sentiasa menunggu orang lain untuk memimpin sedangkan kita meraikannya dan memberikan sokongan sambil menjalani kehidupan yang selamat dan selesa sepertimana keselesaan yang diberikan oleh kerusi sofa bilik kediaman kita. 

Kita semua sedia maklum berkenaan kisah-kisah Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King dan Nelson Mandela. Mereka semua ni wira kita. Di mana pula wira yang asalnya rakyat Malaysia? Karpal Singh meninggal dunia akibat satu kemalangan jalan raya pada tahun lepas, Anwar Ibrahim kini berada di penjara dan Tok Guru Nik Aziz meninggal dunia beberapa hari yang lepas. Apakah kita sekadar berdiam diri menanti seorang penyelamat atau wira baru muncul? Atau apakah kita bergerak mulai sekarang tanpa menanti-nanti lagi?

Saya berada di satu forum di Ipoh beberapa bulan yang lepas. Seorang hadirin menanyakan di mana "Martin Luther King Malaysia"? Di mana "Gandhi kita"? Saya beritahunya "Martin Luther King Malaysia" atau Gandhi seterusnya kini berdiri di depan kita. Kalau kita berani dan komited untuk bergerak dan bersuara menentang ketidakadilan, kita semua boleh jadi pemimpin, kita semua boleh jadi pengikut. Bukan saja pemimpin harus bergerak dan bersuara. Kita semua harus bangkit. Masa telah tiba untuk membuat pilihan. Setiap orang akhirnya akan dihakimi dari usaha dan sumbangannya dalam hala tuju ke arah order baru. Anda tentu mahu bercerita kepada anak dan cucu anda, bahawa anda sebahagian daripada sejarah dan menyumbang ke arah menumbangkan tembok kezaliman.   

Cabaran Keempat: Kurang Keberanian Untuk Percaya
Saban hari kita melihat ketidakadilan di sekitar kita. Bukan mudah untuk bangkit berdepan dengan ketidakadilan. Kalau kita bangkit, kita sendiri mungkin dizalimi. Kita takut disisihkan. Namun begitu, tidak cukup sekadar rasa tidak selesa apabila menemui ketidakadilan. Kita mesti beranikan diri berdepan dengan ketakutan dan komited unttuk bertindak. Kalau kita sekadar mendiamkan diri, kita akan menjadi sebahagian daripada ketidakadilan.  

Berbanding dengan keberanian fisikal di medan peperangan, lebih sukar bagi seseorang itu mempunyai keberanian moral untuk menentang kezaliman secara aman dan tenang. Namun, ini yang diperlukan. Ciri-ciri utama yang diperlukan bagi mereka yang berazam membawa perubahan kepada sesuatu bangsa. Kita harus jadikan kualiti sedemikian sebagai inspirasi dan dorongan apabila berdepan dengan mereka yang menentang perubahan dan mereka yang menggunakan segala apa yang ada untuk mencegah perubahan daripada berlaku. Mereka mengapi-apikan emosi, kesangsian dan kebencian. Mereka merantai rakyat dengan ketakutan bercirikan perkauman dan agama. Mereka berbuat demikian kerana ini satu-satunya pilihan bagi mereka yang menolak hujah berdasarkan fakta dan tindakan rasional sesebuah minda yang bebas untuk menuntut keadilan. Tuntutan keadilan berkaitan adalah bahawa sesiapa pun tidak harus dihakimi kerana warna kulit atau kepercayaannya. Ini adalah perjuangan menentang diskriminasi, prasangka dan ketaksuban.     

Sesiapa pun tidak wajar melihat perjuangan ini sebagai perjuangan untuk Anwar atau sesiapa pun. Ini adalah perjuangan untuk diri sendiri, untuk keluarga, untuk masa depan anak dan untuk kita semua. Hari ini apabila anda bersekongkol dengan rejim pemerintah untuk meragut kebebasan seseorang, harta seseorang, maruah seseorang kerana warna kulit atau kepercayaannya, maka di masa depan, anda akan merana apabila rejim pemerintah bertindak terhadap anda. Kita mesti bebaskan diri daripada kongkongan sedemikian.  

Kita harus mendekati sesama kita untuk memutuskan rantaian yang mengongkong kita. Ini telah berlaku di Afrika Selatan. Nelson Mandela telah dipenjarakan selama 27 tahun, namun perjuangan tidak terhenti setelah pemenjaraannya. Dasar Aparthied berdepan dengan tentangan daripada segenap lapisan masyarakat, termasuk pertubuhan yang komited terhadap protes aman, penentangan pasif dan pemberontakan bersenjata. Tentangan dilancarkan oleh kedua-dua pihak aktivis kulit hitam dan putih. Ia datang dari gerakan mahasiswa dan pertubuhan pekerja. Ia datang dari gereja, penganut-penganut Hindu dan Islam. Tentangan juga datang daripada Black Sash, sebuah pertubuhan wanita kulit putih yang membantah dasar Apartheid. Pada tahun 1994, dasar Apartheid ditamatkan.  

Masa telah tiba untuk rakyat Malaysia mempamerkan keberanian dan keyakinan untuk membawa perubahan yang kita idam-idamkan dan menjadikannya sebuah realiti. Kebebasan, kesaksamaan dan keadilan tidak akan diberikan kepada kita sebagai hadiah yang jatuh dari langit. Perjuangan untuk kebebasan, kesaksamaan dan keadilan untuk Malaysia haruslah datang dari rakyat Malaysia, untuk rakyat Malaysia.

Kini Masanya
Anwar telah korbankan dirinya untuk rakyat Malaysia. Kini giliran kita membuat sesuatu. Saya menyeru seluruh rakyat Malaysia supaya jangan terlepas saat genting ini. Kita telah menunggu 58 tahun. Jangan sampai kita harus menunggu 58 tahun lagi.  Pintu ke arah kebebasan dan kesaksamaan kini berada di depan kita. Apa yang perlu sekarang ialah tolakan terakhir daripada kita. Ini perhimpunan terakhir dan kita akan berada di destinasi. Kita telah datang dari jauh, berjuang lama dan jangan kita berhenti begitu sahaja. Mari kita bergerak bersama ke arah kebebasan, kekayaan yang dikongsi bersama dan ke arah Malaysia yang lebih baik.

William Leong Jee Keen        
Ahli Parlimen Selayang

Friday, March 6, 2015

是时候,采取决定性的行动了 – 梁自坚








第一个挑战是建立社交媒体用户的政治意识。我们如今握在手中的都是社交媒体。互联网在阿拉伯之春、乌克兰橙色革命及格鲁吉亚玫瑰革命中成功推翻独裁者,但它未能在白俄罗斯除去总统卢卡申科(President Alexander Lukashenko)及欧洲最后专制政权的独裁者。它在伊朗也未能成功。


留言和分享可表达群众的意见,比单单点击“赞”有更强大的效果。一个更美好的世界是会到来的,唯有当有责任的用户有效地使用社交媒体并真诚地付诸于行动。史蒂夫乔布斯(Steve Jobs)说过:“这不是对科技的信仰,这是对人的信仰。”长期民主斗争的成败是取决于人而非科技。



更甚的是,现在卡立阿布巴卡(@ KBAB51)在看着你,全国总警长在监视着脸书和推特,调查着我们那些有推特或评论有关联邦法院裁决的国会议员。首席大法官敦阿里芬和总检察长丹斯里阿都干尼告诫律师和公众不可批评司法。首席主控官丹斯里沙非益要现任和前任的律师公会主席梁肈富和安美嘉被控于藐视法庭判决。




同样的,国际人权组织,如:国际特赦组织(Amnesty International),人权检察(Human Rights Watch)和国际人权联合会(The International Federation for Human Rights)也有同样说法。国际法学家委员会(International Commission of Jurists, ICJ)和各国议会联盟(The Inter-Parliamentary Union, IPU)也谴责法院的判决。澳洲女皇律师托维尔(Mark Trowell)代表各国议会联盟,亚太法律协会(LAWASIA)和澳洲法律委员会(The Law Council of Australia)表示,联邦法院的裁决缺乏对事实作出详细的分析。他指出,法院拒绝或忽略对原告信誉和可靠度有严重疑点的证据。


邪恶会在好人袖手旁观的时候盛行。如果我们继续保持沉默,我们将沦为不公的同谋。当我们善意地批评,这并不等于蔑视。一个开放的法庭诉讼是作为司法透明及其公信的基础。开放式的原则包括:了解判决的原因是一项公共信息,是受到各方政营、媒体、法律学者及最终到公众的监视。公众必须被允许讨论及发表有关程序、检验和判决的言论。阿特金勋爵(Lord Atkin)在英国枢密院(Privy Council)解释安巴尔(Andre Paul Terence Ambard)对总检察长特立尼达和多巴哥(Trinidad and Tobago)的案件时说道:


边沁(Jeremy Bentham),19世纪英国哲学家说:“在保密的黑暗里,各种各样邪恶的企图心正在雀跃着。唯有在公众所知的地方,不公不义才得以审查,纠正不公才得以实行。若不为公众所知,那就没有正义可言。”



第二个挑战是害怕徒劳。这是一种单薄力量的恐惧:一个男人或一个女人要去抵抗一系列恶势力—— 金钱、体制和传媒——那些所有我们起来反对的。



1955121日,罗莎帕克斯(RosaParks)被逮捕,因为他拒绝把在彩色区域的巴士座位让给白人。帕克斯的行为就此成为民权斗争运动的象征。林登约翰逊总统(President Lyndon Johnson)在《我们一定会胜利》的演说中,要求国会批准民权法案时说道:“这场斗争的真正英雄是美国黑人。他的行动和抗议,他那勇于冒险的勇气,甚至是冒着生命危险,也要唤醒了这个国家的良心。他示威的目的是为了呼吁人民关注不公不义,旨在激起求改变的心、激发改革。他一直呼吁美国履行承诺。”






我们都知道,圣雄甘地(Mahatma Gandhi),马丁路德金(Martin Luther King)和曼德拉(Nelson Mandela)的故事。他们是我们的英雄。那么我们大马的英雄在哪里呢?他们总会问道。卡巴星在去年的事故身亡,安华身在牢狱之中和精神领袖聂阿兹刚去世几天。我们要静待下一个救世主或下一个英雄现身,抑或我们现在就做一个决定?










罗伯特肯尼迪(Robert Kennnedy)说过:“当我们所有同志的自由是安全的,那么我们的自由才可以成长;那些使某人为他奴役的人最终只能拴住自己,锁链有两端,拿着锁链的他也将被他所认为的一样地拴着他。”

我们必须让更多人知道,去打破这个束缚我们的锁链。这在南非已经做到了。1948年,南非政府开始实行种族隔离制度(Apartheid)1949年,非洲全国大会(African National Congress, ANC)的青年倡导通过一系列大规模的运动去推翻白人政权。政府随后宣布全国进入紧急状态。超过一万八千人被捕,当中包括ANC的领导人,而该组织遭查禁。

曼德拉被囚禁了27年,但这斗争并没有因为他遭到监禁而结束。抵抗种族隔离制度的是来自社会各阶层的人士:和平抗议的组织、消极抵抗及武装暴乱。它有来自于正面和反面的社会运动份子;它有来自于学生运动及工会;它有来自于教会、兴都教徒和穆斯林;它有来自一个叫黑腰带,反对种族隔离的白人妇女组织。 最终在1994年,这种族隔离制度终于结束。