Interview with an Islamic State Recruiter: ‘Democracy Is For Infidels’

Interview Conducted by Hasnain Kazim

Spiegel Online

How does Islamic State think? How do its followers see the world? SPIEGEL ONLINE met up with an Islamic State recruiter in Turkey to hear about the extremist group’s vision for the future.

The conditions laid out by the Islamist are strict: no photos and no audio recording. He also keeps his real name secret as well as his country of origin, and is only willing to disclose that he is Arab. His English is polished and he speaks with a British accent.

He calls himself Abu Sattar, appears to be around 30 years old and wears a thick, black beard that reaches down to his chest. His top lip is shaved as is his head and he wears a black robe that stretches all the way to the floor. He keeps a copy of the Koran, carefully wrapped in black cloth, in his black leather bag.

Abu Sattar recruits fighters for the terrorist militia Islamic State in Turkey. Radical Islamists travel to Turkey from all over the world to join the “holy war” in Iraq or Syria and Abu Sattar examines their motives and the depth of their religious beliefs. Several Islamic State members independently recommended Abu Sattar as a potential interview partner — as someone who could explain what Islamic State stands for. Many see him as something like an ideological mentor.

He only agreed to an interview following a period of hesitation. But after agreeing to a time and saying he would name a place in due time, he let the appointment fall through. The next day, though, he arranged another meeting time, to take place in a public venue. And this time, he appears: a man with brown eyes behind frameless glasses. He seems self-confident and combative. He orders a tea and, throughout the duration of our meeting, slides his wooden prayer beads through his hands.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: As-salamu alaykum.

Abu Sattar: Are you Muslim?

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Why does that matter? Religion is a private matter for me.

Abu Sattar: Then why did you say “as-salamu alaykum”?

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Because it means “peace be with you” and I see it as a friendly greeting.

Abu Sattar: So you’re not a Muslim. I knew it!

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Why is Islamic State so eager to divide the world into believers and infidels? Why does Islamic State see everything as either black or white, “us against the world”?

Abu Sattar: Who started it? Who conquered the world and sought to subordinate all foreign cultures and religions? The history of colonialism is long and bloody. And it continues today, in the shape of Western arrogance vis-à-vis everyone else. “Us against the rest of the world” is the formula that drives the West. We Muslims are now finally offering successful resistance.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: You are spreading fear and horror and are killing innocents, most of them Muslim. You call that successful resistance?

Abu Sattar: We are following Allah’s word. We believe that humanity’s only duty is to honor Allah and his prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. We are implementing what is written in the Koran. If we manage to do so, then of course it will be a success.

For Salafists like Abu Sattar, the Koran is the only valid law. They are literalists and refuse to interpret scripture, much less to abstract from it. Abu Sattar and the Islamic State idealize the Muslim community that existed during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad, believing that it was the epitome of Islamic practice and that the religion was only able to rapidly expand for that reason. Islamic State would like to revive that interpretation and emulate the early Muslims.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Do you believe that those who behead others are good Muslims?

Abu Sattar: Let me ask you this: Do you believe that those who launch air strikes on Afghan weddings or who march into a country like Iraq on specious grounds are good Christians? Are those responsible for Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib good Christians?

SPIEGEL ONLINE: You are dodging the question. The events you speak of were not undertaken in the name of a religion and were heavily criticized in the West. Once again: What is a good Muslim for you? What kinds of people are you recruiting?

Abu Sattar: A Muslim is a person who follows Allah’s laws without question. Sharia is our law. No interpretation is needed, nor are laws made by men. Allah is the only lawmaker. We have determined that there are plenty of people, in Germany too, who perceive the emptiness of the modern world and who yearn for values of the kind embodied by Islam. Those who are opposed to Sharia are not Muslims. We talk to the people who come to us and evaluate on the basis of dialogue how deep their faith is.

Turkey is seen as a key site for Islamic State recruiting. People from around the world — from Europe, the United States and Central and South Asia — travel to Istanbul and establish contacts with the extremists. According to Turkish officials, around 1,000 of the country’s citizens are also fighting for Islamic State.

The government in Ankara denies that it is supporting Islamic State, but has in the past allowed jihadists to travel to Iraq and Syria via Turkey. There are also indications that the extremists receive food, medical supplies, weapons and munitions via Turkey and that injured terrorists have been treated in Turkish hospitals.

In the last three years, Turkey has been actively seeking the fall of Syrian autocrat Bashar Assad and has been supporting all groups fighting against him, including Islamist groups. At the very least, it tolerated Islamic State recruitment activities within Turkey.

Abu Sattar periodically glances around to see if he is being watched. He says he is able to continue recruiting, but that “a bit of restraint” is necessary.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: There are an estimated 1.6 billion Muslims in the world today. Many are very democratic, some are liberal while others are conservative and, just imagine, there are heterosexual Muslims and homosexual Muslims among them. Most of them do not share your ideology. But you act as though there were only one kind of Muslim, namely those who think like you do. That is absurd!

Abu Sattar: Democracy is for infidels. A real Muslim is not a democrat because he doesn’t care about the opinions of majorities and minorities don’t interest him. He is only interested in what Islam says. Furthermore, democracy is a hegemonic tool of the West and contrary to Islam. Why do you act as though the entire world needs democracy? And when it comes to homosexuality, the issue is clearly dealt with by the Koran. It says it is forbidden and should be punished.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Such statements help cast suspicion on all Muslims. In many countries, they are under pressure to distance themselves from Islamic State even though they have nothing at all to do with terror.

Abu Sattar: So? Are they speaking out against us? (Laughs) I think we enjoy much more support than you would like to believe. Those who demand that Muslims take sides are totally right. We go even a step further: All people should disclose whether they submit to Allah or not. Those who are against us are our enemies and must be fought. That includes people who call themselves Muslims but who don’t lead their lives as such — people who drink, who don’t pray, who don’t fast, who have constantly changing partners and who are unable to recite the Koran.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: There are many Muslims who have consciously chosen such a lifestyle.

Abu Sattar: That may be true, but that is not Allah’s will. When we someday have power, inshallah, in the entire world, then Sharia will be imposed. Such people will then have to atone for their behavior.

  Religious fundamentalism is as old as religion itself. Islamic State, however, is applying it with the most brutal of consequences. A self-contained worldview that clearly delineates between good and bad, friend and foe, makes it simple for its followers to find their way in a complicated world. Muslims who interpret Islam differently than the Salafists are simply declared to be unbelievers, a practice of excommunication known as “takfir.” For those declared unbelievers, it is akin to a death sentence because turning away from Islam is forbidden. The extremists have also shown no compunctions about using religion to justify war crimes. In Abu Sattar’s view, all means are legitimate in the fight for “true faith.” It is an approach that thousands of people clearly find attractive.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: You kidnap non-Muslim women and turn them into sex slaves. You crucify or behead those of other faiths, including children. How does that conform to Islam?

Abu Sattar: Why didn’t anybody get upset about the many people that Syrian President Bashar Assad has on his conscience? But now that we want to establish a caliphate, it is suddenly a problem? To answer your question: It is every Muslim’s duty to fight those of a different belief until only Allah is worshipped around the world. Everybody has the opportunity to accept Allah and to change to the right path. (Recited in Arabic from the Koran, 5. Sura, Verse 33) “The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land.”

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Most non-Muslims aren’t waging war against anybody. Billions of people, no matter what their religion, are living peacefully with each other, or at least next to one another.

Abu Sattar: (Once again recites in Arabic, this time Sura 4, Verse 89) “They (the Unbelievers) wish that you reject Faith as they have rejected Faith, and thus that you all become equal. So take not protectors or friends from them till they emigrate in the Way of Allah. But if they turn back from Islam, take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them and take neither protectors nor friends nor helpers from them.”

SPIEGEL ONLINE: You are avoiding the question by confronting a complex reality with religious texts. But if you really want to conduct such an argument: It also says in the Koran that there is no compulsion in religion. In a different spot it says that one is not permitted to “transgress due balance” because God does not love imbalance. What you are doing is a transgression of balance.

Abu Sattar: Yes, that is in the second Sura. But it also says that one should kill or expel unbelievers wherever one finds them.

This is a typical strategy employed by fundamentalists: They choose those sources that support their position while ignoring those that contradict them.

    Abu Sattar says that he has been responsible for “several dozen” young men joining Islamic State. He says they were strictly separated according to their countries of origins and would remain separated during their training in camps in Syrian territory. Contrary to some reports, he emphasizes that no training takes place on Turkish soil. Men with battlefield experience, such as those who fought in places like Chechnya or Afghanistan, are particularly highly valued.

    Islamic State concentrates exclusively on the fight and the implementation of their version of Islam. The militias even reject mosques because they distract from faith. Monuments and works of art are likewise destroyed because they see them as idols.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: In the golden age of Islam, there was music, dancing, painting, calligraphy and architecture. Yet you are propagating an Islam free of culture and art. It is time to discuss religious content and find a modern interpretation, don’t you think.

Abu Sattar: It is not up to us to interpret God’s word. There have been repeated errors and lapses in Muslim societies. That which you refer to as the “golden age” was one of them.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Then you should at least be in favor of allowing people to read the Koran in their own language so that they understand how they are supposed to live. Most are unable to speak or understand Arabic. Do you believe that the many calls for fighting and killing would be well received were people to be able to read them in their own language?

Abu Sattar: It is Allah’s word just as it is in the Koran. We are also not allowed to translate it. It is unimportant whether what it says is well received or not. We are not allowed to question even a single word.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: You keep the people uneducated to build up your power. That is a strategy used by all extremists.

Abu Sattar: You have your viewpoint and we have ours.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But you fight against all those who don’t share your worldview.

Abu Sattar: Christians and Jews go after those who have access to raw materials but who prevent access to them. Oil is the best example. The US and its allies are constantly intervening in countries where they don’t belong only to defend their prosperity. Is that any better? We aren’t fighting because we are greedy and selfish, rather we are fighting for values and morals.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: When one looks at your actions in Iraq and Syria, morals and values are difficult to discern. One gets the impression that your actions are driven by an inferiority complex. The same holds true of your recruits: They tend to be people who feel like they don’t belong and finally see an opportunity to live out their fantasies of power.

Abu Sattar: It is not true that only those people come to us who have experienced no success in life. Among them are many people who have university degrees, people who were well-established. But they all see the inequities that we Muslims have long experienced and want to fight against them.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: You constantly speak of fighting. Do Muslims not constantly speak of Islam being a religion of peace?

Abu Sattar: It is when people submit to Allah. Allah is merciful and forgives those who follow him.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 29 October 2014, 9:50 pm and is filed under
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia’s Dog Issue – A Petty Problem?

by MASTURAH ALATAS

CounterPunch

October 27, 2014

On Sunday, 19 October 2014, as I was scrolling through Facebook posts, one image struck me in a way no other has in a long time. I have several Malaysians on my friends list, so it is not unusual for me to see pictures of hijabed Malaysian women show up in my news feed.

But this one of a young Malay woman, her head covered with a yellow tudung, was completely different. It accompanied a Malaysian Insider report headlined ‘ ‘I want to touch a dog’ event an attempt to insult Malaysia’s clerics’. What was striking about the image was that it showed this woman actually holding a dog, a Pomeranian, its open mouth, tongue dangling, just inches from her smiling face.

The event was held in the middle class suburb of Bandar Utama just outside Kuala Lumpur, and drew hundreds of participants. It was aimed to break the taboo that many Malaysian Muslims have against dogs, remind participants that dogs are God’s creatures, too, and educate them about dog rescue and cleansing practices after handling a dog.

I instantly recognized the subversive value of the image. A Malay touching a dog? But we are told that Malays don’t touch dogs because they believe their religion, Islam,—in particular the Shafi’i school of Sunni Islam that is practiced in Malaysia—tells them that dogs are unclean.

The ‘I want to touch a dog’ event was, to me, one of the most original campaigns to come out of Malaysia in recent years. Mass demonstrations and candlelight vigils happen everywhere. And some, like supporters of the Bersih or ‘clean elections’ movement—whose last mass rally was held in 2012 with an estimated turnout of tens of thousands of people—argue that these displays of collective discontent involving Malaysians of all ethnicities directly lead to an upset in voting results. Perhaps. While the Malay-dominated and conservative, Right-wing Barisan Nasional managed to retain power in the 2013 General Elections, that was the year it also had to endure one of its worst ever electoral performances.

I find the ‘touch a dog’ event more subversive because it shores up the fact that discord among Muslims exist (not that we need to be reminded), in an age where the main enemy for Malay Muslims seems to be the West or ‘other races’. The event was approved by the Islamic Religious Council of the State of Selangor, but opposed by other religious authorities in the country, a contradiction that immediately exposes that the clash is sometimes within Islam and not with the West. The conflict, however, is inevitably packaged in West-bashing rhetoric.

In the days following Sunday’s event, Malaysian Insider and other media reports focused on the insults and death threats that event organizer, Syed Azmi Alhabshi, was receiving all over social media. Overnight, the young man in his thirties was accused of being a closet Christian, part of a Zionist conspiracy to Christianize Muslim Malaysians or, simply, a “liberal”. Malaysia Insider reports a Facebook comment which went so far as to say Syed Azmi “should be stoned to death”. Another Facebook user suggested that in addition to taking action against Syed Azmi, Muslims should seek out the women who posed with dogs at the event, and pull off their headscarves to see if they were wearing crucifixes or had tattoos. Such vitriolic comments come from both men and women alike.

Many have come out to defend Syed Azmi and condemn such extremist reactions. Some feel that Muslims should avoid dogs, but killing those who touch, or advocate the touching of dogs, is wrong and un-Islamic. They don’t tell us, however, where this will to kill comes from in a country like Malaysia where Muslims are not under attack. Are they stricken by abject poverty, then? Has the New Economic Policy designed to help Malay development failed? One has to ask the question why Malaysia, one of the most affluent and developed Muslim nations in the world, has its share of IS sympathizers.

Other non-opposers to the ‘touch a dog’ event like a former mufti of the state of Perlis and Selangor’s Islamic religious council, claim that dogs are not forbidden in Islam and Muslims may keep guard dogs for security, especially since home burglaries are on the rise in Malaysia. Not all approve of Muslims hugging dogs, however. Their idea, it appears, is that you treat your guard dog well and with kindness, just as you would treat your human guard well. But both are not to be hugged by the mistress of the house. Religious leaders recommend that should Muslims come into contact with a dog, they are obliged to carry out the cleansing ritual which traditionally involves washing with a combination of water and soil, and then rinsing with water.

The ‘touch a dog’ event is not the first controversy involving Muslims and dogs in Malaysia. In August 2013, dog trainer Maznah Mohd Yusuf, 38, was arrested following a wave of protests in reaction to videos uploaded on Youtube showing her washing her dogs’ paws and legs after she had taken them out for a walk.

To counter what many are calling “ignorance” and “stupidity” on the part of those shunning the ‘touch a dog’ campaign, many Facebook users are either telling stories about Malaysian Muslims from politicians to members of the royalty to the ordinary citizen, who own dogs. Or else they are posting pictures of other Muslims around the world touching dogs, from Kuwaiti clerics to Turks in Istanbul’s Taksim square and Gulf Arabs at greyhound races. But cynicism runs high. In a comment, a certain Synthia Leng states: “Nice try but I don’t think it will change their mind. Someone pointed out in a post that lots of Arabs touch dogs, but the anti-touch dog people told the person not to compare Arabs and the Malays. I wonder why…don’t they worship the sane [sic] god?? One can never get through facts with such people. They believe what they want to believe. …without using their brain.”

And perhaps this is the crux of the problem. Not Islam’s obsession with the West but Islam’s relationship to common sense and science.

Malaysia’s most well-known sociologist, Syed Hussein Alatas, owned two dogs in his lifetime. He loved them, and touched them. With regard to cleansing practices, he said to me in a private conversation in the 1980s that soap and water were sufficient, and a safer improvement over sand which was a desert practice. Though if Muslims wanted to stick to tradition, they could continue to cleanse themselves with sand, he said. He also said that cats, a popular pet among Muslims, “are actually dirtier than dogs because they catch rats which may have wandered out of the sewers and are thus disease carriers. But cats know how to keep themselves clean and Muslims know how to keep themselves clean. No Muslim would rush to wash immediately after touching a cat, let alone wash with sand.”

It is, of course, impossible to slap a death threat on a dead man.

Almost a week after the dog touching event took place, Syed Azmi Alhabshi came out with an apology. In a report carried by Bernama, Malaysia’s national news agency, he stated that the programme “had certain weaknesses” and was not meant “to promote liberalism.”

Controversy and anger around the ‘I want to touch a dog’ event may die down. But other unresolved issues of Islam’s relationship to science and modernity remain very much alive.

Masturah Alatas is a at the University of Macerata.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 29 October 2014, 8:41 am and is filed under
Islam
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


No end to history?

by Narayan Ramachandran

Pragati

October 13, 2014

While liberal democracy may be the least imperfect system yet known to man, it is not very clear whether mankind will pursue this desirable destination without long and costly detours.

Twenty-two years ago, American political scientist and author, Yoshihiro Francis Fukuyama wrote a treatise on western liberal democracy called The End of History and The Last Man. Fukuyama wrote with authority and confidence and argued that the dominance of western liberal democracy may well signal the arrival of a ‘final’ type of government – an end to the historical evolution of political systems.

Fukuyama claimed to have been inspired by Alexendre Kojeve, a Russian-French philosopher of Hegelian persuasion – who coined the term the “End of History”.

 Kojeve’s use of the phrase referred to the idea that ideological history in a limited sense had ended with the French Revolution and there was no longer a need for violence to establish liberal values. Fukuyama borrowed the phrase and expanded its use to cover both political (democratic western) and economic (market-based) systems.  The original article on which Fukuyama’s book is based was written just as the Berlin wall fell in 1989. In that context it is understandable as a triumphal book that celebrates the victory of the western democracies over the communist Soviet Union. Fukuyama’s book was misunderstood to be a book that celebrates American supremacy, but he himself says, “I believe that the European Union more accurately reflects what the world will look like at the end of history than the contemporary United States.   The EU’s attempt to transcend sovereignty and traditional power politics by establishing a transnational rule of law is much more in line with a “post-historical” world than the Americans’ continuing belief in God, national sovereignty, and their military.”

Fukuyama’s seminal book provoked a lot of critical analysis. Samuel Huntington’s famous 1993 article in the Foreign Affairs magazine entitled “The Clash of Civilizations” and a subsequent book of similar name were direct responses to Fukuyama’s work.  Huntington argued that the temporary clash of ideologies in these last two centuries of human existence have once again been replaced by an ancient clash of civilisations. In Huntington’s view, the dominant civilisation of the time lends its form of government as a model for all. Huntington believes that while the age of ideology had ended, the world has only reverted to a normal state characterized by cultural conflict. The primary axis of conflict, he believed, would be along cultural and religious lines. Fukuyama’s book also attracted criticism from communists who believe that the role of the market had been overstated.

The events of September 11, 2001, the financial crisis of 2008 and the economic rise of the East, have all provided grist for the mill critical of Fukuyama’s original thesis. Fukuyama himself did not argue that it would be a straight line. His view simply was that Western liberal democracy had won the race.   There would be tests to the system and potentially long pauses in evidence but eventually, he believed, we would return to liberal democracy as the dominant system.

It is unclear (yet) whether Fukuyama’s theory is flawed or whether we are indeed in a pause – but it appears from around the world that nationalism, authoritarianism and alternatives to western liberal democracy have been rising for some time.   With hindsight, the events of 9/11 appear to have been a fundamental fork in the road.  Examples of authoritarianism abound – Turkey, Russia, Egypt and China – to name just a few.

In Turkey, the Justice and Development party (AK Party) came to power in 2002 with a thumping majority. Since then, the AK party has gradually consolidated its power and its strongman Recep Tayyip Erdogan has become an elected authoritarian, with brutal put-downs of protests, media censorship and a general disregard for the constitution.  The sham of ‘elected’ but in actuality appointed officials in Russia has made its way from the Federal to State and Local Governments. Vladimir Putin’s control of not just Government but also of all large companies like Rosneft, Sberbank and Gazprom has left much of the energy and financial economy in the hands of a small group of people who run Russia today.  There is a widespread belief that this group also indirectly controls the media – both traditional and new.  The latest such takeover appears to be that of Facebook Russia. This small group, all loyal to Putin is the Siloviki – members of the security apparatus when Putin was in the KGB.  This illiberal control of state, commerce and media combined with a few liberal measures (like a flat tax) has resulted in the coinage of the word ‘Putinism’ to characterise it. China’s new president, Xi Xingping, has consolidated power in a manner that is unprecedented in the “Central Party Committee” style of managing China that has hitherto governed the country. In China too, there are elements of liberalism that include a  crackdown on corruption (remember Bo Xilai and Zhou Yongkang), but the primary objective is consolidation of power.  This consolidation has been accompanied by a severe crackdown on the social media including arrests of famous bloggers. The democracy protests in Hong Kong, for instance, are fully blacked out in Beijing. In Egypt, the Arab spring had lead to hope that a liberal, modern democracy would replace an army-sponsored strongman.  With alternating hope and despair, Egypt has returned to what it knows best – an army strongman again.  Some scholars worry that in India, the world’s largest democracy, there is danger of majoritarianism if not authoritarianism.

And all this in nation-states that have constitutions and are governed by a general rule of law. Beyond, the rise of non-State actors has been equally spectacular. Political order is itself being tested by new religion based organisations such as Islamic Society of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and the shadowy Khorasan Group that have a pan-Islamic agenda. Off-shoots of the al-Qaeda like the Harakat al-Shabbab that operates in eastern Africa, Ansar al-Sharia that operates in Yemen and the Asbat al-Ansar that operates in Lebanon are spreading terror and chaos in the regions that they operate in.  The promise of the Arab spring has been consumed by the despair of stateless extremists acting with deadly force without regard to national boundaries.

Appropriately, Fukuyama has written the first book of a three-part series on The Origins of Political Order in 2011.  The second book in the series, Political Order and Political Decay, was recently released. These books discuss with great rigour and detail how societies build strong, impersonal and accountable institutions. They describe how path dependent the history of institutions and liberal democracies have been. It may be Fukuyama’s nod to Huntington that while liberal democracy may be the least imperfect system yet known to man, it is not very clear whether mankind will pursue this desirable destination without long and costly detours. These detours may eventually get us to a point where many of the world’s nations are liberal and democratic. Then again, they may not. Time will tell. History, as they say, never really ends.

Narayan Ramachandran is co-Founder and Fellow of the Takshashila Institution. This is the first of a two-part series on the question of liberal democracy and whether it will become the world’s dominant political system.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 29 October 2014, 7:42 am and is filed under
International
,
Politics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


UM should withdraw its police report, admit it has made a colossal blunder in the campus lockdown and power black-out and enlist student/alumni/academician support to restore  academic freedom to regain international repute for academic excellence

The University of Malaya should withdraw its police report allegedly over “trespass” on its grounds when students and supporters defied a lockdown and blackout of the university campus on Monday night to attend Anwar Ibrahim’s talk on “40 years: From UM to prison” at Dataran Dewan Tunku Canselor.

The University of Malaya administration should take an enlightened attitude to what happened on Monday, admit it had made a colossal blunder in the lockdown and power black-out of University of Malaya and enlist the support of university students, alumni, academicians and the Malaysian public to restore academic freedom to regain the university’s international repute for academic excellence in its early decades.

Of course, the university administration can go on a witch-hunt and vengeful campaign to penalise students and even academicians for what happened on Monday night, but this would be an even greater disservice to its national and international reputation and would do nothing to restore its repute as the country’s premier university.

The letter which a former University of Malaya  law graduate, Thulsi Manogaran,  wrote in The Malaysian Insider deserve serious consideration by the University  of Malaya administrators.

Thulsi said she is not a “big fan” of Anwar but she stood for academic freedom and freedom of speech.

She graduated in 2012 from the Faculty of Law and recalled that academic freedom when she entered campus in 2008 was  completely absent.

During her period in university, nobody spoke of politics.  Politics was a dirty word. It was labelled sensitive and brushed off.

But what happened on Monday night gave her a lot of hope that Malaysia is not a lost cause after all.

As she said it: “My generation will build a better Malaysia. I am sure.”

Hope was born anew on Monday night, not only for Thulsi but for many Malaysians who have increasingly become more disenchanted and disillusioned with recent national developments in the country – including about academic freedom and the state of the universities in the country with the premier university dropping off from the international radar despite  its previous high international repute and recognition for its academic excellence.

Can and will the University of Malaya administrators be allowed to learn  “creative” lessons from the scandal of the university lockdown and power black-out, for the premier university in the country to enlist student/alumni/academician support to restore  academic freedom to regain international repute for academic excellence?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 29 October 2014, 1:55 pm and is filed under
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Can Malaysia have a Jokowi?

By Maria Chin Abdullah

Malaysiakini

Oct 29, 2014

As politics unfold in Indonesia, many are impressed with their responses towards democracy building. On Oct 20, Indonesians witnessed a peaceful transfer of power with the inauguration of the seventh president of Indonesia.

Joko Widodo, better known as Jokowi, had defeated Prabowo Subianto by 6.3 percent in the presidential election on July 9, 2014. While Prabowo had initially submitted an election petition to challenge the results, he had gracefully accepted the court’s ruling when it rejected all his complaints. This sealed the Jokowi-Jusuf Kalla team’s presidential victory in the eyes of the law and the voters.

Indeed, President Jokowi’s beginnings have been anything but impressive in his quest to eradicate corruption and build a clean government.

President Joko Widodo had announced his cabinet and he had strategically submitted his ministerial cabinet lineup to the Corruption Eradication Commission for their screening as a show of his commitment to “form a clean government”.

On Tuesday, Oct 21, 2014 the commission had deemed eight of his cabinet selection as inappropriate due to their “alleged involvement in cases of graft and human rights violations.” (The Jakarta Post, Oct 22, 2014).

Despite criticism of his delayed announcement, President Jokowi had stood firm on his position, an indication that he may be trying to avoid repeating the mistakes that his predecessor, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, made when three of Susilo’s ministers were convicted or became suspects in corruption cases.

Jokowi’s political career went through an interesting democratic process. He was elected as the governor of Jakarta in 2012 after earlier being elected as the mayor of Sukarta in 2005.

In Indonesia, the government structure covered four tiers – president, parliament, regional provinces and local government. This is part of Indonesia’s political decentralisation policy adopted in 1998 after the fall of Suharto.

By 2005, direct elections for mayors, regents and governors were put into place as important component to weed out entrenched administration that is corrupt, inefficient and politically linked to the then equally graft-ridden Suharto regime. It was also an effort to give back to the people their right to elect their own local leaders.

The local government, depending on demographics, size and economics considerations, are represented by either elected regents (district level) or elected mayors (city level). Both regencies and cities are at the same level, having their own local government and legislative body. Representatives are elected for a five-year term. Regional provinces are autonomous and represented by elected governors.

However, direct elections in Indonesia were scrapped in September 2014 prior to the inauguration of President Jokowi in October 2014. It was an attempt to undermine President Jokowi. There is now a possibility to challenge this bill at the Indonesian constitutional court which has the power to over-rule the parliament.

Cultivating acceptance of possible change

Nonetheless, the lesson learnt from the Indonesian experience is that since the 1998 Suharto downfall, the democratic transition has been able to build into systems that cultivates positive acceptance of possible change in existing political institutions.

The Indonesian democratic process has allowed someone from Jokowi’s (left) background: non-attachment to the military and coming from the opposition Indonesian Democratic Party-Struggle (Partai Demokratik Indonesia-Perjuangan) to have a smooth and peaceful change in the government.

In comparison, there has not been the same openness, inclusiveness and democratic practices enjoyed by Malaysians. It has been an uphill struggle against a state administration that has zero tolerance for opposing ideas and constructive engagement. Instead of institutionalising democratic reforms, efforts are made to suppress diversity, rights and freedom.

To start off with, Malaysians do not even have the luxury to cast their third vote. The local government elections were last held in 1963 as local elections were suspended under a proclamation of emergency in September 1964 amidst the Indonesia-staged Confrontation.

We had started well. Local elections was first introduced in George Town in 1857 and abolished by 1913 and then reintroduced in 1951 with the passing of the Local Authorities Elections Ordinance 1950. Two years later, the Local Council Ordinance 1952 created local councils for villages.

By 1958, Malaysia had local elections that covered city councils; municipal councils, town councils, town boards, rural district councils and local councils. Under the Local Government Elections Act 1960 (LGEA1960) and its amendment in 1961, the Election Commissions took over the conduct of all local elections.

When local elections were suspended, the Royal Commission of Enquiry to Investigate into the Workings of Local Authorities in West Malaysia (the royal commission) presented their recommendations in 1968 and produced the commonly known Athi Nahappan Report to urge for the reinstatement of local elections. It was again rejected in parliament.

According to political parties and scholars, they believed that the suspension of local elections, as early as 1959 in Kuala Lumpur, was to prevent the opposition parties from winning them.

This is the history of Malaysia whereby the ruling administration has low tolerance for any openness and lacks commitment to build a truly democratic society. Taking away the local elections is one of the ways used to eliminate any political opposition to the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) administration. Opposing views, critical engagements and opposition political parties are never tolerated by BN.

We have other incidents where people’s rights and freedoms have been curbed. The 2009 Perak crisis is an example where the ruling regime could not tolerate the possibility of another state being governed by the opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat. The people’s votes were grossly undermined when three Pakatan Rakyat state legislators defected and caused a collapse in the Perak state government.

Instead of agreeing to allow the then-menteri besar Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin to dissolve the state assembly and call a fresh election, the sultan of Perak allowed Barisan Nasional with the three defected state assembly representatives to form the new state government. The faith of the Perak constitutional crisis was sealed when the Federal Court confirmed in February 2010 that BN’s Zambry Abdul Kadir was the lawful menteri besar.

The Kajang move is seen as yet another attempt by the BN ruling administration to eliminate opposing views. The Kajang move, initiated by Party Keadilan Rakyat, was an attempt by the opposition political party, Party Keadilan Rakyat, to place Anwar Ibrahim as the possible appointed candidate for the Selangor menteri besar post, if he was elected as the state assembly in Kajang by-election.

Almost immediately, Anwar’s alleged sodomy trial date was fast forwarded and there was a threat that he may even face a jail sentence, if proven guilty. It is not surprising that many viewed the trial as politically motivated with the intention to snuff out the one person who could possibly be Malaysia’s next strong opponent as the prime minister.

Draconian laws

If all else failed in silencing dissent, there are the laws. Malaysia has a string of draconian laws and the latest and most creative is the Sedition Act. The Act is used liberally to criminalise all those who criticise the government or its officials. It is now a convenient Act used to prevent Malaysians from expressing and debating, freely and openly, a diverse range of political opinions and ideas.

At least thirty-eight persons have now been charged with sedition including Members of Parliament, politicians, human rights defenders, academicians, lawyers, students and journalists for publishing or disseminating information and ideas through the Internet or traditional media. The latest victim of the Sedition Act is Anwar for his speech made three years ago. So even if Anwar’s alleged sodomy case is dropped, he has to face sedition charges.

But the lights are not out yet for Malaysia. We may not have a Jokowi for now but the bravery of the students on Oct 27, 2014 in defying the Universiti Malaya administration in their fight for freedom of expression and association is an indication that there is much hope for our future.

MARIA CHIN ABDULLAH is the chairperson for the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections 2.0 (Bersih 2.0) and the executive director of Empower. She believes politicians are bad masters if not made good servants through free, fair and competitive elections.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 30 October 2014, 7:10 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Law & Order
,
Politics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Dr. Mahathir’s latest gaffe on Bible burning

— Koon Yew Yin

The Malay Mail Online

October 30, 2014

OCTOBER 30 — As the former Prime Minister of the country, Dr. Mahathir — as with former heads of state all over the world — has been accorded much respect. Not only that, he is given liberties as befitting a leader who has served the country for over two decades, and whose experience and advice is thought of as being given with the best interests of the nation in mind.

But the public also knows that Dr. Mahathir is approaching — if not already reached — the stage of senility and dotage that is associated with old age. Threfore he is given some slack — in fact more than is due to any other political leader in Malaysia. His past controversial statements — many found in his blog and others made at public events — would fill up more than a book but they are mostly ignored as the ramblings of an old leader trying to remain in the public eye.

A fair government that is insistent on keeping the Sedition Act which criminalises speech and writing as that which would “bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against” the government or engender “feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races” would have thrown the book at Dr. Mahathir long ago.

But although guilty of racial and religious stereotyping and hate mongering and one of the main reasons why Malay racial intolerance has reached this serious stage today, Dr Mahathir has remained untouchable and for this reason is a loose and dangerous cannon.

Dr Mahathir says “Okay” to burn bibles if you have good intentions

To his record of race baiting can now be added the sin of religious extremism. In comments made at a press conference following his address at an event named “The Extraordinaire Forum 2014” in Bukit Kiara, Kuala Lumpur, Dr Mahathir said that he saw no harm in the call by Perkasa for Muslims to burn the bible so long as it was done with good intentions.

Perhaps Dr. Mahathir, caught up in the excitement of the event, was trying to be extra-ordinarily clever. Perhaps he wanted to play to the Malay/Muslim media and gallery by making some outrageous statements that would distract the Malay audience and have them forget about his recent statements about the alleged dishonesty, laziness and untrustworthiness of his own race. Or perhaps he was caught off guard and was making his comments tongue-in-cheek.

How should we — ordinary Malaysians take his latest comments on the long running national controversy over Ibrahim Ali’s call to Muslims to burn the bible containing the word “Allah” last year?  We can be sure that a great many right thinking Malaysians would have cringed at this latest attempt by Dr. Mahathir to get some cheap publicity. Some would be kinder and would say that he is simply demonstrating his infamous “foot in the mouth” tendency”.

But others that have followed Dr. Mahathir’s career see a consistency in his thinking and speaking. They are asking the following questions.

What was Dr Mahathir standing up for when he made his comments? He was standing up for Perkasa, the extremist right-wing Malay grouping of which he is Patron which has openly threatened to initiate racial violence should it feel that the Malay agenda – as defined by this grouping of ultra nationalists — is not given its due.

Dr. Mahathir was also standing up for Ibrahim Ali. This was a man whom he had no time when he was Prime Minister and who he, most likely, thought lowly of. In fact because he received little support from Dr. Mahathir for his political ambitions, Ibrahim Ali had jumped ship — initially into Semangat, and then PAS in the 1980’s and 90’s.  Reviled in his later political career within UMNO as a “has-been”, “buffoon”, and “super-frog”, Ibrahim Ali has now reinvented himself as a Malay supremacist fighting to uphold Malay rights and privileges.

Why Dr. Mahathir should retract his statements

In defending Perkasa and Ibrahim Ali, Dr. Mahathir may feel that he is being consistent in his espousal of an ultra-nationalist version of “ketuanan Melayu” and “ketuanan Islam” But he should realize that there is a thin line between religious extremism and religious militancy and terrorism. By commenting on the bible burning case in the way that he has done, Dr. Mahathir is encouraging – in fact inciting — Perkasa and Ibrahim Ali wannabes to cross that line.

For the sake of religious and racial peace in the country, Dr. Mahathir needs to issue an apology for the way in which he has commented on the bible burning issue.

If he does not act immediately to retract his comments, he can be sure that members and supporters of Perkasa and similar Malay/Muslim extremist groups looking for justification to undertake acts of disrespect and violence will take his advice or go even further in their ‘jihad’ against non-Muslims.

Worse is if it encourages the younger generation to think that unacceptable actions done with “good intentions” to protect Islam is justifiable. We already have young Malaysian Muslims joining ISIS to engage in religiously sanctioned war, brutality and terror. Is Dr. Mahathir proposing that they also do this in Malaysia?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 30 October 2014, 7:01 pm and is filed under
Mahathir
,
nation building
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Growing Islamic fundamentalism seen pushing Malays to quit country

by Boo Su-Lyn

Malay Mail Online

October 30, 2014

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 30 — Malays could be next in line after the Chinese to leave the country, in a bid to escape the growing religious fundamentalism and authoritarianism that leaves little room for free thought and dissent, according to activists and observers.

While Malaysia bills itself as a moderate Muslim nation, recent developments have demonstrated an increasingly conservative and hard-line approach to Islam here that is intolerant of cultures and practices not sanctioned by religious groups and authorities.

Malaysians for Malaysia convener Azrul Mohd Khalib said the Friday sermons prepared by the religious authorities that paint non-Muslims as enemies of Islam, as well as the use of labels such as liberalism, pluralism and humanism to vilify fellow believers, have dismayed and scared Muslims.

“Thinking Muslims are being marginalised and persecuted,” Azrul told Malay Mail Online yesterday.

“It is creating a climate of fear, suspicion and prejudice. Because of that, Muslims who do not prescribe to that belief system do not see themselves as being welcomed or even tolerated in this country,” the social activist added.

Azrul said many Muslims have started emigrating in the past 15 years based on anecdotal evidence, noting that Islamic authorities prohibit dissent and discussions of the country’s predominant religion.

“You are told ‘you cannot use logic and rationale to understand and practise Islam. ‘You must only refer to the Quran and hadith and nothing else’,” he said.

Hadith are “traditions” from the time of Prophet Muhammad that are not contained in the Quran.

Former de facto law minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim said on Tuesday that more Malay-Muslims could be expected to leave the country if local religious authorities continue to pursue and prosecute those whose opinions they deem “deviant”.

Over the years, Islamic authorities have gradually become more rigid in their interpretation and application of the Shariah code in Islam.

They vilified and attacked a recent dog-petting event in which some Muslims touched dogs, which are considered unclean here in Malaysia. The programme triggered such outrage that its organiser received death threats.

On Tuesday, the National Fatwa Council issued an edict banning Muslims from “celebrating” Halloween, which it categorised as a Christian celebration of the dead.

Kelantan this month began enforcing a by-law that empowers state authorities to fine Muslim men up to RM1,000 or jail them for up to a year, or both, for failing to attend Friday prayers thrice in a row.

An Oktoberfest-themed beer festival in Selangor also drew the ire of Muslim groups earlier this month, despite the promotional event being targeted at and restricted to non-Muslims.

Muslim intellectual Kassim Ahmad is also being prosecuted by Islamic authorities for allegedly suggesting that Muslims need only follow the Quran, and not the accompanying Hadith. The view differs from that which is officially approved.

Malaysia has also outlawed the Shiah denomination of Islam, which it considers deviant from the Sunni school that is officially sanctioned here.

Malaysia’s religious authorities also frequently warns against liberalism, with the federal government’s Islamic Development Department (Jakim) reminding Muslims last week in its Friday sermon that this concept, along with pluralism, was a threat to Malay-Muslim unity as it could weaken their faith.

Jakim also said the National Fatwa Council had in its 74th meeting in 2006 declared liberal thinking as heretical.

“The very same liberal ideas, which are condemned and persecuted, are actually what made Islam a great humanist religion. Look back at history. Our religious authorities have lost their way and like the Pied Piper of Hamelin, are leading others astray,” Azrul said.

Social activist Datin Paduka Marina Mahathir said she knows of several Malays who say they do not want to return to their homeland.

“It’s not for economic reasons, but simply because they feel that the environment here has become so negative and oppressive that it’s impossible to be able to live as peaceful, productive citizens any more,” Marina told Malay Mail Online.

“You just never know when something that is perfectly acceptable one day becomes ‘haram’ the next day,” she added, using the Malay word for “forbidden”.

The daughter of former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad also noted the discomfort with the authorities’ continuous intrusion into people’s private lives at the expense of more important things such as injustice against women.

Global Movement of Moderates (GMM) CEO Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah said most of the leaders and intellectuals of “kaum muda” (young moderates) used to seek refuge in Penang and Singapore during the 1930s.

“Because in Penang and Singapore, they are more free to share their thoughts. Because there is less institutionalised religious authorities that would go after them,” Saifuddin told Malay Mail Online.

“The kaum muda were simply practising their intellectual freedom to interpret Islam in a more progressive way. And Islam allows that. You can have different interpretations. And Islam encourages dialogues among those with different opinions, not to prosecute, unless of course, if your opinion is tantamount to treason or glaringly unlawful,” the former deputy minister added.

Centre for Policy Initiatives director Dr Lim Teck Ghee said Malays in Malaysia are following the trend of Muslims in other Muslim countries who flee to Western nations, such as Australia, the US and European Union countries, to escape religious fundamentalism and political authoritarianism at home.

But he acknowledged that Malaysia has no statistics on the racial and religious breakdown of the country’s migrant outflow.

“I expect younger educated Malays to be concerned with the growing religious extremism and intolerance and to have this as the major factor in making them leave,” Lim told Malay Mail Online.

“Out-migration for Malaysians has never been solely about making a better living abroad. It has been the combination of socio-economic and political factors. Non-Malays have felt the pain of religious and racial discrimination. Now it is the turn of many Malays to feel a similar sense of deprivation and injustice,” the political analyst added.

According to a World Bank report in 2011, an estimated one million Malaysians are residing overseas.

More than two million Malaysians have emigrated since Merdeka.

Last year, a total 308,834 high-skilled Malaysians moved overseas, with 47.2 per cent going to Singapore, 18.2 per cent to Australia, 12.2 per cent to US and the rest to other countries like UK and Canada.

According to the same report, the number of skilled Malaysians living abroad rose 300 per cent in the last two decades, with two out of every 10 Malaysians with tertiary education opting to leave for either Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries or Singapore.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 30 October 2014, 7:15 pm and is filed under
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Its not dotard but Mahathir’s classic perverse illogic believing the end justifies the means –  whether lies, sedition or even treason – causing him to defend Ibrahim’s Bible-burning threat

Tun Dr. Mahathir is at it again – thumbing his  nose at civil and rational society, declaring that he sees no harm in Perkasa President, Ibrahim Ali’s Bible-burning call.

Mahathir said it was not a problem calling for the Bible to be burned as long as there were good intentions.

He said Islam allowed for the Quran to be burned and not discarded all over the place, or to be stepped on, if it was no longer used.

“So, burning the Quran with good intention is not a problem”, he said.

This is not dotard but Mahathir’s classic perverse illogic believing the end justifies the means – whether lies, sedition or even treason.

Firstly, did Ibrahim Ali act with “good intentions” when he made the threat in Penang in January last year to burn the Bible – in Mahathir’s context of the Quran “no longer used”?

A check of the news archives in January last year provides proof that Ibrahim was exhorting Muslims to “unite to protect their religion” and to “seize and burn” Bibles, “including the Malay editions, which contained the term Allah and other Arabic religious terms”.

Secondly, it is most unbecoming of the longest-serving Prime Minister of Malaysia who should be acting as an elder statesman to  counsel the country to keep to the road of national peace, unity and  harmony instead of defending, aiding and abetting irresponsible, extremist and incendiary misdeeds like Ibrahim’s threat to burn the Bible.

Couldn’t Mahathir see the great difference between a  Muslim advocating the burning of Quran because it is no longer used and the inflammatory calling for the burning of the sacred books of another religion, whether by a Muslim or non-Muslim?

Does Mahathir want Malaysia to be plunged into chaos or go up in flames with Muslims freely calling for the burning of the Bible or holy books of other religions whether Tripitaka for Buddhism, Vedas for Hinduism or Guru Granth Sahib for Sikhism or non-Muslims calling for the burning of the Quran?

I have yesterday called on the Primer Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak to announce a “zero tolerance” policy for any Malaysian to threaten the burning of  the holy books of another  religion so as  to be a role model of moderation and inter-religious tolerance, goodwill and harmony  for other countries as part of Najib’s Global Movement of Moderates campaign.

Will  Mahathir support such a call or is he insisting that Malaysians have a right to call for the burning of the holy book of another religion,  defending to the last Ibrahim’s threat to burn the Bible in Penang in January last year?

I have said that in Mahathir’s classic perverse illogic,  believing the end justifies the means, he is capable of telling lies and defending sedition and even treason.

Mahathir for instance told a pack of lies in the campaign for the 13th General Elections in May 2013 when he said that I was contesting in Gelang Patah to cause a racial confrontation between the Chinese and Malays and that I wanted the Chinese to hate the Malays and reject working with the Malays.

Didn’t Mahathir commit treason when he was Prime Minister and approved the Project IC or Project M to swamp Sabah with illegal immigrants  with “citizenship-for-votes” scams to subvert the electoral process and undermine the sovereignty of Sabah and Malaysia?

May be Malaysians should not be surprised or shocked that Mahathir could see no harm in Ibrahim Ali’s Bible-burning call, when the former Prime Minister could see nothing wrong that his 22-year premiership have caused the following banes to Malaysia:

•	The infamy of the Operation Lalang mass arrests under the Internal Security Act in 1987;

•	Subversion of a truly independent judiciary and a just rule of law;

•	Lack of national and international confidence in the efficiency, quality, professionalism and integrity of key national institutions, whether the Police, Elections Commission or the anti-corruption agency;

•	Degradation of a world-quality educational system – primary, secondary and tertiary; and

•	Rampant corruption, cronyism and abuses of power in high political places.

So is anyone surprised that Mahathir is not surprised and is not conducting himself as a responsible elder statesman of the country?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 30 October 2014, 9:45 am and is filed under
Law & Order
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Of burning holy books and sparking chaos

COMMENTARY BY THE MALAYSIAN INSIDER

29 October 2014

Leave it to Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad to figure out that burning a holy book is showing it the same respect as Muslims burning Qurans that are old and no longer used.

And of course, it must be done with good intentions, said the former Malaysian prime minister who defended his protege Datuk Ibrahim Ali over the Perkasa chief’s threat to burn Bahasa Malaysia Bibles last year.

“They (Perkasa) have to show respect to the Bible, burn it as how they burn the Quran.”

Dr Mahathir also defended Ibrahim’s statement, saying it was not seditious as claimed by critics, as his intention was not to provoke.

“In other words, he was giving an opinion that could be accepted by Muslims as it was not seditious,” he added.

The acerbic politician is not alone in thinking that Ibrahim’s words were no threat as even the Attorney-General Chambers (AGC) have justified the Perkasa chief’s statement as defending the sanctity of Islam.

Both Dr Mahathir and the AGC see no wrong and wonder what the fuss is all about.

Would they feel the same if other communities destroyed the Quran the same way they would destroy their own holy books? Or do only the views and feelings of one religious community matter in Malaysia?

Dr Mahathir’s statement today is nothing short of careless and callous, and does nothing for better relations among the various communities in Malaysia. It is nothing short of double standards.

More so when it comes from the man who spoke of a Vision 2020 for Malaysia, where there would be a Bangsa Malaysia, where peace and harmony reign. Or was that just something to sell to Malaysians to keep power?

Perhaps, in his dotage and being out of power, Dr Mahathir does not think much of race relations and inter-faith ties in a country of 30 million people, where two out of five people are not Muslims.

Perhaps, he does not care any more because he is not in power and does not have to canvass support to keep power.

Perhaps, he is just about himself and his ilk.

But Malaysia is more than just one man, one faith and one community.

It is a country of many people, many races and many faiths. All who profess to be Malaysians and believe in God, not just any one religion.

One does not threaten to burn anyone else’s holy books and think it will not spark chaos. It will. And it cannot be considered as respect but as a downright insult.

But not in the perverse world of Dr Mahathir. What a pity, to think that he was once respected as a prime minister who brought change and development to Malaysia. – October 29, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 30 October 2014, 6:37 am and is filed under
Crime
,
Law & Order
,
Mahathir
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The war to restore student autonomy in UM

By Chow Yu Hui

Malaysiakini

Oct 29, 2014

ADUN SPEAKS
 The night before PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim’s final appeal against his sodomy charge, the nation was moved by the brave act of the Universiti Malaysia Students Union (PMUM) who invited Anwar to return to his alma mater to give his final speech.

The venue for his speech was UM’s most historical structure, the Dewan Tunku Canselor (DTC). It is a symbolic structure which witnesses the start and end of a UM student’s academic life.

The student movement which once threatened political power of Umno and BN was first gagged by the Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA) in 1971.

After various amendments to the Act, Umno/BN succeeded in controlling all universities through oppressing the student leaders, academic staffs and the core value of a university, which is the academic freedom.

And after all these years, we were left asking: ‘Will the UM administration allow a programe involving the Opposition Leader?’

The answer to this question requires one to look at the bigger picture, but many do not have enough clarity to do so.

Think! Why do we need the permission from the university management to carry out student activity?

Does this mean that Anwar can’t enter the university without the approval from the university?

The answer will be yes if and only if UM really belongs to the administration.

Student union proclaim autonomy

As expected, the university declared the programmed ‘Anwar Ibrahm: 40 Years From UM to Jail’ is illegal and even issued a showcause letter to PMUM president, Fahmi Zainol.

If Fahmi refuses to comply, he will be fined RM200 and suspended for two semesters.

But in the face of such action, it is the daring and strategic tactic by PMUM, under Fahmi’s lead, which warrants attention.

Knowing that the management of the university will not approve or consider giving access to Anwar, PMUM did not even try to pressure or beg the management.

Instead, they approved it themselves.

Yes, PMUM approved the programme and Anwar’s access to the university.

This strategic move made by our future leaders was a proclamation of student autonomy, a surprise attack which caught the managed and government off guard.

In its statement, PMUM emphasised that the programe is legal, reasonable, and plausible.

They also said that the university does not only belong to the management, but to the students, academic staff and alumni.

As a legitimately elected student body that represents the students of UM, PMUM inarguably has a say in the university, but other student leaders argue that everyday students must also have autonomy as after all, they are the ones paying the fees.

In comparison, they argue, the management is made up of paid staff.

All these point to one question – Why don’t students have the right to decide on the university policies, even though they make up the majority in a university?

Reviving the student union

The present standoff between the student union and UM management is a build up of 40 years of rights stolen from the students.

According to UUCA, the UM student union is referred to as Majlis Perwakilan Pelajar (Student Representative Council, or MPP).

The name Persatuan Mahasiswa Universiti Malaya (PMUM) in Bahasa Malaysia or University of Malaya Students Union (UMSU) in English was banned after the implementation of UUCA.

Furthermore, a unit known as the Student Affairs Division or Hal Ehwal Pelajar (HEP) was set up by the government with the objective of taking over all of PMUM’s functions and to monitor all students in the university.

Before the UUCA, PMUM was the government that managed the university.

They have their own student union building, they tendered the canteen services, managed the bus system and managed their own election without the interference from the management of the university.

PMUM once invited the opposition leaders, too, like Lim Kit Siang and Dr Tan Chee Khoon to discuss on national issue.

It was a progressive era of UM which now serves as inspiration to the present PMUM which is mostly made up of reps from the Pro-Mahasiswa faction.

Its first step in reviving the student union was to rename it from MPPUM to PMUM.

Although the PMUM today does not in actuality have the same resources and authority its pre-UUCA predecessor, it has fully utilised the mandate given by the students to object policy which is against student interest.

And for the first time in 40 years, PMUM linked arms with the UM Academic Staff Union to organie a march in solidarity with charged UM law lecturer Azmi Sharom, to restore academic freedom.

Expressing his excitement in a speech during the march, economic professor Terence Gomez who was also a UM student said this was a moment long overdue.

Such cooperation is definitely a threat to the management, and it would not be overboard to expect the management to attempt to oust the Pro-Mahasiswa faction from power in the next campus polls.

The next level

After all is said and done, it really does not matter whether or not Anwar was able to enter his alma mater on Oct 27.

The point of the whole thing is that  PMUM had used this opportunity to reclaim autonomy and to challenge the authorities’ actions in making decisions against the students’ will.

PMUM’s bold move questions the raison d’etre of all student representative councils (MPPs) in public universities in Malaysia and the objective of campus elections.

It is time for all MPPs to break the perception student unions are child’s play and to bring the movement to the next level.

In any nation or region that is heading toward greater democratisation, the student movement is an indispensable power.

The best example is the umbrella revolution led by the students in Hong Kong.

Malaysia’s student movement has progressed from striving for the rights of students to participate in politics in the Reformasi era to the reclamation of student autonomy in the post-13th general election period.

In order to make Malaysia’s student movement stronger and more influential, an important pre-requisite is to restore autonomy.

“If the presidential office is a symbol of authoritativeness, the student union house would be the symbol of resistance.”

The above quote taken from political commentator and headmaster of Confucian Private School, Phoon Weng Keong perfectly describes the importance of a student union.

I hope this article is able to give encouragement to all students.

CHOW YU HUI is DAP’s assemblyperson for Bilut and a UM alumnus. The article was edited for language and clarity.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 30 October 2014, 7:35 am and is filed under
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Working together towards zero corruption

– Dr Ahmad Satar Merican

The Malaysian Insider

29 October 2014

It has been a while since YB Lim Kit Siang touched on the issue of corruption in Malaysia. Two days in a row and he raised a number of things for us to think together.

I’m always following his views on this issue and welcome his views. Based on his recent comment piece, there is one which I agree and would like to share my thoughts on it.

First, we always talk about the “big fish” and “small fish” matter, often in comparing views. We often say that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) only goes after the “small fishes”. In this case the comparison is made with Indonesia’s Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) and the ICAC Hong Kong.

I do agree that the conviction rate of cases by the KPK are quite high compared to the MACC. We also need to recognise that the scope of cases investigated by the MACC and the KPK are different.

Therefore, in my opinion, we need a review of the terminology of “big fish”.

I understand what is meant by “big fish” from a political standpoint that is associated with politicians in the country. Do all politicians involve in corruption? The answer is no. Does every member of the Cabinet and the executive council of the ruling party at the federal level, fall to corruption? The answer is no. Are all Pakatan Rakyat leaders clean or are also involved in corruption? I think we should not say so.

We often assume that there is no “big fish” due to the low statistics involving politicians brought to court in Malaysia. If we a look at the development since the MACC was formed in 2009, more than 50 cases of “big fish” were brought to court.

The latest was the case involving 30 Customs Department officers including state directors. Media reports highlighted that the act of smuggling goods out of the Free Trade Zone in Port Klang amounted to an estimated RM4 billion. Would this not translate to a “big fish” scoop? In fact, the “big fish” in the private sector can be reflected as in the case involving Sime Darby and Silver Bird two years ago.

We are not claiming that Malaysia is free from corruption completely. Not yet!

Much remains to be done. We need to give space to the MACC to perform its job. Corruption cannot be eliminated overnight and I strongly believe that YB Lim Kit Siang will agree with me on this.

Cooperation and participation of all parties in anti-corruption efforts is crucial. In Malaysia, we need to admit that those involved in corruption are quite smart in planning this hideous activity. They know the in’s and out’s and the loopholes in the current legal system. Those involved can be categorised as being “legally right but morally wrong”.

For this, Malaysians need the “will power” of politicians and not politicians being a wall to development and intentions to improve. Don’t support any corrupt politicians no matter which side of the political divide they belong to.

Convicted politicians of criminal acts or corruption should not be allowed into any political party in Malaysia. Don’t ever go to the streets to support members who have been investigated or convicted of corruption.

In fact, the MACC must be given stronger powers to act. They need powers to look into political funding. I understand that most politicians do not agree with the provision to declare their political fund. If this is true, I think political leaders should stop blaming each other as they are walls depriving development. Instead, they should be supporting such provisions and make the MACC stronger in curbing corruption in the political sphere.

In Indonesia, the political leaders declare their political funding. Gifts and souvenirs received must be notified to the Commission within 28 days. Will our political leaders be willing to do so in Malaysia? I, as a Malaysian, want to see this in the near future.

Secondly, I’m sure that we do not intend to go backward in the fight against corruption in the country. If not, it is definitely not going to gain recognition by world bodies on efforts taken by the government and the MACC. A total of 23 good practices and successes have been recognised by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime in compliance with the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC).

Similarly, the report of the Global Competitiveness Report 2014/15, which was released in early September 2014, is another proof. Let me cite part of the report: “Continuing its upward trend, Malaysia makes its way into the top 20 for the first time since the current GCI methodology was introduced in 2006. The country remains the highest ranked among the developing Asian economies. Brazil advances nine positions in the institutions pillar, which largely drives this year’s progress. It ranks no lower than 60th in any of the 12 pillars of the GCI.”

The report added that “it (Malaysia) ranked an outstanding 4th in the financial market development pillar, which reflects its efforts to position itself as the leading centre for global Islamic finance. And it ranks 7th in the efficiency of its goods and services markets and a business-friendly institutional framework.”

Other important points, “in a region plagued by corruption and red tape, points Malaysia as one of the few countries that have been relatively successful in tackling these two issues, as part of its economic and government transformation programmes.”

Third, as mentioned earlier, in Malaysia, corruption is still one of the main issues, but still manageable. We often choose to cite some of the results of the study to create an overview. There are also some studies that show the opposite – positive development. For example, Malaysia has surged to sixth position among 189 economies in the World Bank’s latest Doing Business 2014 report, putting it ahead of economies such as South Korea, Norway, the United Kingdom, Australia and Finland.

Fourth, I agree with the views of many in which “the government must consider to widen the MACC’s powers to launch probes on civil servants who live beyond their means”. MACC needs additional power to deal with the issue of corruption in a comprehensive and effective manner. It is time that the MACC Act is bolstered with amendments according to current needs.

In short, I recognise that the way to fight corruption in Malaysia may not be at a convincing status. If you take a look, in the course of six decades, we have to accept the fact that there have been many changes. We see between perception and reality.

I appreciate the spirit of YB Lim Kit Siang in combatting corruption. But we should not be in despair of not doing anything. Answering the question “is there a strategy by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib and the MACC to avert this disaster?”, I’m sure there is.

We need to work together! Think together, move together and be together to get rid of this destructive element which is capable of destroying nations, economies and its citizens. The Malaysian Anti Corruption Foundation is happy to work with all parties towards zero corruption. – October 29, 2014.

* Dr Ahmad Satar Merican is the deputy president of the Malaysian Anti Corruption Foundation.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 30 October 2014, 6:36 pm and is filed under
Corruption
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Again, Putrajaya shows its bark is worse than its bite

COMMENTARY BY THE MALAYSIAN INSIDER

31 October 2014

In most countries, civil servants who do not obey cabinet directives are disciplined. But in Malaysia, cabinet ministers have to appeal or cajole civil servants to follow government directives or the law.

The latest is the Royal Malaysian Customs Department’s move to seize some 300 Christian CDs and books containing the word Allah from Sabahan pastor Maklin Masiau in klia2 last week.

Masiau’s case is not the first, and is most likely not the last despite assurances from Putrajaya that it respects the religious rights of all Malaysians under the Federal Constitution.

But why should ordinary Malaysians be surprised at this state of affairs when the authorities take action despite government policy and law?

Perhaps because the Prime Minister and the cabinet have sent mixed signals on their 10-point resolution since day one.

Just this year, the Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor (Jais) seized Malay and Iban-language bibles from the Bible Society of Malaysia (BSM) office in Petaling Jaya.

The case has yet to be resolved, just as Sarawakian Jill Ireland’s attempts to get back her Christian CDs despite a court order in her favour.

When Jais seized the bibles from BSM, Putrajaya skirted the issue by saying that it was a Selangor government matter.

Taking the easy way, the Najib government missed an opportunity to send a signal to all civil servants that the 10-point resolution was cast in stone. And not something used for its convenience.

So now you have civil servants who believe they are free to interpret Cabinet decisions.

And let us be clear about this, the Royal Malaysian Customs Department is not the only culprit. After all, no less than the Inspector-General of Police has also refused to follow a High Court ruling to retrieve a child snatched away from the mother in a custodial dispute.

Where does that leave Malaysians? A government that appeals for support and votes during elections with promises of making it a better nation but with policies ignored by the civil service.

The question now is, who is really running Malaysia? And for whom? Is everyone equal before the law or is that all just talk?

At the very least, we know know that Putrajaya’s bark is worse than its bite when it comes to ensuring that everyone, including the minorities, can practise their faith in peace and harmony in Malaysia. – October 31, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 31 October 2014, 6:56 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Law & Order
,
Religion
,
Sabah
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Gani Patail – what has happened to your Sept 9 promise  to review the spate of sedition charges?

The Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail’s recent explanations have only reinforced public opinion that he has abused his discretionary powers and guilty of double standards in not prosecuting Perkasa President Ibrahim Ali for his threat to burn the Bible while going on a spree with blitzkrieg of sedition prosecutions against Pakatan Rakyat leaders, activists and intellectuals.

Datuk Stanley Isaac, who was formerly head of prosecution in the Attorney-General’s Chambers, said Gani’s reasoning that Ibrahim’s threat had no seditious tendency and that Ibrahim had “no intention to offend or provoke” are “flawed in law” and had not allayed public discontent over the AG’s decisions.

Isaac said it “boggled” “his mind how the AG could excuse Ibrahim  on grounds of his good intention when the law says otherwise and that it also “boggled” his mind how burning the bible would defend the sanctity of Islam.

Gani’s explanations also prompted former Court of Appeal judge, K. C. Vohrah, who had been with the AG’s Chambers for 16 years in the 70s and 80s,  to write  a second public letter on the controversy, saying that he was “troubled” by the AG conflating two processes –the court process and the process where the AG had to decide whether to charge a person under the Sedition Act.

Vohrah reiterated that the Sedition Act is an oppressive law where  intention is irrelevant, and from the Malaysian cases, there can be no  defence of truth, presence of an innocent or honourable intention, absence of consequent harm, or a lack of possibility or potential for consequent harm.

Vohrah asked whether the AG had caused  a study of why sedition laws in other Commonwealth jurisdictions have either been repealed or not used.

Gani had said in a statement on Sept. 9 that the Attorney-General’s Chambers was reviewing the spate of sedition charges preferred in court.

Can Gani explain what has happened to this review of the sedition cases as it is almost two months since his announcement of a review?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 31 October 2014, 3:17 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Crime
,
Law & Order
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


BN SC meeting last night a great disappointment as the non-Umno parties dare not demand an end to  AG’s double standards in prosecution, puny anti-corruption  efforts even losing out to  Indonesia and postponement of GST implementation

The Barisan Nasional Supreme Council held one of its rare meetings last night, but it was a great disappointment as the non-Umno parties, whether MCA, Gerakan, MIC or from Sabah and Sarawak, dare not demand that the Barisan Nasional government should take a clear stand on various controversial issues which have disturbed rational and patriotic Malaysians, including an end to the Attorney-General’s double standard in prosecution, puny anti-corruption efforts with Malaysia even losing out to Indonesia and the postponement of GST implementation in April next year.

It is clear that there is no institutional or operational change in the character of the BN Supreme Council after the 13th General Election, with the BN Supreme Council continuing to be a platform for the exposition of UMNO political hegemony in BN, with the role of  all the leaders of the other 13 BN component parties restricted merely to hear and obey what the UMNO “Big Brother” has decided instead of being a meaningful forum where common Barisan Nasional government policies are thrashed out from the input and consensus of all the BN component parties.

A good example is the outrageous and preposterous decision of the Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patal not to prosecute Perkasa President Ibrahim Ali for his threat to burn the Bible but  yet launching a dragnet of sedition prosecutions against Pakatan Rakyat leaders, activists and intellectuals.

As almost every day, there are media statements criticising and attacking the AG’s decision by the other Barisan Nasional component parties and their leaders, Malaysians would have expected the matter to be taken to the highest level at the Cabinet and the BN Supreme Council meeting last night – but this was not done.

What is the use of  lowly officials from MCA, Gerakan, MIC or Sabah and Sarawak BN component parties criticising the AG for his double standards and abuse of the prosecutorial discretions if their Ministers in Cabinet and leaders in the BN Supreme Council dare not raise these matters  at the proper forum to get them resolved?

The trouble with politics in Malaysia is that we have Ministers and leaders who are prepared to do anything just to keep their positions in government.

The MP  for Pontian, Datuk Ahmad Maslan, who is also the Deputy Finance Minister, recently said that the BN government in Malaysia is “one of the best in the world”.

Ahmad Maslan does not want to be reminded that Datuk Seri Najib Razak is the first Prime Minister in Malaysia to form a government on a  48% minority vote, and that if there is clean, fair and democratic electoral system of “one man, one vote, one value”, Najib is today Parliamentary Opposition Leader and Maslan a mere backbencher in Parliament.

However, Ahmad Maslan should take note that Najib’s approval ratings as Prime Minister has nose-dived to the lowest point for any Prime Minister in Malaysia, falling back to 48 per cent – the lowest popularity rating for any Prime Minister  – which he had touched once  in June this year.

This result of the polls from 1005 voters from Oct. 11 to 26 by Merdeka Center also showed that the number of respondents unsatisfied with Najib also spiked from 38 per cent in August to 45 per cent last month – again returning to the highest unpopularity rating of 45 per cent which Najib had once recorded  in June this year.

Can Ahmad Maslan explain how Najib as  the Prime Minister of “one of the best governments in the world” could record the lowest popularity rating for those satisfied with his performance and the highest unpopularity rating for those unsatisfied with his government in the poll survey last month?

If Najib’s popularity rating among those satisfied with his government continue to fall, i.e. falling below 48%, while his unpopularity rating among those unsatisfied with his government continue to rise, i.e. rising above 45%, in the polls in the coming months, Najib will be breaking all records for all Malaysian Prime Ministers in terms of collapse of popularity rating and breaking the ceiling for unpopularity rating!

Is this what Ahmad Maslan means by the Najib government as “one of the best governments in the world”?

Did anyone dare to raise the subject of the collapse of Najib’s popularity rating  as well as his unpopularity rating on the verge of breaking  all records at the BN Supreme Council last night?

Is it any wonder that  the influential British weekly, the Economist, in its  latest publication ended its article on Malaysia with the following unflattering judgment on Najib:

“As always, the prime minister (Najib) touts policies intended to get Malaysia’s economy motoring. He has never looked less capable of carrying them out.”

(Speech at the DAP coffee-shop dialogue in Pontian on Saturday, 1st November 2014 at 9 am)

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 1 November 2014, 1:58 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Corruption
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Attorney General should reconsider the decision not to charge Ibrahim Ali

 — Catholic Lawyers’ Society

Malay Mail Online

October 31, 2014

OCTOBER 31 — The Catholic Lawyers’ Society, Kuala Lumpur (CLS) is deeply disappointed that the Attorney General (AG) will not prosecute Datuk Ibrahim Ali for his calls to the Muslims to seize and bum the Bahasa Malaysia version of the Holy Bibles on the basis that the latter was only defending the sanctity of Islam.

The Federal Government has echoed similar statements through Nancy Shukri, de facto Minister of Law in parliament on October 7, 2014. With respect, both the AG and the Federal Government has done a disservice to the people of Malaysia. By condoning the AG’s decision not to prosecute Datuk Ibrahim Ali, the Federal Government has failed in its responsibility to defend the minorities in the country.

The Christian communities have lived under the threat of constant aggression by some who are bent on creating religious intolerance. However, prosecution of such insidious acts have been few and far between. Some of these examples as reported in the media include:

·      November 2006 – Some 500 Muslims protested in front of the Church of Our Lady of Lourdes, Silibin, Ipoh, a consequence of an allegation by the Mufti of Perak, Tan Sri Haji Harussani Haji Zakaria that Muslim students of the Ungku Omar Polytechnic were to be baptised by national mariner Datuk Azhar Mansor. As it turns out, the church was not converting Muslims but instead was holding the First Holy Communion Mass (one of the rites of initiation to the faith) for 98 Catholic children, many of whom were traumatised by the sight of a threatening mob. The Mufti blamed the presence of this mob on the sms sent out by a woman.

·      November 2009 – The acts of two journalists, who entered a Catholic Church, consumed the Holy Communion, removed and photographed the sacred specie and then published it in the Al-Islam magazine. The AG refused to take any action against these journalists. These journalists subsequently apologised after Archbishop Emeritus Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam issued a press statement.

·      January 22, 2013 – Reverend John Kennady, from St Mark’s Church, Butterworth had lodged a police report at the Butterworth police station when he received a typed notice with the title ‘Jom Bakar! Pesta Bakar Bible Bahasa Melayu’.

·      February 2, 2013 – ABN News quotes Penang Deputy Police Chief Datuk Abdul Rahim Jaafar that the investigation paper on the alleged plot by certain quarters to burn copies of the Malay version of the Bible at Padang Bandaran Bagan Luar Butterworth, is ready and will be submitted to the Attorney—General’s Chambers.

Other incidents of violations on Christians as reported in the media include:

·      August 2007 – children’s religious books belonging to SIB were seized by the authorities at the Low-Cost Carrier Terminal but were later returned.

·      2007-2008, The Herald, Catholic weekly newspaper, was banned by the then Home Minister from using the word “Allah” in its publication. The Minister’s decision has been upheld by the Federal Court and a review thereof is pending.

·      May 11, 2008 – compact discs containing Christian religious teachings with the word ‘Allah’ seized at the Low-Cost Carrier Terminal (LCCT) by the authorities. High Court on 22 July 2014 ordered its return.

·      August 3, 2011 — JAIS raid at a function held by Harapan Komuniti at the DUMC Christian Church.

·      January 2, 2014 – JAIS seizure of 300 bibles during a raid on the Bible Society of Malaysia.

·      May 6, 2014 —— UiTM held a seminar on Christianology which included as its speakers, allegedly a former catholic priest, lnsan L S Mokoginta and a former Catholic nun, Irena Handono, who were later discovered not to be a Catholic priest or a Catholic nun, respectively. Police reports have been lodged but the investigation results have not been disclosed thus far.

·      October 30, 2014- Malay Mail Online reports seizure of Christian books and compact discs allegedly containing the word “Allah” at KLIAZ for the use in Sabah.

Bishop Ng Moon Hing, past president of Christian Federation of Malaysia has previously expressed his fear that should the authorities fail to put a stop to “such extremism and hate speeches and instigation as soon as possible”, the nation’s social fabric will soon be torn apart.

CLS adopts the sentiments expressed by Bishop Ng and call on the Federal Government to act decisively to stamp out all hate speeches and instigation against any race or religion. The Federal Government must act without fear or favour against all persons and institutions that promote religious acrimony, animosity and hatred.

The Ministers of the Federal Government have all taken an oath of office to ‘bear true faith and allegiance to Malaysia’. This includes the duty and responsibility to keep, maintain and sustain peace, harmony and goodwill amongst her people. The CLS calls on the Federal Government to uphold this duty and responsibility.

The CLS calls on the AG as the guardian of our laws to act against Datuk Ibrahim Ali.

In failing to charge Datuk Ibrahim Ali on grounds that the context in which the words were uttered were such that no offence was committed, the AG appears to dangerously suggest that there could actually be situations where the call to bum the holy book of another person’s religion is permissible. Surely such an opinion emanating from none other than the chief prosecutor of the nation bodes ill for a multi-religious country such as Malaysia. The AG must seriously think about what would become of this nation if members of different religions are allowed to call for the burning of the holy books of other religions on the pretext of guarding the sanctity of their own religion.

We appeal to the AG to immediately reconsider his decision. We call on the AG to take the unequivocal position that anyone who calls for the burning of the holy book of any person’s religion has committed an offence under the Penal Code and no one should be spared from the long arm of the law regardless of the context in which such a call is made. The AG is reminded that it is his solemn public duty to ensure that all citizens including the minority are protected under the law.

CLS also appeal to the authorities who have seized religious bibles and property to return them to the rightful party.

More effort is necessary to promote good will amongst the various communities in Malaysia.

* This statement is released by Viola Decruz Silva, president of the Catholic Lawyers’ Society, Kuala Lumpur.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 2 November 2014, 4:57 pm and is filed under
Corporate
,
Law & Order
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Call for return of student activism on national issues  in universities and abandonment of all pending plans to penalise Fahmi and university students for Anwar programme in University of Malaya on Oct. 27

The nine charges slapped on University Malaya student leader Fahmi Zainol by the University of Malaya in connection with  Anwar Ibrahim’s return to his alma mater university on Oct. 27 and  the show-cause letters to eight other University of Malaya students as well as pending disciplinary actions against other university students from other pubic universities must deplored in the strongest possible terms.

They must be dropped completely as they reflect a  Barisan Nasional government and university administrators who can only think of how to control and  brainwash  students, instead of cultivating and grooming a new generation of thinking and critical citizens, which is  essential if Malaysia is to stand tall in the world in competition with other countries in this age of science and technology.

Malaysian education, whether primary, secondary or university, are facing a prolonged crisis, which is translated into lesser competitiveness for Malaysia.

It is a real shame that Malaysia is behind South Korea by 19 years and Singapore by 35 years in productivity, when Malaysia started off on almost equal footing five decades ago.

International educational assessments for primary and secondary students showed that Malaysian students are among the lowest one-third of international  benchmarks while  our  universities have lost out in international comparisons, omitted from the most prestigious  World Top University rankings.

This is because our educational system has failed to produce students with critical and higher-order thinking faculties.

It is therefore time to encourage the return of student activism in national affairs  among our university students, because  students are idealistic youths who should be encouraged to be concerned about national affairs  without taking sides in partisan politics.

 I call for  the return of student activism in national affairs in our universities and the  abandonment of all pending plans to penalise Fahmi and university students for Anwar programme in University of Malaya on Oct. 27.

Without taking partisan sides of supporting National Front or Pakatan Rakyat parties, the university administrations should  encourage and not cripple the development of critical faculties of our undergraduates.

(Speech  at a DAP forum in Kulai on Saturday, Nov. 1, 2014)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 2 November 2014, 8:01 am and is filed under
Education
,
university
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.