Sue gov’t, PAS urges dead gov’t officer’s family

By
Hafiz Yatim
 | Malaysiakini

PAS central committee member Mohamad Sabu has urged the family of late customs officer Ahmad Sarbani Mohamed’s (below) family not to give up in seeking justice for his death.

Mohamad or better known as Mat Sabu, said he had visited the family of the Royal Customs Department’s senior assistant director last week where he gained the impression that they seemed resigned to his death with the possibility of not pursuing the matter further.

“This is the difference between the Chinese and Malays. The Chinese when this thing happened like Teoh Beng Hock, they will continue to fight to clear his name and seek justice. Now after two years, the issue is still hot.

“For Malays we should not leave it to fate but continue with the struggle. We should not be satisfied that yes, we have already received the body, and that is the end of the matter.

“The family should continue with the struggle to clear his name and continue to seek justice,” he said.

Mohamad said the same thing happened with the death of teenager Aminulrasyid Amzah when police shot him dead.

Counsel hired but action uncertain

He feels that this attitude of resignation among the Malays should not continue and wants the community to emulate the Chinese and the others by taking on the institutions that may have contributed to the death.

Mat Sabu said a good way would be for the family to file a suit and continue seeking other legal avenues to keep the issue hot.

The family has engaged lawyers to monitor the case but whether any action will follow is uncertain.

On the possibility that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission and the Customs Department applying pressure on family members, Mat Sabu (right) concurred the possibility was there, adding that, nevertheless. the family should persevere.

The customs officer was found dead on April 6 after falling from the third floor of the Kuala Lumpur Federal Territory MACC headquarters under mysterious circumstances. Police have classified the case as sudden death.

However, his friends when interviewed suspected elements of foul play as the senior customs officer had gone there to retract his statement and was scheduled to perform the haj later this year with his parents.

Police had submitted their investigation papers to the Attorney-General’s Chambers once their probe was completed, only to receive them back earlier this week.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 30 April 2011, 5:00 am and is filed under
Crime
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


What offence has Anwar committed? Why is he being hounded?

by
P. Ramakrishnan

29th April 2011

The scandalous porno tape, used in desperation to implicate Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim allegedly engaging in sex with a prostitute in order to turn the tide in favour of the Barisan Nasional during the Sarawak election, refuses to fade away even after the Sarawak election.

It was a widely publicised news item and – according to some reports – the tape was even distributed in the longhouses in Sarawak to disparage and demean Anwar and present the opposition in poor light to gain political mileage for BN.

The police declared that the tape was genuine. The people were made to feel that very soon the sordid episode would be unravelled and the person in the tape exposed.

The various statements in the public domain created the perception that it was Anwar in the porno tape. The police conveyed the impression that it was a matter of time before Anwar was exposed as the owner of the Omega watch stolen by the prostitute. The Omega watch seemed to be the most important missing link to establish Anwar’s identity.

But to their utter disappointment there was no record of the purchaser in Taiwan, where the watch was apparently bought. The missing link went missing and they were no nearer the truth.

Now they say ‘they will not hesitate to expose to the public if necessary “the performer” in the sex video who allegedly resembled opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim.’

In other words, what they are saying is tantamount to the fact that they have identified “the performer” but they are not inclined to expose “the performer” unless it was necessary to do so.

The Malaysian public is rightly confused. What is meant by unless it was necessary? Why then did they go to such great length to find out the owner of the Omega watch? You took the trouble to trace the watch all the way to Taiwan.

What was the purpose? Wasn’t it to link “the performer” to the watch so that you can definitely identify “the performer” and expose him?

If it wasn’t necessary to identify “the performer” why is Anwar being harassed? He was called to give his statement a second time yesterday (28 April 2011). Unless you have irrefutable evidence that the character in the video is indeed Anwar, there was no necessity to ask him to report to Dang Wangi district police headquarters. Is it because they want to keep this shameful episode alive?

It is as though there is no other worthwhile issue in this country for the media to comment on and for our political leaders to discuss. Have we become so depraved that sex scandals have to hog the limelight and take up so much of the nation’s time and attention?

Malaysians have a right to be sceptical about the whole sordid affair. It is evident that there is a concerted effort to finish off Anwar in the interest of the Barisan Nasional. He is the only person standing in their way who can prevent the BN’s continued reign in Putrajaya. That being the case, would it not be logical to expose Anwar right now?

But why aren’t they doing it? Is it because “the performer” in the video is a pretender?! If it was Anwar, they would have gone to town with this information during the Sarawak election to disparage and destroy the opposition with one stroke. The print and electronic media and the blogs and websites would be gleefully swarmed with this news for days on end. But that is not happening!

But they are dragging their feet in this affair for far too long even though there doesn’t seem to be much hope of unearthing the truth. Why are they spending so much time with regard to Anwar when there is a simple, straightforward issue at their doorstep crying for a remedy?

The terrible Datuk Trio who were in possession of a pornography video should have been charged by now. The terrible Datuk Trio should be facing the music for screening a pornographic show to the public. With so much irrefutable evidence against the trio staring at and challenging the police, why is there so much foot-dragging? Why is there a reluctance to take action to punish those who screened a pornographic video? What is holding up the police and the Attorney-General?

Karpal Singh had rightly pointed out that prostitution is not an offence but using the premises for prostitution or living off the earnings of a prostitute is an offence. According to Karpal, “Whomsoever solicits or importunes for the purpose of prostitution or any immoral purpose in any place shall be punished with imprisonment…” If that is the law, where does Anwar fit into this? What offence is he guilty of?

A report has it that the police have located the place where the sex act took place and identified the prostitute. Why haven’t they taken action against the owner of the premises for allowing his place to be used for “immoral purpose”? Why haven’t they taken action against the person who procured the services of the prostitute?

The villains plotting to crucify Anwar have been identified; their involvement in this sordid affair has been established. Why are we not moving in on them?

P Ramakrishnan is president of Aliran

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 30 April 2011, 7:53 am and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Crime
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


An Open Letter to Our Education Minister

The recent focus given to history as a compulsory subject in the Malaysian school curriculum has driven me as a parent of school going children to gain an insight of what my children are learning in history as a subject in school. Before I summarise my findings (via reading my children’s history text books from Form 1 – 5), allow me to briefly take you through what is being taught as history in our government school:

Form 1 students are taught predominantly about the Malacca Sultanate with sporadic anecdotes of the other states. Penang is not mentioned at all and if I’m a student studying in Penang, I will seriously be wondering why. That is until I go to Form 2 whereby I will learn about the Straits Settlement, Tin Mining, Rubber Plantation and Exploitation by the British. Form 3 students learn about the Japanese Occupation, the Communist Party of Malaya, leading to Malaysia’s independence in 1957. A very detailed account of all the political parties in Malaysia is also elaborated. The 1955 Election Results seemed to be an important account in history as it is mentioned twice, in Form 3 and again in Form 5.

In Form 4, other than the first two chapters where one learns about the early civilization and the emergence of various religions, the rest of the year you will be doing an in-depth study of Islam – Islam Civilisation, Islamic Government in Medina, Formation of Islamic Government & Its Contribution, Islam in South East Asia, and Islam Influence in Malaysia. One could not be faulted to ask the question if one is learning history or religious study. I believe Azmi Sharom has expounded succinctly and rather ingeniously on this issue in his article in The Star on 30 Dec 2010.

Form 5 is an overkill on the study of nationalism and the development of race and nation. Out of 10 chapters, Chapters 2 – 8 bear the following titles:

Bab 2: Nasionalisme di Malaysia sehingga Perang Dua Kedua

Bab 3: Kesedaran Pembinaan Negara dan Bangsa

Bab 4: Pembinaan Negara dan Bangsa

Bab 5: Pembinaan Negara dan Bangsa yang Merdeka

Bab 6: Pengukuhan Negara dan Bangsa Malaysia

Bab 7: Sistem Pemerintahan dan Pentadbiran Negara Malaysia

Bab 8: Pembangunan dan Perpaduan untuk Kesejahteraan

I am making a moot point in not translating the above. And finally, in the last chapter in Form 5, you learn about World War I & II; the significance of which are reduced to only five pages in the entire five years of studying history.

I am completely perplexed! Is this all my children are learning in school? Does this not make them myopic and insular? Learning history is much more than learning about Malaysia. One needs to learn about world history. I talked to my children about the Hundred Year Wars, the Renaissance Period, the Mogul Empire, the Spanish Inquisition, the Boston Tea Party, the French Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, Slavery and the American Civil War, The Long March etc and they have no inkling what I am talking about!

There is also an obvious disconnect in the overall flow of the subjects covered. Subjects are doled out independently without any link or correlation to significant events. For example, the Japanese Occupation in Malaya is studied independently and students are not made aware that the Japanese invasion is part and parcel of WWII. Another point I would like to make is that we must use proper English names for the organizations that are mentioned. For example, United Nations is translated to Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu, which is fine until we use PBB as the acronym for UN. Which other country in the world would know what we are talking about if our students refer to UN as PBB? Another bad case of translation is NAM – Pergerakan

Negara-Negara Berkecuali; are we lost in translation yet? I am truly glad that our historians did not attempt to translate Commonwealth and instead use the literal “Komanwel”.

I shall not comment about distortions, half-truths or inaccuracies but I feel strongly that the spirit of the history text books should be written to reflect a fair and realistic account of history, plain and simple. The way it is written now, Malaysia is perceived as a victim of circumstance; we are always the good guys while the rest of the world are the bad guys. I am not sure why we need comments like “Singapura menjadi ‘duri dalam daging’ kepada Malaysia” is in our history text book.

What is the rationale behind our history syllabus? What is the reason for making history a compulsory pass in SPM? We have five solid years to impart history to our school going children and the government has decided that a Malaysian student should learn (almost) solely about

Malaysia and to use this subject as the platform to inculcate nationalism.

History is an important subject as we need to understand the past to appreciate the present in order to achieve the desired future.

I would sincerely like to call upon our Education Minister to re-look the entire history syllabus. We need to give our children a balanced view of world history and yet understand the significance of Malaysia in context. We owe it to our children.

CJ Yong

A Parent

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 1 May 2011, 1:24 am and is filed under
Education
,
History
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Taking time off

Tweets

Lim Kit Siang

[Admin] LKS TQ 2wellwishers re Endophthalmitis 2antibiotic injections in2 eyeball 2fight dread infection.Vitrectomy option if no improvement

2 May (9am)

Lim Kit Siang

[Admin] LKS down with Endopthalmitis, all programmes cancelled on doctor’s advice. Regrets unable complete program in Kcg/visit Sibu-Miri

1 May

                This entry was posted on Monday, 2 May 2011, 2:51 pm and is filed under
Announcement
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Only time can tell

Tweets

Lim Kit Siang

[Admin] LKS had successful 90-min Vitrectomy op under GA. Only time can tell if LKS can save his left eye. Thanks all well wishes & prayers

9 May (10.53pm)

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 3 May 2011, 10:57 pm and is filed under
Announcement
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia in the Era of Globalization #63

By
M. Bakri Musa

Chapter 8: Culture, Institutions, and Leadership

Negeri endah kerana penghulu
. (Great nation, great leader.)

—Ancient Malay Proverb

There is now gradually emerging a common Malaysian culture.  Part of this is the result of a deliberate official policy, but more likely it is the natural consequence of people living and working together.  I posit this process would have gone further had there been no governmental policy promoting a common culture.  It is a predictable human reaction to be defensive and protective of one’s heritage when threatened.

            In America there is no stated policy of Americanizing new immigrants, nonetheless new arrivals are always eager to join the mainstream.  Within a generation, new Americans are already fully acculturated.  Similarly, early Chinese immigrants to Malaysia, the “Straits” Chinese, readily adopted the Malay language and way of life precisely because the government and polity of the day were not harping on the issue of a “national” culture.  Likewise, early Indian Muslim immigrants to northern Malaysia blended easily with native Malays, aided undoubtedly by the commonality of religion.  Mamak Malays, as they are called, are fast vanishing as a subculture as they have become completely assimilated, with some becoming ministers and even Prime Minister!

            This common Malaysian culture may not be apparent to those living in Malaysia as the evolution is subtle, but it is there.  It is certainly obvious to foreigners and Malaysians residing abroad.  I can always tell a group of Malaysians regardless of whether they are Malays or non-Malays.  The obvious give away is the language.  I do not mean the distinctive Malaysian accent or such peculiarly local habit as ending every word and expression with lah, rather the sentence structure, manner, and style of language.  Many linguists now recognize Malaysian English as a distinct entity:  Manglish.  Appropriate enough name, for to the uninitiated it does appear that the language is being mangled.  Case in point is the tendency to verbalize nouns as in, “I story you one day,” meaning, I will tell you the story or explain it to you one day.  Similarly, “I off the air-conditioner,” meaning, I have turned it off.

            When Malaysians travel in a group abroad they love to display their identity by wearing the same set or colors of clothing.  Of course Malaysian-tailored suits are a dead giveaway!  As the locals would say, “Ta’ada cutting lah!” (No style!)  To be sure, Malaysians are not as self-conscious of their group identity as the Japanese, who would typically line up behind their banner-carrying leader.

            Another distinctively Malaysian cultural trademark is the utter lack of respect for time and punctuality.  I have never been to a Malaysian function that started on time.  Delayed events happen even in the West, but what is remarkable is the utter lack of a sense of urgency among Malaysians when things are tardy.  Foreigners in Malaysia discover soon enough the concept of “Malaysian time.”

            I recently received an e-mail enquiry from a non-Malaysian editor in Malaysia about excerpting my first book in his publication.  I replied immediately, as I do all my e-mails.  It is no sweat; all I have to do is click the reply button and type a few words.  No stamps to lick or envelope to stuff.  Imagine my amusement when he responded back that I must have left Malaysia a very long time ago as I have lost that Malaysian habit of ignoring enquiries!

            Similarly, ostentatious living, in particular lavish weddings, luxury cars, and first class travel, is fast becoming a Malaysian cultural artifact.  Senior Malaysian government officials routinely travel first class and stay at five-star hotels.  If comparable California state officials were to do the same, they would be publicly excoriated for wasting taxpayers’ money.  And California is many times wealthier than Malaysia!  Nor are such extravagances restricted only to government officials.  Even university deans and external examiners are given first class air tickets, while at the same time claiming that they have no funds for their libraries and laboratories.  Misplaced priorities!

            Similarly with mega weddings; initially they were restricted to royal families.  Today children of every big shot fancy themselves as princes and princesses.  Each wedding appears more gaudy and lavish than the previous one.  The recent marriage of Abdullah Badawi’s daughter was even more spectacular than that of a princess, and topped the earlier extravaganza for Sammy Vellu’s (a federal minister) son.  There was no sense of embarrassment on the part of the participants.  I shudder to imagine the next real royal wedding.  Malaysians, and Malays in particular, take to heart the tradition of the wedding couple being the king and queen for the day.

            The gala wedding of Abdullah Badawi’s daughter deserves scrutiny for another reason.  A recent editorial in the New Straits Times, the mainstream paper owned by the ruling party, carried a laudatory piece on the deputy prime minister.  One of the items mentioned was that the man did not even own a house; he had sold it earlier presumably to finance his daughter’s education.  Very praiseworthy!  The article went on to highlight Badawi’s humble and common origin.  Obviously the essayist was totally oblivious of that recent mega wedding which was so generously covered by his own paper!  Badawi may not be able to afford even a terrace house, but he sure could put on a lavish wedding.  And this man has no qualms on lecturing Malays to be prudent in our ways!

            On a positive note, another Malaysian tradition is the “open house” to celebrate festivities.  This was initially a Malay phenomenon for Hari Raya but it has now spread to other festivities including Christmas and Chinese New Year.  Undoubtedly sociologists will find other common elements among Malaysians.

            These will undoubtedly increase as Malaysians become more integrated.  Such commonalities aside, Malaysians still very much retain their distinct and diverse cultures.  Unlike Americans, Malaysians do not subscribe to the “melting pot” theory, preferring its own “salad bowl” model instead, where each element retains its own distinctive color and flavor.  In their totality the various ingredients create a unique blend that is the Malaysian culture.

            It is generally recognized that Malay culture is the defining characteristic of the “Malaysian” culture.  An extreme few would have Malay culture be the Malaysian culture, but this is nothing more than the conceit of control freaks who feel that they could impose their views on such an elusive entity as culture.  To pursue the culinary metaphor, Malay culture is the lettuce or greenery of the rojak (salad), the dominant or primary component.  There may be other ingredients like onions and black olives, but they are there to enhance the overall flavor and appearance.  Too strong an onion or too many black olives, and the overall flavor will be spoiled or it would no longer be recognized as rojak.

            In my discussion here on the role of culture in contemporary Malaysia, I am purposely restricting myself to the culture of Malays.  I do this for two reasons.  One, it is the defining culture and more importantly, the culture of the ruling elite.  Two, I am familiar with it as it is also my own culture.  By doing this I do not mean to denigrate or dismiss the other cultures that make up the Malaysian mosaic.

Next:   Economic Culture of Malays

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 4 May 2011, 8:21 pm and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
globalisation
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


No Difference With or Without

By
Kee Thuan Chye

PRIME Minister Najib Razak has changed his tack in relating to the Chinese electorate. He seems to have discarded his role of the charmer who spun 1Malaysia hogwash to win Chinese hearts and minds. He is now threatening them instead.

He’s telling them that if they don’t support Barisan Nasional (BN) at the next general election, they will not have representation in the Government. This is because Chua Soi Lek, the MCA president, has declared that his party will not accept government positions if they don’t get Chinese support.

Najib’s switch to a threatening mode shows that he’s desperate. He clearly must be after what has happened in the recent Sarawak state elections, when the Chinese dumped the Sarawak United People’s Party (SUPP) in favour of the Opposition. Despite Najib’s 10-day campaign in the state, the Chinese there did not show him any face. They are simply fed-up with the corrupt BN Government and they want reform. But for BN, the loss of Chinese support, especially in Sarawak, with the possible spread to Sabah, could be crucial at the next general election.

Chua has since come forward to say that Najib was not issuing a threat but only making a “statement of fact” in response to the MCA’s proposed stand. But knowing the kind of pakat-pakat (conniving) politics practiced by BN, one is more likely to believe that Najib and Chua had both cooked up this ploy together right from the start – to supposedly strike fear in the hearts of the Chinese.

But should the Chinese be cowed? Should they worry if they had no representation in government – to be specific, the BN Government? Why should they? What has MCA (and Gerakan) representation in the Government done for them? Hasn’t Chua woken up to the fact that it is because the Chinese feel the MCA has been useless in BN that they dumped the party in 2008?

And as if to reaffirm the hopeless situation that both the MCA and Gerakan are in, the same day Najib issued his threat, Perkasa president Ibrahim Ali issued his own – warning the two parties to stop bringing up sensitive issues or risk having their candidates undermined at the next general election. By this, Ibrahim meant Perkasa would urge Malays not to vote for the MCA and Gerakan. He even insisted that both parties must defend the Malays and Islam before they should get Malay votes.

Of course, we can dismiss Perkasa as a minnow that appears bigger than it really is because its president has a loud mouth and exaggerates his own importance. But it is no less humiliating for the MCA and Gerakan to be publicly chided in this fashion. What’s more, big brother Umno has made no move to chide Perkasa back, which merely underscores the weakness of the lesser parties.

Should the Chinese support such weak parties? If the MCA and Gerakan were to remain in the BN Government after the next general election – and that’s assuming BN wins – they would merely be playing the same old second fiddle. Supporting them would probably just give them a chance to continue to get a share of the loot, like the MCA did in the PKFZ scandal. Why elect them for that purpose?

In any case, if the MCA wants to turn down government positions, that’s its own business. It has no right to put the onus on the Chinese or attempt to blackmail them.

Threats won’t work. Chua should know that. So should Najib. Former prime minister Abdullah Badawi issued the same threat on the eve of the 2008 general election; it was on the front page of mainstream newspapers. The Chinese didn’t give a damn; in fact, they were even more pissed off. Taib Mahmud did the same in the run-up to the Sarawak state elections. The Chinese told his coalition to go fly a kite.

If Najib wants to win back the Chinese, he has to take positive, radical measures. He has to assure them that the Government would be squeaky clean, that there would be no more rent-seeking, that the country’s institutions will be respected, that the Government will strictly follow the rule of law, that the Chinese would have a place under the Malaysian sun as is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.

It will not be enough for him to merely say that he will attend to these things; he has to be seen to be doing it. Because talk is cheap. The reason the Chinese don’t buy his 1Malaysia drivel is that it’s precisely nothing but drivel. In reality, nothing has been done to make things better for them. And meanwhile, the corruption and the rent-seeking continue. The Chinese realise more and more that the taxes they pay are going to the wrong causes. But what are they getting in return? Has there even been an improvement in the quality of Malaysian life?

The MCA and Gerakan have failed them. They are as culpable in the corruption that has set this country back. Their leaders get shouted down each time they make a squeak about any issue that displeases Umno. They get insulted by Umno seniors like Nazri Aziz and Hishammuddin Hussein.

Why should the Chinese want any party to represent them that has no cojones?

In fact, the MCA is a reminder to them of what a disgrace it is to Chinese dignity. As for Gerakan, whenever a politically aware Chinese person says something about its president, Koh Tsu Koon, they would accompany it with spittle. And they don’t even have to be from Penang.

The greatest irony about Najib’s threat is that for one who espouses 1Malaysia, he should even have entertained the thought. A truly 1Malaysia government would not look at race in its appointment of ministers. It would serve all races, whether or not there are Chinese representatives among its Cabinet. And if indeed the MCA did pull out of government positions and Najib still craved to see Chinese faces at Cabinet meetings, he could still do what he has done before – appoint non-politicians, like he did Idris Jala. Or appoint Chinese from other BN parties. If they haven’t been duly elected, he could simply make them senators first. He’s not new at that game either.

So, whatever it is, the Chinese have nothing to worry about. With or without representation in government, there is no difference – they will still be as they are. Chua and his MCA can do what they like; it won’t matter anyhow. The Chinese will vote according to their conscience. After all, they have a saying: “It is better to die a hero than to survive in disgrace.” Perhaps the MCA should take note of that before the next general election.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 4 May 2011, 8:37 pm and is filed under
Kee Thuan Chye
,
MCA
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Surely not another 50 years of Islamisation?

by
Yin Ee Kiong
 | CPIAsia

Until now one can arguably say that the non-Muslims have not made a stand against the erosion of their constitutional right regarding freedom of worship. Neither have they done anything to protect the status of their religion.

The church has stood by while symbols of their religion were dismantled from mission schools. The church leaders were weak and complaint, and for being a ‘good boy’ many were made Datuks. The same can be said of the leaders of the other religions.

If ever they thought that ‘turning the other cheek’ would appease the Islamist fundamentalists then they were wrong. Appeasement only emboldened the religious ultras among the Muslims.

Now we’ve had churches being torched and corpses snatched, temples demolished and cow heads paraded to insult the religions of the infidels.

It did not help that the government played to the gallery instead of applying the constitution regarding the freedom of worship in both letter and spirit. The fact that none of the other BN component parties protested only made Umno’s work easier.

It is only now that the Council of Churches of Malaysia Youth (CCMY) has come out to say that the government’s 10-point solution to the Bible in Bahasa Melayu (Al-Kitab) issue is not enough as it does not address decades of official harassment. They want a holistic solution to the problem of religious discrimination. The Christian youths blame the present situation on their elders who did not make a stand when the problem first emerged.

From the following list compiled by someone and making the rounds via chain mail (see ‘50 Years of Islamisation’ endnote) one discerns Anwar Ibrahim’s hand in all of this. That was during his Abim and Umno days, one may say to excuse him. But what is Anwar’s stand now, one has to ask.

More importantly, will the government protect the freedom of worship of all citizens in both letter and spirit as provided for by the constitution? Or will it continue to pander to the Muslim constituency to the disadvantage of the non-Muslims?

The government talks about interfaith dialogue but when push comes to shove it backs away from it. When he was the premier Abdullah Ahmad Badawi cancelled the ‘Building Bridges’ seminar of prominent Muslim and Christian scholars under the auspices of the Archbishop of Canterbury due to pressure from Muslim groups.

Our schools are becoming more Islamised – the doa is recited at school functions and non-Muslim students must attend. Islamic Civilization is a compulsory subject for all university students. School history textbooks glorify Islam and Islamic civilization over other religions.

Our constitution states that Malaysia is a secular state yet one prime minister after another beginning with Dr Mahathir Mohamad, insists that Malaysia is a Muslim state. In current PM Mohd Najib Abdul Razak’s view, Malaysia was never a secular state.

There are also problems regarding Muslim radicals in Indonesia. But the Indonesian government takes a firm stand where religion is concerned. President Susilo Bambang Yuduyono has openly said that the government will not tolerate religious radicals. The official view is that the government is ‘neutral’ and will apply the law accordingly.

This is in contrast to Malaysia where state imams (the Mufti of Perak especially) can incite religious hatred and where the law is biased – pro-Islam protesters are allowed more latitude than those of other religions. Even when a legitimate meeting is held in a hotel (the Article 11 NGO campaign), the police stopped it because of the protest from Muslim groups. If it were other protesters, the FRU would have moved in with their truncheons and water cannons.

During tea with one of the workmen decorating the house [in Indonesia], I asked him what if his daughter married an infidel? ‘No problem!’ he replied.

What if the infidel refuses to convert to Islam? No problem. What if he changes his mind about Islam; can he opt out or convert to another religion? No problem – it is not against the law, according to him.

There are pockets of ultra Islamist communities e.g. in Acheh, but by and large Indonesians are quite tolerant and accepting of religious pluralism.

The government must cease obstructing the practice of other religions other than Islam. And it must cease harassing those who have the spine to stand up for their religion.

Thank you to the anonymous person who compiled the following:

50 YEARS OF ISLAMISATION

1957: The Reid Commission drafted the Federal Constitution, and at the behest of one of the Commission members, Mr Justice Abdul Hamid of West Pakistan High Court, Article 3 (1) was formulated as such: “Islam is the religion of the Federation”.

1966: Restrictions were placed on the employment, entry and residence of priests and religious personnel. This led to the reduction of religious personnel in mission schools.

1974: The Red Cross Society was renamed Red Crescent Society.

1974 to present: The airing of Islamic television and radio programmes began increasing. From 1974 onwards, prime-time television programmes were paused to air the azan [Muslim prayer].

1979: The Islamic Revolution and revivalism in Iran had a direct effect on Muslims here. Muslim clerics began exhorting their faithful to return to the fundamentals of the faith. The Angkatan Budaya Islam Malaysia or Abim led by Anwar Ibrahim started thedakwah movement mainly among government, and college/university students. Muslim women, for the first time, were seen donning the tudung. Over the years, wearing of the tudung has become the norm amongst Muslim women here.

1981: The Indonesian translation of the Bible Al-kitab was banned under the Internal Security Act. The ban was later lifted on condition the books were restricted to Christian use.

In 1982, Islamic content on TV stood at 10 percent; in 1988 it rose to 17.5 percent.

Songs that contain the word ‘Jesus’ have been banned [e.g. Jesus to a Child by George Michael], as well as movies depicting prophets [e.g. Prince of Egypt, a cartoon about the life of Moses].

1984: It became illegal for non-Muslims to use 49 ‘Islamic’ words including Allah [God], Alhamdulilah [Praise be to God] and Insya Allah [God willing].

1985: The then Deputy Prime Minister Musa Hitam said, “The gSovernment has set up a committee to co-ordinate the various aspects of Islamic Syariah and civil laws in line with efforts to infuse Islamic values into the administration” [New Straits Times, March 9, 1985]

Aug 1986: Abim proposes to the government that Islamic laws be the basis of legislation in Malaysia [New Straits Times, Aug 25, 1986]

Sept 1986: The federal and state governments agreed to the integration of Syariah and civil courts. The then Lord President Salleh Abas said this integration was a first step toward the Islamisation of laws in the country. He also said that changes should not be made drastically; the best changes are those which are imperceptible. [The Star, Sept 25, 1986]

The above situation led to a written protest by the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism [MCCBCHS], and a nationwide church and temple signature campaign denouncing the plans.

1988: The then Minister of Education Anwar Ibrahim, directed all principals, aged 55 and above in religious schools to stop service with immediate effect. The principals who took over were mostly Muslim. Subsequently,

(1) Moral Education replaced Christian religious education in these schools and the majority of Moral Education teachers were Muslim;

(2) Crucifixes in mission schools were removed;

(3) School history textbooks glorified Islam and Islamic civilisation over other religions;

(4) Islamic Civilization was introduced as a compulsory subject for all university students.

1988: Article 121 of the Federal Constitution was amended by Art. 121 (1A) to state that the civil courts shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts. The result of this amendment led to the civil courts being unable to adjudicate in cases where the Islamic ingredient is present notwithstanding the fact the person seeking judicial relief or remedy is a non-Muslim, especially in matters related to conversion, matrimony, children’s custody and burial.

Over the years, case law has shown:

(1) A person who converts to Islam can get his/her civil marriage dissolved by the Syariah court, automatically gains custody of children and is allowed to convert them without the non-Muslim parent’s consent [Subashini v Saravanan]. CPI note: Additionally the cases of Shamala Sathiyaseelan against her husband Muhammad Ridzwan bin Mogarajah and of Tan Cheow Hong against his wife Fatimah Foong binti Abdullah.

2) A person who converts out of Islam cannot change religious status on his/her identity card without permission from the Syariah Court [Lina Joy case];

(3) A person who applies to the Syariah Court to convert away from Islam is forced into rehabilitative detention [Revathi Masoosai case].

(4) State Islamic authorities are given power by the Syariah courts to claim, exhume and bury deceased persons who they deem as Muslims, regardless of the insistence of family members to the contrary [Moorthy Marian and Rayappan Anthony cases].

1980s: In line with Article 11 (4) of the Federal Constitution, state and federal law may restrict the propagation of any other religious doctrine among Muslims – the Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non-Islamic Religions Enactment was

passed in six states. The penalties for such violations are a maximum RM10,000 fine or one year’s jail, or both. Five persons including a former Muslim were detained without trial under the ISA for allegedly performing missionary work amongst Muslims.

During the 80s the print media attempted to portray that Christian evangelism was a threat to the Muslim faith. As an example, on Oct 9, 1987, the NST reported that, Christians attempted to convert Muslims with bribe money. On Oct 5, 1987, Mingguan Islamalleged that US$100bil was provided by the World Federation of Churches for the Christianisation of Muslims. The Malaysian Consultative Council on Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism [MCCBCHS] asserted that both

these stories were false. Furthermore, there is no such body as the World Federation of Churches.

1980s to present: Approvals for building of non-Muslim places of worship became increasingly difficult. Unusual conditions were imposed: height restrictions on steeples, design restrictions re temple domes. Sikh gurdwaras are barred from building their traditional domes for fear that it may cause confusion for looking too mosque-like.

The Church of the Divine Mercy in Shah Alam took no less than 28 years to be approved and built due to vexatious bureaucratic delays and protests from residents.

To date, over 10 Hindu temples have been demolished by local councils on grounds that the structures were illegal.

1980s to present: Muslims by virtue of paying their tithes [zakat] are allowed a tax rebate of the amount tithed. This has resulted in Muslims having a lower effective tax rate, while non-Muslims with the same level of income are taxed a higher percentage.

1993: Banks and finance companies were allowed to offer Islamic banking services.

1993: he Kelantan State Legislative Assembly, which is under the control of opposition Parti Islam SeMalaysia [PAS], passed the Syariah Criminal Code Bill, which included Hudud laws that call for stoning to death and chopping of limbs which however have not yet been enforced to date.

1999: The ruling Barisan Nasional lost the state of Terengganu to PAS in the general elections. PAS, with its vision of setting up a Syariah-based Islamic state, replaced DAP as the main opposition party in Parliament.

This led to a race between the BN and PAS to try and out-Islamise each other by posturing themselves to appear more Islamic.

2000: The Bahasa Malaysia translation of Al-Kitab was confiscated by the Special Branch from the Daughters of St Paul bookstore in Petaling Jaya. The then Deputy PM Abdullah Badawi later released the books on condition that the words ‘For Christians Only’ were printed on the cover.

2001: In an apparent attempt to thwart support for PAS’s plans of an Islamic state should it come into power, the then PM Mahathir Mohamed declared that Malaysia was already a model Islamic country. Despite public outcry from the non-Muslim population, the non-Malay component parties within the ruling coalition were either compliant or silent on the issue.

2002: The policy absorption of Islamic values into government administration was launched. According to the booklet, ‘Malaysia is an Islamic Country’, the policy will be implemented on a continuous basis until the goal of entrenching Islam into the nation’s system is fully achieved. The booklet was later withdrawn but the policy is arguably still in force.

2004: PAS was ousted by the DAP as main opposition party in Parliament when it lost Terengganu to the BN and retained Kelantan by the narrowest of margins in the general election. The BN, helmed by new PM Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, experienced its biggest victory to date winning nine-tenths of the contested Parliamentary seats. Abdullah then introduced the new concept of Islam Hadhari.

2005: Plans to set up an Interfaith Commission, a statutory non-adjudicative body to assist the government in shaping coherent policy pertaining to religious harmony, were scuttled by widespread protests from Muslim activists who alleged the commission would interfere with the holiness of Islam.

2005: City Hall enforcement officers arrested a non-Muslim couple for hugging and kissing in a public park. The couple appealed to the Federal Court, which ruled that City Hall was correct. The decision has now empowered local council authorities to act as morality police.

2006: An elderly American couple on holiday in Langkawi were harassed and humiliated by state religious enforcement officers who raided their apartment on suspicion they were Muslims committing khalwat, an offence under Syariah law.

2006: A coalition of non-governmental organisations [NGOs] formed Article 11 [named after the constitutional provision which enshrines freedom of religion], with the intention of reminding the government to defend the Federal Constitution and reaffirm the country secular nature. Their nationwide fora were repeatedly disrupted by Islamist activists. The PM stepped in and assuaged the protestors by putting a halt to the Article 11 activities.

2006: The Attorney-General’s Chambers now has a Syariah unit whose functions, inter alia, are to take steps toward the realisation of a set of laws and specific body that will be responsible for the harmonisation of civil law and syarak [laws of Islam. This could be seen as a resumption of the 1985-1988 initiative towards the integration of Syariah and civil courts.

2007: Islamic authorities have been observed to have grown more tyrannical in their enforcement, as evidenced by the Revathi Masoosai case where they forcibly took away her child on the grounds that she was a Muslim who illegally practised Hinduism, despite her claim that she had been a practising Hindu since childhood.

2007: Deputy PM Najib Abdul Razak said Malaysia has never been a secular state as the government has always been driven by the fundamentals of Islam, according to state Bernama news agency (July 17).

2007: New station TV9 was launched, which features mainly Islamic programming. There is no coverage of non-Muslim religious programmes, save for during the respective festivals.

Sources:

    Hudud Laws, The Constitution and the Penal Code by O.C. Lim, SJ

    Islamisation of Malaysian Laws by Paul Tan Chee Ing, SJ

    ‘Why the MCCBCHS Rejects the Application of the Syariah on Non-Muslims’

ADDITIONAL UPDATES BY CPI:

2010: Jabatan Kemajuan Islam Malaysia (Jakim), an agency in the PM’s Department launches Malaysia’s first Islamic free-to-air Islamic channel, TV AlHijrah. Besides television, Jakim also owns and operates an Islamic affairs radio station, Salam FM.

2011: Institut Kefahaman Islam Malaysia (Ikim) – yet another one of the Islamic government federal agencies – operates a 24-hour radio station IKIM.fm which claims 786,000 listeners (according to its bulletin last October). Early this month (April), Ikim organised a convention which established a technical committee with the principal objective of harmonising Syariah and civil laws,The Star reported. The convention did not rule out the possibility of having just one unified legal system for the whole country.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 4 May 2011, 8:31 pm and is filed under
History
,
Islam
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A long haul

Tweets
@limkitsiang
:-

5th day:

[Admin] LKS 5th day w/o vision on left eye. However surgeon optimistic of sight recovery after Vitrectomy op. Q: how much? Wil b longhaul

4th day:

[Admin] LKS w/o vision on left eye for 4th day. Depending on outcome of Vitrectomy op to restore sight. Pray for the best.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 5 May 2011, 3:08 pm and is filed under
Health
,
Personal
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Another Open Letter from Mat Zain to IGP

Letter by
Mat Zain

Kepada,

YDH Tan Sri Haji Ismail bin Haji Omar,IGP,

Ketua Polis Negara,

Polis Di-Raja Malaysia,

Bukit Aman,

50560 Kuala Lumpur,

Email:
[email protected]

YDH Tan Sri,

KEYAKINAN RAKYAT TERHADAP PDRM SEMAKIN PARAH

1.	Sejak dua minggu kebelakangan ini orang ramai nampaknya bertambah lantang mengecam dan mengutuk caramana tindakan PDRM menangani isu video lucah yang dikatakan melibatkan Anwar Ibrahim.Malahan terdapat mereka dengan secara terbuka dan berani mengeluarkan kata-kata kesat dan lucah terhadap pucuk pimpinan PDRM.Melihat tindak tanduk  dan kenyataan umum yang dibuat oleh Polis sendiri,dan diperbesarkan oleh media,kita tidak dapat menyalahkan rakyat jika berpendirian sedemikian.

1.1.	Secara peribadi saya mendapati PDRM terlalu menurut karenah Peguam Negara seolah tidak bebas bertindak sendiri.Sebagai seorang pesara yang mengetahui sedikit sebanyak asal usul isu dalam persoalan,saya berasa sedih dan khuatir sejarah lama akan berulang dan “pisang akan berbuah dua kali”.

1.2.	Saya tidak bimbang untuk menyatakan,bahawa akibat terlalu melayani karenah Peguam Negara dan terlalu mengharapkan dan percaya kepada Gani Patail, menyebabkan mantan Ketua Polis Negara,Tan Sri Rahim Noor terpaksa masuk kepenjara selama dua bulan selain terpaksa membayar denda maksima RM 2000.

1.3.	Pada hal,sekiranya Rahim Noor mengekalkan pendirian dan keputusan beliau sendiri yang dibuat secara gentleman pada 8.10.1998,untuk mengambil tanggung jawab sepenuhnya akan keterlanjuran beliau mencederakan Anwar, kemungkinannya beliau akan hanya didenda sahaja serta mengelakkan penyiasatan yang agresif terhadap beliau.Kemungkinan ini berdasarkan beliau mempunyai faktor mitigasi yang kukuh dan diperkuatkan lagi apabila Mahkamah dijangka mengambil kira jasa beliau kepada keselamatan Negara yang tidak ternilai, khasnya ketika beliau menjadi Pengarah Cawangan Khas.

1.4.	Akibat dipermainkan oleh Gani Patail,bukan sahaja Rahim Noor telah dipenjarakan, malahan sehingga lebih kurang dua bulan yang lalu, beliau telah dilabelkan sebagai orang yang bertanggung jawab merosakkan imej Negara dikaca-mata Antarabangsa pula.Sila Tan Sri rujuk muka surat 693 memoirs Tun Dr.Mahathir Mohamad;dalam buku Doctor In The House, dimana Tun Mahthir merakamkan,… “Rahim did me no favours politically – in fact, he did much harm to Malaysia’s International standing.”

1.5.	Tidak dapat dielakkan kenyataan tersebut akan kekal  dalam sejarah hidup Rahim Noor dan keluarga dan menjadi sejarah hitam buat PDRM, manakala segala pengorbanan dan jasa Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Noor kepada Negara dilupakan selamanya.

1.6.	Sedih untuk menyatakan,tidak ada apa-apa perkara yang bagus untuk kenangan PDRM dalam keseluruhan Chapter 53 memoirs, melainkan menyedarkan kita hakikat  bahawa Tun Mahathir, tidak dapat memaafkan Rahim Noor.

2.	Namun begitu kita tidak boleh secara terburu-buru menuding jari menyalahkan Tun Mahathir.Sebagai manusia biasa beliau juga boleh diperdayakan atau dalam bahasa mudah,ditipu untuk mempercayai sesuatu perkara yang tidak benar sebagai benar, atau perkara yang benar sebagai tidak benar.Kita tinjau beberapa insiden penipuan yang dilakukan keatas Tun Mahathir seperti berikut;

2.1.	Pada bulan July 1993 Rahim Thamby Chik telah menipu Tun Mahathir dengan membuat Akuan Sumpah Palsu untuk menyembunyikan harta lebih kurang RM 40 juta yang diperolehi menerusi salahguna kuasa dan rasuah seperti yang dilaporkan oleh Badan Pencegah Rasuah yang disahkan oleh Gani Patail sendiri.

2.2.	Pada bulan July 2010 pula Tun Dr.Ling Liong Sik telah dituduh kerana menipu Jamaah Menteri yang termasuk Tun Mahathir dalam kes skandal PKFZ. Bezanya antara kes ini dengan kes dipara 2.1. diatas ialah Peguam Negara enggan mengenakan pertuduhan terhadap Rahim Thamby Chik walaupun kedua-dua kes ini melibatkan penipuan terhadap Tun Mahathir.Sedangkan semasa sidang Parlimen bulan lalu Menteri di-Jabatan Perdana Menteri telah mengesahkan bahawa Peguam Negara tidak mempunyai kuasa untuk “indemnify” mana-mana orang daripada liability jenayah semasa persoalan mengenai Rahim Thamby Chik dibangkitkan.

2.3.	Pada bulan September 1998,Tun Mahathir pernah diperdayakan untuk mempercayai bahawa kecederaan mata-lebam Anwar adalah akibat “self-inflicted” sepertimana yang dirakamkan dalam memoirs beliau muka surat 693.

2.4.	Pada bulan Januari 1999 Gani Patail sendiri terlibat menipu Tun Mahathir dengan memperdayakan beliau untuk mempercayai sesuatu yang tidak benar berkaitan dengan hasil siasatan Polis bersangkut insiden mata-lebam.Akibat perdayaan ini Tun Mahathir telah membenarkan pembentukkan Suruhanjaya Di-Raja mengambil alih siasatan insiden mata-lebam daripada tangan Penyiasat PDRM.

3.	Contoh-contoh diatas dengan jelas membuktikan bahawa Tun Mahathir juga terdedah kepada perbuatan penipuan oleh Menteri atau Ketua Menteri ataupun oleh Pegawai-Pegawai Kerajaan atau mana-mana orang yang berpeluang memberi taklimat kepada beliau mengenai sesuatu perkara. Ringkasnya Tun Mahathir tidak “kebal” dari tipuan.Dengan demikian itu kemungkinan Tun Mahathir telah diperdayakan untuk mempercayai bahawa Anwar terlibat dalam aktibiti homosexual tidak boleh diperkecilkan.

4.	Dengan kata-kata diatas,saya persilakan Tan Sri merujuk kepada “The memoirs of Tun Mahathir-A DOCTOR IN THE HOUSE” yang dilancarkan pada 8.3.2011.Secara spesifiknya untuk merujuk kepada Chapter 53: Anwar’s Challenge muka surat 684 hingga 698.Saya sarankan juga Tan Sri merujuk kepada surat saya bertarikh 27.12.2010 yang salinannya turut diedarkan kepada YAB Perdana Menteri dan YBhg.Peguam Cara Negara,memandangkan terdapat beberapa kandungannya yang relevan.Chapter 53 ini menimbulkan beberapa persoalan dan keraguan.

4.1.	Saya menyimpulkan bahawa Tun Mahathir sangat percaya bahawa Anwar terlibat dalam aktibiti homosexual berdasarkan kepada dua surat yang beliau terima daripada Umi Hafilda dalam tahun 1997 dan taklimat daripada pegawai penyiasat Musa Hassan sepertimana terdapat dalam muka surat 684 memoirs tersebut.Saya tidak akan menyentuh berkaitan surat Umi Hafilda memandangkan keterangan dan bukti sesuatu siasatan Polis adalah dikumpul,disusun dan dipegang oleh Pegawai Penyiasat sendiri.

4.2.	Persoalan yang timbul adalah sama ada Musa Hassan telah memberi Tun Mahathir taklimat yang jujur dan betul mengenai keterangan yang telah dikumpulkannya terhadap Anwar itu,ataupun Musa Hassan telah menokok tambah keterangan dalam taklimatnya untuk memperdayakan Tun Mahathir supaya mempercayai bahawa Anwar benar-benar terlibat dalam aktibi homosexual itu.Tidak boleh juga diperkecilkan kemungkinan Musa Hassan mengambil kesempatan hubungan teruk antara Tun Mahathir dan Anwar ketika itu ,supaya nama beliau disenaraikan dalam “good book” Tun Mahathir.

4.3.	Sekiranya pada ketika Musa Hassan memberi taklimat kepada Tun Mahathir, beliau telah sedia memiliki keterangan yang lengkap dan kukuh bagi membuktikan Anwar terlibat dengan aktibiti homosexual seperti yang didakwa,mengapakah pada 1.10.1998 Musa Hassan cuba memujuk saya untuk mengambil contoh darah Anwar untuk tujuan DNA, ketika saya sedang menyiasat insiden mata-lebam?.Apabila saya menolak permintaanya itu dengan alasan perbuatan tersebut adalah “illegal”,Musa Hassan bersama Rodwan Yusof sendiri telah “mencuri” sample darah Anwar untuk tujuan DNA tersebut daripada simpanan dan kawalan Dr.Zahari Noor di-Hospital Kuala Lumpur pada 15.10.1998.Seolah Musa Hassan terdesak mendapatkan bukti dengan apa cara sekalipun, untuk menguatkan keterangan dalam siasatan beliau,yang telah ditaklimatkan kepada Tun Mahathir sebelum itu.Urutan peristiwa ini secara kebetulan telah saya jelaskan secara terperinci dalam surat saya bertarikh 27.12.2010 kepada Tan Sri dan rasanya tidak perlu untuk saya ulangi.

5.	Bagi maksud menguji kredibiliti Musa Hassan,dan sama ada cakapan atau kesaksian beliau boleh dipercayai ataupun dicurigai sebahagian atau sepenuhnya,diperturunkan peristiwa-peristiwa yang mungkin boleh digunakan sebagai ukuran;

5.1.	Pada April 2008,Musa Hassan telah membuat kenyataan umum yang tidak benar yang mengelirukan rakyat apabila menyatakan bahawa kertas siasatan Polis terhadap Tun Mahathir telah diedarkan kepada Peguam Negara pada 15 February 2000 sedangkan laporan terhadap Tun Mahathir belum ujud lagi ketika itu oleh kerana laporanya hanya dibuat pada 13 Jun 2000.Komen saya mengenai perkara ini terdapat dalam Surat Terbuka saya bertarikh 8.10.2010 yang dialamatkan kepada Datin Kalsom Taib,isteri kepada bekas Ketua Pengarah BPR Dato Shafee Yahya.

5.2.	Tahun 2009 Hakim Mahkamah Sesyen Kota Kinabalu Puan Supang Lian (kini seorang Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman)dalam penghakiman bertulis beliau menyatakan bahawa kesaksian yang Musa Hassan berikan dalam perbicaraan tersebut sebagai “unreliable and to be disregarded”.Perbicaraan ini melibatkan bekas Pengarah PDRM,Ramli Yusuff.Hakim Puan Supang Lian tidak akan membuat kenyataan yang sebegitu keras sekiranya beliau tidak mempunyai alasan yang kukuh memandangkan Musa Hassan adalah seorang Ketua Polis Negara yang sedang berhidmat ketika memberi keterangan tersebut.

5.3.	Pada March 2010 seorang penggubal undang-undang Sivarasa Rasiah telah membuat laporan Polis mendakwa Musa Hassan telah memberi keterangan palsu dalam perbicaraan Anwar pada Disember 1998 dihadapan Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi,mendiang Dato Augustine Paul.Difahamkan laporan ini masih dalam siasatan.Tidak bermakna jika laporan itu dibuat oleh seorang Wakil Rakyat Pembangkang,laporan tersebut tidak boleh dipakai.Saya percaya Tan Sri juga maklum dan ramai Pegawai Polis sama ada yang sedang berhidmat atau telah bersara maklum, bahawa laporan Sivarasa Rasiah itu adalah berasas.

5.4.	Diantara 26.10.1998 hingga 21.12.1998 Musa Hassan telah memberikan kemudahan kepada Gani Patail untuk mendapatkan seorang Dr.Abdul Rahman Yusof, mereka tiga laporan perubatan palsu  berkaitan kecederaan Anwar dalam siasatan kes mata-lebam.

6.	Senarai diatas tidak termasuk permohonan-permohonan yang dibuat oleh Peguambela di-Mahkamah terhadap Musa Hassan kerana menghina Mahkamah dengan memberi keterangan palsu dalam perbicaraan.Sekiranya sekadar sekali sahaja Musa Hassan lakukan perkara seumpama,mungkin ianya boleh dianggap sebagai suatu kesilapan tulen yang tidak disengajakan.Tetapi jika dilakukan berulang kali dan berterusan serta dengan sengaja dan terancang,maka tidak salah untuk kita merumuskan bahawa  Musa Hassan sememangnya sebagai seorang yang tidak boleh dipercayai.

7.	Berkaitan dengan Gani Patail pula,telah banyak laporan-laporan yang telah didedahkan mengenai beliau.Sememangnya beliau boleh menafikan apa-apa juga perkara yang dibincangkan atau diperkatakan kepada saya, memandangkan kebanyakkan urusan saya dengan beliau adalah “on a one to one basis”.Tidak ada saksi untuk menyokong mana-mana pihak.Juga tidak ada rakaman video untuk membukti perbincangan kami.Namun begitu Gani Patail tidak boleh menafikan perkara-perkara berikut;

7.1.	Bahawa beliau telah mengarahkan dan/atau memaksa Dr.Abdul Rahman Yusof untuk membuat tiga laporan perubatan palsu berkaitan kecederaan Anwar dalam siasatan insiden mata-lebam diantara 26.10.1998 hingga 21.12.1998. Ketiga-tiga produk pemalsuan ini sememangnya ujud dan telah diedarkan bersekali dengan penerangannya sehingga keperingkat YAB Perdana  Menteri, Peguam Cara Negara dan Lembaga Penasihat SPRM.

7.2.	Beliau tidak dapat menafikan bahawa dua laporan yang dipalsukan itu telah dikemukakan sebagai keterangan dalam prosiding RCI Mata-Lebam serta dirakamkan dalam laporan RCI tersebut.

7.3.	Beliau tidak dapat menafikan bahawa beliau yang membuat Kenyataan Akhbar Peguam Negara bertarikh 5.1.1999 yang mengandungi beberapa maklumat palsu berkaitan hasil siasatan Polis mengenai siasatan insiden mata-lebam. Kenyataan Akhbar ini juga telah digunakan dalam prosiding RCI Mata-Lebam walaupun Gani Patail sedar ia mengandungi maklumat mustahak yang palsu.

7.4.	Beliau tidak dapat menafikan bahawa hasil siasatan RCI Mata-Lebam telah dimanipulasikan.Dimana laporan perubatan palsu bertarikh 26.10.1998 yang dibuat oleh Dr.Rahman diatas arahan Gani Patail sendiri telah ditinggalkan daripada dimasukkan kedalam laporan akhir RCI tersebut yang dikemukakan kepada SPB Yang Di-Pertuan Agong.

8.	Kesalahan-kesalahan terhadap Keadilan Awam yang dilakukan oleh Gani Patail dan Musa Hassan adalah terlalu besar untuk dimaafkan.Kesalahan-kesalahan mereka sama ada dilakukan berasingan atau dengan niat bersama telah memberi kesan parah yang mendalam dan jangka panjang terhadap Sistem Keadilan Jenayah Negara.Malah tindakan mereka berdua telah memusnahkan keyakinan Rakyat, bukan sahaja terhadap Polis Di-Raja Malaysia malahan terhadap Jabatan Peguam Negara sendiri.

8.1.	Saya berpendapat,demi Keadilan Awam itu sendiri,Tan Sri mengangkat perkara ini kepada YAB Perdana Menteri,mencadangkan supaya RCI atau suatu Tribunal dibentuk  menyiasat dakwaan ini secara telus dan menyeluruh serta “once and for all”.Jika fakta-faktanya dibentangkan kepada beliau secara jujur dan teratur, saya yakin YAB Perdana Menteri tidak akan menghampakan Rakyat.

9.	Apapun,tanggung jawab dan pendirian PDRM menyiasat sesuatu kes jenayah itu walau berapa lamapun ia telah berlaku wajar dikekalkan.Walaupun kesalahan-kesalahan jenayah Gani Patail dan Musa Hassan  didakwa berlaku 12 tahun yang lalu,tidak bermakna yang ianya boleh dilupakan begitu sahaja,atau “swept under the carpet”.Tidak ada sekatan masa untuk sesuatu kes jenayah itu disiasat secara terperinci.

10.	Contoh terbaik yang boleh dijadikan sandaran ialah kes bunuh beramai-ramai di-Batang Kali pada 1948.Dalam kejadian ini seramai 24 orang tempatan keturunan Cina telah ditembak mati pada Disember 1948 di-Sungai Rimoh, Batang Kali,Selangor oleh sepasukan Tentera British dari G Company,2nd Scott Guard ketika operasi menentang komunis di-Malaya ketika itu.

10.1.	Pada pertengahan tahun 1993 satu laporan Polis yang baru telah dibuat oleh beberapa saksi insiden tersebut yang masih hidup.Ketua Polis Negara ketika itu, YA Bhg.Tun Mohd Hanif Omar memberi jaminan Polis akan menyiasat kes ini sebagai kes bunuh walaupun insiden berlaku berpuloh tahun terdahulu oleh kerana “tidak ada sekatan masa” untuk menyiasat sesuatu kes jenayah.Kertas siasatan dibuka oleh DSP Sivaramamoorthy ketika itu Ketua Bahagian Siasatan Jenayah Kuala Kubu Bharu.Penyelaras siasatan pertama pada masa itu ialah Supt.Khew Chin Hoi dari Bukit Aman. Saya adalah salah seorang daripada Pasukan Penyiasat kes ini ketika itu sedang menjawat jawatan Timbalan Ketua Jabatan Siasatan Jenayah Selangor.

10.2.	Pada pertengahan tahun 1994 saya mengambil alih sebagai Ketua Penyelaras siasatan setelah selesai tugas siasatan trajedi keruntuhan condominium “Highland Towers” Hulu Kelang,suatu insiden malang yang menggemparkan Negara berlaku pada Disember 1993 yang mengorbankan 48 nyawa.

10.3.	Walaupun Batang Kali Massacre ini telah berlaku hampir 63 tahun yang lalu,persoalan mengenainya masih belum padam lagi dan saya tidak nampak yang ia akan padam dalam masa terdekat ini.

10.4.	Lebih kurang 3 minggu yang lalu tersiar semula kisah insiden ini;dimana pada 9 April 2011,penulis Mark Townshend dari majalah Guardian (dan dilaporkan juga dalam STAR 14.4.2011),telah mendedahkan maklumat terbaru kononya Pegawai PDRM telah menghubungi pihak Interpol dalam tahun 1993 untuk menghantar satu Pasukan Penyiasat ke-United Kingdom bagi merakamkan percakapan beberapa anggota tentera British yang terlibat dalam insiden tersebut.Kononya juga Pejabat Luar Britain telah mengenakan tekanan kepada Pesuruhjaya Tinggi Malaysia menghalang atau menghentikan lawatan Pasukan PDRM ke-UK ketika itu, kononya sebagai usaha untuk  “cover-up” siasatan ini.

10.5.	Untuk makluman Tan Sri, saya adalah Pegawai yang dipilih oleh Bukit Aman untuk mengetuai rombongan eksesais ini ke-UK yang dimaksudkan. Mengenai sebab mengapa eksesais ini dibatalkan, terdapat dalam laporan khas saya yang dipercayai masih terdapat dalam kertas siasatan yang  berkenaan.

11.	Isu yang diketengahkan disini ialah,sekiranya satu insiden jenayah yang berlaku pada tahun 1948,ketika  Tan Sri dan saya sendiri  belum dilahirkan lagi, pun kita siasat dengan bersungguh,apatah lagi perbuatan jenayah yang dilakukan oleh Gani Patail dan Musa Hassan dalam tahun 1998 dan selepasnya yang masih segar dalam ingatan Rakyat, seolah ianya berlaku hanya beberapa bulan yang lalu sahaja.

11.1.	Sekiranya dalam kejadian Batang Kali Masaccre 1948 telah memusnahkan nyawa 24 orang tempatan,insiden keruntuhan Highland Towers 1993 pula mengorbankan 48 orang,perbuatan Gani Patail dan Musa Hassan sejak tahun 1998 telah memusnahkan keseluruhan Sistem Keadilan Jenayah Negara. Sekiranya tidak ditangani dengan telus dan menyeluruh,Rakyat akan mengungkitnya selama mana Rakyat mengungkit Batang Kali Masaccre.

12.	Saya percaya Tan Sri masih ingat cara mana kita dengan pantas dan penuh keyakinan serta bebas menangani beberapa kes berprofil tinggi dan menarik perhatian umum yang berlaku secara berturut-turut diakhir tahun 1999 hingga awal tahun 2000.Ketika itu Tan Sri sebagai Pegawai Turus di-Bahagian Pendakwaan dan Undang-Undang Bukit Aman.Antara kes-kes tersebut adalah;

12.1.	Pada September 1999 dimana seorang Dr.Tai Eng Teck ditembak mati oleh seorang anggota Konstabal Daerah Ceras,Tony Beliang ketika mendiang Dr.Tai sedang berduaan dengan teman wanitanya dalam kereta berhampiran Stesyen LRT Bandar Tasek Selatan.

12.2.	Dalam bulan Disember 1999,seorang penyanyi popular ketika itu, “Along Spoon” atau nama penuhnya Sabiul Malik Shafie ditemui mati dibunuh oleh seorang anggota Polis Cawangan Pengawal Pengiring Kuala Lumpur,Lans Koporal Mohamad Yaacob Demyati.

12.3.	Dalam bulan Mac 2000 bilamana seorang Kontraktor Kenneth Lee(Fook Mun) @ Omar Iskandar Lee Abdullah cucu kepada Menteri Kewangan Pertama, mendiang Tun Sir H.S.Lee telah menembak mati seorang akauntan wanita Lee Good Yew diJalan Lapangan Terbang Lama berhampiran Jalan Bellamy Kuala Lumpur.

13.	Polis telah dapat menyelesaikan ketiga-tiga kes bunuh diatas hanya dalam tempoh antara satu minggu dan dua minggu sahaja daripada tarikh insiden,serta menghadapkan ketiga-tiga pesalah berkenaan ke-Mahkamah bagi menghadapi pengadilan terhadap masing-masing.Untuk rekod,ketiga-tiga tertuduh telahpun disabitkan dengan kesalahan masing-masing serta menjalani hukuman undang-undang yang dijatuhkan keatas mereka.

13.1.	PDRM mampu melakukan ini semua kerana kita telah bertindak secara professional, berkecuali serta without fear or favour dengan mengenepikan soal darjat atau kedudukkan dalam masyarakat, keturunan dan Agama sesaorang pesalah jenayah,sambil kita mengekalkan hubungan yang professional dengan Jabatan Peguam Negara dan patuh kepada Rule of Law.

14.	Jika PDRM mampu melakukan seperti diatas 12 tahun yang lalu,secara lojiknya tentulah PDRM boleh lakukan dengan lebih baik lagi sekarang ini. Namun begitu sejak akhir-akhir ini sangat jelas kelihatan PDRM seperti kehilangan taring, dan seolah jawatan Ketua Polis Negara “subservient”  kepada Peguam Negara.Kes kecil seperti kesalahan manayangkan video lucah pun, yang lazimnya dahulu disiasat oleh seorang AIO berpangkat Sarjan, kini terpaksa diusung turun naik beberapa kali kepejabat Peguam Negara untuk mendapatkan arahan dan masih belum ada keputusan lagi walaupun lebih satu bulan telah berlalu.

15.	Saya sedar bukan mudah untuk Tan Sri mengambil balik kuasa Polis yang Musa Hassan telah gadaikan kepada Gani Patail,untuk membawa kepada situasi “status quo”, kerana ia melibatkan pindaan semula undang-undang yang telah dikuatkuasakan sejak pertengahan 2007.Namun begitu usaha mesti diteruskan untuk mengembalikan kepada keadaan dimana amalan perinsip pemisahan kuasa dan peranan antara Penyiasat dengan Pendakwa Raya dipulihkan seperti sediakala.Mungkin rakyat sukar memahami maksud saya dalam perenggan ini. Namun begitu saya yakin Tan Sri dan pucuk pimpinan PDRM faham,dan pesara-pesara seperti saya juga faham serta akan mengikuti perkembangannya.

16.	Saya berharap Tan Sri serta pucuk pimpinan PDRM yang baru sudi menggalakkan setiap warga Polis meneliti dan menghayati setiap perkataan dalam Akta Polis 1967 dan Hukuman Tetap Ketua Polis Negara untuk mereka disedarkan akan kuasa,peranan dan fungsi serta tanggung jawab Polis yang sebenar-benarnya.Apapun keadaannya, PDRM tidak bolih sama sekali terus membiarkan Gani Patail “memegang” Perdana Menteri atau mana-mana orang sekalipun sebagai “hostage” beliau.

Salam hurmat dan selamat maju jaya.

Yang benar,

Mat Zain bin Ibrahim.

5 Mei 2011.

s.k.

SUPM (Untuk makluman KPN dan T/KPN)

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 5 May 2011, 1:50 pm and is filed under
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Behind the iron gates

By
June Rubis

May 05, 2011

We stand separated by an iron gate.

Concerned villagers and relatives of Numpang Suntai are quietly gathered outside the gates of the Simunjan magistrate’s court. The rest of us, carefully picked by the police, are standing on the grounds of the court with his lawyers.

The day is February 16, 2011, and Numpang is on trial for criminal intimidation. He, along with five tuais rumah (Iban longhouse chiefs) and a prominent land rights activist, Nicholas Mujah, were previously arrested and detained a few months prior on suspicion of burning down a timber camp that stood on their native customary land.

The man of the hour stands quietly in the rain in solidarity with his supporters who came far and wide to be by his side. So does lawyer Edmund Bon who refused to step inside court grounds.

I had taken Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan pass the iron gate because she wanted to discuss with the lawyers regarding Numpang’s case. My job was done, and I stood uncertainly with the heavily-armed police and lawyers, wanting to be on the other side of the gate.

The villagers, locked out of the court grounds and standing without protection from the pouring rain, look sad and defeated.

The mood was a far cry from the night before, where about 1,000 rural indigenous people from all over Sarawak descended onto a longhouse in Simunjan for a very spirited rally on land rights issues, and in support of Numpang.

Brave Sarawakian activists spoke up against the injustice of his arrest, and arrests of others over the years. Then it was our honoured guests’ turn; guests who have come all the way from Kuala Lumpur.

Ambiga and Edmund both gave passionate non-partisan speeches, in their own inimitable way, about our constitutional rights, and how in their own backyard, the Orang Asli are facing the same land rights issues. They spoke about how the Orang Asal of Sarawak did not have to stand alone in their fight, and that they would not stand neither behind them, or in front of them, but rather side by side in support.

The tuais rumah quietly cried to hear such heartfelt support from two strangers from Peninsular Malaysia.

When it was Numpang’s turn, he spoke about being a “coward” because he was scared of what was going to happen to him. In all honesty, nothing could be further from the truth.

For the several months that I have gotten to know Numpang and his wife Helen, I have been struck by their combined courage and their quiet determination to save their native customary land from logging.

The fight wasn’t just for their land, but for the combined land of other afflicted longhouses. They did not plan to be activists in any way, they just wanted to save their forests from logging. Helen once spoke sadly to me about how eagles used to nest in their lands, but now they have all but disappeared because of the logging disturbance.

Prior to this, Numpang and Helen had led very quiet “respectable” lives, not wanting to be in the spotlight of a very controversial matter until they were forced to do so.

How many of us would give up our comfortable middle-class lives to defend something that we feel very strongly about? At the cost of possibility being incarcerated? Few of us would have Numpang and Helen’s courage.

I walk to the other side of the gate, and ask Edmund why he won’t join the rest of the lawyers in the court grounds where he could get out of the rain.

He looks at me with some exasperation, and explains: “Once we are separated, we have lost. We ALL should have just remained outside the court grounds and not let ourselves be divided.”

He was right.

For all the strength of the solidarity we had shared on the previous night, we had allowed ourselves to be diminished in power when we obediently followed police orders that only certain individuals were allowed into the court grounds. We had lost our bargaining chip.

We should have decided that none of us, including the lawyers, activists, supporters, would step one foot into the court grounds until all of us were admitted. The court grounds would have been large enough for everyone to gather, and it was a public place anyway.

On that day, we lost that brief struggle and it was our fault. The police played really well.

I think often about that fateful day and the important lesson I had learnt about solidarity, especially when I think about current Sarawak politics.

For all their combined desire to replace Barisan Nasional as the ruling state government, Pakatan Rakyat and SNAP allowed themselves to be divided.

And it is their fault. Sarawak Barisan Nasional played really well.

Yet it is just one state election, and who knows how much Pakatan Rakyat and SNAP have learnt from this experience.

As I drop off Ambiga and Edmund at the Kuching airport, and thank them for accepting my invitation to speak at the rally, I wondered about the impact of their speeches.

We spotted several Special Branch officers milling around the local NGO office that I had brought them to, and I am certain that they were also present in the rally.

I can attest that both Ambiga and Edmund spoke neither in favour or support for any political party on that night. The only misfortune was that PKR politicians had turned up, and what was supposed to be a non-partisan indigenous people rally turned into a political rally towards the end.

Needless to say, I was frustrated, and worried about the consequences for Ambiga and Edmund.

That day was Ambiga’s last day in Sarawak before she was banned from entering once more into our state.

We may be divided by the South China Sea, or by a government restriction, but in solidarity we stand side by side, neither in front or behind you.

The iron gate will not stop us.

On March 10, 2011, the magistrate discharged and acquitted Numpang on the grounds that the prosecution had failed to make up a prima facie case against him. He and his wife recently celebrated their daughter’s wedding.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 5 May 2011, 9:45 pm and is filed under
General
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Longing For A Free Mind  (Part 9 of 14)

By
M. Bakri Musa

Free Minds in Our Legends and History

In Sulalatus Salatin (Malay Annals) there is the story of Temasek (old Singapore) being regularly invaded by a school of flying swordfish.  Hundreds fell victim, impaled by the sharp snouts of the fish.  All efforts at combating this piscine scourge were unsuccessful.

            That is, until a young boy suggested to the sultan to plant a row of banana stems along the shore.  In that way, Hang Nadim told the sultan, when those flying fish darted onshore, they would be impaled on the soft stems.

            The scheme worked wonderfully well, and the pleased sultan decided to honor the young man.  The sultan’s advisors however, had second thoughts.  If that youth could dream up such a brilliant scheme at a young age, they convinced the sultan, imagine what else would he think of later as an adult.  Sensing a future threat, the sultan had Hang Nadim executed instead.  Imagine!

            That young man certainly had a free mind.  He could, to borrow the current cliché, think outside the box.  He was certainly not at all shy in telling the sultan what to do.  In a deeply feudal society, as Malay society was then (still is), that took great courage.

            That boy paid dearly for his courage and free-mindedness.  Tragic as that is, the far greater tragedy is borne by society.  Executing that young man not only deprives the society of its brightest talent, potentially its future Munshi Abdullah or Datuk Onn, but also sends a clear message that it is does not pay – in fact downright dangerous – to be innovative or original.  Such a society can never aspire to greatness.  That is a very steep price.

            Lest you might conclude that this malady is peculiar only to Malay sultans, let me take you back to Czarist Russia.  Legend has it that after the impressive St. Basil’s Cathedral on Red Square was built, Ivan the Terrible had the architect blinded lest he would recreate another rivaling masterpiece.  In China, the First Qin Emperor had all the workers of his fantastically elaborate tomb killed lest they might reveal its secrets!

            Of the three – Russian czars, Chinese emperors, and Malay sultans – only Malay sultans still exist.  I let you decide whether that is a compliment for the sultans or an indictment of our society.

            If you kill off all your bright talents, a generation or two later you would have a society of dumbbells.  When the Moguls invaded the Muslim heartland, the first thing they did was to kill off the intellectuals and luminaries, effectively decapitating that society and culture.  Then the Moguls could easily colonize and subjugate the rest.

            The sultan’s treatment of Hang Nadim reminded me of the ancient practices of the Mayans where they sacrificed their most beautiful virgins by throwing them into the dungeon to please the Gods.  A few generations later and all the babies in the community were ugly, as the gorgeous potential mothers had been sacrificed.

            In Hikayat Hang Tuah (The Legend of Hang Tuah) we have the two protagonists in the service of the sultan.  One is Hang Tuah, the hero and eponymous legend.  Even the name is auspicious; Tuah, the blessed one!  In contrast, his nemesis Hang Jebat rhymes with yang jahat, the sinister one.

            The legend began in childhood with the pair, together with another three, bonding as brothers.  Later they were hulubalangs in the service of the sultan, in the manner of King Arthur’s Knights of the Round Table, minus the equality implied by the round table.  Hang Tuah, being numero uno, took his loyalty to the sultan to extremes, even lying on his behalf to deceive a young princess.  Soon however, palace intrigue took over and Tuah was charged with treason and summarily sentenced to death by the sultan.

            The sultan replaced Tuah with Jebat.  On discovering the grave injustice perpetrated on his dear friend, Jebat relentlessly pursued the guilty parties.  Threatened, the sultan summoned his chief minister who suggested that the sultan recall Hang Tuah whom the minister had secretly protected.  Tuah, ever loyal to his sultan despite the earlier death sentence, returned to protect him.  The climax had the two childhood buddies battling it out in a duel, with Tuah killing Jebat.

            The conventional wisdom has Tuah as the hero, ready to defend the sultan, right or wrong.  The free-minded thinker Kassim Ahmad, on re-examining the legend, concluded otherwise.  Tuah, far from being the hero, is the archetypical palace sycophant willing to kill his dear childhood friend in order to regain the sultan’s favor, even that of an unjust sultan.  Jebat is the genuine hero, willingly sacrificing his life to right a gross injustice.  Where Tuah is loyal to the person of the sultan; Jebat is loyal to the principle of justice.

            Tuah conveniently wraps his opportunist core in the well worn but expedient cloak of loyalty.  Today our society is plagued with hordes of Hang Tuahs; what we sorely lack are leaders in the mold of Hang Jebat.

            Earlier I mentioned the pivotal role of Datuk Onn in derailing the Malayan Union.  He was a senior civil servant at the time, a significant and rare achievement for a native.  Had he been a Hang Tuah, ever loyal to the British, there would be no limit to the height of his achievement, perhaps becoming the first native Governor of a Malayan Union.

            Instead, like Jebat, Onn saw the grave injustice perpetrated upon Malays by the colonialists in cahoots with the sultans.  He heard the braying of the donkey, the sultans selling out our country.  He saw them repeating what their brother Sultan of Johor did with Singapore 127 years earlier.

            The pathetic aspect of the Malayan Union treaty, like the earlier ceding of Singapore, was how easy those sultans capitulated.  Sir Harold MacMichael, the British point man, took only a few months to secure the agreement, with not a whimper of protest.  Some of the sultans took only a day or two to ratify the agreement.  The few who had flashes of courage quickly backed down under threat of being replaced or prosecuted for presumed collaboration with the Japanese during the war.

            It turned out that our sultans – Allah’s representatives on earth – too menurut arahan, not from Him however, but from Sir Harold.  Thanks to Datuk Onn, the Union treaty was rescinded just two months shy of its second anniversary.  Onn had taken on the mighty Brits and prevailed, with no help from the sultans!  He did it without being biadap (treasonous) or resorting to armed insurrections.

            It is ironic that Onn would be instrumental in this, for earlier the Sultan of Johor, Onn’s own ruler, had banished him for daring to criticize the sultan.  If Onn had been concerned with settling old scores, and at the same time endear himself to the British, he would let the treaty be, and those sultans would today be reduced to the status of the Sultan of Sulu, or suffer the fate of the Chinese emperors and Russian czars.

            Further back there was Munshi Abdullah.  Today he is held in low esteem and dismissed as a brown Mat Salleh by revisionist historians and self-proclaimed champions of our race.  They even ridicule his “impure” Malay heritage.  These nationalists are perturbed that Abdullah free-mindedness let him collaborate with the colonialists.  He even translated the bible!

            To Munshi Abdullah however, working with the colonialists meant the opportunity to expand his intellectual horizon and learn the advances of the West.  Most of all he wanted to understand what made the British tick.  When they invited him to visit a warship, he was not a mere casual tourist.  He recorded his experiences, complete with drawings of the contraption, and then challenged his readers to wonder how it was that British minds could invent such awesome machines.  Today, more than a century and a half later, we are still benefiting from his writings and wisdom.  As for the sultan at the time, we do not remember his name.

            Hang Jebat and Hang Nadim are but characters in our legends, but the chronicles of their exploits serve as eternal lessons.  Munshi Abdullah and Datuk Onn were giants in our history, but being technology students, you may not have heard of or find them interesting.  So permit me to cite a contemporary figure.

            Many of you know of Ungku Aziz, a man of many firsts.  I will not enumerate them as they are not pertinent to my story.  To me, he is a man whose insight on rural (and thus Malay) poverty is unmatched.  Equally unmatched is our leaders’ inability or unwillingness to tap his vast expertise.

            I have not been privileged to meet this eminent economist.  My first introduction to him was as a secondary school student in the late 1950s visiting the University of Malaya campus.  There was a lull in our schedule and we were let loose in the library.  Among the stacks of books there was one that attracted my attention, a thick volume, “The Fragmentation of Estates.”  On it was the author’s name, “Ungku A. Aziz.”

            What drew my attention was of course the author’s name.  In those days it was rare to see a Malay name attached to a book, except perhaps some trashy novels on jinns and hookers.  Even though I did not understand a word in the book, nonetheless it made a huge impression on me.  Here I was a high school student; I had difficulty even reading my textbooks, and they were considerably thinner.  Yet there was this thick volume on a substantive topic written by a Malay.  It inspired me!  I wondered whether someday I too could have my name appended to a book.

            Unlike others who are content merely with cataloging the ills of Malay society and then dredging up old ugly stereotypes to “explain” our backwardness, Ungku Aziz approached the problem scientifically, meaning, empirically.  He actually studied poor rural Malay families, from measuring the heights and weights of their children (an indicator of nutritional status and thus economic level) to the number of sarongs per household – his famous “sarong index” of rural poverty.

            One of his studies debunked the view widely held (then as well as now, and not just by non-Malays) that Malays do not save or respond to modern economic incentives.  Indeed a casual observer would conclude similarly, seeing the small number of accounts in financial institutions held by Malays.  When the British tried increasing the interest rates of postal savings accounts to encourage Malays to save, our folks did not respond.

            In his studies Ungku Aziz discovered that on the contrary, Malays were indeed diligent savers as attested by the ubiquitous bamboo tabongs in Malay homes.  We saved for weddings and of course for a pilgrimage to Mecca, the aspiration of all Muslims.  However we did not use savings institutions because of our religious prohibitions against interest earnings.

            It is a tribute to the genius of Ungku Aziz that he not only identified the problem correctly (the key towards solving it) but went on to create institutions that would cater to the specific needs of Malays.  Thus was born Tabung Haji, a mutual fund-like financial institution that takes in Malay savings, especially from rural areas, and invest them in halal enterprises (meaning, no casinos and breweries).  The returns on such investments were rightly labeled as fa’edah (dividends) and not bunga (interests), thus taking care of our religious sensitivities.

            Today Tabung Haji is one of the largest financial institutions in Southeast Asia, a tribute to the brilliance of one man, one whose mind was not trapped by conventional wisdom.

            Today we have many more Malay economists, some with impressive doctorates from elite universities.  Thus you would expect a quantum leap in the number of innovations like Tabung Haji to cater to our special and specific needs.  Alas that is not so.  Instead what we have are a plethora of Government-linked Companies more adept at sucking precious public funds and then squandering them.

            Even Tabung Haji has not demonstrated any innovation since its inception.  No one has carried the ball forward.  I would have thought those eminently trained economists that Prime Minister Najib brags about being on his team could expand Tabung’s reach, like catering for Muslims in the region or offering services to our entrepreneurs.  As you can see, impressive academic qualifications alone do not equal or signal free and innovative minds.

            Ungku Aziz is still alive, but I reckon few of you would recognize his name much less his accomplishments.  That reveals more about our society than about the man.

Next:   Free Minds, Free Individuals

[
Presented at the Fifth Annual Alif Ba Ta Conference at Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ, organized by UMNO Club of New York-New Jersey, January 29, 2011.
]

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 5 May 2011, 1:47 pm and is filed under
Bakri Musa
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.