"WISER AFTER THE EVENT" -- AGAIN

FIRST I must make it clear that I support any initiative to help the poor, regardless of race and religion. Which means that on this score I'm on the same wave-length with former finance minister Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah.



I was also supportive of anything under the New Economic Policy that was intended to help improve the overall economic situation of the Malays/Bumiputras in general but again this was incumbent on helping only those who needed help.



The big difference between Tengku Razaleigh a.k.a. Ku Li and Aziz Hassan is that while the prince had enough platforms while a minister and a senior member of the Umno supreme council to try and correct any imbalance or lopsided policies, I did not.



I now quote the relevant paragraphs from a report in the Malaysian Insider today on Ku Li's speech at the "Breakfast Meeting" forum.



In highlighting the NEP as a major source of disunity, Ku Li said this: "If we visit government departments or universities, we wonder where all the non-Malays have gone. After 1969, suddenly there was this attempt to recruit mostly Malays into the civil service.



"It is tragic that the civil service does not reflect the racial composition of the Malaysian population, as the predominant presence of only one race tends to engender a sub-culture that is antithetical to the evolution of a dynamic and efficient civil administration in the country."



After 1969? Forget Tunku Abdul Rahman because by that time it was widely known that Tunku was on the way out, which leaves us with Tun Razak Hussein and Tun Hussein Onn, both deceased. The man many people love to hate, Tun Mahathir Mohamed, became our CEO only in 1981.



Ku Li was highly regarded by Razak and had the PM's ears too. The problem is Malaysians  above 50 cannot remember Ku Li as the Umno man/minister who fought to correct what was wrong with the government's policies which he thought were favouring the Malays. At least we don't remember him publicly advocating consistently and diligently a different approach.





He could have spoken out at the Umno supreme council to try and make a difference. He certainly could have done that too at the cabinet while serving under three PMs. Did he?



Ku Li headed Pernas, the now non-existent Bank Bumi and Petronas, apart from holding two cabinet portfolios. Did he recruit differently from other Malay bosses and politicians at these places? Bank Bumi was a very Malay bank in terms of its staffing. Petronas too has always been known to be heavily Malay.



But Pernas takes the cake because it was set up in November 1969 following a resolution at the second Bumiputra Economic Congress. It's objective was to help only the Malays and Bumiputras and Ku Li was its founding chairman. Not only the policies were closed and thus favoured only the Malays and Bumis, so too was its stated recruitment policy. So what does this mean in terms of favouring one race? Wasn't Ku Lii too responsible for this biased, lopsided situation at the expense of the non-Malays?



As chairman of the Umno-owned Fleet Group from 1972 to 1982, who were Ku Li's appointees to head the companies within the group and to make up the senior management? Was racial balance ever a consideration?



Didn't Ku Li realise the folly of the government's policies then? If he did and felt strongly enough, the decent thing to do would have been to resign. He didn't and because he didn't, Ku Li must be held collectively responsible for being part of that government.



Or did the realisation come about only recently? If this indeed is the case, then we must add a now vocal former Umno minister, a retired senior judge and a retired senior cop to the list of people who moan and groan the loudest about everything that is wrong about this country and its leaders -- but only after leaving office.         

LIM, AGE MUST BE CATCHING UP......

ALL of us can remember most of the things we said, no matter how long ago. Not every word but certainly most of the main thrusts. But not Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng.



Why? Because he says he makes like a few of them everyday. So it's up to you whether you want to believe Lim when he said that he could not remember if he had taken a dig at Johor at a luncheon in Singapore only some weeks ago.



To be absolutely certain Lim wants to get a tape of what transpired at the event but in the meantime he has apologised to the Johor Sultan and his subjects. This Lim did today at a press conference at his office in Penang, adding that he meant no ill intent. That's a cliche, to be sure.



By the way TV3 aired a tape of what it said contained Lim's remarks at the luncheon but for now Lim is disputing this, saying that "suddenly a tape appears....." Don't know if he is suggesting the TV station concocted this but it seemed to imply exactly that.



What you notice about Lim is he doesn't waste anytime in claiming credit and is just as quick in having a go at his foes. The problem is he sometimes claims credit where it is due to others. When it's positive to him you can see the glow on his face, an eagerness that comes out of a bloated ego. An gentlemanly leader leaves it to others to heap praises on him. 



In this case, even if Penang has the country's best crime index, all the credit is due to the police -- a federal agency over which Lim has no say and control.



There's also this little issue of the manner the apology was done. Under normal circumstances a person would first ask to be granted an audience, during which the apology is made in person. That's the general understanding of the requirements of Malaysian protocol.

TO CHARGE OR NOT TO CHARGE

HERE we have it again, the issue of whether a person deemed by the prosecutors to have commited an offence should be charged.



This time the person concerned is Mohamad Sabu, a.k.a. Mat Sabu, the Pas No. 2 who went on an adventure back into history about who's the good guy and who's the crook during the country's troubled times 61 years ago.



For picking out a certain Mat Indera as the hero instead of the 25 cops at the Bukit Kepong police station who were killed in a fire-fight, Mat has been charged with criminal defamation. Wrong call by the prosecutors?



Herein lies the dilemma. Countless reports were lodged with the police against Mat by all kinds of characters and NGOs. So the police had to investigate, right? Having completed this, the police must have concluded that Mat had committed an offence. Off the investigation papers went to the Attorney-General's Chambers, which decided that Mat had in fact done wrong. But this is not the end of the story because eventually it will be for the court to decide, whatever the opinions of the police and the AG.



This is how the system works in this country and a lot of people know this, certainly the legal trained.



But now some are saying that Mat should not be charged, especially since the prime minister had only very recently announced plans for more liberalisation and that after the ISA is repealed and replaced by other laws, no one would be punished solely for having dissenting political views. Correct but the PM was being specific about provisions in the new legislation. Other laws covering other offences will remain. Those questioning the wisdom of charging dear Mat must be able to draw a line somewhere. If they feel that what Mat said didn't deserve a charge, the way to go about it would be to ask that the law on this offence too be amended or repealed.



What everyone against the decision by the AG seems to have ignored is the need for the investigators and prosecutors to be truly independent, going about their work only guided by what the law says and provides for.



Using the political perspective to ask that someone is not charged only translates into interference in the work of the police and the prosecutors. Isn't this what many people don't like to see happen?