Words into practice

Posted on 14 June 2011 - 08:39pm

R. Nadeswaran

EVERY right-thinking Malaysian will certainly have to agree with the prime minister’s remarks made last week at the World Islamic Economic Forum in Kazakhstan that characteristics like openness, honesty and transparency are vital if the people are to have faith that their government is working for them and not for itself.
Saying that these guiding principles would also show that leaders and politicians were striving to lift the whole economy and not to “line their own pockets”, he sent this powerful message: “As political leaders and statesmen, it is up to us to show the resolve, dedication, commitment and political will required to do what is right, to right what is wrong and to prevent corruption from becoming a norm in our societies.”
This is not the first time that he has spoken out against the ills that afflict our society.
A month ago in Oxford, he spoke on religious moderation and the need to allow people of all faiths to express their views. But are his thoughts, philosophies and views being ignored if not defied by those in the corridors of power? Are our civil servants embracing openness, honesty and transparency? Are religious leaders taking cognisance of how they should conduct themselves?
Examples of their refusal or non-acceptance of these policies are too many to cite and the archives are full of reports which contain information on dishonesty and lack of transparency and accountability.
Why should the cost of producing the newsletter for a local authority be kept away from the public? Why is land alienation by the state government limited only to the “Minutes of the state exco” which fall under the purview of the Official Secrets Act? Why are the costs of purchasing items which are not “defence-sensitive” still being kept secret as if the whole country’s security will be compromised if the rakyat know about how much the army paid for a packet of instant noodles?
The prime minister is making all the right statements which will ensure a better quality of life for all Malaysians, but it appears that it is not going down the line to some people who have been accustomed to doing things their way.
Working in London and observing how Malaysian agencies conduct their business shows that many do not care how government money is spent. There’s no sense of accountability, transparency or openness, let alone honesty.
A case in point – the Malaysia External Trade Development Corporation (Matrade) whose stand is totally in contravention of the prime minister’s views.
It has been eight months since a simple query was raised: “Which supermarket chain in the UK has 64 Malaysian products on its shelves?” Four reminders to the London office with copies to its director-general and the chairman in Kuala Lumpur drew no response.
A car arranged by the High Commission here to take us to Oxford to cover the prime minister’s visit was quoted at £350 (RM1,750). When asked about the exorbitant cost, the answer was that the service provider had been “efficient throughout all this (sic) years”.
It would be difficult to justify spending such a sum of money to our bosses, let alone the auditor – a car was hired for £21 (RM105) and with £30 (RM150) of petrol, the journey was done. No one wants to know or explain how that astronomical figure was arrived at because it has never been a practice to ask for quotations or compare prices.
Where’s the openness and honesty which the prime minister is preaching? Doesn’t anyone want to practise it? As for Tourism Malaysia, the less said the better because they have been caught being dishonest on more than once occasion. Saying anything more will result in accusations of “you are picking on us"!
The prime minister is singing the right tunes and drawing the right parameters for a prosperous Malaysia. If followed to the letter, all Malaysians irrespective of colour or creed can share the prosperity and happiness that it brings.
The choice is not of the majority but the select few who draw up policies and another group which implements them. At all times, the three magic word espoused by the prime minister – openness, honesty and transparency – must ring in their ears each time they want to do something.
R. Nadeswaran hopes the prime minister’s words are translated into deeds by politicians and civil servants. He is theSun’s UK correspondent based in London and can be reached at: citizen-nades@thesundaily.com

Bring scare mongers to book

Posted on 21 June 2011 - 07:40pm
Last updated on 22 June 2011 - 01:49pm

R. Nadeswaran

IN EARLY 1972, M Mahalingam, the president of the Harbour Workers Union in Port Klang, was reading the Tamil Nesan on reports from India that the Indian nawabs and maharajas had been stripped of their rights and privileges. He had allegedly told a few of the union members in his office that it was a matter of time before sultans, kings and other monarchs would lose their positions.
Six months later, he was hauled up to face charges of sedition. Dominic Puthucheary who appeared for the defence applied to have the entire proceedings in Bahasa Melayu, long before it was decreed as the official language of the judicial system. Sessions court president (as they were then called) Rahmah Hussain (who went on to become a Federal Court judge) allowed the application following representation that the alleged seditious words were uttered in Bahasa Melayu and that the complainant and key witnesses were not well-versed in the English Language.
Puthucheary eloquently submitted that discussing an issue with a small group of friends or members did not constitute “publication” and that such words were not addressed to the public at large or communicated to third parties. The trial took a full three days before Mahalingam was acquitted without his defence being called. How do I know and remember this? It was the first time I had covered an important trial in Bahasa Melayu and more importantly, during the course of the trial, I was ticked off by Rahmah for not being “appropriately dressed” in her court.
The proceedings had ingrained in my mind the various provisions of the Sedition Act. In the years that followed, I “lectured” scores of journalism students and wannabe journalists on the boundaries within which they can operate. “Even if someone utters seditious words, we as journalists and our newspapers are equally liable if we publish those remarks,” is the often-repeated statement. They are often reminded to read the case of Public Prosecutor v Melan Abdullah which outlines journalistic responsibilities and those of editors. Also on the “must read” list are cases involving two MPs, the late Fan Yew Teng and the late Mark Koding who were convicted, and former Bar Council vice- president Param Coomaraswamy.
While it is always advocated that freedom of speech and freedom of expression are cornerstones of a democratic society, such freedom must come with responsibility so as not to incite violence or create or encourage public disorder or disturbance. Over the past week, so much has been published in blogs and newspapers that is fanning the fires of hatred in our multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural society.
Politicians who see race and religion in everything through their blinkered eyes are causing unnecessary panic and threatening the peace and quiet which we have been so used to.
All kinds of statements and threats have been made with impunity, with no regard for the laws of the land and common sense. The prime minister’s 1Malaysia and his stand on moderation are being threatened by selfish individuals trying to destroy what has been painstakingly built over the years. One rash act is going to devastate what has been conscientiously carved out by rational and right-thinking leaders – past and present.
Already, there is a growing chorus of realistic and judicious voices from both sides of the political divide calling for restraint and indulgence. They have fallen on deaf ears. The scare-mongering and threats go on unabated. The people at the attorney-general’s office should already be burning the midnight oil to bring the perpetrators to book. However, nothing has been forthcoming.
Let’s not wait anymore. Let’s not wait for the inevitable before action is taken. Prevention, it is said, is better than cure.
The after-effects of such craze and madness are preventable. Those making irresponsible statements should not be treated with velvet gloves. If the law does not provide protection or immunity against seditious words uttered in Parliament, why have a selected few been allowed to say them outside the House and continue to enjoy privilege? The Sedition Act has previously been used in far less serious cases and the careers of many a politician have been cut short by the long arm of the law. Even if he is the “special one” as Jose Mourinho calls himself, there’s no place for people who sow seeds of abhorrence, detestation and hate among the people of our blessed country.
R. Nadeswaran abhors people who hijack the principle of freedom of speech and use it for hate-speech and promoting violence. He is theSun’s UK correspondent based in London and can be reached at: citizen-nades@thesundaily.com

An end to monopolies?

Posted on 27 June 2011 - 09:44am

R. Nadeswaran

THE voice of the man at the entrance to the railway station is loud and clear. Trying not to be drowned out by the noise of commuters entering and leaving, he looks at the word “Malaysia” on the T-shirt and makes an impassioned sales pitch: “One penny a minute to Malaysia.” You ignore him by saying “No, thank you” and stride past.
Sitting on the Underground, the poster across you stares at you and says: “The long distance call just got even longer. Get 200 minutes to call mobiles in Malaysia for £5 (RM24.79).”
The visitor to London may have done his mental calculations and may look at these offers as a bargain. But to regulars, these are just gimmicks because there are cheaper ways to call home from the comfort of your home.
Nine months ago, the home telephone, wi-fi and cable television came as a package from one company, which included free local calls in the evening and weekends.
A month after installation, the company called. “We notice that you are making overseas calls especially to Switzerland and Germany. Can we make you an offer? You pay us £3 (RM14.87) a month and all your calls will be billed at 10p (50 sen) per minute.”
Taken.
“We notice that you make calls during the day and we presume that this is done in the course of your work.”
“Yes”.
“Pay us £1.50 (RM7.44) a month and all your local calls are free.”
Taken.
“You are also calling mobile phone numbers for which we are charging you a minimum of 30p (RM1.49) a minute depending on the operator. If you add another £1.50, all calls to mobile numbers will not be charged.”
Taken.
Why are such offers being made? The answer lies in the word “competition”. When two or more service providers compete for clientele, the eventual benefactor is the consumer. Like millions of households in the United Kingdom, I have the choice of choosing the electricity or gas supplier. There is no monopoly and there is no compulsion to pick anyone.
Besides government regulators, there are ombudsmen which ensure that companies don’t form cartels or gang up to hike charges or take advantage of the market. They need only the slightest hint of price fixing or complaint to get into the act.
In the UK, the Competitions Commission keeps an eye not only on mobile charges but on all goods and services from airfares to water tanks and from advertising to video rentals. Last month, major banks started paying out billions of pounds after it was established that they mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance (PPI).
PPI was sold to millions of borrowers even when they did not need it, did not ask for it or in some cases, were not in a situation to ever be able to claim on it. While some customers found their PPI policies useful, a majority of those with the policies were found to have had them wrongly sold by their banks.
Industry regulators put pressure on the banks to compensate clients who had policies mis-sold to them, but the banks went to court to seek redress. A judicial review confirmed that the responsibility fell to the banks to ensure that payouts were given to wronged consumers.
In addition to the billions of pounds that lending institutions are paying out, they also face the additional costs of hiring staff to process the vast backlog of claims.
However, the commission has not been successful in all attempts to keep the market clean of cartels and price-fixing. Two weeks ago, it closed an investigation on complaints of price-fixing in the bicycle industry because of technicalities.
It notified 28 cycle retailers and wholesalers in March 2009 that it was investigating them for alleged collusion and intent to adjust prices across the industry. However, it was feared that its findings could be challenged on these technicalities.
With the Malaysian Competitions Commission already formed and taking shape, it would be interesting to note how it will investigate and handle complaints on conglomerates which hold a monopoly on some selected goods and services.
Commissioner Datuk Mohd Zain Mohd Dom has gone on record to warn hypermarkets which have been accused of “cornering” the market and driving out the traditional kedai runcit.
In an interview, he said: “Hypermarkets, foreign or local, given their inherent strengths, can dominate a market. Having a dominant position, what they do with that dominance will be within the purview of the Competition Act. If they abuse their dominant position to kill off the competition, they will be taken to task under the Act.”
That may not be the only immediate task. There have been complaints that some manufacturers with big promotional budgets are paying big bucks to supermarkets to have their products in prominent places for high visibility. Small companies do not have that kind of money to spare and are put in a disadvantageous situation. With both supermarkets and big manufacturers in dominant positions, there is help yet for the small fry from the Competitions Commission.
R. Nadeswaran hopes the Malaysian body will ensure the end of monopolistic companies which sometimes hold consumers to ransom. He is theSun’s UK correspondent based in London and is reachable at: citizen-nades@thesundaily.com

Scrutinising public money expenditure

Posted on 28 June 2011 - 08:47pm
Last updated on 29 June 2011 - 08:17am

R. Nadeswaran
Citizen Nades

IN 2006, a Petaling Jaya municipal councillor made a bold declaration: “We will be transparent and even the cost of a string will be accounted for in the council’s budget.” Famous last words indeed! A week later, the council president dropped a bombshell: “No one can scrutinise the detailed accounts.” End of story? Not yet.
When a new set of councillors were appointed in June 2008, they all talked about “accountability and transparency”. Did they practise what they preached? May be a little – 10% – and that’s being generous. Do we know how much was spent on lawatan sambil belajar (if any)? How much was paid for the parties during festive periods? How much did the “film and photography” cost? We certainly hope it would be not RM110,000 as in the 2007 budget!
Having campaigned for transparency in the affairs of local councils all these years, and never having been successful, an opportunity has come along to partake in the democratic process of scrutinising the spending of public money. Last week, advertisements appeared in the local newspapers that the public could examine the books and documents of the North London Waste Authority which handles collection and disposal of waste across seven local councils in London.
The ad says that “any person may inspect the accounts of the Authority ...”, which means anyone can walk into the office during the prescribed time and examine the books. You may be living in another borough and paying your council tax to a different authority, but you can scrutinise the accounts and calculate (on the average) how much it costs to collect and dispose waste for every household.
However, there’s a catch. If I want to ask the auditor questions about the accounts, I must be a registered voter in that borough. Since I can’t vote and don’t qualify on that count, I could still ask questions if I bear a letter from a voter in the area, to appoint me as his or her “representative”, which is not difficult to get. And if I do find something abnormal or illegal, I can object to the accounts and ask the auditors to produce a report in the public interest or even go to court to show that that item of expenditure is contrary to the law.
The whole system operates on the presumption that councils exist to serve the public, and because it is your money that is being used, it is your right to inspect, question and challenge their accounts. It is also a belief that people entrusted with public money will exercise care and prudence as if they were spending their own money. If a ratepayer thinks his council has done something wrong, a complaint can be lodged with the Local Council Ombudsman.
The principle is that if there is fraud or improper use of the council’s money, you can demand an explanation from the council’s auditor and if you are not satisfied, you can refer the matter to the Ombudsman. If you have evidence of fraud, you can contact the police. If you feel that the behaviour and conduct of a councillor or staff has fallen below the standards expected, he can be referred to the Local Government Standards Board for England.
The system allows you to communicate with the auditors and offer information which may be relevant to their responsibilities. You can tell the auditors if you think something is wrong with the accounts or tell them about waste and inefficiency in the way the council runs its services. The auditors do not have to give you a detailed report of any investigation but will usually tell you the general outcome.
In the UK, councils irrespective of their political leanings, take the stand that an anti-fraud culture is the joint duty of all those involved in giving political direction, determining policy and management. They formulate strategies against fraud and corruption whether it is attempted against the council from outside or from within its own workforce.
Councils, councillors and employees at all levels are expected to lead by example in ensuring adherence to legal requirements, contracts and financial procedure rules, codes of conduct and best professional practice.
Swift and firm action is taken against those who defraud the council or who are corrupt.
Can we set the same standards in Malaysia, especially Petaling Jaya, which happens to be one of the largest local councils in Malaysia? It is supposed to have won “quality awards” for consecutive years, but good governance is not exactly a catchphrase for some councillors and a good percentage of the staff. No need for a trip to UK to “study” how these policies are implemented because if you go on the net, the accounts and policies of all the local councils are available at the tap of a button!
R. Nadeswaran gets his chance to examine documents and even make copies to add to his little dossier of collectibles. He is theSun’s UK correspondent based in London. Comments: citizen-nades@thesundaily.com

Sporting events must yield returns

Posted on 20 July 2011 - 04:21am
Last updated on 20 July 2011 - 08:58pm

by R.Nadeswaran
Citizen Nades

ON SUNDAY evening, the people on the Irish island were celebrating. Never mind if they were divided by religion, politics or by the views of Republicans or Loyalists. A son of the Irish soil, Darren Clarke, had won the British Masters and almost immediately suggested that the Claret Jug be filled “with some black stuff from home” instead of the traditional bubbly, which Guinness would have certainly agreed to send freshly brewed from St. James’ Gate in Dublin.
The Irish are great patriots and wherever they go – from the United States to Australia – they hold true to their beliefs, and to a certain extent, some resentment of the Pomps, who many believe colonised them, creating two states – one independent and the other, part of Great Britain. Hence, when Celtic plays Rangers in the Scottish Premier League, you’ll know which side the Irish will take and what not to wear when entering an Irish pub!
Clarke was the third golfer from the North to win a major, with Graeme McDowell winning the US Open last year and Rory McIllroy winning the same last month. As preparations were being made for a grand welcoming party for Clarke, Northern Ireland’s tourism minister Arlene Foster appeared on television making a claim for the state to host a future British Open. “We have three winners from Northern Ireland and our case cannot be better,” she declared.
It brought back memories of March 16, 2007, when the then sports minister Datuk Azalina Othman announced that Malaysia would be hosting the Champions Youth Cup for junior footballers, which very few in the outside world knew about. The government was forking out RM17 million to a relatively unknown company called Gifted Group to bring youth teams from Europe and South America to our part of the world. I was one of four journalists who questioned the minister on the benefits of hosting such a tournament and what our return on investment would be.
“We are doing it as part of Visit Malaysia Year.” When told that if that was the case, publicity must have been launched much earlier to draw tourists, she thundered: “If you don’t like what we are doing, stand for elections.” This is not an effort to open old wounds but to illustrate an instance when there has been no justification in spending our hard-earned money on sports projects that will bring no benefit to the nation or its sportsmen and sportswomen. As predicted, the tournament was a flop financially and by crowd turnout, and our government was left carrying the baby.
Last year, it has been reported, the Sports Ministry spent RM40 million on international tennis events which were sparsely attended. For a start, we don’t even have a player ranked in the top 200, and tennis stars like Anna Kournikova, whose face was used to promote at least one such tournament, is better playing away on the catwalk and fashion shoots than the tennis court or the arms of pop singer Enrique Iglesias. (For good measure, TV poker commentator Vince van Patton described hold cards of Ace and King as “Anna Kournikova”, because “it looks great but never wins”.
We have all been asked to tighten our belts. The same applies to the civil service and ministers under whose authority money is spent. We seem to be aimlessly wanting to “host” international sports tournaments without even spending time looking at budgets, projected P & L figures and the returns on our investments. When they don’t balance out, hurried calls are made to friendly government-linked companies urging them to do “national service”.
Yes, the visits of Chelsea, Arsenal and Manchester United to our shores were a huge success, but how many ordinary Malaysians can part with RM100 for a ticket and RM200 for an original jersey? The whole idea of creating the Sports Ministry and setting up the National Sports Council was to elevate the level of sport in our country. No mandate was given for government agencies to act as sports impresarios or sponsor events. However, exceptions could be made if we produce three world beaters in the mould of McDowell, McIllroy and Clarke, or when we qualify for the football World Cup.
Therefore, the time has come to immediately reject applications for the funding of such sports events. There is no need to waste time and effort on even scrutinising such requests. If private entrepreneurs want to make money, they should do so without seeking public funds. Public funds should be spent prudently so that the people get maximum value for their tax ringgit.
R. Nadeswaran joined Irish friends at the Maguires in Ilford to celebrate Clarke’s victory. He is theSun’s UK correspondent based in London and can be reached at: citizen-nades@thesundaily.com

Make parliamentary committee hearings public

Posted on 25 July 2011 - 04:20am
Last updated on 25 July 2011 - 08:33am

R. Nadeswaran
Citizen Nades

THIS is not yet another phone hacking scandal column. Although the central characters may be the same, the events resonate to Malaysia. On Tuesday, there wasn’t a single TV screen or PC monitor that was not tuned to BBC or Sky. Both channels provided live coverage of the hearings of the Select Committee of Parliament which was hearing evidence from three key players – News International chairman, Rubert Murdoch, his heir apparent and son James, and former CEO Rebekah Brooks. Even those driving followed the proceedings live on radio.
The shaving foam incident was a welcome relief after the hours of questions and answers, but all three were grilled in front of TV cameras which brought the proceedings live to people’s homes and offices.
Depending on where your loyalties or preferences lie, their performances could be graded as “appalling” or “excellent”. But to the independent-minded, the hearings gave them a chance to make a valued judgment.
To get one of the 100-odd seats in the hearing room, one had to queue and it was on a first come, first served basis. Even journalists who were reporting from the sidelines had to take this route.
Opening the hearings to the public and having them telecast live is the basic step in transparency and which is said to be the Westminster system of governance, which we adopted when we got our independence 54 years ago. So while Malaysian journalists are allowed to cover proceedings in Parliament and there is live TV coverage for at least an hour in the mornings, why are Select Committee meetings and hearings by the Public Accounts Committee held in camera with no one other than MPs and the witnesses having access?
If the hearings are supposed to be secretive, private or confidential, surely no one can reveal details of what took place. But in at least the case of PAC hearings, the chairman and sometimes even members hold press conferences giving some details of what transpired.
Readers may remember that former Port Klang Authority general manager O. C. Phang famously told the committee she “does not know what a cash flow projection means”, leading to the conclusion that poor management failed the Port Klang Free Zone. How did the media know about that? Well, it was not a little bird or an anonymous source but members of the PAC who were willing to go on record.
Earlier, the PAC also investigated the cracks on houses along the highway to Putrajaya and other supposed transgressions of accepted standards of practice. They even took reporters and photographs on their inspection rounds but did not allow reporters in when the hearing proper commenced.
So if this is the case, why the need to bar the public from such hearings? Because the PAC subsequently submits its report which is tabled in Parliament, there is no reason for any form of secrecy, unless of course it involves sensitive information which may affect the security of the nation.
So coming back to the hearings in the UK, the public was educated on the process of democracy vis-a-vis transparency. Besides, it allowed the citizen to assess the kind of people they had elected as MPs and evaluate their performance. More importantly, the people could make a valued, educated and well-informed decision on whether News International and the Murdochs knew about the phone hacking, and whether they supported and financed the operations. The jury is still out.
When the committee submits its report to Parliament based on the evidence that was presented, it would enable MPs to debate it and the people to make their verdicts.
Closed-door hearings always give the impression that “they have something to hide” and create suspicion in the minds of people. Openness will not only clear the misgivings of doubting Thomases, but augurs well for a better informed society, which in turn brings about confidence in the system of governance.
Our country is a democracy founded on the Westminster system. If we have adopted their parliamentary system, having Question Time, debates and even providing protection through parliamentary privilege, why are we reluctant to adopt other limbs of the same system? Our leaders have often talked about transparency and accountability, and shouldn’t that start with Parliament and its committees?
R. Nadeswaran says the best thing about being open is that you have nothing to fear when you have done nothing wrong. He is theSun’s UK correspondent based in London and can be reached at: citizen-nades@thesundaily.com

The world is watching

Posted on 7 August 2011 - 07:43pm
Last updated on 7 August 2011 - 08:06pm

R. Nadeswaran

READERS will remember that in the past, this columnist had refused to touch on race, religion and politics. Today, an intrepid step is being taken to address an issue which has tarnished the name of the country. The actions of a few have embarrassed all Malaysians, especially our leaders who exemplify moderation, tolerance and restraint. The many words of our founding fathers and their successors appear to have fallen on deaf ears. Instead, selfish individuals are defying the government in their zest to impose their own beliefs and values without any consideration whatsoever.
In May, I was sitting in the audience and applauded after the prime minister gave a resounding talk on Islam and moderation at Oxford. Quoting the Torah, the Bible and the Quran, he explained Malaysia's success in embracing multi-cultures and multi-religions. Two weeks later, watching the royal wedding on television at a street party, I gladly pointed out to English friends the presence of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Raja Permaisuri at Westminster Abbey.
My English friends asked me about religious restrictions and my reply was: "As far as I know, Islam does not restrict its followers from entering a church. I have met many Muslim colleagues and friends who attend church weddings." The king of Malaysia, they were told, is head of Islam in Malaysia like the queen of England is the head of religion in England. Last month, the prime minister was granted an audience with the pope with a view to establish diplomatic relations with the Vatican, endorsing our country's temperance on religion.
These actions reinforced the principle that although Islam is the official religion, there's room for other faiths to co-exist without any fear or harassment. It took just a few hours last Wednesday to demolish these efforts of promoting a "moderate Malaysia" to the world. The raid at the community hall of the Methodist Church in Petaling Jaya and its repercussions reverberated around the world, painting Malaysia and the religion as intolerant establishments.
One publication summed up the action as "religious police harassed Christians attending a dinner". Sitting away from Malaysia, one cannot make a valid judgment and verify such claims, but reading online versions from Malaysia and around the world, one cannot deny that, yet again, we have shot ourselves in the foot.
A report filed by the Associated Press which has thousands of subscribers said: "Malaysian Christian officials accused Islamic authorities on Thursday of unlawfully entering a church and harassing guests at a community dinner. The incident reignited criticism that authorities in the Muslim-majority country fail to respect the rights of Christian, Buddhist and Hindu minorities. Government officials have repeatedly denied being unfair to minorities, despite complaints about a wide range of issues including court disputes involving religious conversions and restrictions against Malay-language Bibles."
This and others by news agencies have put not only Malaysia in bad light, but Islam itself. To make matters worse, British newspapers reported on Friday that a Westminster court had found four Muslims guilty of putting up posters declaring "Christmas to be evil". The posters claimed Christmas was "responsible for rape, teenage pregnancies, abortion, promiscuity and paedophilia." Reading both reports together could very well present an entirely different picture.
The four may have acted as individuals and may not have belonged to any religious organisation or were backed by any group but their actions have resulted in the religion being perceived as intolerant. Similarly, the raid in Malaysia may have been carried out by religious officers, but when it makes the news, it is perceived and reported as "Malaysian religious police", although we do not have a separate arm of the Royal Malaysian Police enforcing religious diktat.
When government servants misuse or abuse their powers, it is reflected on the state and the leadership. People who read the reports tend to attach labels to both the country and the religion.
The government and its leaders are spending time, effort and money in trying to promote Malaysia both as a holiday destination and for investment opportunities. Besides, we are wooing talent from abroad. What messages are we conveying to them with such actions? We have to take immediate steps to change the perception of the outside world by re-emphasising that religious acceptance – not mere tolerance – is the hallmark of our multi-religious, multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society. That means that the actions of zealots and fanatics must be curtailed and those who choose to misuse and abuse their power must be dealt with severely.
To the legal mind, it may be just trespass because religious officers have no power of search and entry. It is much more than that. If a group that allegedly distributed pamphlets and was in possession of T-shirts can be charged with subversion, than what these officers have done is much more serious. Let us be reminded that the world is watching and if nothing is done, let us not blame anyone but ourselves for being labelled in the same lines as Iran or Zimbabwe. The western media, the opposition or "anti-national" elements should not be the scapegoats for the country being pigeon-holed and written off as intolerant and insensitive.
R. Nadeswaran is compelled to make a stand as the actions of a few are hurting all Malaysians. He is theSun's UK correspondent based in London and can be contacted at: citizen-nades@thesundaily.com

No action taken on 32 recommendations

Thirty-two recommendations made under the 2008 and 2009 Auditor-General’s Report have yet to be acted upon and those concerned have been told to take action. As of April, ministries, departments, government-linked companies had acted on 172 (98.9%) recommendations of the 174 made in 2008 and 220 (88%) of the 250 made in 2009.
The AG’s report for 2008, among others, pointed out that no action had been taken to implement plans for the Langkawi International Shooting Range Malaysia complex.
The Home Ministry was informed that discussions had been held with the Youth and Sports Ministry and the National Sports Council to turn the complex into a tourist attraction or be handed over to the ministry but no decision had been made.
The ministry was supposed to turn the complex into the Transnational Organised Crime Academy (Matoc) but policy decisions were still at the discussion stage.
The Tanjong City Marina in Penang had incurred losses of between RM690,000 and RM990,000 from 2006 till 2009 because it was seldom used.
Only 39 ships used the berthing bay each month although it had the capacity to accommodate 140 vessels.
The AG’s report in 2008 had recommended that the Tanjong City Marina damages be repaired immediately while efforts be made to ensure that the marina was fully utilised.
Following the report, the Penang Port Sdn Bhd (PPSB) board of directors approved RM8.5mil to upgrade the wave attenuator corner system and pontoon but no follow-up action had been taken.