Second coming of the woman politician

Scott Ng | October 18, 2014

Free Malaysia Today

Malaysia has a new class of women leaders, and it’s time to take notice

COMMENT

Aung San Suu Kyi. Angela Merkel. Hillary Clinton. Margaret Thatcher. Dilma Rousseff. Gro Harlem Brundtland. Indira Gandhi. The last generation saw the beginning of the rise of women to prominent roles in government, sometimes to the pinnacle of their countries’ political structures.

But Asia has had the largest number of female chief executives in the world. Take Chandrika Kumaranatunga of Sri Lanka, for example. Her mother was the world’s first female Prime Minister, and she herself ascended to the role in 1994. Or Park Geun-Hye, who won South Korea’s latest presidential elections. Or former Thai premier Yingluck Shinawatra.

Malaysia finds itself with approximately 10% women representation in Parliament, just a few notches above Myanmar’s miniscule 6%. This is below the global average, and is not representative of the fact that women compose half of the entire human race, let alone the Malaysian population.

However, on the opposition side of the floor, we’re starting to see equity between the sexes with almost 30% of Pakatan Rakyat’s members of Parliament being women. And what women they are.

In the past, the torch for Malaysia’s female politicians was carried by Rafidah Aziz, former Minister of International Trade and Industry. A common sentiment was that if Rafidah had been a man, she would have long ago been a candidate for the illustrious post of Prime Minister. To a lesser extent, Shahrizat Abdul Jalil,  was also a torch bearer for women politicians.

And then the political tsunami of 2008 happened and installed into power a new class of female politicians—young, driven by issues, passionate, intelligent, and most importantly, captivating. Nurul Izzah Anwar and Hannah Yeoh spearheaded this new movement, and they were joined a few years later by firecrackers like Dyana Sofya and Yeoh Bee Yin. These ladies have captured the imagination of the nation, speaking out strongly on the issues that matter not only to the youth, but the masses, powered by constant interactions with the communities they serve.

Hardly a day goes by without a Facebook update from one of these ladies showing them go about the work expected of a representative of the people, giving up their weekends to appear at worthy causes and filling up their weekdays to solve the problems faced by the people. Their male counterparts seem staid and held back by routine as their dynamic better halves go about their duties.

It’s obvious that these ladies are appreciated by their communities as well. Even on FMT, we’ve noticed the beginnings of support for a heretofore unlikely prime ministerial candidate—daughter of eternal prime minister-in-waiting Anwar Ibrahim, Lembah Pantai MP Nurul Izzah.

Spreading the word

So passionate is the response to Izzah that during GE13 her constituents even formed human barricades to impede what they thought were phantom ballots brought in to remove her from Lembah Pantai, and today they spread the word that they deem her to be worthy of leading this country.

Close behind her are her colleagues in Pakatan Rakyat, Hannah Yeoh and Yeo Bee Yin. Hannah has proven to be a popular figure in her constituency of Subang Jaya, where it is a common sight to witness her going about town to tend to the people’s complaints. Demure looking and yet feisty, her statements to the media have shown off an intelligence and belligerence that shows her as more than a match for the men.

Yeo only ascended to the position of DUN for Damansara Utama in 2013, where she won by a 21,800-odd landslide over her opponents. She then proceeded to force the nation to take notice with fiery oration at the Black 505 rallies after that election, speaking with a captivating intensity that held the attention of all in attendance.

Holder of a Masters in Philosophy in Advanced Chemical Engineering from Cambridge University, Yeo has only just begun her journey as a politician, but mark our words—she is definitely one to watch, with the brains and the spirit to take her far in the fallow corridors of the nation’s power structure.

Nurul Izzah, Hannah Yeoh, Yeo Bee Yin and newly minted star Dyana Sofya. These four women make up Malaysia’s newest hope for women. They represent the best there is to offer from the youth of Malaysia, all being under the age of 40, and yet so capable and driven on the important issues. And most importantly, they display the potential of Malaysian women in the field of politics. More so than their male counterparts, they are doing the heavy lifting of upholding the image of their parties among the grassroots and the rest of the public.

It’s not a totally impossible dream for Izzah to one day take the position of Prime Minister, perhaps even before her father has the opportunity to grasp the reins. What remains is the chauvinistic attitude manifested in remarks by politicians like Bung Mokhtar’s “bocor” comment, and recently expressed sentiments that seem to imply that women are not level headed enough to take command of the country, despite proof to the contrary shown by so many remarkable women worldwide.

Authenticity over perfection

Sheryl Sandberg, Chief Operating Officer of Facebook, has said, “Presenting leadership as a list of carefully defined qualities (like strategic, analytical, and performance-oriented) no longer holds. Instead, true leadership stems from individuality that is honestly and sometimes imperfectly expressed…. Leaders should strive for authenticity over perfection.”

And it is this leadership that is currently being shown by the new guard of Malaysia’s women politicians. These are the leaders that are slowly but surely getting a firmer hold on the wheel that steers this country, and we are watching in breathless anticipation for the day one of them ascends to the title of Prime Minister of Malaysia, and that day cannot be too far off now.

It is up to these women to demonstrate through their actions that the dreams that our daughters may hold one day are not impossible. As they continue forging the path forward, we too can begin to hope that there is more than just “the one who would have been, if she was a man.”

So keep moving forward, ladies. You are the second coming of Malaysian female politicians, and that in itself is a heavy burden to bear. But you have shown that in every way, you are capable of shouldering it, and as you continue pushing that rock up the side of the cliff, you will draw the people to your purpose to push with you. But only if you never lose your flame, and you continue being the leaders we need in our turbulent times will you remain Malaysia’s hope for women.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 18 October 2014, 7:41 pm and is filed under
Politics
,
women
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Was lack of “tongkat ali” the reason why the Cabinet abdicated from its collective responsibility from taking a stand on Nancy’s parliamentary answer on why Ibrahim Ali was not prosecuted for his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible?

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak was in Milan yesterday for the Asia-Europe (Asem) Summit, but this cannot be the excuse why the Cabinet had abdicated from its collective responsibility from  taking a stand on the  Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Nancy Shukri’s parliamentary answer on why Perkasa President Datuk Ibrahim Ali was not prosecuted for his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible.

Had Nancy correctly reflected the common stand of all Cabinet Ministers on the issue binding every Minister in accordance with the principle of collective responsibility, or had Nancy given a wrong,  incorrect and unacceptable response, especially with reference to her statements that  Ibrahim was not prosecuted because he was defending the sanctity of Islam and his action was protected by Article 11(4) of the Malaysian Constitution.

Has the principle of collective Ministerial responsibility in Malaysia degenerated in practice to mean “that no one is responsible”?

Or, to quote the Gerakan President Datuk Seri Mah Siew Keong, was the lack of “tongkat ali” the reason why the Cabinet abdicated from its collective responsibility from  taking a stand on Nancy’s parliamentary answer on why Ibrahim Ali was not prosecuted, as it is inconceivable that Ministers, whether from Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah or Sarawak,  who support  Najib’s initiative of a  Global Movement of Moderates could endorse the answer given by Nancy in Parliament – making them collectively responsible for her answer.

It is no use MCA, Gerakan, MIC, Sarawak, Sabah and even UMNO “moderate” Ministers praising Najib for his recent speech at the United Nations General Assembly against religious intolerance and extremism and even pledging “full and strong support” when as Ministers of the Najib Cabinet, they are not prepared to walk Najib’s talk by refusing to compromise with any form of extremism and religious intolerance, like Ibrahim’s immunity from the sanctions of the law for his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible.

Najib had often touted Malaysia as a model of a peaceful, stable and harmonious multi-racial and multi-religious nation in the world, with the people committed to moderation in all forms of action, decision, attitude and words, and  rejecting all extreme, fanatical and violent views.

In his speech to the MCA General Assembly only  last week, Najib reiterated that in whichever country he visited, he got reactions from foreign leaders, saying they are impressed with Malaysia and asking: “What is the secret to Malaysia’s success?”

The foreign leaders don’t see how a complex community can live in a peaceful and harmonious environment.

But Malaysia as a model of a peaceful, stable and harmonious multi-racial and multi-religious nation has come under unprecedented  threat in recent years.

The volume, frequency and venom of hate speech on race and religion, promoting extremism and religious intolerance  in the country in the past four years had outpaced all such hate speech in the country in the previous four decades – and one such example is the  irresponsible threat by Ibrahim Ali to burn the Malay-language Bible, which was never uttered before.

This explains why in the latest survey finding by Pew Research Centre, nearly one-third of Malaysians see religious and ethnic hatred as posing the greatest danger to the world , a concern shared by Indonesia amid simmering religious tensions in both countries and the rise of violent militant Islamist groups.

The Washington-based research group’s Greatest Dangers in the World survey showed 32 per cent of Malaysians cited religious and ethnic hatred as the biggest global threat today.

In contrast, 22 per cent Malaysians surveyed pointed to nuclear weapons, 16 per cent said environmental damage, 13 per cent cited increasing income inequality and 12 per cent highlighted AIDS and other diseases as major global threats.

Concerns about religious and ethnic hatred ranked the highest in Malaysia among Asian countries, followed by Bangladesh (30 per cent), Indonesia (26 per cent) and India (25 per cent).

In the global survey of 44 countries among 48,643 respondents, Malaysia is one of the 12 countries which see religious and ethnic hatred as posing the greatest danger to the world, viz:

Lebanon	        58%

Palestine  	40%

Tunisia	        39%

UK		39%

Nigeria	        38%

Egypt		34%

Malaysia	32%

France		32%

Bangladesh	30%

Israel		30%

Indonesia	26%

India		25%

The Pew Research Centre study was  conducted from March 17 to June 5. If it is conducted today, the saliency of religious and ethnic hatred as posing the greatest danger to the world would have risen to a higher pitch, especially after taking into account three new factors, viz:

(i)	Nancy’s parliamentary reply on why Ibrahim is not prosecuted for his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible which is still not contradicted by the Cabinet or the Prime Minister.

(ii)	the “white terror” regime of seditious prosecution blitz to stifle legitimate criticism and dissent so as to create a climate of fear, while expressions of extremism and religious intolerance enjoy legal immunity and impunity; and

(iii)	the continued  upsurge  of extremism and religious intolerance, to the extent that Najib’s brainchild, the Global Movement of Moderates and GMM operatives are regarded as subversive and “seditious”, gravely hampering their operations.

Najib has made a most laudable and praiseworthy speech in the United Nations General Assembly condemning extremism and religious intolerance as the real threat to global peace and security.

However, the Prime Minister has yet to convince Malaysians that the principles of moderation he enunciated in his UN General Assembly speech apply equally to his Malaysian nation-building policies at home, including having no truck with extremism and religious intolerance displayed by Ibrahim Ali in his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible.

Or is it necessary to stock Cabinet meetings with ample supplies of “tongkat ali” every week the Ministers meet?

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 18 October 2014, 11:53 am and is filed under
Law & Order
,
Najib Razak
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


2015 Budget (5) -The Debt Bombshell: New Revelations

2015 Budget (5)  – A Critique

by Economic Observer

19th October 2014

In his speech, the Prime Minister studiously avoided any reference to the size of the public debt which now requires an allocation of RM 23.2 billion or almost 11 percent of the Budget to service the accumulated debt of the Federal Government now estimated to amount to RM 568.9 billion accounting for 52.8 percent of GDP, a level marginally below the established ceiling.

These numbers exclude the contingent liabilities of the Federal Government and other off budget borrowings.

Nor did the Prime Minister mention the level of debt carried by households, now in excess of 85 percent of GDP.

What is wholly inexcusable is the failure on his part to refer to the bombshell dropped in the Treasury’s Economic Report concerning the size of the nation’s external debt.

The Economic Report discloses that Malaysia’s external debt totals RM 729 billion, equivalent to 67.6 percent of GDP. This compares with a debt level of RM 335.6 billion or 31.1 percent of GDP before the revision.

This more than doubling of the external debt cannot be swept under the carpet. It is shameless in the manner in which the Prime Minister dealt with the issue.

The Report goes into a long discourse about revised international standards for debt reporting being the reason for a sudden rise in the level of foreign debt.

The Report notes that under the new definition non-resident holdings of local currency debt, loans and credits and non-resident financial flows are treated as liabilities.

Thus, the external debt of the country includes all liabilities that require payment of the principal and interest on it at some point in the future irrespective of the currency in which these amounts are denominated.

The Treasury Report offers a weak justification for the high level of external debt.

It asserts that the rapid growth of the bond market has led to sizable increases in the participation by non-residents in lending in the Malaysian market. It takes great pains to suggest that the level of external indebtedness should not be viewed with alarm.

However, the Treasury does not point out that a sizable part of the debt is short-term (with a ratio of 47.6 percent to GDP). Such short term debt is by nature volatile and subject to flight in periods of uncertainty.

It would appear that the authorities have not learnt lessons from the 1998 East Asia Crisis which was triggered by the withdrawal of short term funds by the hedge funds in the face of uncertainties in the region.

The nation and the markets need assurances from the Minister of Finance that the authorities have well thought out contingency plans to cope with all eventualities.

The dangers posed by a change in the policies pursued by the US Federal Reserve, resulting in monetary tightening, could easily trigger a flight of short term capital from the Malaysian market.

The dangers associated with this high level of short term external debt cannot be dismissed or swept under the carpet through silence in the manner of the Prime Minister’s stance. It would be highly irresponsible to ignore the need for clear policies to address a potential devastating crisis.

Conclusion

The Prime Minister observed in his speech: “From an economic perspective, when we achieved independence 57 years ago, we developed the country based on agriculture before progressing to a modern industrialized economy. Next, we moved into the upper-middle income phase. We are now moving towards a services-based economy and knowledge-based economy.”

He further repeated the mantra that Malaysia would become a high income developed nation by 2020. The reality is wholly different.

Because of policy failures, Malaysia is truly caught in the middle income trap. It has lost competitiveness, it is suffering from a serious brain drain; its human resource pool is inadequate to enable the nation to move up the chain; it suffers from massive illicit capital flows.

National institutions have atrophied. The country is led by a group whose competence is being increasingly questioned. These trends do not auger well for the future of Malaysia.

It would not be far-fetched to suggest that the country is on the wrong track.

It does not appear to be headed toward joining the ranks of high income or advanced nations (however defined).

If left unchecked, Malaysia is in all likelihood headed towards joining the group of highly indebted countries.

Objective assessments of the state of the country point towards a looming crisis unless urgent steps are taken to first and foremost restore fiscal discipline.

The sacrifices that Malaysians are being asked to make by assuming a large burden represented by the introduction of the GST and the withdrawal of subsidies on fuels and the concurrent rise in the cost of living are not matched by responsible fiscal policies.

The increased revenues that the Government proposes to harvest are being frittered away and not being applied towards reducing the deficit which essentially feeds the rapacious appetite and greed of those close to the corridors of power.

There is one bright spot. That is reflected in the willingness of ordinary citizens willing to express outrage at the inequities inflicted by the current policies.

The nation cannot afford not to change course. The Prime Minister must offer leadership or make way.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 19 October 2014, 7:47 am and is filed under
Budget Debate
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Amid fears over IS, academics claim ‘Salafism’ now usurping Malay culture

by Pathmawathy Subramaniam

The Malaysian Insider

October 18, 2014

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 18 — Academics warned today of the rise of “Salafism” in Malaysia, an ultra-conservative brand of Islam that they claimed has been seeping into local Malay culture and traditions, and driving the country’s dominant ethnic group further off the path of moderation.

Singapore-based sociologist Dr Syed Farid Alatas said that the Salafi movement — whose followers believe that the earliest teachings of Islam represent the purest form of the religion — defines Islam based on a “narrow point of view” and rejects the religion’s “intellectual traditions”.

The Salafi movement subscribes to the “most extreme of form of extremism”, the National University of Singapore (NUS) associate professor added, citing the growing influence of the Islamic State (IS) jihad in Syria and Iraq as an example.

“This is an imbalance of regulation and respect for the sanctity of personal life,” he told about 100 participants at a roundtable discussion on the threat of religious fundamentalism organised by the Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF) today.

In the Malaysian context, Syed Farid added that there now appears to be “great deal” of rejection of previous cultural practices that were once accepted as the norm among Malay-Muslims here.

In its place, locals are now adapting to the Salafi way of life, which they accept as “legitimate and in line with Islam,” he said.

“There was a time when the use of hijab was considered a form of extremism, because it was more common to use a selendang (shawl) to cover your hair.

“These are ideas of minority groups like the Salafist that are being imposed on the majority in Malaysia,” he added.

The sociologist also suggested that the shift to religious conservatism in Malaysia has been encouraged by the strict enforcement of Islamic rules and regulations, some of which “interfere with the lives of the people”.

To illustrate his point, he referred to a by-law in Kelantan where Muslim men who do not attend Friday prayers for three weeks consecutively may find themselves fined RM1,000 and jailed for a year.

“It is wrong to police people to that level. It encourages spying and sets an extremely bad precedent in society.

“You find religious police become peeping Toms, hoping to catch people in the act, and if all else fails they book people for khalwat,” said Syed Farid, referring to the prohibition of close proximity between unmarried Muslims of the opposite sex.

He also accused Putrajaya of persecuting Malaysia’s religious minorities in a bid to appeal to its traditionally rural Malay-Muslim voter base.

Among others, the government has outlawed Shiah — the second-largest denomination in Islam — and pursued the Catholic Church over the use of “Allah”, the Arabic word for God, in a Christian newsletter.

“Newspapers openly printed a combination of lies, falsehoods about Shiahs,” he said, adding that the current situation can only improve provided there is sufficient political will to change the current structure of religious schools.

IRF founder and director Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa added the current structure also puts to shame Putrajaya’s pledge for moderation.

To be seen as “more Islamic” in the eyes of the public, Ahmad Farouk said that political parties have also inculcated a siege mentality among the Malays, which he said has led to strained race relations in multi-racial and multi-cultural Malaysia.

“This was a man who insulted the feelings Hindus by questioning their faith… but in Malaysia, where our government advocates moderation, he is given an award,” said Ahmad Farouk, referring to the award of the prestigious Tokoh Maal Hijrah to controversial Muslim preacher Dr Zakir Naik from Mumbai, India, last year.

“But the government prevents a liberal Indonesian scholar from entering, this is the real problem for Malaysia,” he added, referring to the absence of Dr Ulil Abshar Abdalla from today’s forum.

Last week, Ulil was barred from entering Malaysia after Putrajaya claimed that the founder of Liberal Islam Network would sway Muslims from their Sunni teachings with his liberal ideas of Islam.

He added that such a ban was to strengthen the use of a certain brand of Islam and use it as a political instrument to retain the country’s Muslim majority, who are predominantly Malays.

Muslims make up 61.3 per cent of the Malaysian population, followed by Buddhists at 19.8 per cent, and Christians at 9.2 per cent, according to the latest census data from 2010.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 19 October 2014, 9:00 am and is filed under
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


If only Putrajaya’s words ever come true

COMMENTARY BY THE MALAYSIAN INSIDER

19 October 2014

If only…

* Words count for something in Malaysia, then the cloud of pessimism that envelopes the country would long be gone.

But words have a hollow sound here, especially when they emanate from higher the political ladder.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak rightly said that political leaders must lead the way with moderation. And then came the letdown.

He said Barisan Nasional and Umno leaders rejected all forms of extremism. Really? Is Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi still a member of Umno? What about Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin?

What about the collection of Umno division chiefs who have pressured the authorities to use the Sedition Act as a dragnet to silence legitimate dissent in “moderate” Malaysia?

Extremism takes many forms. Some extremists use explosives to make a point, others use race and religion to divide and rule, and cling to power.

If BN and Umno truly believed that Malaysia is a multiracial and multi-religious country, then it would not provide coverage for the likes of Perkasa, Isma and the increasing number of small but incendiary government-friendly NGOs.

If BN, Umno and Najib truly rejected extremism, then it would not use some cockamamie reason not to haul up someone who threatened to burn the holy book of another religion.

Words must count for something whether the venue is the United Nations, the Gerakan AGM or a ceramah in a kampung.

If only…

*  Gerakan would grow some spine, it would not be skirting with irrelevance across Malaysia. Their delegates today roared in approval at PM Najib’s speech and a couple of their leaders grumbled about the caustic remarks and racist tones in social media.

Nothing happens in a vacuum. Nothing. Datuk Nicol David did not become a world champion by sitting around doing nothing. Malaysia did not become football also-rans by chance.

The heady cocktail of incompetence, lack of grassroots development and the weak mental strength of our football players have all contributed to the disgrace on the pitch.

Similarly, the angry comments by Facebook users, on Twitter and other social media platforms did not happen by chance.

It is the result of a slow boil over a laundry list of issues, from endemic corruption to plunder of the country’s resources, world-class joke of an education system, hollowing out of once-trusted institutions and hopeless politicians.

Malaysians are frustrated over the direction the country has been going for some time now.

They feel a need to vent, to shout and be heard. They would love if their elected representatives could feel the pulse of the nation and carry the message of despair to Putrajaya.

Instead, they have apologists for a decrepit and depraved system.

Instead, they have politicians more interested in keeping their YB status, having a bodyguard, a driver and all the perks of public office. – October 19, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 19 October 2014, 4:23 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib’s  greatest disservice within 48 hours  of  Malaysia’s 187-vote election as non-permanent member of United Nation Security Council

Ironically, it is the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak himself who, within 48 hours,  rendered the greatest disservice to Malaysia’s “first-class honours” of  187-vote election as non-permanent  member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) when he addressed the 43rd Gerakan National Delegates Conference in Shah Alam this morning.

After Malaysia’s election as non-permanent member of the UNSC for the third time on Friday, Najib had outlined five areas of priority for Malaysia to push in the  UNSC, viz, advance moderation globally; advocate mediation as an approach to conflict resolution; promote UN peacekeeping operations; facilitate the peace-building process in strife-torn countries and pursue deliberations on the UNSC’s comprehensive reformation.

It is a clear that there is a major lacuna in Najib’s list of  five priorities for Malaysia’s role as a non-permanent member of UNSC, for Malaysia cannot  effectively or credibly advance moderation globally when moderation is in retreat domestically at home, or even worse, having to hide in nooks and corners as when his brainchild, the Global Movement of Moderates (GMM) had to ask the media not to report on its forum proceedings because of the “white terror” sedition blitzkrieg in the country.

In other words, freedom of speech, expression of opinion have degenerated to a stage where “moderation” – as understood by Najib through GMM – can be persecuted and prosecuted as “sedition” by Najib’s Attorney-General!

If Malaysia is to be an effective and credible member of UNSC to advance moderation globally, then it should add a sixth priority and elevate it as the second most important priority item for Malaysia – to advance moderation domestically in Malaysia, as otherwise, its campaign to  advance moderation globally is dead even before it could get off the launching pad.

This is one reason for the air of  expectancy over Najib’s speech at the Gerakan National Conference this morning. The other reason,  related to the same issue, is whether he would end the two-week national firestorm of  outrage over the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Nancy Shukri’s parliamentary answer that Perkasa President Datuk Ibrahim Ali was not prosecuted for his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible because he was defending the sanctity of Islam and was protected by Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution.

The national outrage did not abate but intensified in the past fortnight following Nancy’s clarification that although she did not agree, she had no option as she was  tasked with reading out the parliamentary answer given to her by the Attorney-General’s Chambers.

What further aggravated the situation was  neither the Attorney-General nor any government leader was able to  rebut the nationwide perception of gross miscarriage of justice and abuse  of the prosecutorial discretion by the Attorney-General in allowing Ibrahim Ali to go scot-free despite his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible when  since the beginning of this year, some 40 Pakatan Rakyat leaders, social activists, academicians and members of the press had been prosecuted or investigated under the Sedition Act  and other laws for the most inoffensive expression of views.

This is why Najib’s speech this morning that Umno and BN reject extremism has no traction and incapable of making any impact because of the glaring contradiction and contrast in   Najib’s declaration with the immunity from prosecution enjoyed by Ibrahim Ali despite  his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible.

What is worse, no Minister from either the MCA or Gerakan had dared to speak up to demand that Ibrahim Ali should be prosecuted  for his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible at the last two Cabinet meetings held since Nancy’s outrageous answer, although MCA held its national conference last weekend and Gerakan this weekend.

It is shocking that the Prime Minister could believe and repeat the canard that Chinese voters fell dramatically during the 13th general elections because they believe the “lies” about the 40,000 Bangladeshi phantom voters.

It is to the credit of the Gerakan delegates that they laughed at Najib’s tall tale as it is not only unbelievable, but reflects a “shallowness” which does not befit a Prime Minister.

Can MCA and Gerakan Ministers convince  Najib to  be consistent and committed to the cause of moderation in national policies, and not just in international speeches and rhetoric, starting with the prosecution of Ibrahim Ali for his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible?

Can MCA and Gerakan Ministers disabuse Najib  of the canard that Chinese voters – or for that matter Malaysian voters – fell in the 13GE for UMNO/BN because of the 40,000 Bangladeshi phantom voter story, and admit it was because  of disillusionment of the Malaysian voters over a whole spectrum of UMNO/BN government policies which cause Najib to be the Prime Minister of a minority government as 52% of the electorate voted for Pakatan Rakyat?

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 19 October 2014, 3:42 pm and is filed under
Law & Order
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Ridiculous to stop non-Muslims from using ‘Allah’, says Muslim Brotherhood leader

by Mohd Farhan Darwis

The Malaysian Insider

19 October 2014

Prohibiting non-Muslims from using the word “Allah” is ridiculous, says Kuwait’s Muslim Brotherhood leader Dr Tareq Suwaidan.

He said this was because there was no law or ruling within the Islamic realm which prevented the use of the word by non-Muslims.

“I have been following this development in Malaysia, this use of the word ‘Allah’… there is no law in Islam that says so,” he told a forum organised by PAS international committee last night.

He noted that there were many instances in Islamic history where non-Muslims had been encouraged to use the Arabic word “Allah”.

“Do not be confused, this is just wrong, I have hundreds. No, thousands of proof on this,” he said, in front of a crowd of 100.

His comment came after an Indonesian scholar Dr Ulil Abshar Abdalla waded into the “Allah” controversy, saying Muslims who believes the word was exclusive to Islam were “confused”.

Ulil, who was denied entry into Malaysia this month for allegedly opposing its Islamic stand, said Muslims did not have a monopoly of the word “Allah” as it was a general term to refer to God.

“The term ‘Allah’ comes from two words which are ‘Al’ ‘and ‘Ilah’ which means God.

“If we mention the word ‘Allah’, it is translated as God. The people of Mecca also used the word ‘Allah’ before Islam came,” he had said.

Tareq and Ulil’s view of the “Allah” controversy echoes that of Muslim scholars and clerics, both locally and worldwide, who have criticised the ban of the use of the word among non-Muslims here.

Even the United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief, Heiner Bielefeldt, had said many Muslims said the court ruling undermined the credibility of Islam, in a reference to the Federal Court decision that the word “Allah” could not be used in the Catholic publication, Herald, on grounds it was not an integral part of Christianity.

Earlier this month, evangelical denomination Sidang Injil Borneo (SIB) obtained leave from the Court of Appeal to seek a declaration that the word “Allah” could be used in Christian publications.

A three-man Court of Appeal bench, chaired by Datuk Rohana Yusof, said the Federal Court held that the September 14 finding that “Allah was not an integral part of Christianity” was a mere passing remark.

Among the groups which have defended “Allah” as exclusive to Muslims are Malay rights group Perkasa and Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (Isma).

The “Allah” row started in 2008 when the Home Ministry threatened to revoke the Herald’s newspaper permit, prompting the Catholic Church to sue the government for violating its constitutional rights. – October 19, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 19 October 2014, 12:23 pm and is filed under
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


I want to believe in my government

— Amar-Singh HSS, Lim Swee Im

Malay Mail Online

OCTOBER 20, 2014

 OCTOBER 20 — I want to believe in my government, I really do.

I want to believe that they care for all the people.

I want to believe that they are altruistic and want to serve, rather than lord it over the people.

I want to believe that programmes and plans put in place are there to benefit the poor and average person.

I want to believe that they respect and love our country and all the people in it.

I want to believe …..

But the reality speaks the reverse/opposite.

I see corruption growing and flourishing and my government complicit in it.

I see the gap between the rich and poor growing wider and ever wider, and our leaders’ children become billionaires.

I see policies and programmes put in place that benefit the powerful and rich.

I see voices who dare to speak out stifled and silenced by the selective use of archaic legislation.

I see the politics of racial and religious hatred, fear and distraction.

I see us regressing as a nation.

I see …..

But I still dare and want to hope

I hope not in my government but in the people.

I hope in the average person in Malaysia who inspires me.

I hope in simple people who refuse to follow our negative trends and continue to keep our beloved Malaysia alive.

I hope in people caring for people, bonds created, lives shared.

I hope in every person who struggles for our nation.

I hope …..

Perhaps these hopes are best expressed by parts of the poem “Prophets of a Future Not Our Own” written by Bishop Ken Untener in 1979, but is commonly known as “Oscar Romero’s Prayer”. Archbishop Oscar Romero was killed because he dared to challenge the domination system of El Salvador.

“It helps, now and then, to step back and take the long view.

The kingdom is not only beyond our efforts, it is beyond our vision.

We accomplish in our lifetime only a tiny fraction of the magnificent enterprise that is God’s work.

Nothing we do is complete, which is another way of saying that the kingdom always lies beyond us.

This is what we are about:

We plant seeds that one day will grow.

We water seeds already planted, knowing that they hold future promise.

We lay foundations that will need further development.

We provide yeast that produces effects beyond our capabilities.

We cannot do everything and there is a sense of liberation in realizing that.

This enables us to do something, and to do it very well.

It may be incomplete, but it is a beginning, a step along the way, an opportunity for God’s grace to enter and do the rest.

We may never see the end results, but that is the difference between the master builder and the worker.

We are workers, not master builders, ministers, not messiahs.

We are prophets of a future not our own.”

Be still my aching heart and know that the time will come when Malaysia, the land and people I love, will one day be whole again.

– See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/i-want-to-believe-in-my-government-amar-singh-hss-lim-swee-im#sthash.2YTgZLJR.dpuf

                This entry was posted on Monday, 20 October 2014, 7:53 pm and is filed under
Malaysian Dream
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib is in danger of  become a standing international joke as a schizophrenic Prime Minister who struts the international stage calling for a global movement of moderates but allows moderation to be trampled  by extremists at home

Bernama
 today reported the Deputy Health Minister, Datuk Dr. Hilmi Yahaya  saying that one in 100 Malaysians suffer from schizophrenia,  adding:

“More Malaysians are suffering from schizophrenia but they and the people around them do not view the problem seriously and refuse to get appropriate treatment.

“The problem should not be treated lightly because if it is not treated, they can injure others, this is very dangerous.”

The country No. 1 victim of schizophrenia is the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, who is in danger of becoming a standing international joke as a schizophrenic Prime Minister who struts the international stage calling for a global movement of moderates but allows moderation to be trampled by extremists at home.

Recently, Najib gave the latest illustration of  such schizophrenic manifestation of disparate and antagonistic definition  of moderation at the international as distinct from the national plane.

On Sept. 27, Najib made the most commendable speech at the United Nations General Assembly setting out the moderation agenda for the world, declaring: “The fight against extremism is not about Christians versus Muslims, or Muslims versus Jews, but moderates versus extremists of all religions. We therefore need to rally a coalition of moderates; those willing to reclaim their religion, and pursue the path to peace.”

But at home, Najib shied away from cracking down on extremism and religious intolerance to the extent that hate speech  over race and religion in Najib’s five-year premiership  had never been so voluminous and venomous as to  become the greatest threat to national unity and well-being in the nation’s 57-year history.

This is  testified by:

(i) the  Attorney-General’s decision not to prosecute Perkasa President Ibrahim Ali for his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible although Najib  had no compunction or hesitation in launching a “white terror” blitzkrieg since the beginning of this year to investigate or prosecute some 40 Pakatan Rakyat leaders, social activists, academicians and members of the press under the Sedition Act  and other laws for the most legitimate and inoffensive expression of views; and

(ii) Najib’s brain-child the Global Movement of Moderates being regarded as a seditious and subversion organisation for promoting moderation.

I have no doubt that in international forums, where Najib had expounded his global cause of moderation, whether the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, the East-West Centre in Hawaii or at Asia-Europe (ASEM) conferences, had Najib been asked whether those who threatened to burn the sacred books of different religions are extremists, his answer would be a categorical and unqualified positive.

But back home in Malaysia, his government finds excuses for Ibrahim Ali’s threat to burn the Malay-language Bible on the completely unacceptable and outrageous grounds that Ibrahim Ali was protecting the sanctity of Islam and that his action is protected by Article 11(4) of the Malaysian Constitution.

Clearly, Najib suffers from a serious  schizophrenic understanding of moderation ,  where his definition of moderation in international forums is completely different from his definition of moderation at home.

This is why Najib’s call at the Gerakan national assembly yesterday to “reject racial and religious extremism” lacks credibility when it implied acceptance or acquiescence with the decision to let Ibrahim Ali to get away scot-free enjoying immunity from having to suffer  any sanctions of the law for his height of extremism in threatening to burn the Malay-language Bible.

But it is not only Najib who suffers from schizophrenia over definition and understanding of  moderation.

 When Gerakan President Datuk Mah Siew Keong proposed that the Barisan Nasional (BN) sack those in the coalition who are found guilty of spewing racial hatred, it attracted an immediate retort from the UMNO vice president and Home Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi that it would only be fair that the same treatment is given to all BN leaders regardless of race.

The underlying message is Zahid’s disagreement, who said:  “Don’t just focus on Malay leaders who are talking about Malay rights. What about the non-Malays fighting for non-Malay rights?

“They say something racist, sack them. Sack everybody.”

Malaysians must oppose and censure all forms of extremism, whether Malay or non-Malay, Muslim or non-Muslim.

What is clear, however, is  that there is no consensus of what constitutes “moderation” and “extremism” in Barisan Nasional – only the schizophrenic understanding by the UMNO president and the UMNO leadership.

Is this the reason why the MCA, Gerakan, MIC and the Sabah and Sarawak Ministers also shy away from demanding that Ibrahim Ali should be prosecuted for his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible if the BN government  is to be true and consistent about flying the banner of moderation against extremism?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 20 October 2014, 11:14 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Of prostitutes, peace and chivalry

Dyana Sofya

Mail Mail Online

OCTOBER 20, 2014

Dyana Sofya suffers from dysania and is using her superpowers to pen down her thoughts late into the night. Political Secretary to Lim Kit Siang by day and she tweets from @dyanasmd.

OCTOBER 20 — It is an interesting exercise to browse through the many comments on my Facebook fan page. Reading through them recently, I began to notice a pattern. Generally, there are three types of comments: positive, negative and commiserative.

The positive comments mostly take the form of motivating words of encouragement. These are my favourite, and I am eternally grateful for the constant show of support from Malaysians of all walks of life. They have never failed to fuel me with positive energy or pick me up when I feel down.

As for the negative comments, they are as colourful as one would expect them to be. From the usual name-calling, gender stereotyping to all kinds of discriminating attacks, I have learned to accept them as part and parcel of public life. In fact, I sometimes find it entertaining, as it takes a special breed of people to be able to be so shallow and perverse.

However, there is one more type of comment that has become a constant feature in almost every thread. I find these quite puzzling. Somehow, there seems to be quite a few people out there who find it necessary to convey their pity or sympathy because they feel I am being “used.” Often, they would also predict that I would one day “wake up” and realise that I am in the wrong struggle, and that I would eventually “return” to the true path.

While I thank them for their “concern”, I would also like to express my own concern about the patronising culture of our society. Why is it so difficult for people to understand that we young Malay women are able to think for ourselves and have the capability (and yes, the right) to decide what we want to do and how we want to do it?

God forbid if we choose to be different. This is something they cannot comprehend. If we do not conform to their idea of what a Malay woman should be, then we have either been fooled into doing it (poor us), or we are simply doing it out of gratuitous self-interest, be it for monetary or political gain.

This attitude perhaps manifested itself clearly when a recent DAP recruit, Jamilah Rahim or better known as Melati, was told that her decision to join the party was akin to prostituting herself and her religion, simply for the riches offered.

Let me make one thing clear. If we really wanted to prostitute ourselves for material gain, then we would have joined the most powerful and wealthiest party around. At least then we can be assured of gaining something through their well-known rent-seeking practices.

Instead, we have chosen to follow our hearts and stick to our principles by joining a party that we believe best represents our shared struggle to create a Malaysia for all Malaysians. And we did this despite knowing how we would be ridiculed, especially because of our race and gender.

The crux of the matter is the low level of respect that our society has towards women. Until and unless we address this widespread discrimination and stereotyping of women in our society, we will never progress.

For starters, although women make up half the society, we are barely represented. This becomes a self-perpetuating problem because policies and laws that are made by gender insensitive men would further suppress women.

Take India, as an example. In the aftermath of the gang rape and murder of a young woman in Delhi back in 2012, citizens gathered to protest the government’s response. Rather than working to address the failures of a system that has been unable to empower the fairer sex and proven ineffective at preventing sexual violence against women, the government’s approach was condescending, treating women as defenceless and weak creatures in need of protection.

The problem was not that the government did not try, but more that they could not understand, being themselves trapped in a patriarchal mind-set. This is why it is all the more important for women to be fairly represented in politics.

While the situation is not quite as critical in Malaysia, the same attitudes exist, as is evident by the reactions towards those of us who manage to find the inspiration to take the leap into politics. As Melati, Rara (Young Syefura Othman, another recent DAP recruit) or I can attest to, it is even worse when we dare to do anything “different.”

Be that as it may, this is part of the change we seek to bring to our country. And I believe the time is opportune, as many of our sisters the world over are beginning to show. Just last week, a 17-year-old Afghan woman became the youngest Nobel Peace Laureate ever for her struggle in championing women’s right to education in a country that severely limits the rights of women.

At the same time, another high profile woman was inducted to a most distinguished order of chivalry by the Queen of Britain for her efforts to combat sexual violence worldwide. Not only is this new Dame one of the youngest ever recipients of the honour, she also joins an eminent list of former recipients, most of whom are either royalty or heads of government. Who would have thought that a Hollywood actress like Angelina Jolie could achieve such an honour?

Believe it or not, every woman, whether a teenage girl in an oppressive country or an attractive starlet, has the capability and potential to rise to the greatest heights that some men can only dream of.

And instead of belittling or feeling sorry for us, Malaysian men would do well to know this.

– See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/opinion/dyana-sofya/article/of-prostitutes-peace-and-chivalry#sthash.e3qDrNVW.dpuf

                This entry was posted on Monday, 20 October 2014, 8:20 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Politics
,
women
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Latest poll on rebound of public support for PR in Selangor confirmation that PR can restore political momentum provided it can learn the right lessons from the self-inflicted wounds in the eight-month-long Selangor MB crisis

The latest University Malaya’s Centre for Democracy and Elections (UMcedel) polls on the rebound of public support for Pakatan Rakyat (PR) in Selangor is confirmation that Pakatan Rakyat can restore political momentum provided it can learn the right lessons from the self-inflicted wounds in the eight-month-long  Selangor Mentri Besar crisis.

The survey was conducted three days after Mohamed Azmin Ali was sworn in as the new Selangor Mentri Besar from Sept. 26 to 28, polling 1,165 respondents in all 22 Parliamentary constituencies in Selangor and covering all races.

It showed that PR’s support in Selangor had rebounded to 43%, after taking a beating five months ago when PR’s support in the state nosedived to 35% in a survey conducted from May 10 to 19  – a 15% fall from 50% recorded in September 2012 in an earlier  UMcedel survey.

The rebound in public support for PR in Selangor to 43% would have been even more significant than just jumping eight percentage from 35%  as  public frustration and disillusionment with PR in Selangor would have plummeted to lower than the 35% registered in May, especially in  the months from July to September which saw the greatest heights in public disenchantment with PR in Selangor until the resolution of the crisis.

Indisputably, the rebound in support for PR in Selangor would have gone through double-digit percentage points.

As I had said, the saving grace of the worst PR crisis and haemorrhage in its six-year existence  – the PR Selangor crisis –  is that the Selangor Barisan Nasional/UMNO was too weak to be able to exploit it  to its advantage, as they have no confidence whatsoever that they stood any chance of winning back the Selangor state government  if  a Selangor state general election was held.

This is fully borne out by the two surveys of UMcedel in May and September, which showed BN support plunging from a lowly  25% in May to another drop of five percentage points in September.

The September UMcedel survey found that 28% were unsure about both coalitions.

It  also revealed that 48% of those polled said they wanted PAS to remain in PR while only 19% wanted the Islamist party to break away and another 22% were unsure.

The two recent UMcedel surveys have  confirmed the changed political landscape in the country where UMNO/BN  represents the discredited politics of the past while Pakatan Rakyat stands for the new future politics of hope and justice  struggling to be born.

Pakatan Rakyat will continue to be relevant to the hopes and expectations of Malaysians for a better tomorrow if PR component parties and leaders can regain their bearings and  reaffirm the two basic principles of PR which had fired the imagination of 52%  of the electorate transcending race, religion or region – the PR common policy framework and the operational principle of consensus among the three PR component parties.

The reaffirmation of these two basic principles of PR will take the coalition to greater heights while their denial will despatch PR to the dustbin of history.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 21 October 2014, 2:04 pm and is filed under
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Selangor
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Let all Malaysians be inspired by the Deepavali message of light over darkness, good over evil, knowledge over ignorance and hope over despair

Happy Deepavali to Malaysian Indians in particular and Malaysians in general.

The Deepavali Festival of Lights celebrates the victory of light over darkness, good over evil, knowledge over ignorance and hope over despair.

Let all Malaysians be inspired  by the Deepavali message to build a free, just, democratic, prosperous and competitive multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural  nation which is  a model of unity, harmony, moderation and tolerance to the world – instead of being a troubled and divided country.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 21 October 2014, 4:47 pm and is filed under
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Nancy is right that Cabinet cannot decide prosecutions for AG but wrong when she implied  Cabinet is impotent or must accept an AG guilty of  selective or malicious prosecution

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Nancy Shukri is right when she said today that the Cabinet could not make decisions on charges against Perkasa President Ibrahim Ali as this would be tantamount to meddling in the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney-General stipulated in the Constitution.

But Nancy is wrong when she implied that the Cabinet is impotent or must accept an Attorney-General who is guilty of selective or malicious prosecution, like the failure to  prosecute Perkasa President Ibrahim Ali despite his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible or the “white terror” regime of sedition blitzkrieg since the beginning of this year to investigate or prosecute some 40 Pakatan Rakyat leaders, social activists, academicians and members of the press under the Sedition Act  and other laws for the most legitimate and inoffensive expression of views.

While the Cabinet cannot interfere with the  Attorney-General’s prosecutorial discretion under Article 145(3) of the Constitution, Cabinet Ministers, in particular the Prime Minister and the Minister vested with the powers of de facto Law Minister, cannot be indifferent to prevalent public opinion that the Attorney General  was responsible for  grave miscarriage of justice, whether in the failure to prosecute Ibrahim Ali for his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible threatening the very fabric of Malaysia’s multi-racial and multi-religious society or had violated the larger policy objective of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to make Malaysia “the best democracy of the world” with the mass dragnet of sedition investigations and prosecutions.

Or is the Cabinet now claiming that the pledge to make Malaysia the world’s best democracy is the personal and individual promise of the Prime Minister, and that he  had no mandate to make it on behalf of the Cabinet or Malaysian Government?

It may seem unfair that Nancy had been hounded for over two weeks for  her parliamentary answer that Ibrahim Ali was not prosecuted for his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible, but this  national outrage will not cease simply because right-thinking Malaysians  cannot accept the two reasons which had been given for the Attorney-General’s decision not to prosecute – that Ibrahim was protecting the sanctity of Islam and Ibrahim’s action was protected by Article 11(4) of the Constitution.

Ibrahim Ali’s threat to burn the Malay-language Bible and  his ability to  get away scot-free enjoying immunity from any sanctions of the law will continue to dog Nancy wherever she goes in the country until the Najib government can give a  satisfactory and acceptable accounting on the matter.

The Attorney-General and the Prime Minister should have come to her rescue, but they have chosen to keep quiet.

By the principle of Cabinet collective responsibility, the other Ministers should also have come to her assistance, but no Minister is prepared to stick his or her  neck out over what is clearly a totally unacceptable and indefensible action.

Nancy said it is “unhealthy” to continue to harp on “negative issues” such as the non-prosecution of  Ibrahim Ali for his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible.

For the overwhelming majority of Malaysians, what is  really “unhealthy” is the refusal and inability of the Najib government to see the gross miscarriage of justice in allowing Ibrahim Ali to get away scot-free for his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible  while the government is  launching a blitzkrieg of sedition investigations and prosecutions against scores of Malaysians who have not made any  hate and incendiary statements like Ibrahim’s threat to burn the Bible.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 21 October 2014, 3:43 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Law & Order
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


UMcedel poll shows Malaysians know better despite political shenanigans

COMMENTARY BY THE MALAYSIAN INSIDER

20 October 2014

Trust Malaysians to be able to read between the lines when it comes to politics.

The days of just listening to propaganda or swallowing hook, line and sinker from some politicians are over. A case in point is the results of a recent Universiti Malaya Centre for Democracy and Elections (UMcedel).

The survey carried out between September 26 and 28 showed that support for Pakatan Rakyat (PR) in Selangor has rebounded to 43% after taking a beating five months ago largely due to infighting in the opposition coalition.

Support for Barisan Nasional (BN), meanwhile, dropped by five percentage points from 25% last May, the UMcedel survey also revealed.

What can anyone learn from the survey results and the wrangling over who should be the Selangor Menteri Besar that blighted the state for the past few months?

One, that it should be a lesson to Umno and all those parties that trampled on the state constitution. It did not make them any more popular among the people, let alone those who were polled in the UMcedel survey.

The Selangor citizens were able to discern what was important and who should get their support. It is not so much a case of political personalities as much as it was about party and political philosophy.

Only 28% of the 1,165 respondents polled across Selangor were unsure about both coalitions but PR results improved over UMcedel’s survey in May this year, which saw support for the pact in the state plunge to 35% a year after keeping Selangor in the 2013 general elections.

“This shows that despite PR’s crisis, the rakyat is still with them. The voters’ response shows that they are still not confident that BN/Umno can be a better alternative, and that their anger towards BN has still not died down,” said one source from UMcedel.

But ominously for BN, its support base has not grown since the survey in May, which showed that only 20% to 25% of respondents supported the coalition.

It goes without saying that BN will have to do more to win back a state that once used to be its political fortress. What more, Selangor is the country’s richest and most industrialised state.

Losing it for the third time in the next elections will be a disaster for BN but that happens to any coalition or parties that feel the people will listen to them no matter what.

The Selangor people took a chance with three parties in 2008 and after a rather sterling performance, they kept the three parties now known as PR in the 2013 elections.

And their support grows despite a change in the government helm, with Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim making way for his political foe Mohamed Azmin Ali after a fractious fight within PR.

These are lessons for those in Umno and BN. That the people know better and can decide what is best for them. Promises are good but sincerity, a capacity to listen and change is a lot better.

The fact of the matter is this – political shenanigans and gutter politics will not impress people or win support. Good hard work and service to the people will. – October 20, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 21 October 2014, 9:45 am and is filed under
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Selangor
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Anwar rejects exile

By Mariam Mokhtar

Malaysiakini

Oct 20, 2014

Najib Abdul Razak and Umno Baru were denied an early Deepavali present when opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim dismissed all talk of going into exile, in London.

 Just imagine the headlines in Utusan Malaysia and TV3 if Anwar had chosen exile: ‘Coward Anwar seeks exile to escape jail’, ‘Exile proves Anwar’s guilt’, ‘Anwar abandons followers, lives in luxury in London’, ‘We told you so; Anwar is scared to face the truth’.

When he was interviewed by The Daily Telegraph, Anwar expressed no plans to form a government in exile, in London, despite unsuccessful attempts by his friends to convince him to stay. He admitted the strain placed on his family. He was sanguine about reform.

 He said, “It is very difficult, particularly for my family. But when I started this case for reform in Malaysia I knew it was not going to be easy.”

If Anwar had chosen exile, Najib would have effectively isolated Anwar from his followers. The rakyat would not be spared either. They would be told that throwing their money and weight behind Anwar was wasteful, and their support for the opposition a futile cause.

 Najib knows that having Anwar in exile is as good as putting him behind bars; but there are subtle differences.

 People who have conducted a long-distance romance know that the relationship could suffer without complete commitment and absolute trust. The pressures and sacrifices are enormous. Anwar, in exile, and his supporters would face the same test. Who would falter first?

 In recent months, many disillusioned Malaysians have had their confidence shaken by the troubles in Pakatan. In the recent Kajang move, PAS appeared to be hastening the break-up of the coalition.

 Disheartened Malaysians should heed Anwar’s words. When he led the charge for reform, he knew it was going to be a long haul. Change is not for the faint-hearted. Decades of Umno Baru’s decadent and divisive rule, cannot be unravelled overnight. Are we all prepared to wait?

 Anwar has laid the foundations for change, and although he risks losing his freedom, we have nothing to lose, apart from some sleepless nights, or our cool, when we are spat on, in a peaceful protest, by pro-government thugs.

 If he were to be jailed, Anwar’s companions will be a few books, if his captors allow him that luxury, and the cockroaches in his cell. In relative freedom, we have the companionship and support of one another, to continue the reform agenda.

Jailing Anwar is not a simple matter for it presents Umno Baru with several dilemmas.

 First. Jail might make Anwar a martyr. Umno Baru will want to avoid this at all costs.

 Second. Jail reduces many of the opportunities to distract the rakyat. At present, our attention is immediately diverted, should any bad news emerge. Notice how the major corruption or religious scandals are immediately preceded by yet another Anwar sexposé? Sex sells, especially among the Malays.

Whetting our appetite for change

 Third. Jail will not isolate Anwar. He may be physically removed, from our presence, but he has whetted our appetite for change. His absence will focus Malaysian minds and provide renewed momentum for change. It will prove to the authorities that we are capable of leading the charge, by ourselves.

 Jailing Anwar may backfire on Najib. Urgings for reform will be re-energised with vengeance.

 Anwar said that his exile would have a detrimental effect on Malaysians, especially its youth. He knows that responsible leaders are important role models. He said, “…if people like me can’t stand up against these atrocities what can we expect from young people?”

He is right. The problem is not always with our leaders. Our youth can be equally perplexing.

Two days before Anwar’s interview with The Daily Telegraph, PAS president Hadi Awang (right) had given a talk to Malaysian students in London.

 Responding to a question fielded by a student, Hadi told his audience that women were perfectly suited to be leaders in their respective fields, but that they had no legitimacy to be leaders of the state, or the nation. He stressed that the woman’s importance lay in nurturing the family unit.

 There is sex equality in Islam, so one must assume that Hadi is a closet misogynist. Why has he avoided the remarkable women leaders from the decadent west and Israel? Any Malaysian woman who aspires to be a menteri besar, or prime minister should avoid Hadi.

 He has conveniently ignored the women leaders in Pakistan and Bangladesh, both Muslim nations. He has forgotten the succession of six Queens who ruled the Kingdom of Patani in the 16th and 17th centuries.

 The PAS president is entitled to his views, but more shocking was the reaction of some female students that night. They agreed that Malay women should not aspire to be PM.

 It appears that Anwar has much unfinished business amongst the Malay community. We still need him to free young Malay minds from the bondage of conservative Islam, Malay feudalism and subservient culture. Without Anwar, few Malay women will contribute to nation-building.

 MARIAM MOKHTAR is a defender of the truth, the admiral-general of the Green Bean Army and president of the Perak Liberation Organisation (PLO).

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 22 October 2014, 10:37 pm and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Mariam Mokhtar
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Has Malaysia got the most powerful Attorney-General in the Commonwealth who is more powerful than the Prime Minister and Cabinet and is not bound by any principle of accountability  to Parliament and the nation for  the exercise of his discretionary powers

I refer to yesterday’s Malay Mail Online (MMO) report with the  headline:
“DAP vows to hound Nancy Shukri over Ibrahim Ali’s Bible-burning threat”
.

The MMO headline is wrong and misleading as I had never made any vow, threat or statement to justify the headline
“DAP vows to hound Nancy Shukri over Ibrahim Ali’s Bible-burning threat”
.

For the record, this was what I said in my statement yesterday:

“It may seem unfair that Nancy had been hounded for over two weeks for her parliamentary answer that Ibrahim Ali was not prosecuted for his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible, but this national outrage will not cease simply because right-thinking Malaysians cannot accept the two reasons which had been given for the Attorney-General’s decision not to prosecute – that Ibrahim was protecting the sanctity of Islam and Ibrahim’s action was protected by Article 11(4) of the Constitution.

“Ibrahim Ali’s threat to burn the Malay-language Bible and his ability to get away scot-free enjoying immunity from any sanctions of the law will continue to dog Nancy wherever she goes in the country until the Najib government can give a satisfactory and acceptable accounting on the matter.”

It is not that DAP would “hound” Nancy over the issue, but that she would be dogged by the issue wherever she goes in any part of the country, as this would be the question uppermost in the minds of Malaysians, including the media when they meet her, as  the gross miscarriage of justice of the non-prosecution of Ibrahim Ali over such provocative and incendiary threat  is so palpable that  it stands out in  direct contrast to the “white terror” regime of sedition blitz launched recently by the government, resulting in the investigation or prosecution of  some 40 Pakatan Rakyat leaders, social activists, academicians and members of the press under the Sedition Act and other laws for the most legitimate and inoffensive expression of views.

There is nothing personal about the roiling controversy  as  very important issues and  fundamental principles about  constitutional, democratic and accountable governance are at stake, including:

1. Whether the de facto Law Minister in Malaysia is merely a Super Postman in Parliament acting like a robot  reading out the answers prepared by  Attorney-General’s Chambers with regard to the exercise of the powers and functions of the Attorney-General?

2. Whether Malaysia has got the most powerful Attorney-General in the Commonwealth who is more powerful than the Prime Minister and Cabinet and is not bound by any principle of accountability to Parliament and the nation for  the exercise of his discretionary powers.

3. Why is the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak maintaining his silence on the issue when it is clear that the Attorney-General’s actions run contrary to his call at three  United Nations General Assemblies for a Global Movement of Moderates  to oppose all forms of extremism and intolerance?

It is totally against the principles of accountable,  responsible and democratic governance for Malaysia  to have an Attorney-General who can abuse his discretionary powers arbitrarily, without any check or accountability.

Nobody knows for instance whether the Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail had personally approved the answer given by Nancy Shukri in Parliament in her written reply to the Penang Chief Minister and Member of Parliament for Bagan Lim Guan Eng on Oct. 7 on why Ibrahim Ali was not prosecuted for his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible.

If the answer was prepared by a law officer  in the Attorney-General’s Chambers without the personal approval of the Attorney-General himself, does it mean that the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department assigned the duties and responsibilities of a de facto Law Minister is merely an agent not only of the Attorney-General, but also of law officers in the AG’s Chambers.

If so, this will make an even greater mockery of the powers and responsibilities of the de facto Law Minister.

This is why it is long overdue for the Attorney-General Gani Patail to speak up – whether he had personally approved the answer given by Nancy in Parliament and the two reasons given for not prosecuting Ibrahim Ali despite his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible, and if so, to justify his reasons given the backdrop of nation-wide outrage at such a grave miscarriage of justice in the light of the recent  sedition dragnet.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 22 October 2014, 3:43 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Law & Order
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Nancy is forgetful and confused

– Ravinder Singh

The Malaysian Insider

21 October 2014

In one breath Nancy said that her parliamentary reply “would have been similar, if the threat was to burn the Quran”.

In the very next breath she said “But I had to answer based on what was done, what was carried out. Based on their analysis, there wasn’t enough evidence (to charge), that is their answer,”

So, can Nancy clarify: if the answer she gave was “their answer”, how could she assure the public that “if the threat was to burn the Quran”, “their answer” would be the same, for she would only be reading “their answer” again. No?

She is all confused. While saying that the answer she gave was “their reply”, she is at the same time asserting that it was her reply. For only if it were her own reply, could she give an assurance that she would give the same reply if the threat was to burn the Quran.

If somebody takes her courageous words to heart and threatens to burn the Quran, can she guarantee that her reply would be the same? How would that be since the reply would be prepared by the A-G Chambers, or would she do a ‘copy and paste’ job and would the A-G let her do so? He might charge her for plagiarism.

The A-G is being made out to be a human that is infallible. Let us just compare this case with the “celaka” case. ‘Celaka’ is not a vulgar word. The Kamus Dewan gives 4 meanings: 1) malang (bkn nasib seseorang), sial, tidak baik. 2) sesuatu yang menyebabkan penderitaan (kesusahan dll), kemalangan, kesialan. 3) makian, keparat, jahanam, bedebah. 4) seruan utk menyatakan kemarahan (kekecewaan dll).

The ‘celaka’ outburst was not pre-planned. It was something spontaneous. It was not a vulgarity and was directed at a few specific persons.

The call to burn bibles was obviously pre-planned. There were no such bibles. So why was it made without such an incident having taken place? It was directed to all and sundry.

Is the A-G not answerable to anyone in the country, not even to the PM or the Cabinet? Does any provision of law or the Constitution say that?

Said Nancy: “Actually, we the cabinet don’t make decisions for the A-G (attorney-general), okay? The A-G acts in accordance to the law, so if we give orders to the A-G, people would ask why are we meddling in A-G’s duties,” she said when asked to comment on the reports.

Is asking the A-G to be accountable for the way his chambers is charging or not charging people which the public sees as biased or on-e sided “meddling in the A-G’s duties”? Can’t Nancy, the PM or even the cabinet ask the A-G to give detailed reasons for the way he is charging or not charging people so that an assessment of the fairness of his actions can be made? Is it wrong for Nancy, the PM or the Cabinet to assess the A-G’s work?

What is the purpose of having ministers if they have no authority to ask people in their ministries to be accountable for their actions and inactions, if they have no authority to assess the performance of these people?

So Nancy’s bold assurance that her parliamentary reply “would have been similar, if the threat was to burn the Quran” holds no water at all. She forgot so quickly that the reply she gave was not her reply. – October 21, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 22 October 2014, 12:59 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Law & Order
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Pakatan needs revamp and reboot, not just recommitment

 – T K Chua

The Malaysian Insider

22 October 2014

Lim Kit Siang is one politician I admire and respect for a long time.  Usually he is realistic and accurate in his assessment of events or happenings in the country and abroad.

However, his recent warning to Pakatan Rakyat (PR) against complacency and his call for the coalition to “regain bearings” and a recommitment to Common Policy Framework and Operational Principle of Consensus may fall short of his usual astute discernment.

I think what happened to PR lately was more than what he described. I think PR needs total revamp and rebooting, not just refocusing or recommitment, if the coalition ever harbours the hope of governing Malaysia someday.

The dichotomy within PR is just too wide and too irreconcilable. The Common Policy Framework is just a Panadol, not a cure. It states what the coalition partners agree, but it ignores and denies what they disagree.

When fighting with a common enemy, they put what they disagree in the backburner. But they probably have attached greater importance to what they disagree than what they agree.

Hence it is a matter of time whatever disagreements simmering beneath the surface would erupt into open fissures.

To me the common policy framework must override individual party policies. If the common policy framework mandates parliamentary democracy, then we can’t have certain party in the coalition still believing in theocracy. If the common policy framework says rule of law and secularism, then we can’t have certain individual party within coalition still believing in hudud.

Maybe it is time for all the coalition partners to do two things and without exception: (i) they must subscribe to the common policy framework fully and unequivocally and (ii) they must abandon all the policies and beliefs which are in conflict or contradict the common policy framework.

If they can’t do these two, then it is better for them to be on their own fighting for their own cause and objective.

PR’s Operational Principle of Consensus may sound reasonable but is devoid of practicality. Making decisions based on consensus is making decisions based on expediency or even hypocrisy.

Henceforth, PR should be making decisions based on agreed principles and policies, otherwise there is nothing to prevent the coalition from having a “consensus” to make stupid decisions or to do stupid things.

Right now, each of the parties within the coalition is recruiting members or courting support from among Malaysians based on its own core policies. PAS has its Islamic state and hudud, PKR has its equality (with a little of “ketuanan”), and DAP has its democratic secularism.

If they have recruited people and solicited support based on very different objectives, how then is the coalition able to promote one common policy framework and one objective?

I think it is time for PR to put upfront what it stands for, not what PAS, PKR or DAP stands for.

I know many of us have argued that getting rid of BN is already a sufficient reason for PR to exist despite its inability to forge a common stand.

Well, the Selangor MB saga has shown that a common enemy is not enough.  Once the coalition has attained power, component party’s policies and objectives would start to rear their ugly heads.  – October 22, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 22 October 2014, 2:21 pm and is filed under
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Recent “pendatang” furore not only proof of failure of Najib’s 1Malaysia policy but 57 years of  UMNO/BN Malaysian nation-building

The recent “pendatang” furore is not only proof of failure of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s 1Malaysia policy, but the 57 years of UMNO/BN Malaysian nation-building.

Apart from Sabah, which is a special case by itself,  the overwhelming majority of Malaysians, regardless of race or religion, are local-born and 100%  Malaysians – a figure which  can be as high as over 95 per cent for  Malaysians in Peninsular Malaysia and Sarawak.

Whether the ancestors of Malays, Chinese or Indians are immigrants,  there can be no cause or justification for any Malaysian to describe another  Malaysians from different ethnicity as “pendatang”, especially when the term is loaded in a very derogatory, pejorative and even abusive sense.

This is in fact questioning the citizenship rights of Malaysians, which is entrenched as one of the four “sensitive” rights in the Malaysian Constitution in 197i, whereby it becomes an automatic sedition offence to call for the withdrawal of a Malaysian’s citizenship.

Since the 70s, there is a National Unity Department in the Prime Minister’s Department, but all the tens and even hundreds millions of ringgit of  budget expenditures for over four decades  for this department in the PM’s Office had been a total waste and loss  when 57 years after Merdeka, extremists are hurling the “pendatang” label at ordinary, loyal and patriotic Malaysians in the latest upsurge of hate speech in the country.

The Prime Minister has reiterated his call for a Global Movement of Moderates in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly, and Malaysia has just been elected to be a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.

Calling loyal, patriotic Malaysians born, bred and who will die in Malaysia as “pendatang” must be condemned as a form of extremism which Najib had denounced in the United Nations and international forms since becoming Prime Minister.

I call on Najib and his Cabinet to seriously review the failure not only  his 1Malaysia policy but  UMNO/BN nation-building policies of the past 57 years since Merdeka, to the extent there  there are  now Malaysians who are  so  extremist and intolerant as  to have no compunction or scruples to label other Malaysians who are  equally local-born as “pendatangs”.

(Media Conference Statement after  Deepavali Hindu  temple visits in Gelang Patah on Wednesday, 22nd October 2014 at 12 noon)

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 22 October 2014, 5:38 pm and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Najib Razak
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Gani Patail fuelling worst crisis of confidence in nation’s history over the role and powers of Attorney-General

The Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail is fuelling the worst crisis of confidence in the nation’s history over the role and powers of the Attorney-General (AG) as a result of his silence over the escalating controversy over non-prosecution of Perkasa President Ibrahim Ali for his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible on the one hand and the sedition blitzkrieg against scores of Malaysians who did not make incendiary statements to create a climate of fear on the other.

This is because  the continued absence of satisfactory accountability and acceptable  explanation that there have been no arbitrary abuse of the AG’s prosecutorial discretion as highlighted by the decision not to prosecute Ibrahim Ali despite the threat to burn the Malay-language Bible and the mass  sedition blitzkrieg  have raised serious questions whether  the Attorney-General is committed to uphold the Rule of Law and to act as guardian of the public interest.

Gani’s predecessors as Attorney-General, Tan Sri Abu Talib from 1980 to 1993 and Tan Sri Mokhtar Abdullah (1994 – 2000) had their controversies when they served under the country’s most controversial Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir but Gani Patail had put both Talib and Mokhtar in the shade both in the volume and gravity  of controversies since becoming AG in 2002.

Gani has gained another distinction of having been criticized by his predecessor, as last month Talib excoriated Gani Patail for undertaking to review the sedition cases against Pakatan Rakyat leaders, academicians and social activists like Prof Dr. Azmi Sharom after the  charges were framed, as the barrage of sedition charges came across as “persecution” and not “prosecution”.

As the former AG said:

“To charge a person is a very serious matter at it affects the accused’s credibility, standing and dignity.

“It will put the accused in an emotional turmoil. Even, if the prosecution withdraws the charge later, the damage is done.”

The former A-G said during his tenure, he only consented to charges being framed if there was “90% evidence to secure conviction”.

He said charges were also framed based on applicable law, fairness and public interest consideration without influence by a third party.

Talib said Gani’s statement that he  would review the charges only gave the impression the decision to charge the accused was made without careful and serious consideration of all the available facts.

“Is he (Gani) admitting that he was not fair and transparent when the accused were first charged, and that is why he is reviewing the cases now? Maybe he should clarify.”

Gani had not only failed to clarify, but had allowed the “white terror” regime of sedition investigations and prosecutions to continue unabated – even pressing for the continuation of sedition trials despite Azmi’s successful application on Oct. 13  to challenge the constitutionality of  the Sedition Act in the High Court, an outcome which would affect all sedition cases.

It is now seven weeks since Gani responded on Sept 9  to massive public outrage at the sedition blitzkrieg, announcing that the AG’s Chambers would review the sedition charges against Azmi and others, but nothing has been forthcoming on the outcome of this review, or whether such a review had taken place.

Do the Prime Minister or the de facto law Minister Nancy Shukri know anything about this review of the sedition charges by the AG’s Chambers, or are they completely in the dark as they are unable to demand any accountability from the AG’s Chambers apart from reading their prepared answers in Parliament?

The present status quo of opaqueness from public and parliamentary accountability of  the Attorney-General and his Chambers is not maintainable in a modern democratic country committed to accountability and good governance principles – and MPs and Malaysians must demand the AG’s Chambers submit to public and parliamentary scrutiny for accountability.

For instance, MPs and the Malaysian public are entitled to know whether in the exercise of the prosecutorial discretion on the basis of ‘public interest’, are these purely legal considerations or they also involve “political” considerations, and if so, the nature of these “political” considerations.

The letter today by the Court of Appeal Judge, K.C.Vohrah on “Doubt in the administration of justice” (Star October 23, 2014) express the  legitimate nagging concerns in many minds.

Vohrah wrote:

“I had been with the A-G Chambers for 16 years in the 70s and early 80s and the protocol for dealing with parliamentary questions was strict. An answer had to go through many layers of scrutiny and approval before being sanctioned by the A-G for release. What has happened to the strict procedure in the A-G Chambers?

“Admittedly the A-G Chambers in my days was, and more so now is, never idle as the volume of problems that come to the chambers for legal opinion is enormous.

“But in matters relating to parliamentary questions, truthful and accurate statements of law are expected in the august body of Parliament as the A-G is the ultimate adviser of the government in legal matters.

“There needs to be a re-think probably of the protocol relating to answers to parliamentary questions especially in criminal law matters, and the decision on the law should be for the A-G Chambers and nobody else, except for the courts.”

Vohrah said the AG’s prosecutorial discretion under Article 145(3) of the Constitution to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence is “an awesome power which has to be exercised bona fide and with great professionalism and care.”

He continued: “And any perception that the A-G when exercising such powers, is biased, selective or acts under ministerial pressure or pressure from any group will bring disrepute to the office of the A-G and cause grave misgivings as to the fair administration of the legal system. And when mistrust arises in regard to the exercise of such powers it would be to the discredit of the Government.”

Vohrah called for the review and withdrawal of cases where persons have already been charged based on three considerations:

 (1) The Sedition Act is an oppressive law and that many jurists and scholars consider sedition (based on common law seditious libel) as obsolete. Seditious libel came during a period when the divine right of rulers was not only accepted but believed to be necessary; rulers who dispensed laws were above questions and criticism of rulers was considered sinful as well as unlawful.

 (2) That once a person is charged for an offence under the Act, looking at the state of case law in Malaysia, there is no defence that can normally be taken for offences, say, under the Penal Code or other acts creating offences. So it appears there can be no defence even of truth, lack of intention, presence of an innocent or honourable intention, absence of consequent harm, or even a lack of possibility or potential for consequent harm. Prove the utterance of words as “seditious” (defined circularly and widely) and there is no defence to the utterance. Very oppressive in the 21st century. And to think this is the law in Malaysia, a democratic country.

(3) That the A-G before exercising his discretion whether to charge a person for sedition must ignore pressure from any quarter, political or otherwise, the noisy and the cantankerous, and the well-meaning and well-intentioned groups (who have not seen the oppressive implications of the law), and focus on whether it is reasonable to charge such a person in the context of all relevant circumstances in an age of “disagreement in ideas and belief on every conceivable subject” which are the essence of our life in modern Malaysia pushing on for developed status in 2020.

Will Gani Patail heed the voice of reason and sanity of an eminent Malaysian jurist, speaking for the overwhelming majority of thinking and reasoned Malaysians?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 23 October 2014, 2:48 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Law & Order
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The ‘pendatang’ label and Gerakan’s ‘wayang’

– Koon Yew Yin

The Malaysian Insider

23 October 2014

At Gerakan’s recently concluded national conference, the public was treated to a lone voice from the party who stated his view with regard to the birth place of the various racial groups in the country.

According to Johor delegate Tan Lai Soon, the Chinese and Indians were not the only pendatang (immigrants), but the Malays were also not natives of Malaysia as they had emigrated from Indonesia.

Tan said he wanted to explain the position of Malaysians in the country, as the original Bumiputeras were the Orang Asli and natives of Sabah and Sarawak.

“Except for the natives of Sabah and Sarawak and the Orang Asli, everyone else in Malaysia is a pendatang.”

Tan noted that “when Umno members say that the Chinese are pendatang, they obviously forgot that they were also pendatang from Indonesia,” he said.

This view is one which many Malaysians hold – whether in public or privately. But it is one which Umno, Perkasa, BTN and “ketuanan Melayu” supporters do not like to hear about and are trying to suppress as it delegitimises the special privileges that they are addicted to.

Tan’s statement can be said to be akin to stating that the emperor is not clothed when he is parading around in his fine new clothes.

 For daring to point out this inconvenient fact of the origins of many Malaysians, Tan’s membership in Gerakan is suspended with immediate effect. Attempting to do damage control, deputy president Cheah Soon Hai argues that Tan’s position was not the party’s stand. According to him Gerakan is a party of all races and that no Malaysian is a pendatang.

Meanwhile, on cue, a coalition of Malay NGOs called Pertubuhan Pembela Islam (Pembela) has lodged a police report at the Dang Wangi police station over the issue and has asked Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail to charge Tan under the Sedition Act 1948.

According to Pembela, the “seditious” statement has given rise to a tensed situation and triggered anger among Malays as well as indirectly insulted the position of the Malay rulers.

Cheah said it was not just Malay NGOs who were upset with Tan’s remarks as party members too had lodged complaints over the remark by Tan in his speech. Finally, he offered a public apology “on behalf of the party to all Malaysians who have been hurt” by his remark.

Gerakan may be trying to sooth Umno’s ruffled feathers by its apology but it is digging a bigger hole for itself.

“Spineless party”, “puppet party”, “kowtowing leaders”, “shameless leaders”,  “wimpering lap dog” are some of the more polite responses that the Gerakan president and vice-president have obtained from disgusted members of the public.

Tan’s statement may be politically incorrect or insensitive but he was simply saying out loud what many educated members of the public understand to be the history of migration into Malaysia from the neighbouring countries and from afar.

This also happens to be the authoritative view among many scholars of Malaysia – whether they may be historians, geographers, demographers or from other disciplines.

The origins of the population of colonial Malaya was the subject of much investigation and study by colonial officials and scholars. Almost all books and official records that came out during the colonial period devoted considerable attention to the subject of the origins of the Malays and non-Malays.

Below are some sample writings on the subject from colonial scholars that will be useful for Gerekan member Tan to use in his defence when his suspension case is heard by his party leaders soon.

R.O. Winstedt:

“In recent historical times the mixture of Malay races has proceeded rapidly in British Malaya …. Old Malay Malacca was full of thousands of Javanese and many Muslim Gujeratis and Tamils, and these aliens must have left their mark on a population that was a collection of strangers from the beginning.  Selangor may have traces of old Malacca suzerainty, but the modern nobility are Bugis and there have been numbers of recent Sumatran immigrants. Negri Sembilan has been Minangkabau almost from the first. In Kedah and the Northern States there has been an infusion of Siamese blood . Again, in every State in the past there has been intercourse with the aborigines, and the aboriginal women have borne children to Malay fathers. Wavy or curly hair, dark complexions and other evidences of Semang blood distinguish the Malay of Upper Perak. South of that there is the lank-haired Indo Chinese Malay type, whose ancestry is Sakai on the distaff side.” Malaya (London, 1923) edited by R.O. Windstedt, pp. 86-87.

Emily Sadka:

 In addition to this internal immigration [Malays into the Protected Malay States] there was a large inflow from the islands of the Indonesian archipelago. In Perak, the foreign immigrants – the Bugis particularly – were the principal traders of the state; a Bugis trader, Nakhoda Trong, was a partner in the syndicate which leased the farm of the Perak river customs duties in 1874. There were settlements of Rawas and Mandelings from north-east Sumatra; a Rawa Che’ Abdul Karim went with a Sumatran to open up Selama in the 1870s, and during the British occupation of Perak in 1875-6, Rawas, Mandelings and Bugis helped the British in their military operations….In 1879, a census of the Malay population in Perak gave the number of foreign Malays as 9,274 out of a total free Malay population of 56,632. In Selangor the population was even more mixed. Towards the end of the seventeenth century, the Bugis settled on the Klang and Selangor, and in the middle of the eighteenth century, a Bugis prince became the first Sultan of Selangor and established the present dynasty. There were important Bugis and Sumatran trading communities in Kuala Lumpur and Klang. It was a quarrel between them that precipitated the Selangor wars of 1866-73. In Kuala Selangor there were also foreign Malay communities; in 1875 the Resident of Selangor described the population as consisting of Mengkabaus, Mandelings, Rawas, Bugis and Chinese….Negri Sembilan…had absorbed into its clan system colonies of immigrants from Malacca, Java and Acheh; and…a Bugis chief had established a settlement on the lower Linggi…

Note that footnotes are omitted except for this one: A Malay traveller has described the population of Klang in 1872 as a heterogenous collection of Malays, Arabs, English, Chinese, Eurasian, Eurasian, Klings, Bengalis, Hindus, and native born (peranakan) of Penang, Malacca, Singapore and Kedah – about 3,000 in all. (See Mohammed Ibrahim bin Abdullah, Kesah Pelayaran [Account of Travels] Johore, 1956, p. 46.)

The above are just two examples of the meticulous accounts of the population of Malaya and Malaysia during the colonial period.

They throw light on various other subjects such as the roots of the royal houses in Malaysia and the dynasties they have founded.

These and other unbiased histories and studies need to be compulsory reading material for all the political parties in Malaysia so that we can avoid further needless controversies on subjects such as   who are pendatang and who are indigenous, and on related issues that provoke unwarranted calls for the use of the Sedition Act. – October 23, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 23 October 2014, 9:25 am and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
Gerakan
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.