The word “One” has assumed an important but meaningless position in the Umno/BN vocabulary.
Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s ‘OneMalaysia’ exists alongside discriminatory laws which favour only one racial group.
The recent ‘OneAcquittal’ (Anwar Ibrahim’s) is said to equate to an independent judiciary.
In 'OneElection' the use of only one criterion out of the several needed to guarantee free and fair elections is deemed sufficient.
And
in ‘OneCorruptPolitician’, the lenient sentence of one politician, Mohd
Khir Toyo, is Umno/BN’s stage-managed way of showing the people that
the government is tackling corruption.
With the rakyat’s deep mistrust and hostility of Umno/BN and especially the PM, Najib;s administration should be termed the ‘OneMalaysiaFarce’.
When politicians or pro-government bodies are backed into a corner, they use the following - Constitution, Religion, Attorney-general, Prevention (CRAP) - as reasons to justify their actions.
In a recent landmark case, six overseas Malaysians seeking the right to be registered as ‘absent voters’ lost their fight in the High Court. The overseas Malaysians wanted equality under Article 8 of the federal constitution but Justice Rohana Yusuf ruled that the Election Commission (EC) was correct in not registering them as absent voters because the applicants did not come under the category of “absent voters”.
In delivering her judgment, Rohana appeared to ignore Article 119 of the constitution.
Last
week, former EC chairperson Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman claimed that in
the 2008 election, he was criticised for not using indelible ink to stop
multiple voting.
Four years after the event and when RM2.4 million of the taxpayers’ money had been wasted, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nazri Abdul Aziz finally admitted that he had blocked the use of the indelible ink prior to GE-12.
Nazri said, “On indelible ink, I must admit that the person who questioned it was me. At that time, there were constitutional concerns.
“Under the constitution, if you fulfill the two conditions, aged 21 and above and are a registered voter, you must be given the ballot paper. So, what happens if you refuse to be marked by the ink?
“There was also concern among Muslims at that time that the ink will block water from reaching the skin when cleaning up for prayers.”
What about henna/dyes and ink for tattoos?
Muslims like Nazri suddenly worry about the use of ink in religion just before a general election. Why has no one bothered to bring up the subject of henna/dyes used to paint hands and feet in Muslim marriages or even the use of ink in permanent tattoos?
In the same vein, why are Umno politicians unperturbed by the hard-core porn circulating in our pasar malams, but at the time of a general election, they create an unholy fuss about certain sex videos, to score political mileage?
In the sex-video of a man purporting to be opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, Umno/BN made full use of the government media and premises to exhibit the sex video and at the same time, proclaimed their own moral rectitude.
Perhaps, Najib should add to the Umno/BN list of slogans, ‘OneHypocriticalParty’.
Former EC chairperson Rashid said, “In 2007, I received a letter from the Attorney-General's Chambers saying that the implementation of indelible ink contravened Article 119 of the federal constitution”.
A political observer said that whenever the rights of Malaysians are curtailed, the attorney-general’s name or office is quoted.
Rashid had allegedly proclaimed on national television that indelible ink could not be used because of security concerns. The AG instructed the former EC chairperson to lie. This is the same AG in charge of the so-called independent judiciary.
Nazri (left)
had also denied knowledge of any fatwa endorsing the use of indelible
ink in the 2008 general election. Malaysians are aware that the ink in
GE12 was withdrawn at the last minute.
Today, the government tells us that the parliamentary select committee (PSC) on electoral reform has approved the use of indelible ink. Cynical Malaysians wonder if the ink will be banned because of another trumped-up reason in GE13? What will the AG’s instructions for the current EC chairperson be?
Abdul Rashid said he was prevented from implementing the use of indelible ink in the 2008 election. Who will be prevented from ordering the use of indelible ink in GE13?
Recently, former BN politicians and ex-civil servants appear to be very effusive in their revelations about vote rigging and other Umno/BN’s unjust practices.
Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah (centre in photo) described the inflated prices paid by the government for the procurement of weapons as buying toys for the boys.
Former deputy minister Tan Kee Kwong Tan criticised Najib for “single-handedly destroying” Felda’s prudent management, siphoning-off its wealth and misleading both parliament and the public.
Former minister Dr Lim Keng Yaik in an interview with The Edge was cynical about Najib’s failing policies: “I give up lah, talking to this government” and said, “Politicians who think they can become rich quickly by joining politics should be condemned and kept out of politics and government.”
Mohamed Rahmat, the former information minister, revealed Umno’s wrongdoings in his book ‘Impian’ and warned Umno/BN that they could not maintain a policy of protecting its leaders. He also said that his mission in 1977 was to topple the PAS government in Kelantan.
Recently, former minister Abdul Kadir Sheikh Fadzir agreed that introducing indelible ink was no guarantee of free and fair elections. Lately, he too had revealed BN’s media restrictions on the opposition, the use of government agencies to court rural votes and bribery during elections.
Why can’t they resign on a point of principle?
What has happened to the notion of politicians and ministers being principled? Why do politicians and civil servants, like the former EC chairperson, wait years before revealing their part in acts of corruption and deception?
Why can’t they, at the time, resign on a point of principle and, at a press conference, expose the instructions given to them to undermine the opposition? The public will be behind them. The international community will laud them.
Today, the rakyat are grateful for the revelations, but to talk now, just shows cowardice and a lack of principles. Why the sudden pricking of their consciences? Are they manoeuvring themselves into a favourable political position for when the opposition takes power? Are they clamouring for public acceptance?
More importantly, these revelations show that Umno/BN was guilty of corrupt practices during previous elections. Shouldn’t the results be declared null and void, and the government in power today, be declared an illegal one?
MARIAM MOKHTAR is a non-conformist traditionalist from Perak, a bucket chemist and an armchair eco-warrior. In ‘real-speak’, this translates into that she comes from Ipoh, values change but respects culture, is a petroleum chemist and also an environmental pollution-control scientist.
Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s ‘OneMalaysia’ exists alongside discriminatory laws which favour only one racial group.
The recent ‘OneAcquittal’ (Anwar Ibrahim’s) is said to equate to an independent judiciary.
In 'OneElection' the use of only one criterion out of the several needed to guarantee free and fair elections is deemed sufficient.
And
in ‘OneCorruptPolitician’, the lenient sentence of one politician, Mohd
Khir Toyo, is Umno/BN’s stage-managed way of showing the people that
the government is tackling corruption.With the rakyat’s deep mistrust and hostility of Umno/BN and especially the PM, Najib;s administration should be termed the ‘OneMalaysiaFarce’.
When politicians or pro-government bodies are backed into a corner, they use the following - Constitution, Religion, Attorney-general, Prevention (CRAP) - as reasons to justify their actions.
In a recent landmark case, six overseas Malaysians seeking the right to be registered as ‘absent voters’ lost their fight in the High Court. The overseas Malaysians wanted equality under Article 8 of the federal constitution but Justice Rohana Yusuf ruled that the Election Commission (EC) was correct in not registering them as absent voters because the applicants did not come under the category of “absent voters”.
In delivering her judgment, Rohana appeared to ignore Article 119 of the constitution.
Last
week, former EC chairperson Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman claimed that in
the 2008 election, he was criticised for not using indelible ink to stop
multiple voting.Four years after the event and when RM2.4 million of the taxpayers’ money had been wasted, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nazri Abdul Aziz finally admitted that he had blocked the use of the indelible ink prior to GE-12.
Nazri said, “On indelible ink, I must admit that the person who questioned it was me. At that time, there were constitutional concerns.
“Under the constitution, if you fulfill the two conditions, aged 21 and above and are a registered voter, you must be given the ballot paper. So, what happens if you refuse to be marked by the ink?
“There was also concern among Muslims at that time that the ink will block water from reaching the skin when cleaning up for prayers.”
What about henna/dyes and ink for tattoos?
Muslims like Nazri suddenly worry about the use of ink in religion just before a general election. Why has no one bothered to bring up the subject of henna/dyes used to paint hands and feet in Muslim marriages or even the use of ink in permanent tattoos?
In the same vein, why are Umno politicians unperturbed by the hard-core porn circulating in our pasar malams, but at the time of a general election, they create an unholy fuss about certain sex videos, to score political mileage?
In the sex-video of a man purporting to be opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, Umno/BN made full use of the government media and premises to exhibit the sex video and at the same time, proclaimed their own moral rectitude.
Perhaps, Najib should add to the Umno/BN list of slogans, ‘OneHypocriticalParty’.
Former EC chairperson Rashid said, “In 2007, I received a letter from the Attorney-General's Chambers saying that the implementation of indelible ink contravened Article 119 of the federal constitution”.
A political observer said that whenever the rights of Malaysians are curtailed, the attorney-general’s name or office is quoted.
Rashid had allegedly proclaimed on national television that indelible ink could not be used because of security concerns. The AG instructed the former EC chairperson to lie. This is the same AG in charge of the so-called independent judiciary.
Nazri (left)
had also denied knowledge of any fatwa endorsing the use of indelible
ink in the 2008 general election. Malaysians are aware that the ink in
GE12 was withdrawn at the last minute.Today, the government tells us that the parliamentary select committee (PSC) on electoral reform has approved the use of indelible ink. Cynical Malaysians wonder if the ink will be banned because of another trumped-up reason in GE13? What will the AG’s instructions for the current EC chairperson be?
Abdul Rashid said he was prevented from implementing the use of indelible ink in the 2008 election. Who will be prevented from ordering the use of indelible ink in GE13?
Recently, former BN politicians and ex-civil servants appear to be very effusive in their revelations about vote rigging and other Umno/BN’s unjust practices.
Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah (centre in photo) described the inflated prices paid by the government for the procurement of weapons as buying toys for the boys.Former deputy minister Tan Kee Kwong Tan criticised Najib for “single-handedly destroying” Felda’s prudent management, siphoning-off its wealth and misleading both parliament and the public.
Former minister Dr Lim Keng Yaik in an interview with The Edge was cynical about Najib’s failing policies: “I give up lah, talking to this government” and said, “Politicians who think they can become rich quickly by joining politics should be condemned and kept out of politics and government.”
Mohamed Rahmat, the former information minister, revealed Umno’s wrongdoings in his book ‘Impian’ and warned Umno/BN that they could not maintain a policy of protecting its leaders. He also said that his mission in 1977 was to topple the PAS government in Kelantan.
Recently, former minister Abdul Kadir Sheikh Fadzir agreed that introducing indelible ink was no guarantee of free and fair elections. Lately, he too had revealed BN’s media restrictions on the opposition, the use of government agencies to court rural votes and bribery during elections.
Why can’t they resign on a point of principle?
What has happened to the notion of politicians and ministers being principled? Why do politicians and civil servants, like the former EC chairperson, wait years before revealing their part in acts of corruption and deception?
Why can’t they, at the time, resign on a point of principle and, at a press conference, expose the instructions given to them to undermine the opposition? The public will be behind them. The international community will laud them.
Today, the rakyat are grateful for the revelations, but to talk now, just shows cowardice and a lack of principles. Why the sudden pricking of their consciences? Are they manoeuvring themselves into a favourable political position for when the opposition takes power? Are they clamouring for public acceptance?
More importantly, these revelations show that Umno/BN was guilty of corrupt practices during previous elections. Shouldn’t the results be declared null and void, and the government in power today, be declared an illegal one?
MARIAM MOKHTAR is a non-conformist traditionalist from Perak, a bucket chemist and an armchair eco-warrior. In ‘real-speak’, this translates into that she comes from Ipoh, values change but respects culture, is a petroleum chemist and also an environmental pollution-control scientist.
No comments:
Post a Comment