Emails Blow Malaysia’s 1MDB Fund Wide Open

Asia Sentinel

By Our Correspondent

Posted on March 1, 2015

Sarawak Report blog details how deeply a flamboyant financier and friend of PM Najib actually ran the fund

In December of last year, the controversial investment fund 1Malaysia Development Bhd abruptly called in all of its computers, employee laptops and servers and wiped them clean of all emails.

(Read: Controversial Malaysian Investment Fund’s Computer Records Wiped Off)

It was too late. The reason has come embarrassingly clear with a report by Clare Rewcastle Brown, the indefatigable blogger who edits The Sarawak Report. Rewcastle Brown had already obtained thousands of emails and documents before the shutdown, detailing that transactions by the fund were actually run by Taek Jho Low, a close friend of the family of Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak. There were times when the CEO of 1MDB, Shahrol Halmi, and his Malaysian colleagues had no idea what was going on.

Jho Low has repeatedly told the media that he has had nothing to do with 1MDB’s investment activities, and that he has received no money or benefits. But the emails allegedly show that he orchestrated a 2009 joint venture between 1MDB, as the fund is known, and a fledgling oil exploration firm called PetroSaudi International, which was little more than a shell.

Although money provided by 1MDB was putatively going into oil exploration, Sarawak Report’s emails indicate that  Jho Low siphoned off US$700 million and channeled the money to a firm he owned called Good Star Ltd. The emails and other documents show that money was then used to purchase UBG bank in Sarawak, owned by the former Chief Minister, Abdul Taib Mahmud, “at a very advantageous price for the chief minister and his family, who had been failing to get a deal on the open market.”

1MDB has denied any money has been lost and in fact on Feb. 21 it claimed that the PetroSaudi JV had turned a profit of US$488 million. 1MDB president Arul Kanda Kandasamy said on 1MDB’s website that that the money it had invested in the venture had been converted into Murabaha notes, an Islamic financing structure.

That assertion remains to be proven.  But whether the fund earned money or not, the extent to which a private citizen and friend of the Prime Minister used 1MDB’s influence and apparently in his own business deals is highly irregular.

PetroSaudi, for instance, agreed to act as a “front” for Jho Low on such deals, according to the documents, and it was a subsidiary of PetroSaudi International registered in the Seychelles, which bought UBG, using money siphoned from 1MDB.

The extent to which Jho Low was using 1MD for his own purposes may go beyond just the PetroSaudi deal. Documents on file in London indicate that the young tycoon attempted to use Malaysia’s sovereign credit via 1MDB in his vain attempt to buy three exclusive London hotels including Claridge’s.  Lawyers in Los Angeles have charged that money to fund the film The Wolf of Wall Street also may have been guaranteed by 1MDB. That deal was ultimately settled out of court and the lawyers refuse comment.

The revelations are certain to add to the precarious state of Najib’s premiership.   As finance minister, he put together the arrangement that uses the Finance Ministry to back 1MDB.  He is also its chief economic adviser. He is under intense fire over 1MDB both from the opposition and from former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who said on Feb. 10 that “something is rotten in Malaysia” and demanded that Najib step down.  The prime minister’s popularity has fallen to 44 percent and seems likely to descend further. Revelations about the 2006 death of the late Mongolian translator and party girl Altantuya Shaariibuu are also coming closer to him.   His own brothers have published formal statements questioning his comments that the sources of his wealth were his family.

The article, titled “Heist of the Century, displays documents that show an initial meeting took place in New York on Sept. 8, 2009, between Jho Low, then the head of Wynton Capital, a UK-based businessman named Patrick Mahony, who had been introduced a few days earlier by PetroSaudi’s CEO, Tarek Obaid. In addition to being CEO, Obaid is a friend of PetroSaudi’s  owner, Prince Turki bin Abdullah, one of the sons of the then King of Saudi Arabia. Mahony worked for the investment group Ashmore, which was funding PetroSaudi’s main operation, an oil well in Argentina.

Also at the meeting were two of Jho Low’s close colleagues, Li Lin Seet and a UBG bank lawyer, Tiffany Heah.In an email written to “Jho, Seet and Tiffany” the following day, Mahony made clear on behalf of PetroSaudi that the company was very willing to become involved in a series of deals proposed by Jho Low, which were expected to involve 1MDB and Petronas, Malaysia’s national energy firm.  In that email, Mahony said he also understood that Jho Low wanted “to use PetroSaudi International as a front” for certain deals and he said that “we would be happy to do that.”

1MB officials apparently only became aware of the PetroSaudi transaction about 10 days before the initial billion-dollar deal was signed. The emails show that Jho Low initiated formal written introductions between 1MDB and PetroSaudi just days before the transaction was signed. There is no evidence that the Malaysian fund concluded any due diligence into PetroSaudi at all.

Jho Low repeatedly insinuated that he represented Malaysia’s highest authorities, in this case the “YAB PM” – Najib – directly, in the matter. He focused on playing up PetroSaudi’s owner Prince Turki’s royal connection, insinuating that the negotiations were officially connected to “furthering Saudi-Malaysia bi-lateral ties,” although there was nothing to suggest bilateral ties had anything to do with the matter.

“There is no evidence to suggest that this ‘loan’ was anything apart from an entirely contrived transaction between two arms of PetroSaudi, a company with very little working capital,.” Sarawak Report said. “The US$700 million was repaid by 1MDB alone, as PetroSaudi had brought in “zero cash” into the joint venture and had only committed the valuation of its assets.”

In fact, according to Sarawak Report, “Jho Low crafted the whole Joint Venture deal before either PetroSaudi or 1MDB saw what was in the plan. These same emails provide the equally telling information that the first draft copy of the Joint Venture deal to be negotiated with 1MDB was drawn up by Jho Low’s own office.”

Two days before negotiations were due to start on the billion dollar deal, “that draft was still being eagerly anticipated by Low’s contacts at PetroSaudi,” the story notes. In an email from Mahony on Sept. 21, he said “ETA for first draft of agreement is still in a few hours…?

Mahony suggested that his lawyers and Jho Low’s lawyers should first liaise with each other, before they contacted 1MDB’s lawyers about the content of the proposed JV document being drawn up by Jho Low’s team in New York.

“I also need to get the 1mdb lawyer and my lawyer in touch asap,” Mahony wrote. “I will wait until you send the jva but what i suggest is that when you send me the jva, you introduce me to your lawyers by email and then i will forward the jva to my lawyers and introduce my lawyers to your lawyers. Thanks.”

“The inescapable conclusion is that the jetlagged team, arriving from Malaysia the next day, had acted as little more than onlookers in the drawing up of this ‘joint venture’, for which only they would be putting up any cash, on behalf of the Malaysian public,” the report added. “According to the contract about to be placed on the table in front of them USD$1 billion was due on day one, with further drawing rights available of up to USD$5 billion.”

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 3 March 2015, 3:41 pm and is filed under
Financial Scandals
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Harrow playboy linked to troubled Malaysian fund

Jon Ungoed-Thomas, Clare Rewcastle and Josh Boswell

The Sunday Times London

1 March 2015

IN THE summer of 2009, a Malaysian nicknamed “the Whale” appeared on the New York nightclub scene. He would travel with a large entourage in a fleet of Cadillacs and his party would spend tens of thousands of dollars a night in the company of socialites such as Paris Hilton.

“The Whale” is said to have celebrated his 28th birthday with a four-day event in Las Vegas that included a party at a pool surrounded by caged lions and tigers. Manhattan was abuzz with questions over his identity and the source of his wealth.

It emerged that the “mystery man” of the nightclubs was the Malaysian tycoon Taek Jho Low, who had been educated at Harrow School and the Wharton School in Pennsylvania. He claimed his success was due to being in the “right place at the right time”.

Low certainly has a wide range of business interests, building up a £650m investment fund that he started at university. He also runs Jynwel Capital, a Hong Kong fund with investments in media, retail, property and commodities. His family is independently wealthy.

There has been speculation, however, over his role at Malaysia’s state investment fund, which the bank Merrill Lynch warned last year had racked up debts of £7.8bn. The fund, 1MDB, is turning into a running sore for Najib Razak, the Malaysian prime minister, who chairs its advisory board, and a potential liability for his country’s balance sheet.

Senior fund officials have previously insisted that the charismatic Low, who is known to be close to the prime minister’s family, has had “zero” involvement in 1MDB.

Arul Kanda, the fund’s executive director, said last month: “Jho Low has no ties with 1MDB and I have not come across any document that linked him to this company.”

However, emails and documents passed to the Malaysian investigative website the Sarawak Report and seen by The Sunday Times expose for the first time the young tycoon’s role as a secret broker for 1MDB.

Najib, 61, who has led the country since 2009, now faces calls for an inquiry into the billions of dollars spent at 1MDB. He may also have to answer questions over why Low’s role at the fund was denied.

The affair adds to political pressure on the prime minister, whose government was warned about a perception of widespread cronyism in a report by the US Department of State in 2010.

It comes amid growing popular discontent over rising living costs, fuelled by the extravagant spending habits of Najib’s wife, Rosmah Mansor. She is seen as out of touch with many ordinary citizens struggling on meagre wages.

The documents reveal how Low played a vital role in one of the fund’s most controversial deals: a £630m investment in a joint venture with the international oil firm PetroSaudi. The oil firm was founded in 2005 by Tarek Obaid, a Saudi businessman who has been a partner of Renault’s Formula One team.

Emails show Low was pushing the investment, writing in one email: “We need to move fast. We want to sign and pay by sept 09.”

About £630m was provided by 1MDB for a joint venture with PetroSaudi in September 2009, but documents indicate that £440m was then transferred out of the venture.

A proposal document says £385m of these funds were to be used for a Panama investment fund headed by Li Lin Seet, who works with Low at Jynwel Capital. PetroSaudi says it was never implemented.

1MDB — which invested or lent more money to PetroSaudi after this deal — has said it fully recovered all its liabilities from the deal and made a significant profit.

There are questions, however, about who took over 1MDB’s interest and the exact location of the recovered funds, which were initially moved to the Cayman Islands.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, Mahathir bin Mohamad, who was Malaysia’s prime minister for 22 years, called for an investigation. “Somebody must be doing something stupid to part with $700m [£440m] for no very good

reason as far as I can see,” he said.

Mahathir said he wanted greater transparency on 1MDB’s funds, including money invested in, or loaned to, PetroSaudi. “They say it is Cayman Islands, and they say they brought it back, and then they said they have not brought it back, so I cannot be sure where the money is,” he said.

There is particular scrutiny over Low’s role because of his links to Najib’s family. Low helped in the making of the film The Wolf of Wall Street — which starred Leonardo DiCaprio and was produced by Riza Aziz, Najib’s stepson.

The documents also show Low was in contact with the prime minister’s aides on at least two issues, including correspondence about Malaysia-Saudi relations.

A source close to Low dismissed claims that he was a secret broker as “without merit”, because he had said this year that he gave his views to 1MDB on various matters. He had not profited personally from the fund, the source said.

A PetroSaudi source said the attacks on 1MDB were “politically motivated” and the fund made £320m profit on the joint venture. The firm consulted Low on the project but he wasn’t paid, the source said.

A 1MDB source said it was always made clear that Low had never been employed or retained by the fund, and that was still the position. All decisions were made by 1MDB management, and criticism of the profitable PetroSaudi

venture was “misplaced”, the source said.

The Malaysian government said the prime minister was not involved in the day-to-day operations of 1MDB, which is run by a professional and experienced team. Its accounts were audited by Deloitte.

The government said: “Views expressed by certain quarters concerning 1MDB should be examined in light of political motivation. However, if any wrongdoing is proven, the law will be enforced without exception.”

Additional reporting: Ændrew Rininsland

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 3 March 2015, 3:23 pm and is filed under
Financial Scandals
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Leaders to debate MH370 search funding

Jamie Smyth in Sydney and Tom Mitchell in Beijing

Financial Times

March 2, 2015

Australia, China and Malaysia will hold talks next month to consider whether to carry on funding the search for Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, which went missing almost a year ago.

Canberra said on Monday it remained “cautiously optimistic” about finding the missing aircraft and rejected media reports that discussions had already begun on whether to call off the search — the most expensive and complex in airline history.

 “Discussions are not under way to call off the search,” said a spokesman for Warren Truss, Australia’s deputy prime minister.

“Discussions are ongoing about the search. We remain cautiously optimistic about finding the plane.”

But he said that ministers at April’s tripartite meeting in Australia may discuss how to proceed if the aircraft is not found. Operations in the current search area are due to be completed by May.

This weekend marks the first anniversary of the disappearance of Flight MH370, which was meant to be flying from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing. The incident is among the greatest mysteries in aviation history and has prompted the largest ever search effort.

There were 239 people on board the Boeing 777-200 and the search has concentrated on a remote part of the Indian Ocean off Western Australia but despite a year of surface and undersea searches, no trace of the jet has been found.

As the anniversary approaches, officials have begun to hint that the operation may be scaled back or abandoned.

“We clearly cannot keep searching for ever, but we want to do everything that’s reasonably possible to locate the aircraft,” Mr Truss told Reuters.

“For many of the families onboard, they won’t have closure unless they have certain knowledge that the aircraft has been located and perhaps their loved ones’ remains have been recovered.”

Last month Malaysia declared the MH370 disappearance an accident, with all 239 passengers and crew on board presumed dead. The conclusion came after a search by vessels and aircraft from 13 countries for the airliner, costing tens of millions of dollars.

Families of the Chinese passengers aboard MH370 have continued to hold sporadic protests outside Malaysia’s Beijing embassy and China’s foreign affairs ministry, saying that they have no confidence in the search effort and believe their loved ones are still alive.

“The Australian government’s search effort has been incompetent and it is flinching from its responsibility,” said Liu Kun, whose brother was on the plane. “We hope our loved ones can come home soon.”

Chinese officials have so far managed to contain the families’ protests, which have been directed primarily against the Malaysian government, but are concerned they could rebound against Beijing as well.

Mr Liu said many family members would regroup in the Chinese capital over coming days, with many of them planning to travel to Kuala Lumpur for the anniversary.

The search has so far covered 18,600 square kilometres of ocean off Western Australia, where the aircraft is presumed to have ditched after running out of fuel.

The loss of Flight MH370 has sparked theories ranging from hijack or a terrorist-inspired suicide mission by one or both of the pilots, to catastrophic mechanical failure.

It has prompted an industry-wide effort, including the International Civil Aviation Organisation, the UN agency that sets global standards, to come up with new benchmarks to improve global tracking to ensure no aircraft ever again goes missing without trace.

At the weekend Australia, Indonesia and Malaysia said they were launching a pilot system enabling airlines’ routes to be tracked every 15 minutes, an improvement on the current 30-40 minutes.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 3 March 2015, 6:23 am and is filed under
MH 370
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


MACC should launch a full-scale investigation into the PMO Statement in the  New York Times attributing the Prime Minister’s expenditure, including the multi-million dollar purchases of his wife, to his inheritance or is MACC a mere “paper tiger”?

The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission should launch a full-scale investigation into the Prime Minister Office’s Statement in the New York Times of February 9, 2015 attributing the Prime Minister’s expenditure, including the multi-million dollar purchases of his wife’s jewellery and shopping sprees, to his inheritance or is the MACC a mere “paper tiger”?

The PMO statement to New York Times said:

 “Neither any money spent on travel, nor any jewellery purchases, nor the alleged contents of any safes are unusual for a person of the prime minister’s position, responsibilities and legacy family assets.”

The PMO statement in the New York Times had greatly offended and outraged the four brothers of the Prime Minister, Johari, Nizam, Nazim and Nazir  who, in a rare private statement expressed  worry that the name of their father, who was known for his frugality, would be tarnished by such talks of family assets.

They said: “We are extremely concerned that some recent news articles and postings have given rise to speculation as to the nature and extent of the inheritance that our late father, Abdul Razak, had left behind.

“We wish to put on record that Abdul Razak  was a highly-principled man, well known to all who knew him for his frugality and utmost integrity and any statement or inference to the contrary would be totally false and misleading to his memory and to his service and sacrifices for the nation.

“We take issue with anyone who taints his memory, whatever the motive. We would also like to add that our whole family is united on this issue.”

I have gone on pubic record to  vouch that Tun Razak was known for his frugality and utmost integrity as I had on no occasion in my years in Parliament from 1971 – 1976 when Razak was the Prime Minister to raise any issue casting any doubt on his integrity.

The reputation of Malaysia’s second Prime Minister for frugality and integrity are fully borne out in the special collection of essays  compiled by the Yayasan Tun Razak  “Tun Abdul Razak – A Personal Portrait”, which was published in 2005 to mark Razak’s  30th death anniversary.

Tan Sri Abdullah Ahmad, who was Razak’s political secretary and close confidante, wrote: “He (Razak) died a relatively poor man because he did not succumb to the temptations of money.”  (p. 57).

Datin Kalsom binte Tan Sri Taib, long-time family friend of the Razak family and whose husband, Datuk Shafee Yahaya was Razak’s private secretary for six years immediately after May 13 until just  before Razak’s passing, wrote:

“Shafee also recalls Tun’s high sense of integrity and accountability.  He remembers one incident when Tun did not allow Toh Puan Rahah to change the curtains and re-upholster the furniture in the living area of their official residence, Sri Taman, even though the curtains and furniture were showing signs of wear and tear. The simple furnishings in Sri Taman reflected Tun’s thrift and respect for public funds.” (p. 65)

(Shafee ended his public career as Director-General of Anti-Corruption Agency where he ran afoul of the then Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad in 1998  for carrying out his anti-corruption duties against the Director-General of of EPU).

This was Najib’s own testimony of his father’s frugality and integrity in his essay “A Hard Act to Follow” which he contributed in the collection of essays in memory of Tun Razak:

“To my father, a good public image was vital and public opinion mattered a great deal to him. Sometimes it is a very difficult act to follow. Whatever he did, he did not want it to be misinterpreted or to be seen that he was abusing his position. Of course, I am talking in the context of his time.

“I remember when as children, we wanted so much to have a swimming pool. But it took him a month of deliberating, rather agonizingly at that, before he turned us down. After looking at a few estimates submitted by the Jabatan Kerja Raya, he eventually said, ‘No, I don’t want it. People might talk – nanti apa orang kata?’

“That was Tun Razak. He did not enjoy the trappings of power. The cigars he smoked were relatively cheap. He did not have expensive habits like acquiring cars. But he played golf and he was happy.

“Even when I was studying in England, he did not want to visit me that often because nanti apa orang kata. Even as the son of the Prime Minister, I had to taker chartered flights back, not commercial flights”. (pp 236-7)

Uncharacteristically, the rare statement by Najib’s four brothers defending the reputation of frugality and integrity of their father, the second Prime Minister of Malaysia, was blacked out by the UMNO/BN-owned or controlled mainstream media in the country, and it took Najib almost a week before endorsing the brothers’ joint statement by  describing his father a principled and frugal person.

What then is one to make of the PMO statement in the New York Times, viz:

“Neither any money spent on travel, nor any jewellery purchases, nor the alleged contents of any safes are unusual for a person of the prime minister’s position, responsibilities and legacy family assets.”

What are these “alleged contents of any safes” which the PMO Statement was referring to, claiming that it was not “unusual for a person of the prime minister’s position, responsibilities and legacy family assets”?

Can MACC initiate full-scale investigations into Najib or must the MACC first get the “green light” from Najib himself?

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 3 March 2015, 9:30 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A woman’s letter to the men of Malaysia

By Aidila Razak

Malaysiakini

Mar 3, 2015

COMMENT
 Dear men of Malaysia,

 In 2012, a woman in Delhi was brutally raped and murdered in a bus after an evening out with a friend. Her rapist is now on death row.

 The story of this young woman, Jyoti Singh, 23, resonated across the globe – and when it hogged Malaysian social media, I didn’t read a single comment saying she had it coming.

 Her rapist and murderer however thinks she did.

 Awaiting the hangman’s noose, Mukesh Singh in a BBC interview which will air this Sunday said that Jyoti, whom he and his friends took turns to savage was to blame for the injuries which led to her death.

 A woman out at night is inviting trouble, he said, and when it happened she should have just laid there instead of fighting back.

 I would like to think that you, the Malaysian male, do not think the same, but reading the reactions that came out of a recent Friday sermon about women who don’t cover their aurat does make me wonder.

 There is not quite the need to recount the arguments for and against, the outcry that followed, nor the statistics that show that no, rape victims were not the ones scantily dressed walking about at night.

 There is no need for that because you already know this. You know this because women’s groups have been yelling this at the top of their lungs every time someone blames victims for their own rape.

 But why is that? Why is it always the women who are made to defend themselves when such statements are made? Isn’t this an insult to men?

Surely men are not beasts

 Saying women are raped because of the way they dress is saying this: You, the men out there – you fathers, brothers, sons, friends and lovers of women – are all beasts who have no more control over your groin than your average mangy alley cat.

That you can hardly see a woman not covered from head to toe without wanting to pounce on her and if she does not give in, force yourself onto her. That for all your intellect and reason, the sight of a woman’s skin turns you into an animal.

 And if she is stupid enough to struggle like Jyothi who fought for her life as the men ripped her insides out, you will do just that – punish her for not just lying back and enjoying it.

 No. I don’t believe that you are like that.

 You may sometimes make sexist jokes, or have different standards for women but I believe you are mostly kind, mostly responsible, mostly respectful of women.

 You are not Mukesh Singh, counting the days to death thinking that you don’t deserve to be sent to the gallows. That this stupid woman out at night had asked for it.

 You are not Mukesh Singh, and no woman walking around at night or in daylight, dressed in any way would make you turn into Mukesh Singh.

 And I hope the next time someone says men rape women because of the way she dresses, you would not let these people insult you like this.

 That you will stand up and say “Not this man” and that you would not be the only one.

 Much love,

 Aidila

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 4 March 2015, 5:39 am and is filed under
women
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Gerakan and MCA reacted even more ferociously than PAS and UMNO to my suggestion of postponement of bill on hudud implementation in Kelantan State Assembly because they have completely lapped up UMNO plot to use the  issue to break Pakatan Rakyat

Yesterday, I suggested the postponement of a  bill to amend the 1993 Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code which is scheduled to be presented to the Kelantan State Assembly meeting beginning on March 18, as up to date, the bill has not been presented to the Pakatan Rakyat Leadership Council for study, as was decided by all the Pakatan Rakyat leaders from DAP, PKR and PAS at the meeting of Feb. 8.

This is to give adequate time for the Pakatan Rakyat parties  to study the proposed amendment bill, but even more important, not to provide Prime Minister and UMNO President Datuk Seri Najib Razak and UMNO strategists the political life-line and the opportunity to further their “UG” (unity government between UMNO and PAs)  and “hudud” political games solely to save themselves and to destabilize, divide and destroy Pakatan Rakyat unity and remove the challenge to replace UMNO/BN in Putrajaya in the 14th General Elections.

I am not really surprised that the strongest objection to my postponement  proposal has not come from either PAS or UMNO, but from Gerakan and MCA. Within hours, the Gerakan reacted in outrage at the suggestion.

Why? This is because MCA and Gerakan leaders had been salivating at the prospect of Kelantan State Assembly passing an amendment bill by the PAS Kelantan State Government  to the 1993 Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code with the support by Kelantan UMNO State Assemblymen, because they planned to use the Kelantan State Assembly passage of the hudud bill to launch a publicity offensive to attack the DAP.

MCA and Gerakan leaders believe they could ignore the fact that Kelantan UMNO State Assemblymen had supported the Kelantan PAS State Government in the Kelantan State Assembly on hudud implementation.

They also believe they can get Malaysians to overlook the fact that Gerakan and MCA leadership had meekly agreed to UMNO Kelantan State Assembly contravening the founding principles of Barisan Nasional, MCA and Gerakan in therir support of Kelantan PAS State Government on hudud implementation in Kelantan, although  the  Barisan Nasional Supreme Council had never agreed to allow Kelantan UMNO State Assemblymen to act independently to violate the fundamental principles of the  Federal Constitution and founding policies of Barisan Nasional.

Instead of holding UMNO, whether in Kelantan or elsewhere in the country, to its promise as a Barisan Nasional partner to uphold the Federal Constitution and not to support hudud implementation in Kelantan, MCA and Gerakan have surrendered their “trump card” that all BN component parties do not agree with hudud implementation in accordance with the Malaysian Constitution, as the MCA and Gerakan leaders were only interested in seeing Kelantan State Assembly enact the bill to the 1993 Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code so that MCA and Gerakan could concentrate their fire on DAP.

This is dishonest and gutter politics of the worst variety.  Instead of holding Kelantan UMNO State Assembly to their commitment not to support PAS Kelantan State Government on hudud implementation in Kelantan, MCA and Gerakan leaders are only interested in the passage of any amendment bill on hudud implementation so that they could launch a publicity war against DAP – even if Kelantan UMNO State Assemblymen supported PAS Kelantan on hudud implementation in Kelantan.

I believe the founding fathers of MCA and Gerakan, whether Tun Tan Cheng Lock, Tun Tan Siew Sin, Dr. Lim Chong Eu would be utterly ashamed of what the present generation of MCA and Gerakan leaders are doing, showing that they have no political principles or scruples whatsoever.

DAP’s stand on any hudud implementation is clear, constant and consistent – that hudud implementation is not in accordance with the Federal Constitution principles and outside the Pakatan Rakyat Common Policy Framework.

MCA and Gerakan have agreed to UMNO Kelantan State Assemblymen to vote for hudud implementation in Kelantan as part of a larger UMNO plot  to divide PAS and Pakatan Rakyat, but DAP is different from MCA and Gerakan and will remain consistent with our principle that hudud implementation is not in accordance with the the Federal Constitution and outside the Pakatan Rakyat Common Policy Framework.

We cannot therefore agree to PAS Kelantan State Government’s proposal on hudud implementation in the Kelantan State Assembly.

In May 2012 in Hulu Terengganu, PAS President Datuk Seri Hadi Awang said hudud could only be implemented if there are adequate conditions, giving as examples that if there is no minimum wage provision or resolution of the unemployment problem, the conditions for implementation for hudud do not exist.

This is what the PR parties agreed in the PR Common Policy Framework (CPF) and why we in DAP are urging PR leaders and supporters to “return to basics for PR” and to reaffirm commitment to PR CPF – and to agree to an eight-year PR Roadmap to capture Putrajaya in the 14th General Election, putting aside all  party differences including the controversial issue of hudud implementation in Kelantan till after 2018.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 4 March 2015, 12:40 pm and is filed under
Gerakan
,
Islam
,
Kelantan
,
MCA
,
PAS
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


I would accept a copy of the Quran

By Kuo Yong Kooi

Malaysiakini

Mar 3, 2015

COMMENT
 If someone handed me a copy of the Quran, I am happy to accept it with no ill will in my heart. I have concluded long ago that all religious texts in this world are guidelines to improve human behaviours.

 The unfortunate part is many people misinterpreted religious text all the time. If someone has got it right, then it does not matter what religion you are from, their action shows.

 In my opinion, the rules that the fundamentalists Muslims want every Muslim to follow are not that much different from the monastic rules for the Buddhist monks and nuns. The only big difference is their approach.

Buddhists see the rules as a path for their followers to practice if and only if they want to attain Nibanna (enlightenment). The themes that Buddhism carried all through a person’s religious life are basically an invitation to explore and the gradual training. It is a personal inward journey. No amount of compulsion can facilitate a personal journey.

 If a Buddhist decides to go to the beer festivals and have vice activities, that is his or her Karma. It is as simple as that. That is their business. If you want Nibanna, the monastic codes are much stricter than the rules imposed by the Taliban or IS.

 A Buddhist monastic cannot have sex, drugs/intoxicants or entertainment. The Taliban can have up to four wives.

 I have tried two years as a monk in 1997/98. I left the monastery and prefer to live a lay life; that is to follow the basic Buddhist rules ala Taliban. No, I did not take four wives, but I am married and live a simple Buddhist “Talibanistic” lifestyle as a Yoga and Qi Gong teacher.

Familiar rules

 Here are the basic five precepts for a general practitioner of the Buddhist faith to follow; I undertake the training not to kill, steal, lie, commit sexual misconduct and not to use intoxicants (drugs or alcohol). Sounds familiar to Christians and Muslims?

 The fifth precept of no intoxicant is the same with Islam’s no alcohol consumption. It basically means no alcohol or drugs which can alter our state of mind. The Buddhist’s fifth precept goes as far as nothing addictive, which includes no cigarettes.

 If the follower of the Buddhist faith wants to practice the religion a bit deeper, they can undertake the eight precept; which includes no meals after noon (which means fasting after 12 noon). Water and juice is fine but not solid foods or soups all through the monastic life, and not only a particular month of the year like in Ramadan.

 No entertainments, make ups and jewellery (basically no fashion or self-gratifying lifestyles); and no high and luxurious beds. Does that sound familiar to Muslims?

 The seventh precept of no music and entertainment is needed if you want to embark on a meditative lifestyle. Music and entertainment do influence our moods and interfere with the meditative process of calming the mind.

 In the time of the Buddha, high and luxurious beds are used by the rich. We need to put it in context as the rule was written 2558 years ago.

 Nowadays almost everyone has got a high bed, in the Buddha’s time only the rich have high beds, if you know what I am trying to get at. What that rules meant for the present day Buddhist follower is not living luxurious or indulgent lifestyles.

 Basically all religions are socialistic in their lifestyle, perspective and ideology.

 (I just don’t get it when PAS president Hadi Awang rejected Parti Socialis Malaysia (PSM) as a member of Pakatan Rakyat. Socialism is Islam without the religious dogma as far as I am concerned.)

A holy book is just a book

The Dalai Lama stated clearly that he is a socialist in his May 2014 Mumbai visit. He stressed that there is a need for hygiene of emotions. He said: “Human intelligence is very brilliant, but sometimes it is clouded with bad emotions. Most of the tyrannical people in human history, I think, were very intelligent people.”

 “Lenin, for instance,” he elaborated, “was a very sharp-minded and intelligent person, but he was clouded by negative emotions of hatred and anger.”

If one has an in-depth understanding of one’s religion, one would be able to draw the similarities in other great religions because they all promote the cultivation of positive attitudes of a human being.

 Human beings can only experience common emotions. Different religions are relevant for different people because of the diversity of language and culture.

 Humans have different capabilities in understanding the meaning of the words. The words used are only pointers into one’s heart. The holy book is just a book, there is no point reading the holy book over and over again but fail to change your bad-natured state of mind.

 I am confident that if I quote from one religion a verse, some other religions will have similar themes in their books.

 An example in Taoism by Tung Kai Yin, “The goal is not to demonstrate one’s strength, power or violence. The goal is to attain ones serenity, tranquillity and the discovery of oneself. It is truly the exercise of the mind”. I have not read the Quran before, but prove me wrong if there is no such similar theme in the Quran?

Discrimination and propagation

 If you want to practice Buddhism a bit further, you can be a Buddhist monk or nun. The monastic code contains 227 major rules for Buddhist monks and 311 major rules for Buddhist nuns.

 The rules, if you research its content in our modern day computer god Google under the topic ‘Vinaya’, you will easily conclude that they are stricter than the Taliban/IS imposed rules.

 Sounds like discrimination against women, isn’t it?

 2,558 years ago in India, women were slaves and if their husbands die, they have to throw themselves in the fire pit together with their dead husbands. In that era, leaving home to be a Buddhist nun is the most radical thing you can ever do because they defied the society’s norms in search for personal spirituality growth. A Buddhist nun was a radical feminist in those days.

 In the Buddhist monastic code, a monk cannot look into a woman’s eyes and vice versa, or touch a person of the opposite sex. Again the reason is simple, if you want to prepare your mind for meditation, potential lustful thoughts are a major hindrance to deep meditations. If you don’t believe it, try it out.

 Am I propagating the Buddhist religion to Muslims or increasing the Muslim’s faith in their religion in this article? If you have the state of mind like Perkasa chief Ibrahim Ali, former MP Zulkifli Noordin and Isma president Abdullah Zaik Abdul Rahman, then you may conclude that I am leading Muslims astray.

 If you don’t feel that I am propagating Buddhism, then you might feel relieved.

More than just rituals

 Islam is not unique in their strict rules after all, it’s a rule for humanity if they want to explore deeper into their faith. So what are the things that humans try to explore throughout history? Is it just words or just dress codes or compulsory attendance of prayer time? Or something deeper than that?

 In one of the 227 rules, a Buddhist monk cannot live and stay under the same roof with a woman (and vice versa). That was written over 2,558 years ago.

 If you follow the word literally “under the same roof” now, basically Buddhist monks and nuns cannot stay in any high rise buildings.

 But an intelligent practitioner should look at it in context; the purpose of the rule is to prevent potential sensual activities so that the monastic code of celibacy is not broken.

 Now, there are high rise buildings everywhere, as long as you are at different addresses, technically you are at different houses.

 I was on a meditation holiday three years ago in Sri Lanka and happened to bump into a old Muslim man going on the haj at the airport. He dressed and looked like Mahatma Gandhi wearing the simple white sling robe the same way Gandhi did.

 That got me thinking if the Muslims have copied the Hindus on that type of dressing during haj? After all, the Middle-Easterners do not wear that type of clothing in the desert.

Would Perkasa, Isma be insulted?

Is this point good enough to insult Perkasa or Isma? The Buddhist Anagarika (monks and nuns to be) wear the same type of white robes like the Muslims on the haj.

 Why can’t we sit down and have an intelligent conversation on the good purpose of all religions? Instead the easily insulted and so-called defenders of Islam go to make a police report and make a mountain out of a mole hill with the knowledge that the police are one sided in their investigations.

 Wearing the same gear also gives the practitioner the comfort that you are not alone in the path. There are others around you that practice the same to encourage and inspire you on your inner spiritual journey.

 It also removes doubt as to whether you on the right path or not. Humans are social beings, seeing others practising the same way gives one the confidence that one is on a right path.

 There is not much difference between wearing a saffron/yellow robe with a shaved head and a turban with a beard. These are just cultural practices that suit the specific climatic conditions. Both are symbols of simplicity and belongings to a particular religion.

 As far as I am concerned, it defeats the purpose of simplicity if you cover yourself fully but wear expensive jewellery with heavy make-up under the cover. That only indicates that the society forces you to wear a certain dress code but in your heart you fancy something totally opposite to what your religion wants you to do.

Words are just signposts

In the Pali canon there are words like suka, duka, citta, dana, Pahla and many more. If you are a Malaysian or Indonesian who explore the Buddhist Pali canon, you will be surprise to find about 5-10 percent of the words used are similar to the Malay language.

 The Buddhist’s five precepts are called Panca Sila. No correlation with Sukarno’s modern Indonesian Panca Sila.

 Do Buddhists want to have exclusivity over those words? Words are just words, claiming exclusivity is just petty and shows low understanding of the purpose of religions.

 All religions want us to understand our hearts and act with a clear conscience. Words are just signposts to direct the heart in the right direction.

 The modern world is testing the understanding of the religious educators in their religions. They have to revamp their style of teaching so that the younger generation are able to relate to their religion of birth.

 If we are to place any blame on anyone for the deterioration of a particular religion, then part of the blame should be directed to the religious educationalists.

 Most traditional religious educationalists are holding on to dogma. They have difficulties explaining the context of the books that was written thousands of years ago to the modern world. The modern world needs multi-disciplinary religious teachers.

Religion under attack

 I must admit this is common in Buddhism too, there are many who can regurgitate and quote from the traditional Buddhist texts, they sound very professional too when they quote the traditional Pali language.

 There are not many who have in-depth knowledge of the modern scientific world, as a result they are unable to tie the two together to explain its modern world applications in our lives.

 It is easier for the traditional religious educationalists to pigeon hole it under the category of “our religion is under attack” than relating it in modern terms because of their restricted understanding of modern world developments.

 If you cry Islam is under attack, I am sure Buddhism is also under attack too! Many people are leaving the religion in droves in traditional Buddhist countries. Many traditional Buddhists are joining beer drinking festivals, drinking heavily in wedding dinners and they still call themselves Buddhists/Taoists.

 Is it my job to stop them from drinking or their own job to understand their own religions? Probably it is the fault of the Buddhist monks and nuns for they fail to inspire them to understand their traditional religion in the modern context. It is for us to find out isn’t it?

 I can easily cry “Buddhism is under attack!” or they are the main reason why we Buddhist are poor. But if I do that, it means I have deficit thinking. That kind of thinking can only put your own race and religion down in the long run.

 The Buddhist will classify that as the fault finding mind. If one has a fault finding mind, one is creating bad Karma for oneself.

Negative thinking

 Whether it is Western psychology term it as deficit thinking or Buddhism terms it as the fault finding mind, the Quran or the Bible will have their similar version or theme.

Negative thinking is a common human trait and all religions in this world would have something to say about this kind of thinking. I hope the reader can prove me wrong.

 In short, all religious texts are guidelines for people to embark on a personal spiritual journey. It does not matter what religious book you are holding, if you behave badly, you are a shaming your own religion.

 All religions want their followers to be fair to others. If others are not allowed to mention the word ‘Allah’ in their Bible let alone distributing them publicly but you can freely distribute your Quran to others. Do you think that is fairness?

 All religious texts portray god as fair, but humans who do not understand their religious text act unfairly in the name of their god.

 “It is not necessary to believe in God to be a good person. In a way, the traditional notion of God is out-dated.

“One can be spiritual but not religious. It is not necessary to go to church and give money -for many, nature can be the church.

“Some of the best people in history do not believe in God, while some of the worst deeds were done in His name.” – Pope Francis

 KUO YONG KOOI is a keen observer of Malaysian politics. He now lives as a permanent resident in Australia as a yoga and Qi Gong instructor.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 4 March 2015, 5:15 am and is filed under
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Just A Few Reasons That Prove Lim Guan Eng Is NOT Anti-Malay

by Ashraf Wahab

Malaysian Digest

03 March 2015

During just a little over a year of my time working here in Malaysian Digest, I have learned that headlines containing the names of a few individuals are always guaranteed to generate a lot of page views.

Perkasa president Datuk Ibrahim Ali is always bound to provoke a reaction and also frequent ridicule, as too is the case with Ridhuan Tee. The Prime Minister’s wife Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor has never failed to spark multiple responses from our readers. Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, despite now being in prison will always remain a popular choice. Also not to be left out are the young Malay women trio in DAP of Dyana Sofya, Rara Othman, and Melati Rahim.

There are also two individuals who constantly invite vitriol and criticism, particularly from our Malay readers – DAP veteran Lim Kit Siang and his son, Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng. No matter what the content of the story is, be it positive or negative, there will always be a barrage of hate coming from our Malay readers.

When we analyse these spiteful comments, we can conclude their animosity towards the two DAP figureheads can be narrowed down to one common fact – that they are both purportedly anti-Malay and anti-Islam. But is this really true?

Being a Malay and Muslim myself, I actually vehemently disagree. So in the first of what hopefully will be a series of articles, I will try to disprove this claim by first focusing on Lim Junior.

He Was Jailed Because Of Defending A Malay Girl

In 1998, Guan Eng was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment for defending a rape victim, which was a Malay girl.

During the judicial procedure, he was quoted as saying: “If I fail and have to go to jail, I have no regrets. I have no regrets of going down fighting for the principles of truth and justice and pursuit of human rights. There can be no women’s rights if female rape victims are considered equally responsible, and even detained, whilst the accused remain free.”

He was however released after 12 months on 25 August 1999, but was disallowed to stand for public office for a period of 5 years.

Allocations Towards Islam In Penang

His detractors always say that Malays and Islam are being suppressed under the current DAP regime. But is this true? Let these following figures speak for themselves.

The state budget for Penang’s islamic affairs in 2008 under the rule of Barisan Nasional (BN) was RM25.7 million. When Guan Eng and DAP took over, he increased the budget to RM33.2 million in 2009 and gradually increased it every year. In 2012, the budget stood at RM64.03 million – more than 1.5 times the budget provided by BN.

Creating an Anti-Apostasy Committee

One favourite line frequently used by his haters is “Christianity will be the official religion of Malaysia if DAP rules the country.” The emergence of this Anti-Apostasy Committee just proves how absurd that claim actually is.

The previous BN government allocated RM659,000 for KAFA teachers yearly bonuses in 2008, but Guan Eng increased it in 2009 to RM879,000 and by 2012 the figure was RM900,000.

There was also no budget under BN’s rule for the Quran Monthly or the Huffaz (someone who memorizes the Quran) programmes, but Guan Eng decided that his government will provide RM100,000 and RM130,000 annually to these causes.

When asked why he did this he replied: “To encourage Muslims especially the Malays to really understand the Quran with more depth. A Malay will become a good Malay when he truly understands the Quran and Islam’s teachings.”

These are just a tiny fraction of many incidences and precedences to prove that Lim Guan Eng is not anti-Malay or anti-Muslim, but before we go on to the other facts, we’d like to hear you feedback. And judging by my time here at Malaysian Digest, they’ll be plenty of them!

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 4 March 2015, 7:33 pm and is filed under
DAP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


PAS, ‘GU’ dan politik realistik

 – Huzaifah Ahmad Yamani

The Malaysian Insider

4 March 2015

Dalam kamus ada satu istilah disebut realisme. Makna mudahnya, fahaman yang berpijak di bumi nyata. Apabila seseorang cuba menyesuaikan diri dengan keadaan, kita memanggilnya realistik. Misalnya, apabila kita berjimat cermat dek kerana kenaikan harga minyak dan Cukai Barangan dan Perkhidmatan (GST), ertinya kita seorang yang realistik. Dunia realisme perlu difahami, termasuklah dalam dunia politik.

Apa yang menjadi perdebatan dalaman PAS, antara golongan GU – Erdogan atau sebut sajalah apa pun namanya, bagi saya bertitik tolak dari ‘realisme politik’ inilah. Satu pihak masih mahu mempertahankan ‘status quo’, dan satu pihak lagi mahu berubah dan menjadi ‘realistik’ dengan keperluan zaman.

Nah, ada beberapa persoalan ingin saya ajukan. Satu, salahkah PAS berubah dan menjadi realistik? Dua, apa ‘status quo’ PAS yang sebenarnya? Tiga, antara kumpulan GU – Erdogan ini, mana lebih diperlukan dalam dunia politik Malaysia?

Satu, saya yakin 100% berubah itu tidak salah. Malah, kita disogokkan dengan ajaran Islam Allah dan Rasul-Nya juga meraikan perubahan. Kekal dalam ‘status quo’ atau kejumudan yang merugikan diri, adalah sangat ditegah. Malah, orang yang berusaha berubah, mereka bakal mewarnai kejayaan. Pepatah Melayu pun memberi petua dan ibarat, misalnya ‘jika ruyung tidak dipecahkan, bagaimana sagu bisa dimakan?’ Ertinya, perubahan perlu dijana, diusahakan baru boleh dikecapi.

Al-Quran sendiri dalam beberapa ayat menyuruh manusia berubah, antaranya dalam surah al-Ra’d ayat 11: Allah tidak akan mengubah nasib sesuatu kaum, sehingga mereka sendiri berusaha mengubahnya. Qada atau ketentuan dan pelaksanaannya itu milik Allah. Dalam bicara ilmu tauhid, qada boleh berubah dengan kehendak Allah. Maka, manusia wajib berubah, dari negatif kepada positif, dan di sana menjadi asbab Allah mengubah nasibnya.

Saiyidina Umar al-Khattab sendiri ada menyatakan, didiklah anak-anak kamu mengikut zaman mereka, kerana mereka dilahirkan bukan di zaman kamu. Ertinya, perubahan diri bagi menghadapi arus zaman yang terus berubah itu hakikatnya satu keperluan. Maka, bagi saya PAS wajar berubah. Ini zaman ‘realistik’, bukan ‘retorik’ atau zaman di mana, PAS menang sorak di medan ceramah, tapi kalah di medan pilihan raya termengah-mengah.

Dua, apakah ‘status quo’ PAS yang sebenarnya? Bagi saya, ‘status quo’ PAS ialah, sebuah parti Islam yang dasarnya Al-Quran, as-Sunnah, ijmak dan qiyas. Empat elemen itulah dasar PAS dan itu jugalah ‘status quo’ PAS. Kempimpinan dalam PAS bukanlah ‘status quo’. Dulu, yang memimpin PAS bukanlah ulama, namun dasarnya sama. Jika ulama sekali pun memimpin PAS, namun melanggar 4 dasar dan ‘status quo’ PAS, maka dia akan terkeluar dari PAS.

Maka, dalam perkelahian – GU vs Erdogan – apakah geng Erdogan ini menolak dan mengganggu gugat ‘status quo’ PAS? Saya melihat tidak ada gangguan langsung. Sebaliknya geng Erdogan ini dilihat sangat konsisten dengan apa yang ada, dan mereka hanya berbicara isu dan soal pendekatan, bukan dasar. Mereka meyakini, PAS di dalam PR lebih baik berbanding PAS di luar PR. Tidak ada satu kenyataan pun mereka untuk mengetepikan dan mengecilkan ‘status quo’ PAS.

Jika pihak GU menganggap mencabar status presiden PAS sebagai menggugat ‘status quo’, maka jelas pihak GU sudah melakukan kesalahan. PAS mengamalkan demokrasi dalam pemilihan pemimpin. Jika presiden tidak bisa dicabar, maka ia bukan lagi demokrasi. PAS meniru Umno, yang enggan mempertandingkan dua jawatan tertinggi partinya sendiri.

GU sewajarnya patut menjadi lebih arif mendepani zaman, kerana mereka sarjana Islam. Bukankah dalam ilmu fiqah, ijtihad juga boleh berubah dengan perubahan zaman, seperti mana Imam as-Syafie juga ada qaul jaded dan qaul qadimnya. Tahaluf siyasi PAS bersama PR ini adalah satu ijtihad juga, dan apa ‘tahaluf siyasi’ bersama PR ini merugikan PAS?

Jika rugi, maka saya minta pihak GU senaraikan, apakah kerugian di pihak PAS setelah bersama PR? Tidak usah banyak, 10 kerugian pun sudah memadai. Namun saya yakin, geng Erdogan boleh menyenaraikan lebih 10 keuntungan apabila PAS bersama PR.

Hudud, adakah ia juga ‘status quo’ PAS? Ya, saya akui matlamat PAS adalah menegakkan negara Islam dan pastilah di dalamnya tertegaknya undang-undang Islam – termasuklah hudud. Jika benar PAS mahu menegakkan negara Islam, maka saya yakin tahaluf siyasi bersama PR ini memang sukar merealisasikan hasrat PAS ini. Ya, mungkin atas dasar itulah, sebahagian ulama dalam GU mengesyorkan agar PAS berjuang secara solo, kerana mustahil DAP dan PKR menyokong hasrat PAS menegakkan negara Islam dan undang-undang Islam.

Sekali lagi, realistik dalam berpolitik adalah perlu. GU tidak boleh berangan-angan, kerana kita terikat dengan usaha, ada sebab dan akibat. Memanglah, jika Allah menghendaki, hari ini pun Malaysia boleh menjadi negara Islam. Allah boleh membalikkan hati perdana menteri Malaysia dan seluruh ahli Parlimen, lalu PM membuat usul pindaan perlembagaan dan mengisytiharkan Islam sebagai perlembagaan negara hingga akhirnya, Malaysia pun menjadi seperti Brunei Darussalam.

Namun, sunnatullah menunjukkan kena ada usaha, ada sebab dan baru ada akibat. Nabi Muhammad kena berusaha, bekerja keras, berdakwah siang malam, berjihad hingga berpindah ke Madinah sebelum negara Islam terbentuk. Maknanya, PAS juga kena berusaha, tiada jalan pintas dan mengharapkan keajaiban. Ini realitinya.

Maka, bagi saya kesempatan dalam PR dengan tahaluf siyasi inilah peluang keemasan bagi PAS untuk mendidik seluruh rakyat mengenai negara Islam – termasuk hudud. Peluang ini terbuka selebar dan seluas-luasnya di Kelantan, Pulau Pinang dan Selangor (dulu termasuk di Terengganu, Kedah dan Perak).

Soalannya, sejauh manakah peluang ini sudah dieksploitasi secara bersungguh-sungguh oleh GU? Sudahkah seluruh masjid dan surau, semua kawasan perumahan, sama ada kompleks PPRT dan kawasan perumahan mewah dan elit diterjah? Bagaimana dengan pasar malam, pasar tani, tapak pesta dan sebagainya, sudahkah diserbu untuk tujuan dakwah? Sudah kompleks beli belah dijadikan medan mendidik ummah?

Cuba pihak GU ingat balik zaman Barisan Nasional (BN) menguasai Selangor dan Pulau Pinang, betapa susahnya untuk GU sendiri menyampaikan dakwah. Masjid dan surau menjadi medan BN berkempen dan meneruskan legasi politik. AJK masjid dan surau hak mutlak ahli Umno yang kerjanya hanya membantutkan pemikiran umat Islam. Ustaz dan pendakwah ditapis dengan ketat. Kuliah agama, tazkirah Ramadan dihalang sekehendak hati. Tauliah mengajar pun ada GU susah dapati.

Lebih malang dan sedih, ada ustaz yang ditangkap, digari malah dilokap. Kemuncaknya, ada masjid yang terus dirampas, surau dikunci rapat tidak kedengaran azan dan solat jemaah pun tidak diberikan kebenaran untuk didirikan. Semuanya menjadi kenangan paling pahit dan getir bagi mereka yang pernah melaluinya. Adakah ini sudah luput daripada pemikiran dan benak hati GU?

Maka, janganlah ghairah dengan satu perkara sehingga mengetepikan apa yang sudah ada. Ibarat kata pepatah Melayu, yang dikejar tidak dapat, yang dikendong pula berciciran. Ambil kesempatan yang sudah ada, lalu manfaatkan sepenuh tenaga, sebarkan dakwah semahunya. Itulah peranan yang patut sama-sama kita lakukan, sama ada GU, Erdogan atau siapa pun kita, bukan menyerang dan saling berperang. Menang jadi arang, kalah jadi abu – dua-dua tidak berguna.

Sayangnya, dakwah di Selangor dan Pulau Pinang sendiri sudah tidak seghairah dulu. Cuba pergi ke Taman Tasik Shah Alam atau di Taman Tasik di Bangi, Selangor, atau di tepian pantai di depan Pulau Jerejak dan di sekitar Batu Feringhi, Pulau Pinang, bersepah golongan muda-mudi berdua-duaan. Malah di Kelantan, majalah Mastika sendiri melaporkan kalangan muda-mudi di sana ramai yang terjebak dengan maksiat. Soalannya, sejauh mana PAS sebagai ‘parti dakwah’ melakukan gerak kerja dakwah di negeri-negeri yang dikuasai secara bersama ini?

Tiga, antara GU dan Erdogan, yang manakah lebih dominan? Saya yakin dalam kondisi rakyat yang sudah meluat dengan Umno dan BN, maka rakyat mahukan perubahan. Jika GU mendesak PAS keluar PR, menjadi sebuah parti solo di persada tanah air, saya lihat PAS akan kerugian yang amat sangat. Sangat rugi sebenarnya.

Hari ini, PAS ada suara di DUN, PAS ada exco di Selangor, PAS boleh melakukan apa yang selama ini hanya dalam dengungan ceramahnya saja. Saya teringat, allahyarham Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat pernah berkata, sewaktu beliau belum menjadi menteri besark maka semua ucapannya tidak mampu direalisasikan; namun apabila beliau menjadi MB, ia menjadi kenyataan. Tidak dapat buat semua, jangan pula tinggal semua. Tidak dapat buat hudud, tapi dapat tutup kepala wanita di papan iklan pun satu kejayaan.

PAS sudah berpeluang walaupun skalanya sangat kecil untuk merealisasikan sebahagian tuntutan Islam. Tirulah kesabaran Erdogan dan parti AKP di Turki dalam mengubah kanvas sosiobudaya politik negaranya yang ratusan tahun terjajah dengan idealisme sekular, sedikit demi sedikit tetapi penuh konsisten dan berperancangan, sehingga hari ini mahasiswi universitinya sudah mampu berhijab kala duduk di kerusi dewan kuliah. Dahulu, pelajar perempuannya ditegah berjilbab sama sekali. Malah, wanita berhijab dianggap ketinggalan zaman. Jangan pula kita tiru kegelojohan sebahagian pendokong Morsi yang akibatnya Mesir kembali ke era tirani.

PAS sudah matang, jangan kembali menjadi seperti budak-budak hingusan. – 4 Mac, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 4 March 2015, 11:03 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
Kelantan
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The release of Nik Raina

Azrul Mohd Khalib

The Malay Mail Online

MARCH 4, 2015

MARCH 4 — To say that it had been an emotional morning would be an understatement. The judge had just delivered his ruling and Nik Raina’s head had turned sharply to the back to glance at her boss. Everyone in that courtroom pretty much expected an application by the prosecutor for another lengthy six-month sojourn of the Nik Raina-Borders case to be granted, depriving her yet again of reprieve and justice.

Discharge of the charges was certainly not what anyone expected to hear that day in the Shariah courtroom.

Just a moment before, everyone had heard the response from the prosecutor to lawyer Rosli Dahlan’s impassioned plea on behalf of Nik Raina for compassion, kindness and understanding from the court. To correct an injustice which had been inflicted and sustained for three years.

It was her problem, the prosecutor responded, if she felt that she had suffered humiliation, embarrassment and anguish as a result of this case.

He continued by saying that her decision to take the case to the civil court amounted to disrespect of the Shariah court system and that her actions resulted in the prolonging of the case. Basically that it was Nik Raina’s own fault that it had come to three years since that fateful day in 2012.

JAWI was determined to continue the case to the highest court in the land. If the words and actions of the Shariah prosecutor were anything to go by, in the case of Nik Raina, they just wanted to win the case or to at least say that they had exhausted absolutely all avenues in their crusade to do so.

It is rare, for me at least, to hear words of compassion, understanding and most importantly, empathy in these settings. But I heard them that morning.

I heard the judge, Mohd Amran Mat Zain, emphasise on the need to adhere to the spirit of fairness and justice in which the civil court and the Shariah court are grounded, as well as respecting the Federal Constitution.

The Honourable Judge emphasised that he had considered the fact that the very accusation and the charge itself have been deemed suspect and doubted. He considered that JAWI’s actions had been chastised and were found by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal to be not only illegal but unconstitutional and done in bad faith. He recognised and empathised with Nik Raina’s suffering as a result of this case and spoke of how he considered that the circumstances of injustice could cause kemudaratan.

Amidst the gasps of surprise and disbelief, sharp intakes of breath and the loud slapping of a forehead (a member of the prosecution team), the judge ordered the charge be dropped.

Just an hour earlier, all of those present had been wondering whether the day’s outcome would be any different than others before. There had been too many disappointments. This outcome caught everyone totally off guard.

An emotional Rosli then requested permission from the court to permit his client to step out from the dock, as she was no longer under the shadow of a criminal charge, and be allowed to address the court. In a halting voice filled with much joy and fighting back tears, Nik Raina thanked the judge for his ruling.

There were very few dry eyes after that. Everyone shed tears, even the normally unflappable Rosli.

In a statement made to the press outside the courtroom, Nik Raina stated that she fought for the right of all Muslims in Malaysia to work without fear of harassment or persecution. “I stand here today not only for myself, but for all my colleagues, especially the Muslims who could face the same action by the religious authorities for merely doing our jobs.”

Because of this case, Nik Raina has become an inspirational role model for so many young women and men. I wish her the very best and I am happy for her that she is able to continue on with her life with this whole episode behind her.

I do hope that the Attorney General’s Chambers will take heed of the learned judge’s judgement and emphasis on needing to uphold the Islamic principles of fairness and justice. There is no longer a need to defend JAWI’s unlawful actions. Let it end here.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 4 March 2015, 8:03 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


‘Ustaz Haraki’, terimalah cabaran debat

A Shukur Harun

The Malaysian Insider

3 March 2015

Belum pernah seingat saya, terjadi krisis setajam ini di dalam PAS sepanjang 63 tahun penubuhannya, sehingga telah muncul pelbagai tuduhan seperti sesat, barua, songsang, liberal dan pelbagai kata-kata kesat yang sangat tidak elok disebutkan.

Ini menggambarkan bahawa tahap krisis di dalam PAS ini sudah sampai ke peringkat parah di mana Umno/BN – musuh politik PAS selama ini – mendapat “keuntungan politik” daripada krisis dalaman PAS ini.

Krisis ini telah bertambah marak dalam program Multaqa Ulama baru-baru ini, iaitu apabila tercetus serangan bertubi-tubi dari yang menggelar dirinya “Ustaz Haraki” terhadap golongan yang bukan ustaz, khususnya golongan profesional.

Mereka melancarkan pelbagai tuduhan, persepsi yang salah, melemparkan kata-kata kesat yang tidak disebut mereka yang bergelar ustaz, tetapi telah keluar dengan bebasnya dari mulut “Ustaz Haraki”.

Mereka menuduh kononnya beberapa pimpinan PAS di peringkat pusat bersekongkol menjatuhkan presiden PAS.

Ada pula yang berdemonstrasi di depan pejabat agung mempertahankan presiden. Hampir setiap hari isu ini dipaparkan di pelbagai media di mana “Ustaz Haraki” silih berganti membuat kenyataan, walaupun kenyataan mereka itu sangat merosakkan imej PAS sendiri.

Apakah sebenarnya yang telah terjadi di dalam PAS? Ramai yang bertanya.

Krisis ini sukar reda, malah terus membara. Kita masih ingat apa yang berlaku dalam Muktamar Pemuda dan muktamar penuh PAS yang lalu di Johor, iaitu pemuda berjeket hitam bertulis “Kami menyokong Presiden” keluar beramai-ramai ketika timbalan presiden, Mohamad Sabu berucap di Muktamar Pemuda.

Bukan itu sahaja, bahkan ada doa panjang mencaci pemimpin tertentu PAS yang dibencinya, di samping sorakan “boo” kepada pemimpin yang tidak disukainya.

Tiada jaminan kekecohan seperti ini tidak akan berlaku lagi dalam muktamar PAS Jun ini.

Semua ini sangat memalukan, sesuatu yang tidak pernah berlaku di zaman kepimpinan Yusuf Rawa dan Ustaz Fadhil Mohd Noor.

Ada pula yang menuduh kononnya usaha menjatuhkan presiden PAS bermula sejak 1998 lagi, pada hal waktu itu Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang belum lagi menjadi presiden. Ustaz Fadhil menjadi presiden dan sepanjang yang diketahui, tidak ada usaha menjatuhkan presiden PAS.

Betapa pun fakta yang salah, namun serangan demi serangan dengan pelbagai label dan kata-kata kesat oleh kumpulan “Ulama Haraki” ini masih berterusan dan tidak ada tanda akan berhenti, seolah-oleh mereka ada lesen besar berbuat demikian.

Sehubungan itu, seorang tokoh AJK PAS Pusat, Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad, salah seorang yang dituduh dengan pelbagai tuduhan oleh “Ulama Haraki”, telah menawar diri berdebat dengan mereka dalam isu-isu yang berbangkit di dalam PAS, sekaligus menjawab pelbagai tuduhan “Ustaz Haraki” ini.

Dalam Facebooknya, yang khabarnya sudah dimajukan kepada beberapa “Ulama Haraki” itu sendiri, antara lain Dzulkefly menyebut:

“Ada ustaz-ustaz Haraki yang menyerang kami dan hendak menjatuhakn kami. Telah kami katakan, “Cukuplah”, tetapi semakin menjadi-jadi. Kerja ini hanya memberi peluru kepada musuh politik PAS.

“Kami bukan jahil sangat mengenai Islam dan disiplin ilmunya. Ini kerana PAS sejak zaman berzaman, khusunya era Almarhum Ustaz Fadhil Mohd Noor, telah ‘menguztazkan’ kami. Malah ada di antara kami yang telah mendapat tarbiyah haraki sejak zaman student lagi.

“Saya telah mendapat izin presiden PAS sendiri dan mesyuarat AJK PAS Pusat untuk mengadakan wacana-bahas-debat. Pilih saja setting yang lebih selesa untuk kami menjawab semua tuduhan – sesat, liberal, pengamal pluralisme dan pelbagai lagi.”

Demikian kenyataan Dzulkefly dalam Facebook. Maka sangat wajar disambut oleh mereka yang menggelar diri “Ustaz Haraki” yang sering saja melemparkan pelbagai tuduhan, malah fitnah terhadap mereka yang tidak sehaluan dengan mereka, khususnya Dzulkefly dan kawan-kawannya.

Wajar diketahui, tokoh seperti Dzulkefly, Hanipa Maidin, Khalid Samad, Dr Hatta Ramli dan teman-temannya yang lain dari kalangan professional dalam AJK PAS Pusat, adalah luas pembacaan mereka, termasuk buku-buku dari ulama Ikhwanul Muslimin. Mereka berusrah sejak remaja – dalam dan luar negeri – berinteraksi dengan para tokoh Islam di peringkat nasional, serantau dan antarabangsa. Ada yang menguasai bahasa Arab selain Inggeris.

Hanipa sendiri adalah peguam lulusan UIA yang dalam ilmu agamanya, mampu membahaskan isu undang-undang, khususnya udang-undang Islam. Demikian juga Khalid yang berusrah sejak belajar di London.

Juga tokoh seperti Dr Hatta dan lain-lain. Mereka menguasai ilmu agama dengan baik sekali, malah boleh menyampaikan tazkirah.

Demikian juga Mohamad Sabu yang mempunyai pengalaman luas dan pengorbanan begitu besar kepada PAS. Beliu juga melalui tarbiyah sejak remaja lagi.

Sebagai AJK PAS Pusat, mereka ini telah berkorban dan telah melaksanakan kerja-kerja jamaah dengan baik sekali seperti diamanahkan.

Seingat saya, sepanjang saya mengikuti usrah, tamrin dan mukhayyam dengan Ustaz Fadhil, Ustaz Yahya Othman, Ustaz Hasan Shukri, Ustaz Abd Ghani Shamsudin, di mana mereka melarang anak usrahnya mewujudkan gelaran atau tuduhan seperti sesat, Islam sekular dan sebagainya.

Ini kerana, kata mereka, pendakwah tugasnya hanya mendakwah, bukan menghukum dan menuduh seseorang kerana perbuatan ini merosakkan ukhuwah berjamaah. Ini diingatkan berulang kali oleh para tokoh murabbi tersebut. Malangnya, kini kata-kata kesat, tuduhan, melabel seseorang, malah menghukum, didapati begitu berleluasa sekali di tengah krisis yang melanda PAS sekarang ini.

Oleh itu, cabaran debat oleh Dzulkefly sangat wajar disambut oleh mereka yang menggelar diri “Ustaz Haraki” bagi menilai hujah kedua-kedua pihak.

Jangan ada pula pihak yang mengatakan debat atau wacana seperti ini tidak ada dalam Islam maka tidak perlu dilayan. Jika ini hujahnya, maka ini hanya alasan untuk tidak bersedia berdebat.

Padahal yang nyata-nyata dilarang keras oleh Islam ialah menuduh, label-melabel, berkata dusta, malah memfitnah seseorang.

Malangnya, perbuatan inilah yang telah dilakukan oleh apa yang dipanggil “Ustaz Haraki”. Masyarakat umum, khususnya umat Islam, sedang menunggu perkembangan ini. Untuk itu saya teringat kata-kata klasik Inggeris: “Respect is what you earned and deserved, not what you demand”. – 3 Mac, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 4 March 2015, 6:00 am and is filed under
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why is the Police fighting a losing war with Islamic State – has IS developed a local leadership structure in Malaysia with dedicated recruiters scouting for new recruits for the terrorist movement in Syria and Iraq?

Yesterday, the Police announced that “A civil servant said to be one of the most senior Islamic State (IS) members in Malaysia and a 29-year-old housewife who recruited a 14-year-old girl into the militant movement are among three people detained by Bukit Aman”.

The 39-year-old civil servant was arrested by the Bukit Aman Special Branch Counter-Terrorism Division in Kuala Lumpur on Monday while the housewife was picked up in Muar on Saturday.

The third suspect – a 22-year-old trader – was also arrested in Perak on Monday.

The civil servant, described by the police as “a senior IS member with direct links to Malaysians in Syria”,  is believed to have used his position to recruit members to ensure the local militant network ran smoothly.

This is most shocking news.  How “senior” is the civil servant who was arrested, and who are the more “senior” IS leaders in Malaysia?

Malaysia are entitled to ask: Why is the Police fighting a losing war with Islamic State – has IS developed a local leadership structure in Malaysia with dedicated recruiters scouting for new recruits for the terrorist movement in Syria and Iraq?

It would appear that while the Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar was busy fighting imaginary enemies, combing the social media and tweetering instructions to police officers in his new Sedition Unit to harass and investigate Pakatan Rakyat leaders and NGO activists, he was allowing the real enemies, the IS leaders and activists in Malaysia a field day to recruit potential terrorists for the IS atrocities in Syria and Iraq.

Do the Police know how many Malaysians have slipped through the police surveillance net to leave Malaysia to join IS in Syria and Iraq?

In July last year, the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Dr. Ahmad Zahid Hamidi gave an assurance to Malaysians that the IS threat was under control.

He said the “militant groups” were trying to band together as a single “terror coalition” but they will not succeed in Malaysia as the authorities will not allow these groups to gain a foothold in Malaysia.

In August last year, the Police said that between January and June of the year, they arrested 19 people including two women for involvement in militant activities and  that at least 50 Malaysians were  believed to be in Syria, fighting alongside the IS terrorists.

However, by end of January this year, support for IS terrorists have further increased, with a total of 120 people who supported IS detained in prisons in Tapah and Bentong who have to be detained in special cells to stop them from spreading their ideology and train the others to become terrorists. The authorities believed that 67 Malaysians have joined the IS cause in Syria and Iraq.

Two weeks ago, Zahid intimated that the IS was so organised in Malaysia it could plot the kidnap of wealthy tycoons and to stage bank robberies to raise funds and now, the latest  revelation that the IS has advanced to new stage of structure and organisation in Malaysia with the arrest of a  civil servant who is a “senior IS member”.

These are all the marks of a failed  police operation to check IS from spreading its terrorist  tentacles in Malaysia.

What is  most galling to Malaysians is that  such dismal police  failures in national security is taking place when the IGP is on a frolic playing with his tweets to harass PR leaders and NGO activists in exercise of their peaceful, lawful and democratic rights to freedom of assembly and expression –  giving a field day to potential terrorists who would have no qualms participating in atrocities like beheadings, crucifixions and public stonings.

The IGP must be more professional and stop his frolics with tweets and harassment of PR leaders, NGO activists and even cartoonists like Zunar  and focus on the security threat posed by the IS in Malaysia.

It is deplorable that Zahid has taken the attitude that MPs should not only accept but support the  proposed Prevention of Terrorism Act (Pota), “unless they want to see terrorist acts happening here”.

Zahid has no right to demand a blank cheque in the fight against IS and he  should not doubt the patriotism of any MP or Malaysian who may disagree with the proposed Pota as the most effective way to fight the threat of IS terrorism.

It is premature  to discuss Pota as MPs and the Malaysian public have not been given copies of the proposed Pota.

Why are MPs still denied copies of the proposed Pota when Parliament is meeting on Monday?

What Parliament should do when it reconvenes on Monday is to set up a Parliamentary Select Committee on Terrorism, which should not only oversee police efforts to fight terrorism, but should also discuss in depth the proposed Pota and present its report and recommendations before the Pota Bill is debated in Parliament.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 4 March 2015, 5:12 pm and is filed under
Islamic state
,
Parliament
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Will the Cabinet continue the traditional three monkeys role of “eyes that see not, ears that hear not and mouths that speak not” or will they take the bull by the horn to address the three issues which dominate public opinion in past week?

Just before midnight, a Cabinet Minister tweeted that he had just left his constituency which is about three hours’ drive from Kuala Lumpur: “Need to read cabinet papers after I reach home. Tmr morning cabinet meeting as usual.”

My first thought was  whether the Cabinet papers would include the thousands of 1MDB transactions and email which 1MDB had tried to “wipe” clean from their computers and servers at the end of last year.

Will the Cabinet papers for all Ministers for the Cabinet meeting later this morning cover at least  the  three issues  which had dominated public opinion in Malaysia  in the past week, or will it be another  Cabinet meeting to avoid and skirt important national issues like the infamous past Cabinet meetings?

First Issue.
 Leading the three important issues which should dominate a meaningful Cabinet meeting today is undoubtedly the RM42 billion 1MDB scandal, which has been blown wide open by the joint London Sunday Times/Sarawak Report investigations and access to thousands of transactions and email  of 1MDB despite abrupt attempts by 1MDB at the end of last year to call in all of its computers, employee laptops and servers to wipe them clean of all emails.

Will the Cabinet end its traditional three monkey stance of “eyes that see not, ears that hear not and mouths that speak not” on the 1MDB scandal for the past six years, take the bull by the  horn and decide either to set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry headed by former Law Minister Datuk Mohd Zaid Ibrahim or other independent credible Malaysians or give support for a full-scale Public Accounts Committee (PAC) public inquiry into the 1MDB scandal?

Cabinet Ministers whether from UMNO, MCA, Gerakan, MIC or the Sabah and Sarawak component parties of Barisan Nasional, must realise that they are  collectively responsible for the RM42 billion 1MDB scandal and that they cannot just pass  the buck, responsibility and guilt to the Prime Minister alone  as 1MDB is  “Najib’s baby”.

The MCA Deputy Secretary-General Datuk Wee Jeck Seng (Tanjung Piai) and the Gerakan Secretary-General, Datuk Liang Teck Meng (Simpang Renggam) are on the Public Accounts Committee but they have not exerted themselves to demand PAC audit and accountability  of 1MDB – raising the question whether their role in PAC is to insist on  parliamentary scrutiny of all public accounts or the very  opposite!

The same can be asked  about the role of all the Ministers in the Najib Cabinet – whether it is to ensure full audit and accountability of the RM42 billion 1MDB scandal or to help Najib to stonewall and fob off  all demands for public audit and accountability of the 1MDB scandal.

Second Issue.
 The outsized wealth of the Najib family, as revealed by the New York Times report of February 9, 2015 and the statement by the Prime Minister’s Office: “Neither any money spent on travel, nor any jewellery purchases, nor the alleged contents of any safes are unusual for a person of the prime minister’s position, responsibilities and legacy family assets.”

Will any Minister in the Cabinet meeting today dare to ask the Prime Minister to come clean with the Cabinet about his family’s wealth as well as what the PMO statement meant when it referred to “…the alleged contents of any safes…” –  how many such “safes”, in which country and what were in these “safes”.

The former New Straits Times group editor-in-chief, Kadir Jasin, had questioned Najib’s media advisers and strategists whether they have lost the plot in bringing up the Prime Minister’s grandfather’s role in financing his education in the raging controversy over his family inheritance.

The Cabinet meeting today will also show whether it’s not just the Prime Minister’s media advisers but  all the Cabinet Ministers who have lost their plot in managing the nation’s affairs and future directions, and that the only way to save the country from such incompetent mess is for a change of government in Putrajaya.

Third Issue.
 New national and international crisis of confidence on whether there is truly  independent judiciary and just rule of law, brought about by a conjuncture of four  events:

(i)	the Federal Court’s 5-0 unanimous decision to dismiss Anwar Ibrahim’s appeal and  five-year jail sentence in Sodomy II trial;

(ii)	the Federal Court’s decision to convict and sentence to death  former police commando Azila Hadri and Sirul Azhar Umar for the 2006 murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu, while leaving completely open the question of motive for the murder and who had ordered Azila and Sirul to murder Altantuya;

(iii)	 the expose by retired Court of Appeal judge Justice K.C. Vohrah that former Chief Justice Eusoff Chin had caused a miscarriage of  justice in the infamous Ayer Molek Rubber Company vs Insas Bhd case two decades ago – the case where Court of Appeal judge Justice N.H. Chan made the celebrated quote from Shakespear’s “Hamlet” in saying that “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark”;

(iv)	 the black-listing, discrimination and continued by-passing of Court of Appeal judge Justice Mohamad Hishamudin Mohd Yunus from elevation to the Federal Court, although he is the most respected serving judge on the bench, and whether this is a case of former Chief Justice Eusoffee Chin exacting his final vengeance as Justice Hishammuddin had subsequently and courageously struck out Eusoff Chin’s judgment in the Ayer Molek case.

Can Malaysians expect the Prime Minister or some Minister to inform them later in the day of what the Cabinet has decided on these three dominant issues of the day –or whether the Cabinet had cowardly and irresponsibly  steered completely clear of  all these three issues in their Cabinet meeting?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 4 March 2015, 8:37 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Financial Scandals
,
Judiciary
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Country should make reparations and restore justice and honour to former High Court judge Datuk Syed Ahmad Idid, the country’s first judicial whistleblower who was victimized and punished instead of being rewarded for his act of supreme loyalty to his oath of office as a judge

The country should make reparations and restore justice and honour to former High Court judge Datuk Syed Ahmad Idid Syed Abdullah Idid, the country’s first judicial whistleblower who was victimized and punished instead of being rewarded for his act of supreme loyalty to his oath of office as a judge.

If Syed Ahmad Idid’s whistleblowing in March 1996 had been heeded, resulting in thorough investigations and root-and-branch reform of the judiciary 19 years ago, Malaysian judges, lawyers and citizens would have been able to stand tall in the world today because  we would have a  judiciary nationally and internationally respected for its independence, integrity and quality!

Now, Malaysian judiciary in 2015 is back in the dock of public opinion, both inside the country and internationally, over the independence, integrity and professionalism of its judiciary and its commitment to a just rule of law because of four cases this year, viz:

i.	the Federal Court’s 5-0 unanimous decision to dismiss Anwar Ibrahim’s appeal and  five-year jail sentence in Sodomy II trial;

ii.	the Federal Court’s decision to convict and sentence to death  former police commando Azila Hadri and Sirul Azhar Umar for the 2006 murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu, while leaving completely open the question of motive for the murder and who had ordered Azila and Sirul to murder Altantuya;

iii.	 the expose by retired Court of Appeal judge Justice K.C. Vohrah that former Chief Justice Eusoff Chin had caused a miscarriage of  justice in the infamous Ayer Molek Rubber Company vs Insas Bhd case two decades ago – the case where Court of Appeal judge Justice N.H. Chan made the celebrated quote from Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” in saying that “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark”;

iv.	 the black-listing, discrimination and continued by-passing of Court of Appeal judge Justice Mohamad Hishamudin Mohd Yunus from elevation to the Federal Court, although he is the most respected serving judge on the bench, and whether this is a case of former Chief Justice Eusoffee Chin exacting his final vengeance as Justice Hishammuddin had subsequently and courageously struck out Eusoff Chin’s judgment in the Ayer Molek case.

Now another case of gross miscarriage of justice have leapt from the past of nearly decades ago, crying out for justice and reparation.

I still remember the notorious
“Ides of March”
 speech in 1996, when the then Attorney-General Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah shocked Malaysians with the revelation of a 33-page poison-pen letter which made 112 allegations of corruption, abuses of power and misconduct against 12 judges at the Conference of Judges in Kuching in March 1996.

Publicly issuing a directive to the police to launch investigations to “ferret out” and “bring to justice” the “conspirators” and “brutish beasts”, Mohtar Abdullah said:

“The investigation is aimed at striking at the venomous elements that are out to discredit the judiciary and subvert justice in our beloved country.

“As Attorney-General and Public Prosecutor, it is my duty and responsibility to ensure that the judiciary and the legal profession be cleansed of these treacherous elements who, by their vile, insidious, devious and scurrilous allegations in this pamphlet had sought to undermine the integrity of the judiciary and the administration of justice in this country.

“Today is the Ides of March. But unlike that fateful day in ancient Rome, when brutish beasts succeeded in killing Caesar, today we launch this pre-emptive strike at these conspirators and Insya Allah, we will ferret them out, whoever they are, and bring them to justice.”

Four months later, Abdullah announced the close of the case when he revealed that a high court judge was the one behind the 33-page poison-pen letter against the judiciary and that the judge concerned had resigned.

The judge was then High Court Judge Datuk Syed Ahmad Idid Syed Abdullah Idid, who became a victim to a Malaysian system of justice which was completely divorced from the most rudimentary concept of justice.

Syed Ahmad Idid came  out of the woodworks more than a decade later, to reveal in an interview in 2007  that his allegations were never really investigated. This was confirmed by former Attorney-General Tan Sri Abu Talib who lamented that “on the other hand, the poor judge wrote it was investigated”.

I had raised Syed Ahmad Idid’s case in Parliament in 1996 and again more than a decade later in March 2007  calling for a re-opening of investigations into his serious allegations in view of their grave and adverse implications about judicial independence and integrity as well as to restore justice to the judge – but to no avail.

With Justice K.V. Vohrah commendable example of speaking up on the judicial misdeeds of the past, the dykes have burst and Malaysians must be prepared to confront the judicial demons of the past and face up to the  miscarriages of justices committed by judges themselves and which have so far lay hidden in the dark interstices of the past.

One such glaring injustice in the judiciary is the case of Syed Ahmad Idid, and the tragedy is well told in
Malaysiakini
 reporter Hafiz Yatim’s article
“Ex-top judge’s disclosure vindicates whistleblower
” today.

Hafiz wrote:

“Syed Ahmad Idid Syed Abdullah Idid was the High Court judge who was forced to resign for writing an anonymous letter exposing the matter in 1996, which was sent to a select set of high officials.

“Among its allegations, it revealed (then Chief Justice) Eusoff had gone on a New Zealand holiday with VK Lingam, a senior lawyer who appeared before the then chief justice in court on a number of cases.

“Pictures of the duo taken together with their families underscored their close ties.

“It resulted in Syed Ahmad Idid being told to resign when the letter he sent mysteriously found its way into some government departments and then spread to the media.

“Syed Ahmad Idid’s immediate reaction to Malaysiakini’s article on Vohrah was elation – that the former Court of Appeal judge had written on the matter and he was certain other judges could also tell of similar experiences.

“Among other transgressions, the Ayer Molek case that Vohrah referred to was filed in the Special and Appellate Powers Division whereas it should have been in the Commercial Division.

“Syed Ahmad Idid also recalled a similar incident as a Kuala Lumpur High Court judge with the Commercial Division from 1995 to 1996.

“According to him, a case involving a sum of a quarter of a billion ringgit was correctly filed in the Commercial Division before him. But before it could be called in open court, the file was wrested away by Eusoff.

“’That matter was given to another judge who now resides, and must be enjoying life, in Europe,’ he quipped.”

In May 2008, the then Prime Minister, Tun Abdullah Badawi made recompense for the 1988 “Mother of Judicial Crisis” perpetrated by the then Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad in his first of many assaults on the institution and independence of the judiciary, sacking the Lord President and two Supreme Court Judges and victimising three other Supreme Court judges by giving an ex-gratia payment for “the pain and loss” they suffered in the 1988 judicial crisis.

This is what I said in a media statement of 6th May 2008:

“The victims of the 1988 Mother of Judicial Crisis and the ensuing two decades of judicial darkness, with three of the four chief justices during the period, Tun Hamid Omar, Tun Eusoffe Chin and Tun Ahmad Fairuz compounding the travesties of justice by the judicial system, were not just the six wronged judges in 1988 but also included innocent, high-minded, idealistic and patriotic Malaysians who want the best for the country. In fact, whole generations of Malaysians were victims of the 20 years of judicial darkness!

“Will the Prime Minister extend goodwill ex gratia payments to the other victims of the two decades of judicial darkness like former Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng and former High Court judge Datuk Syed Ahmad Idid Syed Abdullah Idid (the first whistleblower from the judiciary with his 112 allegations of corruption, abuses of power and misconduct against 12 judges in 1996) as well as to the 106 Internal Security Act (ISA) detainees in the 1987 Operation Lalang?

“The goodwill ex gratia payment to the six wronged judges are welcome though belated but they are grossly inadequate in clearing the name and reputation of the six and in providing a full and proper closure to the 1988 Mother of Judicial Crisis and the ensuing two decades of judicial darkness under three Chief Justices.”

This was why I had suggested in 2008 for a “Judicial Truth and Reconciliation Commission” to “start a new chapter in Malaysian judiciary to turn our back on the 20 years of judicial darkness to find out the lessons to be learnt from the 1988 Mother of Judicial Crisis and the series of one judicial scandal and crisis after another which rocked Malaysia in the past 20 years, not out of vindictiveness or vengeance, but to prevent any such recurrence in the future”.

The Judicial Truth and Reconciliation Commission should focus also on why the various national stakeholders, the judiciary, Parliament, political parties, mass media, civil society failed the critical test to defend the cardinal Constitutional principles of the doctrine of separation of powers and an independent, impartial and competent judiciary for close to three  decades.

The Judicial Truth and Reconciliation Commission should pick a leaf from the recompense to the six wronged judges in Mahathir’s first  assault on the judiciary in 1988, and propose recompense to victims of judicial misdeeds and miscarriages of justice, like Syed Ahmad Idid and Justice Mohamad Hishamudin Mohd Yunus, as the latter had been blacklisted, discriminated and by-passed in elevation to the Federal Court because of his reputation as a judge with integrity.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 5 March 2015, 4:39 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.