Wednesday 30 April 2008

Surprise ! Surprise ! SUDDENLY MCA President Ong Ka Ting Shows He Actually Has Balls in Parliament

Read here and here for more

UPDATE: 1st May 2008

Ong Ka Ting interviewed by Sin Chew Daily: Read
here for more
"...MCA President Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting says the party NO longer recognises Malay supremacy as well as mono-racial and mono-religious policies, because such practices have deprived the rights and interests of the other races.

Ong said the spirit of the Constitution has often been interpreted narrowly by some people, including the unilateral interpretation of the Malay privileges, the non-Malays have no right to propose alternatives.

He pointed out that under the Constitution, when they stress on the Malay privileges, it must also, at the same time, be interpreted together with the article 153 (7) of the Constitution. The rights of the non-Malays CANNOT be denied..

He accused some Malay newspapers of slanting MCA's statements or his statements on Malay supremacy..

He said today’s society, including some Malays are using extremist speeches, when talking about hegemony, power abuse, corruption and waste of public funds.

Ong stressed that political parties must... abandon the concept of Bumiputra and non-Bumiputra. In his view, it is feasible to stop using “Bumiputra” and “non-Bumiputra” in policies and laws, because the public opinion shows that the people, especially the new generation, do not like to have this type of racial distinction."
--- End of Update

"MCA Back-Bencher-cum-President MCA Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting threw off the shackles today and trampled on all the sensitive topics (in Parliament) that he and the MCA have studiously avoided over the years.

Ong Ka Ting the ordinary backbencher is certainly sounding more substantial and frank than Ong the Cabinet minister.

If this is the approach that MCA politicians will take from now on, they could end up stealing the thunder from the Opposition and also put them on the path of confrontation with Umno and the powerful religious authorities."
Read here for more

Interestingly, how come THIS time around UMNO did NOT screen the MCA President's speech before he delivered in Parliament? Totally out of character of UMNO's normal behaviour !

Will we have to wait too long for UMNO Youth to ask Ong Ka Ting to withdraw parts of his speech for questioning the Syariah court and to apologise to all Muslims? Or a police report by UMNO YOUTH for insulting the police? Perhaps a delegation of Mat-Rempits paid for by UMNO Youth treasurer to MCA Hq or to Ong Ka Ting's house with a threatening memo? Or a street demonstration?

Cast your bets, folks, on the likely options from UMNO /UMNO Youth that will take place.

Ong Ka Ting said in Parliament:

  • Non-Muslims are not to be subject to any form of Syariah laws, and for any disputes or overlapping areas between the jurisdiction of the civil and Syariah courts, civil laws must prevail. We urge the government to be transparent in this process to avoid a repeat of the cases mentioned above.

  • We cannot help but notice that the composition of our judiciary does not reflect the multi-racial aspect of our society.

  • If a child was unilaterally converted to Islam by one parent without the consent of the other parent, the child should be allowed to maintain his or her original religion until he or she attains a majority age where the child can decide on the religion of his or her choice. Should a dispute on the child's faith arise, the religion must remain as status quo until the child reaches the majority age of 18 years old, upon which the child will decide.

  • The mind-set that the government cannot help partially-aided schools is completely rejected by the rakyat, especially in this era when our nation’s core leaders emphasise developing human capital.Nobody loses out if the Ministry of Education treats all schools as government schools.

  • The rakyat expects the police to be effective in arresting snatch thieves, rapists, robbers and other criminals. Meanwhile, corruption is rampant among law enforcers.
  • Ong welcomed the announcement of the restructuring of the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA), the establishment of the Malaysian Commission on Anti-Corruption (MCAC), the Parliamentary Committee on the Prevention of Corruption, and the Anti-Corruption Board.

    Ong said the government must help the poor and disadvantaged regardless of race and ethnicity

    On the Judicial Commission for the appointment and promotion of judges, Ong called for a strict vetting process of candidates "to avert any accusation that only the connected are being considered for judgeship."

    Ong also called for open tenders in government procurement, as this will foster more competition and help reduce operational costs.

    Ong called for a time-frame for all government bodies to process all types of applications and announce these to the public.

    Ong called for heavier penalties against corrupt civil servants or those in the private sector, including withdrawing pension benefits from the latter.

    MORAL OF THE STORY

    For Presidents of component parties working with UMNO in BN to find his/her voice and to show some element of credibility, don't take any Cabinet post.

    Research Finding from the Parliament Session: A President of a political party in an UMNO-led BN Government who is a backbencher is more effective politically than a President of a political party holding a cabinet post in Government.

    Research Recommendation: Change the constitutions of the component political parties in the Umno-led Government to disallow their Presidents to hold any cabinet post (exception applied for UMNO since the President of UMNO is more powerful than the members of the party.)

    Unfortunately, we do not have the benefit of the presence of Samy Vellu and Koh Tsu Koon in Parliament to further confirm this finding, though they might even be MORE effective as an un-elected President of their respective party.

    Must Read Article: THE MONKEYS STRIKE BACK

    From ALIRAN: Read here article by Khoo Boo Teik

    HIGHLY RECOMMENDED READING BY ALL MALAYSIANS

    Looks back at how the people came together to collectively crack the BN’s supposedly shatter-proof hegemony. Analysing the transformed political landscape, the article discusses some of the fresh challenges that lie ahead.




    Quote:

    " In the 12th General Election of 8 March 2008, 49 per cent of the voters morphed into one gigantic electoral Monkey and cracked the Barisan Nasional’s supposedly shatter-proof hegemony.

    Long-suffering voters spurned the ruling politicians and stunned their hacks and flunkeys.

    It was Umno’s power, and, of course, it was arrogant. This (election) many, many more decided that ‘A vote against MCA and Gerakan and MIC is a vote against Umno’.

    In short, the non-Malay voters snapped the BN chain at its weaker links. They showed their contempt for the timidity of MCA, Gerakan and MIC.

    Umno will strive to impose its old ethnic politics upon the PKR-DAP-Pas experiments in new multi-ethnic politics..... the knee-jerk attacks on DAP for allegedly marginalising the Malays in Penang, on the Perak government for not having enough Malays in its Exco... unscrupulous tactics of ethnic assaults from quarters that claim to be the champions of national unity.

    Hence, a host of newly formedMalay action fronts’, sore and vengeful losers, will waste little time organising demonstrations, orchestrating media disinformation and fomenting ‘Malay anxieties.

    This manner of interpreting policies and practices in chauvinistic terms can only be defeated by a UNITED opposition that can come to the rescue of all five opposition state governments.

    Above all, PKR and DAP, whose grassroots structures are underdeveloped, must find ways to root themselves in society, as PAS managed to in Kelantan during its years of isolation.

    In principle, the broad answer has to be a non-sectarian social democracy. That can creatively fuse:

  • Anwar’s concept of a caring civil society,

  • the Parti Rakyat Malaysia’s plebian concerns,

  • the DAP’s old socialist claims, and

  • Pas’s Islamic welfarism.
  • Guided by such social democracy – rather than, say, a neoliberal meritocracy – PKR, DAP and Pas can formulate and implement policies that would most benefit the non-rich.

    If the past is a good indication, however, Umno could be heading towards implosion for a third time. If that happens, it’d be the sort of political disorder that arises just as one system’s dying while another is struggling to be born.

    Whatever happens, those who helped to create this situation were the wise and brave voters.
    No more risk averse, they decided that change was better than stasis.

    Like it or not, love us or hate us, we’re all monkeys now."

    -Khoo Boo Teik


    The Monkey Strikes Back

    by

    Khoo Boo Teik


    If you’ve read or heard the tales from the Chinese classic, Xi You Ji (Journey to the West), you’d recall that the amazing cudgel-wielding 72-morph Sun Wukong, a.k.a. ‘Monkey, first became famous for ‘creating havoc in Heaven’.

    Long loved as an icon of recalcitrance, Monkey swung as he pleased, shaking the established order and shaming the hirelings sent to suppress him.

    In the 12th General Election of 8 March 2008, 49 per cent of the voters morphed, as it were, into one gigantic electoral Monkey and cracked the Barisan Nasional’s supposedly shatter-proof hegemony.

    No more two thirds

    Long-suffering voters spurned the ruling politicians and stunned their hacks and flunkeys by handing 82 seats to the alliance of Parti Keadilan Rakyat, Democratic Action Party and Parti Islam SeMalaysia, thus breaking the BN’s two-thirds stranglehold on Parliament.

    Collectively, Pas, PKR and DAP took control of five states – Kedah, Kelantan, Penang, Perak, and Selangor – besides winning ten out of eleven parliamentary seats in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur.

    Overnight, PKR stopped being the one-seat party that the United Malays National Organisation had threatened to send into oblivion. Instead, PKR added 30 more to the sole parliamentary seat held by Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail in 2004.

    Nor was PAS beleaguered any longer with a precarious one-seat majority in Kelantan. It won 38 out of 45 state seats in Kelantan and now governed Kedah, too.

    For the first time ever, DAP took power in Penang by completely defeating both Gerakan Raykat Malaysia and the Malaysian Chinese Association.

    In Perak and Selangor, the three parties formed coalition governments, however untidy their power-sharing process was (and however much they still need to formalise it to avoid being the playthings of non-electoral forces).

    Caution v. confidence

    The opposition’s unprecedented advance brought on a euphoric daze after virtually all the expert pre-election assessments were proven wrong, no less with the big picture than with the local scenes.

    Take the magnificent Malaysia-kini. Its offer of ten-day free access caused countless surfers to jam its site on the evening of 8 March. Yet, even the redoubtable Steven Gan had cautioned that 40 seats would be a realistic advance for the combined opposition, a figure, Gan later said, that was ‘not even close’.

    Or take Anwar Ibrahim, seemingly the most foolhardy of the opposition leaders for urging BN’s replacement while others only targeted its two-thirds majority. Anwar thought that PKR would do well to win 25 seats. In fact, PKR became the largest opposition party with 31 seats.

    In Penang, an ill-concealed intra-party dispute over who should succeed Koh Tsu Koon as Chief Minister showed that Gerakan expected to retain power. But the four named and un-named pretenders to that position needn’t have troubled themselves. The DAP deleted Gerakan from Penang’s political terrain (and Tsu Koon became the third of all three chief ministers, after Tan Sri Wong Pow Nee in 1969 and Tun Dr Lim Chong Eu in 1990, to depart office in defeat).

    Whose fear?

    Beyond seats and states, there was a popular disdain for scare-mongering.

    The mainstream media issued its usual anti-opposition warnings of instability, erosion of investor confidence, Islamic state, and ‘May 13’. Some editors must have so believed their own propaganda that they were paralysed by the Chinese swing, the Hindraf factor, and the late Malay swing. Why else, for instance, did The Star Online, late on 8 March, show no result except BN’s ’10 out of 10’ parliamentary victories?

    Outgoing Selangor Mentri Besar Khir Toyo threatened ‘zero opposition’ only to be ejected from power. Melaka’s Mohd Ali Rustam intimidatingly boasted that Umno could rule on its own – forever. Now he and his ilk must rue Umno’s insecure dependence on the goodwill of the unlikely power-brokers of Sabah and Sarawak.

    The arrogance of power

    When the Malay voters revolted in 1999, in response to Anwar Ibrahim’s persecution, many non-Malay voters rejected the Barisan Alternatif’s call for Reformasi. Instead, they helped to save Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Umno and continued to support Abdullah Badawi in 2004. Abdullah also recovered the support of Malay voters who badly wanted a closure of the Anwar affair.

    But four ‘work with me’ years under Abdullah did not reward Malay and non-Malay voters with promised reforms, but with an ‘arrogance of power’, as Tsu Koon, after some soul-searching, has belatedly admitted.

    Of course, it was Umno’s power, and, of course, it was arrogant.

    In ethnic terms, Umno soon reasserted its power. Ketuanan Melayu was not to be questioned; the New Economic Policy’s restructuring would be extended; the so-called Malay Agenda was timeless.

    Hishamuddin Hussein, with his keris-kissing antics, warned even Umno’s non-Malay partners, ‘Do not challenge us!’ Khairy Jamaluddin flashed his ‘My bangsa, right or wrong’ rhetoric and Umno Youth organised a protest of convenience against a pliant Gerakan in Penang.

    In class terms, the power was flaunted by displays of the increasingly unaccountable corruption of the Umno-related oligarchs and the greed of new corporate groups with strong political cables. On the other hand, mass protesters against fuel price increases and rising inflation were met by tear gas, water cannons and Red Helmets.

    In cultural terms, the regime’s claim to moderation, via Islam Hadhari, rang hollow. It seemed indifferent to religious disputes that blurred the jurisdictional boundaries between the civil and the Syariah courts, to the invasive body-snatching actions of religious bureaucrats, and to the insensitivity of Umno-dominated local governments towards incidents of temple demolition.

    Reformasi's retribution

    Within that context, the election result was retribution with a flavour of Reformasi, albeit appearing late and not quite following the Barisan Alternatif’s 1999 script.

    Once, many non-Malay voters could be persuaded that ‘A vote for DAP is a vote for PAS’.

    THIS time, many, many more decided that A vote against MCA and Gerakan and MIC is a vote against Umno’.

    In short, the non-Malay voters snapped the BN chain at its weaker links. They showed their contempt for the timidity of MCA, Gerakan and MIC, gagged and impotent Chinese-based and Indian-based component parties.

    It was unlikely that Malay voters significantly swung to parties such as DAP or even PKR. But in certain ethnically mixed constituencies, a late Malay swing or an appreciable Malay absenteeism at the polls compounded BN’s losses.

    In Malay-majority constituencies, the old Umno-Pas division was still evident, leaving the non-Malay swing to exert its impact.

    The PKR’s present position is an ironic, almost un-Malaysian, outcome of the ethnic voting patterns. A party some had written off emerged as a symbol of multi-ethnic politics. Whatever its future, PKR’s leadership of a balanced Malay-non-Malay opposition has dragged Parliament from its old self of being dominated by BN and opposed by an entirely Malay Pas and an entirely non-Malay DAP.

    New landscape

    Many observers have likened this transformation of the political landscape to a tsunami, a perfect storm, or a surge of Makkal Sakthi (People Power) that outdid the Bersih and Hindraf rallies of late 2007.

    The metaphors may be excessive. A true tsunami, say, would have swept BN out of office. A perfect storm would not have bypassed Sabah and Sarawak.

    Yet, obviously, the transformation raises some urgent questions for an opposition that has begun to contemplate national power.

    Breaking the two-thirds barrier was both a symbolic and real achievement. For some time now, the ability to amend the Constitution was not the crux of the two-thirds issue. Power was, and especially Umno’s unassailable power within BN.

    Without the buffer of a two-thirds majority, however, BN’s ethnic power-sharing formula may be in jeopardy. If Umno insists on taking so many seats, to be able to rule on its own, it won’t be able to satisfy the demands of its 13 non-Malay adjuncts.

    Actually, MCA and Gerakan had paid for Umno’s arrogance of power before, in 1986 and 1990. As they lick their wounds, MCA, Gerakan and MIC might stumble upon a simple truth: Stop playing ‘Kapitan China’ and ‘Kapitan Keling’ (no insult intended) to Umno’s ‘Tuan Melayu’, or be irrelevant – as Gerakan, shorn of its Penang base, seems already to be so.

    Watch out for old politics

    Partly for that reason, Umno will strive to impose its old ethnic politics upon the PKR-DAP-Pas experiments in new multi-ethnic politics. We have already seen the knee-jerk attacks on DAP for allegedly marginalising the Malays in Penang, on the Perak government for not having enough Malays in its Exco, and so on.

    We’ve seen before these unscrupulous tactics of ethnic assaults from quarters that claim to be the champions of national unity.

    When Parti Bersatu Sabah, the original, not the current ersatz one, ruled Sabah, Umno sanctimoniously questioned if the Muslims there could be properly accommodated under ‘Christian rule’. When Pas ruled Kelantan and Terengganu, MCA, Gerakan and MIC would ask if the non-Muslims would be denied their rights.

    Hence, a host of newly formed ‘Malay action fronts’, sore and vengeful losers, will waste little time organising demonstrations, orchestrating media disinforma-tion and fomenting ‘Malay anxieties’. This manner of interpreting policies and practices in chauvinistic terms can only be defeated by a united opposition that can come to the rescue of all five opposition state governments.

    The worst scenario, if the alliance fails, is for Pas to join Umno in condemning the DAP-led government in Penang, and for DAP to join MCA, Gerakan and MIC in criticising the PAS-led governments of Kedah and Kelantan. In Perak and Selangor, the coalition governments can only escape such externally created problems by commitment to cooperation and collective responsibility.

    Parliament and responsibility

    Some encouragement may be derived from the sentiments of the opposition’s supporters. It’s one thing to vote ethnic in an ethnicised political system. It’s another thing altogether to regard all things in the stark light of inter-ethnic competition.

    At least in the alternative cyberspace, voters, bloggers and commentators have admirably urged PKR, DAP and PAS to keep their differences to themselves, but, above all, to keep their alliance intact. Not to do so, the voters know, just as the leaders of these parties must know, would hand back to BN what was painfully gained at the election.

    The presence of the largest ever opposition in Parliament has amplified popular hopes of reforming the political system. To this end, the opposition representatives must set out to raise the quality of law-making, monitor the Executive and discipline state institutions. To do so, they must themselves be competent in diverse areas, capable of informed debate and committed to representing their constituents’ (and not merely their parties’) interests.

    The opposition representatives, no less than the backbenchers, should realise that the public sickens at name-calling, trading of insults and histrionics that debase parliamentary proceeding. They should learn, from Lim Kit Siang at his best, and the outstanding opposition figures of the 1960s, that dedicated parliamentary work requires a mix of investigative research, thoughtful arguments and courageous demands.

    Economic management

    The new opposition state governments should appreciate that they’ve taken power at a difficult juncture. They don’t know yet how the deepening troubles of the United States economy will affect each state’s economy. They should know that their scope for economic management will be limited by national policies and global market forces.

    Even so, the opposition alliance must plan for employment creation, reasonable rates of growth, the alleviation of economic difficulties, and so on. Never mind, for example, that short-term, limited-impact measures are dismissed as ‘petty populism’ by the New Straits Times editors. That’s only the response of hacks who have fawningly publicised all of BN’s petty handouts.

    For the medium-term, however, honest administration, competent planning and effective implementation must be the order of the day for PKR, DAP and Pas, just as it was for the original Gerakan when it captured Penang in 1969.

    Renegotiating federalism

    It’s well known that PBS in Sabah, and Pas in Kelantan and Terengganu had previously had to weather Umno’s wrath and the Federal government’s might.

    Today, however, only the insane would risk impoverishing the national economy by strangling five opposition states and Kuala Lumpur which include the rice bowl, the manufacturing centres, and the seat of administration of the nation. Even they would not thereby alienate the influential chambers of commerce and industry and sensitive foreign investors.

    The most hostile might conspire to inflict on the five states the wang ehsan punishment that Pas-ruled Terengganu endured. But it’s politically infeasible to re-enact what has been discredited and what people despise, especially in urban centres that aren’t so dependent on direct federal expenditures.

    Foes though they are, the Federal government and the state governments are compelled to talk to each other. High on the agenda of such talks should be a review of federalism itself, not by any means an unwelcome prospect.

    Planning and action

    On their part, the new and inexperienced state governments must realise this much. While resources are necessary, resourcefulness is indispensable. It’s reasonable to ask for learning time; it’s imperative to learn fast. It was fair politics to promise alternatives but it’d be suicidal politics not to act quickly, symbolically and meaningfully.

    There is enthusiastic talk about engagement with civil society, participatory democracy and the restoration of local government elections. All this may help to distinguish the old administrations from the new, and, where necessary, expose past malpractices in order to cleanse the administrative machinery.

    Above all, PKR and DAP, whose grassroots structures are underdeveloped, must find ways to root themselves in society, as PAS managed to in Kelantan during its years of isolation.

    The new governments should consult a spectrum of social and economic interests. Yet, they should not yield to vested interests that reinvent themselves as the spokespeople of ‘civil society’ now that their links to BN have been severed. For that matter, there are NGOs and NGOs, and the new governments should not pander to the ‘upper middle class’ character of many visible NGOs.

    Unifying ethos

    The true measure of good government will be its attitudes towards the ‘little folks’ of our society, including the lower working classes, the poor and the disadvantaged, small retailers, hawkers, petty traders, the smallest of the SMEs, and so on.

    In Penang, for example, there’s no reason to keep beautifying the charming Western Road-Macalister Road-Residential Road areas. It’d be better economics and urban management to clean up the inner city, rehabilitate decrepit former rent-controlled houses, and attend to the special needs of deprived neighbourhoods, whether these are Malay, Chinese, Indian or ‘Other’.

    No one expects PKR, DAP and Pas to resolve overnight the differences in their visions of a better society. From where, then, might come common ideological planks that they can use to build a workable raft of shared policies?

    In principle, the broad answer has to be a non-sectarian social democracy. That can creatively fuse Anwar’s concept of a caring civil society, the Parti Rakyat Malaysia’s plebian concerns, the DAP’s old socialist claims, and Pas’s Islamic welfarism.

    Guided by such social democracy – rather than, say, a neoliberal meritocracy – PKR, DAP and Pas can formulate and implement policies that would most benefit the non-rich. After all these have been the staunchest opposition supporters and these would be constantly targeted by BN’s petty blandishments.

    Turmoil in Umno

    There is nothing destabilising about any of these. Potentially destabilising, though, is the turmoil that defeat has visited upon Umno.

    The Umno leadership’s new spin is that BN hasn’t lost the election despite Abdullah’s initial response, ‘We’ve lost, we’ve lost.’ To Abdullah and his allies, BN holds a ‘strong majority only eight seats short of a two-thirds majority’. That is in fact so.

    Nonetheless, the loss of the two-thirds majority; the fall in BN’s popular vote to 51 per cent; the failure to capture Kelantan; the defeat in four more states and Kuala Lumpur; the departure of several ministers; and the painful dependence on Sabah and Sarawak have intensified Umno’s chronic factionalism.

    Much of that factionalism is tied to the loss of resources, projects and patronage, a grievous loss since Umno’s unreformed structures habitually mixed business with politics.

    Another implosion

    For now Umno’s turmoil can move in uncoordinated ways.

    Political forces once pushed aside have re-surfaced to challenge Abdullah whose position is weaker than in 2006, the year of his big spat with Mahathir.

    Mahathir has called for Abdullah’s resignation. As if trying to be his father’s son, Mukhriz Mahathir has sent a letter to Abdullah in a farcical replay of Mahathir’s 1969 letter to Tunku Abdul Rahman.

    Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, who had twice failed to secure the leadership of Umno, has offered to challenge Abdullah for the party presidency.

    The Malay Rulers have intervened in the appointment of Menteris Besar in Perlis and Terengganu. It will certainly be regarded as a defeat for Abdullah that both his nominees for Perlis and Terengganu were rejected and replaced by others more acceptable to the respective rulers.

    The formation of the new Cabinet was fraught with disgruntlement. The ambitious Khairy Jama-luddin simply had to be excluded. But the excluded Mohd Radzi Sheikh Ahmad resigned as Umno Secretary-General while Rafidah Aziz’s departure led to public disagreement with Azalina Othman Said.

    These are signs that Umno’s factionalism will deepen and intensify as contending forces align and realign themselves for the party election, now scheduled for December.

    If the past is a good indication, however, Umno could be heading towards implosion for a third time – after the 1987 battle between Team A and Team B fight, and the 1998 Anwar affair. If that happens, it’d be the sort of political disorder that arises just as one system’s dying while another is struggling to be born.

    Whatever happens, those who helped to create this situation – necessary but insufficient for lasting transformation – were the wise and brave voters. No more risk averse, they decided that change was better than stasis.

    Like it or not, love us or hate us, we’re all monkeys now.
    (Aliran Monthly)

    Sunday 27 April 2008

    Malay-Muslims in a Twilight Zone Between the SYARIAH Court and the CIVIL Courts/The Federal Constitution

    Read here or here article by Raja Aziz Addruse



    Quote:

    " The view that a MALAY, by virtue of the definition of the term "MALAY" in Article 160(2) of the Federal Constitution , CANNOT RENOUNCE Islam as his or her religion but remains in the Islamic faith until his or her dying days, is CONTRIVED.

    The definition of "Malay" in Article 160(2) is nothing more than just that: it is intended for the specific purpose of identifying the "Malays" referred to in a number of provisions of the Constitution.

    In sentencing Kamariah Ali to prison for two years, the judge said that he was NOT convinced that she had repented
    because she had failed to respond when he greeted her with Assalamualaikum at the start of the court proceedings.

    The picture of a lonely woman who has been ostracised from society, being continually harassed to repent,
    offends our sense of justice and fair play.

    No one should be subjected to such humiliation and shame, particularly by a court of law, even a syariah court...."

    -Raja Addruse





    Let's have certainty in this law

    by

    PhotobucketRaja Aziz Addruse
    (Raja Addruse is a former Bar Council president and former president of the National Human Rights Society-Hakam).



    Excerpts: Read here for more

    Kamariah Ali and the SYARIAH Court

    Photobucket Kamariah Ali is one of the followers of the Sky Kingdom sect led by Ayah Pin. (read here for more on articles on the Sky Kingdom and Ayah Pin)
  • On 17 February, she was convicted of apostasy by the Terengganu Syariah Court.

  • Kamariah had years earlier been convicted of deviant practices in the syariah court and sentenced to 20 months' jail.

  • Her appeal against the conviction was dismissed but her sentence was suspended on condition that she appear before the Kadi's Court every month for three years to declare her repentance.

  • When she breached the condition, a NEW charge was brought against her.
  • Kamariah Declared Apostasy

  • On Nov 5, 2000, when her case was called up, she declared in open court that she had apostatised since August 1998.

  • As such, she argued she was not subject to the jurisdiction of the syariah court.

  • Despite having apostatised, she was found guilty of the new charge on Nov 19, 2000 and sentenced to three years' jail.

  • A further charge was brought against her for apostasy, arising from the declaration she had made on Nov 5, 2000.
  • When Kamariah was convicted of apostasy, the syariah court judge had deferred her sentencing to March 3 to give her a chance to show that she had repented.

    In sentencing her to prison for two years, the judge said that he was NOT convinced that she had repented because she had failed to respond when he greeted her with Assalamualaikum at the start of the court proceedings.

    The picture of a lonely woman who has been ostracised from society, being continually harassed to repent, offends our sense of justice and fair play.

    No one should be subjected to such humiliation and shame, particularly by a court of law, even a SYARIAH court. (Read here UMNO Youth said Sky Kingdom cult threatened National Security)

    Kamariah had served a two-year jail sentence in 1992, also for apostasy.

    Kamariah and the CIVIL Courts (High Court and Court of Appeal)

    She made two applications to the civil courts:
    1. to seek her release by a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that her conviction and sentence of imprisonment were illegal; and,

    2. to ask for a declaration that she had a right to profess and practise the religion of her choice and,

    3. therefore, to renounce Islam.
    The Kota Baru High Court dismissed both applications.

    Her appeal to the Court of Appeal was also unsuccessful.

    The sentence passed by the syariah court took into account public interest and the sentiments of Muslims in the country. Those are factors which, to lawyers practising civil law, are TOO NEBULOUS to use as principles for sentencing.

    Kamariah Appealed to the FEDERAL Court

    On Nov 5, 2002, she was granted leave to appeal to the Federal Court to determine specific issues, including:

    1. whether the right to profess a religion under Article 11(1) of the Federal Constitution includes the right of an adult Muslim to renounce his religion; and

    2. whether a law imposing any restriction upon the right of such a person to renounce his religion is inconsistent with Article 11(1) of the Constitution and is, therefore, void.
    In a joint judgment delivered on July 21, 2004, FOUR of the FIVE judges of the Federal Court who had heard the appeal (the fifth having in the meantime retired), DISMISSED it.

    The court held that although she had apostatised in 1998, Kamariah was still liable for any offence she had committed while she was still a Muslim.
      The Constitutional Rights of Muslims in Malaysia and the Civil Courts

      Her long and futile legal struggle highlights the need to seriously address the constitutional issue of the right of Muslims to freedom of religion.

      The (civil) court said:
      1. if Muslims charged for syariah offences were allowed to say that they were no longer Muslims to escape the jurisdiction of the syariah court, the whole administration of Islamic law (and possibly other religions as well) would be affected.

      2. the issues posed by the questions were not relevant and were academic.

      3. Kamariah should raise the issue of her right to freedom of religion at her trial on the apostasy charge.
      The Federal Court is a Great Disappointment

      What had been expected to be a landmark decision from the highest court of the country turned out to be a great disappointment.

      The Federal Court had showed itself to be unequal to the task of discharging its most important constitutional function. One gets the distinct impression that the civil courts have been too quick to decline jurisdiction whenever the issue of Article 11 has cropped up.

      Since she faced prosecution for apostasy in the SYARIAH court, it was difficult to explain how the question of Kamariah's right to renounce Islam could be dismissed as irrelevant or academic.
      All the efforts put in by Kamariah's lawyers and over eight months of waiting for the judgment proved a waste of time. Kamariah's lawyers had been careful to make sure the questions which the court had to consider and answer were couched in precise terms.

      But it was not any ambiguity that was the problem: it was just that the court was avoiding the issue.

      In the Lina Joy case, the High Court referred to various provisions of the Constitution which it said were relevant to the reading of Article 11. But looking at those provisions closely, none of them appears to have any bearing on the issue.

      The View a "Malay" Cannot Renounce Islam is Contrived

      The view, for example, that a Malay, by virtue of the definition of the term "Malay" in Article 160(2), cannot renounce Islam as his or her religion but remains in the Islamic faith until his or her dying days, is contrived.

      The definition of "Malay" in Article 160(2) is nothing more than just that:
      It is intended for the specific purpose of identifying the "Malays" referred to in a number of provisions of the Constitution.
      A "Malay" as defined does NOT even have to be ethnically a Malay. The late Tan Sri Mubin Sheppard, an Englishman, who professed the religion of Islam, habitually spoke the Malay language and conformed to Malay custom, was a Malay for the purpose of the definition.

      The Civil Court Has a Duty to Protect Civil Liberties of Malay-Muslims

      The Federal Court has a duty to establish some certainty in the law.

      The current practice of deciding each case on an ad hoc basis, with each decision providing no satisfactory solution, is UNACCEPTABLE.

      The civil courts, if they are to have any credibility, must base their decisions on sound legal principles, uninfluenced by personal prejudices and predilections.

      It is not good enough to say, in declining jurisdiction, that allowing a Muslim to come out of Islam would "create chaos and confusion" or would "threaten public order". Those are NOT acceptable reasons.

      The civil courts have the jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution and protect the fundamental liberties, including the right to freedom of religion under Article 11.

      That jurisdiction cannot be taken away by inference or implication, as seems to be the argument, but by an express enactment which says that it is the intention of parliament to deprive the courts of their jurisdiction.

      No doubt the Federal Court will one day have to rule if a person like Kamariah can be charged again and again for the same, or virtually the same, offence.
      -Raja Addruse

      Saturday 26 April 2008

      Election of Perak Speaker: UMNO's Intended Racist Tactic to Use the Secret Ballot FAILED Miserably !

      Read here for more in "The Malaysian Blog" and here

      DAP assemblyman for Tronoh, V. Sivakumar, 37, was elected as the Speaker, a non Malay and an Indian, while a WOMAN, Hee Yit Foong, the DAP assemblywoman for Jelapang and a polio victim was chosen as Deputy Speaker, at the first sitting of the assembly.

      Sivakumar's election makes him the FIRST Malaysian Indian to assume the post of Speaker in Malaysia.

      V. Sivakumar from DAP holds a Bachelor in Legal Philosophy and a Master’s in Business Administration, and previously served as political secretary to Ipoh Barat MP M. Kulasegaran.

      Hee Yit Foong, 45, also from the DAP, who limps because of polio which she contracted when she was four years old, is the FIRST disabled woman to be elected to the post.

      Photobucket
      V. Sivakumar Swearing in as
      Speaker of Perak State Assembly
      (photo courtesy of Bernama)

      Photobucket
      Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Nizar
      with the new House Speaker, V. Sivakumar
      (Photo courtesy of NST)

      The election of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker was not as smooth as expected, with UMNO still trying to play the RACE-CARD, this time trying to fish for the Malay votes in Pakatan Rakyat.

      Take note of this: The Perak State Assembly has 31 seat won by Pakatan Rakyat grouping of DAP, PKR and PAS against Barisan Nasional's 28 after March 8 general election.

      Here's the story in the Perak State Assembly which unfolded in the mainstream media:

      1. Before the voting started, UMNO's Slim assemblyman Datuk Mohd Khusairi Abdul Talib proposed former UMNO's man, former House Speaker, Datuk Seri Junus Wahid's name, and MCA's Chenderiang state assemblyman Mah Hang Soon as Deputy Speaker

      2. Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham from Pakatan Rakyat objected because Datuk Seri Junus Wahid was not even present in the assembly. "The proposed candidate must be physically present", said Ngeh.

      3. UMNO's Pengkalan Hulu assemblyman Datuk Seri Mohd Tajol Rosli Ghazali then stood up and said: "If his presence is needed urgently, he can be called as Junus is just around the corner."

      4. A few minutes later, a calm Datuk Seri Junus Wahid walked into the assembly and witnessed the voting.

      5. Here's the twist: The BN assemblymen then asked for a SECRET BALLOT.

      6. Pasir Pinji DAP assemblyman Thomas Su Keong Siong said the Standing Orders did NOT say anything about a secret ballot.

        NOTE: The standing orders stated the ballot papers would be MARKED and SIGNED while the assembly secretary or his agent should collect the papers FROM the desk of the wakil rakyat

      7. The situation diffused when Perak Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin said the government agreed to a SECRET vote.

      8. All assemblymen walked to the two booths to sign and mark their ballot papers before putting them in boxes.
      The RESULT of the VOTE:

      Pakatan Rakyat's candidate Sivakumar for Speaker's post received 31 votes and Hee for Deputy Speaker's post received 30 votes.

      BN's Yunus and the Mah each received 28.

      (Compare the votes each obtained and the number of PR and BN candidates in the House).

      Why the Call by UMNO for Secret Ballot Despite the Standing Orders?

      Read here Commentary in "The Malaysian" Blog

      ".... Consider this part of the above report (in NST)

      'Although the standing orders stated the ballot papers would be marked and signed while the assembly secretary or his agent should collect the papers from the desk of the wakil rakyat, BN assemblymen had other plans in mind and asked for a secret ballot.'
      What do you think was the LOGIC behind the BN (read UMNO) demand for a secret ballot?

      With the typical befuddled RACE-based thinking, mentality and strategy that the Umnoputeras are perennially stuck with, they had hoped, nay indeed convinced, that IF a SECRET ballot was held, the Malays in the Pakatan Rakyat would vote for Umno's Malay candidate instead of Pakatan's NON-Malay choice.

      The Perak Menteri Besar agreed to their demand and what happened?


      NOT even one state assemblyman from Pakatan Rakyat voted for the UMNO calon.

      Not surprising really.

      UMNO had all along put up this act and facade that they were the sole 'champions' of Malay rights and duped the nation for decades.

      Now the people have seen through their duplicitous game and won't fall for their bangsa, agama dan negara 'struggle' anymore.

      Even at THIS crucial juncture when their RACIST philosophy and even their own party is in tatters, they still have NOT been able to rid themselves off the ETHNIC equation in EVERYTHING they do.

      And they (UMNO) NEVER will.

        Hishamuddin's Apology on the 'Keris Incident': Insincere, Hypocritical, 3 Years TOO Late and for the WRONG Reasons !

        Malaysiakini reported:
        The Education Minister-cum-Umno Youth chief Hishammuddin Hussein today apologised for raising the keris .
        Photobucket

        He said that he took full responsibility for his actions but gave NO guarantee that he would not repeat the keris-waving again during this year's Umno annual general assembly.

        "I am sorry if it had affected the non-Malays," he told reporters after attending a Barisan Nasional (BN) Youth meeting at the Putra World Trade Centre in Kuala Lumpur.
        Read here for more

        Party veteran Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah three weeks ago criticised the annual airing of the keris, saying it made Umno looked like 'a fanatical Malay party'. Read here for more

        COMMENTARY

      1. From Din Merican: Read here for more
      2. "...Do you trust this man when he says that he regrets the keris incident and now apologies?

        I know, you will say that this apology is dictated by politics post March 8—and I agree.

        The Barisan Nasional, in particular UMNO Malay nationalists like "Kerismuddin" (the Malaysian Education Minister-cum-Umno Youth chief Hishammuddin Hussein) and Khairy Jamaluddin, was rejected by the Malaysian voters. If not for the postal votes, fancy tricks of the Elections Commission headed by Rashid Rahman and vote buying antics of the cash rich Barisan Nasional, Malaysia would be under the Pakatan Rakyat government today.

        And Kerismuddin would probably have retired or just be an ordinary Member of Parliament if he were elected.

        In my opinion, Kerismuddin is making a tactical retreat because it is politically expedient for him to express remorse or swallow the bitter pill, so to speak.

        Imagine what he would have done if the Barisan Nasional had won resoundingly in 2008, as it did in 2004.

        My guess is that he would be wearing the keris under his coat with arrogance as he heads to his Ministry every morning. UMNO arrogance will be on display again.

        Unfortunately, like the rest in Barisan Nasional including our Prime Minister, Kerismuddin totally ignored the signals which our Special Branch and Military Intelligence had given to them of an impending political tsunami. Instead, he and Khairy Jamaluddin were talking “sifar pembangkang” (zero opposition).

        As if in defiance, Malaysian voters sent 82 Pakatan Rakyat candidates to the 13th Parliament, which opens on April 28, 2008.

        If he is serious about his apology and wants to show remorse, then Kerismuddin should resign as Minister of Education whose portfolio is in mess, Member of Parliament and senior UMNO party member and retire quietly from politics.

        In addition, he should do at least a week’s community service, wearing a vest with the words “I am sorry” printed on its back.

        Otherwise, this apology is meaningless."

      3. From Anwar Ibrahim: Read here in Malaysiakini
      4. On Umno Youth chief Hishammuddin Hussein’s apology for waving the keris during the past three Umno general assemblies, Anwar said that PKR would accept and that the former should NOT repeat his act.

        He said:

        “The crux of the matter is not the keris as a symbol.

        What matters is HIS attitude which shows arrogance and the use of racial issues in politics.

        That is still being continued.

        They are raising issues about pig farming, Malay supremacy...claiming that the Malays are now very angry against the Selangor government...

        This sentiment is still strong in Umno.”

      5. From Din Ahmad,a Reader on Din Merican's Blog: Read
      6. here

        "... The struggles of BN is ultimately more important than myself and we cannot indulge in actions which will frighten other races,” he (Hishammudin) added. “This is a realisation that we’ve come to today in our meeting after one-and-a-half months of soul-searching.”

        It is obvious why he is apologizing. It is implicitly contained in his own statement.

        He is apologizing BECAUSE “ the struggles of BN is ultimately more important than myself”.

        1. That means if the results of the elections had been favorable to BN, he would NOT have apologize.

        2. That means deep inside him as a person he does NOT see the need to apologize, NOT even after the immediate outcry of the non-Malays after the shameful act.

        3. That means deep inside him he does NOT care about what the other half of the people in this country feels.

          Very sad and shameful.

        This is the person that is responsible for moulding the thoughts of our children.

        The person that is supposed to collectively have the greatest impact on what our future leaders’ values and worldviews would be.

        After one and a half months of soul searching, the Pemuda UMNO, realized that whatever their feel towards the non-Malays should be kept to themselves and not to be shown in public.

        Before the election they were confident enough to show their true selves now they are going to keep it under wraps for political expediency.

        Should we wonder now why after 50 years of independence, most aspects of our life in this country are still being centered on racial lines ?

        This kind of leader (?) makes our jobs as parents in developing children to be blind to racial differences so much harder.

        1. From Readers on Malaysia-Today: Read here for more

          1. "... I wouldn't consider that an apology! He apologizes "IF it offended non-Malays", but was sorry "for not being able to defend a heritage symbol" of the Malays. He or UMNO Baru didn't admit that it was wrong of him to do it.

            Hisham, Please take a hike .... go have a couple of pegs of whisky and go to bed!.."

          2. "...What an act of desperate to save his own political ass & BN's relevence to Malaysia... We used to hear his Angkuh, Bodoh, Sombong & racist remarks ever since & during his tenure as UMNO Youth Chief. Perhaps Hishammuddin had lost Chinese triads financial support over that rust Keris. Khairy will be the next idiot to wave the Keris... in December for "Merry KerisMus" celebration... "

          3. "...Hishamuddin, Please get this straight. Your apology is too late.
            The PR should thank you for your action that brings easy success through your Keris weilding. Please do it again with a longer Keris this December.

            The non Malays are not scared of your threat. They are more involved with bringing prosperity to the country. Your action has also affect the downfall of MCA ,MIC and Gerakan. Please say sorry to them too. Inspite of their appeasement within 4 walls you still hold up the keris.

            Rakyat is not scared anymore. Just look at the massive demo in recent times That is the message for you too. You have to do much selling to regain the respect you had long ago. The other races cannot put their trust in you anymore. ..."
          4. "....Himamudin has to swallow his sword, but what is in his blood cannot be cleansed....and apology not accepted as it is not sincere. This has be be more than skin deep, he thinks the people are stupid, please look beyond, and his action is beyond repair.."

          5. "... I cannot believe this is coming from our Education Minister, the person who is entrusted with the education and therefore, the future of the children and youth of our entire nation. God help us!
            First he got so arrogant that he completety disregarded the obvious consequence of his clearly racist keris waving gesture. After being blamed for causing the disastrous GE results, "he suddenly" suspects that his keris waving might have offended the non malays.

            This epiphany came after months and months of stubbornly defending his actions. But just in case he may look like a wimp (instead of a fearless warrior) to the malays, he apologises to them for not being able to "defend the malay symbol".

            Hey Minister, guess what? You cannot have it both ways, or in your case, three ways. The rakyat sees right through you. This "half hearted, damage control" apology is way, way too late and reeks of insincerity.
          6. "...First he says sorry for spooking the non-Malay comunity.... then.... he says SORRY to the MALAYS for not lifting the MALAY symbol (Keris)
            Actually, Hishammudin is trying to unload some bagagge, Why?

            1) the UMNO General assembly is coming.
            2) he is moving out of UMNO YOUTH...so he is trying to shed his tarnished 'skin'
            3) the Amibition of being PM one day (after NAJIB perhaps)
            4) damage control in UMNO, so that Tun Mad wont lash out at him.
            5) let Khairy to burn by himself...
            6) keeping all options open: badawi faction or Tun Mad faction or...a possible jump ship (he can always do this by claming that his grandpapa wanted a Multi Race party)...

            So people, watch his stratigic moves from here on...
          7. "...Come on, people, for whatever reason, the man has been brave enough to apologise. We should accept it in good faith. Let us not be so small minded.

            My only complaint is that, by also saying that he was sorry for not being able to defend a heritage symbol of the Malays, Hishammuddin seems to show that he is unable to differentiate between a keris that is being waved as a threat to spill blood and a keris that is being portrayed as a symbol.

            Nobody, in his right mind, would object to the keris, which is a beautiful implement, as a heritage symbol, not only of the Malays, but of all Malaysians.

            Nobody, I believe, would find it repulsive if a knife is used to cut bread but many would object if it is used to threaten the life of a person. ..."
        2. To PAS's Dr. Dzulkefly Ahmad: "Just Shut Up in Public on the Islamic State Issue !"

          From Borneo Post: Read here article in Paul Sir Section


          Quote:

          "... Please put an end to it, PAS !

          But there is nothing to prevent PAS people from broaching the issue INTERNALLY within the party.

          I hope that PAS leaders will STOP harping on the issue PUBLICLY as that is bound to evoke responses to the contrary.

          Heated public debates on a religious matter will NOT do this multi-religious nation of ours any good.

          Consider it a blessing that PAS will NEVER form the federal government single-handedly.

          Even at the final count on the March 8 polls, when the BN coalition suffered its worst electoral results, PAS could only manage to win 23 seats.

          With 222 seats in our parliament, PAS will need 112 to form the federal government with a simple majority.

          I just do NOT see that happening — not in my lifetime, I think.

          Sorry, PAS! "
          -Paul Sir
          (Borneo Post)

          Background:

          PAS MP for Kuala Selangor Dr Dzulkifly Ahmad said PAS is not discarding its agenda to set up an Islamic state. He said, We are not pulling it (setting up of an Islamic state) back. It is still an issue that matters to us but we are allowing more time for the electorate to understand us better." Read here for more

          Excerpts: Read here for more

          It must have been two years since we have a little peace and quiet over the Islamic state issue. Or has it been that long?

          Following uproars from non-Muslims in particular and civil society in general every time PAS raises the subject, top leaders of the Islamic opposition party apparently took note of the voices of discontent, decided to stay sober and stopped harping on it. At least for the past two years, I reckon.

          Unfortunately this week, a PAS leader brought up the issue again. The party’s Kuala Selangor member of parliament Dr Dzulkifly Ahmad told a national daily that while his party is focusing on Pakatan Rakyat’s agenda of establishing a welfare state, reinstating democracy and good governance, it is not discarding its agenda to set up an Islamic state.

          Dzulkifly said PAS would not harp on the issue of Islamic state because it was not part of Pakatan agenda, but the Islamic party will not withdraw its key policy platform.

          But the thing is, by saying that PAS is not harping on the subject, Dzulkifly is, knowingly or unknowingly, harping on the issue again.

          He made a public statement on it and that means IT WENT PUBLIC.

          Thus, the MP was directly harping on the issue which his party elders and superiors have AVOIDED doing so for the past two years.

          Now, this is not something new. In fact, every time a PAS leader brings up the subject, I am very unhappy.

          Let me explain.

          PAS has made its stand very clear. That I respect.

          They have said it so many times. Islamic state! Islamic state! Islamic state!

          Okay lah, we can all say, adding the chorus…. yeah, yeah, yeah!

          I believe that suffices.

          I respect the party’s stand. After all, it is an Islamic-based party. It is founded on Islam and, naturally, its strength is Islam. Without its religious flavour, PAS cannot survive.

          Seriously, if I were a Muslim and keen on politics, I would probably sign up with PAS. Many of its leaders and members are good, sound Muslims and their public behaviour and lifestyle are exemplary.

          I have personally witnessed how some PAS leaders conduct themselves in public and I appreciate their kindness and care for those around them. This I say sincerely from my heart.

          But I would not agree with the party’s agenda for an Islamic state. No, never!

          I must be truly aware of the religious sensitivities of my fellow Malaysians who are not Muslims and should NOT impose my religious beliefs into their way of life.

          PAS’ intention in wanting to continue on its Islamic state agenda in multi-racial and multi-religious Malaysia is, therefore, something which I don’t think I want to tolerate.

          PAS leaders have often explained that they have been misunderstood and that people do not understand the meaning of an Islamic state.

          The party can explain to non-Muslims but they will still consider the creation of an Islamic state as imposing Islamic values and laws into their lives — and they do not wish for that to happen.

          However, let’s also look at the bright side of the issue. It’s true that we always have solutions to all negatives in the country. Same goes for this controversial Islamic state issue.

          Let us consider it a blessing that PAS will never form the federal government single-handedly. Even at the final count on the March 8 polls, when the BN coalition suffered its worst electoral results, PAS could only manage to win 23 seats. With 222 seats in our parliament, PAS will need 112 to form the federal government with a simple majority. I just do not see that happening — not in my lifetime, I think. Sorry, PAS!

          So WHY then are some PAS people still broaching an issue that will only REMAIN A DREAM?

          My conclusion — it is politics!

          PAS is still a political party, playing politics they know best in order to attract support from the masses.

          What I’m also sad and concerned about every time this subject is raised is the heated public debate that follows it, mostly by politicians.

          So I’m not at all surprised to hear DAP chairman Karpal Singh fire the first salvo at Dzulkifly Ahmad’s public remarks on the issue.

          Karpal said the PAS leader’s statement does not advance the cause of the Pakatan Rakyat, adding that it was best that PAS ceases from publicly insisting that Malaysia should be turned into an Islamic state.

          According to Karpal, then Lord President Tun Salleh Abas delivered the judgment of a strong five-man bench of the Supreme Court in 1988 declaring that Malaysia was NOT an Islamic state, but a secular state having secular laws.

          Happily, PAS vice-president Datuk Husam Musa sounded MORE liberal.

          He stated recently that the Islamic state, a controversial agenda which often caused ideological tiffs between PAS and DAP, shall remain a ‘guidance’ for its members at the party level.

          “PAS members need an idealism to serve as their reference. Islamic state is that idealism which differentiate our members from other political parties,” he told a news portal in a recent interview.

          Whatever, I hope that PAS leaders will stop harping on the issue publicly as that is bound to evoke responses to the contrary.

          Heated public debates on a religious matter will not do this multi-religious nation of ours any good.

          So please put an end to it, PAS.

          But there is nothing to prevent PAS people from broaching the issue internally within the party.

          Related Article

          Impractical to turn Malaysia into Islamic State: Wan Azizah Says: Read here for more

          "...Malaysia’s newly formed three-party opposition alliance Pakatan Rakyat (PR) that includes the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Parry (PAS), which is committed to an Islamic state, has said it would strive to retain a multi-racial character.

          The alliance’s parliamentary leader Wan Azizah Wan Ismail said in an interview:
          " We must recognise that Islam is the country’s official religion but it is impractical to turn multiracial and multi-religious Malaysia into an Islamic state, everything must be based on the federal constitution.

          Although it is PAS’ ideology to create an Islamic state, it can only be practiced in the overwhelming Malay-majority state of Kelantan, and NOT the whole of Malaysia due to the country’s multiracial makeup.

          The fact is, we all accept that Islam is the official religion of Malaysia, and the three parties should cooperate within the framework of the constitution.

          The reality is that the Malaysian society is made up of Malays, Chinese, Indians and other minority races, making it IMPOSSIBLE to establish an Islamic state.

          In a multiracial society, PKR’s coalition partner PAS will definitely NOT be able to set up an Islamic state."

          Wednesday 23 April 2008

          Stuff It, GEPIMA and KIMMA: "I am PROUD to be an INDIAN and a Muslim"

          Read here Letter to Editor in Malaysiakini by "Indian Muslim"

          Background:

          CALL US MALAYS, SAY INDIAN MUSLIM YOUTH - GEPIMA

          Members of the Malaysian Indian Muslim Youth Movement (GEPIMA) want to be known as MALAYS and not Indians.

          Syed Osman Mohamed, Ali's 24-year-old son, said we "feel uncomfortable to be known as Indians, because people automatically think we are Hindus when we are actually Muslim." Read here for more

          New Straits Times (8th March 2008) reported "....GEPIMA's president Mohamed Kader Ali claims that Members of the Malaysian Indian Muslim Youth Movement (GEPIMA) want to be known as Malays and not Indians. We feel uncomfortable to be known as Indians, because people automatically think we are Hindus when we are actually Muslims. Kader added that Muslims of Indian origin suffered an inferiority complex by being regarded as Indians. .." Read here for more

          In September 2005, the Malaysian Indian Muslim Congress (Kimma) passed a motion seeking the Government to give MALAY status to Indian Muslims born in the country. In the eight-point motion, passed at its 30th annual general meeting, Kimma cited provisions in the Federal Constitution, which stated that a Muslim who could speak Bahasa Malaysia and practise the Malay culture was regarded a Malay.

          The contents of the motion, among others, stated: “The Indian Muslims adopt the three elements but still cannot get the Malay status. If there is a problem in doing so, at least give the bumiputra status as is being done for the Portuguese”.

          The motion was handed to the Prime Minister's political secretary Datuk Othman Desa who opened the meeting.

          Kimma is also asking for a special quota for the Indian Muslims in the allocation of low-cost houses, places in public institutions of higher learning, scholarships and employment opportunities. It also wants two of its members to be appointed as senators. Read here for more

          In March 2006, Bernama reported he Malaysian Indian Muslim Congress (Kimma) Saturday decided that it will affiliate itself with Umno, after having failed to get admitted into the Barisan Nasional coalition over the last 28 years.

          Its president, Amir Amsaa Alla Pitchay, said a memorandum on the matter would be forwarded to Umno secretary-general Datuk Seri Radzi Sheikh Ahmad next week.

          "It was taken because Indian Muslims in the country have no representation at the state or federal level. We have no senators or members of parliament," he told a press conference here.



          Quote:

          I used to be ashamed to be an Indian Muslim because in this country, race was related to religion. And I did not see where I fit in.

          (But) I look like an Indian. I sound like an Indian. Therefore, I am an Indian. And I am proud of it too.

          I am now proud to speak Tamil. This is my mother tongue.


          My father put himself as MALAY in my birth certificate. But I changed it myself back to ‘INDIAN’ in my identity card.

          Not all Indian Muslims think like Gepima and Kimma. I certainly do not want to sell my identity for a few extra ringgit.

          Hence, what Gepima and Kimma did was a source of great humiliation for me.
          -"Indian Muslim"



          Related Article:

          Excerpts: Read here for more

          I used to be ashamed to be an Indian Muslim because in this country, race was related to religion whereby a Malay was equated with Islam, a Chinese with Buddhism and Indian with Hindu and I did not see where I fit in.

          But as the years passed by, I realised the beauty of my own ethnic identity. I am now proud to speak Tamil. This is my mother tongue and I cherish its beauty. I love Indian food, cinema and songs. My father put himself as Malay in my birth certificate but I changed it myself back to ‘Indian’ in my identity card.

          I look like an Indian. I sound like an Indian. Therefore, I am an Indian. And I am proud of it too.

          My plea is for Gepima and Kimma not to claim to represent me and those who think like me.

          Not all Indian Muslims think like Gepima and Kimma. I certainly do not want to sell my identity for a few extra ringgit. My parents migrated to Malaysia in the 1960s and I was born on this soil in the 1970s.

          Hence, what Gepima and Kimma did was a source of great humiliation for me. How could both these groups claim to speak for all Indian Muslim Malaysians?

          And do they lack basic common sense?

          Religion can be changed. It is a state of the mind and heart. But how can you change your genetic identity? It is in our DNA, for god's sake. If we are born Indian, we cannot change to become a Malay or a Chinese as and when we like just because we want to get certain rights and privileges as well.

          As far as I am concerned, even if I am the last Indian Muslim standing, I will stand proudly, for God made me what I am and I do not suffer from any so-called low self-esteem as claimed by Gepima.

          Commentary on the news "CALL US MALAYS, SAY INDIAN MUSLIM YOUTH - GEPIMA"

        3. From a Reader on Forums Big News Network: Read here

          1. "... What's up with all this wanted to be Malays? How can u be Malays when u are Indian? Religions and name will not change who you really are. No matter how many bleach Michael Jackson put on his skin, he is still African-American which is black. Even he is fairer than most caucasions. So, people of Indian Muslim, please be proud of what your parents made you. That's how GOD differentiate human from one another..."

          2. "... President of GEPIMA.Listen here I know about you.I even attended your talks held in dewan DBKL few years ago on Thaipusam day.There were few speakers including Hj Taslim,Mohamad Iqbal and Ubaidulla's son and 2 malay hajis and Dr.Kadeer I brahim.You can dress like them(malays), you can cook like them(malays),you can speak malay at home. Nothing changes and they will still address you and refer to you as KELING and just like all the mamaks in UMNO.So my friend just understand that race is different from religion.All MALAYS ARE MUSLIM BUT NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE MALAYS. You can never change your race and please give up your losing battle...."

          3. "... Be proud of the heritage that GOD has given you. being a muslim does not change your race and identity , it is your belief that has change. check your motives why you want to change , it is because being a malay you have more benefits. just be proud that we are MALAYSIANS...."

          4. "...What is so special to be called a Malay when your race is an INDIAN. Better to be called MALAYSIAN instead...."

          5. "...Your roots are Indian, just because you speak fluent Malay and follow the custom. Doesn't make you Bangsawan. Paham tak?..."
        4. From Malaysians Say The Darndest Things!Blog: Read here

          "...I wonder what’s more embarassing: The fact that Gepima’s Indian Muslims don’t want to be known as Indian, or the fact that Gepima still stands for Malaysian Indian Muslim Youth Movement.

          I think if Gepima really doesn’t want to be known as Indian, then first, don’t refer to yourselves as Indian Muslims. If you’re not proud of your heritage, then don’t wear it on your badge. .."
        5. From Poobalan.com: Read here for more
          "...First they have to abolish their GEPIMA movement and join some Malay youth movement. KIMMA threatened the government by saying they have 600,000 over members.

          I wonder how many members GEPIMA has. Also 600,000 or maybe slightly less at 300,000?..."
        6. Blogger Rustam Sani Passed Away



          Our Deepest Condolences to the family of Allahyarham Rustam Sani.



          Photobucket
          (11 August 1944 - 23 April 2008)



          Author, blogger, and social activist Rustam A Sani passed away early this morning in his house in Gombak, Selangor. He was 64.

          He was an academician, a newspaper columnist and a poet, besides being involved in a multitude of political, social and literary activities.

          In politics, the Tanjung Malim-born social scientist was formerly the deputy president of Parti Rakyat Malaysia, which have since merged with the Parti Keadilan Nasional to form the PKR.

          He left behind a wife and two children - a son and a daughter.

          Rustam obtained his Malay Studies degree from Universiti Malaya, and later took his Masters degree in United Kingdom (University of Reading and University of Kent) and later United States (Yale University) and Sweden (Uppsala University).

          A prolific writer, he had written half a dozen books in both Bahasa Malaysia and English on a wide range of topic including the Malay left-wing nationalist movement.

          Rustam was an associate professor at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia’s political science department in the 1980s.
          (From Malaysiakini)

          RUSTAM SANI (11 Ogos 1944 - 23 April 2008) meninggal dunia di rumahnya di Gombak pada jam 3 pagi ini kerana sakit jantung.

          Alamat rumah adalah 7519 Batu 6 3/4, Bkt Lela Gombak. Pengembumian dijangka dijalankan selepas Zohor. Rustam Sani adalah anak kepada pengasas Angkatan Pemuda Insaf (API) dan Parti Rakyat, Ahmad Boestamam.

          Allahyarham adalah antara penulis dan cendekiawan yang penting di Malaysia. Pada tahun 1988/89, Allahyarham telah dianugerahkan ‘Hadiah Sastera Negara’ dalam kategori esei dan kritik sastera.

          Dalam bidang politik, Allahyarham pernah memegang jawatan Timbalan Presiden Parti Rakyat Malaysia (sebelum pergabungan Parti Rakyat Malaysia dan Parti Keadilan Nasional), Ketua Penerangan Parti Keadilan Rakyat dan Ketua Pengarang akhbar parti Suara Keadilan.

          Antara buku-buku karya beliau adalah: Melayu Baru: Beberapa Persoalan Sosio-Budaya (1992); Politik dan Polemik Bahasa Melayu (1993); Melayu Baru dan Bangsa Malaysia: Tradisi Cendekia dan Krisis Budaya (1993); Menjelang Reformasi (2004); Ke Mana Nasionalisme Melayu? (2004); dan Bercanda dengan Mahathir (2006).

          Semoga rohnya dicucuri rahmat.

          (From Suara Keadilan)

          AL-FATHIHAH

          Tuesday 22 April 2008

          Non-Malays EQUAL Citizenship Rights and UMNO's Racist Concept of KETUANAN MELAYU

          From Malaysiakini: Read here for more


          Quote:

          "...The British agreed to certain provisions in the (Federal) Constitution to serve as a safeguard for the Malay position in Malaysia.

          It was NOT meant to create a situation of ‘superiority’ or racial dominance of the Malays.

          The whole intention was to create in Malaysia the unique situation of EQUAL citizenship, rights and status for ALL races but at the same time the preservation of the position and culture of the Malay race.

          Our leaders should therefore be mindful of this balancing act, and NOT tip the scales in favour of Malay Supremacy, and the other end, leading to the erosion of the Malay identity.

          Keep it somewhere in the MIDDLE. "
          Shazal Yusuf




          Balancing the Scales of Unity in Malaysia

          by

          Shazal Yusuf

          I believe that the notion that non-Malays owe a debt of gratitude to Malays for the granting of citizenship and they in return they should duly recognise that henceforth Malays hold special rights and should not seek equal treatment, is misplaced.

          In recent times, this misplaced perception has led to the ascendancy of the disturbing and racist Ketuanan Melayu concept.

          When the Federation of Malaysia was formed, equal citizenship right was sought to ensure fairness and equality to all races. However, with the granting of citizenship to Chinese and Indians, the Malays feared that their position would be undermined by the perceived aggressive cultural traits and economic superiority of the other races.

          As a compromise, the British agreed to certain provisions in the constitution to serve as a safeguard for the Malay position in Malaysia.

          The whole intention, therefore, was to create in Malaysia the unique situation of equal citizenship, rights and status for all races but at the same time the preservation of the position and culture of the Malay race.

          It was NOT meant to create a situation of ‘superiority’ or racial dominance of the Malays to ensure that many years from now, in our grandchildren’s and their grandchildren’s time, the ‘Malay-ness’ of Malaysia will not disappear.

          Our leaders should therefore be mindful of this balancing act, and NOT tip the scales in favour of Malay Supremacy, one end which will lead to racial discontent and oppression of the other races, and the other end leading to the erosion of the Malay identity. Keep it somewhere in the middle.

          History has shown that the turbulent times in Malaysia occurred when the scales tipped too much towards one end or the other. The turbulent mid to late sixties marked the tipping of scales towards the erosion of the Malay identity side.

          The 70s attempted to redress this through the NEP, and this has lead to the tipping of the scales towards the Malay Supremacy end. The watershed 2008 elections is an attempt to redress back the balance.

          The question is, after this will the scales be tipped back to the erosion side or the Malay Supremacy side or will our leaders have the foresight to ensure that it stays somewhere in the middle?

          I believe that the only time when we were truly a harmonious and balanced society was just after we achieved independence when all the races truly felt united and had a common goal.

          When this position is achieved once more and maintained, then will Malaysia truly be a harmonious and united nation.
          -Shazal Yusuf

          Updated: Commentary (29th April 2008)

          From a Reader of Malaysia-Today:
          Read here

          "...There is more to it than the commentary that the Malays agreed to accord citizenship to other races.

          The first point to note is that prior to Merdeka, the then Malaya was a colony of England.

          We were all "citizens" as a colony of the British prior to 1957 . So were the Malays, Chinese and Indians in Malaya. That is a fact in which UMNO apologists tend to skim over or allow that to fade in the consciousness of today's Malaysians.

          The question is: If the Malays had said No to giving citizenship to the other races, would we have got our Merdeka in 1957 FROM THE BRITISH ? Chances (are) NO and also it would not have been as easy as we had got (for) our independence.

          The British has to sort out the Chinese and the Indians who were here or brought into the country by the colonial masters since they took over the country from the Dutch and the Japanese. Evacuate them to UK? Hongkong? Send them to Singapore?

          The scenario will be very different. A No from the Malays for the citizenship of other races, even those BORN here might even result in the secession of some states by the British to accommodate those non Malays not given citizenship.

          Penang and Melaka might remain as a colony of the British.

          Just like Sabah and Sarawak were not part of Malaya in 1957. These states could have been like Hongkong or Macau.

          The worst case scenario if the Malays had said NO, would be the denial of merdeka by the British. That is the main reason why the early founding fathers of Merdeka were not only Malays, but other races, Chinese and the Indians who stood by the newly formed UMNO to fight for independence.

          Don't forget in the background in which the Brits were worried (about) the Communists (who were) supported by Communist China.

          The option of the Malays not to give citizenship to other races would have been a disaster for the country, for the Malays themselves and for the Chinese and Indians.

          So UMNO today should realise this part of history not written in our history books.

          It is not like as if the Malays were already running Malaya prior to 1957 and therefore the giving of citizenship was a present to the other races.

          In the final analysis, the founding fathers of Merdeka, especially Tengku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and all those early leaders of UMNO saw the realpolitik making sure that other races have a fair stake in the future of this country.

          People like Khairy and Hishammudin and those ultra-Malays who try to spook racial fears among the Malays, should remember THIS part history.

          Many of the writings of Malay historians tend to forget that prior to the Merdeka the TUAN of the country was the ORANG PUTIH. It was the Ketuanan Orang Enggeris.

          Think about it: Pan out the scenario on the assumption that the Malays 1957 had told the British that they will not agree to giving the citizenship to other races. Do you think we will still have the kind of Malaysia today. You bet? No way.

          We might be like those African countries or in the Balkans, genocidal wars, Malays fighting the British for independence, the other races siding the British, and with some siding the communists, and having overseas Chinese in SE Asia in the fray and the Indian subcontinent especially from Tamil Nadu sending arms and weapons and men to fight for their Hindu brethren.

          So I think it is time the Malays stop barking on this citizenship issue after 50 years and thank their blessings that the founding fathers of UMNO/MCA.MIC had the foresight to see the consequences.

          Not giving citizenship to other races would be more damaging to the Malays than to the other races, especially to the destiny and future of Malaysia as we know today.