Isis, Isil or Da’ish? What to call militants in Iraq

By Faisal Irshaid

BBC

24 June 2014

The crisis in Iraq has highlighted the fact that English-speaking governments and media organisations cannot settle on what to call the al-Qaeda breakaway that has led the offensive by Sunni militants and tribesmen in the north and east of the country.

When referring to the jihadist group, UN and US officials have been using the acronym “Isil” or “I-S-I-L”, which they say stands for “Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant”.

The BBC News website uses the same translation, but a different acronym. It has instead opted for a more common one – “Isis” – based on the other widely used translations “Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham” or “Islamic State in Iraq and Syria”.

Some have also started referring to the group as “Da’ish” or “Daesh” a seemingly pejorative term that is based on an acronym formed from the letters of the name in Arabic, “al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi Iraq wa al-Sham”.

In the news

The root of the Isil-Isis inconsistency is the Arabic word “al-Sham”.

At first, news outlets were unsure how to translate it into English, as it was not immediately clear what the group was actually referring to.

Al-Sham can be translated variously as “the Levant”, “Greater Syria”, “Syria” or even “Damascus”.

In a video posted by the group on social media last week, members stated that their goal was to restore an Islamic state, or caliphate, in a region including Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon.

The term al-Sham was commonly used during the rule of the Muslim Caliphs from the 7th Century to describe the area between the Mediterranean and the Euphrates, Anatolia and Egypt.

It was used until the first half of the 20th Century, when the UK and France drew the new borders of the Middle East and created nation states.

The term “the Levant” had for centuries been used by English speakers to describe the eastern part of the Mediterranean, with its islands and the countries adjoining.

After World War One, colonial powers understood it to be the area comprising what is now Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, the Palestinian Territories and part of south-eastern Turkey.

However, the term’s colonial association means it would be unlikely to be endorsed by the jihadists. They would also probably object to using just “Syria”, as it suggests their aspirations are limited to the modern state’s borders. Various experts have therefore said that the word al-Sham should not be translated.

In videos posted online, members of the group and other militants in Iraq and Syria frequently refer to it simply as “al-Dawla”, Arabic for “the State”.

Some Arab media outlets and politicians have meanwhile started using the term Da’ish. It appears to have originated from posts by Syrian opposition activists and social media users.

Da’ish is not an Arabic word and the use of acronyms is not common in Arabic. Furthermore, the jihadist group objects to the term and has advised against its usage.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 June 2014, 12:56 pm and is filed under
Foreign
,
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia Mais chief shows up an effete Putrajaya in Bible issue

COMMENTARY BY THE MALAYSIAN INSIDER

25 June 2014

Thank you, Datuk Mohamed Adzib Mohd Isa. Thank you for confirming what commentators and lawyers have been saying since the Federal Court decided not to give leave to the Catholic Church to appeal to the apex court to overturn an order stopping it from using the word Allah in its weekly newspaper.

A few hours after the court decision, the Prime Minister’s Office issued a statement saying that the court decision would only impact the Catholic Herald.

At the same time, Putrajaya assured Christians that they could use Allah in their worship services and proudly proclaimed that the infamous 10-point solution put together in April 2011, just before the last Sarawak elections, was still in place.

Among other things, the 10-pointer allows the import of Malay-language bibles.

The Malaysian Insider, lawyers and political observers rubbished the Putrajaya statement, predicting that religious zealots and others masquerading as Islamic religious experts would seize on the Federal Court ruling and restrict further the Constitutional right of Christians to practise their faith.

It was also pointed out that the 10-point resolution was worthless, and that Putrajaya’s assurances were useless.

Today, the Selangor Islamic Religious Council (Mais) showed how much credence Malaysians should give any statement from Putrajaya.

Mohamad Adzib, the Umno man playing the role of Mais chairman, said that the council would continue seizing Malay-language bibles in Selangor.

Worse yet, using all the charm one has come to associate with Umno, he warned that those found distributing the Malay-language bibles would be arrested.

In short, the pompous Umno man has officially consigned a statement from the Prime Minister’s Office to the garbage bin.

Here are some questions to ponder.

What happens when Malaysians cannot trust an official statement from the country’s chief executive officer?

What does it say about the influence of the PM that even a party flunky can ignore a Cabinet directive? And what does it say when a state religious council believes it is above the law, defying an instruction from the Attorney-General?

All we know is they seem to be saying the 10 points that Putrajaya had triumphantly produced in 2011 is pointless. – June 25, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 June 2014, 9:09 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
Najib Razak
,
Religion
,
Selangor
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysians, ASEAN and international community digesting the implications of Najib’s  dubious distinction of  being the first advocate of Wasatiyyah and the first ASEAN leader to glorify terrorism of ISIS which is regarded as too extremist even by al-Qaida

Not only Malaysians, but our ASEAN neighbours and the international community  are still digesting the implications of the Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s dubious distinction of being the first advocate of Wasatiyyah and the first ASEAN leader to glorify the terrorism of ISIS which is regarded as too extremist even by al-Qaida.

When speaking at the 20th anniversary of the Cheras UMNO Branch on Monday night, Najib surprised not only Malaysians but our ASEAN neighbours and the international community when he said UMNO members could emulate the exploits of the  Middle Eastern terrorist group, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS)  which defeated an Iraqi force outnumbering it.

It is a measure of the success and charisma of the leader of ISIS, known by his nom de guerre Abu-Bakar Al-Baghdadi, that the Sunni jihadist group which started as an al-Qaida affiliate, has  become the group of choice of thousands of foreign would-be fighters who have flocked to his banner which disavowed notions of statehood and national boundaries.

ISIS, which  is so hardline that it has been  disavowed by al-Qaida, now present itself as an ideologically superior alternative to al-Qaida within the jihadi community and has increasingly become a transnational movement to set up an Islamic caliphate  with immediate objectives far beyond Iraq and Syria.

Najib’s glorification  of the exploits of the ISIS terrorists is not only a matter of great concern for local Malaysian politics but for ASEAN relations and international affairs.

For local Malaysian politics, it has come at a time of  the nation’s worst racial and religious  polarization, with a relentless promotion of hate speech and the  incitement of conflict and  intolerance of racial, religious, cultural and political diversity in Malaysia when it should be Malaysia’s distinct and unique characteristics and strength.

What is worse, Najib’s glorification of ISIS terrorists was made on the same night of the morning threat by Perkasa information chief Ruslan Kassim to “chop off the heads” of those who insult the Selangor Sultan or insult Islam, in utter disregard and contempt of the rule of law, the maintenance of racial and religious peace and harmony in plural Malaysia.

Najib’s glorificlation of ISIS  terrorists raises the question whether Ruslan and Perkasa  can expect protection, immunity and impunity for blatant criminal threats  in utter disregard of the rule of law and the maintenance of racial and religious peace and harmony in Malaysia.

The ASEAN and international implications are far-reaching, with the allegation by the Permanent Representative of Syria to the United Nations in a recent press conference that 15 Malaysian nationals who had joined ISIS had been killed in Syria.

It was also alleged that apart from Malaysians, nationals from other countries including several Asean countries, are also involved in such activities in Syria.

It has been earlier reported that a quiet 26-year-old Selangor factory worker Ahmad Tarmimi is Malaysia’s first suicide bomber linked to ISIS as he is credited with blowing up 25 elite Iraqi soldiers at Iraq’s SWAT headquarters in al-Anbar on May 26.

Reports state that Ahmad Tarmimi, who received militant training in Port Dickson at the end of last year, drove a military SUV filled tonnes of explosives into the SWAT headquarters, blowing himself up in the process.

The bombing preceded an attack on the headquarters by ISIS commandos.

The ISIS official website in a report entitled “Mujahidin Malaysia Syahid Dalam Operasi Martyrdom”, which featured his photograph and described Ahmad Tarmimi as the first Malaysian suicide bomber in Iraq,  stated that the ISIS militants had seized a large weapon cache from the headquarters.

Wisma Putra has come out with a statement that  “As a peace-loving country that practices moderation, Malaysia abhors and does not condone any acts of terrorism or extremism by any parties, including its own nationals”.

If so, Najib should explain to Malaysians, ASEAN and the international community why he is glorifying the “exploits” of the ISIS terrorists.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 June 2014, 11:49 am and is filed under
Islam
,
Najib Razak
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


MH370 hunt may take ‘decades’, says MAS commercial chief

The Malay Mail Online

June 25, 2014

KUALA LUMPUR, June 25 — The search for flight MH370 which has been missing for more than three months could take “decades”, Malaysia Airlines (MAS) commercial chief Hugh Dunleavy has said.

 In an interview with the London Evening Standard daily, Dunleavy said the wreckage from the Boeing 777 could be spread over a large area upon crashing into the southern Indian Ocean, a challenging seabed with mountains and valleys.

“I think it could take a really long time to find. We’re talking decades,” Dunleavy was quoted as saying in the interview published last Monday.

The British director of commercial operations in MAS also hit out at Putrajaya for taking a week to release information that the jetliner had been spotted on military radar when it veered off course and flew across the Malaysian peninsula.

“It made people look incompetent, but the truth is, it’s early in the morning, you’re not at war with anyone, why would you jump to the conclusion that something really bad is now transpiring?” said Dunleavy.

The 61-year-old, who became MAS’ commercial operations director in 2012, also said he only heard about the plane turning around on the news.

“I’m thinking, really? You couldn’t have told us that directly? Malaysia’s air traffic control and military radar are in the same freakin’ building. The military saw an aircraft turn and did nothing,” Dunleavy was quoted as saying

Shortly after taking off from Kuala Lumpur on March 8, the commercial jet carrying 239 people was diverted from its intended flight path to Beijing and flew in a westerly direction across the Malaysian peninsula after dropping from civilian radar just before 1.30am.

Dunleavy defended the airline’s response in the early hours after the plane disappeared.

“People say, ‘Why didn’t you work quicker?’ But you’re calling pilots, explaining the situation, waiting for them to send out pings, doing the same to the next plane, then the next, and it’s four in the morning, you don’t have 50 people in the office, only a couple. An hour goes by frighteningly quickly — you realise that the missing plane is now another 600 miles somewhere else,” he said.

He also pointed out that an hour was wasted in verifying the initial rumour that the commercial jet had landed in Nanning, China.

Dunleavy said international air traffic controllers did not prioritise looking for the missing plane.

“We were calling, but they’ve got other planes in the air; they’re saying, ‘Your plane never entered my air space, so technically I don’t have to worry about it at the moment’. They’re not dropping everything to answer us,” he said.

The MAS commercial chief stressed that the airline had done the best it could for the relatives of the Chinese on board flight MH370, who comprised two-thirds of the 227 passengers, pointing out that their hotel rooms and food were paid for, besides arranging 520 passports, Malaysian visas and a plane to fly them to Kuala Lumpur, as well as giving the families US$5,000 (RM16,110) each.

MAS came under fire for sending text messages to the families of those on board flight MH370 that the plane was assumed lost and that there were no survivors, shortly before Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s announcement on March 24 that the plane had ended in the southern Indian Ocean based on satellite data.

“That wasn’t done in a callous way,” said Dunleavy.

“We only got 15 minutes’ notice that the government was going to make that announcement, there were six hundred people in six different hotels, and they had suggested text messages to us at the start. We thought, ‘isn’t it better they get the message before the media relays it?” he added.

The UK daily also reported that MAS will install this year pioneering technology from British satellite firm Inmarsat that would enable a signal to be sent out if a plane deviated from its flight path.

“We will always remember MH370. We will take care of the people and we’re working on what sort of a memorial we will have. But we are a business. We have to keep flying, we have 20,000 staff, shareholders, and 50,000 passengers each day. We owe it to them to get the airline back and move beyond MH370,” said Dunleavy.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 June 2014, 12:22 pm and is filed under
MH 370
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The difference between compromise and cowardice

Erna Mahyuni

The Malay Mail Online

June 25, 2014

JUNE 25 — Let the Allah issue rest, someone said to me. “In the end, when we stand before Him, none of this will matter.”

This is a very Malaysian way of looking at things. Don’t talk about this — too sensitive. Don’t stage a play or make a film about that — too incendiary.

We step on eggshells all the time, trying not to anger that person or this person.

But let us be frank here; there only seems to be one race we seem to be very afraid of offending while there seems to be no problem kicking around cow heads or throwing Molotov cocktails at churches.

We cannot keep sweeping things under the carpet in fear of civil unrest. We cannot keep banning books and films and telling minority religions to stop “threatening” the majority faith.

The reality is that yes, there are people who are dangerous. People with guns, people with bombs, people with absolutely no qualms resorting to murder just to further a cause.

But now, more than ever, we need dialogue. We need to start talking to each other about the things that scare us the most; we have to start listening to opinions that disturb our own way of looking at things.

Most of all, Malaysians have to learn to agree to disagree. Instead what we get is schoolyard namecalling where we insult each other instead of trying to understand where the other person is coming from.

I am really getting rather tired of people saying that I am obviously sex-deprived which is why I will not shut up about current affairs. Please leave my genitalia out of the discussion. Wherever my head is, it is certainly not there.

Even more disturbingly, I keep getting asked how to “unite” East and West Malaysians. The short answer: fire and blood. Have a foreign power declare war on us and I am sure patriotic fervour will reach epic heights.

The long answer is unity, my friend, is overrated. Unity is a false construct, the problematic belief that all citizens should and must want the same things. It is very obvious that I want a secular state and it is very obvious that PAS wants an Islamic one.

All citizens should respect the law of the land and yet also have the right to object to the imposition of a second set of laws. All citizens should have access to basic rights and be able to question government directives without being thrown into detention.

The opposite of unity is not anarchy; it is the existence of choice. A state where differences are acknowledged, where we are not pigeonholed or forcibly brainwashed into obeying a government or ruler.

Diversity and differences are not things to fear, and yet fear seems to be the only bargaining tool our government uses without reservation. Vote us or the country will fall apart. Vote us or the minorities will take all your rights. Vote us because the other side are devil-worshipping hedonistic LGBT supporters.

We have to stop being so afraid all the time but we are such lily-livered cows sometimes, it is almost embarrassing to be Malaysian. Wake up, this is Malaysia. There are no death squads roaming the streets. You are not going to be shot in your beds by government enforcers for having an opinion.  It is perfectly normal to want to punch your neighbour in the mouth for being a bigot, but it is not all right to actually use your fists.

Talk about the things that scare you. Talk. Think. Read. Understand. Only light illuminates darkness and keeping people (and issues) in the dark helps no one.

I know it’s a lot to ask but the next time someone tells me to shut up to “keep the peace”, I will perhaps suggest a spinal transplant is in order. We can’t find backbone in government so we might as well start growing them ourselves.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 June 2014, 8:31 pm and is filed under
nation building
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The ISIS Extremists Causing Havoc in Iraq Are Getting Funds and Recruits From Southeast Asia

Time

Yenni Kwok

June 17, 2014

Militants from Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, are being lured by ISIS’s hard-line Sunni extremism

Men in balaclavas are cradling Kalashnikovs as they look into a camera, somewhere in Syria. They are university students, businessmen, former soldiers and even teenagers. One by one, they urge their fellow countrymen to join the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the jihadist group so extreme that it has been denounced by al-Qaeda. But these aren’t Syrians, or Uzbeks, or Chechens. They are Indonesian.

 “Let us fight in the path of Allah because it is our duty to do jihad in the path of Allah … especially here in Sham [the Syrian region] … and because, God willing, it will be to this country that our families will do the holy migration,” says one in Bahasa Indonesia peppered with Arabic phrases. “Brothers in Indonesia, don’t be afraid because fear is the temptation of Satan.”

A fellow jihadist, a former Indonesian soldier, calls on those in the police and armed forces to repent and abandon the defense of their country and its “idolatrous” state ideology, Pancasila.

The video of the Indonesian men in Syria emerged shortly before ISIS seized the Iraqi cities of Mosul and Tikrit, in landmark victories on June 10 and 11. It reflects the growing attraction that the Sunni extremist group holds for the most militant jihadists from Indonesia — the country with the world’s biggest Muslim population, and one that has long battled threats of terrorism.

“Like in Syria, the Sunni jihadi movement is split in Indonesia,” Sidney Jones, director of the Jakarta-based Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflict, tells TIME. Some Indonesian jihadists, including many senior leaders of Jemaah Islamiyah (the group behind the Bali bombings in 2002 and other terrorist attacks) are loyal to the alliance around the al-Nusra Front and al-Qaeda, she says, “while most of the more militant, non-JI groups are supporting ISIS.”

According to a recent report, the Syrian conflict has lured an estimated 12,000 foreign fighters, mostly from neighboring Middle Eastern countries, but also from Europe, Australia, the U.S. — and Southeast Asia. In January, Indonesia’s counterterrorism agency reckoned about 50 Indonesians had gone to fight in Syria, though it is not known how many of them joined ISIS. A Malaysian security official said more than 20 Malaysians are known to have entered Syria to fight Bashar Assad’s regime.

On Saturday, Malaysian media reported that Ahmad Tarmimi Maliki, who bombed an Iraqi military headquarters, earned “the dubious honor of being Malaysia’s first suicide bomber linked to” ISIS. Some months earlier, in November, reports emerged that Riza Fardi, who studied at the infamous Ngruki Islamic boarding school in Central Java — the same school attended by the Bali bombers — became the first Indonesian jihadist to die in Syria.

While terrorist threats have waned in Southeast Asia, thanks to imprisonment and deaths of senior jihadist figures, the civil war in Syria, and now in Iraq, has raised the specter of fighters returning home with the terrorist know-how and a militant outlook — not unlike the returnees from the Afghan war in the 1980s. “Returning fighters will have deeper indoctrination, more international contacts and perhaps a deeper commitment to the global jihad,” says Jones.

The three-year Syrian war has attracted even more foreign fighters than the Afghan war. One possible reason is a prophecy, popular among global jihadists, about the final battle before Judgment Day. “There are hadith, or sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, that predict an apocalyptic war of good vs. evil, and according to one hadith, it would start in Syria,” says Solahudin, a Jakarta-based terrorism expert.

Indonesia has a different approach to jihadism than its neighbors. Though terrorist attacks are punishable by death, it is not illegal to raise money for or join a foreign jihadist group. In contrast, in late April, Malaysia arrested 10 militants — eight men and two women — who planned to travel to Syria to take part in the war. In March, Singapore said it was investigating the departure of a national to join the Syrian jihad.

Emboldened by Indonesia’s more tolerant attitude, ISIS supporters there have become more visible and openly solicit funds. They held a collection in February at an Islamic state university on the outskirts of Jakarta and held a rally in the capital’s central business district in March. On June 15, a Sunday morning when one of the main streets in the Central Javanese city of Solo is transformed into a weekly car-free zone for strolling families, militants from Jamaah Ansharut Tauhid, a JI splinter cell, paraded in ISIS insignia, waved ISIS flags and wreaked havoc on a music performance.

They are also quite active on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Iqbal Kholidi, who tracks and observes Indonesian ISIS supporters on social media, has culled photos of them training and posing with the signature black flags from across the country — in Jakarta, Central Java, South Kalimantan and Poso, Central Sulawesi. They have become bolder in recent months, Iqbal says, and that is likely “because there is an impression that the authorities are just keeping quiet all this time.”

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 June 2014, 10:15 pm and is filed under
Foreign
,
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Wong Ho Leng was a brave fighter

Bridget Welsh

Malaysiakini

Jun 24, 2014

COMMENT
 For those who knew Bukit Assek assemblyperson Wong Ho Leng, the words ‘brave fighter’ come to mind. When he entered politics over 30 years ago, he joined at a time when being part of the opposition was unpopular.

 It was the economic boom years in Sibu, derived primarily from timber, and he chose to stand up to power and urge greater transparency and fairer governance.

 Although he contested from 1986 onwards, he first won office in 1996, beating the Sarawak United People’s Party’s (SUPP) then-deputy chief minister Wong Soon Kai in Bukit Assek.

 His razor-thin majority of 226 votes in his first victory symbolised a political career where he would not only redefine politics in Sarawak but would leave a national legacy.

A hard-working voice

 Wong Ho Leng came from humble origins, a farming family from Sungai Bidut. He went on to study law as a result of a dedication to his studies, talent and hard-work. He never forgot his family roots when he entered politics and remained committed to speaking out for those who were often ignored. Justice and fairness framed many of his speeches as he drew attention to the need to widen opportunities.

Wong set the tone in his public service by relying on hard work, research and evidence in his contributions, carefully reviewing documents, legal provisions and state accounts. He represented an era where speeches and political statements were based on facts and integrity and evidence and truth were prioritised.

 In voicing out concerns, he was often forthright in his comments, provoking strong reactions and one suspension from the state assembly in May 2009. His attacks on SUPP were often particularly biting, but the focus remained primarily on solving problems and addressing governance deficits. He along with his colleagues Chiew Chin Sing of Bintulu and Chong Chieng Jen of Kuching became strong minority voices for ordinary Sarawakians in the state assembly.

 He was personally reluctant to enter national politics, as he was deeply loyal to his family and worried about the sacrifices involved. He also was strongly tied to Sarawak. Like many in East Malaysia, he viewed his greatest effectiveness in politics to be at the state level.

 Nevertheless, he regularly contested for national office and in the May 2010 by-election he beat the odds and won the seat of Sibu. This victory was known for spurring on the ‘Ubah’ or Change movement, which not only provided momentum to the opposition, it also brought Sarawak more squarely onto the national stage. In parliament, after hours of practicing his speeches in Malay, Wong worked to forge understanding and greater representation for Sarawak.

Battles for inclusion

 Wong led the DAP in Sarawak for nearly 15 years and during this time he battled to widen support and engagement with others in the opposition. The opposition’s position strengthened considerably, in part due to openness and outreach. This drive for greater inclusiveness involved breaking down barriers and challenging assumptions.

 Wong – a man with four daughters – slated more women candidates and opened the way for greater female participation in politics in Sarawak. He brought in young people. He also set in place conditions to work to engage across different ethnic communities in his state. He led this engagement, as he broadened the ties with the Dayak communities and personally increased his outreach to the Malay community.

 This involved moving out of the arena where he was socialised, as unlike in peninsula Malaysia there remains considerable segregation of the different ethnic communities in Sarawak. Wong’s own struggle for inter-ethnic diversity in Sarawak mirrored the ongoing transformation of the DAP to include different minorities.

Wong was the first Pakatan MP when he was elected in 2010. This was ironic in many ways as he was one of the main proponents for leaving Barisan Alternatif in 2001. As chairperson of Sarawak DAP, considerable rethinking went into the ties with peninsula Malaysia and connections to other opposition parties.

 Wong became an advocate for Pakatan Rakyat, even as he recognised the challenges of making it an effective coalition. One concern was a high priority, assuring Sarawak’s representation and interests. There remain tensions over what roles the different parties should play and how they should work together particularly vis-à-vis Sarawak.

 What distinguished Wong’s leadership was a willingness to work towards inclusion and understanding, as he looked to the future and reflected on the lessons of the past. He will be remembered as playing an important role to include not only different Sarawakians in politics, but for forging ties and dialogue with Malaysians outside of the state.

Sincere contribution

 Wong was a man who strived to make a contribution. He did so with determination and a commitment to making Sarawak and Malaysia stronger. He was sincere in his efforts and this sincerity was recognised even by his political opponents.

 It is telling that Chief Minister Adenan Satem put aside political differences in contributing RM1 million of state funds to his medical fees. This statesmanship reflects well on all concerned.

 When Wong was diagnosed with a brain tumour 18 months ago, he chose to withdraw from politics. This was a hard decision, but one he made with confidence. He left a team of younger politicians many of whom he mentored in his stead. He had worked to build a team, full of potential, hope and energy.

 He began a valiant personal battle with his wife Irene at his side. Every day he fought the brain tumour was a testimony to his strength, dignity and bravery. He was given as little as six months to live and beat the odds for much longer. Wong fought a good fight and was a brave fighter.

 DR BRIDGET WELSH is associate professor of political science at Singapore Management University. She can be reached at
[email protected]
.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 June 2014, 8:31 am and is filed under
DAP
,
nation building
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Added bloat after Cabinet reshuffle leaves observers unconvinced

by Boo Su-Lyn

The Malay Mail Online

June 26, 2014

KUALA LUMPUR, June 26 ― Putrajaya’s decision to add ministers to its payroll when it had been expected to drop underperformers in yesterday’s Cabinet reshuffle has political analysts disapproving over what it augurs about government reforms.

Given the languorous pace of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s administration in delivering on its promises of reforms, one political analyst pointed out that enlarging an already bloated Cabinet was the continuation of a “disappointing” trend.

“This is potentially the biggest Cabinet ever that Malaysia has seen,” Wan Saiful Wan Jan, the chief executive of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS) think tank observed.

“Even though it’s expected, it’s very disappointing as well because what the prime minister has done is that he’s enlarged the size of government several times by doing this,” he added.

Wan Saiful also questioned the addition of two ministers to the Prime Minister’s Department, saying that it prompted questions of whether redundancy would now be an issue.

During yesterday’s reshuffle, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak grew his 32-member Cabinet by awarding ministerial posts to three Chinese leaders from Barisan Nasional (BN) ― two from the MCA and one from Gerakan.

At 35 ministers, Najib’s Cabinet is now bigger than that of his predecessor Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, which had 32 members. When Najib first took office in 2009, he had named just 28 ministers.

The purpose for the Cabinet expansion, Najib reasoned yesterday, was to accommodate an “unexpected situation” following the MCA’s about-turn on ministerial appointments.

The BN chief was referring to the MCA’s decision earlier this year to reverse a previous ruling by the party’s leadership barring all its leaders from accepting government posts.

Under the new appointments, MCA president Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai earned himself the post of transport minister while his deputy Datuk Wee Ka Siong was made a minister in the Prime Minister’s Department.

For winning the Teluk Intan by-election last month, Gerakan president Datuk Mah Siew Keong was appointed a minister in the Prime Minister’s Department.

With Wee and Mah’s appointments, the department now has a whopping 10 ministers.

Having named Wee and Ma as ministers, however, Najib said it was yet to be decided which portfolios the two men would handle.

Three other ethnic Chinese, all from MCA, were given deputy minister posts ― Datuk Chua Tee Yong as deputy finance minister, Datuk Lee Chee Leong as international trade and industry deputy minister and Datin Paduka Chew Mei Fun as women, family and Community development deputy minister.

Before yesterday, it was widely speculated that a major reshuffle was on the cards to revitalise the BN government, with Najib expected to consolidate his position by cracking the whip on administrators who have not lived up to expectations.

A number of ministers from Umno had also been expected to be removed.

Umno vice-president Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, the man who has earned sterling praise for his handling of the MH370 crisis as the acting transport minister, was expected to be awarded the coveted finance minister’s post.

Speculation also had Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, another Umno VP, returning to the defence portfolio and relinquishing the powerful home minister’s post that Najib was expected to take on.

As home minister, Ahmad Zahid has met with multiple controversies. In the wake of a violent crime spree in the country last year, the Umno leader reportedly advocated a “shoot first” policy for the police when dealing with suspected gang members.

Yesterday, Wan Saiful said the addition of six Chinese ministers and deputy ministers from MCA and Gerakan inferred that Umno has failed to safeguard the interests of the non-Malays.

“The reasoning behind these appointments is that the government or prime minister wants the new appointees to speak on behalf of the Chinese community.

“If you flip the coin, the other thing he’s saying is that Umno ministers have failed completely to think of people other than the Malays. It’s confirmation that the whole 1 Malaysia agenda does not work,” said the analyst.

Political analyst Khoo Kay Peng also questioned the effectiveness of the new Cabinet members, pointing out that Sabah and Sarawak ministers were “helpless” in the “Allah” issue.

On Monday, the Federal Court refused leave for the Catholic Church to challenge an appellate court’s decision, which upheld a government ban on its use of the Arabic word for God in its Herald newsletter.

The decision means the Court of Appeal ruling that said “Allah” was not integral to the Christian faith, effectively barring the word to Christians, was now the authority on the matter.

“What can these new ministers do? This is not going to give any confidence,” Khoo said.

Political analyst Ibrahim Suffian from Merdeka Centre said the jury was still out on whether the inclusion of Chinese representatives in the government would restore the community’s confidence in BN.

“Are we going to see a bit more pushback and see them standing up for issues of the minority?” Ibrahim told The Malay Mail Online, citing issues like the “Allah” conflict and the bible seizure in Selangor.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 26 June 2014, 7:57 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Call on Najib to reduce his bloated jumbo-size Cabinet to about 20 Ministers in keeping with his Government Transformation Programme and the policy of “minimum government, maximum governance”

The first casualty of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s Cabinet expansion yesterday, adding three Ministers and three Deputy Ministers to an already bloated Cabinet and government, is Najib’s Government Transformation programme and  “people’s first, performance now” policy.

If other parliamentary democracies can have leaner and smarter Cabinets, like United Kingdom (22 Ministers), Australia (19 Ministers) and India (24 Ministers) – including the Prime Minister – why must Malaysia continue to have  one of the most bloated Cabinets in the world?

We also have the dubious distinction of having the most number of Ministers in the Prime Minister’s Department, increasing from eight to ten with the appointments of  MCA Deputy President Datuk Seri  Wee Ka Siong and Gerakan President Datuk Mah Siew Keong yesterday – although Najib is still at a loss as to what portfolios to give them.

Even now, after more than a year’s appointment after the 13th General Elections in May last year, there is confusion galore as to what the eight Ministers in the Prime Minister’s Department are really doing and in charge of in the Najib administration.

With the addition of Wee and Mah to the present battalion of eight Ministers in the PM’s Department, there is going to be even more confusion galore as to what are their respective responsibilities, functions and roles if any.

Wee and Mah will get a chair, table, office, car, staff and other Ministerial perks but they will have no ministries or portfolios to take charge!

In fact, they are no different from  Ministers without portfolios.

Since Malaysia can blaze the path to have the most number of Ministers in the Prime Minister’s Department, may be Malaysia can also pioneer  a new Cabinet designation – Minister for  Sinecures (from Latin sine = “without” and cura = “care”), i.e. Ministers without responsibility, role or  work.

But if Najib is serious about Government Transformation Programme with the “People First, Performance Now” policy  which he launched on becoming the sixth Prime Minister in 2009 as the basis for the transformation of Malaysia, he should embrace the “minimum government, maximum governance” principle by slashing his bloated jumbo-size Cabinet to about 20 Ministers.

Najib should take a leaf from the Australian example where until 1956 all Ministers were members of the Cabinet.

The growth of the ministry in the 1940s and 1950s made this increasingly impractical, and in 1956 Liberal Prime Minister Robert Menzies created a two-tier ministry, with only senior ministers holding Cabinet rank.

This practice has been continued by all governments since, except the Whitlam Government.

Since the introduction of the two-tier ministry, meetings of Cabinet are attended by members only, although other ministers may attend if an area of their portfolio is on the agenda.

At present, Australia has a 19-member Cabinet  (with the Prime Minister), 11 Junior Ministers and 12 Parliamentary Secretaries.

Is Najib serious about a Government Transformation Programme and implement a downsizing of  the present bloated Cabinet by introducing a two-tier Ministry system of Cabinet and non-Cabinet junior Ministers before the next 28-day budget parliamentary meeting from  Oct. 7 to  Nov. 27?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 26 June 2014, 12:14 pm and is filed under
Gerakan
,
MCA
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Is Najib a secret admirer of the ISIL/ISIS jihadists?

The clarification by the Prime Minister’s Office that the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s remarks regarding the Islamic State in Iraq and The Levant (ISIL) had been taken out of context raises more questions than answers.

The PMO statement said ISIL was “mentioned briefly and in passing” and that the prime minister “in no way indicated any support for ISIL”. It said “any allegation to the contrary is completely false”.

The PMO statement stated:

“Indeed, the Malaysian government classifies ISIL as a terrorist organisation and we are doing our part to combat them, for example by arresting suspected ISIL members in Malaysia.

“The prime minister’s strong stance over many years against violence and extremism is on record and remains undiminished. The prime minister has called for a Global Movement of the Moderates, rejecting extremism in all its forms, and he will continue to advocate for moderation.”

The Prime Minister’s Office statement did not say how Najib’s reference to ISIL,  which  is more commonly known by the translation of its Arabic name, the Islamic State in Iraq and Sham (ISIS), had  been taken out of context nor did it attempt to place Najib’s remarks on ISIL  in the proper and correct context.

Media reports about Najib’s remarks about ISIL seemed to be  fair and straight reporting.

Najib had said at the  dinner to commemorate the 20th anniversary of Cheras Umno: “For example, when someone dares to fight to their death, they can even defeat a much bigger team.

“As proof — whether we agree or not is another matter — the group ISIL with the strength of just 1,300 people, can defeat an Iraqi army of 30,000 soldiers, until four, five generals with three, four stars run for their lives, jump out the window at night.

“Why? Because they are afraid of those who are brave.”

Media reported that Najib had said this when he asked UMNO members to emulate the exploits of the Middle Eastern militant group ISIL, which defeated an Iraqi force outnumbering it, when outlining bravery as one of the six virtues UMNO needed to survive and flourish in the country.

How had the media report of  Najib’s remarks gone “out of all context”.

Clearly, the Prime Minister’s Office was trying to deny the undeniable that Najib had glorified ISIL/ISIS terrorism which is regarded as too extremist even by al-Qaida – although Najib did make the qualification of “whether we agree or not is another matter”.

But this only raises the further question whether Najib is a secret admirer of the ISIL/ISIS jihadists?

Be that as it may, it must be recognised the Najib’s praise/glorification of ISIL/ISIS jihadists is a major faux pax for a Malaysian Prime Minister and  one who had called for a Global Movement of the Moderates, advocating Wasatiyah to reject all forms of violence and extremism, whether political or religious.

Malaysians as well as our ASEAN neighbours and the international community want to believe that Najib is not a secret admirer of the ISIL/ISIS jihadists, but the statement by the Prime Minister’s Office trying to deny the undeniable is incapable of achieving this objective.

Let Najib himself state clearly and unequivocally what he really meant in his speech at the Cheras UMNO 20th anniversary on Monday.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 26 June 2014, 6:45 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


MH370 Was on Autopilot When it Crashed, Say Australian Officials

Time/Associated Press

26 June 2014

SYDNEY) — Investigators looking into the disappearance of the Malaysia Airlines plane are confident the jet was on autopilot when it crashed in a remote stretch of the Indian Ocean, Australian officials said Thursday as they announced the latest shift in the search for the doomed airliner.

After analyzing data between the plane and a satellite, officials believe Flight 370 was on autopilot the entire time it was flying across a vast expanse of the southern Indian Ocean, based on the straight path it took, Australian Transport Safety Bureau chief commissioner Martin Dolan said.

“Certainly for its path across the Indian Ocean, we are confident that the aircraft was operating on autopilot until it ran out of fuel,” Dolan told reporters in Canberra, the nation’s capital.

Asked whether the autopilot would have to be manually switched on, or whether it could have been activated automatically under a default setting, Dolan replied: “The basic assumption would be that if the autopilot is operational it’s because it’s been switched on.”

But exactly why the autopilot would have been set on a flight path so far off-course from the jet’s destination of Beijing, and exactly when it was switched on remains unknown.

“We couldn’t accurately, nor have we attempted to, fix the moment when it was put on autopilot,” Transport Minister Warren Truss said. “It will be a matter for the Malaysian-based investigation to look at precisely when it may have been put on autopilot.”

The latest nugget of information from the investigation into Flight 370 came as officials announced yet another change in the search area for the wreckage of the plane that vanished on March 8 after taking off from Kuala Lumpur with 239 passengers and crew on board.

The new search area is located several hundred kilometers (miles) southwest of the most recent suspected crash site, about 1,800 kilometers (1,100 miles) off Australia’s west coast, Dolan said. Powerful sonar equipment will scour the seabed for wreckage in the new search zone, which officials calculated by reanalyzing the existing satellite data.

The shift was expected, with Dolan saying last week the new zone would be south of an area where a remote-controlled underwater drone spent weeks fruitlessly combing 850 square kilometers (330 square miles) of seabed. That search area was determined by a series of underwater sounds initially thought to have come from the plane’s black boxes. But those signals are now widely believed to have come from some other source.

The new 60,000 square kilometer (23,000 square mile) search area falls within a vast expanse of ocean that air crews have already scoured for floating debris, to no avail. Officials have since called off the air search, since any debris would likely have sunk long ago.

The hunt is now focused underwater. Beginning in August, private contractors will use powerful side-scan sonar equipment capable of probing ocean depths of 7 kilometers (4.3 miles) to comb the ocean floor in the new search zone. The job is expected to take 12 months to complete.

Meanwhile, two survey ships are mapping uncharted expanses of seabed in the search zone before the sonar scanning starts. Dolan said it was possible the mapping equipment could detect wreckage that may be lying on the seafloor, but that it was highly unlikely.

The search area has changed multiple times in the months since Flight 370 vanished, as officials struggled to make sense of the limited data the flight left in its wake after it dropped off radar. The new search zone was largely identified by an analysis of hourly transmissions, or “handshakes,” between the plane and a satellite.

Truss said he was optimistic that the latest search zone is, indeed, the most likely crash site. But he warned that finding the plane remains a huge task.

“The search will still be painstaking,” he said. “Of course, we could be fortunate and find it in the first hour or the first day — but it could take another 12 months.”

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 26 June 2014, 6:59 pm and is filed under
MH 370
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why do we need such a bloated cabinet?

– Chua Tong Ka

The Malaysian Insider

26 June 2014

Let’s look at the latest cabinet reshuffle.

It rattles me because there was none. We just keep adding numbers.

It seems Malaysia does not have an upper limit on the number of ministers and deputy ministers. The prime minister said a bloated cabinet was unavoidable.

But the issue is not whether it is avoidable or unavoidable. The issue is whether it is tenable or not tenable, workable or not workable and acceptable or unacceptable.

Probably the argument was because of Barisan Nasional’s coalition politics – yes, a coalition of many political parties must try to give ministerial posts to different parties and factions within the coalition.

But is this the essence of coalition politics? I thought we form coalition to formulate policies that are inclusive to cater for diverse people with different needs, not to dish out goodies to pacify different political parties within the coalition.

That is not serving the people but themselves. Sorry for being naive, but sometimes it is good to remind ourselves.

Appointing coalition partners to meaningful positions in the cabinet is different from appointing them as tokens.

Can’t we see excessive tokenism conveys lots of insincerity and dishonesty in the way we organise our government.

Previously, coalition partners were given relatively insignificant cabinet portfolios. Now I think they are given no portfolio except to draw ministerial salary and perks.

I think it is a shame. It is a shame for the PM to do it and it is also a shame for the ministers concerned to accept it.

Is there a limit to the size of the cabinet?  It is not just the financial implications we should be concerned with.  It is how the government is supposed to work efficiently if we have so many ministers hanging around.

Have we thought about ministers creating hindrances and disservice among themselves because of overlapping and conflict of interests and responsibilities?

I mean 10 full ministers in the PM’s Office alone, in addition to a DPM. How much is UK bigger than Malaysia? What about Australia and Japan?  Do they have the number of ministers in the PMO the way we do?

And what do these ministers in the PMO do? They monitor integrity, set KPIs, watch unity, look after Parliament and monitor how people discuss religions, etc.

But are these not the responsibility of PM and the respective ministers concerned?  Are we saying the various ministers and the agencies under them need other ministers in the PMO to tell them the importance of integrity and the need for KPIs?

If we can accept Singapore is more efficient and less corrupted than us, please also accept that in Singapore, there are no ministers for integrity and KPIs.

They don’t even have an anti-corruption commission, they only have a bureau. They don’t have a national integrity institute or a minister in charge of integrity. They only have a PM who has the credibility and the authority to get result and enforce compliance.

Seriously, if we want to look at the sincerity of the government, we look at the way it is organised.  It is more revealing than listening to speeches and statements made by the government. – June 26, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 26 June 2014, 8:15 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A German lesson for Malaysia

by Zairil Khir Johari

FZ

Jun 27, 2014

Zairil Khir Johari draws similarities between Germany and Malaysia but finds how Germany’s system of federalism is efficiently decentralised and embedded with check-and-balance mechanisms at every level.

I WAS in Berlin when I came across Canadian astronaut Commander Chris Hadfield. And no, it wasn’t because of his creative space recording of David Bowie’s 1969 hit single, Space Oddity, which generated more than 22 million YouTube views before it was removed recently following the expiry of its copyright term.

Instead, Hadfield, who is also well known for having a keen photographic eye, happened to be in the headlines for a particularly poignant photograph he had taken of Berlin from space.

The now famous shot, taken at night from the International Space Station, illustrates a cobweb of lights with a bright white core radiating from the heart of the city where the government quarter lies.

Sprouting out from that core, the picture takes an interesting twist. The entire western half of the web is peppered with bright white lights, while the eastern half emanates softer, yellow glows. Two contrasting halves: one white and bright, one yellow and dim.

Although 24 years has passed since the reunification of Germany in 1990, the legacy of one of Europe’s greatest divisions could not have been clearer than in that photograph.

The separation of colours as seen from space is not simply the result of two different town-planning approaches, but rather the remains of what was a horrific war and decades of bitter separation.

This historical experience was evident throughout my many interactions during my week-long working visit to Germany. In almost every briefing and discussion with officials and legislators, whether at the state (Landtag) or federal (Bundestag and Bundesrat) level, there was always a sense of a large chip weighing down their shoulders. This was especially true of older Germans.

One of the key aims of my visit was to learn about the German political and legislative systems, as well as the division of powers between the different branches and tiers of government. In these areas, I found that Malaysia and Germany have many things in common. Yet, at the same time, we are also quite dissimilar in the very same areas that we share commonalities.

Take, for example, the structural makeup of our two countries. Malaysia and Germany are both federations made up of constituent federal states. In Malaysia, we have 13 states and three federal territories (Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya).

Germany also has 13 states and three city-states (Bremen, Hamburg and Berlin). Both countries practise a three-tier government system — federal, state and municipal.

Also, contrary to one’s instinctive opinion, Germany is also a relatively young democracy, sharing with Malaysia a post-war foundation that forms the basis for the modern polities that exist in both countries today.

Non-negotiable separation of powers

However, the structural similarities between our two countries are just that — merely similarities in structure. Germany’s system of federalism, unlike our grossly over-centralised aberration, is efficiently decentralised and embedded with check-and-balance mechanisms at every level.

Underlying the German Republic is a written constitution known as the Basic Law (Grundgesetz) of Germany. Instituted after the war in 1949, the Basic Law was crafted with the clear intention of ensuring that a potential dictator could never again monopolise power.

As such, the values of human rights and human dignity, as well as the principles of democracy, republicanism, social responsibility and federalism, were fused together as immutable elements of the Basic Law. These key components are entrenched in what is known as the “Eternity Clause” of Article 79(3) of the Basic Law and cannot be removed, repealed or amended by normal legislative process.

There is no doubt that this clear and non-negotiable separation of powers is shaped by the historical experience of Germany. Following two devastating wars, systematic genocide and the (very legitimate) rise to power of arguably the most notorious dictator of all time, there was a dire need to ensure that history never repeated itself.

The thinking behind this was carefully explained to us by the president of the Berlin state parliament during our visit to his august house: “During the time of the National Socialists [the Nazi Party], the executive dominated everything. Every other branch of government, including the legislative body, was sidelined. Hence, a clear and irreversible pact that made clear the division of powers had to be made.”

Besides the permanent guarantees enshrined in the Basic Law, the legislative branch was also created in such a way as to ensure a fair degree of checks and balances. Therefore, the German Parliament is composed of two bodies — the Bundestag, whose membership is elected directly, and the Bundesrat, which is composed of delegates from each state government.

As a result, the law-making process in Germany has to follow a strict procedure of obtaining approval from both the Bundestag and the Bundesrat, with the latter holding powerful veto rights over legislation.

In Malaysia, the Dewan Negara or Senate was originally meant to play a similar role in representing the interests of the various states against the Dewan Rakyat. However, its membership has since been diluted to the point that state-elected senators are now outnumbered almost two to one by federally appointed senators.

At the same time, the Senate holds no effective veto power, as a rejection only means a delay of one year before it is sent to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong for royal assent (where there is also no room for veto).

The same check-and-balance mechanism holds true for other areas in Germany as well. In a discussion with a cross-partisan group of legislators from the Brandenburg state parliament, it was explained to us that power in areas such as education, media and law enforcement is decentralised to the states so that “there would never again be a central government that is able to wield total control over the mental development of young Germans, disseminate their propaganda at will, or use the police to terrorise the people”.

Another area that I found quite interesting was the German model of fiscal distribution. Unlike in Malaysia where the cumulative total of all state budgets make up about 6% of the federal budget, there is a clear revenue-sharing formula in Germany that ensures equitable growth among the states. In addition, there is even a financial equalisation scheme that effectively makes richer, more developed states contribute to the development of poorer, less-developed regions.

Of course, no system is without its flaws. Debates abound about whether there is too much decentralisation in certain areas. For example, the highly decentralised nature of education has resulted in states having vastly different standards in schools. At the same time, richer states are also beginning to question the need to continue subsidising poorer ones, while the Bundestag-Bundesrat dynamic also occasionally results in legislative stalemates.

Consensus-driven politics

Another interesting aspect of the Germany polity that I came across is encapsulated in the phrase “consensus-driven politics”, in which political decision-making is predicated upon the consensual agreement of all parties concerned.

The personification of this feature is the third-term Chancellor herself, Angela Merkel, who is today the leader of a robust government referred to as the Grand Coalition, an alliance of two parties that are not only the two largest, but also the two with the most opposing ideologies. Combined, the Grand Coalition of the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats command 504 out of 631 seats in the Bundestag.

Even more interesting is the process of creating the Grand Coalition, which took two to three months to materialise following last year’s general election. Before either side could shake hands, an internal process of consensus building had to be conducted, in which both parties ratified a 185-page coalition agreement through internal party referendums.

At a more micro level, my discussions with a senior government official revealed that even Cabinet meetings and parliamentary agendas are usually agreed to in advance. Nothing appears on the Cabinet agenda, said the official who occasionally sits in on such meetings, unless a decision has already been agreed upon beforehand.

This penchant for consensus building, I was told, stems from the Germans’ dislike for open political discord. Instead, they prefer their politicians to settle matters behind closed doors before presenting their views to the public. While some may put it down to political culture, I see it as another direct corollary of Germany’s traumatic war experience and subsequent separation. As a result, negotiation is infinitely preferred over conflict.

It does not matter who is in power

Today, no one can deny that Germany has become Europe’s economic powerhouse, characterised by trend-bucking growth figures, healthy employment and income levels, as well as a social system that more than adequately caters for its citizens’ welfare.

Yet, at the same time, it can be argued that most of Germany’s current success would not have been possible were it not for a system that provides for political stability and bureaucratic efficiency.

Somehow, it all ties back to Germany’s historical experience. As heavy as the chip on the shoulder is, the fact is that it has somehow forced German society to agree upon a socio-political compact that, at least on paper, ensures dignity for its citizens, accountability in governance, and enough safeguards to guarantee the immutability of its key principles.

As one senior German academic said to me during a discussion: “The system in Germany is constructed such that no matter what happens or who is in power, it matters not to the German people. This is because everyone has to play by the same rules. And these rules are non-negotiable.”

Zairil Khir Johari is executive director of the Penang Institute and MP for Bukit Bendera

                This entry was posted on Friday, 27 June 2014, 3:53 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Foreign
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


‘Allah’ ruling makes ‘criminals’ of Bumiputera Christians, says Sarawak group

The Malay Mail Online

June 27, 2014

KUALA LUMPUR, June 27 — Bumiputera Christians have become “instant criminals” after the Federal Court ruled to uphold a lower court decision against allowing the Catholic Church the use of the word “Allah” for God, the Sarawak Ministers’ Fellowship (SMF) said.

The umbrella group representing evangelical missions in the state noted that the bulk of Bumiputera Christians were from East Malaysia where the bibles in their native tongues or in the national language contained “Allah”, but adding that thousands of Sarawakian Christians worked or studied in the peninsula where their word for God was now barred to them.

“Are they to become instant criminals the day they start reading their bibles in their mother tongue?” the group’s chairman, Rev Daron Tan said in a statement.

Tan claimed that Bumiputera Christians in Sarawak had been referring to God as “Allah Taala” for the past 150 years, a situation that is now untenable due to the apex court’s decision on Monday.

He noted that the Federal Court ruling on Monday “had made criminals of Malaysian Christians when they pray and address God as ‘Allah Taala.’”

He accused the top court of having abdicated its duty when it refused the Catholic Church the chance to argue its case, as well as doing itself a disservice by missing out the chance to prove to the world it is capable of coming up with a “reasoned and intellectually satisfying” decision on the controversial issue.

“The court had displayed cowardice in refusing to face the questions posed to it and had failed the whole of Malaysia in not giving its true legal opinion on the dispute between the Catholic Church and the Ministry of Home Affairs,” the said.

The Sarawak Christian group also hit out at the Barisan Nasional-led federal government, accusing it of riding on political expediency when putting out its 10-point agreement in the months before the Sarawak state elections in 2011.

It criticised Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak for promising the ban on the use of the word “Allah” would not be enforced in either Sarawak or Sabah, stressing that the assurance was mere rhetoric that has no legal or principled basis.

“The Sarawakian Bumiputera Christians have been badly let down by their leaders. We cannot continue to wait or depend on empty promises or uncertainty for religious freedom to be restored.

“The BN government created the mess we are in and it should resolve the problem. The Sarawak Ministers’ Fellowship demands that state and national leaders religious freedom.

“Stop-gap, temporary emotion-soothing are unacceptable and not working,” the group said.

It demanded the government review its position on the ban and to bring its regulations in line with Arab-speaking Muslim-majority countries.

On Monday, a seven-member bench at the apex court delivered a slim four-to-three majority decision to not hear the Catholic Church’s bid to appeal a lower court ban preventing it from using the Arabic word.

Last year, the Court of Appeal ruled that “Allah” was not integral to the Christian faith and that the home minister was justified in banning the Herald from using the Arabic word on grounds of national security and public order.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 27 June 2014, 4:29 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
Religion
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Dr M’s 4Rs coming home to roost

Mariam Mokhtar

Malaysiakini

Jun 23, 2014

Former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad has had a terrible month. His formula of using the 4Rs – race, royalty, the rural people and religion – to deceive the rural voters, most of whom have supported Umno Baru, is disintegrating.

One of the few good things which Mahathir did was to clip the wings of the sultans in the 80s, especially during the period when the rakyat appeared to be helpless in the face of criminal acts being perpetrated by the people to whom the rakyat professed their allegiance.

Mahathir’s emasculation of royalty was half complete. In recent weeks, the Johor sultan flexed his economic muscles, but the response of the politicians and rakyat was muted. Even fewer people were willing to discuss, in public, the awkward divorce of the former sultanah of Johor, months after her husband’s death.

Who dares to say anything, when they are at risk of being persecuted? This is not a respectful silence borne of loyalty, this is keeping silent out of fear.

Meanwhile, the newly-minted sultan of Perak proclaims that he would like to discharge his duties fairly and equitably. He said, “Do not tell me tales, to send me into dreamland, when the reality on the ground is something entirely different from what has been related to me.”

How many of us would like to believe him, especially when the merest mention of anything mildly critical is like a waving a red flag to the inspector-general of police (IGP), and attracts a charge of sedition, a fine and a jail sentence?

If he wishes, the sultan can easily access the alternative media and see the true state of the country, unless he is denied access to the Internet by courtiers who wish to spoonfeed him with propaganda. Surely, Nazrin cannot be so naïve that he believes the mainstream media.

We should thank Mahathir for wanting to propel Malaysia into the 21st century with the Information Super Highway. The new sultan is not living in a bubble. Does he want to believe what he hears, or seek the information for himself?

Perhaps, Mahathir’s most damning revelation was his confession in an interview with Mingguan Malaysia that the Approved Permit (AP) system had been abused by certain Malays, for money, instead of helping other Malays set up businesses. He said, “We want to help the Malays, but they don’t want to help themselves.”

It took 40 years for Mahathir to realise what most of us already knew in the mid-70s. Perhaps, Mahathir should have listened more and stopped being fed information by aides who only wanted to protect their interests.

Will Mahathir be willing to admit to the rural Malays that his policies have failed and that rural Malays were duped? Will he tell the rural Malays that other Malays were responsible for their backwardness? Will Mahathir admit, to the rural Malays, that their lack of success should not be blamed on the non-Malays?

Correcting the other wrongs

Now that Mahathir has finally acknowledged that the AP system has been abused, what will the current Umno Baru administration do to rectify the problem? While they are at it, will the government of Najib Abdul Razak correct the other wrongs which Mahathir and Umno Baru perpetuated, such as petrol station permits, permits for driving schools and taxi permits?

Over the years, billions of ringgits have been spent on schemes to help the Malays but much of this money was squandered or mismanaged. The ordinary Malays have been pampered, feted and courted, and yet they lag behind the other races, economically, educationally, socially and in religious spirit.

Religion – the final ‘R’- will Mahathir admit that his administration’s ban on the use of ‘Allah’ and other words by the non-Muslims has divided Malaysia? The government does not respect the constitution, which guarantees each citizen the right to freedom of religion, furthermore, Bibles have been confiscated. So, will Mahathir help resolve the issue, which he started in the 1980s?

Yesterday, the Shah Alam MP, Khalid Abdul Samad (right), claimed that Jais raid on the Bible Society of Malaysia (BSM) and the raid on a Hindu wedding, were really attacks on the Pakatan Rakyat Selangor government.

He said, “Umno which lost the state government wants to regain its power through the backdoor, so it uses the Selangor Islamic Religious Council (Mais)… The head of Mais is not appointed by the state but by the sultan. The chairperson Mohamad Adzib Mohd Isa is an Umno member.”

Is Khalid not aware that the rakyat have already suspected this, since the day the BSM was raided? We are also suspicious of the wedding raid, just as we are suspicious of the body-snatching in Penang. We know that these are surreptitious plots to undermine the opposition. It is odd that we don’t hear about these incidents in Umno Baru-led states.

The question is not that Khalid said that this is an Umno Baru plot, but that he waits for six months to say it. So now that PAS has acknowledged this, will they do something to remedy the situation before the rakyat’s patience is lost and the state is regained by Umno Baru?

Khalid said that he did not want people to think he was “currying favour with non-Muslims” because “I only defend Islam because Islam teaches us to respect all other religions and their houses of worship.”

People will not condemn Khalid for supporting non-Muslims. As an elected MP, he should defend every one of his constituents, regardless of their race or religion, if they are the victims of an injustice.

Many people see PAS as the chink in the opposition armour. The threat of political Islam and a caliphate looms large in peoples’ minds. PAS needs to work on their image and appeal to every Malaysian. Not just the very conservative Muslims.

If PAS wants to become a mainstream political party, it must abandon policies that are abhorrent to most Malaysians and engage with all the races and religion, of which the rakyat is comprised. The rakyat should not be made to choose between Islam and democracy.

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

                This entry was posted on Friday, 27 June 2014, 12:45 am and is filed under
Mariam Mokhtar
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Let Liow and Mah prove MCA and Gerakan will be Umno’s equal in government by restoring original BN consensus  and getting their first Cabinet meeting to disown Jamil Khir’s parliamentary statement that “Malaysia is not secular state”

After the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s announcement of his re-appointment as Cabinet Minister on Wednesday, MCA President Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai declared that MCA and UMNO share equal roles in the Barisan Nasional (BN) framework, as well as in the government, in accordance with the BN’s  traditional system of consensus.

Liow said MCA will not play second fiddle to UMNO in the Cabinet.

This is also the stand of the Gerakan President, Datuk Mah Siew Keong.

Just “as the proof of the pudding is in the eating”, let Liow and Mah prove that MCA and Gerakan will be UMNO’s equal in government by restoring the original BN consensus and getting their first Cabinet meeting to disown the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom’s parliamentary statement that “Malaysia is not a secular state”.

So far, Liow and Mah have claimed that Jamil Khir parliamentary statement that Malaysia is not a secular state is merely Jamil’s “personal view”.

Both Liow and Mah should know that there  is no such thing as a “personal view” when a Minister speaks in Parliament, whether in speeches or in replies to parliamentary questions, as whatever the Minister speaks in Parliament is in an official capacity on behalf of the BN  Cabinet which binds all Ministers under the doctrine of collective Ministerial responsibility.

Or is Liow and Mah suggesting that Datuk Wee Ka Siong, as Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, can stand up in Parliament to declare that Malaysia is a secular state with Islam as the official religion – fully contradicting not only Jamil Khir’s parliamentary statement but the ruling of the Parliament Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia?

And will Wee do so when Parliament reconvenes on Oct. 7?

Liow and Mah have claimed that MCA and Gerakan had never agreed in the Barisan Nasional to deviate from the decades-old consensus, assurance and commitment in the Malaysian Constitution and declared by  the founding fathers of the nation, including the first three Prime Ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Hussein, the other Alliance founding leaders like Tun Tan Cheng Lock, Tun Tan Siew Sin, Tun VT Sambantan as well as the founding Sarawak and Sabah leaders who were signatories to the 1963 Malaysia Agreement that  Malaysia is a secular state with Islam as the official religion of the Federation.

The restoration of the Barisan Nasional consensus that Malaysia is a secular state with Islam as the official religion of the federation, which is clearly defined in the Federal Constitution “drafted to safeguard the rights of not only one race and religion, but of all”, must be the first task of the first Cabinet meeting attended by both Liow and Mah.

Will Liow and Mah be able to restore this BN consensus, and get the Cabinet to  repudiate Jamil Khir’s parliamentary statement that Malaysia is not a secular state, when they attended their first Cabinet meeting after they have been sworn in as Ministers?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 27 June 2014, 1:13 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Gerakan
,
Islam
,
MCA
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Theofascism and the myth of ‘Moderate Malaysia’

 — Dr Mohd Faizal Musa

The Malay Mail Online

June 26, 2014

JUNE 26 — To many, the report of fifteen Malaysians killed in Syria after joining in terrorist activities with Islamist militant group Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), are rather shocking. This was the figure given by Permanent Representative of Syria to the United Nations in New York, in a press conference on June 18, 20141. They were asking, how could this happen? Why militants are coming from ‘a self-claimed moderate’ Malaysia?

Simple answer; the embrace of Wahabism in Malaysia is a source of radicalisation among Muslims here. In 2001, the PBS news programme Frontline noted that Saudi Government has been franchising Wahabism all over the globe; disguising their operation by funding charity work, education and religious institution. A transcript of PBS programme entitled ‘Saudi Time Bomb?’ reported how over the past few decades, “Saudi charities established hundreds of religious schools, or madrassas, from Malaysia to Uzbekistan, from the Sudan to Pakistan”2.

It is a fact that Malaysia is a ‘Saudi Arabia strategic ally’ in many ways”. For example, Malaysian Prime Minister thanked Saudi for “distributing an additional cash profit of US$8.15 million (RM26.2 million) to the 1Malaysia Development Berhad” in March 2011. Following this ‘distribution’ of cash during Bahrainis uprising in 2011 (author’s note: as a reminder most Bahrainis are Shi’ites), Malaysia promised to “fully back all sovereign decisions taken by our GCC allies which have the aim of safeguarding stability and security in the region to ensure harmony and peace for their citizen.” Malaysian Prime Minister also labelled the revolutionaries in Bahrain as “terrorist that undermines the stability and security of the country3.”

The embrace of Wahabism by certain sectors in Malaysia is certainly worrying. Permitting Wahabism in the society is like planting risk at the backyard.

There are two typologies regarding Wahabite’s tendency to obtrude their thoughts. First, without physical and military strength, Wahabites are imposing violence doctrinally, intellectually and psychologically; these by attacking those who differ from them as apostates, polytheists and infidels. Secondly, once they have their physical and military strength; the accusations were followed by physical violences by amputations, beatings and even killings. Ironically, Wahabites claimed that what they did is a dakwah (Islamic missionary) and amar makruf nahi mungkar (promoting good deeds and prohibiting wrong-doings) as an essence of Islamic teachings. Wahabites are hardliners who cannot tolerate other views than theirs.

All this while, to avoid the radar, Wahabism movement has been exporting hatred towards Shi’ism. With collective religious hatred conducted by the State agencies towards the Shi’ites, Wahabism slipped in the society undetected. At the same time, the demonisation of Shi’ites radicalise huge section of Muslims society, and this can be easily done since Sunnites do not have proper leadership compared to the Shi’ites. Therefore, the empty space of religious guidance can be easily filled in by the Wahabites preachers with all their dogmas and doctrines. All this is made easy through huge financing. This phenomenon had been predicted in a way since 2007 by Curtin Winsor J.R in his paper ‘Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism and the Spread of Sunni Theofascism’. He stated that Saudi government is responsible for funding ‘radical Islam’ all over the Muslim world, and Malaysia is one of its target:

“While Saudi citizens remain the vanguard of Islamic theofascism around the world, the growth potential for this ideology lies outside the Kingdom. The Saudis have spent at least US$87 billion propagating Wahhabism abroad during the past two decades, and the scale of financing is believed to have increased in the past two years as oil prices have skyrocketed. The bulk of this funding goes to the construction and operating expenses of mosques, madrassas, and other religious institutions that preach Wahhabism. It also supports the training of imams; domination of mass media and publishing outlets; distribution of Wahhabi textbooks and other literature; and endowments to universities (in exchange for influence over the appointment of Islamic scholars)4.

The lack of a formal ecclesiastical hierarchy within Sunni Islam renders traditional religious institutions weak in the face of well-funded Wahhabi missionary activities. Most Sunni Muslims look to their local imams for religious guidance. In poor countries, these imams and local leaders often find it difficult to resist the siren song of small amounts of Saudi aid that accompany Wahhabist missionaries in poor. Moderate imams do not have a comparable source of financial patronage with which to combat its spread.

Important fronts in this campaign are in south and southeast Asia, where the majority of the world’s Muslims live. In Pakistan, Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia and southern Thailand, Wahhabis have co-opted (or replaced) village and neighbourhood imams, and there is a fresh stream of converts returning from stays as guest workers in Saudi Arabia. The children of poor converts are often taken to Saudi Arabia for “education” and many are returned as cannon fodder for use by Wahhabi terrorist fronts”.

With hatred towards Shi’ites create human rights violations, radicalisation of local Muslims breeding right wingers and religious department going rampant out of control; the temperature of potential religious militancy is rising. Furthermore, the conflict in Syria and Iraq were easily manipulated by independent ‘ustazs’ as necessary war between Sunni and Shi’ites; soon heavens and martyrdom became commodity. Thus it is not surprising anymore that Malaysia has turned to be sowing ground for militants.

One fact forgotten in Malaysia is that the Shi’ites pose less threat to the national stability compared to the Wahabites. In 2010, Malaysian Home Minister at the time, Datuk Seri Hishamuddin Hussein confirmed this, saying, “the Shi’ites are not a threat from security point of view.”  However, as mentioned above, the Wahabites preachers have strategise to divert people’s attention. The public totally forgot that in the same year, ten terror suspects were arrested here and the “suspects were believed to be followers of the orthodox Wahabi sect”. This was reported in New Sunday Times on 31st January5. Today, Malaysian-made militancy made headlines all over the world, damaging Malaysia’s moderate image. It is time for the Government to give serious attention to the Wahhabi movement and no longer be fooled by them. Malaysia needs to clean herself from this plague as ‘theofascism’ is a threat to a multi-faith multi-racial country like Malaysia. Above all, Malaysian leaderships needs to enhance their international relations knowledge.

Dr Mohd Faizal Musa

Research Fellow Institute of the Malay World and Civilisation

National University Of Malaysia

1              Wisma Putra: 15 Malaysian ISIS militants allegedly killed in Syria. The Malay Mail Online. 24th June 2014. Available at http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/wisma-putra-15-malaysian-isis-militants-killed-in-syria#sthash.EgfhO3dQ.dpuf visited on 24 June 2014.

2               Saudi Time Bomb?. PBS Frontline. 15th November 2001. Available at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/etc/script.html visited on 14 September 2011.

3              Malaysia Supports Saudi Arabia & GCC’s Peace Initiatives In Bahrain. Bernama Report. 22 March 2011. Available at http://web6.bernama.com/bernama/v3/news_lite.php?id=572665 visited on 1 April 2011.

4              Jr, Curtin Winsor. 2007. Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism and the Spread of Sunni Theofascism. Mideast Monitor 2(1). pp. 1-14. Available at http://www.mideastmonitor.org/issues/0705/0705_2.htm visited on 4 November 2011.

5               Bendahara, Alang & Shi Lan, Lee. 2010. Suspects are Wahabi Followers. New Sunday Times. 31st January.

– See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/theofascism-and-the-myth-of-moderate-malaysia-dr-mohd-faizal-musa#sthash.JibpIrh8.dpuf

                This entry was posted on Friday, 27 June 2014, 11:08 am and is filed under
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Another cow-head incident, another minister shows his lack of class

COMMENTARY BY
THE MALAYSIAN INSIDER

28 June 2014

Blame Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi if you find Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi offensive, classless and an absolute duffer.

The former Umno Youth chief was consigned to political oblivion after resigning from the post, and was even detained under the Internal Security Act, after Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim was sacked from the government in September 1998.

To those who have forgotten the illustrious history of Zahid, he was supposed to launch the attack against Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, accusing the then PM of cronyism and nepotism.

The attack did not take off and Dr Mahathir instead laid bare the hypocrisy of Zahid, showing how he had benefited from cronyism and how he had amassed millions of ringgit.

Zahid (pic) was politically dead until Abdullah brought him back into Umno and the government when he replaced Dr Mahathir as the PM.

The rest as the say is history. Sadly. Zahid rose up the ranks and today is the Home Minister. What an irony? The man who allegedly beat the boyfriend of his daughter to pulp is now in charge of law and order.

He speaks like a thug; he can’t differentiate when he should speak like an Umno man or the Home Minister, and is a daily reminder that Najib’s XXL Cabinet is full of incompetent individuals.

Today, instead of being disgusted and disturbed by the act of throwing a cow’s head in the compound of R. S. N. Rayer’s home in Penang, he chastised the DAP man for having a loud mouth and said that he brought on the attack because he called Umno “celaka” in the state assembly recently.

Remember, this is the Home Minister speaking. It seems that he is endorsing the actions of those behind the cow-head incident.

He is speaking like another former home minister from Umno, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, who sympathised with his party-men after they paraded around an area in Shah Alam with a cow’s head in 2009.

Do you think that any individual or group is going to be discouraged from repeating this offensive action against other Hindus? Is it any wonder that in recent months, minority groups have had animal carcasses thrown into places of worship and other places?

There is little downside to these provocative actions for them. Get caught? When was the last time the police arrested anyone worth arresting?

It is easy to just say that this is about Rayer and that other Malaysians should not get too excited about what Zahid said. Too easy in fact.

Zahid’s flippant comment once again demonstrates that many in the government can’t tell right from wrong, and don’t understand a fundamental fact of governing: that those in position of leadership must be colour-blind and impartial in carrying out their duties.

Zahid has shown that he is incapable of being an honest broker. He is an Umno man, nothing more. He is just an offensive and classless individual.

Just another gift handed down to Malaysia by Abdullah Badawi, much like the toothless Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission and the discredited judiciary. – June 28, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 28 June 2014, 1:53 pm and is filed under
Police
,
Zahid
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Pakatan Rakyat will only be a one general-election coalition if it is unable to keep faith with Malaysians to give top priority to PR common policy framework and consensus

Although Pakatan Rakyat formed by DAP, PKR and PAS failed to dislodge the Barisan Nasional from federal power in the 13th General Elections last May, it won 52% of the popular vote and for the first time in the nation’s history, there is a minority Federal Government in Putrajaya.

Malaysians are waiting for the next general elections full of hope and expectation that a change of federal government will finally come to the country in the 14th GE to herald the advent of a new Malaysia where there is justice, freedom, good governance and full respect for the fundamental constitutional guarantees for the diverse races and religions in the country.

However, in the past year since the 13th General Election, supporters of Pakatan Rakyat are increasingly concerned whether Pakatan Rakyat, like the Barisan Alternative after the sacking of Anwar Ibrahim as Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister and expulsion from UMNO, could only survive for one general elections.

Would Pakatan Rakyat go the way of Barisan Alternative, comprising DAP, PAS, PKR and Partai Rakyat, which only succeeded in contesting the 1999 general elections?

Will Pakatan Rakyat be around as a coalition to contest the 14th GE to replace the Barisan Nasional in Putrajaya?

PR successfully overcome one great crisis at the end of  2011 as PR would have been dissolved if the PR leaders from DAP, PKR and PAS were unable to resolve their differences and reaffirm in a joint statement on Sept. 28, 2011 to continue to give priority to the PR common policy framework and consensus to give hope to Malaysians for the long-needed changes in the political landscape in the country.

The Sept. 28, 2011 consensus of the Pakatan Rakyat Leadership Council reaffirmed that hudud is not a Pakatan Rakyat agenda.

Any policy  change in PR would need the agreement of all three component parties and there is no such consensus in Pakatan Rakyat.

The Sept. 28, 2011 PR Joint Statement saved PR from disintegration and paved the way for the 52% popular vote won by PR in the 13 GE, translated into 89 Parliamentary and 229 State Assembly seats (excluding Sarawak) for Pakatan Rakyat parties.

As I have said before, if hudud had been a hot controversial issue in the 13GE  , the Barisan Nasional would not only have regained its two-thirds parliamentary majority to redelineate electoral constituencies at will, Pakatan Rakyat might have lost Selangor apart from Kedah and Johore would have reverted as an invincible Barisan Nasional “fixed-deposit” state.

In such a scenario, all the three PR component parties, whether DAP, PKR or PAS, would have suffered setbacks.

DAP would not have won 38 parliamentary and 95 State Assembly seats, while PKR and PAS would not win the total number of parliamentary and state assembly seats they won in the 13GE. PAS would in fact lose the four state assembly seats it won in Johor and the one state assembly seat it won in Malacca.

The Malaysian electorate do not want Pakatan Rakyat to go the way of  Barisan Alternative to be a one general-election coalition.

Malaysians want to continue to support PR and they want to see PR replace BN as the new federal government in Putrajaya in the 14GE – but this is on the proviso that PR keeps faith with Malaysians to give top priority to the PR common policy framework and consensus.

This will be a great test of Pakatan Rakyat leaders in DAP, PKR and PAS as to whether they can overcome the second crisis in Pakatan Rakyat and keep faith with Malaysians to give top priority to PR common policy framework and consensus.

(Speech at the DAP Melaka Dinner to honour Karpal Singh and to commemorate the 30th anniversary of “Save Bukit China Campaign” at Pay Fong Chinese Secondary School hall on Friday, 27th June 2014)

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 28 June 2014, 11:56 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
PAS
,
PKR
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


At their first Cabinet meeting, will the three MCA/Gerakan new Ministers insist on Jamil Khir  retracting two  parliamentary statements  for flouting BN consensus and established policies or choose to keep quiet to keep their Ministerial posts?

The Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikkhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) has issued a most timely statement to point out that  there are no historical document to contradict the fact that Malaysia was intended to be a secular state all the way back to Merdeka in 1957 and the formation of Malaysia in 1963.

Contradicting the recent parliamentary statement of the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom that Malaysia was not a secular state, MCCBCHST president Jagir Singh said  historical evidence and provisions in the Constitution dispel any doubts that the nation’s founding fathers had intended the nation to be a secular, not an Islamic state.

He cited historical documents such as the Alliance Memorandum submitted to the Reid Commission in 1956, and the white paper issued by the British government in June 1957, to contradict Jamil Khir’s claim that Malaysia was not intended to be a secular state.

For instance, the Alliance Memorandum jointly submitted by Umno, MCA and MIC to the Reid Commission specifically stated that they wanted a secular state, although the religion of the state was to be Islam.

At their first Cabinet meeting on Wednesday, the three new  Ministers – MCA President Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai, Deputy President Datuk Seri Wee Ka Siong and Gerakan President Datuk Mah Siew Keong, must insist Jamil Khir  retract two  parliamentary statements on hudud and Malaysia not a secular state for flouiting Barisan Nasional consensus and established policies.

The two  parliamentary statement by Jamil Khir which violated Barisan Nasional consensus and established policies were firstly, his statement this month that Malaysia is not a secular state and secondly,  his March 27 statement that the Barisan Nasional Federal Government was prepared to assist the Kelantan State Government to implement hudud laws.

All Malaysians will be waiting for the outcome of the Cabinet meeting next Wednesday July 2 as to whether the three new Ministers would dare to uphold Barisan Nasional consensus and established policies by demanding that Jamil Khir retract these two parliamentary statements which clearly violate Barisan Nasional consensus and established policies.

If Liow, Wee and Mah need further arguments for demanding that Jamil Khir retract the two parliamentary statements which flout Barisan Nasional consensus and established policies, they can do no worse by quoting Jagir Singh’s cogent reasoning that a secular state does not mean that religion and the state were completely separate.

Jagir have given Turkey and Indonesia as examples of countries which are grounded in Islamic principles but are secular, stressing:

“Therefore Malaysia can be described as a secular country with Islam as the religion of the federation but where Islam does not form the basic laws and where the Constitution is the supreme law.”

Jagir  rightly pointed out that  Article 4(1) made it clear that the Constitution, not shariah law, was the supreme law of the land.

As Jagir said,  the words Islamic law and shariah courts were not even found in the 1957 Constitution.

“The Muslim courts were renamed Shariah courts in 1976 by amending Schedule 9, similarly ‘Muslim law’ was amended to read ‘Islamic law’.”

As such,  hudud should not be implemented in the country as it would undermine the consensus reached between the different communities, as well as the Constitution and fundamental rights, including freedom of religion.

The question is whether Liow, Wee and Mah would raise these important issues at their first Cabinet meeting in order to rehabilitate and restore the long-standing Barisan Nasional consensus and established policies which had been flouted by Jamil Khir in Parliament in the last three months, or whether they choose to keep quiet and accept the violation of Barisan Nasional consensus and a tectonic change in  established BN policies by Jamil Khir so that they could continue to be Ministers in the Najib Cabinet!

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 29 June 2014, 1:02 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Gerakan
,
Islam
,
MCA
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malays must stand up to the extremists

by Ahmad Hafidz Baharom

Malaysiakini

24 June 2014

First and foremost, I am a third generation constitutional Malaysian Malay Muslim, as far as I can tell from my secondary school history project I did in 1996. That being said, there are those who may have a history of their ancestors and families living in this nation longer than I have.

I am partially Chinese, Indian, Indonesian Malay and Malaysian Malay, which we can all say are the four biggest populations in Malaysia currently. All I can say about this is that my parents must have taken Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s racial genetic co-mingling which he suggested in The Malay Dilemma seriously.

As much as I am a Malay, I am not a supporter of Umno, nor am I a supporter of PAS or any political party.

Instead, I align myself to individuals, among them PAS’ Khalid Abdul Samad and Mujahid Rawa (regardless of his anti-smoking crusade), DAP’s Charles Santiago and Tony Pua, PKR’s Nurul Izzah Anwar, Elizabeth Wong, Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad and Rafizi Ramli, and Umno’s Saifudin Abdullah, Ahmad Husni Hanadziah and Nur Jazlan Mohamed.

As a graduate of UiTM, I am thankful for what Umno has done in the past, but that doesn’t exclude them from criticism. Nor does it exclude UiTM from criticism.

As such, I don’t find an insult to Umno as an insult to myself as a Malay, nor do I see urging UiTM to be opened up to non-bumiputeras as an insult to myself.

Similarly, I do not find it taboo for a non-Muslim to wish me salam, or to use Islamic phrases. This is because I see it as a positive, as them trying to emulate our culture instead of somehow seeing it as a threat against my religion.

In other words, I am not paranoid.

In the past year or so, we have somehow seen that any insult to Umno, Ikaan Muslimin Malaysia (Isma), having Iban language Bibles, urging the reigning in of religious authorities, all of this as an insult to Malays.

Umno is not a representation of all the Malays in Malaysia. The fact that they lost Shah Alam in the last two general elections is solid proof of it. Mind you, we have a more than 90 percent Malay population in this parliamentary district.

Isma’s president, contrary to his wife’s belief, is not the representative of all Malays. After all, if he thinks the Chinese are trespassers, then he is equally saying I myself am the product of a trespassing ancestor.

A Penang assemblyperson calling Umno ‘celaka’ is also not an insult to myself, because I have seen students right out of UiTM who just got their first jobs giving out the same expletive remarks when they read news coverage of the Auditor-General’s Report.

And by the way, these were former BN Youth Volunteers during the 2013 general election.

I am not a traitor to Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah for thinking that both the Selangor Islamic Religious Council (Mais) and the Selangor Islamic Religious Department (Jais) are in the wrong and have totally lost the plot by seizing Bibles and having fake ex-Christians hold a talk at UiTM, regardless of what Negri Sembilan Perkasa suggests.

And if they think they need to behead me for this, I suggest they check in with the His Royal Highness the Sultan of Selangor to use his royal courtyard for the guillotine.

I believe the Malays have to now take a stand against all these views, and voice it out as ardently as possible; that we are no longer represented by extremists.

Now is the time for the Malays to take a stand and tell those in charge to either stop it or face the consequences of misrepresenting us to the entire world.

It is time to take legal action against our extremists to gag them from making unwarranted statements that tarnish the image of the Malay race.

If not, then the greatest insult to the Malays would be the insult we do to ourselves by letting the voice of the loud few destroy whatever pride we have left in ourselves as a people, as a community, as a majority in this country.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 29 June 2014, 1:28 pm and is filed under
Articles
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.