Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

The other Allah debate
Role of Sabah and Sarawak in nation-building
Will the Indian Muslim wish come true?
Indian Nation in Malaysia needs to get its politics and relationships right
Stop violence against women
‘Political Islam’ and Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad (Part One)
There’s No Excuse for Not Reporting the Truth
Leaving God

Posted: 03 Jan 2013 03:20 PM PST

Mariam Mokhtar with Hannah Yeoh in London

The word Allah has been used for hundreds of years in the Golden Chersonese or the Malay Peninsula without any problems.

Mariam Mokhtar, FMT

If politicians form the group of people whom we despise most, then the sanctimonious hypocrites have to come a close second. The holier-than-thou types make the lives of many people a misery. They judge others by a strict set of rules, to which many of them fail to adhere.

The current Allah debate, sparked off by Penang's Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng, is our latest political football. The government has to pretend it is the defender of Malay rights and so the Allah debate will never reach a satisfactory conclusion before GE-13.

Umno Muslims must have a low opinion of their fellow Muslims if they think that the use of the word Allah by non-Muslims would lead to "confusion". If Muslims can be confused by their non-Muslim friends using the word "Allah" then perhaps, we should blame the Education Minister Muhyiddin Yassin, for an education system which churns out idiots.

There is no confusion. The word Allah has been used for hundreds of years in the Golden Chersonese or the Malay Peninsula without any problems. The word Allah, from the Aramaic language, has been used in the middle-east, by both Muslims and Christians for thousands of years.

Around 2009, a senior Umno politician decided to gain brownie points and spook the Muslim masses, by claiming that only Umno can protect the Malays, their faith, their rulers and their way of life, the word Allah was banned from use by non-Muslims. The rest as they say, is history.

The "Allah" debate is nothing compared with the misuse of the words, "Insha Allah", a tag which many Muslims adjoin to the end of their statements.

The misuse of "Insha Allah", is more insidious, affects both Muslims and non-Muslims, in and out of Malaysia, and is a bane in our lives. Some Muslims liberally lace their speech with "Insha Allah".

How many times have some Muslims told us that they would do something, and then end their statements with "Insha Allah"? How often has that commitment failed to be fulfilled?

The following are some of the ways many Muslims have abused the words "Insha Allah":

"I will check out the contract requirements by the end of the week, Insha Allah."

"When I finish shopping, I will meet you at the library, Insha Allah".

"Don't worry, I will drive mother to her friend's house, Insha Allah."

"The cheque will be posted before the end of the month, Insha Allah."

"Leave it to me. I will make sure she gets to her class on time, Insha Allah."

"Trust me, I will sign the documents before the deadline, Insha Allah."

Breaking promises

In my experience, the people in the above examples used the words "Insha Allah" as an excuse to break their promise.

They may have had no intention of keeping their promise, or they may have been too lazy to keep to their end of the deal, or found something more exciting to do instead. So they say that what happened was God's will.

Perhaps, others have had different experiences or been more "lucky" with people who say "Insha Allah".

For those who are not aware, the words "Insha Allah" means "If Allah wills it" or simply "God willing".

To those of us who have been let down many times, "Insha Allah" might as well mean "maybe" or "If I can be bothered" or "I might do it, if I have nothing better to do".

Whenever someone uses the words "Insha Allah", I know that person has no intention of carrying out his promise.

Muslims who do not understand what the words truly mean, tend to use these words flippantly. Although some of the Muslims who use these words are sincere, the majority are not.

First, they say "Insha Allah" because they realise that few people will question the power of God. Second, this cop-out clause is a useful excuse to explain why they failed to live up to their promise, because they will say, "God willed it".

It would be nice if people were more open and admit that they could not fulfil the promise, rather than tell lies and invoke the name of God. Ultimately, it is not the faith in God that is tested, rather our trust and relationship in our friend, colleague or relative that is damaged.

People who have worked in the middle-east will be only too familiar with the phrase, "Inkin bukra, Insha Allah" which means "Maybe tomorrow, God willing." This makes the word mañana sound like a call for immediate action.

Returning to the Allah debate, Lim's Christmas message of 2012 failed to elicit the spirit of Christian cheer and goodwill from some Malaysians. The joyful tidings he was trying to raise, has started a raging debate, all because he urged Putrajaya to allow Christians to use the word "Allah" in the Malay version of the bible.

So, instead of people lighting the Christmas pudding, Malaysia's latest defenders of Islam, a group of 100 members of the Pertubuhan Penyatuan Pembelaan Melayu Malaysia (PPPMM) staged a protest and burned portraits of Lim.

Role of Sabah and Sarawak in nation-building

Posted: 03 Jan 2013 12:08 PM PST

If Sabah and Sarawak did not contribute the 56 seats to the national parliament, would they receive the same treatment today? Would the BN withdraw its fixed deposits (special treatment) when Sabah and Sarawak could no longer offer better interest rates (electoral support)?

Arnold Puyok, fz.com

TO BUILD a nation is not easy. It took the Americans more than 200 years to finally find their identity. Hence, there surely is a lot of work to be done to transform Malaysia into a solid nation.

It is indeed a work-in-progress. We must remember, Malaysia is just 49 years old (from its founding in 1963), way too young compared with major countries, such as the United States, China and India, just to name a few.

In order to build a successful Malaysian nation, Malaysians must be willing to put aside their political and cultural differences. However, this will be an enormous challenge as not only are Malaysians divided politically and culturally, they are also divided regionally.

A case in point is Sabahans and Sarawakians who are separated from their peninsular Malaysian counterparts by the South China Sea.

The main challenge confronting the government of the day (and any government to come) is to bridge what I call the political and cultural gap in Malaysian society. This endeavour must start with the effort to truly integrate Sabah and Sarawak into the Federation of Malaysia.

Since 2008, Sabah and Sarawak are considered by many as the ruling party Barisan Nasional's (BN) "fixed deposits". The label came after the East Malaysian states helped the BN return to power by contributing 56 parliamentary seats in the 2008 general election.

These seats were crucial in ensuring the BN's slim electoral victory. Many analysts (including this writer) have predicted that the BN will return to power but not necessarily with Sabah and Sarawak as its fixed deposits anymore, depending on changes in the dynamics of local politics.

Sabah and Sarawak's fixed deposits status has brought them to national prominence. Sabah, in particular, has been receiving numerous development assistances from the Federal Government.

Under the Ninth Malaysia Plan Sabah received the largest financial allocation of more than RM16 billion. More Sabahans were also appointed to hold important positions in the federal cabinet.

Datuk Seri Anifah Aman, for instance, was appointed by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to helm the influential Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Datuk Seri Mohd Shafie Afdal, the Ministry of Rural Development. These cabinet portfolios are normally reserved for key Umno leaders from peninsular Malaysia.

Despite the special treatment given to Sabah and Sarawak, many are not happy with the fixed deposits label.

They ask: if Sabah and Sarawak did not contribute the 56 seats to the national parliament, would they receive the same treatment today? Would the BN withdraw its fixed deposits (special treatment) when Sabah and Sarawak could no longer offer better interest rates (electoral support)?

When the democratically elected PBS (Parti Bersatu Sabah) was in power, it was pushed into the political wilderness by the Mahathir administration simply because the party was championing state rights and autonomy.

This caused Sabah to lag behind in terms of infrastructural development. Despite peninsular Malaysia's marked development progress, Sabah and Sarawak are still way behind.

It is important for the government to set politics aside for the sake of nation-building. Sabah and Sarawak must not be regarded as fixed deposits anymore.

Sabahans and Sarawakians have suffered a lot due to "bad politics" played by self-serving leaders. The Federal Government must not alienate Sabahans and Sarawakians just because they are politically and culturally different.

Sabahans and Sarawakians are loyal Malaysian citizens who want to be treated equally as their fellow Malaysians in the peninsular Malaysia.

If the government is serious about building a strong Malaysian nation, Sabahans and Sarawakians teach us that we all can live in peace and harmony if we are willing to accept each other's political and cultural differences.

In Sabah and Sarawak, ethnic tolerance is high. There have never been any ethnic riots in Sabah and Sarawak throughout Malaysia's 49 years of history. Ethnic harmony is intact thanks to inter-ethnic marriages.

Regional identity plays a more important role than do ethnicity and religion. It does not matter whether one is Kadazandusun, Bajau, Murut, Lundayeh or Bisaya, racial identity is not as strong as in peninsular Malaysia.

While many of the indigenous people in Sabah and Sarawak have embraced either Islam or Christianity, they take pride in their cultural roots. That is why when the "Allah" issue came about, Sabahan Muslims came to defend the right of their Christian counterparts to use the word "Allah", including the Muslim chief minister. The same with Sarawak and its chief minister too.

Will the Indian Muslim wish come true?

Posted: 03 Jan 2013 11:59 AM PST

Since the inception of Malaysia, the Indian Muslim community has been in search of an identity that will associate it with BN and the Malay-Muslim community.

Ali Cordoba, FMT

The rumour mill is spinning fast in Kuala Lumpur, with the business circle among the Indian Muslim community gearing for a massive Barisan Nasional victory in an apparent late January polls.

Will this 13th general election be the one that will grant the Indian Muslims, lost in Malaysia's political doldrums, their silent wishes?

These rumours, which are spreading like wild fires in Masjid India, for example, put the Indian Muslim community in perspective while several of the community leaders are said to be campaigning in favour of BN.

Pro-BN banners are seen along the overcrowded Masjid India street. Some of the leading business outlets in the area have showed their preference for BN, with large banners erected on some buildings.

Since the inception of Malaysia, the Indian Muslim community has been in search of an identity that would associate it with BN and the Malay-Muslim community.

The formation of the Malaysian Indian Muslim Congress (Kimma) in the mid-1970s – a group to represent the Indian Muslims in the political scene – had little impact in the community's quest for recognition.

A recent flurry of activities by Kimma and its very recent association with BN did not altogether help the cause of the Indian Muslims.

Although left in the lurch, a majority of the community would probably stick to the rule of supporting BN in order to maintain the favours and prevent a backlash against its businesses.

With Kimma unable to press BN for the granting of the "Bumiputera" status to the Indian Muslims, the latter group is said to have fallen in a dilemma.

From an Umno-BN point of view, not granting the demands of Kimma and sidelining the Indian Muslims as "others" in the Muslim community actually secures their blind support for the ruling coalition.

The ruling government is aware that Kimma would never abandon BN or force the Indian Muslims to vote for Pakatan Rakyat. They would have too much to lose if they dropped BN for Pakatan at the last moment, thus the delaying tactics in the "talks" between Umno and Kimma on the fate of the "Mamak".

Indian Nation in Malaysia needs to get its politics and relationships right

Posted: 02 Jan 2013 10:17 AM PST

If Indians in the collective vote for Pakatan Rakyat (PR), the opposition alliance, and hypothetically Barisan Nasional (BN) still manages to form the Federal Government, the community is not likely to see any change in its fate. If anything, they are likely to continue as scapegoats and be further victimized by the powers that be and those in the corridors of power and brutalized by the racist police. If Indians being wholly with the BN from 1957 to 2008 did not prevent their decline in the country, just think what will happen when the community is on the wrong side of the political fence?

Joe Fernandez

As the festive cheers end the year and a new one begins, the Indian Nation in Malaysia – a Nation without Territory within a Nation -- needs to think really long and hard about what the forthcoming 13th General Election means for them.

Their past has caught up with them in the present to haunt their future. The 13th GE, more than the 12th GE, will be a watershed year for them in dealing with the politics of the nation.

This is a time for Christmas wishes and making New Year Resolutions.

If there's going to be a complete break with the past, Indians need to consider that politics for them cannot be what it means to those communities in Malaysia which have ethnic seats for the taking in Parliament and the state assemblies.

Indians are the only community in Malaysia which doesn't have even one ethnic seat in Parliament or the state assemblies despite having a million voters on the electoral rolls and forming eight per cent of the 28 million population. Their marginalisation and disenfranchisement under the Umno regime over half a century has been complete. This is a grave human rights issue.

The 8 per cent excludes at least 300,000 stateless and undocumented ethnic Indians in the country.

Mohd Khir Toyo exposed the problem of stateless, undocumented children

To his credit, it was former Selangor Menteri Besar Mohd Khir Toyo who first conceded on the Government side the fact that there were 50,000 stateless Indian children in his state alone. Khir, the son of Javanese immigrants, was sore with Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) leaders on other issues and decided to take them down a peg or two with the stateless issue.

The absence of ethnic seats for the Indians means that engaging in party politics and coalition politics will not help resolve their myriad socio-economic problems. This concept must be something to borne in mind by Indians who are now with political parties on both sides of the divide. While no one can force these members to leave their respective organisations, it would be the right thing to do if the Indian community is not to be further victimized in the aftermath of the 13th GE and other similar future outings.

Indians caught between the known devil and the unknown angel

What can be said about BN can also be said about PR i.e. if the Indians root for BN, and PR comes in to form the Federal Government. PR, under the circumstances, will not have even moral obligations to the Indian Nation in Malaysia.

One has to only look at the fate of the minorities in the MiddleEast and West Asia in the wake of the long civil war in Lebanon, US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and the eruption of the Arab Spring in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria. The Christian minorities here are on the run everywhere, victimized and persecuted by a newly-united majority community for having thrown in their lot for long with the "divide-and-rule" fallen regimes rather than taking a strictly neutral or apolitical stand.

The US, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Europe have opened their doors to them but not everyone has been able to escape the refugee camps or being reduced to the status of internally displaced persons.

It's high time that Indians in Malaysia look at the tragic fate of the Christian minorities in MiddleEast and West Asia and decide whether this is what they want for themselves as well.

The right way forward would be for Indian voters to come out and vote in full force on a non-political, non-party basis.

Those incumbents who have been in a seat for three terms or more should be voted out.

Other incumbents who have not performed and/or otherwise done nothing for the Indian community should also be voted out.

This message needs to get out again and again until the Indian community sees the wisdom of it.

Indians should not vote for Indians to be in the legislature

Thirdly, Indian should not vote for Indians to be in the legislature. Such Indians would be unable to do anything for the community and having them merely glosses over the problem and paints the impressions that the government is being shared fairly among all Malaysians. This is the proverbial fig leaf. Such Indian legislators become convenient scapegoats i.e. to be blamed by the non-Indian legislators when the Indian community complains about anything.

However, Indians not voting for Indians is unlikely to prevent non-Indian voters rooting for Indian legislators. That's their prerogative.

No self-respecting Indian should offer himself in the GE as that would be tantamount to further misleading the community and postponing badly-need solutions.

The Government of the Day, whether from BN or PR, should consider that it would be in their interest to appoint Indians to the Senate and in the Government sector, especially statutory bodies, government companies and GLCs.

Non-Indian legislators should take up the plight of Indian Nation in Malaysia

This would be a start for the Indian community to embark on the long and hard road towards its emergence as a force to be reckoned with in the mainstream.

Individual non-Indian legislators, fearing defeat at the hands of Indian voters, are likely to take up the community's plight and make an attempt at resolving its myriad socio-economic problems.

The list is long.

At the macro level, the stateless and undocumented phenomenon needs to be brought to an end. At present, the Umno regime deliberately keeps the stateless and undocumented people as virtually slave labour in the twilight zone. Slavery is illegal under the Malaysian Constitution, international law and the UN Charter. The stateless don't figure in official statistics and the phenomenon further deprives Indians of additional votes.

The Director-General of the National Registration Department (NRD) has prerogative and discretionary powers – can be determined by the Court – to resolve the stateless problem at the stroke of a pen but he refuses to do so because he's being forced by Umno to act as if he was a hardcore card-carrying racist member of the party.

The Federal Government should appoint an apolitical ethnic Indian, a non-Muslim, as the Director-General of NRD and a non-Muslim Orang Asal – Murut, Dusun including Kadazan or urban Dusun, Dayak, and Orang Asli – as the Deputy Director-General of the NRD at least until the stateless problem in Malaysia is resolved. This is a human rights issue. Everyone has the right to an identity.

To add insult to injury, illegal immigrants and foreign labour are being allowed in to compete with Indians in jobs which they had traditionally held. The Minimum Wage Act ensures that Malaysians will be discouraged from entering the job market at the lower levels which are being kept open for illegal immigrants and foreign labour who go on to pad the electoral rolls.

Indians can't get even cendol licences from the local authorities

Again, at the macro level, the spectrum of administrative laws – government policies in action – burdening the Indian community in particular, should be done away. These policies are unconstitutional and therefore unlawful.

An example is the fact that Indians can't get even cendol licences from local authorities, such licences being reserved solely for members of the Malay-speaking communities -- Bugis, Javanese, Minang, Acehnese, and Indian Muslims – who are Muslim.

Another government policy which targets Indians is that which derecognizes foreign universities with a sizeable number of Malaysian Indian students. This is a policy put in place by former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad whose people came from Kerala state in southwest India. The Hindu-Muslim rivalry and animosity in the Indian sub-continent has come to haunt Malaysia.

Administrative laws also facilitate the ruling elite to plunder the Public Treasury from behind the racism (feelings of inferiority in this case), prejudice (being against something for no rhyme or reason) and opportunism (sapu bersih all opportunities) of the Umno regime. Just consider the US$ 44 billion wealth allegedly amassed by Mahathir during his 22 years in the Prime Minister's post. This is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

The Syariah Court cannot be used against non-Muslims and conversions of non-Muslims should be ended. The stateless, for example, should not be forced to convert to Islam to get personal Malaysian documents.

At the micro-level, there are 1001 issues as raised by Hindraf Makkal Sakthi and other Indian NGOs. Hopefully, Hindraf will remain apolitical and not degenerate and end up as another MIC.

Stop violence against women

Posted: 02 Jan 2013 10:11 AM PST

No, we don't promote guns in our movies but we do promote a certain way of treating women, one where it is deemed all right for women to be raped and then "redeem" herself by marrying her rapist.

Marina Mahathir, The Star

Rape and violence against women in general has nothing to do with sex or lust, but about power.

THE year 2012 ended on a mixed note. On the bright side, despite people believing in the Mayans' alleged predictions, the world did not end. On the other hand, the end of the year saw a most gruesome crime being committed that ended with the death of a young woman.

Regardless that it happened in India, the case of the young medical student gang-raped and beaten so viciously resonated with many of us here, especially with women.

Facebook and Twitter were filled with many articles and comments about it. There were those who recoiled at the horror of it; there were also those who savoured the juicy details.

Debates ensued as to why it happened. Many believe that this was the work of perverts.

In many ways they are right. But perverts work in certain circumstances.

For one thing they don't work where they are unlikely to be successful.

A late-night bus where it would be easy to intimidate the victim is just one. Another is if the potential victim is a young woman who is physically less able to fight back.

To say that such rapists are primarily motivated by lust is to introduce feelings that are not there or to equate lust always with violence.

This was a gang-rape. How does each individual perpetrator have exactly the same "feelings" towards the victim?

Doesn't the fact that they are in a group embolden them more, makes them feel more powerful?

Isn't this yet another bit of proof that rape and violence against women in general has nothing to do with sex or lust but about power? Separate each individual of the gang and see if they are as brave.

Neither is it a crime that's only found in other "less developed" countries.

Let's not forget that we have had similar cases, with names like Noor Shuzaily, Canny Ong and Nurin Jazlin.

These were no less horrible cases and in the case of little Nurin, still unsolved.

Who knows how many more of these there are? Yet, do we do much soul-searching, let alone go out and hold protests and candlelight vigils as they have done in India?

In India, things might finally change for women there. In Malaysia, nothing much has.

We look in horrified derision at the United States with its absurd gun laws and where there is no will to do anything about a society where kids can have access to guns and easily kill so many others, as just happened in Newtown.

We blame the movies for some of it. Yet, we don't apply the same insight to our own media.

No, we don't promote guns in our movies but we do promote a certain way of treating women, one where it is deemed all right for women to be raped and then "redeem" herself by marrying her rapist.

Once again the onus, burden and shame is on the woman victim and not the perpetrator.

We also have movies where rape is seen as justified punishment for women who gossip, where the perpetrator of the crime is let off.

So we cut out scenes of kissing but think it's okay for these sorts of messages to be kept.

These are just a few of the ways in which women are put in their "place" every day.

Today, the most popular local novels emphasise that a good woman is one who obeys her man, regardless of how unjust he may be to her.

Our preachers instill in our men that even if they earn less and take no responsibility for their families, they are superior to women.

Women do everything to keep their families together and put food on the table, and still are told that they are a degree less than men.

No wonder then on social media, rape is still blamed on women and mostly on how they dress and behave.

How that explains what happened to Noor Shuzaily who had her hair neatly covered and was on her way to work in the morning is a mystery.

Should she not have worked outside the home at all?

In 2013, I truly hope that Malaysians will finally take violence against women seriously.

There is not a single woman who has not felt intimidated and unsafe when she is out alone, in the company of strangers or having to walk on the streets.

There is not a mother who fears for her daughters every time they go out.

Don't we all have daughters who are medical students just weeks away from getting married too, just like the girl in New Delhi?

It all starts at the top. My vote will go to whichever government that will treat women with respect and stop violence against women.

Happy New Year!

‘Political Islam’ and Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad (Part One)

Posted: 01 Jan 2013 04:21 PM PST

In particular many "middle of the road" Malaysian voters, mostly non-Malay and non-Muslim but also including many Malays and Muslims, harbour reservations about Islamist politics — and specifically about what has long been, especially since the rise of the "new Islamists" and their capture of the party in the early 1980s, PAS's own "hardline" version of Islamist politics.

Clive Kessler, The Malaysian Insider

Dr Dzulkelfy Ahmad's recent commentary on "Political Islam at the crossroads in Malaysia" (The Malaysian Insider, 28 December) was both encouraging and disquieting.

Encouraging, because it said, and quite directly, a few things that many people, especially with the national elections approaching, have wanted to hear from the "moderate" forces or wing in PAS.

Things, for example, such as his conviction that PAS must, and can, take its stand on "the middle ground", and consolidate its appeal (or at least its acceptability) to centrist voters, by means of a consistent commitment to a moderate, conciliatory and "gentle" form or understanding of Islam.

And disquieting too, since, Dzulkefly's own exposition, as much by what it does not say as through its explicit words, provides grounds for doubt that his bland reassurances may be confidently accepted.

It prompts some real concern, through what he fails to understand and acknowledge as much as by what he does acknowledge.

These are important considerations.

Not abstract but considerations of immediate practical political relevance. Why?

A need for credible reassurance

Dzulkefly is, or so it seems to a distant and detached observer, a very decent man, a politician of admirable attitudes and political impulses (I will not use here the contentious term "instincts").

But is that enough?

Here and elsewhere Dzulkefly makes an argument and advances a position. He wants to provide reasons for people to suspend a number of the deep-seated doubts that they may have about the opposition Pakatan Rakyat coalition, and whether they should support it.

They are worried, in short, about giving their support to a multiparty coalition that might, if elected, eventually serve as the instrument for the creation of an explicitly Islamic state in Malaysia, or powerfully promote the demand for one.

They are worried that, with their well-intentioned but differently intentioned support, the Pakatan Rakyat coalition might become a vehicle in which the hardline political Islamists in PAS might ride to Putrajaya and from the "commanding heights" of government there push with unprecedented force for the further implementation in Malaysia of Syariah law, including the hudud punishment provisions.

That is their fear.

They want to be reassured.

Dzulkely wants to provide them with that reassurance, and people look to him, and to his "moderate" friends within PAS, for precisely that reassurance.

Dulkefly, as well as having his own political agenda and purposes (as all politicians do and must), may sincerely wish to provide Malaysians with that assurance. I think he does.

The question is whether people can accept that assurance, and whether they would be well-advised to do so.

As the thirteenth national elections approach, people are being asked to rely heavily on the trust that they place in, and in the reassurances provided by, Dzulkefly and his allies among the "moderate Islamists" in PAS.

It is a hugely important question, an enormously fateful choice — for them and for the nation as a whole.

That is why Dzulkefly's argument and its adequacy, or otherwise, need some thoughtful consideration.

"Political Islam"?

Yes, correct. Dzulkefly is right. In this country PAS represents, or is the manifestation of, the worldwide phenomenon of "political Islam", in its distinctive, and also historic, local form.

But what is "political Islam"?

It simply will not do for activist Islamist commentators to complain about so-called "Western" characterizations of Islam, both as a religion and civilization, as inherently and also threateningly "political", and then to assert, as Dzulkefly now does, that they also see Islam as inherently "apolitical" –– and so must invent, with the provision of a further adjective, the notion and fact of something called "political Islam".

Yes, in its outlook and history and civilizational self-understanding, Islam is inherently political.

Or, as Dzulkefly puts it, "The holistic paradigm of Islam includes its inherent and intrinsic interests in matters of 'government and governance', thus making it political from the very outset."

That is what many, both Islamic scholars and Western writers about Islam, have long maintained.

So there was never any need, as Dzulkefly now wants to suggest, for "Orientalists" and others to invent the term "political Islam" so that Islam's political dimension might at last be recognized, and so to call into being something that had not previously existed.

The question, as Dzukefly recognizes, is not whether Islam is political but what the politics of Islam should be.

And, specifically, what kind of politics should Muslims as Muslims in today's world, and now here in current Malaysian circumstances, seek to affirm and pursue.

If there was no need "adjectivally" to invent a special notion of "political Islam", or if that was not the reason, then where did the term come from and why was it devised?

Towards "Third-Phase Islam"

What is known in our time as "political Islam" has arisen not from the simple and gratuitous provision of an additional adjective to highlight (as if that were necessary!) Islam's inherent and characteristic — some would say "defining" — political dimension.

It arises from, and is the product of, the history, both specifically religious and more broadly civilizational, of Islam itself. It is the consequence of, and a reaction to, its "career in the world": of the entanglement of Islam in world history.

It is what we may term historically as "third-phase Islam".

i. The first phase. The first phase in religious evolution is born of a specific moment, the formative moment of the faith and faith community.

It comes from that moment, first experienced in this "faith tradition" by Abraham and later re-experienced anew (and, for Muslims, in its ultimately definitive form) by Muhammad, though others prophets in between had also been struck by a similarly powerful intimation, of first sensing the compelling presence of the divine.

That formative moment is when an individual, a prophet, is seized by the sudden, absolute, and all-encompassing awareness — both intellectual and broadly existential and hence spiritual — of the "one-ness" of God. That awareness takes the form not simply of a weak realization but of a powerful conviction. It is a total, and totalizing, apprehension of the central reality of Tauhid.

The first phase of religious evolution is born of this revelatory moment and centres upon the implications of its prophetic experience, upon its humanly transformative impact: for the prophet and for those who, by following his insight and lead, seek to replicate in their own inner lives, if only in part, that same transformation.

In that first phase religion itself, in this case Islam, is centred and focused upon that direct, immediate experience and conviction of Divine Unity. It is an awesome and awe-inspiring realization.

It is what in this tradition faith, what religion, is all about. What more, some wonder, might ever be needed?

ii. The Second phase. The first phase generally lasts for the lifetime of the founding or focal prophet himself. Whether it was Moses on the mountain or Muhammad in the cave, he (and he alone) has had the extraordinary experience, originating and defining, of the Divine Unity. He communicates that revelatory experience, others reach towards it and follow him.

A problem arises, however, with the death of the prophet. Others may succeed to his mundane role and assume some of his worldly responsibilities and functions. But their experience is not his, nor is it authoritative in the same way. Their experience may be derived from his, but only as a small and partial replication of his personal experience of revelation.

After his death, the community has to deal with the problem of the "absent lawgiver", of the vacuum of legal and spiritual authority, of their faith community's distancing or separation from the authoritative personal source of spiritual authenticity.

New problems arise, and people must wonder and will naturally ask themselves "What would the prophet himself have done?"

Differences of opinion arise. Conflicts occur. Different groups, to assert their own position and to justify their rejection of others, promote — in all sincerity — their own views not just of what the prophet meant and intended but also of what his entire life and prophetic career, as well as his spiritual understanding, were really about.

With that the history of the faith community enters into its second phase.

This is the phase where the intellectual and also the emotional focus of the believers are in some way, if only in part, transferred from their original or primary object, from the defining apprehensions of the Divine Unity or "godhead", and instead are attached in some measure to the now-absent founding prophet and to shared community memory of him.

This is generally done not as a diminution of their commitment to the Unity of God but as a reaffirmation of the community's own human and historical connection through whom God, in his awesome and majestic unity, has become and been made known to them.

The sacred faith, as members of the faith community now understand and experience and live it, becomes to some extent "prophet-centric".

Posted: 01 Jan 2013 10:27 AM PST

If these are instances of reports that were published without first verifying the facts because of the constraint of time, as per Firoz's implication, they should in the first place not have seen print. The reason is clear – not only are they untrue and capable of upsetting certain communities, they also negatively affect Utusan Malaysia's credibility. And, worse, they make the newspaper look stupid.

Kee Thuan Chye

What Utusan Malaysia's lawyer reportedly told the High Court on Dec 27 is shocking.

According to The Malaysian Insider, Firoz Hussein Ahmad Jamaluddin said newspapers do not have the "luxury of time" to verify the truth of news reports before publishing them.

In defending Utusan Malaysia's report that allegedly accused Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim of being a proponent of gay rights, Firoz also said, "If newspapers have to go through the full process of ascertaining the truth, the details, they wouldn't be able to report the next day."

If he thinks this would justify the publication of untruths by the media, he is grossly wrong. No media organisation should ever publish untruths or lies. On top of that, no media organisation can, after doing it, claim justification by saying it had no time to check its facts.

Not checking facts before publication is a cardinal sin in journalism. And no self-respecting journalist or media could absolve themselves by saying they did not have the "luxury of time".

If the truth cannot be verified, the report should not be published. That's the first principle of journalism. "When in doubt, leave it out" is the mantra of responsible media editors. It is the responsibility of a media organisation to tell the truth, not spread untruths to the public.

How could Utusan Malaysia stand by Firoz's claim? How could it allow its lawyer to say something as scandalous as this?

Is it any wonder then that Utusan Malaysia has, especially in the last few years, been publishing wildly speculative and unverified reports with cavalier disregard for decency and responsibility?

Such conduct has certainly been deserving of censure, but what is also deserving of censure is the Home Ministry for not having taken adequate punitive action against the newspaper.

The Home Ministry is the body which oversees the conduct of media organisations since it has the absolute power to grant and revoke licences, but it has been exceedingly lenient towards Utusan Malaysia.

It is surely aware that in the last few years, Utusan Malaysia has been found guilty of defaming a number of Pakatan leaders and others, among them Mahfuz Omar, Karpal Singh, Khalid Samad, Lim Guan Eng, Teresa Kok and Tenaganita Director Irene Fernandez.

In 2009, even Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri Aziz slammed Utusan Malaysia for its outdated racist propaganda.

Furthermore, the newspaper has been running mischievous reports without substantiation, many targeted at the DAP in order to demonise it and alienate it from Malay voters. One was about church leaders conspiring with the DAP to Christianise the country. Another was about the DAP wanting to turn the country into a republic by abolishing the Malay royalty.

Then last July, it said Singapore's ruling party, the People's Action Party (PAP), was plotting the downfall of the BN government through its local proxy, the DAP. This was of course preposterous – like the other two instances quoted above – because the truth is more likely to be that the PAP would prefer BN to remain in government for the sake of continuity.

This must surely account for why, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulation (ABC), Utusan Malaysia's circulation has dropped 20 per cent between July 2005 and June 2010, a period of five years. In terms of numbers, the drop is from 213,445 copies per day to 170,558.

Within the same period, its Sunday edition, Mingguan Malaysia, plummeted from 483,240 copies to 372,163, dropping even more at 23 per cent.

Utusan Malaysia being punished through the loss of its readers is one thing; what it needs to also experience is severe punishment from the authorities.

After all, other newspapers have been punished severely for lesser sins. In 2010, China Press had to apologise and suspend its editor-in-chief after it was given a show-cause letter by the ministry over its allegedly false report that the then Inspector-General of Police, Musa Hassan, had resigned.

That same year, The Star was also slapped with a show-cause letter – for running an article about the caning of three Muslim women for illicit sex. And in February 2012, it was severely hounded by the ministry for running a photograph of American singer Erykah Badu sporting tattoos of the word 'Allah' in Arabic on her upper body. It had to apologise and suspend two editors. After their suspension, they were transferred to other desks.

The Home Ministry did, however, issue a warning letter to Utusan Malaysia for its Christian conspiracy report, but that has probably been the only action it has taken against the newspaper in recent memory. Besides, a warning letter is nothing compared to the action against the two cases mentioned above.

One surmises this is because Utusan Malaysia is owned by Umno, the dominant party in the ruling coalition. So it enjoys more immunity than any other newspaper.

In this regard, it is timely to consider the Media Freedom Act that is being considered by the Opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat.

This Act, which DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng has said Pakatan would try to enact if it won Putrajaya at the 13th general election, would, apart from ensuring press freedom in the country, prohibit political parties from directly owning media companies.

Right now, the media companies are mostly owned by parties in the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition.

Among the influential newspapers, Berita Harian, Harian Metro and the New Straits Times are also owned by Umno, while The Star is owned by the MCA, and Tamil Nesan and Makkal Osai belong to MIC stalwarts.

Media Prima, which controls 8TV, ntv7, TV3 and TV9 and three radio stations, is also owned by Umno. This means that with BN being in government and controlling the State-owned RTM, the television medium is virtually monopolised by the ruling coalition.

The upshot of all this, as we have experienced over the decades, has been extremely unhealthy. Political coverage has been biased towards the ruling party and unfavourable towards the Opposition. News that would embarrass the Government or make it look incompetent is blocked from dissemination.

In total, the ruling coalition has been able to indoctrinate the masses with its propaganda to a frightening extent. One manifestation of its effects is the inability of some Malaysians to differentiate between "government" and "party" or to believe that BN is corrupt or abuses its powers.

Malaysian journalism, too, has lost its seat of nobility and honour because of one-sided reporting, manipulation of the truth and even the keeping of the truth from the public. It has become a custom for editors to sell their souls and toe the line in order to keep their cushy jobs.

It has also led to the kind of thinking expressed by Utusan Malaysia's Deputy Chief Editor, Mohd Zaini Hassan, who in July 2012 told a forum that it was all right for journalists to spin the facts to present readers with a "desired picture". He justified spinning as a way to attack the Opposition.

"Spin we can," he said. "No matter how we spin a certain fact to be biased in our favour, that's okay."

For saying that, Zaini has no business calling himself a journalist. His words bring disgrace to the profession. Spinning is distorting the truth, and distorting the truth is against the principles of journalism. It is also morally wrong. Those who spin are nothing more than propagandists.

Such propagandising should not be allowed any more, regardless of which coalition comes to power after the upcoming general election. We can put a stop to it by supporting the tabling of the Bill for a Media Freedom Act.

That Pakatan is willing to surrender the opportunity to control Malaysian minds through controlling the media if it comes to power speaks admirably of its commitment to a democratic Malaysia. But it should not stop at preventing political parties from directly owning media companies; it should also ensure that they do notindirectly own such companies.

Then and only then can we have the beginnings of a free media. Then and only then can we begin to enjoy the privilege of thinking for ourselves.

* Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the bestselling book No More Bullshit, Please, We're All Malaysians, and the latest volume, Ask for No Bullshit, Get Some More!

Leaving God

Posted: 31 Dec 2012 03:09 PM PST

Adelyn Yeoh, The Malaysian Insider

For the last couple of years, I have had an obsession about God and our fragile existence.

At this point, I want to make the distinction between faith and religion. Faith is the act of believing and religion is the institution through which faith sometimes operates through. Faith can operate without religion.

You could say that my obsession with these issues have been long and drawn out. I was a tween when I listened to a sermon advising us to continually thank God and to have conversations with God throughout the day. As an impressionable youngling, I took that advice to heart and pledged to follow it. God was always on my mind.

Then came an age where I wanted to do more for my faith; it seemed natural to want to devote time to it. So I got more involved, doing more things in school for fellowship, for God.

That was when the questioning set in. All my life I attended Christian mission schools where Christian fellowship was strong. Hence, school was the place I had most contact with religion, as my family was not the religious sort to begin with.

There were numerous things that did not sit right with me; things that did not seem just or fair, despite what religion claimed. Teachers would often use God as their trump card to get students to do their bidding. Other times, peers of mine would be denied the opportunity to bear leadership positions because they were from a different religious denomination.

Outside the classroom, the bickering continued. Religion is used as an additional divisive tool, not just by politicians but also by the average Joe. Overeager evangelical actions carried out by the average person working in the name of faith, despite having good intentions, often upset other parties. The reason for this is often because the evangelist has a presupposed notion of superiority. To put it simply, this is like me saying that oranges are the best fruits and you saying that apples are the best fruits, constantly disagreeing when such things should be subjective.

Therefore, the superiority seemed baseless and that sparked the beginning of my questioning which spanned the last few years. It first began with questioning the institution and, subsequently, the very fabric of faith itself.

The reason that I bring this up is because I don't think my situation is all that uncommon. I think that any logical person would eventually realise these inherent flaws.

Leaving faith for those who have had faith before is harder than it looks. It takes a lot of strength and courage to actively renounce what was previously held true. Those of us who were born into circumstances without the exposure of faith do not actively go through the same kind of personal costs as those who have had an exposure to faith.

For these reasons, it is therefore much more difficult to leave a faith, especially in a country like Malaysia where unbelief is not even a recognised option, and is taboo even. In this country, unquestioning belief is the default. Our society's denial of unbelief is perhaps the central reason why atheism is viewed with such antagonism. The face of atheism is the Hitchenses and Dawkinses of the world, which is not a very flattering or accurate depiction of atheists.

How do you force belief? You either buy it or you don't. And if you don't, how can you force a person to believe, especially if they have lost it?

You basically can't. But this doesn't mean that those who have lost it don't recognise the tremendous power that faith has — its potential for community building, for hope, for strength during trying times. Recognising this, unbelief too can be compatible with all the positive attributes of faith within a society. As such, unbelievers should not be treated with antagonism and, instead, room should be created to acknowledge this set of people.

Adelyn is an undergraduate student in Mount Holyoke College, USA, where she is pursuing International Relations and Mathematics. She also writes for CEKU at http://www.ceku.org.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Jumaat, 4 Januari 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan