Stand By Those Re-Thinking Islam Part I : A Different Narrative and Discourse

Realignment of the Political Landscape

As we enter 2016, the shifting loyalties of politics find two once bitter foes joining forces in a corroborative alliance. Despite contradictory statements by PAS leaders, Malaysians have no illusions the compact is a done deal. For PAS, the cooperation makes it’s Holy Grail of turning Malaysia into an Islamic state and implementation of sharia, potentially, just an election away. For UMNO, it gets to retain power despite the corruption scandals, fiscal mismanagements, failed economic policies, rising costs of living and falling value of the Ringgit.

Convergence of PAS Islamism and UMNO Islamism

With the PAS/UMNO cooperation we now have a convergence of PAS Islamism to establish an Islamic state ruled by shariah with UMNO Islamism on the Islamisation of the bureaucracy, laws and policies of the nation. Both favour a literal interpretation of the primary sources of Islam and harken back to earlier times to return to the fundamentals of the religion which is out of line with modern times (“the Traditionalist”)

The cooperation presents the daunting prospect of the ulema working with Federal and State religious authorities, state agencies and bureaucrats in establishing not just an Islamic theocratic state but a brand of Islamic state fused with intolerant ethno-nationalism where the supremacy of Islam and supremacy of a particular ethnic group are one and the same.[1]  

Re-Thinking Islam

There is, however, an increasing number of Muslim scholars and political leaders who utilize rigorous, historical and texture analysis to re-examine, reconcile and re-think the role of Islam in a secular state and related issues so as to bring modern concepts of democracy, human rights, inclusivity, tolerance, pluralism and religious freedom to be comparable to Islam’s universal concepts. They assert good governance, economic development, inclusiveness, protecting basic rights and freedoms are Islamic objectives adopting a maqasid approach and ijtihad. In this article I call these Muslim scholars and political leaders “the Re-Thinkers”

Muslims First Malay Second

The electoral strategic interests of winning Malay votes have changed to winning Muslim votes due to the increasing number of Malays who identify themselves based on the religion rather than the race. With Malays forming 60% of the population and 114 parliament seats out of 165 in Peninsula Malaysia being Malay majority seats, the importance of Malay/Muslim votes is obvious. According to a 15 August 2015 Merdeka Centre report, 60% of Malays say they are Muslims first. This is up from 54% ten years ago. Those who see themselves as Malays first fell from 11% to 6%. If the Re-Thinkers wish to reform the thinking of the religion, the narrative and discourse must address the Muslim audience.

Non-Muslims’ Understanding of the New Narrative

This article seeks to obtain non-Muslims’ understanding on the need for a different narrative and discourse from the existing Islamic state- secular state debate and not to be alarmed by the Re-Thinkers’ use and reference to Islamic authoritative traditions and religious arguments.

A Different Discourse from the Constitutional Argument

The argument based on the interpretation of Article 3(1) that Islam is the official religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony, the guaranteed freedom of religion under Article 10 and the Supreme Court decision of Che Omar bin Che Soh v Public Prosecutor [1988] 2 MLJ 55 that the laws of Malaysia is secular, although sound is not the narrative and discourse that can be used for the intended Muslim audience. The road to Islamic re-thinking despite the twists and turns cannot reach its destination without passing through the gates of Islamic authoritative traditions.

Those Re-Thinking Islam have to frame the narrative and discourse to engage Muslims in accordance with the practices and authority of Islamic traditions. This is a critical problem that all religious scholars or leaders of whatever faith face. They need to demonstrate a relationship between their re-thinking and the authority of tradition. The Re-Thinkers must show some form of continuity between tradition and change. For Muslims, the interpretations and practices sanctioned by the ijma of the past, the classical Islamic traditions, consensus of religious scholars or ijma represents the source of religious authority. If the Re-Thinkers are unable to establish the necessary link or continuity between the authoritative ijma of the past and modern change their efforts will fail.

Non-Muslims need to understand that the success or failure of the re-thinking and approach to interpret the universal values of Islam to be comparable with modern society depends on the narrative and discourse being put in the language and in accordance with the Islamic belief system. It is only upon this being established can we go into heart of the matter. The core question to be answered is not whether Malaysia should be an Islamic or secular state, it is what Malaysian Muslims want. It is submitted that on reflection it is not different from what non-Muslim Malaysians want.

Effect of the Politicization of Islam in Malaysia

Malaysian Muslims want to practice their religion and live their lives in accordance with Islamic values. However, they do not wish to impose their beliefs on non-Muslims. This is the same as every other citizen practising their own religion. However, the politicization of Islam in the battle by PAS and UMNO for the hearts and minds of the Malay Muslims has been a contest of one trying to out-Islamise the other in accordance with the tenets of fundamental Islamism. As a consequence, Muslims have been pushed by the two political Islamist parties to the right of the Islamic political spectrum much to the despair and alarm of non-Muslims and the silent and silenced majority of moderate Muslims. In my opinion this have caused negative effects in at least three major areas.

Effects of Politicisation of Islam: Radical or Militant Islamism

Just as Malaysians are recovering from the shock of a 16-year old “lone cub” attack inspired by ISIS in the attempted kidnapping of a sales assistant in a shopping complex in Sungai Petani, we are reeling under the horrifying news of the ISIS terrorists attacks in Jakarta so close to home. It is estimated that approximately 200-250 Malaysians have joined ISIS as fighters. With a population of 31 million and only 60% of which are Muslims this is an exceedingly high rate compared to the 400 Indonesians who joined ISIS with a Muslim population of more than 300 million. Social media have gone viral with videos of Malaysians fighting and dying for ISIS. A growing number treat them as martyrs and heroes. Malaysian girls have also gone there to become comfort women to the ISIS fighters. “Jihad al-Nikah” refers to a controversial concept where women allegedly offer themselves to provide sexual comfort to fighters for the establishment of an Islamic state.

According to a recent PEW poll, 11% of Malaysian Muslims have a ‘favourable’ view of ISIS. Malaysian Muslims are more likely than Indonesian Muslims to consider suicide bombing justifiable (18% versus 7%). Transport Minister, Dato Sri Liow Tiong Lai told a conference in Kuala Lumpur on 12 December 2015 that based on police intelligence estimates there are approximately 50,000 ISIS supporters in Malaysia.

Although both PAS and UMNO have gone officially on record to condemn ISIS and other terrorist attacks, to a large extent, impressionable Malaysians being enamoured with the romanticised idea of jihad is due to the politicization of Islam by PAS and UMNO. While JAKIM (Malaysian Islamic Development Department), Biro Tata Negara (National Civics Bureau or “BTN”) and similar bodies do not officially support ISIS or its brutally cruel and murderous ideology, they have promoted a uniquely narrow Malay Islamic worldview which indirectly supports and complements the ISIS brand of intolerance. Many young Malays at the primary and secondary school steeped in the view of Malay Islam finds ISIS’s ideology easy to accept, having grown up with a state-sanctioned view of intolerance towards non-Malay Muslims.[2]

A different narrative and discourse is urgently needed so as to review the politicization of Islam in Malaysia, the Islamization agenda, policies and strategies of all parties to reduce these factors contributing to the rise of right wing ethno-nationalist sentiments and extremist religious activities.

Effect of Politicisation of Islam on non-Muslims

In the quest by PAS and UMNO to win Muslim votes, freedom of non-Muslims to practise their religion have been encroached upon and is diminishing over time.

The ban on the use of “Allah”, the seizure of Bahasa Malaysia language Bibles and CDs intended for Christian use, the Islamization of the bureaucracy, the enactment and implementation of narrow Islamic policies by UMNO-run state and local governments have fundamental and far-reaching consequences in the politicisation of Islam in Malaysia. This includes the control of building non-Muslim religious buildings and curtailment of land plots for non-Muslim burial sites. Demolition and desecration of religious places of worship have become regular and repeated problems.

Amendments to Article 121 of the Federal Constitution and the insertion of Article 121(1A) which provides that the High Court shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Sharia Courts have led the Civil Courts to abdicate their jurisdiction to determine sensitive religious cases such as conversion, child custody and child conversion cases. Cases such as Lina Joy, Shamala v Dr Jeyaganesh, R. Subashini and the recent Court of Appeal decision of Indira Gandhi have caused great grief and distress. The lack of judicial activism and deference to the shariah courts mean more suffering and injustice shall continue unless something is done.

Effect of Politicisation of Islam on Muslims

Muslims are in fact bearing the brunt of the Traditionalist approach to Islam in Malaysia. Over the years, Islamic authorities have gradually become more rigid in their interpretation and application of the Shariah code in Islam.

This Christmas the Sultan of Brunei decreed a maximum five year prison sentence for Muslims who celebrate Christmas or non-Muslims who celebrate too openly. Some quarters in Malaysia support this. Before this, the National Fatwa Council issued an edict banning Muslims from celebrating Halloween which is categorised as a Christian celebration of the dead.

Muslim gymnasts have recently been criticised for their “revealing” uniforms. The organiser of a dog-petting event received death threats. In Kelantan Muslim men are fined up to RM1,000.00 or jail up to a year or both, for failing to attend Friday prayers thrice in a row under s state by-law.[3]

Friday sermons prepared by religious authorities paint non-Muslims as enemies of Islam. Muslims who engaged in liberalism, pluralism and humanism are condemned as being anti-Islam. Malaysian religious authorities also frequently warn against liberalism, with the Federal government’s Islamic Development Department (JAKIM) reminding Muslims that this concept, along with pluralism, are threats to Malay-Muslim unity as they could weaken their faith. JAKIM also said the National Fatwa Council had in its 74^th meeting in 2006 declared liberal thinking as heretical.

Islamic authorities prohibit dissent and discussions of the country’s predominant religion. Muslims are told they cannot use logic and rationale to understand and practise Islam. They must only refer to the Quran and hadith and nothing else.

Thinking Muslims are being marginalised and persecuted. Octogenarian, Muslim intellectual, Dr Kassim Ahmad was charged by the Federal Territory Religious Department (JAWI) for insulting Islam and disobeying religious authorities for participating in a seminar entitled “The Thoughts of Kassim Ahmad” organised by the Perdana Foundation where he apparently accused some ulema of imitating the “priesthood class” and questioned the use of hadith to interpret the Quran. The former Malay studies lecturer at the University of London School of Oriental and African Studies lamented that people in Malaysia are losing their freedom to think and voice their views, and that the authorities are becoming more narrow-minded. 

There is a climate of fear, suspicion and prejudice. Muslims who do not prescribe to the belief system of the religious authorities do not see themselves as being welcomed or even tolerated in their own country.

A Different Discourse: Islamic State or State of Islam (Higher Objectives of Islam)

It is hoped that through the different narrative and discourse there will be a better awareness of the concept of an Islamic state and its origins. The maqasid al-shariah approach and ijtihad would provide a different solution to the negative effects suffered by non-Muslims and Muslims in Malaysia.

Roots of Radicalism in Political Islam

It helps in the understanding of the issue of Islamic state to know that militant Islamism has the same root as political Islam. Both share the same dream of establishing an Islamic state and implementation of shariah, the difference is one is by the bullet while the other is by the ballot.

Muslims in the Arab Spring countries aghast with the cruelty and brutality of ISIS, Boko Haram and extremist violence is amongst the reasons for political Islam’s decline and on the defensive post-Arab Spring. It is hoped that by having this different discourse Muslims come to a realisation and appreciation that it is not a religious obligation to set up the Islamic state and that the Caliphate is not relevant in today’s world.

The discourse reminds Muslims that Prophet Mohamed and the successive early generations especially the four rightly-guided caliphs did not establish a state. Their focus was on organising the life of the ummah (community of believers) to be a moral community, with its hierarchy, social arrangements, economic system and defence capabilities. The idea of a state is a modern invention. It is therefore a fallacy to believe that setting up the Islamic state is a religious obligation.  

Ali Mamouri, a researcher and writer who specializes in Religion wrote in Al-Monitor “The Roots of Radicalism in Political Islam” that political Islam is the umbrella term of fundamentalism. The goal of fundamentalism is to return to the “sacred text” carefully executing what it says without any interpretation and rejecting the official, and more conservative, historical interpretations of it. For the fundamentalists, a return to the original and primary reading and avoiding any latter interpretation, is the solution to all current problems.[4]

Creating an Islamic state ruled by the principles of sharia is the cornerstone which a growing Islamic ideology depends on. This general aim serves as an ideological façade concealing behind it a heterogeneous mixture of groups and organisations that differ in their strategies, priorities and interpretation of reality. The point worth noting is that these different approaches have very similar ideological structures as well joint historical roots. Understanding this fact can change one’s outlook towards conflicts in the Middle East.

Islamic fundamentalism, in its current form as a social movement and apart from its historical religious background, is a recent phenomenon of approximately only 100 years. The movement was a reaction to the frailty and weakness of Islamic countries compared with their glorious pasts. Therefore, the fundamentalists emerged not out of conservative circles but rather out of reformist movements which aimed for an “Islamic Awakening.”

The concept of an Islamic state is of recent origin arising from the independence movement from British colonial rule in the Indian subcontinent. It was first developed by Maulana Abul A’la Maududi and is a product of modernity. In response to the Muslim League’s call for a Muslim state of Pakistan, Hindu call for a secular India and communist call for a socialist state, Maududi called for the establishment of “hukumat-e-ilahiya (“Allah’s government) or an Islamic state[5]. He arrived in Pakistan from India with the ambition to turn what was to him a nationalistic abomination into becoming a “true Islamic state” based on shariah. Maududi formed his party in 1941 with a vanguard of learned and pious Muslims to bring an “Islamic revolution” and do away with the forces of jahiliya (socialism, communism, liberal democracy, secularism and a faith distorted by innovators).  

Maududi’s concept of Islamic state was so without foundation that he struggled to find ideological roots for an Islamic state grounded in historical evidence, while portraying the concept as theologically Islamic. As such Maududi offered the term “hakimiyya”.

Azzam Al-Kassir, a Syrian scholar at the University of Exeter points out that the term “hakimiyya” which resides in the rhetoric of contemporary political Islamist movements, similar to the term “Islamic state”, is not mentioned in the Quran or the Hadith. Nor does it exist in Arabic lexicography. Maududi links the term “hakimiya” to its linguistic root “hukm” whose derivations are mentioned in the Quran more than 200 times. Yet not one of these verses points towards the assumption or practice of political power. Instead the term suggests the need for insight and distinguishing between right and wrong, or education and jurisprudence.[6]

Maududi’s concept of an Islamic state found support among other influential Islamic thinkers and leaders. Among them were Sayyid Qutb in Egypt and Ayatollah Khomeni. Sayyid Qutb adopted and fully exploited the term “hakimiyya” and used it to branch out into “jahiliyya” (ignorance), takfeer (excommunication) and jihad. His exposure to abuse of power undoubtedly contributed to the ideas of his famous prison-written Islamic manifesto “Ma’alim fi-l-tariq (Milestones) where he advocated a political system that is opposite of dictatorship. Qutb wrote Muslims should resist any system where men are in “servitude to other men”- as un-Islamic and a violation of God’s sovereignty (hakimiyya). The way to bring about this freedom is for a revolutionary vanguard to fight jahiliyya with a twofold approach: preaching and abolishing the organizations and authorities of the Jahili system by physical power and Jihad. The vanguard movement would grow with preaching and jihad until it formed a truly Islamic community, then spread throughout the Islamic homeland and finally throughout the entire world.

Qutb is considered one of the most influential Muslim thinkers and activists of the modern era, not only for his ideas but also for what many see as his martyr’s death. He was accused of plotting to overthrow the state and subjected to what many considered a show trial. He and six other members of the Muslim Brotherhood were sentenced to death by hanging for the conspiracy to assassinate the president and other Egyptian officials.

It is argued that Qutb’s approach towards violence does not necessarily stem from the spirit of Islam, so much as the prevalent social injustice coupled with an imbalanced infrastructure, expressed through high rates of unemployment and the lack of channels for political participation. All this paved the way for radical Islamist thought to sneak into the deprived countryside and the poverty belts surrounding the cities.

Maududi’s ideas were eventually adopted by General Ziaul Haq, who pulled off a successful military coup in July 1977 and then invited Maududi to help him make Pakistan into a true Islamic country. The course charted by Zia eventually mutated into becoming a destructive and highly polarising legacy that the state, politics and society of Pakistan has been battling with till this day.

The spread of the Islamic state concept was contributed in part by the translation of Maududi and Qutb’s works into Bahasa Malaysia, Indonesian and English where Muslim students in USA and Britain encountered such writings in their campuses. Maududi and Qutb’s books were required reading in such institutions as the International Islamic University Malaysia and there are clear influence of Maududi’s ideas in PAS’ concept of the Islamic state and God’s sovereignty.

Azzam argues that essential questions must be publicly discussed, for the dissection of religious mythologies is no longer sophistry. The stagnation of Islamist thought and its defensive position is at the crux of this issue. Heaven, hell, predestination, jihad are issues that have directed a generation of youth that is pessimistic, disenfranchised from their surroundings, a generation that has become fuel to the illusion of an “Islamic State.” He concludes, Islamist thought will recover and restore its vitality only when debate blows some depth into it. In this important debate the events post-Arab Spring suggests a maqasid approach is most relevant to providing appropriate guidance to political Islam.  

Relevance of Maqasid to Political Islam Post Arab Spring

Dr Halim Rane, Deputy Director of the Griffith Islamic Research Unit and Senior Lecturer at the School of Humanities at Griffith University wrote that post-Arab Spring, the first generation of Islamic political parties which are generally anti-Western, ideology-oriented, focused on moralistic discourse and defined by their commitment to establishing an Islamic state based on shariah as a law code have lost much of their electoral support.[7]

He said those twentieth-century parties that did not evolve were superseded by a second generation of Islamic-oriented political parties that seek positive relations with Western nations, are policy-oriented and do not advocate the concept of an Islamic state based on the shariah. These parties developed in response to the needs and aspirations of their people for honest and sincere leadership. They seek to reduce corruption and unemployment, promote economic growth and raise living standards and protect basic rights and freedoms.

These parties developed comprehensive political programmes, appeal to broad and diverse constituencies and emphasize Islamic values, principles and objectives, the maqasid al-sharia approach and ijtihad are central to this process.

Dr Rane named among others, Mohammad Hashim Kamali and Tariq Ramadan as the intellectuals and Anwar Ibrahim, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Tunisia’s Rachid Ghanouchi as the political leaders who have striven to demonstrate Islam’s compatibility with democracy, human rights, plurality and peaceful co-existence with non-Muslims.[8] He identified Keadilan, Turkey’s AKP, Indonesia’s Properous Justice Party (PKS) as the second generation Islamic-oriented parties.

I include in the list of intellectuals, prominent Muslim scholars, Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim, Abdulaziz Sachedina and Nurcholish Majid. In the list of political leaders, the progressives who left PAS to form the Parti Amanah Malaysia (“Amanah”), in Keadilan the leaders championing the struggle of Anwar Ibrahim.

The Moment of Truth

The issue of Islam and secularism represents one of the most contested debates in contemporary Islamic scholarship and policy circles. The Re-Thinkers bring a different narrative and discourse to the existing one by the Traditionalists. In Part II of this Article, I will touch on the ideas the Re-Thinkers bring to this debate. This debate will bring out the best in some people and the worst in others. The moment of truth will come and reveal what each of us, whether Muslims or non-Muslims, really are. There will be no place to run or hide and no fence to sit on. You either stand on the side of the Traditionalists or stand on the side of those Re-Thinking Islam.

William Leong Jee KeenMember of Parliament SelayangParti Keadilan Rakyat23 January 2016

---

[1] Malaysia’s Isis Conundrum by Joseph Chinyong Liow

[2] Malaysia: Clear and present danger from the Islamic State by James Chin December 16, 2015

[3] Growing Islamic fundamentalism seen pushing Malays to quit country Malay Mail Online by Boo Su Lyn

[4] “The Roots of Radicalism in Political Islam” by Ali Mamouri Al-Monitor

[5] The Relevance of a Maqasid Approach for Political Islam Post Arab Revolution by Halim Rane Journal of Law and Religion Vol xxviii page 500

[6] Understanding calls for reinstating the Islamic State OpenDemocracy Azzam Al-Kassir 14 October 2014

[7] The Relevance of a Maqasid Approach for Political Islam Post Arab Revolutions by Halim Rane

[8] The Impact of Maqasid Al-Shariah on Islamist Political Thought Implications for Islam-West Relations 2 Islam & Civilisational Renewal 337 (2011) 

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

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

梁自坚吁峇南人改变思维 助民联落实改朝换代

(本报弄拉马15日讯)一项命题“为了人民，为了峇南”，由公正党峇南支部所推展的州选竞选机制昨日在弄拉马推介，来自西马士拉央区公正党国会议员梁自坚律师亲临为是项活动主持推介仪式，并吸引了将近百人出席。

梁自坚发言时呼吁峇南人民要醒觉，并追随西马半岛地区的城市选民的步伐改变思维，在投票选举时全力支持民联协助落实改朝换代两线制的国家政治朝向健全发展愿景。

他指出，308与505的两届全国大选时虽然西马半岛的选民的投票倾向已经作出改变，尤其是在去年的505大选时，旅居海外的许多人都回来投票并支持民联，但东马两州的大部分选民并没有因此改变政治思维，依然支持国阵，改朝换代的目标也因此功亏一篑。

东马基础建发展落后

他说，东马砂、沙两州虽长期遭到国阵中央政府的不公平对待，包括国阵资源的分配不均导致基础设施发展落后，他说，在西马布城中的5条人造河就兴建了5座跨河桥梁。但为何政府欲在弄拉马兴建一座跨河桥梁如此困难。

他表示，砂州是天然资源富的州属，政府从中获取庞大的税收，但中央政府对砂州的拨款并不成正比。

谈到安华坐牢事件时，他认为，大家对这事件都会心里有数，安华没有回避逃往海外国家主要是为真理斗争，现在国人上街示威抗议包括多个国家人民都同声作出指责，可见事件非比寻常。

梁自坚在结束发言时，叮咛在来届国会选举时要改变政治思维，把手中的选票投给民联候选人，以协助国家政治向两线制愿景。

http://www.news.seehua.com/archives/32127