A tale of interdependence

By
Goh Keat Peng
 | September 20, 2012

We spend a lot of time on independence, for example, the independence of a nation. But perhaps not enough time on interdependence of the people within an independent nation. These two processes are of dire importance to all human beings.

Here in Malaysia, three days ago, a nineteen year old girl died; on the very day she was to have reported for work for the first time as a kindergarten teacher. The fact that she had come to this point when she could be considered for such a job was in itself a testimony of her courage, discipline, persistence and determination. For her heart (as a bodily organ) was faulty and in 2007, a donor heart  was found but upon transplantation was rejected by her system. A second donor heart became available to her and she underwent the arduous process of heart transplant a second time. This one served her for almost five years till her sudden death.  She is heart-achingly mourned by her parents and the organ donor’s parents and many others throughout the land.

There are many stories within this one story.  In fact, an entire ecology of human relationships was involved. The story transcends many generations, many taboos and prejudices, bringing many souls/lives together. This was a story involving an intricate web of human relationships that demonstrated the best of human courage, kindness, generosity, goodwill and good conduct. As well as the realities of human interdependence which lifts the human spirit through its heart-warming and inspirational qualities.

When all these pieces, these number of human lives came together, something truly beautiful was born; a magnificent practical glimpse of human interdependence.

There was of course the nineteen year old herself. There were her parents. There was her seventeen year old best friend. There was her twenty-two year old boyfriend, all surviving her sudden departure.

Not to forget those who took the trouble to arrange for the donor organ; and her surgeons, physicians, nurses and administrators of IJN (the national heart institute).

And the one other very critical piece in this intricate web of human relationships: the fifteen year old youth who died in a road accident, and the parents and other family members of his who braved traditional mindsets to agree to and to effect the donation of their departed son’s organ so that another life could be sustained.

And according to The Star newspaper report, the father of the youth was smitten by news of the nineteen year old girl, saying:

“I treated her like my own child because part of my son was living inside her. Her death comes just a week before the fifth death anniversary of my son…”

These youngsters’ deaths will not, must not be in vain. One gave a new lease of life to another. The death of the recipient in turn shall and must surely raise consciousness among us all regarding human organ donation that must result in the marked increase of the number of us learning about, making considered decisions and registering ourselves as organ donors.

Let us please take time to consult the following websites to learn more:

http://www.mst.org.my

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Organ-donation/Pages/Introduction.aspx

Let us in fitting memory of Tee Hui Yi and Chin Yoon Kiong not let their deaths be in vain. They have each respectively done their part. Now it is time to do our own.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 21 September 2012, 1:12 pm and is filed under
Health
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Education blueprint: Don’t stampede us into approval

By
Dr Lim Teck Ghee
 | Friday, 21 September 2012 10:30

CPI

I call on the Government not to stampede Malaysians into approving the education blueprint recently presented to the public. This is because there are many unresolved and critical issues which need clarification and deliberation before the blueprint can be considered a satisfactory framework for responding to the deep crisis in our education system and the many challenges that we face in economy and society.

Rushing the blueprint as the final roadmap just ahead of the coming elections not only smacks of political opportunism but it will also adversely impact our students through its untimely implementation of contentious policies in key areas.

Is a new NEP part of the blueprint?

In my opinion, the draft although containing some useful recommendations for reform, has many shortcomings, including the failure to address key problem areas arising from past politicization of the educational system. This politicization associated with the implementation of the New Economic Policy in education has led to a drastic fall in standards as well as the declining quality of human resource development and a less resilient, cohesive and competitive society. It awaits a fuller discussion and analysis in the revised report.

The question of whether there is a covert new NEP agenda in the blueprint that could emerge in its later operation is of the utmost importance. It should be dealt with openly and transparently.

At the macro level too, the blueprint is especially vague on principles, strategies and policies on religious schools; poorer performing rural schools in Sabah and Sarawak as well as the National-Type Chinese and Tamil schools. It also failed to make any mention of the establishment of an English language vernacular stream among other areas of public concern.

An answer is urgently needed to the key question whether the vernacular schools will continue to be treated as stepchildren in the national school system.  It is presently not forthcoming from the draft.

A finalized blueprint needs to state unequivocally that there will be no discrimination against the vernacular schools in all policies, especially in terms of resource allocation. In the absence of a specific assurance in the blueprint, the fear that it will be business as usual is totally understandable. There may be little or no departure from the traditional ways in which these schools have been marginalized and discriminated against by policymakers and implementers.

What place for Islamic and Mara schools?

The position of Islamic religious schools and its growing number of students is a potential disruptive game changer in our secular and multi-religious society. But the Sekolah Agama have not been given the importance or close examination that they deserve. The human resource potential available from these schools needs to be integrated such that they can contribute to the larger society rather than serve the interests of those bent on imposing an Islamic agenda on the country. This more positive objective needs to be spelt out and the strategies and operational steps given substance and specifics.

There is strong evidence that that the disparities in student performance that take up so much attention in the report are the outcome of NEP policies aimed at building up a Malay professional and upper class. Thus a disproportionately large quantum of resources has been deployed towards an elite group of schools that have catered for a small minority of students, mostly coming from already privileged backgrounds.

The failure of the report to be explicit and transparent on these inequitable policies and resource allocations especially for the Mara junior science colleges will result in their continuation into the future, particularly if public discussion and scrutiny are constrained or prohibited. Yet it is of national importance that alternatives to the current Mara system are presented and critically assessed in the blueprint so that all stakeholders can weigh the pros and cons of this stream and its privileged special position in the educational system.

Manipulating history education into the blueprint

At the curriculum level, the authorities need to be open and transparent as to whether the decision to make history a compulsory subject beginning at the primary school level and the new requirement that students need to have a pass in the subject for their SPM, is or is not a part of the blueprint.

The team responsible for the blueprint must surely know that the announcement on the history subject was made at the 2010 Umno general assembly. This anomaly smacks of a politicization of the school syllabus and the suspicion that policy changes were initiated by politicians (from one party) and not by educationists. They must also be aware that this issue is of concern to many parents and educationists who have campaigned for a truthful, liberal and progressive history curriculum in place of the currently religiously and racially skewed one; and who are against any decision to make history education a political football.

This issue is a litmus test as to whether the Prime Minister will honour his promise to approach education from a national viewpoint and not from partisan lines, and also of his undertaking to depoliticize education.

It is also a potential black mark staining the reputation and integrity of the officials, educationists and other individuals associated with the preparation of the blueprint if they are seen as permitting themselves to be made use of by politicians seeking to indoctrinate our young with a racially and religiously skewed version of the history of Malaysia and the world.

Can the Ministry and the education system rise above racial politics?

Finally, more than the 11 shifts listed in the report, the following shifts are necessary in the Ministry of Education and teaching profession if we are to repair the damage inflicted on our education system and transform it so that our young people emerge with the right knowledge, skills, analytical and critical thinking and creativity to participate in a modern, multi-cultural and competitive world. These shifts are:

Learning from the past but not to be imprisoned by past paradigms,

Ensuring that educational rights are not made a political football because of perceived racial, social or economic disparities,

Practicing transparency, openness, fairness and integrity of governance in all aspects of education. Positive values are necessary not only as values for students but also for the Ministry of Education officials and teachers engaged in education,

Rising above racial, religious or political agendas. Every component of our national school system must be regarded as important in our multiracial society and must be provided fair and equal treatment.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 21 September 2012, 1:06 pm and is filed under
Education
,
Lim Teck Ghee
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


I will raise the Keningau Batu Sumpah in Parliament to support my proposal for a RCI on whether expectations of Sabahans and Sarawakians in forming Malaysia had been fulfilled or betrayed in past 50 years

On the 49th Malaysia Day on Sunday, Catholic Bishop Datuk Cornelius Piong in his message questioned if a 49-year-old agreement symbolised by the Keningau Batu Sumpah to uphold religious freedom and other native rights and customs had been kept.

Piong said that 49 years ago leaders from the federation of Malaya promised the people of Sabah they would progress together and have their basic human rights protected, as part of a campaign to convince them to join forces and form Malaysia, with partner states Sarawak and Singapore.

The three key pledges Piong highlighted were guarantees that Sabahans would have freedom of religion, their native land would be safeguarded by the state government and the federal government would respect and protect Sabah local customs.

“Are these promises still being respected and honoured?” Piong asked in his Malaysia Day message.

He said:  “The agreement was carved on an oath stone (Batu Sumpah Peringatan) which is still visible read and remembered.”

I first visited the Keningau district council’s administration centre in March 2010 together with DAP MPs Hiew King Cheu (Kota Kinabalu), Teo Nie Ching (Serdang), Lim Lip Eng (Segambut) and Jimmy Wong (Sabah State Assemblyman for Sri Tanjong) where the Oath Stone still stands, and engraved on the Oath Stone are the words:

“BATU SUMPAH MENGIKUT PERLEMBAGAAN

1.Ugama Bebas dalam Sabah

2.Tanah Tanah dalam Sabah di kuasai oleh Kerajaan Sabah

3.Adat istiadat anak rayat Sabah dihormatkan dan dipelihara oleh Kerajaan.

Sebalik pula rayat2 Sabah di dalam interior bersumpah taat setia kepada Kerajaan Malaysia.”

After my March 2010 visit to the Keningau Batu Sumpah, I had asked: “These were the terms of the oath of loyalty of the Sabahans from the interior five decades ago in exchange for the formation of Malaysia. Have these solemn pledges laid out in the Keningau Batu Sumpah been honoured by both sides?”

Two weeks ago, as part of the DAP Sabah state-wide “Janji Ditepati” Public Hearings, I returned to Keningau and together with the MP for Tuaran, Datuk Seri Wilfred Bumburing, revisited the historic Keningau Oath Stone and I came away more convinced of the legitimacy and relevance of the proposal I had made in Parliament after my first visit to the Keningau Oath Stone in March 2010 – that there should be  a Royal Commission of Inquiry to assess whether the dreams and aspirations of Sabahans and Sarawakians in forming Malaysia had been fulfilled or betrayed in the past five decades.

I had said in 2010 that such a RCI would be the most meaningful way of preparing for the 50th anniversary of Malaysia Day on 16th September 2013, and although there is less than a year left to the 50th Malaysia Day anniversary celebrations next September, the reasons for such a RCI remains valid, sound and pertinent.

I will repeat my call for a RCI to assess whether the dreams and aspirations of Sabahans and Sarawakians in forming Malaysia had been fulfilled or betrayed in the past five decades when Parliament reconvenes next week, and I will highlight the Keningau Oath Stone as the centrepiece of my argument for the establishment of such a RCI so that all MPs, not just from Sabah, but from Sarawak and Peninsular Malaysia learn  of this historic Oath Stone of Keningau.

An assessment of the development of the terms and conditions of the  three key pledges of the Keningau Oath Stone and the Sabah 20-Points Agreement would be a major contribution to making the 50th Malaysia Day anniversary a really meaningful occasion.

In his speech just now, former Tuaran MP Datuk Monggoh Orow spoke of the plight of Sabahan particularly those who are landless.

This is a clear violation of the “Land” pledge in the Keningau Oath Stone, which is scandalous,  outrageous and even downright criminal, for such marginalisation, poverty and socio-economic backwardness should not take place in the second largest state in Malaysia after Sarawak.

Let me respond to Monggoh Orow to pledge that a Pakatan Rakyat government will immediately  implement a policy of “Land for the Landless” for genuine Sabahans who want to work the land, and we will eradicate  the present abuses of power where huge chunks of land are grabbed by those  those in power or for their cronies.

This is a specific instance where the Three Fundamental Pledges of the  Keningau Oath Stone have not been complied with, and it is appropriate, timely and most pertinent that the hopes and aspirations of Sabahans as encapsulated in the Keningau Oath Stone is brought to the attention of the highest political chamber in the land – Parliament.

(Speech at the Angkatan Perubahan Sabah (APS) roadshow ceramah in Kampong Topokon, Tamparuli on Thursday, September 20, 2012 at 9 pm)

                This entry was posted on Friday, 21 September 2012, 2:58 pm and is filed under
Parliament
,
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Should Pakatan Reveal Its Shadow Cabinet?

By
Kee Thuan Chye

Malaysian Digest

I’m surprised that even intelligent people are questioning whether Pakatan Rakyat (PR) is ready to govern at federal level. I must admit I read this on an online news website and the full implications of what they said at a forum last Sunday may not have been comprehensively conveyed, but the gist of it is, they seem sceptical.

To me, the question of whether PR is ready to be the federal government is an unfair one. Was the Alliance ready to rule when the British handed the administration to it in the 1950s?

I believe we have to give people a chance. In many instances, when they are given that chance, they simply step up to the job. That’s what PR did when in 2008 they won, to their great surprise, the state governments of Penang, Selangor, Kedah and Perak. They had no prior experience then of doing the job but they got down to business straight away.

Some observers would say that the PR government in Perak was doing quite well, headed by Nizar Jamaluddin, until Barisan Nasional (BN) inveigled its way into the driver’s seat. The public knew practically nothing about Nizar when he was sworn in as menteri besar, but he turned out to be an effective and likeable leader for the 11 months he served. In other words, he stepped up to the job.

Meanwhile, the state governments of Penang and Selangor have shown their abilities to rule in their first time out. There is a buzz of excitement about Penang these days that had not been there for at least a couple of decades. Lim Guan Eng’s government attracted investments totalling RM10 billion in 2011.

But more than that, the Penang and Selangor state governments have won plaudits from the Auditor-General for their financial management. They have succeeded in increasing revenue and reducing public debt. As a Selangor resident, I can say that the government under Abdul Khalid Ibrahim has not done anything I would object to. In fact, among other things, I support its bid to take over the four water concessionaires in the state.

Were they ready to rule before 2008? Did either one have a shadow executive council prior to that year’s general election?

So I’m surprised that lawyer Andrew Khoo, whose views I usually hold in high regard, expressed at last Sunday’s forum his reservations about PR’s readiness to govern.

I’m sure Khoo’s concern is not a misplaced one and could be easily misinterpreted in the way the report on the forum was angled and written. I also believe that he was not writing off PR as an entity incapable of governing but was instead urging the coalition to get its act together. I base this on what he said: “To me, the great tragedy of Malaysia would be if PR won and then failed as a government.”

My only quarrel with that quote is that it is too pessimistic and drastic. And it is too broad. How does one determine such failure anyway? By the same token, is the current BN government a “failed” one? If it is, would a PR government not do better? If it isn’t, would a PR government, at the very least, not do as well?

In Khoo’s reckoning, PR’s credibility is “restricted” because it has not come up with a shadow Cabinet, i.e. a line-up of people who will helm the government if PR takes Putrajaya at the next general election.

He also says, “Although (PR) have a common policy in (their) Buku Jingga … (the) inability or reluctance of PR to form a shadow Cabinet … has meant they are unable to articulate what their policy is going to be.”

I can’t agree with that. The fact that there is already a policy is a plus point; the articulation will come if and when PR takes office. I don’t think PR needs to name its ministers first in order to articulate this policy. When Najib named his Cabinet, we didn’t know what his policies would be. As time went on, he came up with 1Malaysia and the transformation programmes. Later on, he opted for populist policies aimed mainly at winning the general election. Where do policy and personnel figure in this?

Khoo’s request for a shadow Cabinet is, however, a reasonable one. As some would argue, you need to know if a company can handle the job before you’d hire it. It is also a request that would have a strong place in a true democracy. And certainly in a democracy unfettered by racial and religious prejudices.

But in a Malaysia that is rent by the politics of race and religion and goodness-knows-what-else, the risk an Opposition coalition takes in revealing its shadow Cabinet is as high as automatically losing the general election.

To all intents and purposes, PR may already have a shadow Cabinet, or at least a rough idea of one, but given the vicious tendency of BN hawks to rip apart everything that PR does, revealing the shadow Cabinet would be exposing PR to deadly attacks that could bring deadly consequences.

Once released, the line-up would be pounced upon by the BN-controlled mainstream media and pro-BN bloggers. If the shadow Cabinet were seen to be too multi-racial or if non-Malays were given significant portfolios like Finance or Trade and Industry or even Defence (simply because they merited them), it would suffer race-baiting excoriation. The hyperboles would fly.

BN would go to town reinforcing the fiction that the Malays would truly lose power if the government were run by such a Cabinet. Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim would be called a traitor who sold out his race. PAS leaders would be accused of being puppets who gave in to the influence of the infidels. The DAP would be seen to be more dangerous than Dajjal, capable of mesmerising its coalition partners into surrendering power to it.

If, on the other hand, not enough non-Malays were represented, the non-Malay voters might become disenchanted and not vote for PR. They might say Anwar is someone who could not be trusted after all. Hindraf, or some reincarnation of it, might pop up and hold a massive rally outside PKR’s headquarters.

Either way, it’s a powderkeg. It’s a lose-lose situation. PR’s ratings would drop like a cylinder loaded with C4 explosives. It could result in PR losing the general election even before it’s called. And losing the war before you’ve fought it would be very poor strategy indeed.

In the first place, why take such an unnecessary risk? PR knows how to play the political game. For that reason, I’m sure it knows it cannot reveal its shadow Cabinet. Not now. Not when the general election is called. Not even on the day before voting – because goodness knows what bad press might emerge from there to undermine the coalition’s prospects.

All it takes is an honest mistake, like that on the eve of the 1990 general election when the mainstream media crucified Tengku Razaleigh for wearing a Kadazan headgear that bore on its front what looked like a cross. It cost his Parti Melayu Semangat 46 a lot of Malay votes – and, up to that point, a good chance for the Opposition to at least break BN’s two-thirds majority.

For now, we know Anwar Ibrahim will be prime minister if PR wins. And if that happens, he should only reveal his Cabinet after he’s been sworn in. Not a minute sooner.

And of course, to be perverse, perhaps we should ask whether he is ready to be prime minister since he’s had no experience being one, forgetting that Najib had none either, and neither did Tunku Abdul Rahman, Abdul Razak, Hussein Onn, Abdullah Badawi or even Mahathir Mohamad himself.

So why do we really need to know PR’s shadow Cabinet? Why do we demand so much of PR simply because it may be the new kid in government if it wins? Do we know what Najib’s Cabinet will be if BN wins? He’s likely to reshuffle it, but do we demand to know the likely line-up? I haven’t heard anyone asking. So why pick on PR?

____

*
Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the bestselling book No More Bullshit, Please, We’re All Malaysians, available in major bookstores.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 21 September 2012, 4:20 pm and is filed under
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


‘Smear campaign’, NGOs say of foreign plot claim

By Leannza Chia and Md Izwan

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 21, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 21 ― Activists said today they are now the target of a smear campaign after a number of newspapers aligned with Barisan Nasional (BN) published stories alleging organisations like SUARAM and Bersih took foreign funds as part of a plot to destabilise the country.

It is understood the stories appearing in mainstream newspapers and television news programmes are based on a skeleton plan produced by Putrajaya.

Today, the activists acknowledged to The Malaysian Insider that many of their organisations had received funds from foreign and local sources, but said the money was meant to help finance their respective causes such as to promote democratic practices and campaign for human rights.

They said the funds and their sources were not part of any plot, as suggested by a headline today on the front page of the Umno-controlled New Straits Times.

A host of local non-governmental organisations were named in the report, including Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM), Lawyers for Liberty, Coalition for Free and Fair Elections (Bersih) and the Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ).

A similar story also appeared in MCA-owned newspaper The Star. Both stories quoted sources and unnamed investigators probing the financial background of the NGOs.

The stories pointed out that RM20 million had been received by the NGOs between 2005 and last year from foreign sources such as the Washington-based National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the New York-based Open Society Institute (OSI).

It was not stated why the organisations were under investigation and what they had been doing to destabilise the government or the country.

But many of these organisations have been involved in recent years with campaigns for electoral reforms and for human rights.

“I don’t think there should be an issue about where the funding comes from, as long as whatever that has been done, the funder does not dictate the purpose of why an NGO does something.

“We (as an NGO) have a certain principle and stance. Whether it’s RM1 from (a Malaysian) or US$1 from someone outside the country, it doesn’t matter to us,” said Eric Paulsen, an advisor to Lawyers for Liberty.

He acknowledged that Pakatan Rakyat (PR) parties and many of the NGOs listed in the report were often seen as working together, but pointed out that this was because they were campaigning on the same issues such as being “against the Internal Security Act, Official Secrets Act, abuse of power and corruption.”

“However, if the opposition were to win GE13 and if they were to use the ISA and abuse power, then as NGOs who stand for liberty, we will remain the same and question and campaign against the use of such power.”

“What we are doing is done all over the world. We are campaigning against detention without trial. Is [there] talk about it destabilising the government? No, it’s about justice and stopping oppression.”

“This (story by the NST) is a smear campaign,” he said.

Masjaliza Hamzah from the CIJ told The Malaysian Insider that funding was a major issue for NGOs, as these organisations are constantly scrounging for funds.

“A lot of people who work at NGOs take pay cuts, because they believe in the cause, that it is important to build Malaysia’s democracy. You take this on knowing one day you may be labelled a ‘foreign agent’.

“NST should respond to that (on what they had meant by posting the story). CIJ has spoken up on media freedom, spoken of people being beaten up in Bersih. Are we speaking up for foreign institutions? If you make allegations you should back it with facts. NST, back up your claims.

“I cannot understand the stupidity this country can sink to,” said Masjaliza when referring to the allegations made by NST.

Bersih steering committee member Hishammuddin Rais told The Malaysian Insider that NGO finances have never been a secret.

He compared the foreign funding of NGOs to Malaysia conducting joint military exercises with the United States, which he suggested NST should also look into.

“All the Malays are (also) insisting that the money comes from ‘Yahudi’ (Israel), from the Jews. It is racist. Yes, it comes from NED, and George Soros, but there are also a lot of people who are Jews donating to NGOs. I think this is playing into very racial politics. We should call for a stop on this.”

Arumugam Kalimuthu from SUARAM called the NST report irresponsible and pointed out that his organisation receiving some funding from the US did not equate to trying to topple any government.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 21 September 2012, 9:48 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Media
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The RM20m country, what a laugh!

― Jaleel Hameed

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 21, 2012

SEPT 21 ― How cheap is Malaysia? Power is cheap, labour is cheap, the KR1M shops make sure household goods are cheap. And today, we hear it only takes RM20 million to destabilise the government of the day.

Is this a joke, newspaper and television editors? Is this a cheap joke, even?

That’s all for a government that has been in power since Merdeka? A measly RM20 million in a country of billion-ringgit projects and IPOs?

Cheap isn’t even the word to use if this report is to be believed. That foreign agencies ― and Germany’s RM21,400 ― is all that it takes to make the Najib administration wobbly enough to be taken down.

This, a government that is bullish enough to say it can win all states and its two-thirds majority in the next election that seems further away every day.

How do we believe a report using figures plucked out of thin air and without attribution? How do we believe that there are cheap people out there willing to pay such low rates to people willing to bring down a government for next to peanuts? How, sir?

How is it these mainstream newspapers and television stations even report this without checking their facts, sir? That a government that dispensed RM2 billion in direct cash aid called BR1M can be toppled with just RM20 million?

That SUARAM, Malaysiakini, Seacem, LoyarBurok and Centre for Independent Journalism have such great powers against the might of a civil service and media friendly, if not beholden, to Barisan Nasional?

You know what it is, sir? It’s a cheap shot before the general elections, sir.

It shows Barisan Nasional has run out of bogeymen, and it’s easy to tag these groups as agents of foreign groups either jealous of our success or wanting to put in a liberal, Western-friendly government.

And it shows desperation in getting a coherent storyline to tell to Malaysians to be beware of such groups and their message.

But this is what you get on the cheap, sir. A cheap storyline with a lousy plot worse than a B-grade movie.

And a government cheap enough to resort to such base tactics to remain in power, sir.

Sir, thank you for the cheap laugh today. Tell your journalists to come up with more jokes like this to keep us happy in these gloomy hazy times.

RM20 million to destabilise a government….. What a laugh, sir!

                This entry was posted on Friday, 21 September 2012, 9:28 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Media
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


After Protests, Tunisia’s Salafists Plot a More Radical Revolution

The past week of unrest and protests across the Muslim world was largely the work of more puritanical Salafists, many of whom harbor as much ire for their own governments as they do the West.

By Vivienne Walt / Tunis | September 21, 2012 | TIME

In a park hidden from the road and strewn with trash, two young Salafist men dressed in the traditional garb of gray tunics and sandals laid out their plan for revenge against the anti-Islam YouTube video out of California, as well as cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in a French satirical magazine this week. In the meeting place they had picked for an interview with TIME on Thursday, the men said they were prepared to wait—years, if necessary—for the right moment to avenge the insults from both the U.S. and France. “We never know when the reaction will be, but sooner or later this revenge is going to be seen by the West, just as we saw with the Danish cartoons,” said Mahmoud, 25, a slender man with black hair, referring to drawings of the Muslim prophet which appeared in a Danish newspaper in 2006—two whole years before al-Qaeda detonated a car bomb outside the Danish embassy in Islamabad in apparent revenge, killing five people. With hardline Islamic youth under tight surveillance since the disastrous attack on Tunis’s U.S. Embassy last Friday, Mahmoud says that devout youth like him will simply wait until the heat is off, before taking action, including possible “jihad.” “We can do anything,” Mahmoud said, “but at the right time and place, under the right circumstances.”

Whether such words by Tunisia’s young Salafists are just fiery bluster or a real threat cannot be known, of course. But after days of violent protests across the Muslim world over the “Innocence of Muslims” video, Tunisian officials are taking no chances.

On Friday, one week after enraged Tunisians converged on the U.S. Embassy here, scaled its walls and smashed windows, then hoisted the black al-Qaeda flag on the embassy flagpole, and torched the nearby American school, Tunis’s streets bristled with security forces. In a striking echo from Tunisia’s Jasmine Revolution, military tanks were deployed outside the French Embassy downtown, on the very avenue where giant protests drove out the country’s dictator in Jan. 2011, inspiring the entire Arab Spring.

Nearly 20 months later, police armed with teargas canisters and rifles blocked streets on Friday before noon prayers outside the Salafist El Fath mosque in central Tunis—a stark contrast from last Friday, when security forces were unable, or perhaps partly unwilling, to stop the violence from spinning out of control; it was from this mosque that hundreds of worshipers piled into convoys of vehicles, and stormed towards the U.S. Embassy. And while Tunisia’s Salafist leader Abou Iyadh told crowds at the mosque last Monday that Muslims should fight an “infinite battle” to defend Islam, the message on Friday was drastically different. In a half-hour sermon blasted over Tunis’s busy streets through the mosque’s loudspeakers, the country’s Minister of Religious Affairs, Noureddine Khadmi, pleaded for calm. “It’s totally forbidden in Islam to kill ambassadors or anyone who is sent from another country,” said Khadmi. “We need to protect relations between nations.”

To Mahmoud, the young Salafist, such conciliatory appeals from the government—which have intensified all week—simply confirm a key suspicion of the country’s Salafists: That the Arab Spring has betrayed devout Muslims like him. An accountant by trade, with his first baby on the way, Mahmoud says he joined the young protesters in last year’s Jasmine Revolution (as well as last week’s protests) out of intense hatred of the dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, who had jailed hundreds of Islamists. But while elections last October brought to power Ennahda, a moderate Islamic organization banned under Ben Ali, Mahmoud says the new government has abandoned Muslim devotees like himself. U.S. military aid to Tunisia has roughly doubled since the revolution—proof, says Mahmoud, that the country’s true loyalties lie with the West, rather than Islam. “The government is pretending to be a revolutionary government, but it is not,” he says. “Instead of meeting the expectations of people who revolted against the dictatorship, they’ve adopted the easier option of executing the Western agenda.”

The quandary for Tunisia’s new democratic leaders is how to rein in youth like Mahmoud, without risking further confrontation. In an interview on Thursday, Tunisian President Moncef Marzouki, a secular politician who returned from exile in Paris last year, told TIME he believed there were about 3,000 people who posed a threat of religious violence in Tunisia—a fair number in a country with just 10.6 million. “We have to stop this phenomenon,” he said, sitting in his office in the seaside palace previously occupied by Ben Ali. “These people hate democracy, they do not want this democracy.”

Indeed, sitting in the city park on Thursday, Mahmoud and his friend, who calls himself Mohamed Amin, said they had no interest in Tunisia’s democratic process; the government is deep into writing a new constitution, which will pave the way for regular elections. Instead, Mahmoud said true Salafists like himself believe that Koranic scripture comprises all the rules by which people should be governed—an intensely strict interpretation of Islamic Sharia law. “Democracy is against the model we believe in,” Mahmoud said. “It is ‘power to the people.’ But in Islam, we believe in power to God.”

In recent months, Mahmoud has joined protests at Tunis’s Al Manouba University, where women students are banned from wearing Muslim niqab, or coverall veils, in class—a rule that dates to Ben Ali’s era, and which has not yet been changed. Even among the country’s new Islamist leaders, there is a sense that the rise in hardline Salafism is perhaps a backlash against decades of dictatorship, when outward shows of Islam were banned. In the vacuum, more extreme views took hold underground. “For 20 years even moderate Islam was suppressed,” Rached Ghannouchi, head of the ruling Ennahda Party, told TIME on Thursday; Ghannouchi, who won Tunisia’s first democratic elections last October, was himself exiled until last year. “So these young people got their understanding from satellite channels from abroad, and from the Internet.”

With religious fervor now uncorked, even Ghannouchi—who proposes outlawing anti-Islamic expressions—is perceived as being not religious enough for young, devout Tunisians. Monica Marks, an American doctoral student from Oxford University, who has spent nine months interviewing Salafists across Tunisia, says that the “vast majority” voted for the ruling Islamists in last October’s elections, but would not vote for them again—the next elections are due next year—“because it did not bring Sharia,” she said. While some of Tunisia’s Salafists hold jihadist views of violence, others want “a kind of Amish Islamic existence,” she says, adding that many Salafists she meets remind her strongly of the Jehovah’s Witnesses she knew as a child in Kentucky. While Tunisia’s government “takes Sharia cafeteria style,” advocating some tenets of Islam, but not others, “these young people wanted something more pure, more black and white.”

In Mahmoud’s eyes, increasing numbers of young Tunisians are seeking such purity. It will not spring from the new Arab Spring democracies, where even their protests against the YouTube video and the French cartoons have been blocked. Instead, Salafists will plot another future. “The next step,” he says, “will be an Islamic revolution.”

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 22 September 2012, 10:08 pm and is filed under
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib has completely discredited MACC when he dismissed latest allegations that Sarawak CM Taib Mahmud had amassed billions in wealth as it signaled a clear  “hands off” directive by the PM to MACC not to initiate any investigations

Sad and tragic. The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak single-handedly demolishing the credibility, integrity and professionalism of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC).

And this happening just 48 hours after the MACC’s latest artificial but carefully-crafted publicity blitzkrieg to present itself as a fiercely independent, intrepid and professional anti-graft body comparable to Hong Kong’s world-famous Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) – with government-paper New Straits Times front page report
“MACC gains in graft war”
 on Thursday and a special editorial on MACC on Friday – all collapsing like a house of cards.

MACC claims that it had seized “a whopping RM66 million worth of properties, including bungalows and luxury cars” and arrested more than 900 individuals in its “war against graft over the past two years” paled into insignificance when Najib dismissed allegations that Sarawak Chief Minister, Tan Sri Abdul Taib Mahmud has amassed billions in wealth.

Najib told a press conference this morning after the launching of the Urban Transformation Centre (UTC)  – new name for Pudu Sentral: “There are all kinds of allegations, don’t bothered about it (jangan kita layan)”.

This is a most disappointing and even irresponsible response by the Prime Minister to a ground-breaking but explosive  report by the Swiss-based NGO Bruno Manser Fund (BMF) which estimated the assets of Taib Mahmud’s family at US$21 billion (RM64 billion), with the wealth of Taib himself put at a whopping US$15 billion (RM46 billion) making him Malaysia’s richest man outstripping tycoon Robert Kuok who has US$12.5 billion.

The BMF report entitled
‘The Taib Timber Mafia: Facts and Figures on Politically Exposed Persons from Sarawak, Malaysia’
 was released last Wednesday in Brussels to coincide with a visit by the Malaysian Plantation Industries and Commodities Minister Tan Sri Bernard Dompok to the European Commission and is available on the Internet.

It is the first report that describes in detail the business activities and personal wealth of 20 members of the Taib family in Malaysia, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, United Kingdom, United States and other countries.

The report aimed to build international pressure against the Sarawak’s first family and provide investigating bodies, journalists, Sarawakians and interested parties with hard evidence on the Taib financial empire.

BMF estimated the combined net worth of 20 Taib family members at close to US$21 billion, spread over 400 companies around the globe – all built through their near complete political and economic control of Sarawak, which has been reduced from one of the richest to one of the poorest states in Malaysia over three decades.

The BMF report on the amassing of assets worth  RM64 billion by the Taib family and RM46 billion by Taib himself in his 31 years as Sarawak Chief Minister, through  “monopolies over the granting of logging and plantation concessions, the export of timber, the maintenance of public roads as well as the production and sale of cement, and a number of other construction materials”, would have been one of the “highlights” of the budget parliamentary meeting beginning on Monday.

Was Najib making  a pre-emptive strike this morning to send out an unmistakable message not only to MACC but to Barisan Nasional Ministers and backbenchers  in Parliament not to entertain probes and questions about the BMF report on Taib family’s RM64 billion and Taib’s own RM21 billion fortunes?

I have no doubt that without Najib’s pre-emptive strike today, MACC would have taken the completely neutral but meaningless stand that it was prepared to investigate into the BMF report about Taib and his family’s gargantuan wealth and assets accumulated from 31 years of Taib’s Chief Ministership of Sarawak.

But with the stern signal from Najib today, would MACC dare to initiate investigations into Taib based on the BMF report and would there be any BN MP who would dare to endorse support for a full MACC investigation into the BMF report?

Individuals profiled in the extensive 45-page BMF report include Taib’s brother Onn Mahmud, who is second richest family member with an estimated net worth of US$2 billion, while Taib’s eldest son, Mahmud Abu Bekir Taib, a major player in the Sarawak construction, property and energy business, is ranked third at US$1.5 billion.

Next in line are Taib’s Canada-based socialite daughter Jamilah Taib Murray (US$1 billion), Taib’s brother and timber entrepreneur Tufail Mahmud (US$600 million), sister Raziah Mahmud (US$500 million), daughter Hanifah (US$400 million) and son Sulaiman (US$300 million).

Giving credibility to the BMF report are news reports today about the matrimonial dispute between Mahmud Abu Bekir Taib and his former wife Shahnaz Abdul Majid who is seeking RM400 million in mutaah (gift) and division of joint assets, and  of its continued trial at the Kuala Lumpur Syariah High Court on Monday as there has been no settlement offer from Mahmud’s lawyers to resolve the long-standing dispute.

The Prime Minister is only rubbishing his Government Transformation Programme (GTP) and in particular its seven NKRAs particularly on Fighting Corruption if he is disallowing the  MACC from acting on  the BMF report to probe Taib Mahmud.

Najib should be reminded about the cost of corruption to the nation – which the GTP Roadmap had estimated as potentially amounting to as much as RM10 billion a year or 1-2% of GDP – and the grandiloquent statements in the GTP Roadmap about  fighting the scourge of “grand corruption” by politicians and senior civil servants.

Where is the credibility of the  GTP Roadmap and NKRA to fight corruption, and in particular to eradicate  “grand corruption”, when the BMF report on Taib family’s RM64 billion and Taib’s own RM21 billion fortunes amassed during Taib’s 31 years as Sarawak Chief Minister could not be used by the MACC as basis for its anti-corruption mission?

The BMF report compares Taib’s family with the clans of former Indonesian president Suharto and former Philippines president Ferdinand Marcos – the two families had embezzled between US$15 billion and US$35 billion, and between US$20 billion and US$900 billion respectively.

The BMF report believes its research is “showing merely the tip of the iceberg as many (Taib) family assets are likely to be hidden overseas or in offshore districts where information is virtually impossible to obtain”.

Najib should retract his implicit “hands off” directive to the MACC and declare unequivocally that the MACC is duty-bound to make use of the BMF report to conduct a full, thorough and wide-ranging investigation into allegations of “grand corruption” by Taib and his family in Taib’s 31-year Chief Ministership of Sarawak.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 22 September 2012, 4:53 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Nice words, but not good enough, Umno

 ― Othman Wahab

The Malaysian Insider

Sept 22, 2012

SEPT 22 ― Thank you to The Malaysian Insider for being upfront about the fact that Saifuddin Abdullah is a minority and that his views, no matter how enlightened, do not represent that which prevails in Umno.

In fact, let us not get carried away with nice words and intelligent discourse or even the occasional Oxford-speak. I only ask Malaysians to ponder about these questions.

1) Is Saifuddin Abdullah a deputy minister in Najib Razak’s government?

2) Is Saifuddin still a member of Umno and a supreme council member?

3) Has Umno become a party of corrupt politicians and protector of right wing politics, unrecognisable from the party helmed by Tunku Abdul Rahman?

4) Is Umno the political party that defended the abuse of government funds in the National Feedlot Centre and continues to laud Shahrizat Jalil as a leader? By the way, didn’t the so-called enlightened Khairy Jamaluddin defend the NFC?

5) Is Umno the political party that has been demonising the movement for free and fair elections (Bersih)?

6) Aren’t Umno and BN the players that usurped the power of the people to elect a government in Perak by the naked aggression and wanton disregard of convention and law?

7) Isn’t this the government that has been indecently spending tax payers’ money to buy votes?

8) Isn’t this the government that has turned the mainstream media into purveyors of falsehood and thrashed once proud institutions such as the judiciary?

The last time I checked, Saifuddin was still an Umno member and a deputy minister. Given that he is still colleagues with Shahrizat, Hishammuddin Hussein, Muhyiddin Yassin, Dr Chua Soi Lek and others, I dare to say that his words are just words.

You can’t talk reform and change and all that stuff, and still hang with the old crowd.

As long as you are in Umno/BN, you are as culpable as the rest for their long list of misdeeds.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 22 September 2012, 11:27 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Corruption
,
Judiciary
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Public Funding

by Allan CF Goh

(A poem)

Public fund comes from taxations,

Or other forms of collections.

The money comes from the masses,

And must be used without messes.

The government must act the trustee,

With honourable guarantee.

The fund is meant for public wants,

And not squandered on useless wont.

It must be spent on people’s need,

Not to satisfy cronies’ feed,

Nor given away by ‘Santa Claus’,

Without justifiable cause.

It’s not for manipulation,

Or vacant vilification,

Of different political arts,

That contend for the people’s hearts.

When people’s organisations

Ask for real fair distributions,

They are only requesting a share

Of their very own rightful ware.

They don’t have to kowtow to whims

And fancies of official wimps;

They have rights to plan benefits,

For the communities’ needs to fit,

Be they pro-State or otherwise,

We must respect their actions wise.

They are entitled to State fund

To fuel their activities and fun.

This will void their needful begging,

From foreigners’ benign giving.

The State should guard against waste, greed;

That’s the government’s only creed.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 22 September 2012, 9:36 pm and is filed under
Poem
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Ramalan Dr M akan salah lagi rasanya

— Aspan Alias

The Malaysian Insider

Sept 21, 2012

21 SEPT — Betulkah pandangan Dr Mahathir Mohamad yang Barisan Nasional (BN) akan menang tipis dalam PRU yang akan datang? Ada yang bertanya samada ramalan ramai yang Umno akan tumbang ada kebenarannya.

Dr Mahathir meramalkan kemenangan untuk BN, tetapi kemenangan yang tipis. Dr Mahathir juga mengakui yang BN akan menjadi kerajaan yang lemah dan akan menghadapi masalah “defection” selepas pilihanraya dan sebagainya.

Dr Mahathir meramalkan yang BN akan mendapat majoriti 2/3 jika BN menghadapi PRU kali ini dengan lebih kuat dan melakukan pemilihan calon dengan tepat.

Keupayaan Dr Mahathir untuk menelaah keputusan PRU itu menjadi persoalan kepada yang berfikir. Dalam pada Umno menghadapi masalah yang besar sekarang, mana mungkin Umno itu akan mendapat kemenangan majoriti 2/3 di Dewan Parlimen? Walau bagaimanapun sesiapa sahaja termasuk Dr Mahathir sendiri berhak untuk meramalkan keputusan PRU itu nanti, kerana pilihanraya itu pun belum diadakan lagi.

Pihak lain pula ramai yang meramalkan Pakatan Rakyat (PR) akan menang “hands down” dan akan melakukan perubahan besar kepada lanskap politik buat pertama kali dalam sejarah kemerdekaan negara kita.

Dr Mahathir berkata yang Pakatan Rakyat ini hanya sekumpulan manusia yang berpakat-pakat untuk melakukan kejahatan. Tetapi semua pakat-pakat yang beliau lakukan sekarang terbukti sebagai pakat-pakat jahat untuk kepentingan segelintiran pemimpin dan kroni-kroni mereka sahaja.

Salah satu dari dua ramalan itu akan menjadi kenyataan: Samada yang mengatakan BN akan kalah atau pun pihak yang mengatakan BN akan kekal memenangi PRU itu nanti.

Tetapi apa yang hendak saya nyatakan di sini ialah, tidak semua ramalan Dr Mahathir itu menjadi kenyataan. Ramai yang berkata Dr Mahathir hanya berkata-kata dengan apa yang beliau hendak dengar sahaja.

Pada tahun 1985 dahulu beliau meramalkan yang Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) yang baru sahaja wujud tidak akan berjaya mengalahkan parti Berjaya dan kerajaan yang dipimpin oleh Harris Salleh di Sabah.

Dr Mahathir mempunyai keyakinan seratus peratus yang Berjaya akan dapat mengekalkan mandat dalam pilihanraya negeri pada tahun itu kerana PBS adalah parti baru dan tidak mungkin berjaya.

Dr Mahathir begitu berkeyakinan yang Berjaya akan berjaya dan beliau terus memberikan sokongan terbuka kepada Berjaya untuk mengekalkan kuasa di Sabah. Dr Mahathir dalam ucapan beliau di Sabah dalam kempen pilihanraya itu telah berucap dengan penuh keyakinan dan beliau berjanji yang beliau akan berenang atau tenggelam bersama Berjaya.

Akhirnya Berjaya telah tumpas dengan teruknya sehinggakan Harris Salleh sendiri telah kalah di kawasannya sendiri, di Tenom. Tetapi Dr Mahathir berubah pendirian dan tidak mahu tenggelam bersama Berjaya seperti yang beliau janjikan semasa kempen pilihanraya itu.

Dr Mahathir sedar yang beliau telah tersalah membuat ramalan terhadap keputusan pilihanraya negeri itu. Dr Mahathir terus berenang dan membiarkan sahaja Harris Salleh tenggelam sendirian.

Sesungguhnya tidak mustahil jika Umno mengalami keadaan seperti yang dialami oleh Berjaya. Apabila rakyat mahukan perubahan, keadaan itu akan wujud dengan sekelip mata sahaja.

Rakyat akan menolak dan meruntuhkan parti yang telah terlalu lama menjadi “sanctuary” kepada semua pemimpin-pemimpin dan kroni-kroni yang rakus selama ini.

Rasanya Dr Mahathir akan tersalah ramal lagi kali ini… — aspanaliasnet.blogspot.com

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 22 September 2012, 11:26 am and is filed under
Elections
,
Mahathir
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Senseless rage over anti-Islam film

— Islamic Renaissance Front

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 22, 2012

SEPT 22 — The Islamic Renaissance Front views the recent murders and uproar over the film “Innocence of Muslims” with much sadness and bafflement.

All available facts suggest that “Innocence of Muslims” is not even a film. What is currently known about it was available in the widely circulated YouTube clip which ran for a total of some 13-odd minutes. What is worse, most critics are in agreement on the film’s utterly poor quality — cheap sets, mediocre actors, bad voice-overs and incomprehensible narrative — all of which explains why no one had even heard of the so-called film until Muslims decided to make a fuss about it.

Indeed, the added tragedy is not so much that the film is Islamophobic, which it clearly is, but that the unnecessary attention given to it by angry Muslims, eventually gave the film far more publicity than it deserves.

Why?

The question is why. What is behind the apparent trend of Muslim hypersensitivity? For the protests is just one occurrence out of countless others before, whereby masses of Muslims occupy public space to pressure some form of censure, punishment or banning of some product for insulting Islam. Rather than to reflect, negotiate or dialogue the tenor has often been to confront and suppress.

The most well-known case to date was the furore over Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses”. More recently there were the Danish cartoons. Even the rather well produced “The Message”, directed by Moustafa Akkad in 1976 with Anthony Quinn as the main actor, which did not portray the Prophet at all was deemed by many Muslims to be offensive. A Muslim group staged a siege against the Washington DC chapter of B’nai B’rith, threatening to blow up the building and its inhabitants under the false belief that Quinn portrayed the Prophet.

We now witnessed the needless deaths of dozens of innocent civilians as a result of violent protests that only reinforced the distorted image of Islam as a religion of violence and intolerance. It portrays the vicious face of a religion that was supposed to be a religion of peace and compassion.

The West?

When one observes the discourse closely, one will find that what underlies the narrative is a sense of defeat and insecurity upon being overwhelmed by what is often broadly termed as “the West”. This sentiment is an obvious continuation of an earlier resentment against Western colonialism, which almost all Muslim-majority countries today experienced in one form or another. Daily life in the age of globalisation too has seen an increase of presence by Western products as well as political and cultural values. Geopolitically, the presence of Western military forces in Muslim countries is all too apparent and overwhelming.

All this has somehow been viewed by Muslims as a sign that Islam is left behind, in one way or another, as a civilisation. That in turn further reinforces the anxiety of powerlessness before fearful imaginations of a monolithic behemoth called “the West”. From there, everything Islamic is juxtaposed against it, giving rise to a mood of scepticism against anything and everything that comes from the so-called “West”.

Towards openness and dialogue

But the situation is not that simple. While there has been much decline in science and learning in the Muslim world, which is undeniably tied to a history of colonial exploitation, Muslims must learn to take responsibility for the course of their own progress. Thus, rather than to recoil in defensiveness against everything Western or offensive, there must be instead, an attitude of critical reflection and openness to ideas.

Progress requires freedom, for no genuine learning can proceed when power is imposed from without on what can be said and heard. To embrace this is not to embrace or justify Islamophobic or racist sentiments. It is rather to affirm that racist or Islamophobic sentiments are best dealt with through dialogue, learning and empathy rather than brute force or coercion.

Hate must be combated. Oppression must end. But Muslims will only fail themselves if they proceed in a stupor of insecurity and anger.

Islam is a religion of patience and compassion

There is nothing in Islam that says hate must be combated with more hate. Recall, when the Prophet Muhammad was just beginning his mission, a woman placed faeces at his door in hatred of Islam. Muhammad endured the humiliation peacefully, neither choosing to retaliate in anger or violence, to exemplify that ethos of calm and compassion that defined the eventual success of Islam in Mecca.

Conservative Muslims tend to regard such instances as inevitable given that Muslims did not get in power until Medina, but they forget the historical fact that it was Muhammad’s exemplary character as a clear-headed leader in Mecca that compelled the Medinans to turn to him as an arbiter and leader for their fragmented city in the first place.

Calm and compassion needed in Malaysia too

Yesterday, thousands gathered outside Masjid Jamek Kampung Baru and the US Embassy to protest the “Innocence of Muslims”. Interestingly this saw members of the Islamist party (PAS) and the main ruling Malay party (Umno) marching for a similar cause for once, even prompting the Umno Youth chief to invite PAS to join the ruling coalition.

It is too early to say if this will lead to anything but it does reveal again an age-old fact about Malay politics, namely in how the vagueness of “Malay and Muslim unity” is used as a pretext to overlook other more concerned issues, such as socio-economic justice and multiracial solidarity. Emotions and passions reign ahead of clear-headed rationale and human values.

The Islamic Renaissance Front once again calls for all Muslims to focus on the central agenda of Islam and that is the end of oppression and the establishment of a just society whereby all citizens irrespective of race and creed are treated equally. Enough lives, time and effort have been wasted over this film. It is time to move on and wake up.

* This Islamic Renaissance Front statement carries the names of Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa, Ahmad Fuad Rahmad, Fadiah Nadwa Fikri, Rizqi Mukhriz and Ehsan Shahwahid.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 22 September 2012, 8:39 pm and is filed under
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Speaking up for Suaram

by Rom Nain

Malaysiakini

Sep 20, 2012

When there is no transparency, when everything is evidently opaque, when regime credibility is at all-time low, perception – often based on rumour, kopitiam gossip and the alternative media –   becomes all.

Just look at crime. At a time when the people started feeling terribly anxious about their personal welfare and security, the regime started to boast about record crime prevention statistics and the purported reduction in crime.

When these statistics were questioned, when contradictory figures were highlighted, excuses rather than valid explanations were offered.

And then, quickly, the matter was dropped, certainly by the sycophantic mainstream media, in the hope that the people will forget.

But, of course, they haven’t. Their daily experiences of increasing crime make them view official explanations with scepticism.

It’s been the same, too, with the recent detention of young Malaysians for, at worst, petulant, impertinent acts, like the mooning of photographs and for stamping on these photographs. And then being threatened, without much explanation, with charges under the odious Sedition Act.

When it is pointed out that no such actions were taken for earlier, much worse deeds, similar in manner but executed instead on the opposition by the regime’s minions, very quickly, almost as an afterthought, action is taken against them.

Or at least we are told so, although we haven’t yet seen anyone being arrested, handcuffed and dragged to the balai for peeing on banners of Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat and torching posters of Lim Guan Eng and Bersih head, Ambiga Sreenevasan.

So, yet again, there is no transparency. And yet again, scepticism mounts.

And now, there’s this all-out attack on Suaram.

As has been suggested, perhaps this is, after all, a set-up by groups within the regime, conspiring to dislodge their top man.

Or maybe, more likely, it’s simply various individuals and parties in high places within the regime getting terribly desperate because they feel the Scorpene noose tightening around their necks as the general election looms.

Hence the need to lash out blindly, unthinkingly. To cover up perhaps.

Whatever it is, the ongoing attacks on Suaram, while predictable, nonetheless are downright annoying, indicating how moronic and devoid of intelligent ideas this pathetic regime continues to be.

Battering ram approach

No less than six federal agencies – Bank Negara, the Home Ministry, the police, the Registrar of Societies (ROS), the Companies Commission of Malaysia (CCM) and the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) – reportedly have been brought together to investigate Suaram.

Evidently, this is the regime’s battering ram approach. Yet, despite the heavy-duty machinery, there’s been no earth-shattering revelation.

Apart from the vague assertions about ‘suspected transactions’ reported in the Internet media, the boldest accusation has been that Suaram received  funds from foreign organisations from Germany and from that bogeyman, George Soros.

But so what if they have?

The organisations reported, including the one linked to George Soros, are not criminal organisations and, indeed, share Suaram’s primary concern for human rights.

They have admirable track records of funding civil society organisations involved in doing good work all around the world.

And, in any case, this bogey of ‘foreign funders’ needs to stop.

The myth being purveyed is that everything that’s ‘foreign’ (especially foreign funding) is bad.

If that were the case, more than half of the research conducted in our universities, for example, would really have to go.

Fact is, international, intergovernment and non-government agencies provide a lot of the funding for much exemplary work to be carried out in so many areas in Malaysia. This has been the case for as long as some of these universities, think-tanks and NGOs have been in existence.

Indeed, without foreign funding, many  of my colleagues would be on the next plane back to England.

Also, daily examples of foreign investment in this country indicate how much we as a country depend on foreign funding.

Like it or not, this is what globalisation is all about. So, unless, firstly, the country has the necessary funds and the expertise required, there will be a need for foreign collaboration.

Unfortunately, over many years this country has been bled quite dry of much-needed funds, making such self-sufficiency a pipe dream.

‘Coconut shell’ belief

Of course, secondly, you may talk about ketuanan and all that crap, refuse all this funding, and  relegate us to the backwaters of civilisation, with minimal contact with the big, bad world out there, safe in the ‘coconut shell’ belief that we are, indeed, the world.

So, to cut to the chase, foreign funding is a reality. And until now, it’s  been a legitimate reality.

And anyone who’s been following Suaram all this time will appreciate the good work that it has done. The numerous research and publications the organisation produces continue to be used by academics and commentators in and outside Malaysia.

At home and abroad, Suaram has established a reputation as being a fiercely independent and brave critic of human rights abuses, institutional corruption and abuse of power.

Indeed, issues which the regime – certainly through its ‘transformation’ programmes, its Rakyat didahulukan, pencapaian diutamakan (People first, performance now) slogan – has said it will address… although perhaps they mean to do this in another lifetime.

So, really, do they think that persecuting Suaram will silence them… or the many other NGOs waiting in the wings to take up Suaram’s causes?

Do they think intimidating and harassing Suaram will discredit Suaram, at a time when many already perceive that something is not quite kosher?

Do they not realise that many Malaysians are asking why, of all the organisations out there that have been exposed as being really shady, including, of course, the much-exposed-but-hardly-questioned National Feedlot Corporation (NFC), it is Suaram that is being targeted?

Yes, Suaram, oh-so-coincidentally the very organisation whose revelations about the Scorpene scandal could shake the very foundations of this regime.

If the regime’s ‘solution’ to all this is intimidation and persecution, it is bound to fail.

Many Malaysians have simply grown so tired of this bullying.

They – we – have clear, and negative, perceptions of a regime that once again is out to silence a small, independent outfit.

An outfit whose ongoing revelations evidently are scaring the living daylights out of major political stakeholders in the regime. An outfit that, really, is but one out of so many others.

——————————————————————————–

ROM NAIN is a media analyst and academic who is weary of incompetent, unethical leaders and their apologists and spin doctors in the media who try to get away with murder while professing to rub shoulders with God’s angels.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 22 September 2012, 2:10 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Crime
,
Good Governance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The Backlash Over ‘The Innocence Of Muslims’

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL)

September 21, 2012

Backlash against the anti-Islam film the “Innocence of Muslims” has sparked demonstrations in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, and several other countries with majority-Muslim populations.

Though significantly smaller than the protests of 2011 that toppled governments in Tunisia, Egypt, and elsewhere, some of the demonstrations have turned violent and have been marked by attacks on Western diplomatic outposts. The most high-profile attack came on September 11 — the day the protests began — in Benghazi, Libya, where an armed group stormed the U.S. consulate, killing U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.

For more on who is protesting and why, RFE/RL spoke to academic
Olivier Roy
, historian and writer
Tariq Ali
, and author
Charles Kurzman
.

Olivier Roy: “It’s not true that there is a general ban on pictures of Muhammad. It’s a Salafist view and now the Salafist view is dominant. But if you look at miniatures in the Middle Ages, you had a lot of representations of the Prophet. The story that there is no representation of the Prophet in Islam just doesn’t exist; it’s a modern invention. You can find a huge iconography of Muslim representations of the Prophet, including in Pakistan, by the way. Until the 1960s, you could buy a picture of Muhammad in the shops in Pakistan. It’s only a recent kind of Salafist interpretation.” [READ THE ENTIRE INTERVIEW]

Tariq Ali: “Without a doubt [local grievances against the West play a big part in these protests]. The religion has been politicized. The reason for that, of course, is that during the Cold War the United States was backing most of these [extremist Islamist] groups to fight communism all over the world, especially in the Muslim world. Wahhabi preachers were sent with American approval by Saudi Arabia to create what we now know as political Islam.” [READ THE ENTIRE INTERVIEW]

Charles Kurzman: “I call this a clash of hatreds. Most people do not hate one another and yet these small groups who do hate seem to be able to grab the headlines and get everybody’s attention. Let’s keep in mind that protesting an insult is perfectly legal in most countries, including the United States, and if people want to hold signs or even burn flags, they’re allowed to do that. That is called free speech, and so I do not mind when groups organize to protest a movie. I think that is a sign of political participation.” [READ THE ENTIRE INTERVIEW]

——————————————————————————–

(1) Olivier Roy: Violence Is Simply Politics, Not A Clash Of Civilizations

As the Muslim world continues to react, sometimes violently, to a film, “The Innocence of Muslims,” that portrays the Prophet Muhammad in a negative light, observers are weighing in on the reasons behind Muslim anger.

One is Olivier Roy, a French scholar who has written extensively on Islam and the politics of the Middle East and Central Asia. In an interview with RFE/RL correspondent Frud Bezhan, Roy argues that the violence is not driven by a clash of civilizations, but rather by regional politics.

RFE/RL: Why has “The Innocence of Muslims,” the low-budget film that satirizes the Prophet Muhammad and Islam, caused so much violent outrage? Is there a historical, religious, or political explanation as to why defamation of religion in the Muslim world often leads to violence, as opposed to other regions and religions?

Olivier Roy: The issue is not Islam; the issue is political agenda. What we have now in the Middle East is a sort of triangle. We have the Arab Spring, the Salafist movement [which advocates violent jihad and a strict interpretation of Islam], and the pro-Iranian coalition.

Both the Salafists and the Iranians are trying to make use of anything that could turn the Arab streets against the West and to undermine both the Arab Spring and to undermine the conservative Sunni coalition, which is against Iran. We have a Sunni coalition with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, and the Gulf states which strongly opposes the Iranian interference in the Middle East. This coalition has the same interests, which is to prevent Iran from having a nuclear bomb. So, the Iranians are trying to split this coalition by calling on the Arab streets to fight against their governments.

It is not a matter of clash of civilizations or this stupid stuff; it’s politics.

RFE/RL: Why is freedom of expression —  in the form of films, books, and art that are critical of Islam —  not tolerated in the Muslim world?

Roy: It depends on the countries themselves. You can do that in Turkey, for example, but it’s a bit difficult to do that in Egypt. Once again, it has to do with politics.

When the government is looking for the support of the Salafists, of course there is a problem with criticism. But when the government is neutral or democratic, there is no such problem. So now the issue is to see to which extent democratization will give way to free speech. We have a coalition of Salafists and conservatives who are opposed to both free speech and democratization. So it’s once again linked to the present evolution in the Muslim world.

RFE/RL: You have said that some controversial publications and artworks have not attracted the same outrage as this film. What has made this controversy so explosive?

Roy: It depends what they do. You cannot speak of “The Innocence of Muslims” as art. It’s not a piece of art; it’s just bullshit. So, there’s a big difference between — let’s say Salman Rushdie, a real writer and artist — and “The Innocence of Muslims.”

So, I think that there have been criticisms and critical pieces of art, which didn’t [lead to] anything. The problem is when it’s politically manipulated by Muslims or the Christian right. So, it’s largely a matter of political manipulation.

RFE/RL: Some commentators have suggested that the violence over the film illustrates wider anti-Western sentiment in the Muslim world. What kind of role have local grievances against the West, and in particular against the United States, played in the violent demonstrations?

Roy: The protests have been carried out by [only] a small minority. [For example,] you have 2,000 Salafists in Tunisia and you have 190 in Paris. So, it’s politically motivated. It’s simply politics. If the Muslim world were against the West, you would have millions of people on the streets, but now you only have thousands of people on the streets. So it’s a way to present an elliptical illusion.

RFE/RL: What kind of role have extremist Islamic circles played in the violence over the film? Has there been a divided response in the Muslim world toward the controversy?

Roy: You have Salafist Islam, liberal Islam, conservative Islam; you have what you want. So the issue is not Islam; the issue is which kind and which ideology. You have Salafists and the Islamists. The Islamists are changing now because 20 years ago it would have been they who would have gone to the streets, but now it’s the Salafists.

The problem for the Islamists in the Middle East is that they now have to take a position: whether they side with the Salafists or they clash with them. Of course, they are trying to avoid making a choice. It’s clear in Tunisia that they are divided. Some people of the Ennahda [Tunisian Islamist party that came to power after elections last year] don’t want to clash with the Salafists and others say it’s time to send the police and the army. The same thing is happening in Libya and Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt already sent the army against the jihadists.

RFE/RL: Some political commentators and Islamic scholars have suggested that depictions of the Prophet Muhammad are against the spirit of Islam. Is this correct?

Roy: It’s an interpretation. In history, you have had a lot of pictures of Prophet Muhammad. It’s not true that there is a general ban on pictures of Muhammad. It’s a Salafist view and now the Salafist view is dominant. But if you look at miniatures in the Middle Ages, you had a lot of representations of the Prophet. The story that there is no representation of the Prophet in Islam just doesn’t exist; it’s a modern invention.

You can find a huge iconography of Muslim representations of the Prophet, including in Pakistan, by the way. Until the 1960s, you could buy a picture of Muhammad in the shops in Pakistan. It’s only a recent kind of Salafist interpretation.

RFE/RL: There have been violent protests across Afghanistan over the film. You say this is a relatively new phenomenon in the country. What has changed in Afghan society that perceived Western insults can often result in violence?

Roy: I think in Afghanistan, we have a huge crisis of identity. Nationalism has been undermined by the ethnic divides and the country has been at civil war for more than 30 years. So this kind of emotional relationship to Islam — [compared to] an abstract version of Islam that traditionally [defines] Afghan Islam — is a way to tie an identity.

It’s also to oppose Western troops, whose status is very ambiguous in the eyes of the Afghans. On the one hand, they came to the defense of Afghanistan. But on the other, they are occupation troops.

So, Islam is here, in a sense, precisely to depoliticize the situation and to avoid thinking in real political terms and in ethnic terms, which is the key issue in Afghanistan.

——————————————————————————–

(2) Tariq Ali: The West ‘Created This Monster’

As the Muslim world continues to react, sometimes violently, to a film, “The Innocence of Muslims,” that portrays the Prophet Muhammad in a negative light, observers are weighing in on the reasons behind Muslim anger.

One is Tariq Ali, a veteran Pakistani-born British military historian, author, and journalist who has written extensively on political Islam and the Middle East. He tells RFE/RL correspondent Frud Bezhan that the current situation is blowback from decades of U.S. policy.

RFE/RL: Why has “The Innocence of Muslims” caused so much violent outrage? Is there a historical, religious, or political explanation as to why defamation of religion in the Muslim world often leads to violence, as opposed to other regions and religions?

Tariq Ali: The question you have to ask is why these cartoons  and films are being made at this particular time. Why weren’t they made for most of the last century? The reasons these films are being made is precisely because of the occupation of the Muslim world by the United States and its allies, which have created an atmosphere of extreme Islamophobia.

You have, sometimes, liberals — but usually the right and extreme right — which feel it’s a good thing to carry on provoking [extremists in the Middle East]. That’s why they do it. It has nothing to do with free speech. The Muslim reaction to it is the same reasons that these guys do it. They feel occupied, they’re angry, and the Arab world is in turmoil. So they react in that way. You can’t isolate this from world politics.

RFE/RL: There seems to be a general assumption that depictions of the Prophet Muhammad are “un-Islamic.” How much of this is true and how much is it a myth created by extremist elements?

Ali: A questioning of Prophet Muhammad is not tolerated. There is a form of idolatry of the Prophet that is actually against the spirit of Islam, which is totally opposed to idolatry. So, people react to these attacks on the Prophet as an attack on their culture. They know they’re being provoked and they get provoked.

In the past, I have written that the best way to stop this would be to ignore these things, but the world is too volatile now.

RFE/RL: You say local grievances in the Muslim world against the West, and in particular against the United States, have a major role in the violent demonstrations. If so, what events have led to this?

Ali: You have a situation today where the United States occupies a number of countries in the Arab world [like] Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Libya, which is a NATO protectorate, and they are very close to the military in Egypt. So that creates a new mood, which is why people react in this way.

Without a doubt [local grievances against the West play a big part in these protests]. The religion has been politicized. The reason for that, of course, is that during the Cold War the United States was backing most of these [extremist Islamist] groups to fight communism all over the world, especially in the Muslim world. Wahhabi preachers were sent with American approval by Saudi Arabia to create what we now know as political Islam. They did that and now they are paying the price for it. [The West] created this monster.

RFE/RL: Will these violent demonstrations in reaction to the defamation of Islam continue? How do you see it evolving going forward?

Ali: The way forward is to create a way of life, not just in the Muslim world but the world at large in which people have some stake in the world in which they live.

At the moment, increasingly democracy is being hollowed out in the Western world, leave alone anywhere else. So people, to fill the vacuum, some move towards nationalism, as in China. And others move towards religion, like in the Arab world.

——————————————————————————–

3. Charles Kurzman: ‘Clash Of Hatreds’ Not Representative Of Muslim Society

As the Muslim world continues to react, sometimes violently, to a film, “The Innocence of Muslims,” that portrays the Prophet Muhammad in a negative light, observers are weighing in on the reasons behind Muslim anger. One is Charles Kurzman, a leading authority on Muslim movements and the author of “The Missing Martyrs,” a book that argues that the radical minority does not represent Muslims as a whole.

In an interview with RFE/RL correspondent Golnaz Esfandiari, Kurzman argues that what we are seeing is an opportunistic “clash of hatreds.”

RFE/RL: How much is this rage orchestrated and fanned by a small group of extremists and how much is spontaneous?

Charles Kurzman: I have no inside knowledge about either the moviemakers or about the protests against the movie. But as an outsider, it seems to me that we have seen this whole [thing] before. Somebody says something outrageous and offensive, other people take offense and engage in protests that turn violent on occasion, and that just reinforces the animosity and hatred on both sides.

It seems so sad that we are forced to watch [these same scenes] over and over, while most of us just want to get along.

RFE/RL: As you said, these kinds of protests have happened before. Some observers in the region have said that extremists are behind them and are co-opting them for their own interests. Why do some Muslims get provoked so easily?

Kurzman: I think in all countries there are small groups that get provoked easily. We have basically a conspiracy of fools, people who are using whatever pretext, whatever hatred and misunderstanding to mobilize and misrepresent other people around the world that they dislike, and this is just another example.

I don’t think Muslims are more sensitive than others. I think there are small groups in every country who are very sensitive to insult and who organize protests when they feel they’re under attack. Look at the numbers, the numbers of these protests; they’re still relatively small. We’re talking a few thousands of people in countries with populations of dozens of millions.

Compare those protests to the size of protests during the Arab Spring uprising. These are very tiny protests and yet they get international global media coverage and they appear to be more important than they actually are.

RFE/RL: Some are framing this as a clash of cultures, a clash of civilizations. What are your thoughts on this?

Kurzman: No, I call this a clash of hatreds. Most people do not hate one another and yet these small groups who do hate seem to be able to grab the headlines and get everybody’s attention. Let’s keep in mind that protesting an insult is perfectly legal in most countries, including the United States, and if people want to hold signs or even burn flags, they’re allowed to do that. That is called free speech, and so I do not mind when groups organize to protest a movie. I think that is a sign of political participation.

Now, when those protests turn violent, of course, then a crime has been committed and I oppose that. But to give these filmmakers the level of importance that these protests have done is almost a gift — a gift by extremists from one side to the extremists on the other side — and it’s a gift that keeps circulating among the extremes.

But most of us are not in the extremes; most of us just want to get along. And I think that is the saddest part of this episode: that the large majority, they may disagree on political matters, they may disagree culturally, but we don’t hate each other. Let’s refocus our energies on understanding and on peaceful pursuits rather than on conflict.

RFE/RL: Do you see a change in the Western response to such reactions? In the case of Salman Rushdie’s book “The Satanic Verses,” the response from politicians and publishers in the West was an immediate, strong defense of freedom of speech. In this case, the response has been much more measured. Are we seeing a concession to Muslim sensitivities?

Kurzman: Remember, we now live in a different time and we’ve just witnessed these uprisings around the Arab world that show a huge interest in political participation throughout the Middle East, and I think we are right in saying that we support those movements and want to have good relations around the world. I don’t call this a concession.

I believe this is a recognition that people’s political opinions may differ from our own and if it’s important enough to them to go out and hold signs and protest, that is their right to do that.

RFE/RL: Is what we’re seeing also an indication that anti-Western sentiments are on the rise in the region?

Kurzman: I think there is a distinction. First of all, these again are very small protests, so I wouldn’t take them as a sign of underlying mass opinion. The second is that there are two sets of issues: One is a very widespread concern in the Middle East, and in many other countries around the world, that the United States is a country that has more than its share of power and influence around the world.

There’ve been numerous surveys that have documented these attitudes. That’s a political position; it’s not particularly a cultural position. There’s also, as you know, cultural differences. And I think those should not be dismissed, either. But the mainstream opinion in Muslim societies around the world is one of tolerance.

And we see through all sorts of forms and evidence, including surveys and election results, that the movements and parties and attitudes that desire coexistence and peacefulness far, far outweigh the movements that are in favor in violence and hatred. So that even though there may be severe political disagreement, that does not necessarily translate into violence.

——————————————————————————–

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 22 September 2012, 10:50 pm and is filed under
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Umno’s sidewinding strategy

— Sakmongkol AK47

The Malaysian Insider

Sep 22, 2012

SEPT 22 — Umno is always trying to ambush and put up red herrings to divert people’s attention. Why, for example, is the hudud issue between PAS and the DAP being made into a big thing? This is a sideshow being elevated to a premier status complete with intellectual gloss from Uncle Tom-ing academics.

PAS and the DAP — they operate on different principles. PAS champions Islamic principles and an Islamic agenda. The DAP champions secular democratic principles as in justice and equality and good governance and all that. Both co-operate on common grounds.

Why is Umno driving a wedge between the two? Umno should be looking out for the MCA which has ridiculed Umno’s stance on an Islamic agenda.

Sometimes I think Umno religious luminaries are not that bright. Umno is in power now. The MCA, which is a party of infidels, works closely with Umno, so Umno labels them friendly infidels (kafir zimmi — infidels who accept the authority of Muslims in power). What does that prove? It proves the classification of infidels is a function of who is in power. That is how Umno plays the game.

Suppose now a new government comes into power. The leaders of the government are also Muslims. The DAP, which will emerge as the dominant Chinese supported party, works closely with PR. The DAP represents the new infidels who accept the authority and leadership of the new PR government. It makes them friendly infidels. The DAP now becomes kafir zimmi.

So ustaz-ustaz, the branding of infidels is therefore a function of which side is in power at that particular time. And by that time, if we were to apply the Umno stance, the MCA will become kafir harbi, which makes the slaughter of MCA people permissible?

Umno itself has no agenda about hudud laws. PAS isn’t making hudud as the overriding political agenda. Why should Muslims bother about how the DAP thinks about how the Malays want to practise Islam. Since when is Islam dependent on the thinking of non-Muslims? Muslims should be clear about this; the fate of Islam depends on them. Not on non-Muslims. So why should we place the responsibility of talking about hudud on the DAP?

Its leadership is basically non-Muslim. It never made itself as a party championing religious issues. So when Tunku Abdul Aziz expressed disappointment about hudud and other Islamic issues not being discussed in DAP meetings, I can’t believe that he’s so naïve. Why should non-Muslims talk about Islamic issues? If he was the DAP vice-president then, why wasn’t he vocal about it? And if we want to be mean about it, we can talk all night long about Tunku Aziz’s Islamic credentials over some bottles of Johnny Walker.

The people who should do the talking are Umno and PAS. Umno isn’t talking about it. So where is Umno in all this?

Let’s talk more about Najib’s economic agenda.

The early indicators show that Najib is all talk when it comes to economic strategies, his government’s inability to curb spending. He hasn’t done any transformation actually. It’s all big talk. His transformation means increased government spending, direct government involvement in the economy including owning the means of production or doing business through proxy companies. We are led to ask: does Najib understand what he is doing?

I know he has only one economic strategy. Pay his way though. Spend to buy votes. It’s all motion with no substance of creating the fundamentals of economic growth. This includes nurturing organic growth and reducing government interference. Teaching Malays, for example, to take personal responsibility for their own affairs and look out for unnecessary government wasteful spending.

If he wants to transform the economy he should abandon his from-cradle-to-grave economic strategy. He’s giving out money to people which, of course, is an immediate stress reliever. But in the long run, it snuffs out the drive in people, reducing them to expectant beneficiaries of free lunches. Umno is creating the slave owner-slave economic relationship.

What does he mean, for example, by New Economic Model? Once upon a time, I asked him about his NEM. He said it was market-driven economic affirmative action. I thought it was unplanned capitalism or spontaneous voluntary co-operation between economic actors. It wasn’t any of that; it is the same old strategy of selecting close friends as principal business agents. It’s the same Mahathirnomics of choosing and selecting winners who proved in the end they are all his surrogates and front men.

Spending has taken up a big proportion of our national income. By spending, we mean public spending i.e. by the government. The government spends by creating debt instruments, borrowing from banks and issuing government bonds. Public spending has reached almost 50 per cent of our national income and yet government leaders dismiss the ominous warnings. That shows they are poor economic managers.

For all his talk especially about the New Economic Model, Najib hasn’t moved away from the cradle-to-grave economic strategies. He is doing what Roosevelt did with his New Deal.

Here Najib is always doing a new deal. The deal is in the money! Spend baby spend is his mantra. — sakmongkol.blogspot.com

* Sakmongkol AK47 is the nom de plume of Datuk Mohd Ariff Sabri Abdul Aziz. He was Pulau Manis assemblyman (2004-2008).

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 22 September 2012, 11:15 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Islam
,
MCA
,
Najib Razak
,
PAS
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Who prevails in Umno?

 — The Malaysian Insider

Sep 22, 2012

SEPT 22 — Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah can talk about a better Malaysia, and we don’t doubt his sincerity. He has been principled on many issues, and speaks of the knowledge of authority, not the authority of knowledge.

That is the gist of his speech this past week in Melbourne.

“It’s not about numbers, it’s about qualitative change. There are many paths to a better Malaysia,” he told a mixed audience of about 130 at the annual Seminar Pembangunan Insan (Seminar on Human Development) at Melbourne Umno Club (KUAM) on Thursday.

Saifuddin identified four features for the participatory democracy needed to respond to today’s new social consciousness, especially among the young — integrity, governance, innovations in democracy, and progressive political thought.

Do the others in Umno or Barisan Nasional (BN) speak of the same things?

Does he speak for Umno or BN for that matter?

The thing is, Saifuddin is of a very small minority in Umno. In fact he stands alone, and is not popular in the party that feels its dominance is an entitlement, a birthright.

And the names he mentioned in his talk in Melbourne — Khairy Jamaluddin and Gan Ping Siew — are not in his class when speaking about change, be it in Putrajaya or within their parties.

The question is this: who has more sway in Putrajaya: Saifuddin or the likes of  Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz or Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein or even Datuk Ahmad Maslan?

And who prevails in Umno? At this point in time, it sure doesn’t look like its Saifuddin or those like him.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 22 September 2012, 8:46 pm and is filed under
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Aliran condemns slur on Muslims, urges dialogue

By Aliran executive committee

22 September 2012

We refer to the low-budget movie
‘Innocence of Muslims’
that was made by a ‘Sam Bacile’, which depicted the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) in a bad light.

We share the global condemnation of the movie by Muslims and people of other faiths alike.

Nobody should be making films like this that publicly condemn other people’s religious beliefs, their founders and other aspects of their faith held sacred. Neither should anyone be coming up with caricatures publicly ridiculing other faiths as happened in the French magazine ‘Charlie Hebdo’.

It is the right of any group to protest against such films or caricatures. In Malaysia, it was appropriate that protests were also held.
 We note that there were two separate protests – one in front of the US embassy organised by Pas Youth and the other in front of Masjid Kampung Baru by Umno Youth. Both went well and nothing untoward happened. This is how it should be. Such protests should not result in violence and death as has happened in Libya. Protests could be followed up with educational movies, books and talks to explain the essence of the faith.

Somehow or other, this issue unfortunately but also predictably took on an ugly political turn. Perak DAP chief Ngeh Koo Ham sent out a tweet allegedly questioning Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin’s intention to stage a protest against the film and wondering whether Muslims were spending too much time and energy on the issue. His tweet provoked a storm of reactions. Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department asked the police to open an investigation paper to be submitted to the Attorney General’s Chambers. More than 300 police reports were lodged. Following the backlash, he retracted his remarks and apologised to any Muslim who felt offended.

Meanwhile, a Youtube clip depicted a rowdy protest outside the Malacca DAP office. The protesters condemned Ngeh and the DAP using vulgar language. They dared the people in the DAP office to come out. Then they burned a DAP flag and posters of Ngeh and stomped on them. A banner urged people to reject the ‘komunis DAP’ and vote for the BN. Very clearly, certain quarters have turned this into an emotive political and electoral issue.

To reiterate, this movie deserves to be condemned and people have the right to protest. In turn, such protests might even invite criticism especially in this age of social media when almost everyone has access to expressing his or her opinion. This is part and parcel of a democracy in the 21st century. But crude behaviour, hate speech, violence and killings are unacceptable.

All our religions teach us to uphold human dignity and to value wisdom, compassion, the quest for the truth, and respect for one another. At a social level, our religions also urge us to uphold peace and justice, indeed to build a new and just society, and to abhor corruption and oppression.

But we also recognise there are fringe extremist groups in all religions. Unfortunately, in this day and age, the actions of these fringe groups are often highlighted in the mainstream and social media to the extent that those unfamiliar with the faith of these groups may judge that faith by the actions (e.g. terrorism, films denigrating other faiths, corruption and authoritarian rule by members of the faith) of this extremist minority.

Ultimately, the best way to counter these groups and individuals is by living up to the values of our respective faiths in a consistent and holistic manner. We can engage with people of other faiths through a dialogue of everyday life (e.g. helping and responding to those in need regardless of religion); a dialogue of action (e.g. pursuing justice and peace and working on collaborative projects); a dialogue of theological similarities and differences (leave this to the religious experts!); and a dialogue via common spiritual experiences (e.g. meditating and praying together).

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 23 September 2012, 7:04 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Islam
,
PAS
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.