Clive Kessler:The Haughty And Idiotic Professor

Hantu Laut

The social engineer

Isn't it commanding of a learned person to know his subject well before he put his thoughts to pen.

Clive Kessler's denunciation of the social contract enshrined in the constitution goes to show his shallow knowledge of Malaysian politics and the Malaysian Constitution or he just simply meddling in the affairs of this country for the benefits of the oppositions.There is no Ketuanan Melayu, there is only Malay majority rule.

Majority rule is common in many countries.The same fear  White Australians have of the continuing migration of Asians to Australia that one day may dilute their power to control the political future of the country, the Malays have the same fear and have every rights to defend the erosion of Malay political power.

Would White Australians accede majority control of their political power to the minority Chinese or Vietnamese or for that matter to the minority Muslim population?

Perhaps, Clive Kessler could answer this question if he still hanged to his tenacious belief that the Malays should not protect the political hegemony in their own country and succor for more support if they felt threatened of losing their grip on political power.

'Ketuanan Melayu' is implicit, social contract is not, it is explicitly defined in Article 153 of the Malaysian Constitution that clearly spelled out what the social contract entails.

I would invite the learned professor to read this particular article and see for himself whether the social contract is imaginary or explicitly addressed in the Constitution.

The claim is not plain and simple 'historical revisionist' as inferred by him.It is a plain and simple 'contract' in the Constitution and one that does not need 'historical revisionists' to manufacture it.It is there plain and simple.

You are not happy, you want to change it and you think changing the government would solve the problem. You have to get two-thirds majority in Parliament to agree to kick it out of the Constitution.Can you get all the Malay MPs from both sides of the political fence to agree? No where mates! So stop cursing the Malays for your political troubles.It ain't their making.If you want to curse ..... it's the Brits, they are the culprits.

The proviso is primarily a continuation of previous laws made by the British to protect the indigenous peoples from being overwhelmed by the migrant races, mostly Chinese and Indians, who were much well to do urban dwellers as compared to the Bumiputras, who, at that time, were mostly poor farmers and labourers. The British saw the economic disequilibrium among the races that placed the indigenous peoples at a big disadvantage economically.

To protect the natives further the British even introduced 'Malay Reserve' lands in the then Malaya and 'Native Title' lands in the then British North Borneo and Sarawak.These lands can only be transacted among indigenous people. The British fear that the natives could be robbed of their lands if no such protection is made mandatory.Was the British wrong then? Perhaps, Kessler could also give an answer to this pertinent question.

Why did the British introduced affirmative actions even then.Did they not foresee the precarious economic position of the Malays and the natives of the Bornean states? Those considerations were part and parcel of a 'social contract'.As late as the early seventies the bumiputras controlled less than 5 per cent of the economy.

The Constitution and Article 153 was written on the basis of a report from the 'Reid Commission' which included recommendation for protective clause in the Constitution for safeguarding Malay rights and later the inclusion of natives of Sabah and Sarawak when Malaysia was formed.Article 153 in particular, was incorporated to address the economic imbalance.Kessler, was clearly muted on this.

Even more disappointing is Kessler's haughty remarks that showed his headful of garbage using pseudo-cleft sentences trying to win over uninitiated Malaysians into believing his craps. Because of his academic background some would fall into his web of deceit.
He said:

"Yet there was no “social contract” as such at the time. People have only inferred and argued subsequently that there was, because there somehow must have been, such a contract at the time of Merdeka — and, driven by retrospective wish-fulfilment, they have then “filled in” what it pleases them to believe, or passionately desire, that its terms must have been. They “read back” the politics of the present, and their preferred political future that they like to imagine for themselves, into the historic past."
If Article 153 is not a social contract, what is?

I am not a great proponent of the NEP as it is, I do believe, for the sake of the Malays, it should not be allowed to go on forever. It will only add more sins to the already burdening rent-seeking mentality and demands of certain group of bumiputras who want it easy.

Prime Minister Najib would be better off ignoring the militancy of such groups.

Being a Malay he has every right to perpetuate Malay political power within the ambit of the laws of this country and ignore people like Clive Kessler who can flush his anthropological scroll down the toilet bowl.Knowing anthropology did not make him an expert in Malaysian politics.

His closing paragraph:

"This, quite simply and evidently, is historically erroneous. It is sheer revisionism. It is retrospective meddling with national historical truth and the nation’s constitutional foundations."
Keep your social engineering bullshit at home, Mr Kessler !

What Malaysians should be fighting against is not Malay powers or Ketuanan Melayu , they should be fighting against corruptions, abuses of power and mismanagement of the nation resources.

Malaysia's New Journey

By Michael Schuman / Kuala Lumpur
Monday, Sep. 06, 2010

ENLARGE PHOTO+

Common cause Malaysia's three major races are reflected in one train carriage.

Malaysia is that rare country with an unequivocal national narrative. It goes something like this: Malaysia's 28 million people, comprising mainly Malays, Chinese and Indians, make up a moderate and modern emerging democracy. Unlike members of other multiethnic countries, they respect one another's beliefs and values and share a commitment to achieving prosperity. The official religion is Islam, but other faiths are freely allowed and celebrated. This is one harmonious place.

Much of that narrative is true — but not all of it. Malaysia's economic miracle has stalled, and while the nation is, indeed, somewhat pluralistic, it is no melting pot. Indeed, it is a society where people define themselves first and foremost by race. (See pictures of Islam in Asia.)

The country's political leadership has in some respects reinforced those ethnic identities. For the past 40 years, policymakers have doled out special privileges — in education and business — to one community: the majority Malays. The program is one of modern history's greatest experiments in social engineering and possibly the world's most extensive attempt at affirmative action. But the policies have also bred resentment among minorities, distorted the economy and undermined the concept of a single Malaysian identity.

Now a movement is gaining strength to finally change the system — and it's coming from the very top. Prime Minister Najib Razak, 57, has surprised the country by advocating a fundamental reform of the pro-Malay program first introduced, ironically, by his father, who was Malaysia's Prime Minister in the 1970s. Though the specifics of the new policies remain hazy, Najib's intent is not. "I want Malaysia to be globally competitive," he told TIME in an exclusive interview. "For that, we need to get every single Malaysian to be together."

Najib's proposals have simultaneously raised hopes, ire and fear. The mere idea of changing the affirmative-action system has reopened old wounds in Malaysian society and reactivated the long-running debate on how best to fuse Malays, Chinese and Indians into one nation. The direction Malaysia takes, moreover, has repercussions beyond its shores. The issues raised by Najib's proposals are relevant to any upwardly mobile developing economy, especially a multicultural one: how to increase wealth and do so equitably. (Read "Why the Honeymoon is Over for Malaysia's New PM.")

In confronting these sensitive challenges, Najib is taking enormous political risks. The primary base of electoral support for Najib's political party, the United Malays National Organization (UMNO), is the Malay community, and altering decades-old perquisites could cause voters to defect to the opposition. But Najib believes he has little choice. If Malaysia's economy is to compete with China, India and other rapidly emerging neighbors, Najib sees no other route but reform. "The competition is much greater and some would describe it even as cutthroat," Najib says. "There is a realization that what has worked in the past may not necessarily work in the future."

The Malay Card
Najib is facing the same dilemma his predecessors have since the earliest days of Malaysian independence: balancing the perceived needs of the Malays, both political and economic, with those of the country as a whole. At the heart of the problem is the reverse-pyramid shape of the Malaysian economy. Though the Malays and other indigenous peoples, together known as bumiputra in Malay, make up about 60% of the population, they have traditionally been poorer than the Chinese and Indian immigrants, who have long dominated the nation's business and trade. After Kuala Lumpur was struck by race riots in 1969, a shaken leadership determined that communal peace was impossible without economic balance. The result was the New Economic Policy (NEP), introduced in 1971, which aimed to raise the Malays' share of the economic pie. Malays were given preferential access to public contracts and university scholarships. Any company listing on the stock market had to sell 30% of its shares to bumiputra investors. Though some measures have been softened or eliminated over the past two decades, many pro-Malay privileges remain. Certain government contracts are available only to bumiputra-controlled firms, for example. Malays even receive special discounts on home purchases. The affirmative-action program has become so ingrained in the Malaysian psyche that it is akin to a national ideology.

It is also controversial. Critics contend that the pro-Malay program too often benefits the connected few over its intended targets: the poor and struggling. All car-import permits, for example, are awarded to bumiputra-controlled firms, a policy intended to foster entrepreneurs in the community. But government audits have revealed that Malay businessmen with access to the permits sometimes sell them to minority traders who don't — at an instant profit. (The Ministry of Trade and Industry, recognizing the problem, says it will phase out the permit system by 2020.) "Unfortunately, as [the NEP] was implemented over time, some of the zealots, politicians and bureaucrats included, tended to become more racial and emphasized more on the people who have relationships with them," says Razaleigh Hamzah, an UMNO dignitary and former Finance Minister. "That's where it went wrong."

Despite four decades of special aid, 3 in 4 of the poorest people in Malaysia are still bumiputra. Adli Ahmad Ghazi, the Malay co-owner of Malaysian Defensive Driving & Riding, a 70-employee driving school in Kuala Lumpur, complains that the pro-Malay policies do little to help a small businessman like himself. In 2008, Adli tried to get financing from three agencies tasked with supporting Malay businessmen or small enterprises, but got rejected. When he has to deal with the bureaucracy, Adli says, he faces the same red tape as any other businessman. It took him two years to buy a parcel of land for his company from the local government. "The [NEP] rules don't really apply to people on the ground," Adli says. "They say the NEP would help the Malays, but it only helps a small percentage of the Malays."

Comfort Zone
Affirmative action may not be helping the overall Malaysian economy either. Though Malaysia has been among the best-performing economies in the world since World War II and boasts a spectacular record of improving human welfare — the percentage of the population living in absolute poverty has plummeted from 50% in 1970 to less than 4% today — the story is now stuck on the same chapter. Malaysia has fallen into what is called the "middle-income trap." Having elevated itself to a comfortable level of income, Malaysia has been unable to take that next leap into the realm of advanced economies. While growth has slowed, Malaysians have watched other fast-paced Asian rivals zip by. In 1970, the gross national income per capita of South Korea, at $260, was below Malaysia's $380, but by 2009, South Korea's was almost three times larger, at $19,830 vs. $7,230, according to the World Bank. (See pictures of Malaysia.)

Malaysia's struggles reflect those facing Southeast Asia as a whole. The region's economies once seemed among the world's most promising emerging markets, but in recent years, progress in almost all of them has been stymied by upheaval and poor governance. Thailand remains rudderless as its fragile democracy has degenerated into perpetual factional strife. The promise of the Philippines remains unrealized as its feeble government has continually failed to enact the tough reforms needed to turn around the underperforming economy. Indonesia is only now returning to its place as one of the world's premier emerging economies after a decade of political uncertainty scared off foreign investors.

If it is able to change its economic system, Malaysia could show its neighbors the way forward. Malaysia's essential problem is that its growth model — export-oriented manufacturing, often by foreign-invested factories — has become mismatched with its needs. Malaysia must become more innovative if its rapid development is to continue. But that's not happening. Private investment has fallen from a third of GDP in the mid-1990s to only about 10% today, labor-productivity growth has slowed, and R&D spending remains anemic. Instead of developing new products with highly skilled technicians, Malaysia's manufacturing sector still too often assembles goods designed by others, using imported technology and low-skilled foreign workers. "There is a growing realization that Malaysia's relative position compared to other countries that are catching up very quickly is not improving," says Philip Schellekens, a senior economist at the World Bank. "Relative to where they want to be, there is still a long road." (Read "Fortress Asia: Is a Powerful New Trade Bloc Forming?")

Though it would be incorrect to blame the pro-Malay policies for the economy's woes — Malaysia did, once, achieve remarkable rates of growth with the perquisites in place — they are nevertheless dampening business sentiment, scaring off talent, curtailing investment and stifling domestic competition. Chua Tiam Wee, president of the SMI Association of Malaysia, a small-enterprise organization, believes relaxing the NEP preferences would create a more level playing field on which the most capable firms could advance, making the economy more merit-based and upgrading Malaysian industry. The affirmative-action policy is "a source of a lot of distortions to the economic system," Chua says. By limiting the opportunities available to minorities, the NEP is likely contributing to a brain drain, in which some of the country's most talented people choose to work elsewhere. The government estimates that more than half of the 350,000 Malaysians working abroad have a college education. Stéphane Garelli, director of the World Competitiveness Center at IMD, a business school in Switzerland, believes that the affirmative-action regulations have made Malaysia less attractive to foreign investors. Malaysia's "bargaining power to put such restrictions on foreign investors is not as big as other nations'," he says.

Chinese and Indian entrepreneurs in Malaysia certainly believe the pro-Malay policies cap their business opportunities. Pardip Kumar Kukreja, the Malaysian-Indian chairman of Grand Paradise Holdings, a Kuala Lumpur — based firm that manages and owns hotels and operates travel agencies, laments that he can't get access to lucrative contracts providing travel services to the government due to regulations that favor Malay-owned enterprises. Removing such restrictions, he says, can act as an incentive to invest. Kukreja recently decided to launch an Internet-based business to sell travel services worldwide because Najib's administration liberalized affirmative-action rules for the tourism sector last year. "There are many things we'd like to do, which we hope we'll be able to do in the near future," he says. "To a small and medium entrepreneur, he wants to make his own decisions."Read more.

The Continuing Saga:The Unmasking Of Anwar Ibrahim

American Naivete and Moderate Islam

Ben Domenech

(My apology for the typo error of the subject title, it's 'unmasking' - Hantu Laut)

Editor of The New Ledger

Posted: September 3, 2010 08:33 AM

America's political leadership has a love affair with the concept of connecting with the moderate Muslim world. This is not the domain of one party or one ideology -- indeed, the administrations of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama are heavily invested in the idea. Yet in the push to find moderate Muslims with whom to interact, there's a question that seems to keep coming up: how far are we willing to stretch the definition of "moderate" in order to overlook certain uncomfortable facts?

We've seen this problem most recently in the interactions with Imam Rauf in the swirl of controversy about his mosque project in New York City. Some view Rauf as a moderate go-between who could further legitimate relations -- but others point to his funding sources and refusal to denounce Hamas as a sign the moderate label is questionable.

The Rauf situation inspired the Wall Street Journal to arrange a roundtable of several Muslim figures this week -- but the panel unintentionally served as a perfect example of the kind of strained definition of "moderate" some sources employ when it comes to leading Muslim political figures. In this case, the Journal included Malaysia's opposition leader, Anwar Ibrahim, in the conversation. His statement is worth reading, but it must also be studied with a critical eye:

Skeptics and cynics alike have said that the quest for the moderate Muslim in the 21st century is akin to the search for the Holy Grail. It's not hard to understand why. Terrorist attacks, suicide bombings and the jihadist call for Muslims "to rise up against the oppression of the West" are widespread.

The radical fringe carrying out such actions has sought to dominate the discourse between Islam and the West. In order to do so, they've set out to foment anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism. They've also advocated indiscriminate violence as a political strategy. To cap their victory, this abysmal lot uses the cataclysm of 9/11 as a lesson for the so-called enemies of Islam.

To some, Ibrahim is a beloved figure -- he is charming and a capable communicator, who has been subject to malignant political and legal attacks, and has defenders in the United States ranging from Al Gore to Paul Wolfowitz. Yet to read Ibrahim talk of those who "foment... anti-Semitism" for public relations gain is jarring, considering it is exactly the sort of activity he is utilizing to mount his political comeback.

One of the oldest tactics when it comes to relations with the Western world is the art of saying one thing in English, and another in your native language. Ibrahim is canny enough to know that his purposes are best served by keeping his anti-Semitic messages in a form which appeals to the right audience -- in this case, he's invoked the spectre of Jewish influence on more than one occasion. The pattern prompted a letter from B'Nai Brith earlier this year, sent to the State Department and the leaders of Senate and House committees, requesting that U.S. officials cease relations with Ibrahim over his "anti-Jewish and anti-Israel slanders," which include suggesting that Israeli spies are "directly involved in the running of the government," are antagonizing him through the police force, and are organizing a public relations campaign against him.

We would be wise to consider the aims of individuals like Ibrahim, not just accept his words to the American press at face value. I had the opportunity recently to interview Lee Smith, the author of The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations and a columnist for Tablet. He advances a view of American-Muslim relations that is both more sophisticated and more straightforward than the one which ruled in Washington over the past ten years. A key takeaway from his approach to understanding the Muslim world is that we must understand the way that individuals like Ibrahim and Rauf use the American approach to foreign relations to their advantage, and not allow for entanglements that make us lose sight of their real aims.

In any case, it's clear that honest relations with legitimate spokesmen from the Muslim world are paramount as we move closer to a decade removed from the 9/11 attacks. Yet we should have no illusions about the nature of those friendships, and we must reject the idea that figures can get away with saying one thing in their own countries and in their own language while criticizing that same activity in our newspapers and in English. Americans would not tolerate such two-faced activity from our own leaders, nor should we tolerate it from others.

Huffington Post

Why Do Heavy Drinkers Outlive Nondrinkers?

By John Cloud Monday, Aug. 30, 2010

(Read and consume at your own risk - Hantu Laut)

One of the most contentious issues in the vast literature about alcohol consumption has been the consistent finding that those who don't drink tend to die sooner than those who do. The standard Alcoholics Anonymous explanation for this finding is that many of those who show up as abstainers in such research are actually former hard-core drunks who had already incurred health problems associated with drinking.

But a new paper in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research suggests that — for reasons that aren't entirely clear — abstaining from alcohol does tend to increase one's risk of dying, even when you exclude former problem drinkers. The most shocking part? Abstainers' mortality rates are higher than those of heavy drinkers. (See pictures of booze under a microscope.)

Moderate drinking, which is defined as one to three drinks per day, is associated with the lowest mortality rates in alcohol studies. Moderate alcohol use (especially when the beverage of choice is red wine) is thought to improve heart health, circulation and sociability, which can be important because people who are isolated don't have as many family members and friends who can notice and help treat health problems.

But why would abstaining from alcohol lead to a shorter life? It's true that those who abstain from alcohol tend to be from lower socioeconomic classes, since drinking can be expensive. And people of lower socioeconomic status have more life stressors — job and child-care worries that might not only keep them from the bottle but also cause stress-related illnesses over long periods. (They also don't get the stress-reducing benefits of a drink or two after work.)

But even after controlling for nearly all imaginable variables — socioeconomic status, level of physical activity, number of close friends, quality of social support and so on — the researchers (a six-member team led by psychologist Charles Holahan of the University of Texas at Austin) found that over a 20-year period, mortality rates were highest for those who were not current drinkers, regardless of whether they used to be alcoholics, second highest for heavy drinkers and lowest for moderate drinkers. (Watch TIME's Video "Taste Test: Beer with Extra Buzz.")

The sample of those who were studied included individuals between ages 55 and 65 who had had any kind of outpatient care in the previous three years. The 1,824 participants were followed for 20 years. One drawback of the sample: a disproportionate number, 63%, were men. Just over 69% of the abstainers died during the 20 years, 60% of the heavy drinkers died and only 41% of moderate drinkers died.

These are remarkable statistics. Even though heavy drinking is associated with higher risk for cirrhosis and several types of cancer (particularly cancers in the mouth and esophagus), heavy drinkers are less likely to die than don't drink, even if they never had a problem with alcohol. One important reason is that alcohol lubricates so many social interactions, and social interactions are vital for maintaining mental and physical health. As I pointed out last year, nondrinkers show greater signs of depression than those who allow themselves to join the party.

The authors of the new paper are careful to note that even if drinking is associated with longer life, it can be dangerous: it can impair your memory severely and it can lead to nonlethal falls and other mishaps (like, say, cheating on your spouse in a drunken haze) that can screw up your life. There's also the dependency issue: if you become addicted to alcohol, you may spend a long time trying to get off the bottle. (Comment on this story.)

That said, the new study provides the strongest evidence yet that moderate drinking is not only fun but good for you. So make mine a double.

The original version of this article misidentified abstainers (people in the study who were not current drinkers, regardless of their past drinking status) as people who had never drunk. The article has been edited to reflect the correction.

See the top 10 long-forgotten liquors.

See "Why Nondrinkers May Be More Depressed."

Time