On 31st August 2007 we will be celeberating the 50th anniversary of our Independence but this auspicious occassion will also witness 33 years of mismanagement of our country's administration.by the present govt..Why 33 years? Because until 8th April 1974, the Finance Minister was the late Tun Tan Siew Sin and the country's finance was impeccably managed by this illustrous man whose prudence and integrity was legendary..
On one occassion when he was about to take his annual leave TunTan casually asked Tuanku who was looking after his portfolio in his absence. When Tuanku replied that he would look after his porfolio, Tun immediately cancelled his leave. This in essence was the character of the man who was not only prudent with the nation's coffers but spent his tenure zealously guarding it from any wasteful expenditure.
The aftermath of May 13th ,1969 saw the downfall of the Tuanku and the ascension of Razak and the implementation of the NEP policy.The Finance Minister portfolio was given to Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah and from thereon beginning with the BMF fiasco the country was beseiged with a litany of poor financial governance which saw the govt bailing out practically every govt linked companies (GLC).
For the last 33 years(from 1974) this govt had to continuosly bail out companies like Bank Bumiputra,Bank Rakyat,Bank Islam, Bank pertanian,MAS,Renong, UEM and the recent PKFZ project which would cost $4.6 billion..
If we were to include the vast array of failed projects which eventually led to further injection of govt funds, the amount would easily bankrupt many a nation.
.The proposed crooked bridge to Singapore, the Rawang double track railway, the North- south Highway, the Matrade building, the prison building in Sarawak and a host of other multi-billion projects would have caused the downfall of any govt.And yet after 50 years of independence and 33 years of mismanagement we are still stuck with the same govt which is bringing us to an ominous future.
Every Malaysian of whatever denomination has a duty to protect and safeguard this country of ours.We owe our allegiance to this country but we do not owe any allegiance to this govt which have failed to perform its duty with care and diligence.
Our nation is at a crossroad and after 50 years we must put aside our differences and assess our progress..If our conscience tells us that this govt has failed us then we must gather what little courage we have and make a change,Our future and our destiny lies in our hands and it is our sovereign duty to initiate the change..
Thursday, September 20, 2007
English-Medium:Razak Did it,Period.
I refer to the letter English-medium ‘victory’: Rahman no agent.
I wish to reply to the stubborn refusal of the writer to accept the realty of the decision-making process in our government. Rahman Yaakub as the education minister then had no authority to make such a monumental change in the schools from English-medium to Malay medium without getting instructions from then prime minister Abdul Razak to do so.
A similar analogy can be seen when Dr Mahathir Mohamad announced the change in the medium of instruction from Bahasa Malaysia to English for Science and Maths. It was the PM who decided on the change and certainly not the education minister.
In the present context, can our ‘Kerismuddin’ unilaterally decide on a change from Bahasa Malaysia to English as the medium of instruction in schools? Certainly not. Such a change would obviously have to have the concurrence and direction of the PM perhaps after consultation with the cabinet. This alone would clearly diminish any possibility of Rahman acting unilaterally to change the language policy.
How convenient and presumptuous of the writer to even suggest that Razak and the rest of Umno members were caught by surprise by Rahman's unilateral action. To give credit to Rahman Yaakub for making this momentous change is to suggest that he was the ‘power behind the throne’ and that Razak was a mere puppet doing his bidding. That is a very unlikely possibility.
The writer suggested that Razak was responsible for converting Chinese-medium schools to English-medium and based on that premise I still maintain my stand Razak was responsible for changing the medium of instruction for our schools from English-medium to Malay-medium.
I wish to reply to the stubborn refusal of the writer to accept the realty of the decision-making process in our government. Rahman Yaakub as the education minister then had no authority to make such a monumental change in the schools from English-medium to Malay medium without getting instructions from then prime minister Abdul Razak to do so.
A similar analogy can be seen when Dr Mahathir Mohamad announced the change in the medium of instruction from Bahasa Malaysia to English for Science and Maths. It was the PM who decided on the change and certainly not the education minister.
In the present context, can our ‘Kerismuddin’ unilaterally decide on a change from Bahasa Malaysia to English as the medium of instruction in schools? Certainly not. Such a change would obviously have to have the concurrence and direction of the PM perhaps after consultation with the cabinet. This alone would clearly diminish any possibility of Rahman acting unilaterally to change the language policy.
How convenient and presumptuous of the writer to even suggest that Razak and the rest of Umno members were caught by surprise by Rahman's unilateral action. To give credit to Rahman Yaakub for making this momentous change is to suggest that he was the ‘power behind the throne’ and that Razak was a mere puppet doing his bidding. That is a very unlikely possibility.
The writer suggested that Razak was responsible for converting Chinese-medium schools to English-medium and based on that premise I still maintain my stand Razak was responsible for changing the medium of instruction for our schools from English-medium to Malay-medium.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Malay-Medium Decision:Rahman merely Razak's agent.
I refer to the letter How English-medium schools vanished overnight. I am surprised at how naive the author is to assume that then Education Minister Rahman Yaakub by his own accord and volition could arbitrarily 'take a gamble that fateful day in July or August 1969 - and succeed beyond his wildest dreams'.
As narrated by Pin Pan Dan, Dr Mahathir Mohamad's scurrilous letter played a vital role which subsequently led to Tunku Abdul Rahman stepping down. But history also revealed that Razak played no less a role in the removal of Tunku.
To give full credit solely to Rahman for converting all English-medium schools to Malay-medium is both naive and illogical. For such a momentous change of the education policy, surely it would be more feasible to presume that the directive originated from Abdul Razak, the prime minister then.
I find the writer’s statement 'Out of the blue, Rahman announced the conversion ... from Jan 1,1970 ' to be very simplistic and illogical. There is no way Rahman could on his own accord make the change from English-medium to Malay-medium without receiving the orders from Razak. In this regard, Rahman was merely the agent to execute Razak's intention.
By the writer's own admission, Rahman would not have been able to do what he did if Tunku was still the PM. By the same token, it can be said that Rahman could not have done what he did had he not got the concurrence and instructions from Razak. And, of course, Rahman was adequately rewarded when he became the chief minister of Sarawak in 1970.
To conclude for Pin Pan Dan's benefit, when Razak was the education minister in 1950, Tunku was the PM and it was unlikely the former would allow Razak to make any change in the schools’ medium of instruction.
So the next best thing Razak was able to do was to convert Chinese-medium secondary schools to English-medium. This does not in any way negate Razak's role in being instrumental in changing the medium of instruction for schools from English to Malay when he became the PM.
As narrated by Pin Pan Dan, Dr Mahathir Mohamad's scurrilous letter played a vital role which subsequently led to Tunku Abdul Rahman stepping down. But history also revealed that Razak played no less a role in the removal of Tunku.
To give full credit solely to Rahman for converting all English-medium schools to Malay-medium is both naive and illogical. For such a momentous change of the education policy, surely it would be more feasible to presume that the directive originated from Abdul Razak, the prime minister then.
I find the writer’s statement 'Out of the blue, Rahman announced the conversion ... from Jan 1,1970 ' to be very simplistic and illogical. There is no way Rahman could on his own accord make the change from English-medium to Malay-medium without receiving the orders from Razak. In this regard, Rahman was merely the agent to execute Razak's intention.
By the writer's own admission, Rahman would not have been able to do what he did if Tunku was still the PM. By the same token, it can be said that Rahman could not have done what he did had he not got the concurrence and instructions from Razak. And, of course, Rahman was adequately rewarded when he became the chief minister of Sarawak in 1970.
To conclude for Pin Pan Dan's benefit, when Razak was the education minister in 1950, Tunku was the PM and it was unlikely the former would allow Razak to make any change in the schools’ medium of instruction.
So the next best thing Razak was able to do was to convert Chinese-medium secondary schools to English-medium. This does not in any way negate Razak's role in being instrumental in changing the medium of instruction for schools from English to Malay when he became the PM.
Monday, September 03, 2007
Arrogant of Cabinet not To accept Apology
I refer to the malaysiakini report Cabinet rejects apology from rapper. I cannot believe we have ministers like Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz in the cabinet. Most of the time he doesn't talk sense and on the occasions when he wants to let the world knows he is a minister, he makes a fool of himself.
So what, may I ask, if the cabinet does not want to accept the apology of the rapper? Exactly what is his crime? What he sang in his rap was the truth and nothing but the truth. Nazri threatens to use the Sedition Act just because Wee used the national anthem tune for his rap song. The threat sounds so silly and preposterous if not for the fact that it was uttered by a minister. A national anthem or any other patriotic song is still merely a song. By itself it does not generate any feelings of patriotism or loyalty. It is when people sing it with passion and emotion that it becomes synonymous with patriotism and love for the country. Frankly there is nothing for the rapper to apologise for and if the arrogant cabinet doesn't want to graciously accept his apology then he can just tell them to go fly kites. There is a sad tendency for politicians to become arrogant nowadays. They fail to realise that it was the ordinary folk who gave them the mandate to govern on their behalf and their votes that put them there in the first place. After having being put there, they think they have a divine right to perch on top of the mantle and threaten the citizens. If Nazri is serious about the Sedition Act he should first of all have the guts to haul in Najib Razak and his nephew Hishammuddin Hussein Onn for their seditious threats. Or is Nazri so naive to imply that the rap song is more seditious than someone waving a 'keris' and making seditious threats? When the next election comes it is the duty of every voter to ensure we vote in people of calibre and to discard those who display arrogance and stupidity.
So what, may I ask, if the cabinet does not want to accept the apology of the rapper? Exactly what is his crime? What he sang in his rap was the truth and nothing but the truth. Nazri threatens to use the Sedition Act just because Wee used the national anthem tune for his rap song. The threat sounds so silly and preposterous if not for the fact that it was uttered by a minister. A national anthem or any other patriotic song is still merely a song. By itself it does not generate any feelings of patriotism or loyalty. It is when people sing it with passion and emotion that it becomes synonymous with patriotism and love for the country. Frankly there is nothing for the rapper to apologise for and if the arrogant cabinet doesn't want to graciously accept his apology then he can just tell them to go fly kites. There is a sad tendency for politicians to become arrogant nowadays. They fail to realise that it was the ordinary folk who gave them the mandate to govern on their behalf and their votes that put them there in the first place. After having being put there, they think they have a divine right to perch on top of the mantle and threaten the citizens. If Nazri is serious about the Sedition Act he should first of all have the guts to haul in Najib Razak and his nephew Hishammuddin Hussein Onn for their seditious threats. Or is Nazri so naive to imply that the rap song is more seditious than someone waving a 'keris' and making seditious threats? When the next election comes it is the duty of every voter to ensure we vote in people of calibre and to discard those who display arrogance and stupidity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)