Most Read
Most Commented
Read more like this

The question above is one that I think many would ask if they wouldn’t be attacked by its supporters for asking. As for myself, I’ll just ask anyway. Why form another non-government organisation (NGO) targeting unity in the form of Negara-Ku?

The reason I’m asking this is that we already have so many NGOs as it is and with the same faces attached all the time. These NGOs have already formed a coalition to address national unity.

As admitted by Pertubuhan Ikram Malaysia vice-president Zaid Kamaruddin, these NGOs within Negara-Ku have already worked together under the already established Gabungan Bertindak Malaysia (GBM) in 2011 to champion a better Malaysia.

GBM is made up of 24 civil society establishments, whereas Negara-Ku formed recently has 68.

Here’s a thought; why couldn’t everyone just group together under GBM and then discuss how to push forward the agenda of national unity through the federal constitution, the Malaysia Agreement and the Rukunegara through this organisation instead of establishing a newer one?

And having read the Negara-Ku charter which is not undersigned by the 68 organisations just yet, this NGO seems to start off its so-called “unity” run on the basis that the government and all related parties have failed. There's a nice start to unity talks, isn’t it?

Forgive me for saying this, but if the movement aspires to “resist all forms of intolerance, bigotry, hatred, extremism and violence”, then why is Negaraku through its charter being intolerant, bigoted and clearly extremist against the state, political parties and their affiliates?

Certainly to “heal the nation” and “restore hope” would also include the supporters of said state, political parties and their affiliates, would it not?

Or are Negara-Ku’s 68 member organisations not even considering to reach out to these parties, instead choosing to remain within themselves?

If so, this does nothing to heal our divided nation.

It does nothing other than to widen the rift between the people and those who support the state, political parties and its affiliates.

While its goals are pure, there is also another question which I ask; where is the new blood in these 68 member organisations?

This was a question I posed even to Bersih beforehand. Where are the new leaders,the next generation, the fresh faces?

Because from my standpoint, it clearly looks like the ones leading - being Ambiga Sreenevasan and A Samad Said (Pak Samad) - are just forming a Bersih Veteran’s Club.

And Ikram, already having its GBM, is now asking for a separate platform to work on with nobody asking the obvious question; does the formation of Negara-Ku mean GBM failed?

I do hope the heads of Negara-Ku can answer all these questions since from all I’m reading, it truly sounds like nothing other than another reason for 68 NGOs to meet and talk shop with no results whatsoever, just the same old, same old agenda.

ADS