Post-Sabah RCI, the merry-go-round goes on

By Kim Quek

Malaysiakini

Dec 5, 2014

COMMENT
The royal commission of inquiry (RCI) report exonerating the Barisan Nasional (BN) government of responsibility in the gargantuan illegal immigrant calamity in Sabah must have stunned, shocked and disgusted many who had been eagerly looking forward to this RCI report for some relief and justice.

The RCI, instead, attributes the entire blame on errant civil servants who have carried out such illegal activities for profit.

Who on earth could have believed such blatant whitewash when an influx of Muslim illegal immigrants from southern Philippines and  Indonesia over a sustained period of decades has caused Sabah’s population to explode to five times its 1970 numbers (3 times the growth rate of other states)?

Also the fact that monumental evidences have been produced both before and during the hearing of the RCI of the massive conversion of these illegals into voters (popularly known as phantom voters) to rob the original Sabahans of their sovereignty?

Have our defence forces, police, immigration department, national registration department (NRD) and the entire cabinet under the BN government been in deep slumber all these decades while millions of foreigners swarmed over Sabah until they outnumbered the original inhabitants who were impoverished in the process?

Could a few corrupt civil servants motivated by greed have engineered and achieved such a fantastic feat that has drastically and illegally altered the demographic and power balance of such a huge state without a powerful command from the top hierarchy of the government?

Evidence galore of political conspiracy

If there was no political or governmental involvement, how does the RCI explain Operasi Durian Buruk, in which former Sabah NRD chief Ramli Kamaruddin (1993-1995) led an emergency squad in late 1993 to mass convert illegal immigrants into voters with collusion from the Election Commission so that they could be planted into selected marginal constituencies where they could tip the balance in favour of BN in the early 1994 election?

As a result of the intensive and accelerated infusion of phantom voters that had been going on since 1990 (of which Ops Durian Buruk is just one instance), no doubt prompted by the crushing electoral defeat of the Muslim-led BN by Christian party PBS in 1990, the electoral landscape of Sabah had been transformed whereby Muslim majority constituencies have dramatically increased from 30% to 50% of the state’s total constituencies of 48 – just in time for the 1994 election.

As a result, PBS could only manage a marginal victory in 1994, instead of an anticipated sweeping victory as it did in 1990.

Another example of Project IC or Project M (M stands for Mahathir) revealed in the RCI hearing is operation G17 (17 stands for 17 members in the squad).

Another former Sabah NRD chief Abdul Rauf Sani (1990-1992) led the team to issue 40,000 to 100,000 blue ICs (for citizens only) and 200,000 birth certificates to immigrants (birth certificate qualifies the holder to apply for blue IC).

Mahathir the ultimate authority?

It is not for nothing that this clandestine project is named after former premier Mahathir Mohamad, for vital evidences have led to his door steps.

G17 leader Rauf Sani testified that his team flew in from Sabah to Kuala Lumpur where they stayed closeted in the house of Mahathir’s close aide and political secretary Aziz Shamsuddin to churn out the thousands of blue ICs for immigrants.

Ops Durian Buruk leader Ramli Kamarudin described in details the scenario of his meeting with Mahathir’s confidante, deputy home minister Megat Junid Megat Ayub, who instructed Ramli to carry out the project in the presence of a number of witnesses who were identified by Ramli in the heaaring.

That circumstantial evidences point irresistibly to Mahathir being the final authority is  bolstered by the fact that leaders of this operation, including Rauf Sani and Ramli Kamarudin, were transferred specifically to spearhead Project M from the National Security Council which is directly under the Prime Minister himself.

Further, Ramli Kamarudin also confirmed that he was “ordered” to go to Sabah to help create a Muslim dominated state.

However, despite such overwhelming evidence, Mahathir emerged from the RCI hearing unscratched, where he even told the Commission he never heard of Project M until very recently.

But how can we realistically expect the RCI to dig out any truth from the god father of Umno Baru, or for that matter, finding anything that could hurt the BN regime, when the entire make up of this RCI, from commissioners to investigators to conductors of the inquiry consists of only existing or former officials of the BN establishment, specifically picked by BN for this task?

Staggering illegal immigrant numbers

And just how bad is the illegal immigrant plague in Sabah?

RCI report quoted a 2007 PBS memorandum which worked out the total number of such immigrants to be 1.7 million.

This number is consisting of 600,000 new bumiputra citizens holding blue ICs issued by NRD, 750,000 with fake ICs or no documents, and a further 400,000 holding immigration document IMM13.

RCI also stated that these figures tallied with those presented by the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) in a round table discussion in August 2006.

Suhakam commissioner Professor Hamdan Adnan (left) had then said such a mass presence of illegal immigrants, unless promptly resolved, “could raise the spectre of an eventual reverse takeover.”  This, according RCI, means that illegals holding Malaysian ICs could one day become leaders of the state.

Yet, despite such mammoth immigrant problems devastating Sabahans’ political, social and economic life, all we have from this long awaited  RCI report is the simple verdict that “Project IC probably exists’ – after 9 months of hearing on 211 witnesses, and a mysterious delay of one year before the completed report is released to the public.

The merry-go-round solution

What about recommendation or remedies?

Yes, RCI gives a 199-word recommendation in the 366 page report, and that is: form a permanent committee, which will be assisted by a working committee, which will look into the immigrant problem and make recommendations to the permanent committee.

Not unexpectedly, BN has enthusiastically embraced this recommendation while applauding the RCI report as finally revealing the truth that BN is innocent of the entire Sabah immigrant scam.

As for Sabahans and Malaysians, be prepared to see this merry-go-round of committees and investigations, which have been going on for decades without solving any problem, to continue as long as BN remains in power.

For, cleaning up the illegal immigrant mess would also mean purging the phantom voters, which would in turn threaten Umno’s grip of power not only in Sabah but also in Putrajaya.

KIM QUEK is the author of banned book “The March to Putrajaya” where the Sabah immigrant issue is discussed in Article No 57.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 6 December 2014, 6:50 am and is filed under
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Umno abandoning youths, not the other way round, analysts say

By Zurairi AR and Shazwan Mustafa Kamal

The Malay Mail Online

December 6, 2014

KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 6 ― As more youths migrate to urban areas, Umno can no longer blame its waning support on federal opposition pact Pakatan Rakyat (PR), analysts said when weighing in on the recent call for “rejuvenation” by the ruling party’s youth wing.

Instead, the failure to capture the support has been the result of the 65-year-old party’s disconnect with the younger set of voters compared to the pull PR has over youths or urbanites, they suggested.

“Any party that wishes to garner support from urban areas, or youths who have migrated to cities, must transform themselves,” Prof Dr Jayum Jawan, a political analyst with the National Professor Council, told Malay Mail Online in a recent phone interview.

“They should know the ‘taste’ of the urbanites, the youths. They have to understand the aspirations of the youths. Not for the youths to understand the parties instead.”

Jayum suggested that while PR component parties may not be empathetic towards the demographic, they at least understand the “lingo” of the youths.

“They dance to the youths’ rhythms. They try following their ‘taste’, their way of talking. Their tone fits with the youths. Umno should be like that as well, why can’t it?” Jayum asked.

According to the Universiti Putra Malaysia lecturer, it is “unscientific” and an “indefensible argument” to assume tha youths will automatically flock to PR just because they migrate to urban areas.

Prof Dr Shamsul Adabi Mamat, a political science lecturer with Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, claimed that while majority of young urbanites might vote for PR, it is however far from a lost cause for Umno.

“What is more important to discuss is not how to attract them towards Umno, but how Umno can offer its service to the youths,” Shamsul told Malay Mail Online.

“A lot of Umno’s discussions revolves around how to attract voters, how to win elections. They should instead respond pro-actively, discuss how to identify the needs of this group.”

According to him, Umno should not worry about voting patterns, as the public would recognise its efforts anyway if they are unconditional rather than having strings attached to them.

In the Umno general assembly last week, Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin urged the party and the wing to make “rejuvenation” its top priority.

He noted that if Umno leaders continue to be saddled with the perception that there is no space for the young in the party, they will continue to lose out to the opposition in terms of youth support.

The Youth and Sport Minister also told Umno to look at ways of promoting young candidates, citing the example of DAP which offered 27-year-old Dyana Sofya Mohd Daud as its candidate in the Teluk Intan by-election.

In the same week, Khairy also told the National Student Leadership Conference 2014 that 60 per cent of rural youths have migrated to urban areas, and pointed out the need for a leader who understands this demographic’s needs.

This concern was shared by several Umno assemblymen in Selangor, the country’s most populous and most industrialised state, the destination for much of the migration from other states.

Contrary to the analysts, however, Umno’s Semenyih assemblyman Datuk Johan Abd Aziz insisted it is a genuine concern that youths can be influenced easily to sympathise with PR in urban areas.

Similarly, Sg Burong state assemblyman and Selangor opposition leader Datuk Shamsudin Lias claimed that Malay youths who have migrated to the cities have not come back to Umno’s folds unlike those in rural areas.

“We need to engage the youths with a new perspective, through social media … we cannot think our hardcore supporters can provide the strength Umno needs to survive,” the state lawmaker told Malay Mail Online at the sidelines of the Selangor state assembly recently.

Johan also claimed that Umno is actively engaging with this demographic through programmes that they might find more appealing and relevant, and different from those organised for rural voters.

“We have made a drastic decision, we will be introducing an online membership system in order to encourage and make it easier for youths to join Umno and for us to be more accessible.

“The implementation part is still being ironed out but this is part of the plan,” Johan said.

Johan also pointed out that in Selangor, the state Umno chapter has been organising economic workshops, and business or career talks for youths for the past six months, as it tries to priorities issues that matter to the group.

“Every Wednesday for the past six months, we have provided workshops for youths. Agencies like Tekun, Bank Simpanan Nasional are there to talk to youths, to guide them through how to run their own businesses,” he related.

In the next general election no more than four years away, there will be an estimated four million youths who will qualify as new voters, adding to the 17.8 million, who may cast ballots if they all register as voters.

For Umno, it is a matter of some urgency as it is also believed that it may also be losing support from rural Malays ― traditionally its core power base ― due to increasing migration to urban areas.

Besides the Federal Territories, Selangor, Penang and Malacca are the three states with the highest urbanisation rate, according to a paper presented in last year’s International Population Conference on Migration, Urbanisation and Development in University of Malaya.

According to the same paper, Malaysia’s urbanisation level reached 70.9 per cent in 2010, and is expected to increase to 75 per cent by 2020.

In Election 2013, PR trounced Barisan Nasional (BN) mostly in the urban centers across the country, snapping up more than 50 per cent of the total votes cast in the entire general election.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 6 December 2014, 7:27 am and is filed under
UMNO
,
Youth
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Can Pakatan Rakyat build on the momentum of 13GE to create the two per cent shift of votes from UMNO/BN to bring about the first catalytic change of federal government in the 14GE?

The greatest challenge in the next 14GE, whether in 2017 or 2018 , is whether Pakatan Rakyat can build on the momentum of the 13th General Elections to create the two per cent shift of vote from Umno/BN to bring about the first catalytic change of federal government.

Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin warned the recent UMNO General Assembly that BN will be ousted from power if it loses just two per cent of support in the next general election.

Let this be a reminder to all Malaysians throughout the country as to how close the UMNO/BN government would have been voted out in the 13th General Election in May last year, if the electoral process had been really clean, free and fair, minus all the constituency gerrymandering and the undemocratic abuses and malpractices in the country.

Furthermore, it should also be reminder as to how close Malaysians have come to achieve the catalytic change of federal of power in Putrajaya – as all that is needed to win Putrjaya is another two per cent of voter support that had gone to  UMNO/BN.

Muhyiddin admitted that  a loss of two per cent voter support will translate to Barisan Nasional being reduced from its 133 seats won in the 13GE to 103 federal states, less than half of the 222-seat Parliament – comprising 68 UMNO seats and 35 non-UMNO seats.

A loss of five per cent voter support would have slashed the total BN seats to 81, comprising 53 UMNO and 28 non-UMNO seats.

It is precisely of this fear of losing Federal power that UMNO propagandists have gone all out to drum up fear and hate through lies and falsehoods to conjure  imaginary threats and enemies to convince the Malays and Muslims of The Big Lie that Malays and Islam are under threat.

Will Pakatan Rakyat be able to rise up to the challenge in the 14GE, debunk The Big Lie and win Putrajaya or will it disintegrate to give UMNO/BN an unexpected bonus?

Pakatan’s Four Democratic Successes

Tonight, I would like to touch on the  achievements of Pakatan Rakyat –  the four  important gains for democracy.  In the focus on difference among the component parties in Pakatan Rakyat, there is often the tendency to overlook or dismiss these important shared gains. I highlight four areas.

1.	More Malaysians are calling for democratic reforms.

From all walks of life, Malaysians are calling for a better Malaysia – a more just society, less corruption and more freedom.  We see this in the Gerakan Hapus Akta Hasutan (GHAH) movement opposing the Sedition Act. We see this in the bravery of students at Universiti Malaya demanding greater academic freedom.

The calls for democratic reform run deep in Malaysian history, extending in the recent waves of political engagement from reformasi to Bersih. Malaysians clearly want a better and fairer democratic Malaysia. We have seen over the last fifteen years rising activism and political awareness on the part of Malaysians.

Malaysians – Malays, Chinese, Indians, Kadazans, Ibans,  Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus,  have long played a major part in the demands for democratic reform.

The government tries to create the impression that the calls for changes are divided along racial lines, with Chinese Malaysians leading the calls for change. Through its control of the national media, it also claims that Malays are ‘united’ in their support for UMNO, in their support for a government that has limited and curtailed democracy and democratic governance. These portrayals are wrong.

Today we see empowered Malaysians, regardless of race or religion, working together, speaking out together, protesting together and voting together for a better Malaysia.

A majority of Malaysians voted for change. Over 40% of Malays voted for Pakatan, and it is PKR and PAS not UMNO that received a larger share of the popular vote.

The government cannot deny the participation of Malays in rallies and protests. It is for this very reason that our Malay brothers and sisters are being arrested and charged through the government’s use of draconian laws like the Sedition Act.

Pakatan has contributed to strengthening Malaysian’s resolve for a better future, to giving Malaysians needed political hope.

2.	Promotion of the core democratic values of inclusion and mutual respect.

An overriding message of Pakatan has been that all citizens in Malaysians are to be valued and appreciated. We understand that one of Malaysia’s greatest strengths is its diversity and that this pluralism should be allowed to flourish.

These shared values have led to important democratic gains. There has been greater diversity in the representation of Malaysians.

Pakatan has fielded a record number of women as candidates, including our PAS colleagues. Rather than largely fielding those who are interested in making money, the Pakatan slate has included trade unionists, religious leaders, community leaders, professionals and academics.

It is noteworthy that all of the Pakatan parties, including PAS, fielded candidates of different races and religions.

We don’t always agree on all the issues, but we do agree on the need to listen and include different points of view, different backgrounds of expertise and different contributions. By bringing more of Malaysia into parliament, our democracy gets stronger. And it has.

One of the challenges in the modern times, not only in Malaysia but in the world, is whether Muslim and non-Muslims parties could  co-operate and work together for a common cause.

The  DAP is a secular party. We have worked with PAS together to promote democracy.

Malaysia has adopted two patterns. This first is one based on a model of inequality, where the non-Muslim component parties in the Barisan Nasional  – MCA, MIC and Gerakan – are not respected, and in many cases not even consulted. They are openly dismissed.

A second pattern is one that we are working on, a pattern of dialogue where the democratic value of equality is centre-stage. It is not easy. Sometimes the discussions break down. Other times there are open disagreements. These do not take away from the value that is placed in the process of listening and underlying mutual respect.

3.	People First

The  demands for better jobs and improvements in quality of life is the foundation of our calls for democratic reform in Malaysia. We aim to serve the people, to serve Malaysians from all walks of life.  We have had a special attention to those that have been excluded or unjustly treated by the system.

The struggle for democracy has fundamentally involved a change in the priorities of governments towards the needs of citizens. Democrats are not interested in their bank accounts or winning contracts or their positions. They are interested in public service and making sure that people are the main priority of government. Public service has been the foundation of Pakatan.

Before there was BR1M and the sleight of spending programs in Malaysia, Pakatan had been prioritizing the needs of citizens. In fact, it was our pressure on the government that has moved the government toward framing their programs as people oriented. Many of these programs were our ideas.

Our priorities have been on basic needs and services. We want all Malaysians to have a good education. No student should not have the skills they need to get a job. No student should be taught they are unequal and unworthy. No student should have to eat lunch in a restroom. The classroom should be a place where confidence is instilled, opportunities are enhanced and dreams are inspired.

We want a society where there is good quality healthcare, where people are working jobs that given them enough money to take of their families without having to be overly burdened by debt and where they can have meaning in their work and time for their families. We want a society where people are not afraid of having their bag snatched or home broken into. A democratic agenda is one where the attention centers on people. This has tied Pakatan together in our work in parliament and engagement with citizens. For us, the people do come first. This is a core principle of democracy for Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and we see this in our alliance.

4.    Democratic Governance.

In order to bring this about we have introduced good governance measures. The changes have been limited as we have not had national power, but the records in many of our state governments show real improvements in how we govern. We have introduced more transparency in government. We have also introduced measures that reduce corruption. We have engaged in more consultation.

Corruption is cancer in Malaysia. The level of corruption scandals in Malaysia is among the worst in the Muslim world.

Repeated revelations of billions of ringgit of public money allocated in ‘commissions’, transferred in capital flight and used to buy public property boggle the mind. We are now in the era of mega scandals.

Pakatan’s fight for democracy in Malaysia has aimed to check the abuses of power by those in office. There is much more needed to be done. We have to strengthen the political institutions and introduce tougher measures of enforcement and prevention.

Part of this means strengthening the rule of law. Today there is the perception that the law is applied selectively.

The struggle in Malaysia for democracy is far from over, and there are greater obstacles in the path ahead.

The UMNO government’s misuse and abuse of the Sedition Act, and now the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s reneging of his 2012 pledge to repeal coupled with his announcement to make it even more draconian and repressive,  and the selective political prosecution of Anwar Ibrahim speaks to their fear of the pressure for democratic reform.

Are they afraid of the people, of inclusion, of better governance? It would appear so.

UMNO will ignite more public anger and deepen people’s resolve for democratic change if Anwar is put behind bars

They are about to engage in what the Economist had called a ‘lousy sequel’ to lock up the opposition leader. We hope that justice will prevail.

A country that locks up its opposition leader has nothing to be proud of. It is a shameful act. It is an act that reveals how little the UMNO government is willing to make the country stronger and respect its people.

It is repressive and an abuse of power which is why it has served as a driver for democratic change. If the UMNO government puts Anwar behind bars, they will ignite more anger and deepen the people’s resolve for democratic change.

UMNO/BN’s for tactics: repression, divide-and-rule, race and religion

UMNO’s tactics of repression have been accompanied with three others. The first has been the effective use of divide and rule. Since GE13 in Malaysia, the government has been feeding the differences within the opposition, aiming to pull it apart.

While we acknowledge differences, it is as important to appreciate how much the government has contributed to division.

It is UMNO that is enticing members of PAS to join them, through offers of new parliament seats and other potential financial and political rewards.

It is UMNO that is acting as a cheerleader to support a private bill on hudud to be introduced in parliament. UMNO is the dark hand of division, as it fears democratic change.

It is afraid of greater democracy in Malaysia, and the people’s calls for political reform by their citizens.

The second feature has been the use of racism. The government has funded NGOs that are promoting racial hatred. This is closely tied to their divide-and-rule Machiavellian measures.

This tactic is simple  and highlighted in the recently- concluded UMNO General Assembly – to promote racial tension to stay in office, to feed instability and insecurity. This has heightened since GE13, with fabricated lies and framing of issues along racial lines.

It is important to remember that democracy is race-blind, it offers a benefit for everyone, especially for those who lack access to power and lack voices in the system.

The use of racism feeds discrimination and intolerance. It has the potential to lead to violence, a history we know well in Malaysia.

This tactic of using racial hatred is dangerous. It must stop. We have to work together to build bridges across communities and across faiths. The democratic values of inclusion and mutual respect must win out over exclusion and disdain.

Of all the developments that we have seen in recent times that is the most worrying it is religious extremism.

UMNO has not checked the extremism of its religious authorities and promoted mutual respect across faiths. The problem lies with how they are promoting Islam.

They are treating Islam as a tool to divide Malaysians and as a tool to hold onto political power. The forms and methods they are using do not correspond to a more democratic country.

One example is  the case of Bible burning.

Government officials have also justified the hate-speech of Ibrahim Ali in his call to ‘burn Bibles’ as part of a ‘defense of Islam’.

Hudud can neither unite Malaysians nor promote democratic change

How is religious hatred part of any faith? They are justifying the unjustifiable and in doing so feeding more hatred and misunderstanding. A good government respects all faiths and it is core principle of humanity that the religious books of faiths are respected.  Religious extremism is eating at the fabric of Malaysian society.

UMNO is not alone in its push for more exclusionary views of religion. We see a similar dynamic with the calls by some PAS leaders for hudud.

There is a mistaken view that PAS needs to burnish its Islamic credentials by using a more exclusionary approach that imposes a particular form of religious law.

This takes away the choice of Muslims in how they practice their faith and will affect non-Muslims in a wide-ranging areas from child custody to cultural practices.

The majority of Malaysians have indicated in surveys that the country is not ready for hudud.

In 2004 voters rejected these measures, giving PAS one of the most serious defeats in its political history.

 Globally, as we have seen most recently in Tunisia, Islamist parties are being rejected at the polls for moving toward exclusion.

These measures are seen as fundamentally undemocratic. They do not respect people’s choices and have the potential for greater abuse in governance.

Insecurity is fueling the calls for the introduction to hudud, along with those that would like to secure their positions rather than open up political reform.

We in DAP disagree with the implementation of  hudud in part because we do not see how this measure can promote meaningful democracy  even in the Muslim world,  and can only undermines democratic progress in Malaysia.

Managing difference, division and extremism especially when world attention is now focussed on the savage and barbaric acts of Islamic State, which has been able to get recruits worldwide including Malaysia,  remains a challenge for our times in our country.

We are not alone in this as it is a global challenge. Malaysia has had real success with Muslims and non-Muslims working together.

We aim to build on these successes as best we can.

The majority of voters in Malaysia want Pakatan Rakyat to succeed to promote democratic reforms, to promote a more democratic society based on prioritizing people, valuing the rule of law, justice, fairness and inclusion.

These ideals are what will make Malaysia stronger and offer the most promise for a shared democratic dream.

(Speech at the DAP Seputeh “Impian Malaysia” Dinner in Kuala Lumpur on Saturday, 6th December 2014 at 10 pm)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 7 December 2014, 12:07 am and is filed under
Elections
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Is Tunisia a role model for the Arab world?

By Owen Bennett-Jones

BBC News

2 December 2014

When Tunisians vote in their presidential run-off election later this month, it will be the fourth time they have been to the polls in as many years.

Tunisia not only started the Arab Spring, it is now leading the way in terms of democratic development in the Middle East and North Africa.

The current frontrunner for the presidency, 88-year-old Beji Caid Essebsi, has campaigned on two themes – experience and “anything but the Islamists”.

His party, Nidaa Tounes, has attracted the backing of many who formerly supported the man brought down in 2011, President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali.

While Mr Essebsi is the establishment candidate his opponent, Moncef Marzouki, is a former dissident and leftist who says his top priority is to safeguard the revolution.

Coming from the conservative and poorer South, he tends to attract the religious vote.

    Tunisia can confidently claim to have handled the aftershocks of the Arab Spring better than any other country in the Middle East and North Africa”

In the first round, Mr Essebsi was supported by 39% of voters and the incumbent, Mr Marzouki, 33%.

The result of the second round is genuinely uncertain.

Whatever the outcome, Tunisia can confidently claim to have handled the aftershocks of the Arab Spring better than any other country in the Middle East and North Africa.

After protesters took to the streets of Syria, Yemen and Libya the result was chaos and civil war.

In Egypt the current military-backed government is even more authoritarian than that of former President Hosni Mubarak.

Elsewhere the Arab Spring never got started. Bahrain’s royals, for example, resisted demands for change on the grounds that the country was not ready for democracy.

There are various reasons for Tunisia’s happier situation.

Minority of hardliners

Unlike many of its Middle Eastern counterparts, Tunisia’s army traditionally sticks out of politics.

The country’s religious demographics also help. Whilst hard-line Salafist elements exist, they are small in number.

The country is overwhelmingly Sunni, thereby avoiding destabilising sectarian splits.

And the close cultural affinity between many Tunisians – especially those living near the coast – and France means the country tends to look west not east for political inspiration.

But Tunisia’s version of the Muslim Brotherhood, the moderate Islamist Ennadha party, should also take some of the credit.

When Ennadha won the post-Arab Spring 2011 elections, some Tunisians feared it would enforce Islamic government.

Many did not trust the assurances of Ennadha’s spiritual leader, Rachid Gannouchi, that while he wanted an Islamic political system, he would only introduce it if he could persuade Tunisians of its benefits.

The sceptics have been proven wrong. With some wobbles along the way, Ennadha stuck to its word.

Despite its 2011 victory, it handed over power to a technocratic, interim government to oversee the parliamentary and presidential elections. And it made compromises.

While the constitutions of many Muslim-majority countries cite the Koran as the ultimate source of law, Ennadha accepted something very different.

Article Three of the new constitution states that: “The people possess sovereignty and are the source of all powers.”

Ennadha’s flexibility is to some extent self-interested.

Cautious approach

Having seen Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood leaders sentenced to death, Ennadha played it safe.

Its members have genuine fears they may end up in prison once again.

Ennadha has also been constrained by its minority status.

In 2011 the party secured 37% of the vote. In the recent parliamentary elections, that was down to 25%.

In the 2011-12 parliamentary elections in Egypt, by contrast, the Muslim Brotherhood and more conservative religious parties together won 68% of the vote.

Some believe Ennadha might become the Islamic equivalent of Western Europe’s Christian Democratic parties.

Others, deeply suspicious of the Islamists’ long-term objectives, dismiss such predictions as naive.

    In Tunisia the Islamists won power and proved willing to give it up”

These arguments about the role of Islam obscure other key issues.

Journalists on the presidential election campaign trail reported that most Tunisians were more concerned by economics than religion.

Many middle-class Tunisians had a stake in the Ben Ali system.

They enjoyed safe jobs that paid enough to provide for their families.

It’s not just the fabulously rich elite that hankers after the old economic order.

Ben Ali eventually failed because he could not provide jobs for Tunisia’s highly educated youth.

None of Tunisia’s current politicians have a credible plan to address that problem.

International financial officials based in Tunis say significant economic activity could be generated by breaking up state-sanctioned trading monopolies that currently favour leading families.

But even such simple reforms – never mind more difficult ones – seem beyond the post-Ben Ali political generation.

Concerns over stability

There are other reasons to worry about Tunisia’s stability.

Should Mr Essebsi lose the second-round presidential vote, the somewhat eclectic forces that have coalesced into Nidaa Tounes might break up.

There are also fears that the chaos in neighbouring Libya could embolden Salafists to become more active in Tunisia.

But for all the vulnerabilities, Tunisia’s democratic gains are impressive.

And Ennadha’s record raises questions about how the Muslim Brotherhood should be perceived more broadly.

Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain describe the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organisation.

A major British government review of the Brotherhood recently concluded that it was a largely non-violent movement and should not be described as terroristic.

That has led to accusations that the UK fails to understand the dangers posed by political Islam – if it took centuries of often violent politics to reduce the Church’s power in the West, then why shouldn’t Western capitals support regimes making an equivalent effort to keep religion out of politics in the Middle East and North Africa?

For their part, the Islamists complain that the Western powers offer too little support for the democratic process.

When religious parties won elections in Algeria and Gaza, the West was reluctant to accept the outcome.

Even in Egypt, Western capitals seem to have accepted President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi’s authoritarianism with almost audible sighs of relief.

The diminishing popularity of Ennadha between 2011 and 2014 suggests that those concerned about political Islam, whether in Western Europe, the Middle East or North Africa should be more patient.

Problems ahead

The scale of the social and economic problems in the Middle East and North Africa are likely to get the better of any government, whatever its ideological foundations.

Once in power, Islamists are just as likely to fail as anyone else.

Mainstream Islamist leaders, many of whom have spent years in prison, are often too out of touch to run modern government ministries.

And more radical administrations create even bigger problems for themselves.

Jihadist regimes in Afghanistan, western Pakistan and now parts of Iraq and Syria have been so brutal that many potential sympathisers have been put off.

But for many critics of political Islam, the key question is whether Islamists once in power would hold free and fair elections that might result in their defeat.

Certainly, many secular politicians in the region have been unwilling to do so.

Is there any reason to believe that the Islamists would behave any better?

It is difficult to make generalisations. The Muslim Brotherhood has a history of allowing its national level organisations to go their own way.

But in Tunisia the Islamists won power and proved willing to give it up.

And that is one of the main reasons the country’s democratic development is still on track.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 7 December 2014, 8:58 am and is filed under
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Muslims must learn about other cultures and religions, says Singaporean academician

by Sukhbir Cheema

The Rakyat Post

Dec 6, 2014

KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 6, 2014: Malaysia should strike a balance between inclusivity and exclusivity of Islam to avoid the rise of extremism, a Muslim scholar says.

In stating so, National University of Singapore Prof Dr Syed Farid Al Atas said extremism was the failure of striking a balance of the two extremes.

Citing recent examples of extremist tendencies in the nation, Dr Syed said Malaysia had to develop a multi-culturalist and cosmopolitan approach in mitigating this issue.

Through education, Muslims , he said, must learn about other cultures, ethnic groups and other religions to develop a sense of admiration and respect.

“We should celebrate diversity by respecting the rights of others via achieving  a balance between Islamic rules and spiritual experiences,” he told The Rakyat Post.

Dr Syed had earlier today spoken at the “Symposium on Countering Violent Extremism” organised jointly by the Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF) and the Penang Institute.

Professor Ebrahim Moosa, professor of Islamic Studies in the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies of University of Notre Dame, said in order to curb the rise in extremism, a deepened understanding of Islam through literacy should be achieved.

The country, he said, should inoculate individuals with tools to understand the humanistic knowledge of Islam to have a broader and complex understanding of the religion.

Suggesting study groups, societal critiques as one of the ways, Ebrahim said Muslims should also have zero tolerance towards anything that does not follow the criteria of love, compassion and care.

“Malaysia was once an Islamic model for developing Muslim countries.

“However, should extremism not be curbed, it would come back to bite its society,” he said, adding that space to allow pluralism of viewpoints should be made.

Meanwhile, IRF director Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa said Islamic verses should not be taken literally.

“There should not be legalistic and literalist interpretation in interpreting Islamic verses, rather there should be an understanding of the syariah which holds a higher intention in achieving justice and equality in humanity.”

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 7 December 2014, 7:04 am and is filed under
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Tunisian Parliamentary Elections: Lessons for the Arab World

Marwan Muasher, Katie Bentivoglio

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

October 28, 2014

When Tunisians cast their ballots in parliamentary elections on October 26, they shattered three misconceptions about democracy in the Arab world.

1. Islamists will use elections to come to power and then refuse to relinquish it.

For decades, authoritarian Arab leaders have characterized Islamists as political bogeymen, warning domestic constituents and foreign allies alike that, should Islamists be permitted to participate in politics, their electoral victory would be “one man, one vote, one time.” But in Tunisia, the Islamist Ennahda party has shown respect for the political process in times of victory and defeat.

In 2011, Ennahda gained 37 percent of the seats in the National Constituent Assembly (NCA), a transitional body charged with writing the new constitution and laying the foundations for Tunisia’s democratic system. Ennahda formed a power-sharing “Troika” government with two secular parties, Ettakatol and the Congress for the Republic (CPR), demonstrating its ability to compromise and work across ideological lines. Later, following the assassinations of two prominent opposition leaders and an ensuing backlash from secularists, Ennahda prioritized Tunisia’s fragile transition over its own partisan interests and transferred power to a caretaker government that would govern until the completion of parliamentary and presidential elections.

Finally, and most importantly, Ennahda has now proved willing to admit defeat at the ballot box.

According to preliminary results following Sunday’s election, Ennahda gained only 26 percent of the vote, far below party president Rached al-Ghannouchi’s prediction of 41 percent. Instead of disputing the outcome, the party gracefully conceded its loss to Nidaa Tounes—a liberal, secular party founded in 2012 as a counterweight to Ennahda—even before official results were announced.

This makes Tunisia the only Arab country in which an Islamist party has come to power via the ballot box and subsequently been removed via the same mechanism—and it proves that Islamism can work within a democratic system.

2. Arabs vote based on ideology or loyalty, not on performance.

Political performance is beginning to shake the grip of ideology on voting patterns and political preference.

Over the Troika’s two-year tenure, it failed to address the underlying instigators of the revolution, such as staggering unemployment (particularly among youth), a lack of economic opportunities (especially in Tunisia’s neglected interior regions), and widespread political corruption. Consequently, all three parties performed poorly in the October 26 elections. Not only did Ennahda place second after Nidaa Tounes, the CPR gained a mere 1.8 percent of the vote and Ettakatol did not even figure into the initial election results. With no political record to judge, Nidaa Tounes has benefitted from its newness, voter disillusionment with the Troika, and the appeal of the party’s pro-reform, security-focused, and anti-Islamist message in the current political context. But should Nidaa Tounes also fail to deliver the demands of the revolution, it is likely to face the same electoral treatment as its Islamist rival.

This message is beginning to sink in. Aware of lingering resentment and continued mistrust of Islamists, Ennahda decided not to run a candidate in the November presidential elections. Although a temporary concession, Ennahda’s long-term interests may be best served by maintaining a low profile and allowing the blame for future political failures to fall on Nidaa Tounes, at least for a while.

In this regard, Nidaa Tounes would benefit from following Ennahda’s example. Though its anti-Islamist rhetoric proved an effective campaign technique, Nidaa Tounes and its octogenarian president, Beji Caid Essebsi, would be wise to scale back the party’s non-inclusive rhetoric and the rejection of Islamists. Despite its many shortcomings, Ennahda’s willingness to sacrifice immediate political gains for the sake of Tunisia’s democratic transition helped pave the way for the country’s most recent electoral success. Nidaa Tounes should be ready to do the same.

3. Democracy won’t work in the Arab world.

Finally, in the face of great pessimism, Tunisia exemplifies that democracy can be successful in the Arab world and that it can include Islamists. While democracy’s critics point to Egypt as an example of the system’s inability to take root in the Arab world, Tunisia now stands as a shining counterexample.

Nearly four years into its transition, the country has successfully navigated multiple political crises, produced a constitution, and staged successful parliamentary elections. Presidential elections on November 23 will bring Tunisia one step closer to becoming the Arab Spring’s one remaining success story.

Continued success will require patience and the acknowledgement that democratic ideals, let alone institutions, take time to develop and establish themselves within society. But it can be done—and Tunisia need not remain the only success story in the post-uprisings Arab world.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 7 December 2014, 8:35 am and is filed under
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Umno seen losing grip on Johor bastion

by Yiswaree Palansamy

The Malay Mail Online

December 7, 2014

KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 7 — Johor may be the birthplace of Umno but its status as the Malay nationalist party’s fortress is increasingly under threat, according to political analysts and observers.

Growing urbanisation and rural migration have put Johor under the same conditions that led to Umno and Barisan Nasional’s hold loosen before it was eventually broken in states such as Selangor and, briefly, Perak.

“The trend in Johor is just the same as with other states, whereby the more urbanised it becomes, the more likely it is for the Malays in Johor to question the long term dependency on Umno and not stick to the idea of being loyal to a particular party,” Wan Saiful Wan Jan told the Malay Mail Online.

The chief executive of think tank Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs said, however, this decrease in blind loyalty to any particular party was necessary for a healthy democracy to flourish.

Ibrahim Suffian, head of Independent pollster Merdeka Center, said that while Malay support for Umno in Johor was steadfast, the party and the larger Barisan Nasional (BN) was losing favour with other ethnicities.

“In a mixed ethnic state like Johor that is dangerous. This is how Perak and Selangor fell to the Opposition,” he told the Malay Mail Online.

It is a threat not lost on Umno. On November 15, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak told the Johor Umno Convention that it must rebuild Johor’s position as Umno’s fortress.

Then, Najib told delegates that support for Umno and Barisan Nasional in Johor has declined from 81 per cent in 2004 to 63 per cent in 2008, before diving to 54 per cent last year.

The task, pressing as it may be, will not be made any easier by Umno’s truculence towards the non-Malay electorate, Ibrahim noted.

In the bid to shore up its support with its traditional Malay-Muslim power base, Umno’s message has alienated what will be critical group in the coming elections.

“This is one of the pitfalls of ethnic politics, as they become myopic and lose vote… Umno needs to behave as a party for all Malaysians first,” he said.

As for Umno leaders in Johor, they recognise the receding support that allowed Pakatan Rakyat parties take 18 of 56 state assembly seats in Election 2013, or 12 more than they did in 2008.

But the varied reasons cited demonstrate that while they know they are bleeding support, there is no consensus on why it is happening.

Umno’s Pasir Raja state assemblyman Datuk Dr Adham Baba believed it was because of a lack of development and a failure to be more inclusive, while Pasir Gudang representative Normala Abd Samad blamed the party’s partners for not doing their part.

“To me, every party has its own role to play with regards to this issue and what’s important is for all other component parties to do their bid as well, instead of pointing fingers at Umno,” Normala said.

“Even if it’s a BN event, not many from MCA or MIC turn up usually and this is one problem,” she said when lamenting the  lack of communication among component parties.

One section relishing the prospect of Johor’s waning position as an Umno bastion is Pakatan Rakyat.

Aside from the dozen extra state seats and four federal constituencies the pact picked up in 2013, Kulai MP Teo Nie Ching noted that PR was also slowly making headway in the heart of Umno’s power: rural areas and villages.

Defeats were also more narrow, instead of the whitewash that they once were prior to 2008.

“In the previous general election, we didn’t lose with a big margin in Labis and Segamat and this is a good sign,” the DAP assistant national publicity secretary said.

Still, she said it will be a long and difficult challenge to win the state over.

Puteri Wangsa state assemblyman Abdullah Husin said the Malays in Johor have begun “warming up to” PAS, claiming they are able to see that, like Umno, the Islamist party also strives to protect Malay welfare.

“But we do not do this at the expense of making a bogeyman of the non-Malays.The Malays here are also sick of Umno playing up the racial and fear card all the time,” he added.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 7 December 2014, 8:05 am and is filed under
Johore
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


When affirmative action doesn’t work, it’s time for a new solution

Ahmad Mustapha Hassan

The Ant Daily

05/12/2014

OUTSPOKEN:
The above was taken from part two of an article by Tanner Colby which discussed the affirmative action in the US to uplift the minority communities that had been marginalised, especially the African-Americans.

He did a study on this and wrote a book about the history of the colour line and the effort to erase it. He came to this final conclusion, “Affirmative action offered the illusion of reparative justice wrapped up in the rhetoric of empowerment, but its net result was to absorb and neutralise black demands for equality, not fulfill them.”

Quotas were imposed on college admissions and also on employment. This brought about corruption in the system.

Another American researcher and author, Thomas Sowell, an African-American, came to this conclusion:

• Encourage non- preferred groups to re-designate themselves as members of preferred groups to take advantage of group preference policies

• Tends to benefit primarily the most fortunate (eg Black millionaires), often to the detriment of the least fortunate among the non-preferred groups (eg poor whites)

• Reduced the incentives of both the preferred and the non-preferred to perform at their best – the former because doing so is unnecessary and the latter because it can prove futile – resulting in net losses for society.

He concludes: “Despite sweeping claims made for affirmative action programmes, an examination of their actual consequences makes it hard to support those claims, or even to say that these programmes have been beneficial on net balance.”

In Malaysia, affirmative action was implemented through the New Economic Policy in 1970 and was to run for 20 years but was continued by changing the nomenclature to the New Economic Plan. It has been over 40 years since this programme took effect and the result is very much to be desired.

Whereas in other countries, the agenda targeted the minorities like those in the US and India but in Malaysia, it was meant to cover the majority ethnic community ie the Malays and the Bumiputeras.

This group is in itself not homogenous in its economic needs. But as the agenda targeted the community as a whole and in general, the goal area was never the receiver of the benefit of this action.

The main purpose of the action was to bring about wealth distribution whereby the Malay/Bumiputera community would own 30% of the national corporate wealth. This would mean the rural population would be left out from this exercise. Only the urban and the top strata of the community would gain.

The Malay/Bumiputera community could be classified into the following categories:

• The first group would comprise the ruling class, the bureaucrats, and the landlords of the padi and other areas

• The second would be the traders, teachers and other medium income group

• The third the poorest and the last class would comprise the dispossessed padi farmers and the fishermen

Thus it can be seen that the economic needs varies from one class to another. The last class would fare the worse.

Those already rich as espoused by Sowell who previously would not identify themselves as being Malay/Bumiputera during the colonial era, suddenly came out to be known as Malay/Bumiputera once the NEP came into being. Most of those of Muslim Indian origins identified themselves as Malay/Bumiputeras.

As for the policy itself, it concentrated more to benefit the first group of Malay/Bumiputeras.

Some of the requirements were as follows:

• It wanted listed companies on the KLSE to allocate 30% Bumiputera shares. A certain percentage of new housing in any development is to be sold to Malay/Bumiputeras and also to provide these buyers a 7% discount.

• Government tendered projects must go to Malay/Bumiputera companies.

• Approved Permits (APs) would be given to Malay/Bumiputera companies to import vehicles. The AP at one time was worth RM35.000 if sold in the open market.

From the above, it can easily be seen that the third group of Malay/Bumiputera was completely left out.

To satisfy the anger of the dispossessed Malay/Bumiputera farmers, the government embarked on opening up new land areas. This was put under the charge of an agency known as the Federal Land Development Authority or Felda for short. But it was not possible to cover the needs of all.

In Kedah, an agency was created to redeem lands that had gone into the possession of landlords. But the scheme failed to bring about owner/farmers as it did not meet the actual needs of the tenant/farmers. The scheme was short of what was needed.

Although affirmative action did not work to alleviate the economic condition of the majority of the Malay/Bumiputera group, it was maintained as a political tool to create the illusion that the Malay/Bumiputera community will fall for.

There is no desire at all to actually improve the economic status of the majority and instead religion and ethnic sentiments are used to control their emotions and thinking.

Ahmad Mustapha Hassan is a former press secretary to second Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak Hussein and the writer of the book, “The Unmaking of Malaysia”.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 7 December 2014, 9:19 am and is filed under
NEP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why didn’t Muhyiddin tell Obama to  “shut up and mind his own business” when the United States President praised Malaysia at the United Nations General Assembly in September and yet bristle with rage over Biden’s tweets?

Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin is the highest government leader to fly into a rage at the United States Vice President Joe Biden’s tweets expressing concerns about the Sedition Act and other laws being used to stifle the opposition, as well as expressing hope that Anwar Ibrahim’s final appeal against his Sodomy II conviction would give Malaysia a chance to put things right and promote confidence in its democracy and judiciary.

Why didn’t Muhyiddin tell the United States President Barack Obama to “shut up and mind his own business” when Obama praised Malaysia at the United Nations General Assembly in September and yet bristle with rage over Biden’s tweet?

Muhyiddin should have told the United States President  that Malaysia does not need his praises!

In any event, is this the position of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet?

In fact, the Umno/Barisan Nasional Cabinet Ministers and government were in seventh heaven at Obama’s praise at the UN General Assembly in September, with the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak immediately claiming at a black-tie dinner attended by Malaysian students in New York the next day that Malaysia topped the list of countries praised by the United States President for developing entrepreneurship and heading towards an advanced economy.

Najib practically purred when he referred to Obama’s praise, saying:

“He singled out Malaysia in his speech. There were other (countries cited as) examples (in the speech) too but if you look at those examples, they were not as great as the example of Malaysia, because more or less, it recognised that we are heading towards an advanced economy.”

Is the Foreign Minister, Datuk Anifah going to send a diplomatic note to all foreign governments and their embassies, high commissions and consulates  to remind them with the threat of rupture of diplomatic relations that Malaysia can only be praised but not criticized?

This is how stupid Malaysia looks in the eyes of the  world from the over-reactions by government leaders, from the Deputy Prime Minister downwards and including a former Prime Minister who claims that his advice is not being heeded by the sitting Prime Minister, to Biden’s tweets.

Malaysia’s government leaders seems to have suddenly forgotten that they live in a borderless world where information travels at the speed of light and no country or government – not even North Korea – can live in a cloistered surroundings unbothered by international events and opinions.

Why  do we want to get elected  as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council or  as a member of the the United Nations Human Rights Council if we maintain strictly the principle of non-interference in the affairs of other countries?

Malaysia will be taking a stand on the major international issues on democracy, human rights and international relations whether in the UN Security Council or UN Human Rights Council, which we have no right to do if we take the pristine position that other  countries have no right to criticize our position on important issues by equating it as interference in domestic affairs of other countries.

UMNOI/BN leaders are entitled to respond to criticisms from foreign governments by pointing these government’s own weakness and faults, but we are doing ourselves no favours by going overboard in the way some “hot heads” and even “mule heads” have done in the past two days over our major faults and failings whether about democracy, the judiciary or Anwar’s Sodomy II case in Biden’s tweets.

I find Joe Biden’s tweets quite apt, although Malaysians should not have to wait for adverse international criticisms from outsiders before waking up to our national and institutional flaws and policies with regard to  democracy, human rights, the rule of law and the judiciary.

If the criticisms from outsiders are valid and legitimate, let us wake up  and correct them instead of going off tangent; but where they are misinformed or misguided, by all means expose them.

I am really astounded by Muhyiddin’s announcement when officiating the Sarawak Progressive Democratic Party’s fourth triennial delegates’ conference in Bintulu yesterday that the government had “conducted a thorough analysis on how the act (Sedition Act) was implemented over the past 57 years before deciding to retain it”.

How come the other non-UMNO Cabinet Ministers know nothing about this “thorough analysis” of the implementation of the Sedition Act for the past 57 years, as all the MCA, Gerakan and MIC Ministers and leaders have professed total ignorance about the reneging of the Prime Minister’s 2012 pledge to repeal the Sedition Act as announced at the UMNO General Assembly.

Can Muhyiddin enlighten Malaysians as to who had conducted such “thorough analysis” of the implementation of the Sedition Act over the past 57 years so much so that no one knew about it, or was it just “a rabbit plucked from the hat” by the Deputy Prime Minister, who was  just blabbering and acting like a magician than as Deputy Prime Minister of the country?

That MCA, Gerakan and MIC are totally irrelevant in the Barisan Nasional scheme of things (which was why there was an  UMNO delegate who brazenly suggested that UMNO should appoint MCA, MIC and Gerakan representatives to the BN Supreme Council) is no surprise, but what is most dismaying is that  Sarawak and Sabah BN parties have not been  consulted and their consent obtained to “fortify” the Sedition Act to include calls for secession of Sarawak and Sabah from Malaysia!

The Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail’s ;promise three month ago of a review of the sedition charges proferred against intellectual and activists like law lecturer Dr. Aziz Sharom, has  disappeared into the “Black Hole” of Najib premiership.

Now, Muhyiddin talks about a “thorough analysis” of the implementation of the Sedition Act in the past 57 years. Will this also disappear into the UMNO/BN  “Black Hole” when questions are raised about who and when such “thorough analysis” of the Sedition Act had been conducted?

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 7 December 2014, 4:29 pm and is filed under
Law & Order
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Call on all Malaysians to unite to expose The Big Lie that after  57 years of UMNO government under six Umno Prime Ministers, Malays and Islam are under threat and facing life-and-death struggle

I fully endorse what the DAP MP for Raub, Datuk Mohd Arif Abdul Aziz, said in the latest entry in his blog Sakmongkol AK47 that all right-thinking Malaysians must expose The Great Lie – that  after 57 years of UMNO government under six UMNO Prime Ministers, Malays and Islam in Malaysia  are under threat and facing a life-and-death struggle.

In the recent UMNO General Assembly, The Great Lie was the underlying theme of all the UMNO, UMNO Youth, Wanita and Puteri assemblies, even in various State UMNO Conventions and UMNO-sponsored conferences in the run-up to  the  UMNO General Assembly proper.

This was why both before and during  the UMNO General Assembly, the rhetoric and politics of fear, hate and lies were in full swing, full of racist, extremist, provocative but baseless statements and warnings which do not bear up to a second of scrutiny, like “If Umno loses, Malays may never rule again”, “We have become slaves in our own land”, call for the use of “1Melayu” in replacement of “1 Malaysia” slogan and the lie of all lies that  the Chinese in Kedah burnt the Quran “page by page during a prayer ritual”.

Of the six UMNO Prime Ministers, the first three have passed away – Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein.

Tonight, I want to challenge the three remaining UMNO Prime Ministers, Tun Mahathir who was the longest PM of Malaysia for 22 years from 1981 to 2003, Tun Abdullah who was the fifth Prime Minister for five years  five months and Datuk Seri Najib Razak who has been Prime Minister for five years eight months to explain to all Malaysians, and in particular to the Malays, how Malays and Islam in Malaysia are under threat and facing a life-and-death struggle after 57 years of UMNO government, and specifically, after 33 years of Mahathir, Abdullah and Najib as Prime Minister?

If Mahathir, Abdullah and Najib cannot explain how after 57 years of UMNO government, and 33 years of their stewardship as Prime Minister, Malays and Islam in Malaysia are under threat and facing a life-and-death struggle, it is then the patriotic duty of all Malaysians, regardless of race, religion or region, to unite to expose The Big Lie which will be the greatest poison of united Malaysian nation-building.

The Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, warned the recent UMNO General Assembly that BN will be ousted from power if it loses just two per cent of support in the next general election.

Although this is a warning to UMNO delegates, it should be a great encouragement to the majority of Malaysians who want to see change in Putrajaya as the only way for Malaysians, whether Malays, Chinese, Indians, Kadazans or Ibans, to feel tall and being proud again of being a Malaysian and for Malaysia to be able to compete with the rest of the world (instead of having to appoint a foreigner to save the national flag carrier MAS as if there is not a single Malaysian capable of doing the job).

Ten years ago, who would have dared to think that it would take only a two per cent loss of voter  support for UMNO/BN to be sent to the Opposition benches in Parliament.

As Muhyiddin had  admitted,  a loss of two per cent voter support will translate to Barisan Nasional being reduced from its 133 seats won in the 13GE to 103 federal states, less than half of the 222-seat Parliament – comprising 68 UMNO seats and 35 non-UMNO seats.

A loss of five per cent voter support would have slashed the total BN seats to 81, comprising 53 UMNO and 28 non-UMNO seats.

UMNO and Barisan Nasional, in particular the UMNO leaders and their cronies, are under threat and fighting a life-and-death struggle, but this cannot be equated to Malays and Islam coming under threat and facing a life-and-death struggle.

Malay political power, Malays as Prime Minister, the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation of Malaysia as provided under Article 3 of the Constitution, the position of Malay Rulers,  Article 152 on Bahasa Malaysia and the other languages and Article 153 on the special position of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interest of other communities are not and have never been under threat or facing any life-and-death struggle.

Malaysia has come very close to have the first change of power at the federal power, which is in fact an important test whether democracy is healthy and alive in Malaysia!

Just as 10 years ago, nobody would have dared to dream and hope that only two per cent of voter shift from UMNO/BN would have led to UMNO/BN being ushered out of  federal power in Putrajaya after being the sole coalition to form the Malaysian Government for nearly six decades, nobody can predict what would happen in the next 14GE whether held in 2017 or 2018.

Would Pakatan Rakyat comprising PKR, PAS and DAP be around in the 14 GE to lead the charge to bring about the first catalytic change in federal power in Putrajaya?

I personally pray and hope so – that Pakatan Rakyat will be around to build on the momentum of the 13th General Elections to create the two per cent shift of vote from Umno/BN to bring about the first catalytic change of federal government in the 14 GE.

But if you ask me whether I can categorically say that the tripartite Pakatan Rakyat will be around to fight the 14GE, I cannot answer you as I do not know.

It is no secret that things have not been well in Pakatan Rakyat, and this is why the Pakatan Rakyat Leadership Council has not been able to meet for over six months to reaffirm Pakatan Rakyat’s common policy framework and the consensus principle which are the two key prerequisites to save PR and restore public confidence in it.

I have no doubt that Malaysians, the majority of whom voted PR and rejected UMNO/BN, 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 only on the proviso that PR keeps faith with Malaysians to give top priority to the PR common policy framework and consensus.

If this PR common policy framework and consensus is breached, as on the issue of hudud, a heavy political price will have to be paid by Pakatan Rakyat and all the three component parties, including PAS, in terms of popular voter support as well in parliamentary and state assembly seats, but most important of all, in public confidence.

(Speech at the DAP Segambut Anniversary Dinner at the RDA Banquet Hall, Sri Damansara on Sunday,7th December 2014 at 9 pm)

                This entry was posted on Monday, 8 December 2014, 8:08 am and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Mahathir
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Champion open debate and discourse on Islamic law — 25 prominent Malays

Open Letter

December 8, 2014 06:54 AM

DECEMBER 8 — We, a group of concerned citizens of Malaysia, would like to express how disturbed and deeply dismayed we are over the continuing unresolved disputes on the position and application of Islamic laws in this country. The on-going debate over these matters display a lack of clarity and understanding on the place of Islam within our constitutional democracy. Moreover, they reflect a serious breakdown of federal-state division of powers, both in the areas of civil and criminal jurisdictions.

We refer specifically to the current situation where religious bodies seem to be asserting authority beyond their jurisdiction; where issuance of various fatwa violate the Federal Constitution and breach the democratic and consultative process of shura; where the rise of supremacist NGOs accusing dissenting voices of being anti-Islam, anti-monarchy and anti-Malay has made attempts at rational discussion and conflict resolution difficult; and most importantly, where the use of the Sedition Act hangs as a constant threat to silence anyone with a contrary opinion.

These developments undermine Malaysia’s commitment to democratic principles and rule of law, breed intolerance and bigotry, and have heightened anxieties over national peace and stability.

As moderate Muslims, we are particularly concerned with the statement issued by Minister Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom, in response to the recent Court of Appeal judgement on the right of transgendered women to dress according to their identity. He viewed the right of the transgender community and Sisters in Islam (SIS) to seek legal redress as a “new wave of assault on Islam” and as an attempt to lead Muslims astray from their faith, and put religious institutions on trial in a secular court.

Such an inflammatory statement from a Federal Minister (and not for the first time) sends a public message that the Prime Minister’s commitment to the path of moderation need not be taken seriously when a Cabinet minister can persistently undermine it.

These issues of concern we raise are of course difficult matters to address given the extreme politicisation of race and religion in this country. But we believe there is a real need for a consultative process that will bring together experts in various fields, including Islamic and Constitutional laws, and those affected by the application of Islamic laws in adverse ways.

We also believe the Prime Minister is best placed with the resources and authority to lead this consultative process. It is urgent that all Malaysians are invested in finding solutions to these longstanding areas of conflict that have led to the deterioration of race relations, eroded citizens’ sense of safety and protection under the rule of law, and undermined stability.

There are many pressing issues affecting all of us that need the urgent leadership and vision of the Prime Minister, the support of his Cabinet and all moderate Malaysians. They include:

i) A plural legal system that has led to many areas of conflict and overlap between civil and shariah laws. In particular there is an urgent need to review the Shariah Criminal Offences (SCO) laws of Malaysia. These laws which turn all manner of “sins” into crimes against the state have led to confusion and dispute in both substance and implementation. They are in conflict with Islamic legal principles and constitute a violation of fundamental liberties and state intrusion into the private lives of citizens. In 1999, the Cabinet directed the Attorney-General’s Chambers to review the SCO laws. But to this day, they continue to be enforced with more injustices perpetrated. The public outrage, debates over issues of jurisdiction, judicial challenge, accusations of abuses committed, gender discrimination, and deaths and injuries caused in moral policing raids have eroded the credibility of the SCO laws, the law-making process, and public confidence that Islamic law could indeed bring about justice.

ii) The lack of public awareness, even among top political leaders, on the legal jurisdiction and substantive limits of the powers of the religious authorities and administration of Islamic laws in Malaysia. The Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land and any law enacted, including Islamic laws, cannot violate the Constitution, in particular the provisions on fundamental liberties, federal-state division of powers and legislative procedures. All Acts, Enactments and subsidiary legislations, including fatwa, are bound by constitutional limits and are open to judicial review.

iii) The need to ensure the right of citizens to debate the ways Islam is used as a source of public law and policy in this country. The Islamic laws of Malaysia are drafted by the Executive arm of government and enacted in the Legislative bodies by human beings. Their source may be divine, but the enacted laws are not divine. They are human made and therefore fallible, open to debate and challenge to ensure that justice is upheld.

iv) The need to promote awareness of the rich diversity of interpretive texts and juristic opinions in the Islamic tradition. This includes conceptual legal tools that exist in the tradition that enable reform to take place and the principles of equality and justice to be upheld, in particular in response to the changing demands, role and status of women in the family and community.

v) The need for the Prime Minister to assert his personal leadership as well as appoint key leaders who will, in all fairness, champion open and coherent debate and discourse on the administration of Islamic laws in this country to ensure that justice is done. We especially urge that the leadership sends a clear signal that rational and informed debate on Islamic laws in Malaysia and how they are codified and implemented are not regarded as an insult to Islam or to the religious authorities.

These issues may seem complex to many, but at the end of the day, it really boils down to this: as Muslims, we want Islamic law, even more than civil law, to meet the highest standards of justice precisely because it claims to reflect divine justice. Therefore, those who act in the name of Islam through the administration of Islamic law must bear the responsibility of demonstrating that justice is done, and is seen to be done.

When Islam was revealed to our Prophet saw in 7th century Arabia, it was astoundingly revolutionary and progressive. Over the centuries, the religion has guided believers through harsh and challenging times. It is our fervent belief that for Islam to continue to be relevant and universal in our times, the understanding, codification and implementation of the teachings of our faith must continue to evolve. Only with this, can justice, as enjoined by Allah swt, prevail.

* This letter was signed by:

1. Tan Sri Datuk Abdul Rahim Bin Haji Din

Former Secretary General, Ministry of Home Affairs

2. Tan Sri Ahmad Kamil Jaafar

Former Secretary General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

3. Tan Sri Dr Aris Othman

Former Secretary General, Ministry of Finance

4. Tan Sri Dr Ismail Merican

Former Director General, Ministry of Health

5. Tan Sri Dato’ Mohd Sheriff bin Mohd Kassim

Former Secretary General, Ministry of Finance

6. Tan Sri Dato’ Dr Mustaffa Babjee

Former Director General, Veterinary Services

7. Tan Sri Nuraizah Abdul Hamid

Former Secretary General, Ministry of Energy, Communications and Multimedia

8. Tan Sri Dr Yahya Awang

Cardiothoracic Surgeon and Core Founder, National Heart Institute

9. Dato’ Seri Shaik Daud Md Ismail

Former Court of Appeal Judge

10. Dato’ Abdul Kadir bin Mohd Deen

Former Ambassador

11. Datuk Anwar Fazal

Former Senior Regional Advisor, United Nations Development Programme

12. Dato’ Dali Mahmud Hashim

Former Ambassador

13. Dato’ Emam Mohd Haniff Mohd Hussein

Former Ambassador

14. Dato’ Faridah Khalid

Representative of Women’s Voice

15. Dato’ Latifah Merican Cheong

Former Assistant Governor, Bank Negara

16. Lt Gen (Rtd) Dato’ Maulob Maamin

Lieutenant General (Rtd)

17. Dato’ Noor Farida Ariffin

Former Ambassador

18. Dato’ Ranita Hussein

Former SUHAKAM Commissioner

19. Dato’ Redzuan Kushairi

Former Ambassador

20. Dato’ Dr Sharom Ahmat

Former Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Universiti Sains Malaysia

21. Dato’ Syed Arif Fadhillah

Former Ambassador

22. Dato’ Zainal Abidin Ahmad

Former Director General, Malaysian Timber Industry Board

23. Dato’ Zainuddin Bahari

Former Deputy Secretary General, Ministry of Domestic Trade, Co-operatives and Consumerism

24. Datin Halimah Mohd Said

Former Lecturer, Universiti Malaya and President, Association of Voices of Peace, Conscience and Reason (PCORE)

25. Puan Hendon Mohamad

Past President Malaysian Bar

                This entry was posted on Monday, 8 December 2014, 10:13 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Islam
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why after 57 years of Umno/BN government, and the “seminal” 22 years of Mahathir premiership,  Malaysia is producing minnows instead of towering personalities so much so that we have to appoint an “orang putih” to save MAS?

The suggestion by former Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir that Malaysia should have a white man (orang putih) as Prime Minister is most amusing and even comical, coming from a person who had breathed fire and brimstone in the last general elections, throwing all political scruples to the winds in  falsely accusing me of spearheading a Chinese grab of  the political power of the Malays by contesting in the Gelang Patah parliamentary constituency, who suddenly produced a “new rabbit from his hat”  – an ‘orang putih’ Prime Minister in Malaysia.

Of course, Mahathir was indulging in his classic “tongue-in-cheek” Mahathirism in objecting to the appointment of a German, Christoph Mueller as MAS chief executive officer to manage and save the revamped national airline, MAS  from next year.

I agree with Mahathir that it is an indictment of Malaysia’s talents, skills, expertise  and intellectual prowess that we could not find a Malaysian to save MAS.

Are Malaysians so bereft of talents, skills, experience and expertise  that we have to go outside the country to source for a saviour for MAS?

The question all Malaysians must ponder is why after 57 years of Umno/BN government, and in particular what is regarded as a “seminal” 22-year Mahathir premiership, followed by the Abdullah and Najib premierships, to produce Towering Malaysians,  Malaysia seems to be producing minnows instead of towering Malaysians in various fields of human endeavour whom we can export all  over the world to help other countries in distress with their talents, skills, experience and expertise?

How can we save the world when we cannot even save ourselves?

Why have we been increasingly reduced to a near “basket case” as to have to appoint an “orang putih” to save our national airline? Is there not a single soul in Malaysia who could be appointed to do the job?

I fully agree with Mahathir’s criticisms for failing to find a Malaysian to save the national airline and instead having to appoint a German to do the job.

Except with one caveat.

Mahathir is the one person who must bear the greatest responsibility for the woes and misfortunes of the national airline, as he had single-handedly trampled a  very profitable national carrier, which had made billions in profits during the 1980s,  into the ground with his disastrous privatisation decision in 1994 and choice of the fake “Towering Malaysian”, Tan Sri Tajudin Ramli  to carry out the privatisation.

The MAS privatisation deal saw Tajudin Ramli taking out a RM1.79 billion loan in 1994 to buy a 32 per cent majority stake in the airline.

Tajudin, who was affected by the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, later sold his stake in MAS to Putrajaya for RM1.79 billion — or RM8 a share, the same amount that he had originally paid – in 2001 when the company’s closing share price at that time was RM3.68.

In the years since, MAS has undergone three business turnarounds at an estimated cost of nearly RM20 billion to the government.

Mahathir had said sarcastically two days ago:

“Malaysians are stupid. They don’t know how to manage aviation. And now those responsible for the losses try to make things right.”

Mahathir must have  suffered another attack of his infamous and selective amnesia as  not to realise that he was also condemning himself for his role and responsibility for the gargantuan losses and travails suffered by MAS, producing a most extraordinary rendition of “the pot calling the kettle black”.

The appointment of Christoph Mueller as MAS CEO must be put on hold, and a Parliamentary Select Committee on MAS immediately appointed to scout for a qualified Malaysians to be entrusted with the job of saving and turning around MAS.

In this connection, the Malaysian Airline System Berhad (Administration) Bill 2014, which was rammed through the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara at short notice without giving MPs, affected trade unions and workers ample time to study its far-reaching implications, should be referred to the Parliamentary Select Committee on MAS for further study and recommendations.

The presentation of  the Malaysian Airline System Berhad (Administration)  Bill  2014 to the Yang di Pertuan Agong for Royal Assent should be deferred indefinitely until all matters concerning the rights, future employment security, wellbeing and livelihood of the about 20,0000 employees of MAS and their family are satisfactorily  resolved.  The position and future of the existing employee trade unions and their rights must also be resolved.

The Malaysian government must  respect and ensure that  worker and trade union rights are among the top priorities in the  exercise to save the national carrier as  the employees cannot  be blamed for the  repeated crisis faced by the airline and which have put MAS in its present  financial straits.

The Malaysian government should also guarantee to MAS employees that in the “Save MAS” campaign, their right to regular employment until retirement will not be sacrificed in favour of precarious employment relationships and practices to the detriment of workers and their unions.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 8 December 2014, 5:01 pm and is filed under
Financial Scandals
,
Mahathir
,
Transport
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Call of 25 prominent Malays for moderation will fall on Najib’s deaf ears and only ordinary Malaysians can ensure the triumph of moderation and save the country from the perils of extremism and intolerance

It is indeed the irony of ironies.  The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak travels the world to preach moderation, and even founded the Global Movement of Moderates, but at home in Malaysia, he shies away from taking a stand against extremism although the cause of moderation  is facing its worst attack on the nation’s history.

This is why the Open Letter yesterday by a group of 25 prominent Malay personalities calling on  moderate Malays, Muslims and Malaysians to stand up and be counted and to speak out against extremist, immoderate and intolerant voices have struck such a responsive national chord, coming like a breath of fresh in a very polluted atmosphere.

The 25 signatories said:

“Given the impact of such vitriolic rhetoric on race relations and political stability of this country, we feel it is incumbent on us to take a public position and urge for an informed and rational dialogue on the ways Islam is used as a source of public law and policy in Malaysia.

“More importantly, we call on the prime minister to exercise his leadership and political will to establish an inclusive consultative committee to find solutions to these intractable problems that have been allowed to fester for too long.

“We also urge more moderate Malaysians to speak up and contribute to a better informed and rational public discussion on the place of Islamic laws within a constitutional democracy and the urgency to address the breakdown of federal-state division of powers and finding solutions to the heart-wrenching stories of lives and relationships damaged and put in limbo because of battles over turf and identity.”

The 25 prominent Malays include retired senior civil servants such as former Secretaries-General, Directors-General, ambassadors and prominent Malay individuals who have contributed much to Malaysian society, is a roster of Towering Malays/Malaysians representing the cream of the best produced by the nation.

They comprise former Secretaries-General Tan Sri Datuk Abdul Rahim bin Haji Din (Home Affairs), Tan Sri Ahmad Kamil Jaafar (Foreign Affairs), Tan Sri Dr. Aris Othman (Finance), Tan Sri Datok Mohd Sheriff bin Mohd Kassim (Finance), Tan Sri Nuraizah Abdul Hamid (Energy, Communications and Multimedia); former Deputy Secreatry-General Dato’ Zainuddin Bahari (Domestic Trade, Co-operatives and Consumerism); former Directors-General Tan Sri Dr. Ismail Merican (Health), Tan Sri Dato’ Dr. Mustaffa Babjee (Veterinary Services), Dato’ Zainal Abidin Ahmad (Malaysian Timber Industry Board); Cardiothoracic Surgeon and Core Founder, National Heart Institute Tan Sri Dr. Yahya Awang; former Court of Appeal judge Dato’ Seri Shaikh Daud Md Ismail; Past President of Malaysian Bar, Puan Hendon Mohamad; former Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Universiti Sains Malaysia Dato’ Dr. Sharom Ahmat; former Senior Regional Advisor UNDP Datuk Anwar Fazal; former ambassadors Dato’ Abdul Kadir bin Mohd Deen, Dato’ Dali Mahmud Hashim, Dato’ Emam Mohd Haniff Mohd Hussein, Dato’ Noor Farida Ariffin, Dato’ Redzuan Kushairi, Dato’ Syed Arif Fadhillah; former Lt. Gen (Rtd) Dato’ Maulob Maamin;  former SUHAKAM Commissionert Dato’ Ranita Hussein; former Assistant Governor, Bank Negara Dato’ Latifah Merican Cheong; Representative of Women’s Voice Dato’ Faridah Khalid and President of Association of Voices of Peace, Conscience and Reason (PCORE) Datin Halimah Mohd Said.

Unfortunately, the call of these 25 Towering Malays/Malaysians are most likely to fall on Najib’s deaf ears as one quality the Prime Minister has demonstrated to be singularly lacking is the possession of “political will”.

Najib is not going to show any “leadership” or the country would not have come to this sorry pass.

Just as he had abandoned his signature 1Malaysia policy to create a Malaysia where every Malaysian regards himself or herself as Malaysian first, and his race, religion, geography and socio-economic status second, Najib  is allowing himself to be a prisoner of  the extremist, immoderate and intolerant voices who represent a distinct though raucous minority.

Only the  ordinary Malaysians – the silent majority –  transcending party politics, race, religion or region can ensure the triumph of moderates and save Najib’s brainchild, the Global Movement of Moderates, and the country from the perils of extremism and intolerance.

As Dr. Sharom Ahmat said today:

“All we want is a peaceful Malaysia and to live in harmony with one another.

“Yet, every day, I read someone saying Islam and the Malay Rulers were being challenged.  I don’t know who is challenging them. It’s a sad state of affairs.

“All of us are in our 60s and 70s. We need the younger generation in their 30s and 40s to also speak out for justice and sanity”.

All Malaysians – Malays, Chinese, Indians, Kadazans, Ibans, Muslims, Buddhists,  Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Taoists, must stand united to support the cause of moderation against extremism.

Najib had repeatedly said in international forums:

“The fight against extremism is not about Christians versus Muslims, or Muslims versus Jews, but moderates versus extremists of all religions. We therefore need to rally a coalition of moderates; those willing to reclaim their religion, and pursue the path to peace.”

What Najib said is equally valid for  Malaysia.

In his five years and eight months as the sixth Prime Minister of Malaysia, Najib had proven that he is incapable of bearing the standard of moderation in the country.

What Najib cannot do, let all moderates in Malaysia, regardless of political party, race, religion,  region, age or gender  stand as one to bear the standard of moderation to save multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-lingual and multi-cultural Malaysia from the forces of extremism, intolerance and bigotry.

This the imperative call of patriotism of the times.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 9 December 2014, 11:14 am and is filed under
Islam
,
Malaysian Dream
,
Najib Razak
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Najib’s Sedition Act U-turn  was to court instant popularity at UMNO General Assembly and had nothing to do with any professional security assessment

The United States Ambassador to Malaysia Joseph Y. Yun said the United States is “puzzled” with Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s decision to backtrack and retain the Sedition Act.

The answer is very simple – Najib’s U-turn on the Sedition Act was to court instant popularity at the UMNO General Assembly and had nothing to do with any professional security assessment of the country’s laws.

This was why the former Information Minister, Tan Sri Zainuddin Maidin, blogged a day after Najib’s U-turn on the Sedition Act in his presidential speech at the UMNO General Assembly on Nov. 27:

“If Datuk Seri Najib is a smart politician, he would be able to understand that the thunderous applause of the delegates, who welcomed his announcement to maintain the Sedition Act, was actually Umno’s rejection of his leadership that is liberal and weak.

“If he hadn’t made that announcement, all the Umno members would have buried him, and his future in Umno would have been destroyed.”

Zainuddin seemed to be sounding a note of regret that Najib pre-empted the “burial” which UMNO rightists and extremists were preparing for the Prime Minister at the UMNO General Assembly.

At the monthly assembly at the Prime Minister’s Department in Dataran Perdana, Putrajaya yesterday, Najib reiterated that the Sedition Act 1948 was retained not to obstruct democracy or oppress the opposition but to ensure that there was no conflict between the various races and religions in the country.

He said the decision was made because there were still those who were irresponsible, did not practise democracy, did not respect the various races and religions to the extent of causing tension in society.

The Prime Minister is suffering from a very bad case of credibility deficit complex, to the extent that he did not expect his speeches to be believed any more – as there must be very few even among the huge  staff in the Prime Minister’s Department who really buy his reasons for the retention of the Sedition Act.

About not obstructing democracy or oppressing the opposition, can Najib cite how many UMNO/BN leaders, Members of Parliament and State Assembly members have been hauled to the courts and charged with sedition, when everybody knows that the tensions caused by the rhetoric and politics of hate, bigotry and extremism emanate from UMNO/BN side or their out-sourced NGOs, and not from the Pakatan Rakyat?

But it is the Pakatan Rakyat leaders, MPs and SAs who are victimised in the spate of malicious and selective investigations and prosecutions under the Sedition Act on matters that have nothing to do with inciting inter-racial or inter-religious hatred, conflict and tension.

Anwar Ibrahim and I have been investigated by the police under the Sedition Act and it is a probably a matter of time before we are hauled to court and charged under the Sedition Act.  Is this to promote democracy and being fair to the opposition?

The Prime Minister and his deputy, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, are misleading Malaysians to fortify their case for Najib’s U-turn on the Sedition Act, even though at the expense of  creating confusion among UMNO/BN Ministers and leaders.

A case in point is Muhyiddin’s announcement in Bintulu over the weekend that the government had “conducted a thorough analysis on how the act (Sedition Act) was implemented over the past 57 years before deciding to retain it” – which surprised other UMNO and all MCA, Gerakan, MIC and non-UMNO BN Ministers as they knew nothing about it beforehand!

Was the “thorough analysis” of the Sedition Act done so secretively that only the PM and the DPM knew about it or was it just a “phantom” analysis that existed only in Muhyiddin’s imagination?

If there is such a “thorough analysis” of the Sedition Act, then I challenge Najib and Muhyiddin to make it public.

More than three months ago, the Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail had told the nation that he was conducting a review of the sedition charges against intellectuals and activists like law lecturer Dr. Aziz Sharom. What has happened to this review?

An UMNO MP today asked “why fear Sedition Act if you’re innocent?” while UMNO/BN Senators said the Sedition Act 1948 is still required to curb threats and actions of extremists.

The answer to both are simple and straightforward – the Sedition Act is a draconian and repressive law, especially as it is abused in Malaysia where the real extremists are allowed to go scotfree  while the moderates are charged for sedition; where the law is used not based on the activities or offenses but based on the political inclination of the accused.

A good case in point is the former Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department and Kedah Wanita UMNO delegate, Datuk Dr. Mashitah Ibrahim who tried to incite racial and religious conflict, hatred and tensions with the completely baseless and false allegation that the Chinese community in Kedah had burnt the Quran page by page at a prayer ritual.

Police recorded a statement from Mashitah on Sunday, 12 days after she had made that inflammatory and irresponsible allegation and 10 days after two DAP MPs, Teo Nie Ching (Kulai) and Kasthuri Patto (Batu Kawan), my political secretary Dyana Sofya Mohd Daud and DAP activist Syefura Othman had  lodged a police report against Mashitah for her hate speech?

Why did the police treat with Mashitan with kid-gloves when Pakatan Rakyat leaders would have ended up in the lock-up immediately if they had made the same type of reckless incendiary hate speech like that of Mashitah?

Was the police unable to get evidence of Mashitah’s inflammatory hate speech making false allegation that the Chinese community in Kedah had burnt the Quran page by page at a prayer ritual – when the video of Mashitah’s speech had been on You Tube all this time?

Furthermore, how is Najib to explain for the police investigation of PKR Taman Medan Assemblywoman in Selangor, Taniza Talha under the Sedition Act for an article criticising budget allocations to the prime minister’s wife Rosmah Mansor’s Permata project?

The so-called offending article, ‘Subsidi dipotong demi Permata Rosmah RM711 juta’ (Subsidy cut over RM711 million for Rosmah’s Permata), in which Haniza questioned the government allocation to the preschool programme, pointing out the government already has programmes for preschoolers.

This is a very clear-cut case of the Sedition Act becoming an oppressive instrument to suppress democracy and stifle the opposition, where the Sedition Act is used not based on the activities or offences, but the person involved as to whether from Pakatan Rakyat or not; and whether he or she had criticised an UMNO personality who cannot be questioned or criticised – like Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 9 December 2014, 2:45 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Law & Order
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.