Any Australian university better than the best Malaysian U?

I call on the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry comprising reputable academicians and respected Malaysians into the shocking decline of quality of Malaysian universities highlighted by University of Malaya falling 80 places from 89th to 169th placing while USM disappearing from the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) World Top 200 Universities Ranking 2005.

A quick look at the THES 2005 Ranking of World’s Top 200 Universities shows that Malaysia, whose University of Malaya was regarded as one of the premier universities in the world in the sixties, has not only fallen far behind other countries in terms of university excellence and quality, but we are in danger of falling further behind.

The THES 2005 World Top 200 Universities has proven me right when I had tried to waken up Parliament, government and the nation to the danger of being overtaken by our neighbour in the indicators of international competitiveness. In the seventies and eighties, Malaysia was ahead of Thailand in almost all significant indicators of international competitiveness, but in the past decade, we are losing to our Thailand in more and more aspects of competitiveness.

Thailand has become the “Detroit of the East” as the hub of automotive industry in the region while Malaysia, which started off ahead of Thailand in the automotive industry in the seventies and early eighties, is struggling with her Proton national car industry after more than two decades of national subsidy with ordinary Malaysians having to pay for more expensive and lower-quality cars.

In the 21 years from its establishment in 1983 till 2004, Proton had exported 245,222 vehicles – which is not even equal to the car export for Thailand for one year.

This year we lost out for the first time to Thailand in international competitiveness when Malaysia fell 12 places from 16th to 28th ranking in the International Institute For Management Development (IMD) World Competitiveness Yearbook 2005 with Thailand placed at No. 27th.

Thailand is fast catching up with Malaysia in the annual Transparency International Corruption Perception Index, with Malaysia being stuck in No. 39 in the TI CPI 2005 while Thailand is fast improving its ranking from No. 64 last year to No. 59 this year. If Thailand improves five placings per year in the annual TI CPI, Thailand would have caught up and even overtaking Malaysia in the TI CPI at the end of the Ninth Malaysia Plan in 2010.

And now, for the first time, Malaysia has lost out to Thailand in having the better university. Thailand’s premier university Chulalongkorn University is ranked No. 121 in the THES World Top 200 universities, ahead of University of Malaya’s No. 169 – when last year, Chulalongkorn did not even make it into the Top 200 list.

The second point about the THES Top 200 Universities 2005 is that international competition for academic excellence by prestigious universities is very keen and ferocious, which explains why Singapore National University, which was ranked No. 18 fell four places to No. 22, with three Asian universities in the top 20 being reduced to two.

Beijing University is now rated the best Asian university ranked at No. 15 (compared to No. 17 last year), ahead of Tokyo University ranked No. 16 (falling four places from No. 12 last year).

Thirdly, Malaysia is sadly trailing behind many other Asian countries, as shown by the better ranking of the following Asian Universities as compared to University of Malaya:

Beijing University (China) - 15
Tokyo University (Japan) - 16
National University of Singapore - 22
Kyoto University (Japan) - 31
Hong Kong University - 41
Hong Kong University Sci & Technol - 43
Nanyang Tech University (Spore) - 48
Indian Institutes of Technology - 50
Chinese University of Hong Kong - 51
Tsing Hua University (China) - 62
Indian Institutes of Management - 84
China University of Sci & Tech - 93
Seoul National University - 93
Tokyo Institute of Technology - 99
Osaka University - 105
National Taiwan University - 114
Chulalongkorn University (Thailand) - 121
Nagoya University (Japan) - 129
Tohoku University (Japan) - 136
Korea Adv. Inst of Sci and Tech - 143
Hiroshima University (Japan) - 147
Nanjing University (China) - 150
Hokkaido University (Japan) - 157
Shanghai Jiao Tong University (China) 169
Malaya University - 169
City University of Hong Kong - 178
Korea University - 184
Jawaharlal Nehru University - 192
Showa University (Japan) - 198

Where are Malaysians to hide their faces with 23 other Asian universities ranked as better than our premier university, University of Malaya?

Fourthly, Australia continues to be a power house for tertiary education not only in the region but in the world, raising the question why Australia can do what Malaysia cannot.

The Australian Universities in the Top 200 are:

Melbourne University - 19
Australian National University - 23
Monash University - 33
Sydney University - 38
University of New South Wales - 40
Queensland University - 47
Macquarie University 67
University of Western Australia 80
Adelaide University - 80
RMIT University - 82
University of Technology Sydney - 87
La Trobe University - 98
Curtin University of Technology - 101
Queensland University of Technology– 118
University of Newcastle - 127
University of South Australia - 154
Tasmania University - 166

It is a national shame that there are 17 Australian Universities which are internationally regarded as better than the premier Malaysian university, not to mention the other 16 public universities in Malaysia. It would appear that any university in Australia is better than the best in Malaysia.

I do not believe Malaysian brains, human capital and talents are any less inferior to Australians. If we lose out, it is in our system of governance and educational institutions.

The shocking THES World University Ranking 2005 for Malaysian universities and Malaysians should be the top agenda for parliamentary debate when MPs reconvene on November 14, 2005 for the resumed debate on the 2006 Budget.

The question to be asked is whether the country can afford to have a Higher Education Minister who preside over the disastrous plunge in the international ratings of Malaysian universities.

Penang 29.10.05

Read more!

World University rankings - UM plunges 80 and USM over 89 places

University of Malaya has fallen 80 places from 89 to 169 while Universiti Sains Malaysia disappears from the World Top 200 Universities Ranking 2005 falling over 89 places from its No. 111 ranking last year in the The Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) World University Rankings 2005.

These global blows shattered the complacency of the two Malaysian universities which had been listed in the THES World's Best 200 universities last year.In the THES global ranking of the world’s best 200 universities 2004, the University of Malaya ranked No. 89 and the Universiti Sains Malaysia ranked No. 111.

These rankings were proudly advertised by these two universities to demonstrate their academic excellence and quality in a rather unashamed and unacademic fashion.

At the centennial celebrations of the University of Malaya in June, Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak expressed the hope that the University of Malaya could be ranked among the world’s top 50 universities by 2020.

All these dreams are shattered by the release of the 2005 THES World University Rankings yesterday – with University of Malaya falling a steep 80 places, plunging from 89th last year to 169th position, one of the deepest plunges for any university. University Sains Malaysia plunged even more steeply, falling out of the 200 ranking altogether.

The THES World University Rankings is the latest confirmation of the deep, grave and prolonged crisis of higher education in Malaysia. Let the government and in particular the Ministry of Higher Education end their denial syndrome that the higher education system in Malaysia is very sick indeed.

A lot of hard analysis and soul-searching on the direction and future of higher education in Malaysia must now begin.

I want to thank YC and Carbon Copy for their collaboration in enabling me to put up the THES World University Ranking 2005.

The table is rather messy and amateurish. However, as THES would only be putting its ranking online on Monday, the urgency to get the rankings out must take priority, especially in view of the poor showing of Malaysian universities in the international league.

In these circumstances, the importance and urgency of getting the information about the THES ranking out to all Malaysians must take priority over the messiness in the presentation, as in another three days, the professional presentation of the rankings of the universities would be available online.

Read more!

Urgent fax to PM - Under-performing ministers in Parliament

(Continued from previous post - Deputy finance minister’s reply a real washout and a shame)

I have this afternoon faxed a letter to the Prime Minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi asking him to ensure that the commendable example of Ministerial responsibility and accountability to Parliament shown since 2006 budget presentation on September 30 should be maintained and not be allowed to slacken or deteriorate as during the winding-up of the Finance Ministry committee stage by the Deputy Finance Minister yesterday.

It was most shocking that Tengku Putera refused the opportunity of a further 15 minutes after the normal adjournment time at 5.30 pm as provided for under the Standing Orders to allow a Minister or Deputy Minister to complete his speech and yet able to deal with the many issues which he had not been able to touch on hitherto.

Deputy Speaker Datuk Lim Si Cheng intimated this when he pointedly asked Tengku Putera how much time he needed to complete his speech. In case Tengku Putera did not understand that he had the leeway of another 15 minutes, I stood up to pointedly draw the Deputy Minister’s attention that he should avail himself of the 15-minute extension so that his reply could be more comprehensive and satisfactory.

I have not yet come across a Minister or Deputy Minister refusing extra time when reminded that he had an additional 15 minutes to address the many issues he had not covered in his reply, and Tengku Putera will go down in Malaysian parliamentary history as the band of one so far who preferred to leave many important issues unanswered instead of availing himself or the additional 15 minutes.

Right on the dot of 5.30 pm, Tengku Putera simply stopped his speech and sat down.

Although Tengku Putera promised to give written reply to issues which he failed to touch upon, this is completely unsatisfactory as MPs raised issues in Parliament to get a personal and direct reply which could be scrutinized immediately and not to get a written answer. Otherwise, there is no need for Parliament to meet at all and all MPs can operate from their houses.

It is for MPs and the Malaysian public for draw their own conclusions why Tengku Putera behaved in so unparliamentary a fashion, although all these conclusions cannot but be adverse to the Deputy Finance Minister.

On many important issues raised by MPs from both sides of the House, Tengku Putera either gave a most unsatisfactory reply or ignored them altogether. In the former were the RM700 million Bank Islam scandal; greater EPF accountability, transparency and good governance; the long-standing Perwaja scandal; Petronas accountability; GLCs (government-linked companies) and the preparation for the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) on January 1, 2007.

Among the issues which Tengku Putera ignored completely were: the Financial Services Resources Centre (FSRC), the billion-ringgit losses by EPF subsidiary Malaysia Building Society Bhd (MBSB) and the serious allegation in June that Hong Leong Bank Berhad had manipulated share prices on the stock market by refusing to provide margin financing to a list of well-managed and cash-rich companies.

Let me briefly enumerate some of the issues which I had myself raised in the debate but which had either been ignored in Tengku Putera’s reply or received a most shabby and unsatisfactory answer:

(1) RM700 million Bank Islam scandal

I was dissatisfied with the second Finance Minister Nor Mohamed Yakcop’s written reply on Monday on the RM700 million Bank Islam scandal, which gave the vague explanation that the Bank Islam losses were the result of loans given to “non-relevant parties”.

In my speech yesterday, I specifically asked: “Who are these ‘non-relevant parties’, when and what are the sums and who made the decisions for these ‘irrelevant’ loans? When were the RM700 million Bank Islam losses first discovered?”

Tengku Putera’s reply yesterday was even worse and opaque than Nor Mohamad’s answer on Monday, giving the meaningless assurance of “no cover-up” while proceeding to cover up. As for my call for a White Paper on the Bank Islam scandal, the Deputy Minister totally skirted the issue.

(2) Greater EPF accountability, transparency and good corporate governance

To my proposal for the appointment of a MTUC representative to the EPF Investment Panel, as workers should have a say through their representative about how to invest their EPF monies, Tengku Putera gave a meaningless answer that “if necessary, the proposal will be taken up with the authorities”!


On my second query on the billion-ringgit losses and billion-ringgit non-performing loans of Malaysia Building Society Bhd (MBSB), the 63% owned subsidiary of EPF, dragging down the EPF dividend last year to the ludicrous low of 4.75% when the economic growth was 7.1% - as compared to the dividend of 4.5% in 2003 when economic growth was 5.3% - there was total blank from the Deputy Minister.

(3) Financial Services Resources Centre (FSRC)

To my queries why Bank Negara awarded a little-known company, H & I Niaga Sdn. Bhd. , which had not submitted its profit-and-loss accounts to the Companies Commission of Malaysia for the past three years from 2002 with the RM320 million contract to build FSRC, and whether it would not be cheaper to buy over and refurnish one of the many empty buildings in Kuala Lumpur for what is essentially a conference centre, a money museum and an art gallery, there was stony silence from the Deputy Minister.

(4) Allegation of manipulation of shares prices by Hong Leong Bank Bhd.

I demanded to know the outcome of the Prime Minister’s directive to the Securities Commission in June, giving it one month to complete a probe into the serious allegation that Hong Leong Bank Bhd had manipulated shares prices in the stock market by refusing margin financing to well-managed and cash-rich companies. Although this issue was headline news in June, it suddenly disappeared from public sight and nobody knew about the outcome of the Securities Commission investigations into Hong Leong Bank Bhd. Tengku Putera studiously avoided this subject and FSRC, although I specifically reminded him that MPs and the Malaysian public are waiting for the government’s responses to both questions.

(5) GLC CEOs

I specifically asked for clarification and assurance whether the GLCs (government-linked companies) would be run as Malaysian and not Malay entities, and that the principle of “the best man for the job” would apply in the appointment of GLC CEOs, regardless of whether Malay or non-Malay. There was neither answer nor assurance from the Deputy Minister.

Read more!

Deputy finance minister’s reply a real washout and a shame

The deputy finance minister Tengku Putera Tengku Awang’s parliamentary reply yesterday in the committee stage debate on the Finance Ministry, allocated RM23 billion or 16.8 per cent of the total 2006 budget of RM137 billion – the single largest allocation for any Ministry – was a real washout and a shame.

It was not only Opposition MPs who had spoken, like Dr. Tan Seng Giaw (Kepong), Teresa Kok (Seputeh), Fong Po Kuan (Batu Gajah), Kamaruddin Jaafar (Tumpat), Sallehuddin Ayub (Kubang Krian) and myself who were not satisfied with Tengku Putera’s reply, I dare say that all the 30 MPs who had spoken in the debate, the majority of whom are from the Barisan Nasional, would not have given the deputy minister a pass mark for his reply.

Tengku Putera had spoiled a very good start in Ministerial responsibility and accountability to Parliament initiated by the 2006 Budget debate. Some 25 of the 34 Ministers spoke on behalf of their Ministries during the policy debate at the second reading of the Supply Bill – a record number in recent parliamentary history.

When the committee stage debate involving Ministry-by-Ministry scrutiny started on Monday, the first Ministry – the Prime Minister’s Department – took off with a flying start with four Ministers in the PM’s Department queuing up to reply to the points raised by the MPs – Nazri Aziz, Mustapha Mohamad, Dr. Maximus J. Ongkili and Dr. Abdullah Md Zin. This must be the first time in parliamentary history so many Ministers took part in the winding-up debate for a single Ministry.

The Finance Ministry was the second Ministry to be debated. As a Ministry headed by the Prime Minister himself, the Finance Ministry should have ensured that the new high standard of Ministerial responsibility and accountability would have been kept up.

Despite his mourning at the loss of his wife, Endon Mahmood, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has decided on a hectic “work-as-usual” schedule. Today’s media reported the Prime Minister’s many activities yesterday, such as chairing the National Finance Council and attending a briefing of the Road Transport Department on the proper strategy to reduce Malaysia’s shocking road accident rate and toll. The second Finance Minister Nor Mohamed Yakcop was also pictured as accompanying the Prime Minister in the National Finance Council meeting.

In these unusual circumstances when the two Finance Ministers could not make it to Parliament for the winding-up of the Finance Ministry committee stage debate, it was incumbent on the Deputy Finance Minister standing in for them to put up a high-quality parliamentary performance which, if not of Ministerial standard, would be worthy of the occasion.

Unfortunately, Tengku Putera’s performance not only failed to match any Ministerial standard, it was not even up to parliamentary secretary level.

(to be continued)

Read more!

The stillbirth of ACA’s new transparency

Nazri Aziz, Minister in the PM’s Department, was taken aback when I told him during an exchange in his winding-up in Parliament yesterday that the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) had proclaimed a three-point policy of new transparency two years ago.

This was when Nazri was explaining and defending why the ACA could not reveal any information on cases under investigation for corruption. .

I referred him to the announcement by the ACA Director-General Zulkipli Mat Noor at a state directors’ meeting in Kuantan in July 2003 pledging a “new transparency to be more responsive towards public demand for information about its investigations”.

The three-point new transparency of ACA were:

+ The ACA will from now on keep all complainants informed on the status of investigations into their reports if they want it.

+ Heads of government departments will be informed of the decision of the Attorney-General on investigations involving their subordinates.

T+ he ACA will issue statements about cases that are still under investigation if it feels necessary, including those already decided by the Attorney-General.

At the time, Nazri’s predecessor as Minister in the PM’s Department overseeing the ACA, Dr. Rais Yatim publicly commended the ACA’s new transparency initiative, saying that “this would help the agency in gaining the public’s confidence”.

But the ACA’s new transparency policy, despite being publicly lauded by the Minister in the PM’s Department at the time, died a stillbirth. I am not aware, for instance, that the ACA had ever issued statements to inform the Malaysian public about the status of ACA investigations involving high-profile personalities.

I had lodged several ACA reports but I had never received any ACA report on the outcome of its investigations – and the same applies to other DAP leaders who had lodged ACA reports – as the ACA always argued, as Nazri was doing yesterday that the ACA was legally bound by the Prevention of Corruption Act 1997 to remain silent and not to offer any information.

The three-point ACA new transparency policy must be retrieved from its graveyard and new life breathed into it – if Malaysia is to take the first critical step to align the right to information in the war against graft and corruption.

Read more!

White Paper for RM700 million Bank Islam scandal

Although the Second Finance Minister, Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop said in a written reply in the winding-up of the budget debate on Monday that action will be taken against those involved in the latest banking scandal, the RM700 million losses in Bank Islam, Parliament and the nation have not been told the details of these losses and what action had been taken against the officers responsible, whether in Bank Islam or Bank Negara, whether for criminal breach of trust or gross negligence.

It is clear that the government has not taken the latest Bank Islam scandal seriously or there would be a full accounting, including a White Paper presented in Parliament on the Bank Islam betrayal.

I still remember vividly the outrage of the third Prime Minister, Tun Hussein Onn in 1979 at the Bank Rakyat scandal involving RM65 million losses and he directed that the whole story of the Bank Rakyat betrayal be presented to the House in the form of a White Paper, which also contained the Price Waterhouse Report on the Bank Rakyat scandal – a sordid tale of malpractices, mismanagement and misuse of public trust and funds.

The Bank Islam betrayal involved RM700 million losses, which is 12 times the sum of the Bank Rakyat betrayal 30 years ago. Why is there no White Paper to inform Parliament and nation of its full details and the outcome of independent investigations into the Bank Islam scandal?

In his written reply, the Second Finance Minister said the Bank Islam losses were the result of loans given to “non-relevant parties”. Who are these “non-relevant parties”, when and what are the sums and who made the decisions for these “irrelevant” loans? When were the RM700 million Bank Islam losses first discovered?

The RM700 million Bank Islam betrayal has brought shame to Malaysian banking in general, Islamic banking in particular, and the country as a whole. Such shame and dishonour must be redeemed by decisive and uncompromising action to bring to book those responsible for the Bank Islam betrayal, instead of the country and the finance and banking authorities bringing more shame and dishonour by any short-sighted attempt to cover-up the Bank Islam scandal.

During the debate in Parliament on the Bank Rakyat scandal in 1979, I had demanded to know what action had been taken against Bank Rakyat’s auditors, Kassim Chan & Co, whose professional negligence had contributed to the Bank Rakyat losses.

Who are the auditors for Bank Islam and what action has been taken against them for any professional negligence in the RM700 million Bank Islam scandal.

Nor Mohamad admitted that Bank Islam was supervised by Bank Negara and Audit should have known about this much earlier. Why had Bank Negara and Audit failed, who are the officers responsible and what action had been taken against them. Parliament is entitled to know the full facts and there should be no cover-up whatsoever.

When we are talking about RM700 million losses to Bank Islam, we are also talking about RM700 million profits to certain beneficiaries at Bank Islam’s expense. Who are these people who had profited RM700 million at Bank Islam’s expense.

When we are talking about Bank Islam losing RM700 million, we are not just talking about an impersonal corporate institution, but ordinary Malaysians with flesh, blood and tears – for the shareholders of Bank Islam include Permodalan Nasional Bhd with 32 per cent, Tabung Haji (30 per cent), Employees Provident Fund (six per cent) and LTAT (five per cent).

A White Paper on the RM700 million Bank Islam losses should be tabled in Parliament, together with a report on what criminal and professional actions have been taken against those responsible for the losses, whether in Bank Islam, Bank Negara or the professional auditors. This White Paper on the RM700 million Bank Islam betrayal should be tabled in Parliament on the first day of our resumed meeting after the Deepa-Raya holidays on November 14, so that it could be debated.

Bank Islam suffered pre-tax losses of RM700 million with after-tax losses recorded as RM 456 million for the financial year ending 30 June 2005 as compared to RM85.7 million profit last year.

This shows not only a distinctive pattern of poor corporate performance and declining economic growth but also lack of internal control and proper regulation by Bank Negara.

What is wrong with Bank Negara’s supervisory capacity when non-performing loans in Bank Islam can rise nearly 150% to RM 2.2 billion from RM 900 million the previous year. To suddenly record non-performing loans of RM2.2 billion as compared to RM 900 million in 2004 shows that not only Bank Islam but Bank Negara requires a revamp and shake-up.

Bank Islam has confirmed that much of the bad loans were given out to companies in Sarajevo and South Africa, but the main branch responsible for disbursing such loans was the Labuan off-shore branch. This does not give a good impression of the Labuan Off-shore Finance facility efforts to attract genuine investment and not involved in dubious financial transactions.

Public interests demands that those responsible for the losses and bad loans to jump to RM 2.2 billion must be identified, exposed and punished. Clearly too much money was lent to less credit-worthy borrowers, and the bank didn't chase for payment.

Speech (Parliament) 27.10.05

Read more!

Illegal D.O. - PCB to get MPPJ councillors & officials to foot the million-ringgit damages?

I asked the Minister in the PM’s Department, Mustapha Mohamed whether the Public Complaints Bureau (PCB) can intervene on behalf of the MPPJ (Petaling Jaya Municipal Council) ratepayers to ensure that the MPPJ councilors and officials foot the multi-million ringgit damages consequent to the Shah Alam High Court judgment declaring null and void a MPPJ development order.

This question was posed to Mustapha during the winding-up of the 2006 Budget Committee allocation for the PM’s Department yesterday (Wednesday, 26th October 2005). Mustapha was the fourth Minister in the PM’s Department in the winding-up, which set a record in Malaysian parliamentary history in having the most number of Ministers to speak in one ministry’s summing-up. .

The PCB is under the jurisdiction of Mustapha. Recounting the recent visit of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to the PCB, the first-ever such visit by a Prime Minister, Mustapha said the PCB will be revamped immediately to make it more effective as a channel for Malaysians to address their woes in dealing with the public sector.

This was where I intervened to ask Mustapha what recourse was open to the MPPJ ratepayers who had won “a citizens’ victory” with the landmark judgment by Justice Alizatul Khair Osman Khairuddin declaring null and void the MPPJ development order to Mentari Properties Sdn. Bhd to build two blocks of low-cost flats and stalls on land reserved for a Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) sub-station and a vernacular school.

Justice Alizatul’s major findings are: ·

MPPJ’s decision to give planning permission without holding an objection hearing is null and void and subsequent objection proceedings do not validate it.

The objection hearing is not a formality but a genuine platform for the affected residents to voice their opinion.

The Majlis Tindakan Ekonomi Selangor (MTES or Selangor Economic Action Council) is a committee under the state authority and not the state authority, and had therefore no powers to issue any exemption under the Town and Country Planning Act.

MPPJ ordered to pay damages and the costs to be shared by Mentari, the second defendant. The damages to be assessed at a later date.

Two questions immediately come to mind:

Firstly, whether the MPPJ ratepayers will eventually have to pay from their pockets for the illegality and irresponsibility of the MPPJ councilors/officials, or to use the expressive but completely apt outburst of crusader Citizen-Nades – “the high-handedness of officials who believe it is their God-given right to shove everything down the throats of ratepayers”.

Secondly, the full list and consequences of the illegalities committed by the MTES under the chairmanship of Selangor Mentri Besar, Mohd Khir Toyo.

It is the first question that I took up with Mustapha, as to how to get the MPPJ councilors/officials to be fully responsible for the damages, expected to be in millions of ringgit. Mustapha advised the MPPJ ratepayers to refer the matter to the PCB. When I asked whether he would personally look into the matter if the PCB proved to be impotent, he agreed.

Read more!

Birth of a Parliamentary Committee System at last?

Have we caught the glimpse of the birth of a Parliamentary Committee system in Malaysia at long last?

In his reply today during the 2006 Budget Committee stage of the Prime Minister’s Department, Minister in the PM’s Department, Nazri Aziz uncharacteristically, modestly but rightly said that it is up to MPs to decide whether and what parliamentary committees, standing or select, that they want – for the first time taking the correct and proper position that the Executive will respect the wishes of MPs and that the Executive would not interfere or intrude in any manner on this matter.

Are we glimpsing not only the birth of a parliamentary committee system at along last in the 46-year history of the Malaysian Parliament, but another first – the Executive upholding the doctrine of separation of powers pertaining to Parliament, viz: parliamentary independence and autonomy to run and manage parliamentary affairs by MPs themselves?

Until today, Nazri and his predecessors had resisted the idea that MPs should have the final say to decide not only on the administration of Parliament, but also how parliamentary affairs should be managed, including whether to introduce the committee system and how to go about it.

Twenty-five years ago, on June 17, 1980, in my speech when moving a motion to form a Speaker’s Conference on Parliamentary Reforms, one of my proposals was the introduction of the committee system.

I had said:

“The Committee system is new and foreign to Malaysia, and had been regarded by some government leaders as an American system. In fact, it has become a feature of most Commonwealth Parliamentary institutions.

“I am not suggesting that we in Malaysia should introduce overnight a full-fledged Committee System, where there is a Parliamentary Committee to oversee each Ministry. We should however experiment with this system, and for a start, establish Parliamentary Committees for selected Ministries, like agriculture, education, defence and transport.

“Such a Committee system will make a great difference in the effectiveness of each individual Member’s work in Parliament, as members would gain real knowledge of certain subjects and become truly effective in those spheres.” (p. 326 - "Malaysia in the dangerous 80s" – Lim Kit Siang)

The call for parliamentary reform and the introduction of a committee system had been the consistent call of DAP parliamentarians in the past four decades.

In my first parliamentary speech after the March 2004 general election, I underscored the importance of parliamentary reform and modernization by describing them as first critical test whether there was political will for Malaysia to become a first-world nation, not only in infrastructure, but in mentality, mindset and culture starting with a First World Parliament.

Among the many proposals for parliamentary reform and modernization which I made in my speech on 20th May 2004 on the Motion of Thanks on the Royal Address for the official opening of the 11th Parliament were:

• some 30 specialist Parliamentary Select Committees with a Select Committee for every Ministry;

• about ten general Parliamentary Select Committees to produce annual reports on progress, trends and recommendations on national integrity, IT, women’s agenda, environment, mass media, corruption, etc.

At the end of last year, the Barisan Nasional Back-Benchers Club (BNBBC) appointed constitutional law expert Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi from Universiti Teknologi Mara as consultant to advise on parliamentary reform and empowerment, and one of his proposals was the introduction of the parliamentary committee system.

I spoke to Nazri after his speech in Parliament this morning and I was pleasantly surprised that he seems to be serious this time about leaving to MPs to decide on whether and how to introduce the parliamentary committee system.

I have written to the Chairman of BNBBC, Shahrir Samad proposing a meeting to discuss how such a parliamentary committee system could be introduced to create a vibrant First World Parliament, probably starting with parliamentary standing committees for foreign affairs, parliameny reform and modernization, information technology, education, defence, etc.

If the Malaysian Parliament introduces a vibrant and productive parliamentary committee system, it will mark an outstanding achievement of the premiership of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Read more!

IT Professionals – one million in India, 26,434 in MSC

Parliament 19.10.05 (8)

I quoted the following observation posted in the thread “Malaysia becoming increasingly uncompetitive” by “Tien Soon” in Parliament last Wednesday: “Me as a software engineer, is particularly observant about the progress of software development field in Malaysia. As far as my personal observation is concerned, quite a number of software firms granted with MSC Status are performing below expectation, in terms of technology utilization and quality assurance.”

The Minister for Technology and Innovation, Datuk Dr. Jamaludin Jarjis was winding up the 2006 Budget policy debate for his ministry, and I had asked him to report on the success of the government plan five years ago announced by the then Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at the Second Global Knowledge Conference in Kuala Lumpur on 8th March 2000 to enrich the Malaysian economy and society through “an annual infusion of 5,000 extraordinary world citizens of extraordinary talent, extraordinary creativity, extraordinary knowledge, extraordinary skill and extraordinary networking and other capabilities …as the whole area of human capital is critical to our performance and global competitiveness”.

What is Malaysia’s success rate in attracting 20,000 to 25,000 of the top K-workers of the world to work in the country in the past four to five years?

Claiming Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) success and rapid ICT growth in the country, Jamaluddin reported that 1,354 companies have been awarded MSC status and the creation of 26,434 K-workers in the MSC companies.

The Minister dared not mention how many of the targeted 5,000 “extraordinary world citizens” had been attracted to Malaysia each year since 2,000, and this is where I quoted the observation of “Tien Soon”.

I just came across an article mentioning that there are approximately one million information technology (IT) professionals now employed in India and “the number is rising rapidly”. One million IT professionals in India and 26,434 K-workers in MSC, proclaimed at one time as Malaysia “gift to the world” – this should be serious food for thought not only by the policymakers but by all Malaysians.

Read more!

It’s a tall tale, Tun Hanif – it never happened

My attention has just been drawn to Tun Hanif Omar’s Sunday Star fortnightly column “Walk the beat, department heads, or face the music”, where he narrated a most absorbing story involving me during the May 13 riots some 36 years ago in 1969.

This is what the ex-Inspector-General Police wrote:

In the midst of all this, Tun Sambanthan, then MIC President and Minister of Works, Telecommunications and Post, reported to Tun Ismail that the DAP was politicking that morning by distributing political pamphlets at the MB Selangor’s meet-the-people session.

Politicking had been banned following the May 13 riots and yet, Special Branch officers who were present did not take action. Yes, the Tun also demanded that the Special Branch Head in Selangor be demoted.

Whilst the Secretary-General of the Home Affairs Ministry was on the line to the Deputy IGP on the matter, Tun Ismail asked who the Head of SB Selangor was?

“Encik Hanif Omar, Tun.”

“What? What’s the matter with that boy? He used to be all right. Bring him before me.”

Thus I was marched into his presence – the D/IGP on my left and the Acting Director SB on my right.

“You know, Hanif, how close you were to being demoted?”

“Yes, sir, I’ve been informed. Sir, you had me promoted several times, for which I thank you. If I have messed up and you demote me, I have only myself to blame, sir. But, what wrong have I done?”

“Why did you allow Kit Siang to distribute his pamphlets this morning? That’s against the ‘no politicking rule’!”

“No, sir. The moment my officers picked up the pamphlets they went to see the AG who ruled in writing that it wasn’t politicking. They then lodged a police report to that effect and gave me the AG’s ruling. Here’s a copy of the report and the AG’s ruling, sir.”

“Oh, you checked with Kadir (AG Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Yusof), did you? All right, Hanif, I’m glad to hear that.”

Then he laughed as he said, “I thought I had to demote you,” and we all laughed with him. Mine was a laugh of sheer relief!

If we were a more responsible lot in those days, this was a major reason: bosses didn’t suffer the irresponsible; they would not accept mediocrity. When we were held to clear standards, corruption became that much harder. The light was always on us.

I confess that I found Hanif’s story most enthralling - as it must be to all his readers. In my case, it was also intriguing. I was reading it for the first time – not his narration but the story. It’s a tall tale, Tun Hanif – for it never happened.

I will one day write about what I was doing during those fateful days in 1969 – from May 10 the polling day for the 1969 general election when I was in Malacca, to the outbreak of May 13 riots in Kuala Lumpur when I was in Kota Kinabalu till May 18, 1969 when I flew into Subang Airport from Singapore fully expecting to be arrested and was actually arrested by the waiting police at the airport.

For this blog, suffice it for me to state that I was never in Kuala Lumpur or Selangor as a free person after May 13, 1969 for 17 months, when I was a guest of His Majesty’s Government until I was released from the Muar Detention Centre on October 1, 1970.

I don’t know when this apocryphal story first latched onto the ex-IGP’s stream of memories, but it should be a good study as to how myths are created.

I commend Hanif however for the thrust of his column, which is to impress on departmental heads their duty to assume full responsibility for whatever happens in their department.

Hanif recounted the following narrative in 1969, which I hope is not as apocryphal as the one he had told about me:

Shortly after, a motorcyclist was killed when he crashed into a hole dug into the road in Cheras by the Public Works Department. Tun Ismail (Home Affairs Minister at the time) fell on the KL police like a ton of bricks and berated them for failing to prevent the accident.

Police explanation that it was the PWD which had dug the road and failed to place a lit-up warning signboard there was brushed aside. He held that the police had a duty to protect life and property; their mobile patrols cruised the area and must have seen the danger, and for them not to demand the PWD to erect a signboard was dereliction of duty. He applied the tort principle of duty of care quite widely on the police.

If the culture of responsibility inculcated by Tun Razak and Tun Ismail in 1969 as described by Hanif had been maintained ( when it should have been enhanced over time), then hosts of Malaysians would not have died in vain in the past few decades in avoidable deaths caused by negligent and irresponsible departments and departmental heads – including the most recent case in September of a hawker-motorist who died when he crashed into a pothole in a major road in Alor Star which had been left unattended for a considerable time.

Is the present IGP Tan Sri Mohd Bakri Omar reading and listening to what his predecessor is writing?

But Hanif should have taken the principle of zero-tolerance for irresponsibility, mediocrity and corruption one step further, to also ask Ministers to “walk the beat or face the music”, to be held accountable for the failure of duty, whether omission or commission, of their departmental heads. Only then is the circle of responsibility complete marking the advent of accountability, transparency and good governance. Only then can we say that “First World Infrastructure, First World Mentality” has arrived in Malaysia.

Read more!

Rafidah in Parliament - second Cabinet directive

The Cabinet tomorrow should direct the Minister for International Trade and Industry, Datuk Paduka Rafidah Aziz to present a Ministerial statement on the AP scandal in Parliament on Thursday before the two-week break so that she is not seen or accused of using her kneecap replacement surgery to avoid parliamentary accountability.

As Rafidah has said that she has “fully recovered” from the knee operation, her continued absence from Parliament when MPs and the 26 million Malaysians had been waiting for a full, satisfactory and acceptable explanation of the AP scandal from her for the past five months will be the height of ministerial irresponsibility.

It is most shocking that Rafidah had to be directed by the Cabinet before she would make her sole appearance in Parliament in the current meeting on October 4, 2005, but her question-and-answer session was a disappointment not only to Opposition MPs but also to the Barisan Nasional MPs.

The Cabinet tomorrow should direct Rafidah to make her second appearance in the current meeting before it adjourns on Thursday for two weeks for the Deepavali and Hari Raya holidays to give proper answer to the mountain of questions swirling around her and the AP scandal.

Otherwise, Rafidah’s recalcitrance in refusing to live up to her parliamentary duties and the Cabinet’s inability to ensure that she conducts herself with full ministerial responsibility to Parliament will become the talk of the country for all Malaysians, regardless of race, religion or political affiliation during the Deepavali and Hari Raya holidays.

The Cabinet should direct the Health Minsiter, Datuk Dr. Chuo Soi Lek to ensure that there is proper wheelchair arrangement so that Rafidah can appear in Parliament without any discomfort or inconvenience. Surely Rafidah cannot object to making an appearance in Parliament to give full accountability on the AP scandal as she herself claims that she has “fully recovered”, so long as there is proper wheelchair arrangement so as not to hurt her knee.

Parliament 25.10.05

Read more!

Sorry, no comments last 14 hrs - HaloScan down

I have received inquiries why comments could not be posted on this blog.

HaloScan has been down for the past 14 hours, as evident from the world-wide clamour for answer from haloScan about the breakdown:

http://www.haloscan.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6248&st=0&#entry22137

Congrats to "hangtuah" in the JJ, where is your answer on “Open Source”? thread for being the first to get through since the breakdown. I posted a response to test whether haloScan comment is really working.

With the haloScan back in operation, lets have all the bona fide comments.

HaloScan has now introduced a moderating option for comments and I am seriously considering the proposal for the registration for first-time commentators as suggested by many to prevent abuses although I would prefer the status quo.

More views and other suggestions are welcome. And many thanks for your support since the public start of this blog on National Day 2005.

Read more!

JJ, where is your answer on “Open Source”?

Parliament 19.10.05(7)

In his winding-up on Wednesday, the Minister for Technology and Innovation, Datuk Dr. Jamaludin Jarjis promised to give me a written answer to my query on the Open Source operating system on the ground that he had run out of time. Jarjis should have given me there-and-then the reply he had prepared on the subject but could not deliver because of time constraints. I am still waiting for Jarjis' reply four days after the undertaking.

In my speech on the 2006 Budget, I had asked whether the Malaysian Government had kow-towed to Microsoft on the the “Open Source” issue, which I had described as “another example of the government putting corporate interest above the national goal of broad-based IT literacy” when it shelved the plan to experiment with open source operating system.

This is what I told Parliament on October 3, 2005:

In April 2004, Science, Technology and Innovation Minister Datuk Dr. Jamaludin Jarjis announced that Mimos Bhd was tasked with creating an operating system for computers using open source software. According to NST, it is “a move that when completed will make information communication technology cheaper and accessible to all” (29/4/2004).

Microsoft holds a monopoly on operating systems for personal computers and charges expensive royalty and fees usage and upgrade. Open-source is software for which the source code (the instructions for the software) is available for distribution and modification. The modifier retains the copyright for his work, but the source code is public domain.

Brazil, China, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea and recently Peru, among others, have been actively moving toward the Linux operating system and other open-source alternatives that can mean millions of dollars in savings. Institute of Information Technology, a Brazilian government agency working to promote digital inclusion, estimated that Brazil spent USD 1.1 billion on royalties and licensing fees for imported software programmes in 2002. According to the same source, Brazilian government agencies that have adopted free software had their costs reduced to a mere three percent of what would have been paid for proprietary programmes.

Datuk Jamaludin pointed out then that the Government wanted to look at ways to boost computer literacy among Malaysians without the burden of paying high fees. Malaysia spent about RM 7.86 billion on IT in 2003, of which RM 1.8 billion were on software. If the cost of using open-source software is 10% of Microsoft’s product, the RM 1.6 billion savings could be utilized to reduce the gap between the “information haves” and “information haves-not”.

Less than two months after Jamaludin’s announcement, Micosoft’s boss Bill Gates visited Malaysia, met with the Prime Minister and other ministers, and donated RM 10 million to some schools.

Since then, the discussion on open source operating system vanishes from public discourse. It is time for the government to reexamine the potentials of open-source and stop “kow tow” to Microsoft. Therefore, the IT policy of Malaysia must be a policy that champions “IT for All”, not favoring big corporations.

Jarjis, where is your answer?

Read more!

“Best Person for the Job” to tackle low morale in MAS

Parliament 19.10.05 (6)

The MP for Arau Dato’ Seri Diraja Syed Razlan ibni Syed Putera Jamalullail (BN) took the Deputy Transport Minister, Tengku Azlan to task over the MAS appointment of a Canadian woman, its Toronto-based sales manager, Barbara Dirnberger as MAS area manager for Thailand.

This was on Wednesday night during the winding-up of Tengku Azlan on behalf of the Transport Ministry in the 2006 Budget debate in Parliament.

Syed Razlan wanted to know why after 33 years, MAS does not have a Malaysian of equal or even higher standing to fill the post. He said that in the 80s, when MAS appointed a Dutch to be area manager in the Benelux countries (Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg), it was understandable because of “localization” considerations at the time.

But when MAS appointed an official from Canada to Bangkok, she becomes an expatriate officer requiring MAS to pay overseas allowances, Canadian salary scale, retirement at 65, compliance with Canadian labour law, provision of housing, education for her children, company car, etc. The difference in income tax between Canada and Thailand will be paid by MAS. If a Malaysian is posted, the difference in income tax between Malaysia and Thailand will be very little.

Rebutting Tengku Azlan’s explanation that Barbara was appointed because of her long-service record in MAS of over 10 years, Syed Razlan questioned her qualifications to be appointed Area Manager for Bangkok with numerous landings and many visitors from the public and private sector, as compared to her position as Sales Manager with a three-person office in Toronto which has no landing rights for Malaysia.

Syed Raslan said it would appear that there are no Malaysians to hold the Malaysian flag, arguing that Barbara could be the No. 2 or 3 in Bangkok because of her experience, as the Area Manager should be a Malaysian, regardless of race.

When Tengku Azlan said he would forward Syed Raslan’s views to MAS, I intervened to ask whether the Deputy Minister agreed that regardless of circumstances, a Malaysian must head the MAS office in Thailand.

I pointed out that this was not in consonance with the national goal of attaining international competitiveness. Referring to the Japanese automotive company Nissan which has a Brazilian-born, French-educated son of Lebanese parents, Carlos Ghosn as its very successful chief executive officer, I called for a “global mind” and not an excessively “nationalistic mind” to embrace the concept of “The best man for the job” to face the challenges of globalization.

I asked the Deputy Minister whether he agreed that if there was a Malaysian qualified for the job, he must be given priority; otherwise, we must be prepared to appoint the “best man in the world” for the job in the national interest.

Tengku Azlan’s reply was that “before he agrees, he must first refer the matter to MAS”!

Earlier, I had asked Tengku Azlan (i) whether he was aware of the low morale of the MAS staff (illustrated by spates of resignations such as the pilots) after various disastrous experiments of ownership and management, such as its privatization to benefit one individual and not the national carrier followed by the rescue of MAS through cut-throat buy-back pricing which nationalizes MAS’ colossal losses; and (ii) whether meritocracy for all staff appointments and promotions would be adopted to lift the low morale of MAS staff to restore and enhance their commitment and professionalism.

There was no satisfactory answer from Tengku Azlan who could only ask for patience until MAS re-organisation has taken place under a new management.

Read more!

RM3.1 billion Klang Port Authority land spree

Parliament 19.10.05 (5)

One issue which I raised during the winding-up of the 2006 budget debate on Wednesday was the RM3.1 billion Klang Port Authority (KPA) land spree involving 1,000 acres of land in Pulau Indah, Klang to build a regional distribution hub comprising RM1.81 billion “calculated at the rate of RM25.00 per square foot on a special value basis” in November 2002 (Auditor-General’s Report on KPA 2003) followed by another RM1.3 billion for the "development" of the land in 2004(both inclusive of 7.5% interest).

I had raised the issue during the my earlier speech as to whether KPA should have entered into such a deal, when its role had been reduced to one of a licensing authority, with most of port operations privatized. .

Furthermore, how could the KPA conclude such an agreement which provided for a 10% advance payment of the land price amounting to RM108.85 million and the balance of RM1.7 billion to be paid over 10 years from 2007 until 2017, with annual payments between RM130 million and RM179 million, when KPA did not have the funds to go through with the deal without government support.

There are two reasons why grave questions are being asked about the accountability, propriety and integrity of the RM1.81 billion KPA land purchase , viz:

* The same company which had sold the Pulau Indah land to KPA had subsequently offered to buy land adjacent to the project (from a different party) at one-third the price it sold to KPA.

* As reported by the Auditor-General’s Report 2003: “In the year 2003, the Authority had signed an agreement with the same company for the development of the project for RM519 million (inclusive of RM7% interest). In early 2004, the Authority again signed a supplementary agreement with the same company. Through this agreement the project development cost has increased to RM1.30 billion (inclusive of 7.5% interest). This capital outlay for the development of the project will be advanced by the company and the Authority will pay RM100 million in the year 2004 with the balance to be paid from the year 2007 until 2012 on an annual payment basis ranging from RM53.89 million and RM230 million.”

The Auditor-General had noted that in the original RM1.81 billion deal, “the company is required to provide infrastructure facilities such as drainage, main access road, bridge, land reclamation and water supply”, including making contributions to the Water Supply Department.

Is KPA paying twice to the company concerned to complete all infrastructural works related to access roads and other basic infrastructure covering the 1,000 acre site? This would bring the total cost of the 1,000 acres of Paya Indah land to RM3.11 billion.

The answer by the Deputy Transport Minister, Tengku Azlan, was most unsatisfactory. All he said in his reply was that in 1998, the Transport Ministry had valued the land concerned at RM13.50 psf, and taking into account infrastructural works related to land reclamation, access roads, drainage and water supply as well as the 15-year terms-of-payment, the suitable land value was RM25 psf.

Tengku Azlan said that the Paya Indah land deal was made on a “willing buyer, willing seller” basis with the valuation approved by the Valuation and Property Services Department of the Finance Ministry.

In view of the time constraints which led to the imposition of 15-minute limit for each Ministry winding-up on Wednesday night, I was unable to get Tengku Azlan to throw more light on the KPA “willing buyer, willing seller” land spree involving RM3.1 billion of taxpayers’ money without proper accountability and transparency.

Read more!