Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Pakatan must come clean on hudud
Why hudud law is everybody’s business
In with the unknown
Ahmad Sarbaini's widow fights back
Wind of freedom blows to SE Asia
Zaid shows Najib the way forward

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.

Wind of freedom blows to SE Asia

Posted: 21 Sep 2011 10:30 PM PDT

Indonesia, for one, has a big problem with its commitment to uphold religious freedom, as highlighted by the U.S. State Department in its recent report that in some instances Indonesia failed to protect persons from religious discrimination and abuse. But it is to Malaysia that our attention now turns, and perhaps Kuala Lumpur could even provide leadership, as the nation prepares itself for a general election in 2012.

China Morning Post

he wind of freedom is blowing towards Southeast Asia. Wherever it comes from, perhaps from the Arab Spring, it is refreshing that Malaysia's Prime Minister Najib Razak announced his plan to replace the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA) and to ease long-held restrictions on the media.

Two months earlier, Singapore held an election that gave rare space for free political expression and one that saw the opposition party making limited but nevertheless significant gains.

Freedom is contagious, but in this part of the world, it may be not contagious enough. It needs an additional force, to bring about real and meaningful freedom of speech, assembly and religion for the people of Southeast Asia. This push must preferably come from within rather than blown by external factors. The people, students and the political elite, in the region must take advantage of the current breeze by seizing the initiatives. It may be a little while before the winds of freedom blow this way again.

Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines are among Southeast Asian states that have embraced freedom in the true sense of the word when they ended autocratic rule in the 1980s and 1990s. These three countries have since either backtracked or stagnated on their commitment to freedom.

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib's plan for more freedom may not necessarily materialize in parliament still largely controlled by conservative forces but history has also shown that once unleashed, the winds of freedom will be difficult to withstand.

Countries that are moving up the economic ladder will sooner or later have to deal with the question of freedom. Education and greater prosperity create a whole new generation of people more critical of their governments, especially on questions of freedom, justice and governance. Malaysia and Singapore are now at that phase of development.

The bigger question is whether their political leaders are ready to deal with the consequences of change. Any change, and one as significant as ushering freedom is a huge change, carries risks and uncertainty. We wish Prime Minister Najib and the Malaysian people good luck and success in this exciting and somewhat dangerous journey.

Zaid shows Najib the way forward

Posted: 20 Sep 2011 08:09 PM PDT

The Kita chief says it is crucial for Najib to get support of senior ministers and implement the reforms as soon as possible.

(Free Malaysia Today) - Kita chief, Zaid Ibrahim, has generously outlined a roadmap for Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak to make good his decision to revoke Emergency laws and repeal the Internal Security Act (ISA).

Zaid was among the first to applaud the decision and even went as far as to apologise to Najib for underestimating his political will, especially in rescinding the ISA.

Bu in his latest blog post today he noted that the announcement itself is not a game changer and that Najib needed to ensure that the reforms are carried out properly and without delay.

"Public opinion of him will reach new lows if people see him as uncertain or not serious about his plans, or if scrapping the ISA is just a rebranding or vote-grabbing exercise," Zaid said.

"Any delay in implementing the changes will also embolden the hawks in Umno to assert themselves, which will make any progress even harder to achieve."

The former de facto law minister then put forth a host of suggestions that he believed would strenghten and support Najib's initiative in order to spur "the first real change in a long time in Malaysia's history".

The first was to establish a Justice Ministry outside of the department of the Prime Minister's Office, which Zaid observed was "already bloated".

"If the PM were to place matters of law and justice under a separate ministry, he would be telling the people that his priorities are ensuring that just laws and justice for all are the pillars of political and social reform," Zaid said. "This is what the country needs now."

Controversial decisions

The second recommendation was to adopt the British Cabinet practice where the Attorney-General is a Cabinet Minister which would allow for his presence in Parliament to explain some of his more controversial decisions.

"This sense of accountability will put the government in good light," Zaid said. "More importantly, the weekly meeting among the Attorney-General, the Home Minister and the Justice Minister will help coordinate the several overlapping matters of law involving the three ministries."

The third recommendation involved the Umno Information Unit going on an "overdrive" to explain the necessity of this political transformation.

Zaid pointed out that after 40 years of explaining why the ISA was needed to preserve peace and even Malay political power, it would take considerable time to explain why it is no longer required.

But the biggest challenge, he predicted, would be getting the support of Umno's senior stalwarts.

"These individuals may be the PM's most ardent supporters but they may also have other ideas on how democratic reforms and the rule of law should be implemented," he said.

"Their statements generally are sometimes less than supportive, even hostile. This must not be the case here."

Zaid added that the public would be closely following statements made by Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri Aziz; Information, Communications and Culture Minister Rais Yatim; Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein; and Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin regarding the reforms.

"Opponents of this change can stuff things badly for the PM, so it's better to deal with them post-haste," he said. "Their arguments remain the same. They will say the 'liberals' who are pushing for change have not experienced the race riots or the harsh time during the Emergency."

READ MORE HERE

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Jumaat, 23 September 2011

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan