Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

MyKad "Islamisation" of Sabah's bumiputra Christians
Knowing what not to post…
Shafie puts foot in mouth about Sabah oil and basic politics
Malaysia – revisiting the secular state debate
Amangate: will Najib clean up Nazri’s mess?
What Everyone Should Know About Operasi Lalang
Yang membela Islam tiga orang Cina
The politician, his son and the crony

MyKad "Islamisation" of Sabah's bumiputra Christians

Posted: 03 Nov 2012 06:20 PM PDT

Bob Teoh, Sin Chew Daily

Bumiputra Christians in Sabah continue to be "converted to Islam" by the National Registration Department (NRD) simply because they have "bin" and "binti" in their names. Sabah churches are seeking urgent solutions to the crisis but none seems to be in sight.

The NRD has made it clear it would continue to list bumiputra Christians in Sabah as Muslims as long as they are known by bin or binti. It would also not rectify past entry errors by way of changing the religion listing back to Christianity in the identity cards (MyKad) of those affected. The NRD would only act upon an order by a Syariah High Court to determine whether those bumiputra Christians whom it had listed as Muslims are not Muslims indeed.

Even if these native Christians get a hearing from the Syariah Court, both the NRD and Islamic authorities may not turn up, thus causing unnecessary delays.

A current test case has been mounted by a 53 year-old widow and her two adult daughters and supported by the respective local churches. All three are from the Dusun Banggi tribe.

Intim binti Lambatan, was born in 1959 in Banggi, the northernmost island in Sabah. Her husband died 20 years ago. She was officially baptised in her church, the Sidang Injil Borneo (SIB) in Limbuak Darat, in Kudat on mainland Sabah seven years ago and issued a Baptism Certificate.

The SIB is the biggest indigenous protestant church in Sabah. Her elder daughter, Norina binti Nuhudan,28, was baptised when she was 15 while her younger daughter, Listin Nuhudan, 22, was baptised when she was 14. Both are also SIB members.

When all three had their religion wrongly classified as "Islam" in their MyKad, they brought the matter up to their pastors. A Christian lawyer from another SIB church in Kota Kinabalu agreed to take up their case but the lawyer had to engage a Muslim counsel to act on their behalf in the Syariah High Court.

In March last year a Christian lawyer, Victoria Jayaseele Martin, was barred from practising in a Syariah court despite having a Diploma in Syariah Law and Practice from the International Islamic University Malaysia, in addition to a University of London law degree.

The test case was initiated several months ago when Intim went to the Kudat office of the Jabatan Hal Ehwal Agama Islam Negeri Sabah – JHEAINS - or the Sabah Islamic Affairs Department, to clarify the status of her religion.

On 25 July, the department wrote to the Syariah Court in Kudat to say that Intim's name is not on record in their Pendaftaran Pengislaman (Islamisation Register).

With JHEAINS's clarification, she made a statutory declaration at the Kudat Magistrate Court stating that she is not a Muslim and that her name is not on the Islamic department's register. She said she was not originally a Muslim but when she applied for her identity card, the word "Islam" was wrongly recorded on it.

But still the NRD would not rectify its error and issue her a new identity card with her correct status as a Christian. It looks like it is Intim's responsibility to first go to the Kudat Syariah High Court for a declaration that she is not a Muslim.

This she did by filing a case against the Ketua Pendafter Muallaf (Chief Registrar of New Believers) of Sabah on 14 August. The Director General of the NRD was cited as the second respondent. She is asking for her status as a Muslim to be deleted from her identity card.

The Kudat Syariah High Court then wrote back to the Islamic Department to investigate further whether Intim is a Muslim on their register. The mention date was twice postponed to last Monday (28 Oct). But both the respondents did not turn up, thus causing more delays.

The problem has long reached a crisis in Sabah when SIB churches could not marry their members as some are found to be "Muslims" in their MyKad and the Registrar of Marriages would not recognise such marriages.

Two years ago, the National Evangelical Christian Fellowship (NECF), of which SIB is a member, met the NRD Director General and his senior officers. NECF was assured that the problem could easily be resolved be those affected filing in what it called a "Borang A" to change the status of their religion.

The NECF was happy with that assurance and posted an advisory on its website: "Fuss-free way to change religion data in MyKad."

"Christians who wish to change their religion to Christianity in their MyKad data are not required to tender any legal documents, such as baptism certificates. They only need to fill in 'Borang A' to effect the change," NECF then said.

"This was confirmed at a recent meeting between NECF Malaysia and top officials from the National Registration Department (NRD)."

But NECF itself pointed out the catch. "This is not applicable if they had been registered as Muslims."

NECF said, at the meeting with NRD officials, it also raised the issue of East Malaysian Christians whose religion in their MyKad is recorded as "Islam" simply because their names carry "bin" and "binti".

"This is a prevailing problem in Sabah and Sarawak where many indigenous citizens have names that carry bin and binti". The NRD automatically assigns their religion as 'Islam' even though many of them are Christians," according to NECF.

NECF also said the NRD confirmed that those who are affected could change the data in their MyKad provided they had obtained clearance from the Syariah Court.

It looks like NECF had bought a dud – the Borang A assurance by the NRD is just a ruse to continue its "Islamisation" by deception in Sabah.

Knowing what not to post…

Posted: 03 Nov 2012 05:47 PM PDT

Does an alleged crime repeated often enough become the truth?

I personally believe that a democracy should allow vigorous debate. The debate we want is the voice of reason, not the strident arguments that reverberate with dissent for the sake of automatically dissenting with your opponent or automatically agreeing to everything "your" side says.

Dave Avran, Free Malaysia Today

With the elections looming large, there is simply too much politicking today. This has trickled down to involve everything that occurs now, including crime.

The catalyst for this phenomenon is social media, which has enabled everyone with a smartphone to scan the news and pass instant judgment on current issues.

However, social media has a Jeckyll and Hyde personality. If you are constantly aware and use it consciously, you are safe. Overstep the boundries and you pay dearly.

I am referring to my previous article "What is wrong with our judges" where I highlighted the unhappiness and anger expressed by many Malaysians via social media channels (including MARAH) over the lenient sentences for rapists with "bright" futures in contrast to the death sentence meted out to two Indonesian brothers who killed a violent burgler, R Khartic, in self defense.

You now have Khartic's father VP Rajah emerging to say that he is a licensed money changer, a plantation business owner and a mini market operator who paid his son RM10k a month in salary and commissions.

He is very upset that his son has been labelled a burglar and has defended his son as a good man and a registered organ donor.

Despite eyewitnesses claiming that Khartic entered the shoplot unit through an opening in the ceiling, Rajah is accusing investigating officer ASP Zaiharul and the deputy public prosecutor Yusof Rahman of working in cahoots with the shop operator to pin the blame on his son, and has counter claimed to have witnesses including his brother-in-law who saw Khartic being dragged upstairs of the shophouse by four men.

Here are the obvious questions. If there was a fracas of sorts and Khartic was dragged upstairs, why didn't anybody (including the brother-in-law) come to his aid or call the cops?

The Indonesian brothers were the only ones who testified in their own defense. Why didn't any of these witnesses step up to vouch for Khartic?

Here's another question. Who do we, Joe and Jane public, believe?

Clearly, there is manipulation of social media channels to form public opinion. Whilst Malaysians are quick in assuming that there are always hidden hands in every picture, we are also quick to judge on issues.

A scan of the comments section indicates an outpouring of sympathy for the father and hate for the designated bad guys – the police.

Have we had all the complete facts of the case to mull over and evaluate before commenting?

Vigorous debate

Apparently today you must take a side, otherwise how are we know which team you are playing for? The diplomatic art of agreeing to disagree is dead today's sociopolitical climate.

Shafie puts foot in mouth about Sabah oil and basic politics

Posted: 03 Nov 2012 11:06 AM PDT

Isn't it ridiculous to reject an increase in oil royalty on the ground that we need to share our good fortune with the non-oil states? If we believe in this twisted economic logic then we should share whatever we have – everything including wealth as well as problems. Why not share our misfortunes as well, such as our highest poverty rate, lack of developments, illegal immigrants and high prices of basic commodities?

Daniel John Jambun

In Datuk Shafie Apdal's comment about the opposition's promise to give 20% royalty for its oil if it was voted to power, he stressed only two important points, that is, Sabah shouldn't take 20%"because it needs to share its wealth" and "the opposition should not makes promises that causes rift among the people."

I have one thing to say about what he said: these are some of the dumbest and most idiotic statements we have heard in the political history of Sabah. It is no better than when Datuk Salleh Said Keruak said the people should blame themselves for the increase in illegal immigrants inSabah, or when Tun Mahathir said the illegals in Sabah should be given citizenships because they can speak Bahasa Malaysia!

How ridiculous of Shafie to say that Sabah needs to share it wealth with non-oil producing states in Malaysia. First of all the oil belong to us, but 95% is being taken away. All we are asking for is this 95% being taken away be reduced to 80%. That's still a lot of sharing to satisfy Shafie.

Strangely, he admitted he himself wants 20% royalty but at the same time said he is happy with 5%! What? He rather sees Sabah remain poor, rather than get a little bit more of what belong to us in the first place.

Doesn't Shafie realize that with just 20% oil royalty, we can already solve most of these problems? Is he saying that we decided to be part of Malaysia so that the Federal Government can take away what we have and cause us to be the poorest state? No, we formed Malaysia with the promises of progress, development and wealth, not this poverty which Shafie seems to prefer. Being part of the Federal Government, Shafie is also an accomplice in the scheme to strip Sabah of its wealth, and he is admitting he prefers it that way!

The other silly thing Shafie said is that the opposition is making this promise to cause a rift among the people. Is Shafie still a greenhorn in politics, or is he now behaving like the typical Umno leaders who are telling the people that we shouldn't speak up the truth because "it causes disunity among the people"?

Has he forgotten that we are living in a democratic society and now thinks we are in an autocratic regime? How stupid to say that we shouldn't say anything in politics to cause rifts among the people! This is what we politicians have been doing since day one –to speak the truth and to expose lies of the other party to educate the people, and now we have "caused a rift among the people" (memecah-belahkan rakyat), that is to cause them to go into at least two camps, the ruling coalition and the opposition! Is Shafie against this? Does Shafie prefer it if we don't have any election and everyone joins the BN? Will that be good for us, or for Shafie, in the long run? Ther we don't need politics, we don't need elections of parliament!

What I suspect is that Shafie is very worried that the real rift is happening in the BN. Many BN members have long started to love the promise of 20% royalty and had left the BN to support the opposition, causing a rift among the BN members (not among the people), because as Shafie says, who doesn't want 20% royalty?

I would advise Shafie to refrain from making childish statements in the future as if we the rakyat are so uneducated, backward and unable to think intelligently.

Malaysia – revisiting the secular state debate

Posted: 02 Nov 2012 05:56 PM PDT

Whether the people will decide to choose the path to heaven or hell is a human decision. Whether they will choose Islam or another path, it is a human decision. Whether people will choose to organize their lives based on Islam or not is a human decision. It can be argued that for making wrong choices in this world, Muslims might be facing negative consequences in the life hereafter. But, still it is a matter of choice; there is no room for compulsion or imposition.

Ahmad Farouk Musa, New Mandala

One of the most contentious issues in our country is the debate on Islamic State vis-à-vis Secular State. It should be highlighted at this initial point that the Islamic State concept was borne out only early in the twentieth century after the demise of the Ottoman Caliphate. Irrespective of which divide we are on, one basic fact that we have to agree upon is that the terminology Dawlah Islamiyyah or Islamic State was never mentioned in the Qur'an.

However, Islamic State remains the main agenda of political Islam that defines Islam as ad-deen wa-dawlah or "religion and state". It could be argued that since there is no single predominant interpretation of what an Islamic state is, a vicious contestation still exists among the Islamists about the concept of Islamic State.

The realm of as-siyasi – the political

It is also worth noting from historical evidence that Muslims have been fighting against each other for centuries over political power. Rachid Ghannouchi leader ofHizb en-Nahda – The Renaissance Party – quotes a renowned Muslim historian, Shahrastani, as saying that it was on a question of political power that Muslims drew sword, fought each other and shed blood of one another.

And because of this, Ghannouchi distinguishes what he calls as ad-deeni – the religious, sacred or absolute – to that of as-siyasi – the political, profane or relative. The main problem Muslims especially are facing is in the realm of as-siyasi.

Many Muslims including some conservative political activists from the Islamic Party especially in the Ulama' and Youth wings are insistent on the idea of replicating the Medinan city-state model of the seventh century. The Qur'an is considered as a constitution that spells out everything that is needed to form a "truly Islamic" government.

Obviously this understanding is anything but a fallacy. The Qur'an only lays the basic foundation that guides mankind. As the erudite Muhammad Asad said: "Every generation faces different circumstances and thus many laws and ways for society cannot be fixed for all time. This is also why the Qur'an fixes time-less law, ethics and restrictions that are universal in its appreciation.

The companions of the Prophet were not left with a set of rules as to how to settle disputes or lead their worldly lives. However they were compelled to perform ijtihad or independent reasoning, using God-given faculty in order to find their own ways.

The en-Nahda leader, Ghannouchi argues that if Islam is the final divine revelation to humanity then it is only appropriate that no fixed prescriptions are given for matters that are of a changing nature such as governing a country. Muslims should be able to exercise their independent reasoning to devise suitable solutions for emerging problems. And the result of this exercise, Islam is then suitable for all times and all places.

Many Islamists argued that the Qur'an provides a solution to every single problem that faces humanity. Many verses have been cited to prove that Muslims need not find answers anywhere else. Among the most famous is: Today have I perfected your religious law for you, and have bestowed upon you the full measure of My blessings, and willed that self-surrender unto Me – al-Islam – shall be your religion." [al-Ma'idah– The Repast 5: 3]. And another verse is: 'No single thing have We neglected in Our decree." [Al-An'am – Cattle 6: 38]

In interpreting these verses, Ghannouchi asserted that many misunderstood them to mean that the Holy Qur'an has a solution to every problem whether major or minor. However what these verses really meant is that while some answers are already there, which if considered absolute, belong to the realm of ad-deeni; only guidelines and foundations are provided in the case of as-siyasi, so that Muslims may search for the detailed answers in accordance with the requirements of their respective time and place.

To exemplify this, Ghannouchi draws the attention to the Qur'anic declaration that: "And there is no living creature on earth but depends for its sustenance on God". [Hud11: 6] For in spite of such a declaration many creatures, including human communities, die of thirst and hunger. Where is then their sustenance? Their sustenance has indeed been stored in the earth and the heavens, but to become readily available, it requires exploring, an exertion of effort, on the part of those to whom it has been destined.

The need for human intellectual exegesis

Having said that, we have to acknowledge the fact that there exist shortcomings of a great deal of what we may believe to be sacred. The acceptance of God as Lord of the universe does not mean that everything is a priori. Islam is not a panacea that provides ready-made answers to all human problems. Muslim scholars have not solved all the problems of humanity, in history and for all times. Rather, Islam provides a moral and just perspective within which Muslims must find answer to all human problems.

Ultimately governing a state is a human endeavor. And there is only one thing that could rescue us from our current impasse: democracy. Democracy is essential for any Muslim group and only democracy could guide Muslim societies towards Islam, where the operation of the community and the demands of Islam are freely debated and refashioned.

This point needs further examination because a key and stubborn misperception of Muslims in regard to democracy is based on the notion that in Islam sovereignty belongs to God, while in democracy it belongs to people.

This is a naive and erroneous notion or interpretation. God IS the true and ultimate Sovereign, but He has bestowed a level of freedom and responsibility upon the human beings in this world. God has decided not to function as the Sovereign in thisworld. He has blessed humanity with revelations and His essential guidance. We are to shape and conduct our lives, individually and collectively, according to that guidance. But even though essentially this guidance is based on divine revelation, its interpretation and implementation are human.

God does not seek to regulate all human affairs and instead leaves human being considerable latitude in regulating their own affairs. In the Qur'anic discourse, God commanded the angels to honor man because of the miracle of human intellect – an expression of the abilities of the divine.

When we humans, search for ways to approximate God's beauty and justice, we do not deny God's sovereignty; instead we honor it. But if we were to say that the only legitimate source of law is the divine text, and that human experience and intellect are irrelevant to the pursuit of the divine will, then divine sovereignty will become an instrument of authoritarianism and an obstacle to democracy. And in effect, that authoritarian view denigrates God's sovereignty.

The democratic ideals

It should be emphasized that a state has to govern the relations between human beings and the ultimate aim of the state is to set up a society based on justice and benevolence – or 'adl and ihsan in the Qur'anic terms. 'Adl and ihsan are most fundamental human values and any state worth its salt has to strive to establish a society based on these values.

But for this, no particular form of state is needed. Even an honest monarch can do it. It is for this reason that the holy Qur'an praises prophet-rulers like David and Solomon, who were kings and just rulers. But the Qur'an is also aware that such just rulers are normally far and few in between. The governance has to be as democratic as possible so that all adults can participate in it. If governance is left to an individual, or a monarch, the power may corrupt him or her as everyone knows absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It is for this reason that the Qur'an refers to democratic governance when it says: "And those who respond to their Lord and keep up prayer, and whose affairs are (decided) by mutual consultation, and who spend out of what We have given them". [Ash-Shura– Consultation 42: 38]

Thus the mutual affairs – those pertaining to governance – should be conducted only by mutual consultation which in contemporary political parlance will be construed as democratic governance. Since in those days there was no well-defined practice of political democracy, the Qur'an refers to it as `amruhum shura baynahum, i.e. affairs to be conducted through mutual consultation, which is a very meaningful way of hinting at democracy.

The Qur'an is thus against totalitarian or absolute monarchical rule. This injunction, implying government by consent and council, must be regarded as one of the fundamental clauses of all Qur'anic legislation relating to statecrafts, and is binding on all Muslims and for all times as asserted by Muhammad Asad, in his book, State and Government in Islam.

Then what happens when the society and leadership faces a conflict where for example the majority of the Muslim society does not want to uphold Islam? It must be emphasized that the leadership cannot coerce the society into what it does not want. There is no compulsion or coercion in Islam. Coercion never delivers sustainable results, and the foundation of Islam cannot be based on coercion.

Observe that God IS the sovereign from the viewpoint of Islamic reality, but not from practical standpoint. When our decisions are to be made based on Ijtihad – and we could be wrong; where our constitution and policies would be formulated through human consultation – and we can err; when our judicial system would be guided by the revealed guidance, yet, based on the evidence presented, there would be chance for an innocent to get convicted and a guilty to go free, God is not acting as a sovereign in this world.

Amangate: will Najib clean up Nazri’s mess?

Posted: 02 Nov 2012 12:12 PM PDT

If Nazri disclaims responsibility over his statements, then who is responsible to parliament for them? Nazri is a cabinet minister in the prime minister's department, looking after parliamentary affairs, as well as de facto law minister. So, if Nazri's disclaimer is justified, does it not mean that in addition to Nazri himself, the prime minister and the entire Barisan Nasional (BN) cabinet can also be freed from responsibility over possible false statements on the scandal made in parliament?

Kim Quek

Minister in Prime Minister's Department cum de dacto law minister Nazri Abdul Aziz's attempt to disown responsibilities for his contradictory statements in parliament on ground that he was only the reader – not the author – of those statements has brought serious concern to the soundness of the Barisan Nasional political leadership.

The senior minister was confronted with evidence of his son Nedim's family using a luxurious vehicle registered in Michael Chia's name, who together with Musa Aman (Sabah chief minister), were cleared by Nazri of corruption in parliament earlier.

Nazri had provided written answers in parliament that there was no corruption in the four-year-old scandal where Chia was alleged to have been arrested in Hong Kong for trying to smuggle S$16 million of Musa's cash to Malaysia. Nazri also denied that Chia was arrested, or that he had cash with him. Nazri attributed these findings to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and the Attorney General (AG).

Talking to reporters on Nov 1, Nazri explained that all his statements in parliament came from the MACC and AG, over whom he had no control. He was only the minister answering questions in parliament on issues that he was not involved in. As such, he sees no conflict of interest with Michael Chia. Sadly and shamefully, Nazri was in effect saying that he merely parroted what these government agencies told him, for which he disavowed any responsibility.

BREACH OF PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY

Nazri's stance immediately raises an alarm. If Nazri disclaims responsibility over his statements, then who is responsible to parliament for them?

Nazri is a cabinet minister in the prime minister's department, looking after parliamentary affairs, as well as de facto law minister.

So, if Nazri's disclaimer is justified, does it not mean that in addition to Nazri himself, the prime minister and the entire Barisan Nasional (BN) cabinet can also be freed from responsibility over possible false statements on the scandal made in parliament?

Doesn't this amount to the Barisan Nasional leadership abdicating wholesale its accountability to parliament, and by extension, betraying the trust upon which the people have elected the coalition to power?

This is certainly a serious breach of the principles of parliamentary democracy upon which this nation was founded, for which Prime Minister Najib Razak can no longer keep silent and must promptly stand up to make his stand to the nation. He must urgently clarify in parliament whether Nazri was authorized to make those statements and whether every minister is personally responsible for what he states in parliament.

And since MACC comes under the prime minister's department while the AG is the cabinet's chief legal adviser, both of whom are claimed by Nazri to be responsible for the statements he made in parliament, Najib must now give unequivocal answers to many perplexing questions on the scandal, compounded by Nazri's contradicting versions of the story.

NAZRI'S CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS

To appreciate the seriousness of these contradictions perpetrated by Nazri in parliament, I will briefly recap them as follows:

· On Oct 11, answering MP Chua Tian Chan, Nazri stated that the AG decided that there was no corruption, based on MACC's investigations and reports. However, this assertion immediately clashes with MACC's own statement a few days earlier, when its deputy chief commissioner (operations) Shukri Abdul said on Oct 5 that investigation was still on-going, due to instruction by its review panel to get more evidence.

· On Oct 18, answering MP Tan Kok Wai, Nazri changed his tune by saying that investigation was not carried out by MACC, but instead, by Hong Kong's Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), which concluded that there was no corruption. No explanation was given as to why Nazri reversed his story.

· On Oct 22, answering questions in the committee stage of the Budget 2013 debate in Dewan Rakyat, Nazri astounded all by denying that Michael Chia was ever arrested, neither did Chia possess the alleged cash, as he understood from MACC. No explanation was given why the BN government had kept its strange silence, while reports of Michael Chia's arrest with S$16 million cash meant for Musa Aman swirled for the past four years.

It is important to note that while Nazri was dancing like yo-yo in parliament with his statements of exoneration for Chia and Musa, none of the investigating/law-enforcing bodies – ICAC, MACC or AG – ever uttered a word on the scandal (except for MACC's statement on Oct 5 that investigation was still in progress), least of all any declaration of the duo's innocence.

All we have is Nazri's words – words that are not collaborated or substantiated with even an iota of evidence, in addition to being self-contradictory and conflicting with MACC.

PM MUST ANSWER

Under the circumstances, Premier Najib must take responsibility for the bumbling minister in his department and step up to give categorical answers to the following questions in parliament to avert a total collapse of confidence in his leadership:

1. Is it true that ICAC has conveyed its findings of money laundering to MACC, including a money flow chart trailing the Sabah timber corruption money through a convoluted network to end up in Musa Aman's UBS AG account in Zurich, complete with details of various nominee accounts, payers and payees, deposit amounts, etc? (This money flow chart has been widely circulating in the Internet for some time).

2. Is it true that MACC has carried out an investigation of its own on Sabah timber corruption including probe on Musa Aman and his brother Anifa Aman (Malaysia's foreign minister) since the Michael Chia incidence in Hong Kong?

3. Is it true that neither ICAC nor MACC has ever exonerated Chia and Musa of money laundering and corruption?

To avoid falling into the same quagmire as minister Nazri has, the premier is well advised to buttress his answers with sufficient and credible facts – the kind of evidence that will restore public confidence.

THE LATEST NAZRI-CHIA CORRUPTION SCANDAL

With regards to Nazri's latest refutation of any impropriety over his family's beneficial link to Michael Chia on ground that his son is his son, with whom he has nothing do, this is sheer child's talk.

Whether Nazri likes it or not, his son Nedim is his immediate family, and for any improper favour granted to Nedim by virtual of Nazri's position as a minister, the latter is deemed beneficiary and recipient of that improper favour.

Would Chia have given the half-million-ringgit Hummer SUV for use by Nedim's family, if not for the fact that Nazri is a senior minister capable of doing Chia a favour?

In this case, Nazri easily stands out as a prime corruption suspect, as he has already stuck his neck out in parliament where he recklessly cleared Chia (as well as his alleged master Musa Aman) of any wrong-doing. This is clearly a case with classical corruption ingredients, cut out for action by any corruption buster worth its salt in any democratic country.

However, in Malaysia, our MACC has already played deaf and dumb on the Chia-Musa scandal for the past four years. Will it also do a Chia-Musa on the latest Nazri-Chia corruption scandal this time around?

What Everyone Should Know About Operasi Lalang

Posted: 02 Nov 2012 12:09 PM PDT

Kee Thuan Chye

Last week, we marked the 25th anniversary of Operasi Lalang, that black day in our history that changed our country for the worst.

Like May 13, 1969, it was a Malaysian tragedy. And after all these years, we have yet to fully recover from it.

The beneficiaries of that notorious official move on Oct 27, 1987, to detain 106 Malaysians under the Internal Security Act (ISA) were – as journalist uppercaise has rightly pointed out in his blog – the then prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, and Umno.

Or, to be precise, Mahathir's Umno Baru, which came about after the original Umno was declared illegal by the High Court in February 1988.

The year before, Mahathir was under siege as president of the party. The party was split – into Team A and Team B. And in April, he was challenged for the presidency by Tengku Razaleigh.

Members had come to dispute Mahathir's leadership style. Team B, led by Razaleigh, criticised Mahathir for not consulting other Umno and Barisan Nasional (BN) leaders before making decisions.

As prime minister, he put his own people in charge of key operations. His privatisation schemes were given to his cronies. Team B pointed out that the New Economic Policy had failed to benefit poor Malays. Now, in hindsight, it's even clearer to us why that was so.

Team B made an impact, and Mahathir won the election by polling 761 votes against Razaleigh's 718, scraping through by a mere 43 votes.

Many people actually expected Razaleigh to win, so the suspicion of election-fixing arose. But Razaleigh accepted defeat and promised to support Mahathir if the latter did not embark on a witchhunt.

Of course, now that we know from hindsight the kind of man Mahathir is, it comes as no surprise that he embarked on a witchhunt anyway. He removed all Team B supporters from his Cabinet, and did the same at state and local government levels.

In June, a group of Umno members who came to be known as "the Umno 11" filed a suit to have the Umno elections declared illegal because they had found invalid voters among the delegates. These delegates were allegedly from Umno branches that had not been approved by the Registrar of Societies.

The court asked both sides to settle the issue themselves, but an amicable solution was not reached. So on Oct 19, the Umno 11 said it would press on with its legal action.

At the time, the tensions within Umno were being compounded by racial tensions outside. Chinese educationists had been upset by the Education Ministry's appointing of non-Chinese-educated principals and senior assistants for Chinese schools. The custodians of Chinese education, Dong Jiao Zong – abetted by political parties like the MCA, Gerakan and the DAP – staged a protest against the move.

It immediately provoked a counter-rally by Umno Youth at which about 10,000 people turned up. This was the event at which Najib Razak, then the Umno Youth chief, famously unsheathed a keris and reportedly vowed that it would be bathed in Chinese blood.

The authorities seized on this potentially explosive situation – and the somewhat random act of an army private running amok in Chow Kit shooting his M16 at people – as a pretext to swoop down on "troublemakers".

Operasi Lalang resulted in conveniently shutting away a good number of Opposition politicians and civil society activists who had been critical of the Government.

I use the words "pretext" and "conveniently" because most of those detained were not at all involved in the Dong Jiao Zong protest or the Umno Youth counter-rally.

Among them were members of Christian groups, environmentalists and anti-logging natives of Sarawak , and a Malay Christian convert. Why were they taken in?

Forty of the 106 even had their detentions extended by Mahathir for two years. They included DAP deputy chairman Karpal Singh, Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang and his son Guan Eng, some PAS members and numerous NGO activists.

On the other hand, the leaders of the Umno Youth rally who were brandishing banners that called for Chinese blood and proclaimed "May 13 has begun" were untouched. Why were they not taken in?

The Government also conveniently shut down three newspapers that had been critical of it. The Star, Watan and Sin Chew Jit Poh had their publishing permits suspended.

Purwaiz Alam, who was a journalist at The Star during its suspension, recalls in uppercaise's blog the months of uncertainty he experienced, surviving on one-third pay and waiting anxiously for the newspaper to be forgiven. At one point, he and his wife had to sell their video cassette recorder just to get some extra cash.

"But on the first day that The Star re-opened," he writes, "most of us knew things would never be the same any more. The journalism that we had learnt and knew well would wither away soon enough. As the months went by, it became obvious that my job (and those of hundreds of others) had been saved at a price, a very hefty price."

His grim conclusion: "All of us are still paying for it 25 years later."

Effectively, Operasi Lalang heralded the culture of fear that strangulated Malaysians for at least two decades.

It also provided the environment for Mahathir to rule in an even more authoritarian manner. He had scared off his opponents and silenced his critics, so now he was free to do what he wished.

He amended the Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA) to keep newspapers under tighter control.

He amended the Police Act to restrict our right to free assembly, making a police permit mandatory for public gatherings.

According to the book Malaysian Maverick by Barry Wain, Mahathir said his amendments were aimed at those who abused the Government's "liberal attitude".

"Being liberal to them is like offering a flower to a monkey," Mahathir said, disdainfully. "The monkeys would rather tear the flower apart than appreciate its beauty."

In 1988, as a result of his unhappiness over a few court judgements that favoured natural justice over his administration's convenience, he amended the Federal Constitution to remove the independence of the judiciary.

There is much more to say about how Mahathir tampered with our sacred institutions in the years after Operasi Lalang, but it would take a book to cover it all.

Some people think another tragedy like Operasi Lalang could happen again – and not too far in the future. Especially when, as journalist Charles Chan who lived through the dark days of The Star's suspension puts it, "desperate politicians face loss of power that opens the doors to prosecution for their abuses of power, corruption, etc".

To prepare ourselves for such a contingency, we need to ask ourselves how we would respond if it should happen. Should we be docile like we were in 1987 or should we stand up for our rights?

What's paramount is that we should find ways of preventing such tragedies in future.

First, we should not allow a despot to rise again. At the first sign of such a creature emerging, we should vote him out instead of supporting him for more than two decades.

Concomitant with that, we should not allow any ruling party the luxury of a two-thirds majority in Parliament so that they can amend the Constitution anyhow they like.

We should also be vigilant in not allowing any of the despot's proxies to climb to the top.

Second, we must ensure that checks and balances are firmly in place, like a strong civil society – and, certainly, the reinstatement of the separation of powers among the executive, the legislative and the judiciary engraved in our Constitution. This means independence must be returned to the judiciary.

Third, we must repeal all laws that are against the spirit of democracy, like the PPPA, the Official Secrets Act, the Sedition Act (soon to be called the sweet-sounding National Harmony Act) and the Universities and University Colleges Act.

There is no ISA now but in its place is the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012. This has to go. We have enough laws to take care of terrorist threats.

Fourth, we must get rid of our feudal mentality. This perpetuates a culture of blind subservience to the leader and a culture of sycophancy, both of which empower the leader even more. Furthermore, ascent to leadership should be based on merit, not on an individual's ability to suck up to the boss.

Fifth, Operasi Lalang is a tragedy that needs to be told and re-told so that those who don't know about its ramifications may understand why Malaysia is in the mess it's in. Those who have lived through that terrible day and its aftermath need to tell their children and grandchildren the real story about what happened and condemn the abuse of power and dictatorial rule.

Our first Prime Minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, gave us a lead when he said right after Operasi Lalang: "It's not a question of the Chinese against the Government but of his own party, Umno, who are against him."

The real story of Operasi Lalang is not about a potential racial war erupting. It is about a despot who wanted to hang on to power, shut out all opposition, and run the country to his own advantage.

That's what everyone should know.

* Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the bestselling book No More Bullshit, Please, We're All Malaysians, available in bookstores together with its Malay translation, Jangan Kelentong Lagi, Kita Semua Orang Malaysia.

Yang membela Islam tiga orang Cina

Posted: 02 Nov 2012 11:48 AM PDT

Bagi membendung api perkauman yang belum benar-benar padam, Sarena Tay menyeru orang Melayu beramai-ramai menyokong PAS. Jika orang Melayu tidak lagi dalam Umno, maka perkauman boleh diredakan. Tidak lagi orang yang hendak menyokong MCA. Jika MCA dapat dilumpuhkan, kuranglah puak yang berani mencerca Islam.

Subky Latif, Harakah Daily

Hampir menitis air mata menahan sebak melihat yang membela Islam dicerca Dr Chua Soi Lek dan pemimpin MCA ialah orang Cina dipercayai ketiga-tiganya bukan Islam.

Jika yang sensitif apabila Islam dicerca ialah orang Islam, orang PAS dan orang yang beriman, tiada suatu yang luar biasa kerana orang Islam tidak wajar membisu apabila agamanya dicerca.

Tetapi amat menakjubkan apabila rakan-rakan Cina yang tampil menyifatkan Soi Lek dan MCA menghina Islam seperti yang disuarakan oleh Anthony Loke, MP DAP Rasah, kolumnis Siang Malam di Harakah, Lim Hong Siang dan seorang penulis lagi Sarena Tay.

Pada mereka apa yang cakap oleh Soi Lek dan semua pemimpin MCA dalam perhimpunannya dua hari pada 20 Oktober lalu adalah menghina Islam, hudud dan PAS.

Mereka bukan orang Isalam, bukan beriman dengan hudud dan bukan pejuang PAS. Mereka adalah pembawa berita sebenar dan pembuka mata, sesuai dengan ajaran ilmu kewartawanan iaitu berita adalah maklumat berunsur kejutan seperti anjing digigit orang. Bukanlah berita lagi kalau orang digigit anjing.

Hujah biasa jika yang membela Islam itu orang, kerana adalah tanggungjawab orang beriman membela dan menegakkan Islam dan hukum-hukumnya. Tetapi ia adalah pembuka mata ada wibawa apabila orang yang tiada kepentingan dengan Islam dan hudud mengira Islam dan hudud telah dicemuh.

Mereka tidak bercadang untuk mendaulatkan Islam seperti yang PAS perjuangkan dan jaga mahu hudud menjadi perundangan seperti yang dituntut oleh Islam, tetapi mereka tidak melihat bijak dan rasional apabila Islam dan hudud dihina begitu rupa.

Kewajaran mereka berbuat demikian bukan untuk melihat Islam itu daulatkan tetapi tindakan MCA itu menggamit keserahan di kalangan rakyat dan negara. DAP belajar dari keterlanjuran pemimpinnya Karpal Singh pernah berkata langah mayatnya jika Islam diperundangkan. Ia pernah menimbulkan ketegangan di kalangan orang Islam dan ia menyukarkan DAP untuk menembusi pasaran pengaruh politik.

Kesilapan itu telah dibaiki, Karpal dan DAP tidak lagi dilihat oleh umat Islam di luar Umno sebagai pencetus ketegangan.

Ketiga Cina itu termasuk ketua pemuda DAP, Anthony Loke mahu mewujudkan suasana negara yang aman, adil dan harmoni, menolak provokasi dan penghinaan terhadap Islam yang lakukan oleh MCA itu.

Lebih menjolok mata Perdana Menteri Najib telah diperalatkan oleh MCA dalam politiknya untuk menyerang Islam dan hudud itu. Soi Lek menjemput Najib merasmikan perhimpunannya dan lepas itu menggunakan perhimpunan itu untuk menyerang hudud dan PAS. Dengan sendirinya ia menyerang dan menghina Islam.

Syukur orang Islam dapat mengawal sabar dan pendirian tidak bangun menyeru pejabat MCA dan premis kepunyaan Cina. Tetapi ia telah mengguris perasaan orang Islam. Siapa yang dapat menghalang kalau ada orang Islam yang bangkit bertindak kasar kepada masyarakat Cina.

Walaupun ketiga anak Cina memunyai rasa setiakawan yang tinggi terhadap PAS yang ada pakatan dengan DAP, tetapi tindakan spontan mereka atas kecetekan Soi Lek dan MCAnya adalah untuk mengelakkan ketegangan berlanjutan antara kaum di negara ini.

Malaysia beruntung ada tiga Cina seperti itu dan orang seperti mereka dipercayai ramai.

The politician, his son and the crony

Posted: 01 Nov 2012 03:23 PM PDT

There are many more ministerial children of whom we have heard nothing, yet.

Yesterday, Nazri ignored criticism of his son's relationship with Michael Chia, the businessman who is embroiled in the RM40 million money laundering saga. Despite assertions that this money was destined for Sabah Umno, the members of Sabah Umno claim to have no knowledge of this donation.

Mariam Mokhtar, FMT

If the way to a man's heart is through his stomach, then the way to an Umno politician's heart, is through his spouse or children. In Malaysia, cronies beat a path to the politician's door, to provide material goods for his family members.

Only the naïve would think their acts charitable. Cronies do it for personal gain: tenders for contracts, to avoid the law, a means to fleece the public through subsidies or when government projects are 'outsourced" like the AES (Automated Enforcement System) aka "speed traps".

Plum jobs and multi-million dollar government contracts are reserved for the offspring of Umno politicians, their cronies and pro-Umno civil servants.

The rakyat have heard of a few of the children of ministers who are allegedly involved in cronyism and corruption, but there are many more ministerial children of whom we have heard nothing, yet.

Whose son was allegedly awarded the RM128.4 million air traffic control system contract, through a "closed tender" process? This air traffic control system was allegedly faulty and risked the lives of millions of airline users.

Whose children are allegedly hiding in New York, at least until the furore of the scandal they are involved in, dies down? Were Muslims aware that this Hari Raya Haji 3,000 cattle had to be imported from Thailand for sacrificial slaughter? The irony is that farmers' needs have been sacrificed for the vanity project of an incompetent family. This money should have filtered down to the farmers, to help them earn a living, to help the economy and the cattle industry.

Whose sons are indirectly involved in the latest launch of the airline, Malindo Airways? An online newpaper alleged that one of the companies investing in Malindo, had poor financial and safety records, and that its accounts had not been audited since 2007.

Which daughter of a former top civil servant owns a major interest in alternative energy projects in Malaysia? Her companies were allegedly set up recently and despite the lack of experience, still managed to secure a controlling interest in the alternative power generation needs.

The list is endless. Children of past and present politicians and also VVIPs, monopolise the multi-million ringgit projects, providing much needed goods and services, which you and your children have no alternative but to use. You also pay through the nose, for them.

When quizzed by reporters about the involvement of their spouses, children or friends, these politicians brush prying questions aside with:

a) My husband does not tell me what he gets up to.

b) What my wife does is private.

c) I don't know what my son (or daughter) is doing.

d) My businessman friend wanted to surprise me with the contents of his briefcase.

No conflict of interest

Nazri also said that his reputation as a Cabinet Minister had not been compromised and he could see no conflict of interest in his or his son's friendship with Chia.

An online newspaper reported that Nazri had said: "I don't sleep with my son. I am not gay (homosexual). My son is not my wife, my son is not my lover. What he does, he doesn't tell me.

"That is between my son and Michael Chia. If he (Chia) wants to give [Nedim] a Hummer or a Ferarri, it is Michael Chia's business… its not like he (Chia) is giving it to me… and I am the minister, not my son."

"What has he committed, tell me? He is not a minister. Where is the conflict of interest? He is my son".

Cynics claim that the parliamentary ministerial code, which details the conduct expected of Malaysian MPs, can't have been shown to Umno politicians like Nazri.

READ MORE HERE

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Ahad, 4 November 2012

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan