Abu Kassim cannot have a more disastrous start as second MACC Chief Commissioner if his first priority is to restore public confidence in the MACC and the  national anti-corruption campaign

Datuk Abu Kassim Mohamed cannot have a more disastrous start as the second Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Chief Commissioner if his first priority is to restore public confidence in the MACC and the  national anti-corruption campaign which had plunged 33 rankings in 15 years from No. 23 in 1995 to No. 56 in 2009 in Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index.

The MACC had ended its first year with  lower public confidence than when it started, fulfilling the worst fears of  former Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Abdullah had warned at the belated launching of MACC on 24th February last year that the MACC should not end up as just pretty window-dressing of its predecessor the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA).

The then Prime Minister  had admitted  the public perception of the ACA as “not being independent, of being a toothless tiger, of practicing selective enforcement, being late in taking action and not being professional in its investigations has damaged its image and credibility”.

Abdullah had announced at the launch of the MACC that the new anti-corruption body was to mark “the beginning of a very important chapter in Malaysia’s agenda to strengthen integrity and fight corruption” with the MACC able to stand up to scrutiny.

It is sad, tragic but true that in its first year of operation, the MACC was guilty of all the sins of the ACA and more.

There  was not only no  new start in an all-out war against corruption –MACC proved to be even worse than the ACA in being prepared to be the catspaw of its political masters to served the Umno/Barisan Nasional political agenda to declare war on Pakatan Rakyat instead of declaring war on corruption, which is why there is the scandal of the mysterious death of Teoh Beng Hock at the MACC Headquarters in Shah Alam on July 16 last year!

Is Abu Kassim prepared to herald a belated new beginning for MACC as intended by the former Prime Minister?

The second MACC Chief Commissioner  will be performing a grave national disservice if all he wants to do is to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor Datuk Seri Ahmad Said Hamdan.

But if  Abu Kassim wanted to give another go to try to fulfill Abdullah’s parting injunctions to MACC before stepping down as Prime Minister, the new MACC Chief Commissioner has got it all wrong in his first media conference.

Abu Kassim’s vow to invoke Section 29(4) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 would show that he is incapable of the “big picture” of single-mindedly spearheading an all-out war against corruption to thrust Malaysia into the front rank of the world’s least corrupt nations  and place the MACC in the company of internationally-recognised independent, effective, professional and successful graft-busting organizations like Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).

What is Abu Kassim trying to prove with his vow that he would fully enforce Section 29(4) of the MACC Act 2009 and prosecute those who divulge information on corruption reports they lodge with the MACC, as Section 29(4) provides that such reports “shall be kept secret and shall not be disclosed by any person to any person other than officers of the Commission and the Public Prosecutor until an accused person has been charged in court for an offence under this Act or any other written law in consequence of such report, unless the disclosure is made with the consent of the Public Prosecutor or an officer of the Commission of the rank of Commissioner and above”.

Further, what is Abu Kassim trying to prove when he warned that any person who divulge information about corruption reports lodged with the MACC or editors who publish such information would on conviction be liable to two years’ jail or RM100,000 fine, when the fine in the law is RM10,000?

Abu Kassim is legally right but morally wrong.

The law barring a person who lodges a report on corruption from making any public disclosure about his report on pain of committing a criminal offence liable to RM10,000 fine or two years’ jail or to both had been on the statute books for the past 13 years since the passage of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997. [Section 21(4) ACA Act 199]

However, this provision had never been invoked in the past 13 years although there have been countless cases of corruption reports being divulged publicly by the person who made them and being reported.

It could not be that the heads of the Anti-Corruption Agency from 1987 to 2008 and the Chief Commissioner of MACC in 2009 were unaware of this provision and had not invoked it out of ignorance.

The only reason is that such a provision inhibits public co-operation in the battle against corruption.

In any event, such a provision could be easily circumvented, with the person who wishes  to lodge the corruption report going public about his intention a day before the actual report, even announcing word for word the corruption report he intends to lodge the next day, as such an action would not be caught by Section 29(4) of the MACC Act 2009.

The more important question is why Abu Kassim has chosen such a clampdown as his signature as the second MACC Chief Commissioner?

Nobody buys his  reason  for such a clampdown –  to deal with complainants lodging a report with an ulterior motive other than wanting to curb corruption.

This is an unacceptable argument as the MACC Act provides for heavy penalties under Section 27 for anyone who makes false or misleading statements to the MACC as liable to RM100,000 fine, two years’ jail or both.

If MACC is serious about spearheading an all-out war against corruption, it should facilitate and encourage  the public to give information or make reports and not obstruct public co-operation as threatening to take action against those who publicly divulge information about their corruption reports.

In this sense, Abu Kassim would prove to be worse than Ahmad Said and his other predecessor ACA Director-Generals since 1997.

I call on Abu Kassim to retract his threat to fully invoke Section 29 (4) of the MACC Act and to announce that he will follow the precedents set by his predecessors in ACA and MACC and will not invoke Section 29(4) which will frighten off the public from co-operating with the anti-corruption body.

In fact, Abu Kassim should publicly support the repeal of Section 29(4) of the MACC Act 2009.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 14 January 2010, 10:43 am and is filed under
Corruption
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


AlJazeera programme on “Allah” controversy

The AlJazeera programme on the “Allah” controversy:

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 14 January 2010, 11:18 am and is filed under
nation building
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Newsy.com on the “Allah” controversy

Newsy.com video, which analyzes and synthesizes news coverage from multiple sources, has produced the following video summarizing different media coverage of the Allah controversy:

http://www.newsy.com/videos/war-of-words-in-malaysian-allah-dispute

Newsy.com says:

“The video summarizes this ongoing tension and the more recent controversies, showing a few different opinions on what the Malaysian government should do.  There are those who view the term as a purely Muslim word and other who see this as a merely a language difference. Many just want to stop further disagreements and see the country unified/”

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 14 January 2010, 7:10 am and is filed under
Media
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


‘Allah’ allowed in East M’sia

by
Phyllis Wong and Francis Chan | Borneo Post

January 15, 2010, Friday

Nazri says govt recognises two states’ traditional usage of word

KUALA LUMPUR: The word ‘Allah’ is allowed to be used by Christians in Sarawak and Sabah because the  government  accepts that the natives in these two states have traditionally  been using it in  their prayers and religious services and the Muslims there are accustomed to this practice.

This was stated by Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, in an exclusive interview with the KTS stable of dailies The Borneo Post, Oriental Daily and Utusan Borneo at his office here yesterday.

“Christians in Sarawak and Sabah need not worry over this issue because it is a common tradition there. I have been to an Iban church service and I heard the word ‘Allah’ used there,” he said.

However, ‘Allah’ is not allowed to be used by churches in Semanunjung Malaysia and Christians from the two states have to respect this ruling when they are in Semenanjung, Nazri said.

Asked why there are two sets of rules on the usage of the word ‘Allah’ in the nation, he pointed out that this is not a unique practice as Malaysia also has two sets of laws on other matters, citing the Syariah Court and the Civil Court as an example.

He explained that the situation in Semenanjung Malaysia is different as ‘Allah’ is only introduced into Christian worships and publications a few years ago.

Nazri said: “Muslims here in Semenanjung cannot accept it as ‘Allah’ was never used in Christian preaching until recently and they questioned the motive behind the substitution of ‘Tuhan’ for ‘Allah’.

“It is clearly stated in our constitution that no other religions can be propagated to Malay Muslims and this article has been enacted in all the states in Malaysia where the Sultan is the Head of State … so this excludes Federal Territory, Penang, Malacca, Sarawak and Sabah.

“In these states, for the ban on the use of ‘Allah’ to be implemented the Home Affairs Minister can use the Printing Act to enforce it.”

Nazri added that Christians should recognise that using ‘Allah’ in their worships and publications is sensitive to Muslims and that this is not an issue that can be solved by going to court.

“The government has a duty to stop acts of disrespect and provocation that inflame religious and racial feelings in the nation even if there was no law that stated these acts were wrong.

“Take for example, there is no law in the country that states stepping on a severed cow head is wrong but when a group of Malays did that in their protests against the building of a Hindu temple we hauled them up and charged them because that act was disrespectful to the Hindus,” Nazri said.

He added that on the same score, if the usage of ‘Allah’ by Christians was (it certainly is, he said) sensitive to Muslims the government has to act even if courts deem it legal.

If that is the case, why does the government resort to going to the court to resolve the issue on the usage of ‘Allah’ by Christians?

To which, Nazri replied that it was Archbishop Murphy Pakiam who brought it to the court and the government had no choice but to defend in court and that once the process of law on the case has started it could not be stopped.

He said the government is continuing with the case in court by applying for a stay of execution which the other party has agreed to.

Judge Lau Mee Lan, in ruling against the ban on the usage of ‘Allah’ by Christians, had said that there was no evidence to show that the use of ‘Allah’ could incite violence.

To this, Nazri said such incidents had not happened when the hearing was on and the government could not produce such evidence.

But on the other hand, he said, the attacks on churches after the ruling proved the government right.

“Banning the use of ‘Allah’ by Christians was a pre-emptive move to stop outbreaks of religious violence in the nation,” he argued. Asked how the controversy could be solved, Nazri said there had to be a solution soon and in the meantime he appealed to the people to be calm and rational.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 15 January 2010, 2:16 pm and is filed under
Religion
,
Sabah
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia’s Disastrous Capital Flight

Asia Sentinel

by Our Correspondent

11 JANUARY 2010

Money leaves the country on an unprecedented scale

Churches are not the only thing to have been going up in flames in Malaysia. Take a look at the nation’s foreign exchange reserves. They fell by close to 25 percent during 2009 according to investment bank UBS even though the country continued to run a huge surplus on the current account of its balance of payments.

Says UBS: “Question: which Asian country had the biggest FX losses in 2009?” The answer is Malaysia and by a very large margin; we estimate that official reserves fell by well more than one quarter on a valuation-adjusted basis”. It describes the situation as “bizarre” and contrasts Malaysia with other countries with large current account surpluses – Thailand, China, Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong – which have seen their reserves increase – as should be expected.

In short there has been an exodus of money from Malaysia on a scale which surpasses that which occurred during the Asian crisis. Nor is this just a mirage. The decline is also reflected in a sudden decline in base money supply – even while, thanks to Bank Negara, broader M2 has continued to grow modestly.

Who is responsible for this massive outflow? And where has it gone? The questions cannot be answered from the data and probably will not be by a government that knows its own state-controlled enterprises, headed by Petronas, may probably be responsible for part of it. The more certain reason however is the outflow of local private capital has been taking place on an unprecedented scale in response to political instability, massive official corruption and discrimination against non-Malays.

This capital bloodletting has as yet attracted little attention because Malaysia’s foreign debt levels had declined dramatically since the Asian crisis and its reserves reached very healthy levels. So the outflow has not disturbed the financial markets, and Bank Negara has easily been able to keep interest rates low and the currency strong.

But unlike 1998, when the exodus of hot foreign money was a major contributor to the crisis, foreigners cannot be blamed. There is little speculative interest in the ringgit and the Malaysian bourse has rather fallen off the map as far as foreign institutional money is concerned. The BRICs, India, China, Russia, Brazil have taken the merging market lead once dominated by Southeast Asia.

Nor is there much evidence that the Middle East money which was supposed to be flowing into Muslim Malaysia, into holiday apartments or Johor’s massive Iskandar development zone, has been much in evidence. Malaysia’s one recent success, the development of its sukuk (Islamic bond) market may have caused more capital outflow than inflow. At any rate any overall net inflow of foreign capital whether into bonds, equities, factories or real estate has been dwarfed by the exodus of Malaysian money.

The latter is reflected in the weakness of private sector investment, which now trails public investment. Indeed it explains why the economy remains weak despite very healthy prices for most of Malaysia’s commodity exports. The nation has been running a current account surplus of more than 10 percent of gross domestic product for the past decade and hit about 17 percent of GDP in the year just ended. Initially this surplus was needed to pay down debt accumulated during the mid-1990s Mahathir boom years and to rebuild foreign exchange reserves to healthy levels.

But subsequently it became simply a consequence of the weakness of private investment. Domestic investors were discouraged by the corrupt and warped system and foreigners moved to China and elsewhere. GDP growth has become ever reliant on government stimulus – again racially biased in its allocation — financed by a persistently large budget deficit.

Meanwhile, publicly controlled capital has been rushing overseas. Petronas has been spending its billions in profits around the world as it attempts to become a major global player – at the expense of Malaysian citizenry in general and the oil and gas producing states in particular. Other government-controlled entities such as Malayan Banking Bhd have been bidding top dollar for foreign assets – such as Bank Internasional Indonesia.

Often with the exodus of money goes an exodus of talent as highly skilled persons disadvantaged by race or, as in the case of some Malays, disgusted by local corruption or primitive religious authorities, take themselves and their capital to Australia, Canada, India, China, etc.

The 2009 reserves loss may have had some specific cause which will not be repeated. But it has merely served to underline a dismal trend which has been in evidence for the best part of a decade. Malaysia has so far been saved from itself by the commodity price gains of the past five years – with even the late 2008 collapse now largely reversed. Oil and palm oil may be off their peaks but both are now double their prices of five years ago.

It is better not to imagine what will happen to Malaysia if prices collapse to 2004 levels and stay there. Better now to address the real reasons behind capital outflow and lack of private investment.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 15 January 2010, 6:21 pm and is filed under
Economics
,
Finance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Pornthip did not leak info

Inquest adjourned 4half hour 4karpal 2submit precedents on law of contempt

01/15/2010 11:23 AM

Razak apologised but Karpal said apology only go to mitigation n court must commit Razak 4contempt Karpal said Razak’s apology insincere

01/15/2010 10:58 AM

Karpal said in insulting another counsel n all Malaysians in wheelchair Razak had committed contempt in the face of the court

01/15/2010 10:49 AM

Blowup in ct over Macc counsel Razak’s offensive insult agnst Karpal when saying: I can sit down but Karpal cannot stand up.

01/15/2010 10:46 AM

Karpal – TBH was murdered n the question is by who. Raub shld be charged 4lodging false rept. Coroner shld commit him 4contempt

01/15/2010 10:39 AM

Karpal submits AG’s views do not change situation that MACC officer Raub agnst Porntip had lodged false report n subvert course of justice

01/15/2010 10:33 AM

AG has recd police investigation papers n he found no evidence that Porntip had leaked evidence n no basis 4any charge against Porntip

01/15/2010 10:29 AM

AG counsel informs inquest that the two reports lodged by MACC officers one agnst Porntip have 2b investigated n anybody can lodge report

01/15/2010 10:26 AM

TeohBengHock inquest Shah Alam reconvenes

01/15/2010 10:21 AM

                This entry was posted on Friday, 15 January 2010, 11:42 am and is filed under
Court
,
Teoh Beng Hock
,
Twitter
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why Muhyiddin go to UK to urge the return of the “best brains” while completely blind, unconcerned and insensitive to the loss of “best brains” to neighbouring Singapore or the 300,000 Malaysians who emigrated since last general election?

Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin went to London to urge the “best brains” working abroad to return home and drive the country’s new economic model, but  he had been thunderously silent in the past five days at the news from across the causeway that two Malaysians topped the 2009 Singapore-Cambridge General Certificate of Education (Ordinary Level) Examination.

The question Muhyiddin must answer is why go all the way to the United Kingdom to urge the return of the “best brains” while he is completely blind, unconcerned and insensitive to the loss of  the “best brains” to neighbouring Singapore or the 300,000 Malaysians who emigrated since last general election?

On Monday, it was reported in Singapore that Lai Kai Rou, 16, from Selangor,  emerged tops in the island republic,  scoring 10A1s. She studied at CHIJ St. Nicholas Girls’ School (SNGS) which also topped Singapore schools with 14 of the 42 island-republic’s best scorers being its students, scoring 9 A1s.

Lai’s success is all the more remarkable given that she was struggling with her studies just four years ago, when she first arrived in Singapore.

Her  primary school was a Chinese school so she used to do maths and science in Chinese when she first arrived in Singapore. She admitted having  a hard time adapting to the English standard.

Last year’s top 0-level student in Singapore, Haw Sue Hern, who scored 10 A1s,  is also from Selangor.

Lai is a Singapore Education Ministry scholar. The question Muhyiddin, who is  also Chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Human Resources, should  address is why Malaysia continues to be helpless, unconcerned and even insensitive to the brain drain of the best and most talented young Malaysians to Singapore, right from the start of secondary education.

Is he aware that increasing incidents like the “Allah” controversy will only drive more Malaysian talents to other shores instead of returning or remaining home to drive the new economic model?

Can the Cabinet Committee on Human Resources headed by Muhyiddin come out with a masterplan to stop such a brain drain by not only ensuring that there is a quality education system in the country but that all talented Malaysians, regardless of race or religion, would be assured of equal opportunities both in education and employment as well as full respect of the constitutional right of all Malaysians?

Otherwise, the KPI and NKRA for education can only  be one of failure.

Dare the KPI Minister, Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon fail the Deputy Education Minister-cum-Education Minister in his first KPI/NKRA for education? This will be Tsu Koon’s own KPI and NKRA.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 15 January 2010, 8:52 am and is filed under
Education
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


‘Allah’ By Any Other Name

The Wall Street Journal

14th January 2010

The government’s censorship has only compounded Malaysia’s troubles.

By PAUL MARSHALL

Religious violence is rare in Malaysia, and so its people are rightly alarmed at the current spate of attacks on churches, which can conjure up memories of the 1969 race riots. The government has strongly condemned the attacks, but its policy of trying to coddle its Muslim population undermines its stated goal of an open Islam and stokes the very religious tension that it wants desperately to avoid.

The violence is the latest consequence of attempts to ban the use of the word “Allah” by Christians. In 1986, the Interior Security Ministry barred the word from non-Islamic publications on the grounds that it could confuse Muslims, but the ordinance was usually not enforced. However in December 2007, the Malaysian Chinese Muslim Association and the Islamic religious councils of seven states invoked it in a lawsuit against the Malay language weekly, the Catholic Herald. The government sided with the councils, saying that Christians’ use of the term “could increase tension and create confusion among Muslims.” Authorities also asked the Herald to put on its front page the word terhad, “restricted,” meaning solely for distribution to Christians.

Christians and others responded that “Allah” has been used by Christians for centuries to refer to God, including in Malaysia. No other country has such a ban; even the Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS) says it opposes one. “Allah,” the Arabic word for God, is used by Christians in Egypt and Syria, and, of course, neighboring Indonesia. On Dec. 31, 2009, the High Court ruled that Christians had a constitutional right to use “Allah.” The government called for calm, but quickly said it would appeal and, on January 6, the judge suspended her ruling pending an appeals court decision. Subsequently, nine churches have been attacked, most of them firebombed. There have also been attacks on the Catholic Herald’s legal team, whose offices were vandalized yesterday.

This is not the only federal government attempt to repress anything that could be perceived as deviating from the state-sanctioned version of Islam. In 2005, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi proposed that Malay-language bibles have “Not for Muslims” on the front. In 2003, the government banned publication of a Bible in Iban, an indigenous language, although the ban was later lifted. In March 2009, customs officials seized Christian books and other materials containing “Allah,” and now some 15,000 volumes have been impounded. Since Indonesian Christian books in Bahasa contain the word “Allah” they cannot be imported. The government has also rebuffed calls for a state interfaith advisory council.

The censorship is not restricted to non-Muslim material. Using guidelines issued by the Islamic Development Department and with the consent of the Shariah courts, the federal government has prohibited over 50 “deviant” interpretations of Islam, including Shiism, the faith of over 10% of the world’s Muslims. In 2007, the Internal Security Ministry banned 37 books, mostly by Muslims, after the Publications and Quranic Texts Control Division said they “twisted facts and true Islamic teachings.” In 2008, other books were banned, including “Muslim Women and the Challenge of Islamic Extremism” by Norani Othman, published by the Malaysian Muslim women’s organization Sisters in Islam, and Amina Wadud’s “Quran and Women: Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman’s Perspective.”

The attempted ban on “Allah” is part of a larger government program to shield Malay Muslims from anything contrary to state Islam or that might upset or confuse them. One reason for this effort seems to be political maneuvering by the ruling party to shore up its Islamic credentials and hold onto Malay votes. But there is also genuine concern to prevent adverse Muslim reaction to different views.

However, religious tensions are increasing in Malaysia, and not only because of ethnic divides and electoral calculation. Much is tied to ongoing restrictions on conversion from Islam coupled with the writing bans themselves. These bans stoke expectations that Muslims should, or even can, be shielded from anything that might challenge their beliefs. In a global world and a modern Malaysia, this is impossible, and the resulting dashed expectations feed frustration and tension.

If the government believes, as its actions imply, that many Muslim Malays are ignorant about their faith and so are easily confused, then, rather than trying to restrict non-Muslims or different Muslims, it should call on Islamic teachers to do a better job. After all, Muslim civil servants are already required to take government-approved religion classes, and Islamic religious instruction is mandatory for Muslim children in public schools.

It should also use its persuasive powers to tell its citizens that, as members of a thriving society in a global world, their beliefs will inevitably be questioned and challenged. Malaysia’s talented population is capable of dealing with different thoughts and ideas, and does not need suffocating and self-defeating protection.

As Sisters in Islam, a Malaysian NGO of Muslim women committed to an open interpretation of Islam, says: “Ignorance is never bliss. By narrowing the space for open dialogue among citizens and squashing their quest for information and to read, the government’s 2008 banning of ‘Muslim Women and the Challenge of Islamic Extremism’ can be deemed as ‘promoting Jahiliah'”—the very state of religious conflict and confusion that Islam came to overcome. It would create a “suppressed world where we will blindly follow with no questions asked.”

Mr. Marshall is senior fellow at the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom in Washington.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 16 January 2010, 2:16 am and is filed under
nation building
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


“Allah” in cyberspace

The Nut Graph

15 Jan 10

By Koh Lay Chin

[email protected]

GENERIC term? Noun or pronoun? Conversion conspiracy or copyright? What exactly are Malaysians fighting over with regard to the “Allah” issue? And how is it all being played out in cyberspace?

A check on Facebook, Twitter, some blogs and an assortment of other sites since 8 Jan 2010 when churches started being attacked shows that the issue is far from being a singular one.

The cacophony of voices can be difficult to unravel because they are based on different arguments. So, while people are arguing about who can use “Allah” in Malaysia, what are they really angry about?

Different arguments

 The first argument is one of exclusive ownership. This is tied to the theological concerns of a wide number of Muslims who find it offensive, or at least uncomfortable, to imagine “Allah” being used in the same sentence as Jesus Christ, who in Christianity is God’s begotten son. To them, Nabi Isa is the Prophet Jesus.

This may not be currently well articulated in tweets or comments across cyberspace, with most Muslims instead opting for the “Why use ‘Allah’ when you can use ‘Tuhan’?” argument. Still, underpinning this argument is the fear by some Muslims that Christians are using “Allah” in a way that could be blasphemous. Hence the need for Muslims to claim the word so they can protect its meaning.

This discomfort is clear even in quieter reflections, some of which include links to certain Christians’ disagreement over the use of the term.

The confusion has been heightened with the government’s argument that Malaysian Muslims are angry because they are afraid “Muslims may be confused” and hence convert to Christianity. It is safe to say that most Muslims know their own faith fairly well. If anything, more non-Muslims, both local and international, seem to be in a state of confusion over the issue. I tracked a number of tweets and comments online, and found that “I don’t get it…” was a popular start or end of tweets circulating.

Many do not understand the fuss, are looking for more information about the religious terms, or are puzzled as to why so many are upset over the issue. There are, in fact, many non-Muslims who are not Christians who are scratching their heads over why Christians would want to use the term “Allah” in the first place.

The second argument on cyberspace is about freedoms and the constitution. Many comments from Muslims against the use of the term by non-Muslims have expressed anger that this religious issue was taken up to court. “This is not the avenue for the courts!” say some groups.

Several in the Facebook group Menentang Penggunaan Nama Allah Oleh Golongan Bukan Islam, for example, are blaming Archbishop Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam for taking the issue to court, and see him as trying to escalate the issue. These people are clearly not interested in the debate that Christians in Sabah and Sarawak have used the term “Allah” for generations. Instead, they choose to frame the issue as one where peninsula-based Christians are supposedly and unfairly demanding the right to use “Allah”. Suspicion over Christian motives is high on their list. As is anger over what they see as provocation by Christians.

While many from the so-called liberal camp have argued that the term has been used without problems by non-Muslims in other countries, some argue that one cannot compare Malaysia to Indonesia, for example. They argue that this is because the Malay Malaysian’s racial identity is closely intertwined with their religious identity.

 The third argument is related to the politics of the controversy. This is where the actions of the government, political parties and political leaders swamp the debate, making it unclear what everyone is actually frustrated about.

Many are angry that government stewardship came so late, or some argue not at all. Others point fingers at leaders of both sides of the divide for merely trying to gain political points. Yes, there were even tweets and links circulated on Pakatan Rakyat leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s past comments on the issue, for which he has received flak.

There are also the conspiracy theorists who believe these acts were either committed or urged on by the current government or the opposition party, or their supporters. Go figure.

The good stuff

Not all arguments online were framed in heated, negative or despairing tones. There were also lucid and well-written appeals for calm, rationality and reason. For example, the piece by Umno Youth’s Shahril Hamdan, which took to task Akhramsyah Muammar Ubaidah Sanusi, another Umno Youth blogger, for his views.

“I’m equally confident that many Malays are willing to engage in informed discussions and dialogue to better learn about one another’s positions, rather than having to resort to violence or, dare I say, seditious acts — after all, contentious issues such as this often expose the poverty of our knowledge, not its wealth,” Shahril wrote.

The best news of all? While they argued long and hard over their views on religion and politics, an overwhelming majority denounced those who had used Molotov cocktails and paint on churches, a Catholic school and a Sikh gurdwara. There were also Muslims who reached out to Christians to demonstrate that troublemakers and arsonists did not represent them. Others held peaceful gatherings, forums and patrols for churches.

God, grant me the serenity…

Going through the flood of information and comments, perhaps I could offer three quotes to help us emotionally navigate through the controversy.

 Bertrand Russell once said: “Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd.”

While there have been different strains and levels of ferocity, one cannot deny that there are roughly three main camps of thought:

 *the “Christians, Don’t Use ‘Allah’!” camp;

 *those who think everyone should be allowed to, and

 *the Confused.

Ultimately, people fear what they don’t know or understand.

 Another quote is Reinhold Niebuhr’s “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference”.

Perhaps it is only natural that as human beings, we are still arguing over religion. We may never be able to change this, with it being the Mother of Irreconcilable Differences throughout history. We can certainly, however, improve the way we debate.

Most importantly, let us not argue over our constitutional freedoms; the constitution is what binds us Malaysians to our state.

 Finally, let us not stimulate or provoke fears, which can be unrealistically amplified in cyberspace. As Aung San Suu Kyi once put succinctly: “Fear is not the natural state of civilised people.”

________________________________________

Koh Lay Chin has two twitter accounts, one public and one private. Both were equally flooded by tweets on the “Allah” controversy. Some were difficult to read, but she believes in the benefits of debate.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 16 January 2010, 3:44 am and is filed under
nation building
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Call on all Ministers from Umno, MCA, Gerakan, MIC and from Sabah and Sarawak to declare their stand on Nazri’s proposal that the word “Allah” is allowed to be used by Christians in Sarawak and Sabah but not in Peninsular Malaysia

The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz has come out with a most illogical and ridiculous solution to the “Allah” controversy – that the word “Allah” is allowed to be used by Christians in Sarawak and Sabah but not in Peninsular Malaysia.

When the Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin was reported as saying at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies (OCFIS) in the United Kingdom two days ago that the “Allah” controversy arising from the use of the word “Allah” by non-Muslims  would not be allowed to recur in the future, many were asking what he really meant.

Was Muhyiddin implying that no Home Minister would in future be so irresponsible and insensitive like Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein as saying that the government did not prohibit the people from demonstrating over sensitive religious issues, when he should know fully well that it would be regarded as official “green-light” for such demonstrations which could easily get out-of-hand?

Was Muhyiddin implying that no Prime Minister would in future act so irresponsibly and insensitively like Datuk Seri Najib Razak as to endorse any such  insensitive and irresponsible statement by a Home Minister as had been made by Hishammuddin, resulting in the spate of arson and vandalism against churches and places of worship which have not stopped after  more than a week?

Or could it be that Muhyiddin was implying that no Home Minister would in future arbitrarily impose a ban on the of use of the word “Allah” as was done in 2007 by the then Home Minister, Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar with regard to the Catholic weekly Herald – the cause of the current “Allah” controversy with all the adverse consequences to nation-building and grave repercussions to the country’s international reputation and economic prosperity.

But from Nazri’s interview on the solution to the “Allah” controversy, this does not appear to be Muhyiddin’s intention.

What is disturbing is the inference  that although publicly the Ministers are supporting the holding of inter-religious dialogues, in actual fact, the Umno/Barisan Nasional government has made up its mind that the word “Allah” cannot be allowed to be used by non-Muslims, at least not in Peninsular Malaysia.

The inter-religious dialogue which is being canvassed  is meant to reach the result already decided by the Umno/BN government and it not meang to be an open-minded one to seek a solution to the “Allah” controversy.

If so, such inter-religious dialogues to achieve a pre-set result decided by the government is not a genuine inter-religious engagement and cannot contribute to a meaningful solution to the Allah controversy.

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak should clear the air as to whether there is basis for such an inference about the inter-religious dialogue proposed by government Ministers.

Nazri’s solution that “Allah” can be used by Christians in Sarawak and Sabah but not in Peninsular Malaysia makes a total mockery of Najib’s “1Malaysia” slogan, producing a more fragmented, compartmentalized or segmented Malaysia instead of a more united nation and people.

Furthermore, what is the logic that the word “Allah” can be used in Sarawak and Sabah but not in Peninsular Malaysia if the constitutional prohibition of the proselytisation of Muslims is accepted and respected by all other religions?

I call on all Ministers from Umno, MCA, Gerakan, MIC and from Sabah and Sarawak to declare their stand on  Nazri’s proposal that the word “Allah” is allowed to be used by Christians in Sarawak and Sabah but not in Peninsular Malaysia – which is really no solution to the “Allah” controversy and will make no contribution towards Malaysian nation-building.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 16 January 2010, 3:40 pm and is filed under
Religion
,
Sabah
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Call on Najib to initiate a series of annual International Malaysian Diaspora Conference to coincide with the launch of Tenth Malaysia Plan in June

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak is making his first five-day official visit to India next week from 19th to 23rd January.

There are many things Najib can learn from the Indian experience in government reform and transformation, one of which is the just-concluded ninth Pravasi Bharatiya Diswas (BPD-2010) in New Delhi – the annual jamboree of the Indian diaspora organized by the Indian Government to rope in the expertise, money and experience of the 25 million Indians abroad (or non-resident Indians).

Najib had said in Singapore in November that his government would make Malaysia a better place to live and work in to lure back its citizens residing abroad as well as attract global talents to the country.

He told a dinner he hosted for the Malaysian community in Singapore: “We will create more opportunities, more excitement and more buzz in Malaysia to attract the Malaysian diaspora and expatriates to the country.”

Sadly and unfortunately, Najib has not been able to walk the talk and the buzz he had initially created from the expenditure of tens of millions of  ringgit in the promotion of the “1Malaysia” campaign by professional publicity agents has fizzled out – the bubbles of “1Malaysia” bursting against hard realities like the adverse international publicity which Malaysia has been suffering since the beginning of the new year as a result of the “Allah” controversy.

Only last night, the Grace Global Prayer Church in Rasah, Seremban became the tenth church to be attacked and the 12th target of vandalism since the Kuala Lumpur High Court judgment on the “Allah” controversy on Dec. 31.

The tweet of Foo Chee Hoe on my twitter last night “How many more churches to vandalize? Don’t they know they are putting their religion to shame instead of defending His name?” is the cry of all sane and rational Malaysians, regardless of race or religion, for an end to the madness since the beginning of the year.

Recently Parliament was informed that in the 18 months from March 2008 to August last year, a total of 304,358 Malaysians left the country for better education, career and business prospects, which works out to some 630 Malaysians leaving the country per day.

If this rate of migration had been kept up, some 400,00 Malaysians would have migrated from March 2008 to the end of last year.

Najib had said in his Singapore speech last November that “in the current challenging world, Malaysia needed the best talents and brains to develop and prosper the country” but it would not be easy to get them because competition was stiff as other countries were also looking for global talents.

However, despite all the publicity about KPIs, NKRAs and Government Transformation Programme, the Najib government has not convinced Malaysians or the Malaysian Diaspora that he meant what he said when he admitted that “without good brains Malaysia could not be considered a knowledge-based or innovation economy”.

All  Malaysians must be concerned that instead of engineering a reverse brain drain of Malaysians out in the world, there is an acceleration of migration of Malaysians across-the-board – not just Chinese and Indians but Malays as well, especially with the latest developments arising from the “Allah” controversy.

Why have the “reverse brain-drain” policies of the Eighth and Ninth Malaysia Plans from 2001-2010 failed? Is Najib prepared to issue a White Paper on the reasons for these failures in the past decade?

The government had announced an ambitious “reverse brain drain project” under the Eighth Malaysia Plan, especially in the key fields of information and communications technology, science and technology, manufacturing industries, finance and medicine, to propel Malaysia to transform itself into a K-economy and Information Society through a two-prong strategy, viz:

An annual “brain gain” of 5,000 “extraordinary world citizens of extraordinary talent” to “lure the best brains regardless of race and nationality, from Bangalore to California”.

Encourage 500 skilled Malaysians overseas every year to return home with their expertise, starting with the 2001 Budget in October 2000 giving incentives of quick approval of permanent resident status for foreign spouses within six months, two-year income tax exemption for income remitted to Malaysia and tax exemption for all personal effects brought into Malaysia, including two motor cars.

The government has however very little to show for the “Reverse Brain Drain” programme whether in the Eighth or Ninth Malaysia Plan.

Najib should initiate a series of annual International Malaysian Diaspora Conference to coincide with the launch of Tenth Malaysia Plan in June to tap, engage and attract back talented, experienced, wealthy and well-connected members of the Malaysian Diaspora as a key strategy to transform the country into a new economic model to become a high income country.

Is Najib prepared to be as bold and innovative as the Indian Government in tapping into the wealth and resources of the Indian Diaspora?

At the 3rd Pravasi Bharatiya Divas (PBD) in Mumbai in January 2005, the Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh announced overseas citizenship for Indians living abroad.

Under the Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) scheme, launched at the 4th PBD in Hyderabad, Persons of Indian Origin (PIOs) of certain categories are eligible for grant of OCI as long as their home countries allow dual citizenship in some form, but this does not include voting rights or rights to contest in parliamentary elections.

At the PBD just held in New Delhi earlier this week, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has gone one step further, offering non-resident Indians (NRIs) the right to participate in the electoral process.

Manmohan said: “I recognise the legitimate desire of Indians living abroad to exercise their franchise and to have a say in who governs India. We are working on this issue and I sincerely hope that they will get a chance to vote by the time of the next regular general elections.

“In fact, I would go a step further and ask why more overseas Indians should not return home to join politics and public life as they are increasingly doing in business and academia.”

Is Najib prepared to emulate the Indian Prime Minister to think along similar lines to tap into the resources of the Malaysian Diaspora and to engage and attract back talented, experienced, wealthy and well-connected members of the Malaysian Diaspora to effect the transformation of the Malaysian economy into a new model?

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 16 January 2010, 11:25 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Home Minister Hishammuddin should explain why he allowed police officers like the Selangor CPO Khalid to play politics with an eye to replace Musa Hassan as next IGP  instead of focusing on the core police function of conquering crime in Selangor

Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein should explain why he allowed police officers like the Selangor Police Chief Deputy Comm Khalid Abu Bakar  to play politics with an eye to replace Tan Sri Musa Hassan as the next Inspector-General of Police instead of focusing on the core police function of conquering crime in Selangor.

The record and conduct of Khalid as a professional police officer suffered a grave dent when he was more interested in politicking, to the extent of publicly threatening to arrest Penang Chief Minister and DAP Secretary-General Lim Guan Eng on completely baseless grounds, instead of ensuring that the Selangor state is safe from criminals.

In Selangor, guarded and gated communities are mushrooming all over the state, the most potent indicator of the failure of the police to perform its core function to ensure that the people are safe and secure in the streets, public places and the privacy of their homes.

One important measure whether the police are making progress in turning the tide of endemic crime is whether the people are dismantling or erecting guarded/gated communities, where the people have to impose on themselves a new levy of “income tax” to protect themselves  from crime which should have been the basic duty of the state through the police force.

Nobody will buy Khalid’s
denial
 in today’s press that he had threatened to arrest Guan Eng for allegedly refusing to give his statement to the police over investigations that Guan Eng had made seditious remarks about the death of Teoh Beng Hock at the Pakatan Rakyat convention on Dec. 19.

Khalid cannot deny the undeniable as his threat was reported by the media.

This is the Star report
 “We’ll not hesitate to arrest you, cops warn Guan Eng”
 on Thursday, 14th January 2010:

PETALING JAYA: The Selangor police chief has warned Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng that police will not hesitate to arrest him if he fails to give his statement on alleged sedition.

Deputy Comm Datuk Khalid Abu Bakar said a police team, including the investigating officer from Shah Alam, was sent to Penang on Saturday to record his statement but he had refused to co-operate.

Lim is being investigated for allegedly uttering seditious remarks during a Pakatan Rakyat convention in Shah Alam on Dec 19 last year.

He was alleged to have said that political aide Teoh Beng Hock’s death was murder.

“He demanded for the police report to be given to him first and ultimately no statement was recorded.

“Understanding his position and busy schedule as a chief minister, we made it more convenient for him to have his statement recorded in Penang but he continues to complicate the matter.

“I, too, have to carry out my duty as there is a police report lodged against him, forcing me to issue a notice under Section 111 of the Criminal Procedure Code to compel him to issue a statement,” said DCP Khalid.

The notice was issued yesterday. He did not specify the deadline for the notice.

That Khalid had issued such a threat is undeniable, which is most deplorable when it was completely baseless as Guan Eng had co-operated with the police team and even signed the statement concerned, although the police had failed to give a copy of the police report lodged against him.

What Khalid had done is most dishonest and dishonourable. The least he should do is to publicly apologise to Guan Eng  for his unprofessional misconduct.

(Media Conference Statement at Wisma DAP Perak in Ipoh on Saturday, 16th January 2010 at 11.30 am)

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 16 January 2010, 6:52 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
DAP
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Four reasons for controversial ‘Allah’ ruling

Malaysian Insider

January 17, 2010

By
Debra Chong

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 17 —  High Court judge Datuk Lau Bee Lan’s controversial ‘Allah’ ruling that rocked the nation over who had rights to the term cited that the Home Minister and government’s actions had been illegal, unconstitutional, irrational and had failed to satisfy that it was a threat to national security.

She also wrote about the apparent conflict in the matter between the Federal Constitution and the various state enactments apart from claims by Muslim groups that the matter cannot be taken to a civil court.

The judge released the written grounds of her Dec 31 judgment late on Friday while the increasingly acrimonious public debate over who has the right to use the word “Allah” continues to rage on.

The Malaysian Insider obtained a copy of her 57-page judgment where the judge lays out the reasons and the laws behind her oral pronouncement.

In laying out her judgment, Justice Lau ruled that the Home Minister and the Government of Malaysia, who were named as 1st and 2nd Respondents respectively, has the discretion under Section 12 of the Printing Presses and Publications Act to issue or revoke a permit to the Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur Reverend Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam (the Applicant) to publish the Church’s newspaper, Herald — The Catholic Weekly.

But, she stressed, the respondents had made decisions that were illegal, unconstitutional and irrational when they barred the Catholic newspaper from publishing the word “Allah” in its Bahasa Malaysia section.

The case was brought by the Roman Catholic Church, represented by the Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur Reverend Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam on February 16 last year when he filed for a judicial review against the Home Minister for barring it from using the word “Allah” as part of conditions for getting a publishing permit.

Pakiam is officially the Herald’s publisher.

The Home Ministry has successfully applied for a stay of execution in the ruling pending an appeal.

Below are excerpts highlighting the main disputes.

On why the Home Minister’s ban is illegal

“The Applicant submits the 1st Respondent has failed to take into account one or more of the relevant considerations…]

1. The word “Allah” is the correct Bahasa Malaysia word for “God” and in the Bahasa Malaysia translation of the Bible, “God” is translated as “Allah” and “Lord” is translated as “Tuhan”;

2. For 15 centuries, Christians and Muslims in Arabic-speaking countries have been using the word “Allah” in reference to the One God. The Catholic Church in Malaysia and Indonesia and the greater majority of other Christian denominations hold that “Allah” is the legitimate word for “God” in Bahasa Malaysia;

3. The Malay language has been the lingua franca of many Catholic believers for several centuries especially those living in Melaka and Penang and their descendants in Peninsular Malaysia have practised a culture of speaking and praying in the Malay language;

4. The word “God” has been translated as “Allah” in the “Istilah Agama Kristian Bahasa Inggeris ke Bahasa Malaysia” first published by the Catholic Bishops Conference of Malaysia in 1989;

5. The Malay-Latin dictionary published in 1631 had translated “Deus” (the Latin word for God) as “Alla” as the Malay translation;

6. The Christian usage of the word “Allah” predates Islam being the name of God in the old Arabic Bible as well as in the modern Arabic Bible used by Christians in Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei and other places in Asia, Africa, etc;

7. In Bahasa Malaysia and Bahasa Indonesia, the word “Allah” has been used continuously in the printed edition of the Matthew’s Gospel in Malaysia in 1629, in the first complete Malay Bible in 1733 and in the second complete Malay Bible in 1879 until today in the Perjanjian Baru and the Alkitab;

8. Munshi Abdullah who is considered the father of modern Malay literature had translated the Gospels into Malay in 1852 and he translated the word “God” as “Allah”;

9. There was already a Bible translated into Bahasa Melayu in existence before 1957 which translation was carried out by the British and Foreign Bible Society where the word “Allah” was used;

10. There was also already in existence a Prayer Book published in Singapore on 3.1.1905 where the word “Allah” was used;

11. There was also a publication entitled “An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine” published in 1895 where the word “Allah” was used.

12. Anther publication entitled “Hikajat Elkaniset” published in 1874 also contains the word “Allah”

13. The Bahasa Indonesia and the Bahasa Malaysia translations of the Holy Bible, which is the Holy Scriptures of Christians, have been used by the Christian natives of Peninsular Malaysia; Sabah and Sarawak for generations;

14. The Bahasa Malaysia speaking Christian natives of Peninsular Malaysia, Sarawak and Sabah had always and have continuously the word “Allah” for generations and the word “Allah” is used in the Bahasa Malaysia and Bahasa Indonesian translations of the Bible used throught Malaysia;

15. At least for the last three decades the Bahasa Malaysia congregation of the Catholic Church have been freely using the Alkitab, the Bahasa Indonesia translation of the Holy Bible wherein the word “Allah appears;

16. The said publication is a Catholic weekly as stated on the cover of the weekly and is intended for the dissemination of news and information on the Catholic Church in Malaysia and elsewhere and is not for sale or distribution outside the Church;

17. The said publication is not made available to members of the public and in particular to persons professing the religion of Islam;

18. The said publication contains nothing which is likely to cause public alarm and/or which touches on the sensitivities of the religion of Islam and in the fourteen years of the said publication there has never been any untoward incident arising from the Applicant’s use of the word “Allah” in the said publication;

19. In any event the word “Allah” has been used by Christians in all countries where the Arabic language is used as well as in Indonesian/Malay language without any problems and/or breach of public order/ and/or sensitivity to persons professing the religion of Islam in these countries;

20. Islam and the control and restriction of religious doctrine or belief among Muslims professing the religion of Islam is a state matter and the Federal Government has no jurisdiction over such matters of Islam save in the federal territories

21. The subsequent exemption vide P.U.(A) 134/82 which permits the Alkitab to be used by Christians in churches ipso facto permits the use of the word “Allah” in the said publication;

22. The Bahasa Malaysia speaking congregation of the Catholic Church uses the word “Allah” for worship and instruction and that the same is permitted in the Al-Kitab.

“The Applicant further submits that none of the above-mentioned factual considerations were ever disputed or challenged by the 1st Respondent as factually incorrect. I am incline to agree with the Applicant as the response of the 1st Respondent to the factual averments is a feeble denial in paragraph 41 of the Affidavit of the 1st Respondent which reads “Keseluruhan pernyataan-pernyataan di perenggan-perenggan 50, 51 and 52(i)-(xxii) Affidavit Sokongan Pemohon adalah dinafikan…” (Emphasis added)

“Therefore I find the 1st Respondent in the exercise of his discretion to impose further conditions in the publication permit has not taken into account the relevant matters alluded to above, hence committing an error of law warranting this Court to interfere and I am of the view that the decision of the Respondents dated 7.1.2009 ought to be quashed,” she ruled.

On why the Home Minister’s ban is unconstitutional

Justice Lau also said the applicant’s grounds for the reliefs of certiorari and declaratio is premised on the unconstitutional acts and conduct being inconsistent with Articles 3(1), 10, 11 and 12 of the Federal Constitution…”

“Applying the principles enunciated in Meor Atiqulrahman Ishak (supra) to the instant case, there is no doubt that Christianity is a religion. The next question is whether the use of the word “Allah” is a practice of the religion of Christianity. In my view there is uncontroverted historical evidence allueded to in paragraph 52 (i) to (xxii) alluded to above which is indicative that use of the word “Allah” is a practice of the religion of Christianity. From the evidence, it is apparent the use of the word “Allah” is an essential part of the worship and instruction in the faith of the Malay (Bahasa Malaysia) speaking community of the Catholic Church in Malaysia and is integral to the practice and propagation of their faith.

“The next consideration is the circumstances under which the “prohibition” was made. The circumstances to my mind would be the factors which the Respondents rely on to justify the impugned decision which have been alluded to in paragraph 9(i) to (ix) above.

“As to the ground in paragraph 9(i) in my judgment, this is unmeritorious for the reason which has been dealt under the issue of whether the use of the word “Allah” endangers public order and national security. As to the ground in paragraph 9(ii), (iii), (v) and (ix), I have shown unchallenged evidence that there is a well established practice for the use of the “Allah” amongst the Malay speaking community of the Catholic faith in Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak and the origin of the word and its translation…

“Considering all the factors, in my judgment, the imposition of the condition in the publication permit prohibiting the use of the word “Allah” in the said publication, “Herald – the Catholic Weekly” pursuant to the 1st Respondent’s exercise of powers under the Act contravenes the provisions of Articles 3(1), 11(1) and 11(3) of the Federal Constitution and therefore is unconstitutional,” she added.

On why the Home Minister’s ban is irrational

“The Applicant challenges the impugned decision under this head of irrationality/ Wednesbury unreasonableness which applies to “a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it…”

(a) It is utterly irrational and unreasonable on the part of the Respondents on the one hand not to prohibit the congregation of the Catholic Church to use the word “Allah” for worship and instruction in their faith and in the AL-Kitab and on the other hand to state that the same word cannot be used in the said publication which serves to assist these persons in their worship and provide a medium of instruction in their faith and to disseminate news and information (see paragraph 52(xxii) of Applicant’s Affidavit).

(b) It is also utterly irrational and unreasonable on the part of the Respondents to require the Bahasa Malaysia speaking congregation of the Catholic Church to use another word to denote the Bahasa Malaysia word for “God” instead of the word “Allah” when such is and has always been the word used for the word “God” in the Catholic Church and throughout the Bahasa Malaysia speaking community of the Church in Malaysia…

“In relation to the 2 additional grounds mentioned in paragraph 17.1 above, the Respondents responded —

1. Merujuk kepada perenggan 20 Afidavit Sokongan Pemohon, Responden-Responden menegaskan bahawa Pernyataan YAB Perdana Menteri tersebut yang telah dikeluarkan melalui media cetak “The Star” pada 20/4/2005 adalah amat jelas mengarahkan agar di kulit “Bible” dalam versi Bahasa Melayu dinyatakan secara jelas bahawa ianya bukan untuk orang Islam and ianya hanya dijual doi kedai-kedai orang Kristian. Walau bagaimanapun saya sesungguhnya mempercayai dan meyatakan bahawa kenyataan media yang dirujuk itu adalah berhubung dengan Al-Kitab (Bible) sahaja dan tidak relevan kepada isu permit Herald – the Catholic Weekly yang mana syarat yang dikenakan adalah amat jelas dan perlu dipatuhi oleh Pemohon (paragraph 22 of the 1st Respondent’s Affidavit); and

2. the circulation of the Al-Kitab vide P.U.(A) 134 dated 13.5.1982 was made subject to the condition that its possession or use is only in churches by persons professing the Christian religion, throughout Malaysia.

“I find the 2 additional grounds submitted by the Applicant in paragraph 17.1 above to be of substance. It is to be noted that a common thread runs through like a tapestry in the Respondents’ treatment of restricting the use of the word “Allah” which appears in the Al-Kitab are (i) that it is not meant for Muslims; (ii) to be in the possession or use of Christians and in churches only. In fact, these restrictions are similar to that imposed as a second condition in the impugned decision save for the endorsement of the word “Terhad” on the front cover of the said publication. Relying on the chapter on maxims of interpretation at paragraph 44 p.156 of N.S Bindra’s Interpretation of the Statute, there is a maxim “Omne majus continet in se minus” which means “The greater contains the less”. One would have thought having permitted albeit with the usual restrictions the Catholic Church to use the word “Allah” for worship and in the Al-kitab, it would be logical and reasonable for the Respondents to allow the use of the word “Allah” in the said publication drawing an analogy by invoking the maxim “The greater contains the less”. Indeed I am incline to agree with the Applicant that the Respondents are acting illogically, irrationally and inconsistently and no person similarly circumstanced would have acted in a like manner…

“I find there is merit in the Applicant’s contention that when viewed on its merits, the reasons given by the Home Ministry in the various directives defies all logic and is so unreasonable,” Justice Lau wrote in her judgment.

On the seeming conflict between the Federal Constitution and the state enactments to control and restrict the propagation of religious doctrine among Muslims

She also wrote that, “Pursuant to Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution, ten States have enacted laws to control and restrict the propagation of religious doctrine or belief among Muslims. The laws are –

(i) Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1980 (State of Terengganu Enactment No.1/1980)

2. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1981 (Kelantan Enactment No.11/1981)

3. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1988 (Malacca Enactment No.1/1988)

4. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1988 (Kedah Darulaman Enactment No.11/1988)

5. The Non Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation Amongst Muslims) Enactment 1988 (Selangor Enactment No.1/1988)

6. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1988 (Perak Enactment No.10/1988)

7. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1989 (Pahang Enactment No.5/1989)

8. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1991 (Johor Enactment No.12/1991)

9. The Control and Restriction (The Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Amoing Muslims) (Negeri Sembilan) Enactment 1991 (Negeri Sembilan Enactment NO.9/1991); and

10. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Religious Belief and Doctrine which is Contrary to the Religion of Islam Enactment 2002 (Perlis Enactment No.6 of 2002)

“It is not disputed that s. 9 of the various State Enactments provide for an offence relating to the use of certain words and expression listed in Part 1 or 11 of the Schedule or in the Schedule itself as the case maybe of the State Constitutions and which includes the word “Allah”. Further, all these State Enactments are made pursuant to Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution which reads “State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, federal law
may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam
.” (Emphasis added)…

“Mr Royan drew to the Court’s attention (i) that Article 11(4) which is the restriction does not state that State law can forbid or prohibit but “may control and restrict”; does not provide for State law or for any other law to control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing a religion other than Islam…

“I find there is merit in Mr Royan’s submission that unless we want to say that s.9 is invalid or unconstitutional to that extent (which I will revert to later), the correct way of approaching s.9 is it ought to be read with Article 11(4). If s.9 is so read in conjunction with Article 11(4), the result would be that a non-Muslim could be committing an offence if he uses the word “Allah” to a Muslim but there would be no offence if it was used to a non-Muslim. Indeed Article 11(1) reinforces this position as it states “Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it”. Clause 4 restricts a person’s right only to propagate his religious doctrine or belief to persons professing the religion of Islam. It is significant to note that Article 11(1) gives freedom for a person to profess and practise his religion and the restriction is on the right to propagate.

“I find Mr Royan’s argument is further augmented by the submission of Mr Benjamin Dawson, learned Counsel for the Applicant which I find to be forceful stating that this rule of construction is permissible in the light of the mischief the State Enactments seek to cure and the provision has to be interpreted to conform to the Constitution. … For completeness I shall now spell out the preamble in full “WHEREAS Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution provides that State law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam. AND WHEREAS it is not desired to make a law to control and restrict the propagation of non-Islamic religious doctrines and beliefs among persons professing the religion of Islam.” (Emphasis added) …

“Applying the said test to the factual matrix of the present case the Court has to bear in mind the constitutional and fundamental rights of persons professing the Christian faith to practise their religion and to impart their faith/religion to persons within their religious group and in this case, the Catholic Church comprises a large section of people from Sabah and Sarawak whose medium of instruction is Bahasa Malaysia and they have for years used religious material in which their God is called “Allah”; for that matter there is a large community who are Bahasa Malaysia speaking from Penang and Malacca. On the other hand the object of Article 11(4) and the State Enactments is to protect or restrict propagation to persons of the Islamic faith. Seen in this context by no stretch of the imagination can one say that s.9 of the State Enactments may well be proportionate to the object it seeks to achieve and the measure is therefore arbitrary and unconstitutional.

“As to the concern of the Respondents there is no guarantee that the magazine would be circulated only among Christians and it will not fall into the hands of Muslims, I agree with Mr Royan there is no requirement of any guarantee be given by anyone in order to profess and practise an even to propagate it.

“In my view if there are breaches of any law the relevant authorities may take the rleevant enforcement measures. We are living in a world of information technology; information can be readily accessible. Are guaranteed rights to be sacrificed at the altar just because the Herald has gone online and is accessible to all? One must not forget there is the restriction in the publication permit wich serves as an additional safeguard which is the word “TERHAD” is to be endorsed on the front page and the said publication is restricted to churches and to followers of Christianity only,” she added.

On the claim that the Home Minister’s ban was to safeguard public security and order

“There is merit in the Applicant’s argument that the Respondents in paragraph 45 of his Affidavit (also in paragraphs 6, 25 and 46) sought to justify imposing the condition in purported exercise of his powers under the said Act on a mere statement that the use of the word “Allah” is a security issue which is causing much confusion and which threatens and endangers public order, without any supporting evidence. A mere statement by the 1st Respondent that the exercise of power was necessary on the ground of national security without adequate supporting evidence is not sufficient in law….

“I find there is merit in Mr Dawson’s argument that the Court ought to take judicial notice that in Muslim countries even in the Middle East where the Muslim and Christian communities together use the word “Allah”, yet one hardly hear of any confusion arising (see paragraph 52(xix) of the Applicant’s Affidavit which is not rebutted). Further, I am incline to agree that the Court has to consider the question of “avoidance of confusion” as a ground very cautiously so as to obviate a situation where a mere confusion of certain persons within a religious group can strip the constitutional right of another religious groiup to practise and propagate their religion under Article 11(1) and to render such guaranteed right as illusory,” Justice Lau said.

On claims from the Muslim groups that “Allah” cannot be challenged in court

On this, she wrote, “I had on 31.12.2009 dismissed the applications of the Majlis Agama Islam (MAI) of Wilayah Persekutuan, Johore, Selangor, Kedah, Malacca, the MAI and Adat Melayu Terenggganu and MACMA to be heard in opposition under O.53 r.8 of the RHC (It is to be noted that the MAI and Adat Melayu Perak and MAI Pulau Pinang did not file any applicatio under O.53 r.8). That being the case, their submission contending the issue of whether any publication in whatever form by a non-Muslim individual or body or entity that uses the scared word of “Allah” can be permitted in law is one that is within the absolute discretion of the Rulers and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (YDPA) (in respect of Penang, Malacca, Sabah, Sarawak and the Federal Territories) as the respective Heads of Islam and is therefore non-justiciable is irrelevant at the substantive hearing of the judicial review application and need not be considered by this Court.

“I adopt the following responses of the Applicant contending the application is justiciable and I am of the view there is substance –

1. the Federal Constitution and the State Constitutions clearly provide that the Rulers and the YDPA as the Head of Islam in the States and the Federal Territories have exclusive authority only on Islamic affairs and Malay customs;

2. subject to Articles 10 and 11 of the Federal Constitution, the control and regulation of all publications and matters connected therewith are governed by federal law namely the Act and only the Minister for Home Affairs is involved in the implementation and enforcement of its provisions. Under this Act, only the Minister can decide what is permitted to be published and in this regard the Rulers and the YDPA have no role whatsoever under the scheme of this Act;

3. the present judicial reiew is not a judicial review of the decision of the Rulers or the YDPA as Head of Islam concerning the exercise of their duties and functions. It is only a judicial review of the 1st Respondent’s decision to impose a prohibition on the use of the word “Allah” by the Applicant in a publication. Since the Rulers or the YDPA cannot make any decision in respect of any publications and matters connected therewith, the issue of non justiciability does not arise.

On what the Court really ordered

She also listed out the orders from the court in the landmark case, “ In conclusion in the circumstances the Court grants the Applicant the following order:

1. an Order of Certiorari to quash the decisio of the Respondents dated 7.1.2009 that the Applicant’s Publication Permit for the period 1.1.2009 until 31.12.2009 is subject to the condition that the Applicant is prohibited from using the word “Allah” in “Herald – the Catholic Weekly” pending the Court’s determination of the matter;

2. Jointly the following declarations:

(i) that the decision of the Respondents dated 7.1.2009 that the Applicant’s Publication Permit for the period 1.1.2009 until 31.12.2009 is subject to the condition that the Applicant is prohibited from using the word “Allah” in “Herald – the Catholic Weekly” pending the Court’s determination of the matter is null and void;

(ii) that pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution the Applicant has the constitional right to use the word “Allah” in “Herald — the Catholic Weekly” in the exercise of the Applica’ right that religions other than Islam may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation;

(iii) that Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution which states that Islam is the religion of the Federation does not empower and/or authorize the Respondents to prohibit the Applicant from using the word “Allah” in “Herald — the Catholic Weekly”;

(iv) that pursuant to Article 10 of the Federal Constitution the Applicant has the constitutional right to use the word “Allah” in “Herald – the Catholic Weekly” in the exercise of the applicant’s right to freedom of speech and expression;

(v) that pursuant to Article 11 of the Federal Constitution the Applicant has the constitutional right to use the word “Allah” in “Herald — the Catholic Weekly” in the exercise of the Applicant’s freedom of religion which includes the right manage its own religious affairs;

(vi) that pursuant to Article 11 and 12 of the Federal Constitution the Applicant has the constitutional right to use the word “Allah” in “Herald — the Catholic Weekly” in the exercise of the Applicant’s right in respect of instruction and education of the Catholic congregation in the Christian religion.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 17 January 2010, 9:55 pm and is filed under
Court
,
Judiciary
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


God as politics in Malaysia

Asia Times

By
Fabio Scarpello

Jan 16 2010

DENPASAR, Bali – The escalating Allah controversy that has resulted in the bombing of Christian churches across Malaysia has called into question the country’s moderate Muslim credentials and could have major repercussions for political alliances that underpin the United Malays Nasional Organization (UMNO)-led coalition government.

Both main political blocs – UMNO and the Anwar Ibrahim-led Pakatan Rakyat (PR) opposition coalition – have bid to capitalize on the violence, which has devolved from an obscure freedom of expression issue into a volatile matter of internal security that could potentially determine the government’s political survival.

UMNO has so far come out the worse for wear with its credibility shaken and reputation bruised by perceptions it has tacitly condoned the violence targeting Christians. Political analysts believe those perceptions, fanned by online media and blogs, could alienate UMNO’s moderate Muslim base and perhaps more importantly constituencies in the swing states of Sabah and Sarawak, whose parliamentarians help to maintain UMNO’s parliamentary majority.

Some analysts predict that the violence could coax certain constituencies, particularly Christians in Sabah and Sarawak, away from UMNO and towards the PR opposition, potentially paving the way for the parliamentary defections Anwar has long sought to topple the government. Others believe UMNO’s poor handling of the violence could sway more voters against the party at the next election, which already promised to be hotly contested.

UMNO’s politicization of ethnicity and religion has a long history. Many feel those tactics have paved the way for the recent senseless attacks against at least nine churches in the wake last month’s High Court ruling in favor of Catholic weekly newspaper, the Herald, that allowed the publication to use the word “Allah” in reference to the Christian God.

Lim Teck Ghee, director for the Kuala Lumpur-based Center for Policy Initiatives, said that hot-headed Muslims would not have felt emboldened enough to throw firebombs at churches had former prime minister Mahathir Mohammad not “shifted the political goal posts in 2001 by pronouncing Malaysia as an Islamic state”.

Another wedge driven between local religions, Gee says, was former premier Abdullah Badawi’s neglect of inter-faith dialogue in favor of what he characterizes as the former premier’s “empty Islamic Hadhari rhetoric”. He also pinned the blame on academics, a partisan media and the attorney general “for having failed to draw attention to the rise of political party-related religious and right-wing extremism”.

The approach of current UMNO leader and Prime Minister Najib Razak to the controversy has apparently been influenced by the March 2008 election results, which saw the heretofore invincible Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition lose power in five of the federation’s 13 states and yield its long-held two-thirds majority in parliament.

A series of by-elections since have underlined the shift in voter-sentiment away from UMNO and indicated that its past politicking in favor of Malay Muslims over minority groups is no longer the rock-solid strategy it previously was. Minorities, including ethnic Chinese and Indians, constitute 40% of the Malaysian electorate.

The Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) and the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA), the respective ethnic Indian and Chinese parties of the BN coalition, were virtually wiped off the political map at the last election. Meanwhile, UMNO simultaneously lost substantial support among its traditional Malay Muslim constituency.

The BN currently controls 137 of 220 parliamentary seats; PR, on the other hand, holds sway over 82 seats, while three members of parliament are independent of either coalition. Anwar recently told this correspondent that several BN parliamentarians had long been ready to cross over, but were held back “by fear of repression”.

Those claims are difficult to substantiate, but the Allah controversy has confirmed to many political observers that UMNO has given up trying to revive the political fortunes of the MCA or MIC and is now deliberately moving to withdraw into its conservative, nationalist past.

The earlier decision to ban The Herald from using the word “Allah”, as well as the vociferous reaction to the court verdict last month that reinstated the paper’s right to use the word in its publications was to many observers a thinly veiled attempt to reunite a splintered ethnic Malay vote – which combined represents some 60% of the country’s 26 million people.

That strategy was apparently based on the assumption that the controversy would not alienate the large Christian constituencies in Sabah and Sarawak. Non-Muslims form the majority in the two states and Christians form the single biggest constituency by faith, accounting for 47% of the two Borneo-based states’ combined population.

The Allah controversy’s ripple effect, many agree, has been to discredit UMNO’s claim to ethnic Malay supremacy and emboldened the PR’s clarion call for multiracial harmony. Instead of driving more Muslims intro the UMNO fold, the church attacks seem to have renewed momentum towards an ethnic-blind country and political system.

UMNO’s religious bluff – that the Allah issue represented a threat to Islam and was part of a larger pro-Christian plot to convert Muslims – has been refuted by the opposition-led Parti Islam-se Malaysia (PAS), viewed widely as Malaysia’s most traditional Islamic party. PAS has so far largely stood by The Herald, underscoring the notion that the controversy is not a religious issue, but rather a political one.

As a consequence, PAS could lose appeal with its past core traditional Islamic constituency, but could in the process pick up more moderate Muslims that desert UMNO over the controversy. The opposition party could also benefit from emerging grass roots campaigns that have pinned the blame for the violence squarely on UMNO.

A group consisting of 121 non-governmental organizations and other religious and professional organizations has since the bombings promoted solidarity between religions while at the same time condemned UMNO. Farouk Musa, a leader of the umbrella group, said that such violence against places of worship “is as much an affront to Islam and to all religions as it is to Christians”.

The opposition is bidding to piggyback on those campaigns. “The UMNO-led government’s appeal is waning, not only with the non-Malays but also with the vast majority of Malays who realize that the ruling party has lost its way,” said Anwar in an interview with this correspondent. “UMNO’s ability to hold onto enough seats in parliament will be questioned by many if it continues down this reckless path.”

That promises in the weeks ahead to turn the political focus on Sabah and Sarawak. In those two states, people’s identity is tied mostly to tribe rather than religion or political affiliation, marking a different political culture than other areas of the country. Elections, especially in Sarawak, have historically been dominated by money politics, which UMNO has been able to influence with its access to state coffers.

Sarawak’s 31 seats account for 13% of parliament’s seats, while Sabah’s is slightly less with a tally of 25. All parliamentarians except for two from Sarawak and Sabah are currently aligned with the BN. But a sudden swing in favor of the opposition would mathematically be enough to topple the BN and bring Anwar and the PR to power.

Notably political leaders in the two states have remained muted as the Allah controversy has spiraled. But there are unmistakable signs of grassroots discontent. Some Borneo-based religious leaders, activists and academics have expressed anger over what they perceive as UMNO’s contempt for the collective political weight of Christian voters. Those rising sentiments accentuate what was already a growing sense of alienation in the two states vis-a-vis the wealthier peninsula.

The two states joined Malaya in 1963 on the basis of the so-called 20-point agreement for Sabah and the 18-point agreement for Sarawak. The agreements were written for the purpose of safeguarding the interests, rights and the autonomy of the people of the two states on the formation of the federation. It was originally envisaged that the two states would be two of four entities in the federation, the others being Malaya and Singapore.

Over time, Sabah and Sarawak’s political weight has diminished as two of 13 states in a wider federation, which also comprises three federal territories: Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya. Aside from nominally separate immigration controls, there is little evidence that the two states have maintained any degree of autonomy, including over natural resource exploitation.

In recent years, Sabah in particular has accused Kuala Lumpur of exploiting its resources; some estimate as much as 95% of the profits from Sabah’s natural resources is taken by the federal government. UMNO has arguably been remiss in addressing Sabah’s and Sarawak’s demands for more equitable revenue sharing, opening the way for Anwar’s opposition to make inroads through promises of a better economic deal.

Anwar’s coalition has actively bid to win over local politicians, saying that the coalition “is ready to show strong commitments to at least some of the East Malaysia’s (Sabah and Sarawak ) demands.” At last December’s opposition coalition convention, PR leaders made strong references to Sabah and Sarawak and promised to resolve contested issues on oil royalties and problems facing different local ethnic groups who are among the poorest and least educated in the country.

Whether those promises and growing disenchantment over the church bombings will be enough to win wholesale defections in Sabah and Sarawak is yet to be seen. PR has not yet fully mobilized its election machinery in the two insular states and some doubt that Anwar has done enough yet to win over local hearts and minds. But even if the church bombings motivate a split of the two state’s votes, it could be enough to swing the electoral balance in Anwar’s and the PR’s favor.

Fabio Scarpello is the Southeast Asia correspondent for Adnkronos International. He may be contacted at
[email protected]

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 17 January 2010, 8:06 am and is filed under
Politics
,
Religion
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Home Ministry should withdraw appeal against KL High Court judgment on “Allah” controversy

The Home Ministry should withdraw its appeal against the Kuala Lumpur High Court judgment on the “Allah” controversy to demonstrate the government’s seriousness and commitment to resolve the issue through inter-religious dialogue.

Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin said yesterday that it is time to set up an inter-faith council to reach a mutual understanding on religious matters, with the Star report giving the headline :  “’Time for interfaith council’ – Muhyiddin: Mutual understanding needed among all religions.”

Barisan Nasional leaders, from the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak downwards have said that the “Allah” controversy must be resolved through inter-religious dialogue and not through the court process.

However, certain Umno Ministers and leaders have given the impression that when they speak about inter-religious dialogue, they are not talking about an open, full and  free  discussion and interaction but using the inter-religious dialogue to achieve a pre-determined outcome, in the case of the “Allah” controversy, to achieve the same objective as the Home Ministry ban on the Catholic weekly Herald from using the word “Allah”.

If this is the case, then the whole idea of an inter-religious dialogue would be discredited and would not be able to produce a lasting solution to the problem.

It is for this reason that I am proposing that the Home Ministry withdraw its appeal against the Kuala Lumpur High Court judgment and  to convene an inter-religious  dialogue to find a solution to the “Allah” controversy  without any conditions as to the final outcome.

Yesterday, Muhyiddin said that Malaysians,  irrespective of ethnic and religious background, must stand together to defend the country’s unity.

He said that unity among the various communities was essential, more so with the recent attacks on the churches following a court decision in the “Allah” controversy.

I cannot agree more with Muhyiddin on the need for all Malaysians, regardless of race or religion, to unite to defend national unity in the wake of the stresses and strains over religious issues like the “Allah” controversy.

However,  like other Barisan Nasional leaders Muhyiddin does not walk the talk. For instance, can Muhyiddin explain why after some three weeks, the Barisan Nasional government has not convened an all-party, all-religious roundtable or conference to discuss the national unity problems arising from the “Allah” controversy although I  had made this suggestion many a time?

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 17 January 2010, 3:54 pm and is filed under
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
nation building
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib should report to Parliament on March 15 on the outcome of the K-Economy Master Plan 2001-2010

Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin said yesterday that the government would announce the new economic model for the country within a month.

One of the first announcements made by Datuk Seri Najib Razak when he became the sixth Prime Minister was that a new economic model for Malaysia would be introduced to ensure that Malaysia make a quantum leap to escape the middle-income trap to become a high-income country.

Najib said the new economic model would provide more emphasis on innovation and creativity to help workers increase their income.

Last May, the Second Finance Minister, Datuk Seri  Ahmad Husni  Hanadzlah said the new economic model would be announced in the second half of the year.  Why has this timeline for the new economic model been postponed until this year?

Should Malaysians place confidence in the promise of a new economic model to effect a quantum leap for Malaysia’s economic development to become a high-income country based on greater innovation and creativity among Malaysians?

Ten years ago, the Barisan Nasional government announced  the K-Economy Master Plan as a ten-year blueprint to catapult the Malaysian economy from a production-based to a knowledge-based economy under the Third Outline Perspective Plan (2001-2010).

If the K-Economy Master Plan had been successful, Malaysia would be having a new economic model already. However, the nation and people have forgotten the K-Economy Master Plan and its 136 recommendations.

One of the recommendations of the K-Economy Master Plan was to establish the target that by 2010, all academicians in public universities would have Ph.D. qualifications.

Has this 2010 target been achieved? Definitely not. In fact, I do not think the number of university lecturers who  now have Ph.D qualifications have reached even 50 per cent!

I call on Najib to give a report to Parliament when it reconvenes on March 15, 2010 on a progress report of the K-Economy Master Plan in the past decade and what has happened to all its 136 recommendations.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 17 January 2010, 5:17 pm and is filed under
Economics
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


All Cabinet Ministers should study the 57-page judgment of KL High Court judge Lau Bee Lan to decide whether Home Ministry should withdraw the appeal on the “Allah” controversy and focus instead on inter-religious dialogue to resolve the issue

The Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin should not be so hasty and even trigger-happy to declare that the government will not withdraw its appeal against the Kuala Lumpur High Court judgment allowing the Catholic Church to use the word “Allah” in the Bahasa Malaysia section of its newspapers, Herald.

By doing so, Muhyiddin is unfairly and undemocratically denying the rights of Cabinet Ministers from considering whether the Home Ministry should withdraw its appeal against the Kuala Lumpur High Court judgment on the “Allah” controversy to demonstrate the government’s seriousness and commitment to resolve the issue through inter-religious dialogue.

I had in Ipoh yesterday made the proposal that the government withdraw the appeal and to focus on resolving the controversy through inter-religious dialogue, as certain Umno Ministers and leaders had given the impression that when they speak about inter-religious dialogue, they were not talking about an open, full and free discussion and inter-reaction among the different religions to reach a lasting and satisfactory solution but using the inter-religious dialogue to achieve a pre-determined outcome –  in the case of the “Allah” controversy, to achieve the same objective as the 2007  Home Ministry ban on the Catholic weekly Herald from using the word “Allah”.

This impression has been strengthened by Muhyiddin’s hasty rejection of my proposal that the government withdraw its appeal against the KL High Court judgment on the “Allah” controversy and his accompanying reasons.

Muhyiddin said today that the government will not withdraw its appeal against the KL High Court judgment but will instead wait for the judgment of the appeal.

He told reporters after launching the MyID and Heads of Public Sector Conference at the Putrajaya International Convention Centre this morning: “We will wait for whatever the judgment is based on the appeal that has been submitted.”

This is clearly a change of stand as Umno leaders including the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, Muhyiddin himself as well as former Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, had publicly indicated support that  the solution of the “Allah” controversy should not lie in the courts but through inter-religious goodwill, understanding and dialogue.

So is Muhyiddin saying that the government now supports the idea of an inter-religious council,  so long as this is not the means for the solution of the current “Allah” controversy?

This is all the more the reason why the Cabinet should revisit the issue to decide whether it should resort to inter-religious dialogue instead of an appeal to the Court of Appeal to resolve the current “Allah” controversy, which has catapulted the country to adverse international attention since the beginning of the year with the spate of arson and vandalism against churches and other places of worship, including surau and Sikh Temple.

There is another potent reason why the Cabinet meeting on Wednesday should give top priority to the issue as whether the Home Ministry should withdraw its appeal against the Kuala Lumpur High Court judgment and to focus instead on inter-religious dialogue to resolve the issue.

This was because the decision to file the appeal against the ruling of Kuala Lumpur High Court judge Datuk Lau Been Lan handed down on Dec. 31 was made – filed in High Court on the first Monday of the year, January 4, 2010 – without Cabinet consideration, decision or approval as the first Cabinet meeting of the year was on Wednesday January 6, 2010.

Last Friday (15th January), Lau released the written grounds of her judgmernt laying out the reasons and the laws behind her ruling.

I call on the Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail to ensure that all Cabinet Ministers are immediately given copies of the 57-page judgment by Lau so that they can individually make up their minds on whether the Cabinet should take the decision on Wednesday that the Home Ministry withdraw its appeal in the “Allah” controversy, and to focus instead on the inter-religious dialogue to resolve the issue, in view of Lau well-reasoned and solid judgment, in particular on:

the 22 grounds why the Home Ministry’s ban on Herald on the use of the word “Allah” is illegal;

why the Home Minister’s ban is unconstitutional;

on the seeming conflict between the Federal Constitution and the state enactments to control and restrict the propagation of religious doctrine among Muslims;

on the claim that the Home Minister’s ban was to safeguard public security and order; and

on claims from Muslim groups that “Allah” cannot be challenged in court.

I call on all Ministers to ensure that they get copies of Lau’s 57-page judgment and to spend the next two days to study it (burning the “midnight oil” if necessary) and understand its implications and to demand that the Cabinet at its meeting on Wednesday should decide whether the Home Ministry should withdraw its appeal and to focus instead of inter-religious dialogue to resolve the issue.

Muhyiddin should not deny and deprive Cabinet Ministers from deciding on the issue for two reasons:

the principle of collective Ministerial  responsibility as the appeal is not just the appeal of the Home Ministry but represents the appeal by the Barisan Nasional government and Cabinet; and

he should be reminded that all Cabinet Ministers have the right and duty to decide on this issue, and not to forget that the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister are only “primus inter pares” and Cabinet Ministers are puppets or dumb followers of the PM and DPM!

                This entry was posted on Monday, 18 January 2010, 4:00 pm and is filed under
Court
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.