As a result of the aforementioned case, an extra requirement is imposed upon members of the faithful in matters relating to membership of the faith; a requirement which is not imposed upon other segments of Malaysia’s various religions. This means that non-Muslims, and therefore by implication the non-Bumiputeras, are afforded more human rights than the princes of the soil. But instead of being up in arms over this form of discrimination, conservative Muslim groups have decided to celebrate the decision as a move which protects the special status of Islam in Malaysia at the expense of a human right.

This discrimination was mentioned by His Lordship Richard Malanjum FCJ himself in his dissenting judgment:

Regulation 4… has, however, singled out Muslims for additional procedural burdens and impediments which are not connected to personal law. It requires that any registrant or person applying who is a Muslim has to state his or her religion. The requirement does not apply to non-Muslims. There is therefore a differential treatment for Muslims. Hence, in my view this tantamount(s) to unequal treatment under the law… In other words it is discriminatory and unconstitutional and should therefore be struck down.

The case of Lina Joy also signifies the growing Islamisation of the country when conservatives are willing to sacrifice their very own freedom in a bid to protect Islam as the religion with a special status in the country. It is worrying when one imagines what else they are willing to sacrifice. Yes, it is noble to protect Islam from unwanted influences, but one must realize that any idea or belief which unifies also operates by way of exclusion. Are the wishes of one woman enough to bind the whole ummah? Taking that further, are we willing to imprison Bumiputeras so as to protect its special status?

The case of Lina Joy merely sets the road upon which this nation is travelling on stone, and it has deviated so far we know not where we are.

On the contrary, the BBC board is appointed by the government, its licence and budget comes up for review every few years, and it has demonstrably bent over backwards to keep the government happy. What shred of dignity it once had disappeared with its appalling (and appallingly ongoing) non-coverage of the Iraq war.

Media studies consistently show the BBC to be the most pro-government of broadcasters. For example, in the lead up to the Iraq invasion it virtually barred sane anti-war voices from its screens (there’s plenty of evidence, see the Glasgow and Cardiff Universities studies for examples).

In a rare public reply, BBC correspondent to Malaysia, Jonathan Kent, then replied with a letter of his own admitting that the BBC does report to the government and even conceding that ‘it’s almost impossible for any party to get away with making entirely partisan appointments. ‘ The crucial difference, he points out, lies in ‘that Britain is a functioning multi-party democracy. Governments change. That means that successive Labour and Conservative governments have appointed governors [to the BBC].‘

This author remembers watching the BBC very avidly when Iraq was invaded, and can not decisively say that the BBC was very pro-war. On the contrary, I remember watching numerous news pieces on anti-war marches organized by various organizations, NGOs and university student councils. I also remembered a documentary on bias in news reporting using coverage on the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands as an example. Almost every Rupert Murdoch-owned media arm used words which implied the Israeli right to occupy and exist, specifically using benevolent words such as ‘neighbourhoods’ and ‘homes’ for Israeli houses built on designated Palestinian land, whereas the BBC apparently did not tow the line and instead called it what is was: ‘settlements.’

Though very subtle, the effect can be astounding on the human psyche and on how it categorizes the world around us.

Jonathan Kent’s letter is very apt, and is partially condemning on the current political status in Malaysia as a one-party democracy. Kent carefully avoids bringing this point up directly in a diplomatic manner. Mark’s letter, which compares Malaysian government-linked media with the British model, exemplifies the current thought of Malaysians today which equates the party-in-power with the government. It is true that the BBC ultimately answers to the British government, but the difference lies in that it does not answer to the party-in-government. In this respect, the BBC is milestones ahead of Malaysian news culture.

But one does not need to read Malaysiakini reports to know this. Just listen to Information Minister Zainuddin Maidin himself when he said that Malaysian viewers were not up to the standard of BBC viewers. Quo vadis, Malaysia? Free press cannot be afforded to those living in a third-world mentality, and yet one cannot shed third-world mentality in the first place without a free press. The terrible woe.

To conclude this BBC love-fest, Kent’s letter ended with a stinging, though poignant, saying:

I stand by the old adage that people get the politicians they deserve.

In the Berita Harian, it was reported that Gagasan Badan Ekonomi Melayu (Gabem) felt the rulings would have ensured the preservation of Bumiputera interests as well as allow them to compete in a fairer environment.

The chairman of Gabem, Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Thamby Chik, said that the organization wants Malaysia to not only be economically developed, but also for the people to live in unity. As such, he continued, what Maybank did was patriotic and positive towards the efforts of placing Malaysia as a developed and unified country.

He continued on with a statement which summed up the entire diatribe of the continuation of affirmative action in Malaysia: “We cannot build Malaysia’s future with the approach of ‘whoever’s quick and efficient, will get it.’ We must realize that the Malays or this nation’s Bumiputera represents 62% of the population, but only controls 18% of the corporate sector.” (emphasis added)

This statement blatantly confesses that meritocracy has no place in Malaysia, and that efficiency in the corporate sector should be second only to skin colour. The chairman obviously cares about the share of economic equity among the races, which is much to be applauded for, but claiming that meritocracy and race equity cannot exist together is offensive to the senses as it implies that Malays cannot compete in a purely meritocratic environment.

Berita Harian also carried an editorial saying that Maybank’s rulings should not even have been an issue. The tone of the editorial contained a tinge of arrogance: “We know that government-linked companies give business opportunities to Bumiputera companies and, at times, non-Bumiputera companies too because of the possibility that certain specialists are needed in certain fields. Yet, when a non-Bumiputera company obtains some sort of business, we don’t hear complaints to the point of amounting to a controversy.”

As Malaysians, we are all used to hearing such commentary. It is as if the non-Bumiputera companies should be thankful for any sort of business at all. Of course, the editorial’s opinion is not without qualification: “If Maybank’s action is considered racial discrimination, what about the actions of some companies advertising for jobs which prioritize only applicants who are fluent in Mandarin to attend interviews.”

One could assume that perhaps the office environment of these companies require a command of Mandarin, or that Mandarin is essential in the efficacy of the specific business. Admittedly, these are contrived reasons, but on the other hand the advertisements are not exactly calling for Chinese-only applicants. Furthermore, the non-Bumiputeras are not up in arms over companies or firms which advertise only for applicants who are fluent in Malay. It appears to be a genuine error of the editorial to equate language with race (which is a topic for another day). If, however, we should concede that the advertisements mean that only Chinese prospects need apply, then yes we should cry out over the discrimination by non-Bumiputeras and should by all means ensure that discrimination against Bumiputeras does not occur, just as the Bar Council has done in Maybank’s case.

The buck does not stop there unfortunately. Utusan Malaysia then carried statements by various UMNO illuminati asking for Maybank’s rulings to stay. Most of them proclaimed the need to extend equity-sharing policies to establishments such as Maybank, which should be lauded for its efforts. Some even said that Maybank was carrying out its corporate social responsibility by enforcing pro-Bumiputera policies. There were also numerous statements by other organizations, including Persatuan Melayu Pulau Pinang, Dewan Perniagaan Islam Malaysia, Majlis Bekas Wakil Rakyat Malaysia, Persatuan Peguam Muslim Malaysia, Pertubuhan Generasi Profesional Pewaris Bangsa, Pergerakan Pemuda UMNO Perak, as well as a smatter of Bumiputera lawyers. The reports have been gathered together in one convenient page at the Bar Council website for the public’s perusal.

This whole issue is, at face value, a very basic conflict over the implementation of affirmative action within an area which has not yet been tainted, at least not formally. The arguments we hear, on both sides, are essentially the very same arguments we hear, albeit on a smaller scale, whenever we speak of the NEP, of the Bumiputera status, of the social divide, of the Constitution, of racial identity, of economic inequalities.

Listen in to this issue very clearly, for when you amplify it, you can hear the very core of that which troubles Malaysia.

• All quotes from Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian originally in Malay. Translation and subsequent apologies for inevitable errors by yours truly. Readers are encouraged to read the Malay articles for greater clarity.

In the same Bernama report, Ambank Group released a separate statement saying that ‘it has been practising a policy of appointing legal firms that do not have Bumiputera partners for the past 20 years.’ The group said it does not impose restrictions of quota of shares on the equity participation of Bumiputera partners. Though the report did not mention the name of the second bank which intended to emulate Maybank’s criticized empanelment policy, this latest press statement would cast suspicions on Ambank’s identity as that second bank. Nevertheless, it is not anyone’s business to cast imputations, and as such we may never truly know the name of Maybank’s sidekick, or if that second bank even revised their rulings at all.

The revision of Maybank’s rulings is a victory for meritocracy, at least on paper. A couple of letters to Malaysiakini highlighted the implementation of race-based policies in everyday commercial life, most of which are not formally realized and are purely discriminatory practices at its bare minimum. However, with Maybank’s latest revision, we can at least keep such practices from being legitimately institutionalized (aside from those which we have already borne). Though such racism exists in our everyday life, it is too important not to allow it to rise up and settle in the public sphere; if that happens, only a path to perdition awaits. For now, let it simmer beneath the surface, and one day we will be able to take measures, as the Bar Council and the other various organizations who spoke out against Maybank have done, to bury it forever.

“Avoid Jewish Physicians and Lawyers”

“Jewish Lawyers And Notaries May No Longer Have Legal Responsibilities Regarding the City of Berlin. 18 March 1933.”

1 April 1933: the public is advised “Don’t go to Jewish lawyers”; warnings on red notepaper reading “Visits prohibited! Jew!” were affixed to the
doorplates of Jewish lawyers’ offices, here in Munich at the Stachus.

A Maybank spokesperson said, “Efficiency and performance of solicitors as well as their ability to provide the best service to the bank and its customers have always been a core requirement for the emplacement of the bank’s panel of solicitors,” adding that equity ownership had never been the sole and overriding determinant for emplacement.

However, DAP National Chairman Lim Kit Siang has commented that the Maybank statement was ‘ambivalent’ and ‘unsatisfactory’, and interpreted the statement to mean two things:

• firstly, that existing legal firms which are already on the Maybank panel, and which had been given one year to comply with the new ruling, may now be exempted from the 50% bumiputra partnership ruling;

• secondly, that for all practical purposes, new legal firms will have to comply with the 50% bumiputra partnership ruling if they are to be emplaced on the bank’s panel.

Bar Council chairman Ambiga Sreenevasan described the requirement as “totally discriminatory”.

“There is no legal basis for such a condition and it’s certainly in breach of the spirit of the Federal Constitution.

“All our lawyers should be judged on merit.

“That is the correct basis for selection,” she told the New Straits Times.

The Bar Council is perhaps one of the few entities in Malaysia which has been a devout adherent of meritocratic policies and direction, and is truly independent of meddling by undesired influences. As such, many observers would opine that its unabashed unwillingness to be beholden to a higher power would ultimately lead to its downfall; perhaps an irrational paranoia.

This latest move by Maybank and the other unnamed bank, however, offers no assistance to relief. As lovely and benevolent Maybank’s response sounds, it does not express any intention of backing down from the new rulings. And, if “equity ownership had never been the sole and overriding determinant for emplacement“, and that “efficiency and performance of solicitors… have always been a core requirement for the emplacement of the bank’s panel of solicitors“, it is possible to imply that Maybank feels that Bumiputera solicitors are more efficient and that they perform better in the course of their duties as a solicitor than non-Bumiputera solicitors. This racial implication could perhaps have been avoided if the bank did hold equity ownership as the sole and overriding determinant for emplacement. At least then it could be said that the bank had the vision of the NEP in mind: to distribute the wealth of the country equitably, by encouraging Bumiputera involvement in the management and running of law firms.

For now, however, the implications behind Maybank’s response has been lost on most.

Maybank Bhd, in the meantime, will review its decision. Failing that, the bank can look forward to the closure of the accounts of DAP Socialist Youth members, at least.

The people will ask, “Who else is there to vote? Barisan Nasional is all there is.”
“There is no opposition.”
“There is no real opposition.”
“There is noone I like in the opposition.”
“I don’t trust the opposition. They will misuse their power.”
“Barisan Nasional is the government. There is no need to think of the opposition.”

All these responses are common, and are usually the result of 50 years of independence under the helm of the same party, so much so that people begin to equate Barisan Nasional with the Government when they are not; they are merely the Party in Government. The very thought of another political party controlling the legislature is offensive to the senses. It is just not done. Barisan Nasional’s grip on the thought process of Malaysians is more excessive than people realize, whether or not that is BN’s intentions in the first place.

Malaysia is known as a one-party democracy; a democracy where only one party can realistically become the government and opposition support and political infrastructure is so fragmented that it cannot and is unable to garner enough electoral votes to ever grasp power in government. Other one-party democracies include Singapore and South Africa. In a one-party democracy, political rights and progression become stagnated. The party in power becomes stronger while other parties become weaker. There is no viable competition in a political sense, allowing the party in power to operate much like a monopoly in the commercial world.

Problems begin to compound themselves when the citizens of the one-party democracy do not allow themselves to expand beyond what they already know; that parties like Parti Keadilan Rakyat, PAS and DAP are real political parties in opposition.

“They will just misuse their power,” you say? How can one ever really know when no opposition party has ever been in power?

“There is noone I like in the opposition,” you say? Is there anyone you do like in the current government?

“Bah. Anwar’s doing it for his own gain. So are the other parties,” you say? This infers that Barisan Nasional does not ‘do it’ for their own gain. And yet the culture of corruption which has degenerated Malaysia into an adherent of an informal system of serfdom and medieval patronage is so ingrained within our mindset that we must accept that Barisan Nasional does ‘do it’ for their own gain, just like any other political party. It is what is incidental to that gain that should matter to us: the proper management of the nation.

As long as Malaysia continues with its tradition as a single-party state, the nation cannot logically and ideologically progress and improve. Competition is healthy within any sphere of life. One may not support the opposition solely because he does not agree with their policies, but one must surely support the ideals of a multi-party democracy.

Elsewhere, the party’s ‘Information Chief,’ Tian Chua, has been charged with attempted murder following the events at Kampung Berembang on the 7th of March 2007. The prosecuting officers were granted a two-day remand order on the 8th of March 2007, but Tian Chua was subsequently released later on that same very same day. He has since threatened to sue the relevant parties for wrongdoings done to him.

Then there was the confusion surrounding the resignation of former Keadilan Youth chief Ezam Mohd Noor from his posts as Selangor Keadilan deputy chairman and Shah Alam division head which was announced on the 14th of February 2007. Information Chief Tian Chua subsequently denied that Ezam Mohd Noor had relinquished his posts, stating that the party had not received any formal indication from him. The news was eventually confirmed on the 15th of February 2007, though not without the necessary gossip and rumours behind his resignation, which included alleged rifts with Keadilan vice-president Azmin Ali and Ezam Mohd Noor’s own thinly-veiled allegations of UMNO-like power struggles within the party. He nevertheless remains an ordinary member of the party.

There is much ado within the party. The old figurehead attempts to return to his seat of power amidst a jungle of red-tape and bureaucracy which has a life of its own, and an agenda of its masters. Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s insistence on being the president of the party at the possible cost of the party’s very existence is a cause of worry; is the former Deputy so motivated and passionate that he is willing to risk everything? Or is it a masked attempt at causing a self-inflicted wound to garner cheap attention from the ever-apathetic public?

And what exactly does the “Information Chief” of Parti Keadilan Rakyat do? Tian Chua has been jailed numerous times under the Internal Security Act, and he is no stranger to the application of the rule of law in this country. Just as Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim was convicted of corruption on trumped-up charges, so has Tian Chua been subjected to the ever-vigilant processes of criminal justice in Malaysia. A charge of attempted murder would surely open up the eyes of many, and is perhaps why the charge has since been dropped; lest the jurisprudence involving murder were to be perverted beyond recognition and the courts be swamped with murder cases (and derivatives thereof, including attempt) involving Mat Rempits, litterbugs and drivers who run red lights.

Parti Keadilan Rakyat continues to thrive amidst public opinion of its impotence. It also continues to battle demons within it: Despite claims of being a multi-racial party, it still fails to shed its image of being a race-based party as opposed to an issue-based one. For it to progress any further, it must leave behind the demagogy of colonial times. In February 2007, the nomination of Datuk Nallakarupan as vice-president was made with the intention of seducing Indian voters in mind. Azmin Ali said, ‘Datuk Nalla has been proven to bring in many members of the Indian society to PKR despite being a member for only a few months. I need the support of the Indian community at Batu Caves to allow PKR to win [the Gombak seat in Parliament].’

But what of Datuk Nallakarupan’s own abilities and contributions to the party? Surely he is not there just to make up the numbers? If Parti Keadilan Rakyat is to avoid the trappings of racial Malaysia, it must look beyond the rules of engagement, for noone else will.

Above all, the party really must start to entrust its propaganda to more mature members. Using the song ‘Down With The Sickness’ by Disturbed, in a recent video informing the people of a public protest on the 18th of March 2007, in an attempt to rile up the public is a method more reminiscent of pubescent teenage rebels instead of the methods a multi-racial national party with aims of reforming an entire country really should be employing.

What exactly does the “Information Chief” of Parti Keadilan Rakyat do anyway?

The story itself allegedly involves numerous persons, including Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi, Khairy Jamaluddin, certain individuals from Bank Negara as well as other individuals affiliated with the aforementioned company and the financing corporations related to it. There are even details of meetings between some of these individuals down to the time and place, as well as pictures of scanned documents allegedly lining out the deal.

The uproar centers around the fact that, ‘Reading the three letters together, it is clear that Bank Negara has agreed that a private limited company currently in the process of being wound up is to be used as a front to borrow USD50 billion and that this company will act as a front for the Malaysian government so that it will not be seen that Malaysia is borrowing USD50 billion from overseas,’ as Raja Petra Kamarudin put it.

Apparently, the scheme is to avoid informing the public that the nation does not have the funds to finance the 9th Malaysian Plan. One should realize, of course, nation states throughout the world habitually borrow currency in order to finance its own economic plans or projects. Whether or not such loans come to a profitable end is another point in kind.

A stranger fact also sticks out from the whole affair: how can a company in winding-up attain a loan, let alone one worth $50bil? There are numerous reasons for a company to face a winding-up, one of which is its inability to pay its debts. The last filed accounts for the aforesaid company allegedly dated 31 December 2000. There are no accounts filed since then. This is apparently sufficient cause to assume that the company has been going downhill financially since then. Perhaps, perhaps not.

Raja Petra quotes the company’s fixed assets in 2000 as RM542,248.00 with current assets of RM1,976,421.00. It also had current liabilities of RM1,071,641.00 and long-term liabilities of RM321,756.00. The profit for the year was RM39,512.00 with accumulated profits of RM125,272.00. Though Raja Petra feels that, ‘this is certainly not the kind of company Malaysia should be using to raise USD50 billion for the purpose of funding such an important matter like the RMK9,’ it is easy to see that the company, in 2000 at least, is not a company making a loss, and, judging from the figures shown, is more than capable of settling its liabilities. It is therefore hard to surmise whether Raja Petra is concerned with the type of company Malaysia should be using or whether it should be using a company at all.

But this is going into too much detail. Regardless whether the company is making or losing millions, the relevant questions which need to be asked are lost on many, including MP Lim Kit Siang who picked up the story and popular blogger Jeff Ooi.

On the 16th of January 2007, a letter from a ‘Jeffrey’ was published in Malaysiakini detailing the holes in the reportage; namely the ready acceptance of foreign financial banks to lend such a sum of money to a company in winding-up, the need for the Government to borrow money at all, the unusually low alleged interest rates attached to the loan, the inability and incapability of Singaporean proxies or even Singaporean GLC Temasek to loan such a sum to Malaysia, and the very authenticity of the whole report thus far.

On the 17th of January 2007, the apparent originator of the story, Ganesh Sahathevan, wrote back in reply in an attempt to uphold the credibility of not only his story, but also his own. Unfortunately however, his letter fails to provide any new evidence as he chooses instead to repeat the origins of the affair in stronger words as a rational attempt to vindicate himself. He also goes on to quote another financial scandal which has no relevance to the matters at hand to try and show that ‘it’s happening now because it has happened before.’ Quite frankly, his letter only seeks to strengthen the veracity of Jeffrey’s claims as Sahathevan finally goes on to question who Jeffrey is.

It is simply, to this author’s mind, irrelevant who Jeffrey is. His letter is not of any less importance or relevance even if ‘Jeffrey’ was the whole perpetrator of the fiasco himself. Therein lies a logical impropriety when one seeks to defeat an argument by defeating the arguer.

Nevertheless, one can be sure that this is not over. Other members of the Opposition have yet to comment on the story, and neither has any Government official publicly. Perhaps they are waiting to confirm the authenticity of the report? In any case, we must remember not to jump on the bandwagon for any cheap attempt at lambasting the Establishment, lest we become what the Establishment has been effortlessly trying to label us to be: Rowdy, insolent trouble-makers.

Stay tuned.