Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #83
- DAP 2.0 in bind over hudud
- Hudud rears its ugly again
- Revise perspectives, not facts
- Nik Aziz's wily hudud agenda
- Using hudud card to rally support
- Mositun spoke too soon about PBS being vindicated
- Testing the limits of reform
| Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #83 Posted: 25 Sep 2011 11:08 PM PDT
That is why the West is so advanced. People there obey the law even when no one is watching! M. Bakri Musa
No person is perfect enough to be entrusted with the liberty and dignity of others. I was visiting Malaysia after being away for many years. It was right after the race riot of 1969. The streets were still deserted, and I was driving with my father when we came upon a stop sign at an intersection. I duly stopped, looked around, and finding no oncoming traffic, proceeded. My father asked why I stopped, and I responded that there was a stop sign. Startled by the unexpected question, I looked back to find him in a pensive mood, his face tilted, and his eyes looking far into the distance. After a long pause, he matter-of-factly murmured, "That is why the West is so advanced. People there obey the law even when no one is watching!" While I was studying abroad, my father always encouraged me to venture beyond the campus and be involved in and observant of the community at large. Canada, he wisely observed, must be very advanced to be able to offer scholarships to foreigners, and he advised me to use the opportunity to learn everything about the country, and not just come home with a degree. Thus my summers were spent working at such places as a dairy farm and a summer resort, working and interacting with ordinary Canadians. I would write home frequently about my observations. I described how efficient the modern dairy farms were, and of cows with humongous udders pouring out literally gallons of milk daily. Once I related how the farmer had unhesitatingly discarded a bucket of fresh milk, as he did not know whether it had been contaminated. That potentially spoilt milk, he noted, would be mixed with others, and thousands of customers would be sick. Besides, the reputation of his outfit could not be compromised or ruined for the sake of a few dollars worth of milk. On another occasion, after a bus trip, I wrote of my wonderment at Canadian bus drivers; how professional and proud they were about their jobs. Indeed they were dressed like pilots, with their crisp light blue long-sleeved shirts neatly tucked inside their dark blue pants, complete with a bow tie and a captain's cap. That bus driver had taken us through the neighborhood where he lived and proudly showed us, the tourists, his home. It was a neat, modest track bungalow in a clean pleasant suburb. I could not help but compare him with his Malaysian counterparts who for the most part had their shirts flying loosely untucked, with untied shoes or slippers, and generally looking disheveled. Through such regular commentaries my father knew firsthand about life in Canada. He had the right impression that the West was indeed advanced and wondered why or how it got that way while countries like Malaysia were still struggling. My father was on to something profound when he observed that obeying the law when no one is watching is a key ingredient to the West's success. To many observers, a respect for the rule of law is a prerequisite for progress. A modern society is ruled by law, and not by men. Progress cannot take place when there is callous disregard for the law. This respect for the law must be shown not only by ordinary citizens but also more importantly, the leaders. For when leaders abuse their privileges and flout the law, then there is little hope for the country. This abuse can come in many forms, from outright disregard of the law to more subtle forms as in selective prosecution and uneven applications of the law. When leaders and the elite do not respect the law, it sends a clear message to the masses to do likewise. Similarly all laws must be respected, even the seemingly minor ones. The contemporary American political scientist James Q. Wilson first made the astute observation that when we ignore violations of minor laws, this would later encourage the breach of more serious ones. Law enforcement agencies are now familiar with the "broken window syndrome," that is, when we ignore minor vandalisms like broken windows, we encourage others to commit even greater crimes, until the whole building is completely wrecked or burnt down by arson. New York police successfully reduced the rate of major crimes by first cracking down on such seemingly innocuous ones as loitering, jay walking, and littering. When ordinary citizens see that such minor laws are being strictly enforced, they rightly assume that other more serious infractions would also be vigorously pursued. Going back to my father, I should have given him an update on my driving habits now that I have lived in California for a while. Californians are among the worst drivers. They consider a stop sign only a suggestion; and a yellow traffic light a signal to step on the gas! Apart from respect for the law, another feature of the West is the premium it places on individual and personal liberty. Americans do not appreciate this freedom as it is taken for granted. They are sensitized only when that freedom is threatened or breached. Notice the current uproar over the president's proposal to detain potential terrorists without due process in response to the 9/11 tragedies. Americans become very much aware of their cherished freedom when they are abroad. Once on a flight to Malaysia I came upon an article in a regional publication that was supportive of Malaysia but contained some mild but valid criticisms of the leadership. I related that article to my Malaysian friend, and he too was interested to read it. I rushed to the nearest bookstore to get a copy of the magazine. (Having been away from Malaysia for a long time I have not developed the habit of swiping the airline's copy!) Imagine my horror when I could not find the article; the pages had been neatly excised! Some bureaucrats in the censors' office had the audacity to decide what I can and cannot read. How insulting! I felt violated. This blatant disregard for the rights and dignity of the individual is pervasive in the Third World. These poor societies fail to appreciate that in the final analysis it is individuals who effect changes, and thus progress. Western societies are more progressive because they place a premium on the individual. Eastern societies generally submerge the individual to the needs of the larger society. They emphasize society's goals and stability over that of the individual, as encapsulated by the Japanese saying: the nail that sticks out gets hammered. At least that is the perceived wisdom. I challenge that. Consider what the Sudanese reformist Ustaz Mahmoud Taha wrote in 1963, "Every individual is, authentically, an end in himself. He is not means to any other end. He – even if he is an imbecile – is a "God" in the making and must be given the full opportunity to develop as such. Liberty is the prerequisite need. Man must be free from all dehumanizing influences – poverty, ignorance, and fear." Fifteen years earlier, the United Nations, using far less elegant prose, said essentially the same thing in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In its preamble the document reaffirms the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all humans as the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace. The document's first article could easily have been taken from the Koran when it declares that all human beings are born free, with equal dignity and rights, and are endowed with reason and conscience. Many outside the West would challenge the universality of this UN Declaration, especially its statement reaffirming the primacy of the individual. But as the Islamic scholar the late Fazlur Rahman wrote, "Whether ultimately it is the individual that is significant and society merely the necessary instrument for his creation or vice versa is academic, for individual and society appear to be correlates. There is no such thing as a societiless individual." Next: Society and Individuals
|
| Posted: 25 Sep 2011 03:59 PM PDT
The English idiom to describe the DAP predicament with regard to the hudud crisis is 'caught between a rock and a hard place'. In 2003, Hadi issued his party's Islamic state document which avowed: "The publication of this document is sufficient evidence to squash allegations made by its enemies that PAS will not establish an Islamic state… Verily the responsibility of establishing an Islamic state is as important as performing the daily obligatory rituals of Islam." Helen Ang, Free Malaysia Today MCA reacted immediately to the PAS hudud drive by announcing that it would withdraw from the Barisan Nasional if Umno ever implemented the Islamic law that prescribes mandatory punishment. Gerakan, the predominantly Chinese party, followed suit, saying: "Gerakan's political cooperation with Umno will be untenable and will likely end if the latter wishes to implement hudud…" Umno responded with its assurance that the government would not enforce hudud. Hmm, the jostling seems sorted on the establishment side. At least for the moment. Now let us take a peep at the opposition players who would be fielded for the Pakatan Rakyat big match on Wednesday. Anwar Ibrahim, the de facto electoral pact leader, and "God's Gift" to PKR, has been flip-flopping but then that is the mercurial man for you. PAS Youth chief Nasrudin Hassan Tantawi declared that hudud has been and always would be part of the party's Islamic state agenda. This guy is remarkably consistent. The mursyidul am or spiritual leader of PAS Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat is adamant that DAP is free to leave Pakatan if the party disagreed with Kelantan's intent to push ahead with hudud. You really don't have to ask about the rest in the PAS ulama camp such as Nasharuddin Mat Isa, Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man, Harun Din and Hassan Ali. PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang will, of course, stay the course. In 2003, Hadi issued his party's Islamic state document which avowed: "The publication of this document is sufficient evidence to squash allegations made by its enemies that PAS will not establish an Islamic state… Verily the responsibility of establishing an Islamic state is as important as performing the daily obligatory rituals of Islam." The 2003 Islamic state blueprint also promised: "Should PAS be mandated to govern Malaysia, God willing, an Islamic state as outlined in this document will be implemented to the best of our ability. Towards Victory. Allahu Akbar!" On the matter of hudud, the PAS document stated that Muslims are naturally subject to syariah – hudud, qisas and ta'zir – while non-Muslims are given the option of either syariah or "the current penal code of the land". Even the PAS progressives, dubbed the "Erdogan" faction', support hudud. Party vice-president Husam Musa was challenged by Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin in their one-on-one debate in December 2008 to state his stand. Responding to Khairy's challenge, Husam replied that "Yes", hudud would be implemented if Anwar's planned takeover of the government on Sept 16 had materialised. The PAS Islamic state document covers the area of supremacy of God's law, the khilafah (custodians who administer the state according to Islam's teachings), taqwa (god-fearing), shura (consultation), and al-'Adaalah wal Musaawah (justice and equality), among others. Among the main characteristics of an Islamic state, according to PAS, are obedience to religion, obedience to the state and adherence to the exhortation to enjoin good and forbid evil.
'Amar ma'aruf nahi mungkar' Aaah, "enjoining good and forbidding evil". The phrase that DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng made famous throughout the country with his constant use of it and even putting up its Arabic version "amar ma'aruf nahi mungkar" on big billboards all over Penang. Lim, having trumpeted to the length and breadth of the land that his administration was modelled after the Islamic governance of the celebrated Caliph Umar Abdul Aziz, would (one hopes) carry himself as someone respectful of Islamic norms, forms and aspirations. The old guard of the DAP such as "over my dead body" Karpal Singh and "compulsory tudung is unacceptable" Lim Kit Siang would not have hudud as they are sticking to the idea that Malaysia is secular. But DAP 2.0 itself treats Karpal and Kit Siang as if the duo are twin dinosaurs fossilised in outmoded pre-March 2008 thinking. DAP 2.0 has, on the contrary, rebranded and packaged "inclusiveness" to appeal to Malay voters. Yet very few Malays and Muslims would agree that ours is a truly secular country (but we'll leave that quarrel for another day). In the meantime, let's just see how the Muslim politicians and opinion leaders have tackled the hudud bombshell. Note that they are very careful in choosing their words. Former Perlis mufti Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin said Malaysia is not ready for hudud but "it can be implemented if all the conditions are met and the situation, conducive". Nonetheless, he added that it is important now to create the required situation by making the people understand hudud and undertaking other preparations to lay the groundwork. Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin is again as forthright as he was previously in acknowledging the importance of the Malay identity to him. Muhyiddin acknowledges: "As a Muslim, I cannot reject hudud law. This is a fact from the Islamic law aspect but its implementation has become a subject of debate today." Fair enough, and honest of him to speak plainly. Muhyiddin said he does not question the need to implement hudud but Umno's stand is that in Malaysia we cannot implement it in the present situation. Observe that Muslim politicians on the BN side do not question hudud but skirt around its suitability given the circumstances of a sizeable non-Muslim population. Which is also essentially the contention employed by Umno vice-president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi who opined that Malaysia's multi-cultural setting makes it unsuitable for hudud law to be implemented here. Kita president Zaid Ibrahim once challenged the 1993 Kelantan hudud bill in court but he was similarly careful to observe only that it is at variance with the Federal Constitution. Zaid's legal argument goes that federal legislation alone allows certain corporal and capital punishments, such as hudud's amputation and death penalties. The states cannot enact their own separate penal code with such heavy punishments. Muslim leaders are most meticulous to appear not to directly criticise hudud.
|
| Posted: 24 Sep 2011 07:15 PM PDT
Islam has been said by Muslims to be part of the Abrahamic faith, thus it is not surprising the retributive justice principle — the punishment must match the injury, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth — is indeed derived from both the Jewish Torah (Old Testament in Exodus 21:22-25 and Deuteronomy 19:16-21) and the Christian Gospel (New Testament in Matthew 5:38-42). Bob Teoh, The Malaysian Insider The hudud controversy has the habit of raising its ugly head whenever elections are around the corner. This piece of Syariah legislation is a bane to both Muslims and non-Muslims alike and has no place in our statute books as it stands. It's timely that Prime Minster Najib Razak has said that although hudud laws are accepted in Islam, the reality is that they cannot be implemented in Malaysia. PAS vice-president Salahuddin Ayub said just as much that hudud laws are "imposible" to implement so there is no need to discuss such things. That being the case, both the ruling coalition and the Opposition must immediately pledge they will refrain from allowing the hudud controversy to be manipulated into an electioneering platform. This much they owe Malaysians. Sadly, some are quick to offer a quick-fix that hudud laws should be applied to Muslims only while sparing the non-Muslims. This is offensive simply because under our Federal Constitution, all citizens are equal before the law. No one is above the law nor out of it. In such a dualistic legal system, in a crime like zina (fornication), the Muslim so accused is subject the harshness of hudud while a non-Muslim party who may be equally culpable, escapes such its severe punishment. How can that be fair? It takes two to clap after all. Even if it is restricted to Muslims, the law is equally obnoxious, particularly to Muslim women. For instance, Hajjah Nik Noriani bte Dato Nik Badli Shah in her paper, "Hudud Laws and its Implications on Women (1994)", points out that according to the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code (II) Enactment 1993, in the case of zina, pregnancy or delivery of a baby by an unmarried woman shall constitute evidence on which to find her guilty of zina unless she can prove to the contrary. The gender bias is also heightened by the fact that only men can be witnesses in such trials. The Terengganu Syariah Offences (Hudud and Qisas) Bill, or the Hudud Bill, was introduced by Pas in 2002 when it was in power there but was never implemented as is in the case of Kelantan. Let's be clear. No one is against Muslims wanting to introduce Islamic jurisprudence but unless we can resolve the cruel an-eye-for-an-eye retaliatory nature of qisas with compassion, we will all end up blind. The Qur'an demands justice to be tempered with compassion. That much is clear. That is why all the 114 Surahs except for Surah Al Tawbah, begins with invoking the Bismillah, a God who is compassionate and merciful. We cannot turn a blind eye to this doxology. Hudud in Arabic means "limit" or "restriction" and usually refers to certain crimes like theft, fornication, consumption of alcohol, and apostasy. Hudud is one of four categories of punishment in Syariah that includes qisas following the Biblical principle of an-eye- for-an-eye (Surah Al-Ma'idah verse 45). Islam has been said by Muslims to be part of the Abrahamic faith, thus it is not surprising the retributive justice principle — the punishment must match the injury, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth — is indeed derived from both the Jewish Torah (Old Testament in Exodus 21:22-25 and Deuteronomy 19:16-21) and the Christian Gospel (New Testament in Matthew 5:38-42).
|
| Revise perspectives, not facts Posted: 24 Sep 2011 07:02 PM PDT
The recent issue of Bukit Kepong could be food for thought for the special committee set up to carry out a review of history textbooks for secondary schools. "We had no other choice but to pick up arms against the colonial power when the peaceful path was shut down. It was not us who closed that path but the British. All the organisations and democratic political parties were outlawed and their members arrested, detained and hanged. There was no other way to fight peacefully or constitutionally." Stories by HARIATI AZIZAN and ROSLINA MOHAMAD, The Star IT may have happened almost 60 years ago but the din of the firing guns and the whirling blades of helicopters hovering above the thick jungle during the Malayan Emergency is still vivid in the mind of retired soldier Baharin Abu Bakar. What haunts 83-year-old Baharin most is his memory of comrades being killed in combat by communist insurgents. "(Once in a while) the memories will come flooding back and it is very difficult to hold back my emotions," says Baharin, who was a soldier for more than 36 years.  Upset veteran: Baharin (centre) wearing his police uniform during the demonstration in Kuantan. He, too, was almost shot by the communists, he says. "I was a young recruit at that time. I was afraid but I fought them," shares the "war" veteran who was stationed in Kuala Lumpur for five years and then transferred to Bukit Galing Camp in Kuantan. He was stationed there until his retirement on Dec 31, 1988. Recalling the operations against the communists in the thick jungles of Malaysia, including Sarawak and the borders of Thailand and Malaysia, he says they normally took between two and three months. "I had friends who went to Sarawak alive but returned in coffins," says Baharin. There were even times when they had to battle not only the enemy but also hunger, as new supplies could not reach them due to bad weather or lack of space for helicopters to land and make their drops, he adds.  As is usually the case in historical traged ies, those who killed and were killed were neither especially sadistic or especially virtuous. - DR RACHEL LEOW Meagre food supplies and dangerous conditions in the harsh jungle, besides being shot at and killed, also threatened the Malayan nationalists, as noted by one of the leading female leaders of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) Shamsiah Fakeh. As she wrote in her memoirs, many of her fellow nationalists were forced to go into the jungle and join the armed struggle when the British started cracking down on them. "We had no other choice but to pick up arms against the colonial power when the peaceful path was shut down. It was not us who closed that path but the British. All the organisations and democratic political parties were outlawed and their members arrested, detained and hanged. There was no other way to fight peacefully or constitutionally," she wrote. From their accounts, it can be seen that both groups had to make personal sacrifices to achieve their objectives in the course of the nation's history. But who is more deserving of a place in the nation's official narrative of history? This issue came up recently when PAS deputy president Mohamad Sabu was reported to have made some unconventional remarks about a well-known episode during the Malayan Emergency – the attack by the communists on Bukit Kepong in 1950. Although Mat Sabu has since maintained that he was misquoted, his "remarks" have created a storm of sorts in various circles. Family members of the victims and hundreds of retired policemen and soldiers like Baharin were also reported to be outraged. "I was very upset; I still am," Baharin says. Need for a review Coincidentally, the secondary school history textbooks are currently being reviewed to make it more "suitable" to the country's current needs and future challenges. A special committee was established earlier this year to carry out the review, which is due to be completed by the end of the year. A few committee members, however, have come out in defence of the present curriculum. One is the committee's chair, Malaysian Historical Society's executive committee chairman Datuk Omar Hashim, who reportedly said there was no need to rewrite the nation's history as improvements were being made continuously. "Changes are made through improvements. If there is new information or evidence, we will study its veracity (to see) whether additions need to be made. History is a dynamic knowledge," he was quoted as saying. Historian Datin Paduka Ramlah Adam, who is also on the special committee, is against the idea of rewriting our textbooks too, pointing out that there is nothing wrong with them. For other academics, however, the recent brouhaha only reinforces the urgency for a rewrite. Dr Lim Teck Ghee, spokesperson for Campaign for a Truly Malaysian History, a watchdog group set up to monitor the revisions proposed by the special committee, believes that the Bukit Kepong episode is only one of many events in our history where political gains are being sought. "The politicians should get out of trying to influence how history is being written or taught in schools. Leave it to the professional scholars, and by this I mean those that are respected authorities from within Malaysia and abroad," he says, emphasising the importance of selecting independent and internationally-recognised scholars to help in interpreting our history. Revising the textbook does not mean rewriting history, he stresses: "It is a matter of reviewing factual inaccuracies and biases." He cites the case of the left and armed struggle in the pre-Merdeka era as an example. "Acknowledging their contribution is not altering history. Facts are facts. The left and armed struggle was for the independence of the country from the Japanese and British rule. No amount of distortion can alter this," he says, adding that historical issues such as the left and armed insurgency have their established scholars and they should be consulted. "At least, their works and findings should be brought to public attention in the current controversy. Instead, we have heard from politicians as well as academics who have not worked on these issues and really should not get involved." Dr Lim strongly believes it is possible to give an accurate account of history. "There are events, official records, eyewitness accounts, memoirs, photographic evidence, archival materials – all of these when evaluated by the scholar provide the basis for historical interpretation and accounts. Those who disagree should challenge on the basis of rigorous research and publish their findings in appropriate journals," he says. "We should not be afraid of other interpretations of history if truth and accuracy are our guiding principles." Dr Ranjit Singh Malhi, another historian, concurs. "We cannot be 100% objective but we can be generally objective." Diverse perspectives Dr Rachel Leow, who has been appointed a Prize Fellow at Harvard University (Economics, History and Politics), agrees that Malaysian history needs to be looked at from diverse angles. Citing the period of Emergency in Malaysian history as an example, she points out that it is not just a story of Red violence triumphantly crushed by the government, after which everyone lived happily ever after. "There are so many other aspects to consider. There was a large, messy left-wing movement in an open and fully legal struggle for political representation. There were civil protests, student activism, Malay radicalism, and anti-colonial movements in which not only Malayans but the whole of the colonised Third World participated," she highlights. The issue of "sensitivity" remains, however. Acknowledging the trauma of the survivors, Dr Leow points out that every traumatic history, from the Holocaust to Japanese imperialism to 9/11, is difficult to write. "And we're dealing with a very raw past here. The Emergency happened less than half a century ago. It is relatively recent history. Slavery in the Americas has a 400-year history, and it is still traumatic. "In these conditions, let's not fool ourselves. There can be no guarantee of objectivity. People will get upset. Anyone who is sincere about learning more about Emergency history should accept that. "But that is no reason to gag ourselves in fear. On a personal as well as societal level, we deal with emotional trauma through trying to make sense of the past. We can't be objective, we can't always agree, but we can be respectful and sympathetic. And I think it is worth doing even if we find it painful – indeed, precisely because we still find it painful." Providing the different perspectives openly and letting other opinions be carried so that it is not only survivors' stories and voices that are heard is the best way to deal with our painful past, says Dr Lim. Talk is necessary More importantly, ordinary Malaysians should have the right to discuss alternative versions of history, these historians agree. "We don't need to be scared of differing analyses and perspectives, opines Dr Ranjit, "and there is no need to charge those who highlight them with criminal offences or accuse them of threatening national security. "I think this controversy has opened our eyes on the importance of giving a more truthful and balanced account of our country's history." As Dr Leow points out, the debate on Bukit Kepong so far has looked like this: "They were heroes. No, they were villains. They were heroes! No, they were villains! "This is what that brick wall looks like. Please stop searching for heroes and villains in Bukit Kepong. As is usually the case in historical tragedies, those who killed and were killed were neither especially sadistic or especially virtuous, but ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances." She cautions nonetheless that debates are only as healthy as their participants. "If we have respectful people who are as willing to offer their opinions as they are to learn from others, then we will have healthy debates and discussions that don't descend into shrieking and lynching," she says. "It's not a question of academic versus non-academic domains: both are equally capable of producing healthy and unhealthy discussions. "There's also the fact that many politicians benefit from unhealthy discussions. They like people to be angry, because angry people are stupid and easily mobilised to stupid ends." Dr Leow says it is most crucial to equip the young with the skills and interest to explore more sources of information and research on history, at least to enable them to look at the big picture and understand, if not to participate in, the discussion. "Textbooks don't cover everything ... but why should you depend on a textbook if you're really interested in finding out about the country's history? To me, it's not the factual gaps in textbooks that is worrying. I'm much more worried about what sort of society we will have if Malaysians think there will always be just one textbook out of which they can be spoonfed the truth."
|
| Posted: 23 Sep 2011 04:41 PM PDT
Karpal might be thinking that he was dealing with more oddities: in response to Anwar, Karpal was "somewhat taken aback" with the stand of his client in the sodomy trial but avowed that Anwar's stance was "personal and it does not reflect the stand of the PKR". Karpal is correct on his prognosis of Anwar, who is in it for his self-preservation simply because his trial on charges of sodomising a young male aide would have been a non-starter if hudud laws were applied. New Straits Times Editorial PAS, or at least its feisty spiritual leader Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, wants to desperately reinstitute its Islamic state and hudud agenda barely three months after it shelved its most cherished dream to make way for a tenuous but politically expedient welfare/benevolent state. You have to ask why Nik Aziz, who is also the Kelantan menteri besar, would risk resuming a feud with the DAP. Wasn't it Pas which rebranded itself when it surprisingly forged the "welfare/benevolent" state policy while electing that non-ulama political jester Mohamad Sabu as the party's new deputy president. Even the feistier former PM Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad wryly remarked that DAP's Karpal Singh emerged the true winner after rebuffing the Pas ideal for years. That was that but suddenly, the nation was riveted by the controversy that Mat Sabu outrageously ignited: he re-classified the Communist terrorists who massacred the 25 Malay police officers and their families in Bukit Kepong decades ago as "freedom fighters" on the basis that the dead were "British" officers. A month of intense debates later came Nik Aziz's startling pronouncement: initially Pas was to discuss with PKR and DAP on the idea of forming an Islamic state, but this was quickly upgraded into total dismissal of anything the DAP might have to object. Karpal might be thinking that he was dealing with more oddities: in response to Anwar, Karpal was "somewhat taken aback" with the stand of his client in the sodomy trial but avowed that Anwar's stance was "personal and it does not reflect the stand of the PKR". |
| Using hudud card to rally support Posted: 23 Sep 2011 08:30 AM PDT Realising that Barisan Nasional is making strides with Malay support, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is now openly embracing hudud law in support of PAS' ambition. His move may cost him the votes of non-Malays and moderate Muslims. COMMENT By BARADAN KUPPUSAMY, The Star AGAINST great risk of losing the support from non-Malay voters, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has come out to endorse hudud law in Kelantan, backing PAS spiritual leader Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat's plan to implement the law and set up an Islamic state in the state. The Opposition Leader's backing, although he said was in his personal capacity, is hugely different from his earlier commitment to religious pluralism and a multi-ethnic, secular society governed by secular, man-made laws. The sudden change in attitude is a recognition on the part of PKR and PAS that they are rapidly losing Malay support with their concession to and dalliance with non-Malays, especially the Chinese voters. This recognition had slowly dawned on them but was accelerated by the "Mat Sabu" incident in which PAS deputy president Mohamed Sabu has come under persistent fire for saying that the 26 policemen and their families who died defending the Bukit Kepong police station in 1950 against a band of communists led by Mat Indera, were not the real heroes. The real heroes are Mat Indera and his communist band, Mat Sabu had claimed. The incident has riled up many Malays and over 1,000 police reports were made. Mat Sabu might have been charged for criminal defamation, but the case has strongly moved the Malay emotion and has become a rallying point against PAS. No senior PAS leader has come to the defence of Mat Sabu who was left to manage the crisis on his own. Umno has used the Mat Sabu case as a national rallying point whipping up strong reaction against him and PAS, accusing them as unpatriotic and showing little respect for the nation's founding fathers, Tunku Abdul Rahman and Datuk Onn Jaafar. Constant reminders in the mainstream media that PAS had abandoned Islam and that it better drop the word "Islam" from its name has begun to rattle the party as well. It is true that the party had abandoned its Islamic state policy for a welfare state at its last muktamar in July. It also went on to elect Mat Sabu, a non-ulama who doesn't wear a turban and Arabic clothes, to its second highest elected office. DAP especially was overjoyed with the way things had turned out at the PAS muktamar. But now that Anwar has sided with Nik Aziz on hudud, it has been left holding a time bomb in its lap. DAP chairman Karpal Singh has always pointed out that hudud law was unconstitutional and the Federal Constitution would have to be amended to implement it. That's why although the hudud law was passed in Kelantan and later in Terengganu, they were never implemented without the Federal Government's active support. Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin said on Thursday that the Federal Government would not implement hudud law as Malaysian society was not ready for it and investors would get worried. It appears that Anwar, after years of preaching pluralism and Islamic moderation has come out in support of hudud law in Kelantan saying it was clear and would administer justice for their intended purposes. It is a blow to all Anwarites. Both PAS and PKR are now seeking to win over the Malays with this sudden and fundamental change in policy towards hudud. After four years, they now realise that only DAP would stand to benefit from their dalliance with the non-Malays. But it is too late in the day to reverse track and try to appease the fundamentalist Malays with the promise of an Islamic state. By coming out in support of hudud they are also alienating many Malays who oppose the law and had supported PKR's multi-racialism. That section of support for PKR is also now in danger with Anwar's readiness to embrace hudud law in Kelantan. The nation was founded on one set of secular laws and only one. To introduce another set, no matter if it does not involve non-Muslims, is a radical move without precedent and will significantly impact on every facet of our life. DAP, which has championed secular law, must come out in the open now and state whether it too supports hudud on the grounds that it does not involved non-Muslims. What about the moderate Muslims who oppose hudud but support DAP? The issue is fundamental and sits at the core of the relationship among Pakatan Rakyat parties. Can they run and carry a theological party like PAS whose only ambition is to create an Islamic state? Nik Aziz has made himself very clear on the matter. He is all for hudud law in Kelantan and when Pakatan Rakyat captures the country, for all of Malaysia. That has been the pillar of PAS' struggle since the party's inception in 1951. Politicians are ruled by political expediency and Anwar is no different. Realising that he is losing crucial Malay support, Anwar is forced to come out to endorse hudud law and support Nik Aziz's plan in Kelantan, leaving DAP out in the cold.
|
| Mositun spoke too soon about PBS being vindicated Posted: 22 Sep 2011 01:33 PM PDT
Mositun and the other leaders in PBS must understand that many PBS members and supporters still believe the PBS shouldn't have rejoined the BN because of bigger issues, not just because of the ISA. Just because the ISA will be repealed doesn't make the members and supporters any happier. By Daniel John Jambun When the Prime Minister announced the government will repeal the Internal Security Act and other important reforms, Datuk Johnny, PBS' Information Chief celebrated, saying it was clear proof that the Barisan Nasional (BN) government is responsive to the people's feelings. He claimed that, "These important reforms vindicate the decision by our President, Tan Sri Joseph Pairin Kitingan, to rejoin the BN 10 years ago. Today Pairin's faith in the BN to do the right things for the people and nation has been proven correct." But he has spoken too soon. Now, the proposed repeal has boiled up a storm, with Tun Mahathir expressing worry that irresponsible people may abuse the freedom, and a national security expert in Singapore saying it is a dangerous thing to do. But while we are glad that the BN is opening doors to more freedom, we have to realize that there are still many repressive laws out there that are suppressing our freedom and giving Malaysia a bad reputation among the regional and international communities. Such laws include the Official Secrets Act (OSA), the Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA), the Multimedia and Communications Act, the Public Order (Preservation) Ordinance. Instead of celebrating too soon, why doesn't Mositun make a call to urge the PM to repeal all these laws as well?
Many opposition leaders and NGOs have expressed strong suspicion that the PM's announcement was just a sandiwara, or an act to put old wine into new bottles and to make it even worse by introducing two new laws. There is no guarantee that the new laws will not be as draconian as the ISA. And the proposed repeal will only be done next year which raise the question: Will that be after the general election? If so, Najib is only performing a clever vote-fishing trick. And may I ask: If the new laws are still having ISA-like provisions as demanded by Ibrahim Ali, will Mositun demand that PBS leaves the BN, because the PBS would then be "unvindicated"? Mositun's habit of jumping the gun and apple-polishing for the BN had made him lose his political character and credibility, and may very well be a liability to his own party.
Also, Mositun and the other leaders in PBS must understand that many PBS members and supporters still believe the PBS shouldn't have rejoined the BN because of bigger issues, not just because of the ISA. Just because the ISA will be repealed doesn't make the members and supporters any happier. The whole issue about PBS re-joining the BN in 1998 centres on the question of principle and the spirit of the struggle of the Kadazandusuns. If the PBS undertakes an independent survey today I sincerely believe it will confirm the fact that most Kadazandusuns don't think too highly of the Huguan Siou anymore, and that PBS' struggle is more for personal interests than for the people's long term vision. The fact still stands that by joining the BN, PBS had become subservient to Umno, which has a strong effect on the morale of the Kadazandusuns.
The unhappiness about PBS is not limited to members and supporters only but among its leaders. There is now the possibility of revolts by leaders in the PBS due to unhappiness over choice of candidates, and Pairin's insistence on contesting in both Keningau and Tambunan again after three decades. Their impatience over the long-standing issue about the illegal immigrants from the Philippines and Indonesia is just about to boil over because they believe the party's top leaders have been kowtowing to Umno for too much and for too long. To them the so-called deadline PBS had given the BN to solve the illegals problem by 2012 is not enough, and seem just a ruse to cool down their impatience.
The other prickly issue facing the PBS is the unfair power-sharing formula in the state in which Umno takes more than half and the rest is split between the rest of the components. Because of this, an online portal reports that PBS' divisional chairman for Sook, Bernard Maraat, is a potential rebel to stand as an independent in the coming election.
In an effort to convince the people that PBS is really fighting for their interests in the BN, the PBS Secretary General, Datuk Henrynus Amin had also made a statement this week that the PM's announcement to repeal the ISA "showed BN was responding to the grouses of the people and therefore a victory for democracy, human rights and civil liberties." But by saying that he was also admitting that all these years when the ISA was used, it was a defeat for democracy, human rights and civil liberties! So why did the PBS support the BN all those years, knowing it was wrong and humanly immoral?
Henrynus also proposed how BN should adopt "winnable policies and winnable political strategies" for the next general election. He should be reminded that for the BN to win the next election, it doesn't have to hire any world-class thinktank to come up with complicated strategic plans or use billions of ringgit to corrupt the voters. All it has to do is to list all the grouses raised by the people and resolve these within the next few months!
Henrynus and Mositun need to ask BN if the federal government and UMNO will ever agree to reinstate the original promised rights and autonomy for Sabah and Sarawak, to establish the RCI to look into Project IC, to raise oil royalty to 20 percent or more, to reform many government institutions (such as the police, the judiciary, the MACC, the election commission, the Malay-dominated education system), to wipe out corruption, cronyism and political patronage, to stop the many abuses of power, to stop the suppression of the Christians (by allowing the Bible to be printed in any language in Malaysia), to shut up the mouths of mad Malay nationalists like Ibrahim Ali and to end the seditious speeches about Malay supremacy, to implement true meritocracy, transparency, accountability and openness which are the epitomes of good governance.
And there is also the problem of the depressed and down-sliding economy, the high inflation rate and the worrying depletion of our purchasing powers, the brain drain, the cabotage policy, the Malay-centric public service, the border security problem, the high rate of violent crimes, the yo-yo experiments with the education system, the highly contaminated electoral rolls, the non-transparent and very suspicious election process, the lack of independence of the judiciary, and so on and so on. If the BN will listen to the PBS and do all these, ONLY then will PBS be truly vindicated. When this happens, I am certain not just the PBS leaders and members, but the opposition leaders and supporters as well, will join in the celebration with dancing and fireworks! And the opposition will have no more issues to talk about!
|
| Posted: 22 Sep 2011 12:09 PM PDT
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak indeed has the country buzzing with his promises of sweeping reforms, but any change to these laws will take at least a year – and that's practically an infinity in politics. By Azmi Sharom, The Star THERE'S been so much excited quivering during the past week over the Prime Minister's Malaysia Day speech that I sometimes feel like I'm living in a bowl of jelly. This is not the first time a PM has made the Malaysian public as giddy as schoolgirls at a Justin Bieber concert. I am old enough to remember former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's "Clean, Efficient, Trustworthy" promise upon taking power and how people thought that this was the beginning of a new type of government. One that was not "dirty, incompetent and dishonest". Of course, after the numerous financial scandals involving billions, that hope went out the window. Tun Abdullah Badawi's "work with me not for me" statement also captured the public's imagination and his promise for greater civil liberties had hardcore opposition supporters voting BN for the first time. It didn't take too long before tear gas and chemical water cannons washed away the euphoria which greeted the new PM. Now it is Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak's turn, and indeed he has got the country buzzing with his promises of sweeping reforms. The Internal Security Act (ISA) is to be abolished, and the Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA) amended along with a slew of other changes. I do not believe that I am being overly cynical when I say "this is all well and good but I'll believe it when I see it". My concern is two-fold. First, unless and until we actually see the shape that the amended PPPA takes, and until we can closely scrutinise the two new laws which are supposed to be the replacement for the ISA, I think it is premature to think that we are finally rid of these draconian laws. From my understanding, under the proposed amended PPPA, a newspaper can still have its licence taken away by the Government. Is this process going to be easy for the Government and without any recourse to the courts for the paper? If so, then there's not much change, is there? The same goes with the two new security laws that are supposed to replace the ISA. If there is still broad discretion to detain without trial then all we have is old wine in a new bottle. I am unconvinced, for example, that the new laws will only be used for terrorism cases. If the new law is only for terrorists, who is going to define who is a terrorist and who is not? And without a trial, a detention order can still be easily abused – all one needs to do is accuse a person of being a terror threat. My second concern has to do with the sustainability of the idea within Umno. Let's not forget, the system of government we have in Malaysia follows the Westminster model, that is to say we don't vote for our PM directly. The PM is fundamentally the choice of the party with the majority in Parliament, as opposed to the presidential system where the leader of the nation is chosen directly by the people. If this idea to abolish the ISA and to make these sweeping systemic changes is primarily from the Prime Minister, how can we be sure that his party will follow through with it if he is no longer PM? Any change to these laws will take at least a year. A week is a long time in politics, a year is practically an infinity – and anything can happen in such a period. Putting my concerns aside, I hope that something positive will come from these promises and that these laws will be changed, and the changes will be substantial and meaningful. If it does happen, let us not forget that they happened because the people wanted it to happen. No matter what the ruling party claims, if it wasn't for the shock that they had in March 2008, if it wasn't for the constant call for the repeal of these laws from the public and civil society, we wouldn't all be quivering as we are now.
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan