Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Hudud ‘thorn’ will bleed Pakatan
Even the experts don’t see eye to eye
Pakatan must come clean on hudud
Why hudud law is everybody’s business
In with the unknown
Ahmad Sarbaini's widow fights back

Posted: 25 Sep 2011 05:35 PM PDT

If unresolved, a political scientist warns, the opposition alliance may end up where it was prior to the 2004 general election, which saw BN winning its biggest mandate.

University Sains Malaysia (USM) political scientist Dr Sivamurugan Pandian said the alliance should speak with one voice to convince the public that they are on the same page. "If Pakatan does not do so, they are back to square one as it shows they are unable to reign in their idological differences and that the pact is nothing but a marriage of convenience," he added.

Hawkeye, Free Malaysia Today

Pakatan Rakyat risks slumping back to square one if the alliance cannot conclusively tackle the proposed hudud legislation row.

University Sains Malaysia (USM) political scientist Dr Sivamurugan Pandian said the alliance should speak with one voice to convince the public that they are on the same page.

"If Pakatan does not do so, they are back to square one as it shows they are unable to reign in their idological differences and that the pact is nothing but a marriage of convenience," he added.

They may end up in the pre-2004 position rather than in the elevated post-2008 strength where they won an unprecedent level of support to deny Barisan Nasional the customary two-thirds majority.

On one hand, the people have PAS, which is fundamentally sound about the need to adopt the hudud legislation as a prelude to the formation of an Islamic state governance in the country.

On the other is DAP, a party steep in socialist principles, which champions secularism and upholding of the Federal Constitution.

In the middle is PKR, whose political ideology is muted and mixed as the party is just a coming-together of all sorts consisting of disgrunted members from BN and non-governmental organisations with no clear political struggle outlined.

In this context, Sivamurugan said there is a political impact from the hudud issue regardless of how Pakatan may want to interpret it.

The hudud issue flared up again when Mentri Besar Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat spoke about adopting it and asked DAP to accept the law.

Both Pakatan and BN have their loyal supporters entrenched in the present two-party system but their future would be determined by the fence-sitters.

The fence-sitters now have a better prespective of things having experienced a taste of Pakatan's governance in Kedah, Penang and Selangor besides Kelantan while everybody knows BN, Sivamurugan said.

They have also observed how Pakatan conducts itself as an alliance and as individual political entities, he added.

He said the proposed hudud legislation is a thorn in the side of Pakatan but in its latest debate, the surprising outcome was Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim's expression of support for the law.

This alienates non-Muslim support for PKR, whom Anwar spearheads and perhaps can mean that the opposition leader is trying to reach out more to the Malay ground ahead of the next general election, he said.

Seats allocation issue

The hudud debate surfaced just when Pakatan is sitting down to mete out their seats allocation ahead of the general election.

Political observer Jason Wong, who works with a Singapore-based think tank, believes that both DAP and PAS are trying to muscle out PKR from certain seats since the latter is reeling from a spate of defections.

The sex allegations involving Anwar has also cast a cloud over the alliance's ability to compete with BN in all states.

Anwar may need to placate PAS by agreeing to hudud while supporting DAP's quest to win over more Malay support by allowing them to field Malay candidates, particularly in semi-urbanised seats, where the Malay electorate is greater, Wong speculated.

He claimed that the problem with Pakatan is the lack of synergy between what the national leaders are preaching and what the grassroots activists are clamouring for.

"When we converse to both levels, we wonder who is the honest one here. The national or the grassroots leaders?" he said.

READ MORE HERE

Even the experts don’t see eye to eye

Posted: 24 Sep 2011 06:56 PM PDT

"The communists, along with the left wing nationalism movement – political parties like the Kesatuan Melayu Muda (KMM), Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (Malaya Nationalist Party), Angkatan Pemuda Insaf (API), Angkatan Wanita Sedar (AWAS), and Pusat Tenaga Rakyat (PUTERA) – all fought for independence. The only difference was that they had a different ideology and different approach."

The Star Editorial

DID the armed struggle, specifically that of the Communist Party of Malaya, contribute to the country's fight for independence?"

This has been the question plaguing historians and non-historians alike recently.

Prof Emeritus Tan Sri Dr Khoo Kay Kim is adamant that the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) did not fight for our country's independence.

"The first Communist organisation was established in Malaysia two years before the CPM was established. It was called the provisional division of the communist party of China. They were fighting to support the communist party of China," he says.

Former Perak police chief Tan Sri Yuen Yuet Leng agrees, pointing out that the communists' intention was only to destroy the country's monarchy at that time.

"If the communists wanted a stable country then, I would not have been worried even if there were 10 Chin Pengs (head of the defunct communist party who is now living in exile in Southern Thailand)," he has been quoted as saying.

But Dr Ranjit Singh Malhi, another historian, strongly believes that the CPM played an important role in the country's struggle for independence and should be recognised.

"The Alliance Party worked with the British and won us our independence. The Leftists were more confrontational."

Citing his research to back his views, he says, "We cannot deny the fact that the communists too fought for independence. In that sense, they can also be called nationalists. Nationalists are people who love the country and defend it or fight for its freedom.

"Nationalism is freeing the country from colonial powers. The only difference is that the CPM wanted to create a communist republic."

He highlights that this was even acknowledged by our first Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, in his writings.

"Tunku said the communists 'too fought for independence'. He also acknowledged that the communist insurrection sped up the independence of Malaya. As Tunku wrote about the Baling Peace Talks, "Baling led straight to Merdeka. This is a less-known fact."

But he stops short of calling them heroes.

"They did not reflect the popular will of the people, even among the Chinese, except maybe the poor and those in the rural areas.

"They were not well received and accepted by the majority, so how can you consider them as heroes? To be a hero, you need to be popular with the people," opines Dr Ranjit, who is also a committee member of the Campaign for a Truly Malaysia History.

Ultimately, he adds: "One cannot accuse Onn Jaafar and Tunku Abdul Rahman of being British collaborators or stooges; they had their own way and belief.

"They were definitely nationalists and Tunku is the Bapa Kemerdekaan Malaysia. This is one historical fact that cannot be disputed.

"His efforts got us independence and later when we had some trouble in the country, he managed to hold the nation together.

"This we cannot dispute and anyone who challenges this is wrong. That is twisting historical facts."

Most importantly, he notes, we cannot belittle the role of the police in fighting for our homeland.

"They ought to be respected for their bravery and loyalty. To me, they were heroes. Even though they were technically working for the British then, they were protecting their own kampung and their own community."

Pakatan must come clean on hudud

Posted: 23 Sep 2011 08:09 AM PDT

Barisan Nasional leaders want Pakatan Rakyat to state its stand clearly over the implementation of hudud laws in the country.

"(Opposition Leader) Anwar (Ibrahim) says he supports (hudud laws), but would he proceed further and make this the policy of Pakatan when it comes to power? That's the real acid test," Ong said, adding that he was speaking in his personal capacity and not on behalf of MCA.

G Vinod and Teoh El Sen, Free Malaysia Today

A Barisan Nasional minister today mocked Pakatan Rakyat over the proposed implementation of hudud laws, while other BN leaders urged the opposition to make its stand clear.

Minister in the Prime Miniter's Department Nazri Abdul Aziz said PAS should just go ahead and implement hudud laws in Kelantan if it wanted to.

"If PAS wants to do it, if it claims it can implement hudud, then what's stopping the party (from doing it)? Just do it," he told FMT.

"If the Quran is the constitution of PAS, then why do you need permission from mere mortals like us?" Nazri asked.

He said for the BN coalition, hudud was never an issue, adding that it was PAS which has been making the most noise about it.

"As far as I'm concerned, they (PAS leaders) are all liars; what they do is they use religion to instil fear into conservative Muslims just to get worldly benefits," Nazri said.

He, however, declined to comment on Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin's comments that hudud law was an intergral part of Islam.

Yesterday, Muhyiddin also said the country was not ready for hudud law.

Joining the fray today, MCA president Dr Chua Soi Lek said that his party would withdraw from BN if its partner Umno considered implementing hudud law, while former president Ong Tee Keat said he was also against it.

Ong said the whole debate over hudud was mere "political posturing and rhetoric just to woo voters".

Real acid test

"Maybe certain quarters may have in mind to really implement it, but when we ask them if that is Pakatan's stance, there's no answer from them," said Ong who is the Pandan MP.

Ong said he would "never agree to or accept such a law" being enforced, adding that it was impossible for a state to bypass federal laws.

"The proponents argue that only Muslims who break the law have reason to fear but, in my opinion, this contravenes the Federal Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land," he said.

Ong said that the Federal Constitution was "quite secular" in nature, although this fact is not popular to the Muslims.

"This has been accepted by all parties since independence. But due to political expediency, calls for hudud laws arose," Ong said, adding that PAS in the 1970s never asked for it but only raised the issue in the 1980s.

MIC has also called on Pakatan to make its stand clear on the implementation of hudud law.

"It is a fundamental issue and people need to know what they are voting for in the next general election," MIC secretary-general S Murugesan said.

"Anwar's statement has exposed a deep chasm in the fundamentals of Pakatan… For far too long, Pakatan leaders have glossed over and side-stepped the issue.

"No longer. They better come clean and declare to their own members and to the public where they stand. Anwar can no longer eat his cake and have it too," Murugesan said.

'Don't be desperate politicians'

A Gerakan Youth leader also made a similar call to Pakatan to come clean on the hudud issue.

"Should Anwar become the prime minister in future… will he implement hudud law for the whole of Malaysia?" asked Kedah Youth chief Tan Keng Liang.

Tan said people in Kedah also wanted to know whether the state would be next if Kelantan went ahead with enforcing hudud law.

Tan, who has long been against hudud law, said existing laws are already in place and hudud law is not needed.

"If there is a law that needs to be refined, then we refine it. We don't make a total change just because you felt like it and your religion asks you to do it," Tan said.

He urged the opposition not to be "desperate politicians" trying to make drastic changes just to suit their agenda – which was to get more supporters based on religious sentiments.

He added that Anwar was now supporting hudud as PKR is losing Malay supporters.

"I fully understand that Muslims are bound by their religion, but they must understand that Malaysia is a moderate country. Since independence, we already have a system… why do Anwar and PAS want to change it?"

Tan also urged PAS to state clearly what is the framework of the hudud laws. "You say non-Muslims won't be affected. Can you tell us if, for example, a non-Muslim raped a Muslim, which law applies?"

READ MORE HERE

Why hudud law is everybody’s business

Posted: 22 Sep 2011 09:04 PM PDT

Every citizen of a modern state is entitled to voice a view whether or not that state should have the right to inflict dire physical punishment on any of its citizens, or even to enact hypothetically on a provisional basis laws of that kind whose effects are, to put the matter without euphemism, brutalising — either in fact, by their positive enforcement, or prospectively, by virtue of their intimidating inscription within formally codified law.

Clive Kessler, The Malaysian Insider

Once again the familiar argument has surfaced, or been desperately invoked, this time in the latest stand-off between the leading Pakatan Rakyat allies Karpal Singh and Anwar Ibrahim.

Hudud law, if implemented, will apply only to Muslims, Anwar Ibrahim again insists, so the question is one that concerns only Muslims, not Malaysian citizens of other faiths — or no conventional doctrinal allegiance at all. So non-Muslims have nothing to fear, no legitimate interest in the matter, and no right to express any opinion. The matter is for Muslims alone.

This is not the first time that we have heard this argument. It is standard debating "stock-in-trade", not only from Anwar Ibrahim and the syariah-promoting elements in Parti Keadilan Rakyat but equally from the designated spokesmen of PAS and Umno as well as from the various associations of ulama and officially constituted religious authorities, state and federal.

Not just familiar, it is also, at best, inadequate and, more often than not, misleading. It is wrong for two basic reasons — reasons far more basic than any specific legal technicalities such as the issues raised over the interpretation of the 1988 court decision cited by Karpal Singh, or any similar individual legal judgment.

The first reason is this. Whether they are actually implemented and enforced or simply stand as symbolic signposts and "ambit claims" on the statute books, the formal authoritative assertion of the hudud laws — including such punishments as amputation and stoning and even death for apostasy — fundamentally changes the relation of the individual to the state and its legal order.

It substantially alters the balance between the state and the individual in the state's favour. It thereby transforms the entire character of the state, arguably coarsening its laws and their impact upon public culture and social life.

When the state or any of its instrumentalities is suddenly empowered to hold, and potentially exercise, that awesome force — which it previously could not exert — over any of its citizens, or any section of them, the nature of citizenship itself is diminished and its meaning is reduced, not just for those directly "targeted" but for all citizens.

A state that declares itself ready to use such fearful measures, or even prepares to arm itself with them, is a state that announces its own capacity, both institutional and moral or psychological, for savage enforcement and retribution. It is not a state that any ethically enlightened, socially emancipated or truly thoughtful citizen who had lived in a state without such fear-inspiring powers would freely choose to call home. A free citizen would refuse to exchange what they had previously enjoyed for this debased and degraded citizenship under this kind of regressive and repressive regime.

Once the syariah law and its hudud punishments are authoritatively instituted, this degrading of the character of free citizenship is a general effect. It is one whose immediate human implications must soon affect all citizens, regardless of religion and social background, even if it is technically mandated only upon one section of the citizenry — in the Malaysian case the numerically preponderant and politically dominant section of the population.

This basic underlying change in the nature of the state, and in the character and extent of its power over its citizens, will inevitably transform the tenor of social life in general. So it will affect all the state's citizens, not only those who are Muslims. Because it must affect the entire citizenry, all the state's citizens without exception are entitled to have, and express, a view on the subject of hudud law implementation.

Even if still unenforced, their presence on the statute books cannot but have a clear, immediate and chilling effect upon all citizens by reshaping, in fact diminishing, the very meaning of citizenship itself. Even if it is only hypothetical or symbolic in intent, an assertion of the state's right to mutilate and maim any citizen, even the least worthy and most criminally debased of them, can only demean everyone. It demeans, too, the citizenship that they share and the law under which they live and through which their citizenship is created and sustained.

The introduction, even the mere hinted suggestion, of any proposal for the official infliction of pain on people's bodies and souls — for outright crimes against their fellow human beings, or even for the exercise of independent intellectual and spiritual conscience — must markedly shift society away from the gentle end, and decidedly towards the crude and brutalizing end, of the ethical scale. That seems indisputable.

Any such legally mandated assault upon the citizen — any citizen or subject of the state — with its mutilation of bodies, maiming of souls, shaming and extreme humiliation of persons and its violation of personal conscience and human dignity will discredit the state, its laws, and those who uphold them. This is not a direction that a modern progressive state can take or its citizens, if they are thoughtful, condone. Those who endorse such measures must have a different agenda.

Every citizen of a modern state has the right to say that the national political community of which they are a member should not be in the business of chopping off hands and feet or even talking about, or hypothetically considering, the introduction of such measures — nor in the business of criminalising beliefs, including those of personal and spiritual principle, that are held in good conscience.

Regardless of their religion or faith affiliation, a citizen is entitled to say to the ruling authority, "You cannot maim and painfully shame my fellow citizens — some of my fellow citizens, any of them — well, not in my name you don't! Because if you do, you not only enlist me as one of the perpetrators of this dire, extreme and callous act, you also make me one of its objects and victims. As both implicated joint author and as implied target of this or any such action, I say no!"

Any contention that a citizen or any group of them should remain silent, and may be told to do so, because they have no legitimate say in such matters is unsustainable. It is a claim that fundamentally misunderstands the nature and meaning of modern citizenship as morally autonomous membership in the national political community.

Any citizen of a modern state, regardless of religion, is entitled to hold, voice and promote the view that the national political community of which they have long been a member — and long regarded in Malaysia, ever since its inception, as humane in its aspirations and progressive in its direction of development — should not suddenly assume, or (perhaps rhetorically to embarrass its political adversaries), even flirt with the previously unimagined power and right to cut off hands and feet or to criminalize individual beliefs held in good conscience.

Any such citizen would be entitled to take the view that such a dire innovation, when introduced or even officially considered — or merely intimated via some tactical political gesture — must unilaterally abrogate the fundamental contract that holds between a modern state and its citizens as its political stakeholders and moral shareholders.

Such a citizen has the right to the view that the state of which they are a member should not have, or suddenly grasp towards, any such recourse since — should it choose, especially as in Malaysia, to do so against its own history — the state and all its members stand to be demeaned by that action.

What the state does, it does in the name of its citizens — all its citizens — in general. All are implicated in its actions, and everybody is entitled, indeed obligated, to concern themselves with the moral meaning of actions for which they are in any measure responsible.

Every citizen is accordingly entitled to argue openly whether the state in which they hold citizenship should be permitted to impose such punishments on any of its citizens — and, as a citizen, to hold in good conscience that all stand to be demeaned if any one of them is so treated.

Every citizen has a right to hold and express a view whether he/she wishes his or her state to be such a state, a state that claims the right of recourse to such dire and extreme methods in the treatment of any of its citizens. Dire and extreme — let there be no mistake — these measures undeniably are since they involve the intimidatory "criminalisation" of behaviour and also thinking, on issues of legitimate personal moral and spiritual conscience.

They humiliate and punish in demeaning and savage ways that entail both terrible physical cruelty and extreme psychological degradation, the fearful violation and stigmatizing, at once and alike, of both bodies and souls.

Such legal provisions, even if they stand only "in reserve", are statements about the kind of regime that the state is prepared, or earnestly aspires, to be and the kinds of measures to which it is prepared to have recourse.

Every citizen is, by definition, a stakeholder in the state, and all of them — not just one specially designated segment of the citizenry — are entitled to hold, voice and also promote politically a view whether the state of which they are all "part-owners-in-trust" should evolve towards or away from such a coarsening brutalisation of tone and character.

READ MORE HERE

In with the unknown

Posted: 22 Sep 2011 12:33 PM PDT

By The Economist

THE more enthusiastic are calling it a "hibiscus revolution", in honour of both Malaysia's national flower and the Arab awakening. Suddenly, it seems, one of Asia's most politically conservative countries is being convulsed by change and reform. But unlike in the Middle East, it is the government itself that wants to appear to be leading the way.

After announcing a slew of economic reforms last year with the aim of modernising the economy, the prime minister, Najib Razak, has turned his attention to Malaysia's archaic laws governing civil rights. In August he promised to reform the system of press censorship. He also set up a parliamentary committee to review the electoral system. By Malaysia's standards, this is pretty wild stuff. But on September 15th Mr Najib trumped it all by promising to repeal many of the country's security laws, including the notoriously draconian Internal Security Act, the ISA. He also promised to relax the media laws and liberalise laws on freedom of assembly. Taken together, the government describes these changes as "the biggest shake-up of the Malaysian system since independence from Britain in 1957".

The repeal of the ISA has been widely welcomed. The law was introduced in 1960 to help combat an insurgency by communist rebels, a period known as the "emergency". The ISA's sweeping powers permitted the police to detain suspects indefinitely. But long after the threat from the communists had disappeared, the law was being used by control-minded governments for a very different purpose: to jail opposition politicians, union activists, students and journalists—anyone whom they wanted out of the way. Neighbouring Singapore, which was briefly part of Malaysia in the 1960s, still has its own ISA. So news of the Malaysian repeal has provoked a growing debate among Singaporeans about whether it is time to do the same in the island-state.

Other Malaysian laws on the way out include the Banishment Act of 1959, which allows non-citizens to be expelled, and the Emergency Ordinance, introduced in 1969 after race riots. Like the ISA, it allows people to be detained without charge. Elsewhere, the government says newspapers will now need to apply only once for a permit to publish, rather than every year. Supposedly, that reduces the scope for interference in the media.

Malaysia's various opposition leaders have welcomed the reforms. Yet like many ordinary folk they remain sceptical about whether the repeals, reviews and reforms of the past weeks really amount to the "shake-up" that Mr Najib claims. The prime minister has earned something of a reputation for grand gestures and promises with little follow-through. The same may happen this time.

For at the same time as repealing the ISA and other laws, he has promised to replace them with two new laws. These will also allow the police to "detain suspects for preventive reasons", only with more "judicial oversight" and "limits" on police power. What exactly those limits will be has yet to be explained. Opposition politicians say that the repeal of the ISA may yet turn out to be more symbolic than real if the new laws are almost as harsh as the old ones.

Mr Najib has an election to win within the next year. If nothing else the reforms are highly political, carefully calibrated to appeal to the vital middle ground of Malaysian politics. The repeal of old laws should endear him to younger and more liberal voters; the promise to introduce strict new laws should satisfy hardliners within his own ruling United Malays National Organisation, or UMNO.

Mr Najib's supporters hope that solidly positioning their man as a progressive reformer, a sort of Malaysian Tony Blair, will also revitalise the prime minister's flagging political fortunes. His poll ratings dropped alarmingly over the summer, following heavy criticism at home and abroad of the government's heavy-handed response to a rally in Kuala Lumpur making calls for electoral reform. Dropping the ISA might well restore his reputation after that public-relations disaster. Yet the thousands of Malaysians who took to the capital's streets on July 9th, only to be met with tear gas and water cannon, will be watching carefully to see the terms of the new legislation before they embrace Mr Najib as one of their own.

Ahmad Sarbaini's widow fights back

Posted: 22 Sep 2011 01:00 AM PDT

How did Ahmad Sarbaini Mohamed die? According to the official story, he died while trying to escape through a third floor pantry window. But Ahmad Sarbaini went to the MACC office on his own accord, so the official story goes. He was not under arrest or was being interrogated, so the official story goes. So why does he need to escape then? He can just walk out of there if he wants to. Next week, the Coroner is going to deliver the verdict on how Ahmad Sarbaini died. But his widow is not about to accept the official story of how her husband died. She is fighting back, as the documents below show.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Isnin, 26 September 2011

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan