Has the IGP really gone bonkers with the crackdown against all and sundry who crossed him?

Two days ago, I asked whether the Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Khalid Bakar had gone bonkers in his latest tweet command to his police subordinates to investigate University of Malaya senior lecturer, Dr. Khoo Ying Hoo for her article “Who owns the police” in The Malaysian Insider on 16th March 2015 under Section 500  on criminal defamation of the Penal Code when it is the height of the ridiculous to accuse of her  of intimidation of the police although her article was  quite critical of high-handed police actions.

Clearly, the IGP suffered from poor English comprehension problems.

This was not the first time when the IGP’s poor English comprehension led him to flex his IGP  muscles, as   the earlier ludicrous episode of his mistaking  DAP MP for PJ Utara’s tweet on “Royal my foot” as an attack on Malay Rulers is still the joke in the country.

Unfortunately, the twitter trigger-happy IGP has committed a third transgression from his poor  comprehension problem when the PKR Secretary-General and  MP for Pandan, Rafizi Ramli was arrested because the IGP thought Rafizi was urging supporters to “break out” Anwar Ibrahim from Sungai Buloh prison – an idea which has never entered into anyone’s mind!

Horror of horrors, I have to ask whether the IGP has really gone bonkers with his crackdown against all and sundry who crossed him, the latest victims include  the PAS Deputy President, Mohamad  Sabu, PAS MP for Shah Alam, Khalid Samad and PKR MP for Batu Tian  Chua.

It would appear that suddenly, Malaysians have become the most seditious people in the world – with an unprecedented number of people being arrested, investigated and charged under the Sedition Act.

Is this the case – that Malaysia has become the most “seditious” in the world”?

Or is it because the IGP has got a totally misconceived notion of “sedition”, which former IGPs had never been guilty of?

Yesterday Deputy Education Minister P. Kamalanathn competed for the title of being the clown of the day when he claimed that Malaysians’ command of English is better than Singapore’s.

It would be useful to have a survey as to which IGP in the world has the worst comprehension of English, for we may be in danger of topping such a  list.

The IGP should return to his basic duty to protect Malaysians from crime and the fear of crime, instead of continuing with his frolic of a crackdown  and harassment against Pakatan Rakyat leaders and NGO activists for exercising their democratic and constitutional rights of freedom of speech, expression and assembly.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 29 March 2015, 2:56 pm and is filed under
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


An open letter to Lim Kit Siang

Dave Anthony

Aliran

28 March 2015

If enough like-minded people agree to associate, you can create a nation where we all have a stake to safeguard, says Dave Anthony.

Dear saudara Kit Siang,

I salute you as the elder statesman of Malaysia who has raised a consistent voice over the years. Today we are in the cusp of a political crisis and yours is the only lonely voice calling for a Malaysian solution.

Pakatan Rakyat, whichever way we look at it, is no longer a viable reality. Anwar had tried to glue the legs of the tripod together but it still stood lopsided with no spirit to level it. We can try ropes and masking tape and splints to hold it together but it will still not stand.

Why are we even trying to keep it together? Is it only for the sake of capturing Putrajaya? The DAP and Pas are quite clear where they stand on the hudud issue.

We are not certain where PKR stands. They appear to stand as an observer outside – like a fourth party rather than a third party. They should state their stand unequivocally rather than offer to mediate between the DAP and Pas.

Let me explain why Pakatan seems no longer relevant.

First of all, the ideologies are diametrically opposed so much so that a modus operandi cannot be workable. You cannot say “let us agree to disagree” when you set an agenda to rule the country.

I dread to think what would have happened if Pakatan had won the last election. Would Putrajaya be tearing itself apart, and what kind of a government would we have today?

Pakatan Rakyat in its status quo cannot govern the country. It is time for a new political scenario as you, Kit Siang, have proposed. This is a cry to all Malaysians to save Malaysia starting with the politicians.

All politicians, please step out of your respective political parties; stand as individuals for once and look at our country. You can save it from total wreck and ruin. Separate religion from politics. You are politicians, not religious leaders. Religion has its own sphere in the private lives of individuals, and let that be so.

Redefine the Malaysian citizen as a home-grown multi-racial entity whose best interest is the reason you were elected into office.

Let the Malaysian reality, with the inclusion of Sabahans and Sarawakians, be the starting point of that entity. Stop using religion and race to divide the people. Rise above that idiosyncrasy.

Do what the people want: they want to be united in a secular state that can guarantee unity with justice, peace and freedom. That is the top priority.

The constitution, which is not something written in stone, is not a religious dogma. There are many ambiguities in the constitution. It takes away with one hand what it gives with another and opens up a vista for different legal interpretations. Making amendments would be beating around the bush. It should be streamlined and made crystal clear as to be the one guiding principle for the country.

The existence of two systems of judicial structure deconstructs all efforts at building a united nation. You cannot have two sets of rules for the people. No man can serve two masters. A country divided will inevitably fall.

Come, sit together single-mindedly as concerned leaders, and work it out. Unanimity may not be easy or even possible, but try you must and the time is now, and it is not premature as some have said. If enough like-minded people agree to associate, you can create something – something that will forge our unity, promote harmony  and create a nation where we all have a stake to safeguard.

Saudara Kit Siang, yours may be the lone voice even in the DAP. Never mind, you too step forward and please let your voice ring loud and clear to reach the ears of all Malaysians. You have thrown us a life-line, and I am sure enough of us will take it. Malaysia desperately needs a leader like you.

Dave Anthony is an Aliran member based in the Klang Valley.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 30 March 2015, 6:37 am and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
DAP
,
nation building
,
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Making Corruption Unsustainable in China

By Yukon Huang

Wall Street Journal

March 26, 2015

Xi Jinping’s anticorruption campaign will only succeed if more is done to address the structural factors making corruption possible.

A decade from now, President Xi Jinping’s reign might be defined more by the success of his anticorruption campaign than his country’s material progress. China has always been the outlier on many economic issues, and so it is with corruption. Studies show that for most developing countries, corruption retards economic growth. They also suggest that developed countries are less corrupt than developing ones. So has China managed to grow so rapidly because or in spite of rampant corruption? And why has corruption in China gotten worse rather than better?

Corruption has featured prominently in China’s dynastic history, but this current bout stems, ironically, from the major reforms launched by Deng Xiaoping. His opening-up of the economy four decades ago paved the way for a hybrid socialist market economy that, similar to the former Soviet Union republics, is particularly prone to corruption during its transition. Deng’s famous saying that “to get rich is glorious” removed any moral qualms about making money—legally or illegally.

The creation of a dual-track economy, with parallel market and state-driven activities and prices, created the incentive for corruptive interaction among three central players. One is the private entrepreneur who saw the potential to prosper by providing a better product but lacked the resources to do so. The solution often was to co-opt a representative of a state enterprise who could provide the resources, especially financing from state-owned banks. Both, however, needed the blessing of the local official—almost always also a Party member—who had the authority to make the collaboration politically acceptable.

Corruption and growth thus went hand in hand. In China’s overly centralized bureaucracy, these relationships helped get around the excessive regulations and controls and thus improved efficiency. Corruption is usually seen as hurtful to growth because it represses investment, but China’s investment rate is widely seen as being too high rather than too low. Its unique, regionally decentralized administrative system checked the growth-inhibiting aspects of corruption by setting investment and production targets for local officials. This fostered a unity of purpose, so that even as corruption flourished, the collaborators worked to make growth the guiding principle for governance.

Corruption in the transition phase was enhanced by the existence of dual prices for consumer and producer goods—one market-determined, the other subsidized. This created the opportunity for illicit gains through price arbitrage. Unification of output prices eliminated most of those rent-seeking opportunities years ago. Today the problem lies in the distorted prices for inputs such as land, energy, capital and labor. That is why Mr. Xi’s anticorruption campaign has been targeting the energy companies and why land-development practices, interest-rate liberalization and even labor-migration policies are so high on the reform agenda.

China’s rapid growth encouraged ever-rising levels of corruption because more wealth creation meant more could to be siphoned off. An economy’s most vulnerable period comes during the transition from being centrally controlled to being market-driven, when the rules and property rights are unclear. The danger lies in being stuck in the transition. Thus the defining question now is whether China will eventually fulfill its Third Plenum pledge, made more than a year ago, that the market—not the state—will be the primary force for allocating resources. Otherwise corruption will continue to flourish.

While corruption in China hasn’t led to economic stagnation, its demoralizing effect on perceptions of social equity and justice is driving the current crackdown. Campaigns tend to be run by “moralists” who argue for fundamental changes in values—in this case to preserve the credibility of the Communist Party. It is this need to maintain legitimacy that drives Mr. Xi’s actions.

Economists like Premier Li Keqiang tend to focus more on altering incentives by eliminating regulations that nurture corruption. Simplifying investment procedures and lowering tax rates are thus the focus of attention, making the negotiation of free-trade or investment treaties the instruments of reducing corruption.

The current corruption campaign is heavy on dealing with nonstructural factors and moral suasion by trying to rein in bribes and greed through enhanced penalties. The chance of going to jail for corruption according to one study, is only 3% in China—making corruption a low-risk, high-return gamble. Persecuting more “tigers and flies” changes the risk-benefit calculation. But ultimately Mr. Xi will succeed only if more is done to address the structural factors driving corruption.

This means breaking the corruptive relationship between the central players in the dual economy, separating the roles and responsibilities of the four major agents driving China’s system—the Party, the government, enterprises and banks. This would require some form of political liberalization to build more effective mechanisms for accountability and transparency that would make it more difficult for corruption to be sustainable.

Many seeking precedents for what might happen in China look to the Arab Spring movement or countries like Indonesia. But more appropriate are the experiences of the very few highly successful developing economies formerly with autocratic political systems, such as Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan. There, rapid economic growth accompanied by the rise of a more urban and services-oriented middle-class triggered gradual political liberalization. This is the likely course for China, albeit managed by the Party.

Mr. Huang is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment and a former World Bank country director for China.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 30 March 2015, 4:59 pm and is filed under
Corruption
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Thanks Dave, always good to feel less lonely in quest for the Malaysian Dream

It is always good to feel less lonely in the quest for the Malaysian Dream where Malaysians regardless of race, religion or region, unite  in a common national vision and destiny to build a more united, democratic, free, just, competitive and prosperous nation for all Malaysian citizens.

I refer to Dave Anthony’s  Open Letter to me which ended thus: “Saudara Kit Siang, yours may be the lone voice even in the DAP. Never mind, you too step forward and please let your voice ring loud and clear to reach the ears of all Malaysians. You have thrown us a life-line, and I am sure enough of us will take it. Malaysia desperately needs a leader like you.”

Thanks Dave, for throwing me a life-line!

True, what I had raised in the past week represent my personal views and not the official position of the DAP, as it has not been discussed at the various DAP decision-making councils.

For the past week, since the DAP Bukit Bintang anniversary dinner, I have broached the proposition that as Malaysian politics is in “no man’s land”, that may be it is time for a new “Save Malaysia” coalition federal government comprising MPs from both sides of the Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat divide who are prepared to defend constitutionalism and the rule of law.

This is because the two political coalitions in the country, the Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat, suffered grave and unprecedented damage this month because of the UMNO political manoevres and games like the one started by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom in Parliament on March 27, 2014 that the Federal Government was ready to work with PAS Kelantan State Government to implement hudud in Kelantan.

The result is the serious and possibly irreparable damage to both coalitions:

•	Pakatan Rakyat, when in violation of the PR Common Policy Framework and PR consensus operational principle that no one party or leader has veto powers in the three-party coalition, the Kelantan PAS went ahead to re-enact the 1993 Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code with amendments on March 19 (with the support of UMNO Kelantan State Assemblymen) and the March 18 private member’s bill by PAS President and MP for Marang, Datuk Seri Hadi Awang, on hudud implementation. Up to now, DAP and PKR MPs have not seen Hadi’s private member’s bill although Hadi and PAS agreed at the PR Leadership Council on Feb. 8, 2015 that the proposed amendments to the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code and any private member’s bill will be presented to the PR Leadership Council first for discussion.

•	Barisan Nasional, with the Prime Minister and UMNO/BN President, Datuk Seri Najib Razak continuing to suffer “labour pains” for the 11th day, unable to fulfill the undertaking to issue a statement on 20th March 2015  – when the first five Prime Ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Hussein, Tun Mahathir and Tun Abdullah would have no hesitation in reiterating and reaffirming the core nation-building principle of BN and previously Alliance that hudud laws are against the Malaysian Constitution, the 1963 Malaysia Agreement and not suitable for a multi-racial,  multi-religious and multi-cultural nation like Malaysia.

Najib’s 11-day “labour pains”, unable to issue a clear and unequivocal statement  reaffirming and reiterating what had always been the core nation-building principle of BN and previously Alliance, is a tectonic shift of Malaysia’s nation-building policy to defend constitutionalism and the rule of law.

In these circumstances, I had urged Malaysians to think the unthinkable and to begin to envisage a political landscape which is both post-BN and post-PR, if it is not possible to salvage the Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat coalitions.

Is it possible for BN to salvage its integrity, credibility and legitimacy? Yes, if Najib can overcome his prolonged “labour pains” and stop procrastinating with a clear-cut and unequivocal statement reiterating and reaffirming the core nation-building principles of BN and previously Alliance that hudud laws are against the Malaysian Constitution, the 1963 Malaysia Agreement and not suitable for a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural nation like Malaysia.

Is it possible for PR to salvage its integrity, credibility and legitimacy? Yes, if all the PR component parties recommit themselves to the PR Common Policy Framework and the PR consensus operational principle that no single party or leader can exercise a veto power over the PR,  and that the “agreed to disagree” reference in the PR Leadership Council Joint Statement on Sept. 28, 2011 on hudud referred to the past, viz DAP’s differences with PAS on the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Enactment 1993 and Terengganu Syariah Criminal Enactment 2003 and not a blank cheque for  the future to authorize PAS to act unilaterally without the agreement of all three component parties in Pakatan Rakyat, on whatever issue.

If the answers to the above two questions are in the negative, then Malaysians must seriously think of a new political landscape about a new Federal government coalition which is post-BN and post-PR before the 14th General Elections whose top priority is to defend constitutionalism and the rule of law.

If such a new coalition gets the support of the majority of the 222 Members of Parliament, then there will be a new Prime Minister, who can  be from Peninsular Malaysia, Sarawak or Sabah, and  can be a man or a woman.

The names I mentioned in Kota Kinabalu were Anifah Musa (Foreign Minister), Rosnah Rashid Shirlin (Deputy Works Minister), Abdul Ghapur Salleh (MP Kalabakan) from Sabah and Datuk Seri Fadillah Yusuf (Works Minister), Datuk Nancy Shukri (Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department) and Rohaini Abdul Karim (Minister for Women, Family and Community Development) from Sarawak.

These names created quite a storm. One comment on my facebook said: “I prefer the present Sarawak CM ( Adenan Satem).”

I do not disagree, but we are talking about the present batch of MPs elected in the 13th GE – before the 14th General Elections –  as Adenan Satem is presently not a MP.  It is a different ball-game if Parliament is dissolved and new general election held.

I apologise to Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan, the Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Minister Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan, for not including him in the list as he had supported Najib’s foot-dragging in  issuing a forthright statement to reiterate and reaffirm the 58-year-old Barisan Nasional/Alliance stand to defend the Federal Constitution and Malaysia Agreement 1963.

I understand and forgive him for  the bitter statement he had issued for being omitted from the list.

Abdul Rahman tried to make capital from my earlier statement in Kota Kinabalu on Saturday that a new post-BN, post-PR political scenario in Sabah could mean a new Chief Minister for Sabah – with Joseph Pairin Kitingan or Salleh Keruak back as CM or Hajiji Noor (Minister for Local Government and Housing) or Masidi Manjum (Minister for Tourism, Culture and Environment) as new CM.

Abdul Rahman accused me of being “delusional” and  giving PR Sabah leaders “a huge slap” in selecting BN law-makers instead of PR Sabah leaders for the position of Chief Minister in the state, declaring:

“I never thought this statement would come from Lim as it shows that he has no confidence for Pakatan Rakyat in Sabah. Unwittingly, Lim has made a blunder and Pakatan should close shop as it has no more dignity in the state.”

It’s a pity that Abdul Rahman is so incensed at being left out that he did not read what I said at the Kota Kinabalu news conference on the issue yesterday morning about not naming the PKR Sabah leader, Datuk Lam Ukin.

This is what I said:

“Immediately, I was queried why I did not name PKR Sabah leader Datuk Lajim Ukin. It is not because I think Lajim is not qualified to be Sabah Chief Minister, but going by the present configuration in the Sabah State Assembly, it is clearly unlikely that it would be possible to get support for a nominee from PR. If if we go by the results of the 14th GE, then it is a different proposition altogether.”

The scenario will be different at the federal government about a new post-BN, post-PR federal coalition government with the top priority to defend constitutionalism and the rule of law.

This is because the present Barisan Nasional government in Putrajaya is actually a minority government as it is Pakatan Rakyat which has the support of 53% of the national electorate in the 13th General Elections in May 2013.

This is why I said that a new post-BN, post-PR coalition federal government with the top priority to defend constitutionalism and the rule of law can have a Prime Minister from Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah or Sarawak, can be a man or a woman, and an MP who is presently in BN or PR.

Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had been the Pakatan Rakyat choice as the seventh Prime Minister of Malaysia if PR had succeeded in winning not only a majority of the votes but also a majority of the parliamentary seats.

A new situation will arise if reports are true that the Pardons Board has rejected the pardon petition for Anwar Ibrahim – for it will mean not only a by-election in Permatang Pauh but ruling out Anwar as an immediate Prime Ministerial candidate until he is pardoned.

In such circumstances, who are the Prime Ministerial possibilities in Peninsular Malaysia, bearing in mind that he or she must be one who is committed to defend constitutionalism and the rule of law.

For Umno, the names I can think of include Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz and Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamad.

From PKR, the Prime Ministerial possibilities from the present batch of MPs will be Nurul Izzah Anwar, Azmin Ali and Rafizi Ramli.

A post-BN, post-PR new coalition Federal Government must not only defend constitutionalism and the rule of law, it must also foster understanding and unity among the people based on the principle of preserving our common interests.

National unity must reflect a genuine solidarity, understanding and togetherness between the races, cultures and religions. It must promise to rebuild a united multiracial society, where different races can live in peace and harmony.

It would have seven immediate tasks, viz:

i. Focus on efforts to mend the deteriorated relationships between the races and religions.

ii. Consolidate the efforts of all stakeholders in order to restore the good will, mutual respect and trust which have long been practiced by the multi-racial and multi-religious people of Malaysia.

iii. Enact a Race Relations Act to safeguard unity and harmony of the people and to eliminate discrimination between the races.

iv. Generate support from every level of the society so that it can hold fast to all the principles and norms that should be upheld by an open society.

v. Strive to eliminate the practice of racial politics through various means including education, mass media, dialogues and consultations.

vi. Cultivate a Malaysian culture based on moral values and excellence that is accepted by all races. This will require an open attitude towards cultural diversity that is practiced by the various races and ethnic groups in Malaysia. This objective to be achieved  whilst taking into consideration the country’s history and evolution.

vii.Improve the welfare of Orang Asli, Orang Asal and other minority groups in Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak besides defending their fundamental, economic and social rights.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 30 March 2015, 9:39 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
nation building
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Sabah
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Three possible outcomes in Parliament for Hadi’s private member’s bill on hudud implementation

There are three possible outcomes in Parliament for PAS President and MP for Marang Datuk Seri Hadi Awang’s private member’s bill on hudud implemention which was submitted on March 18, totally against the Pakatan Rakyat Leaderhip Council decision on February 8, where Hadi was present, that any private member’s bill on hudud implemenation should first be presented to the PR Leadership Council for discussion.

Up to now, despite the passage of 12 days, DAP and PKR MPs have not seen or any idea about Hadi’s private member’s bill.

These three scenarios are:

Firstly, Hadi’s private member’s bill will be ruled out of order as being against the Federal Constitution and not appear on the  Parliamentary Order Paper  on April 2, 2015, after fulfilling the 14-day requirement for private member’s bill as provided by the Parliamentary Standing Orders.

Secondly, Hadi’s private member’s bill will appear on the daily Parliamentary Order Paper from April 2 until the end of the current meeting on April 9, but will not be given time  for debate as the official business of various government bills, in particular the trove of six Bills dealing with terrorism and related laws, i.e.  Prevention of Terrorism Bill 2015, Special Measures Against Terrorism in Foreign Countries Bill 2015, the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bi8lll 2015, the Prevention of Crime (Amendment) Bill 1959, the Security Offences (Special Measures) Amendment Bill 2015, and the Penal Code (Amendment Bill) will take up all the parliamentary time up to  April 9.

Thirdly, a debate and vote on Hadi’s private member’s bill.

Even if there is a debate and passage of Hadi’s private member’s bill,  the constitutionality of the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Enactment 2015 passed by the Kelantan State Assembly on March 19 and Hadi’s Private Member’s Bill, even if adopted by vote with a simple majority in Parliament, is open to challenge in the courts as it is clear that amendent of the Federal Constitution requiring a two-thirds majority is required before any hudud law can be implemented in any state.

I do not know which one of the three scenarios above with regard to Hadi’s Private Members Bill will eventuate.

PAS Kelantan Deputy Mentri Besar Datuk Mohamad Amar Nik Abdullah said a few days ago that DAP can lose Penang in the next general election if PAS is no longer its Pakatan Rakyat ally.

What PAS leaders should be more concerned is that PAS might lose nearly all its Parliamentary and State Assembly seats outside the northern states as a result of the 2015  re-enactment of the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code 1993 and PAS President Datuk Seri Hadi Awang’s private member’s bill on hudud implementation.

PAS won 21 parliament seats in GE2013, 7 of which were outside its northern strongholds of Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu. In the same election, PAS won 85 state seats, 29 of which were outside Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu.

Many non-Muslim voters were willing to give their support for PAS candidates in GE2013 because of their desire to kick BN out of office, their trust in the promises of Pakatan Raykat in the Common Policy Framework and the PR Manifesto, and the spirit of comradeship which existed among PR leaders.

With the 2015 re-enactement of the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code 1993  and Hadi’s  private member’s bill,  non-Muslims’ trust in PAS has all but evaporated and PAS may lose from 30% to 40% of the non-Muslim support in the next general election.

What will be the likely political impact of such loss of 30% to 40% of non-Muslim votes?

Under Scenario 1, PAS will lose 7 parliament and 29 state seats if it loses 30% of the non-Muslim vote.

PAS will be almost wiped out in Selangor. It will lose all of its parliamentary seats in Selangor (Hulu Langat, Shah Alam, Kota Raja, Sepang) and 14 out of the 15 state seats in Selangor.

It will lose all 4 state seats in Johor. It will lose all 5 state seats in Perak. It will lose 2 out of 3 state seats in Pahang. It will lose 4 out of 9 state seats in Kedah.

Under Scenario 1 losing 30% of non-Muslim votes, PAS will be left mostly with parliament and state seats in its northern strongholds. It will retain 14 parliament seats (9 in Kelantan, 4 in Terengganu and 1 in Perak). It will retain 54 state seats, 51 of which are in Kedah (5), Kelantan (32) and Terengganu (14) with only 3 state seats outside these states – 1 in Pahang, 1 in Pulau Pinang and 1 in Selangor.

Under Scenario 2 where PAS will lose 40% of the non-Muslim vote, it will lose 8 parliament seats (including Parit Buntar in Perak) and a further 5 state seats (1 in Kedah, 1 in Kelantan, 1 in Terengganu, 1 Pahang and 1 in Selangor). PAS would be left with 13 parliament seats (9 in Kelantan, 4 in Terenganu).

Does PAS want to go back to the situation in 2004 when it was left with only a handful of parliament and state seats in Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu and lose the hard fought ground it has gained in Penang, Perak, Selangor and Johor?

But this may not be the worst to befall PAS in the next general election.

The 2015 re-enactment of the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code 1993 is seen by PAS strategists as the winning formula for PAS to continue to be the State Government in Kelantan.

But there are disagreements who point to the loss of PAS in Terengganu in the 2004 general election and Kedah in the 2013 general election as warning signals that PAS must establish its credentials with regard to good governance if it is to continue to win in Kelantan.

Who is right?

                                                                                Lim Kit Siang

                This entry was posted on Monday, 30 March 2015, 2:54 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Parliament
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A wedding and two gatherings

By Mariam Mokhtar

Malaysiakini

Mar 30, 2015

The Kita Lawan protest route from Sogo to the Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre (KLCC) is only a few kilometres long, but the contrast between the crowds at each end, typifies the great divide found in Najib Abdul Razak’s ‘1Malaysia’.

At the Sogo end, protesters in the Kita Lawan rally gathered, most wearing black. The policemen on stand-by were ready to pounce and arrest them if they ‘misbehaved’.

In stark contrast, the gathering at KLCC comprised the glitterati of Malaysian society and international guests. They had been invited to the wedding reception of Najib Abdul Razak’s daughter, Nooryana Najwa.

Najib and his wife, the self-styled First Lady of Malaysia (FLOM), and their guests were dressed in their best finery and bedecked in bling, Birkin and Manolo Blahniks. Nooryana’s marriage to the Kazakhstan citizen Daniyar Kessikbayev has both enraged and excited the rakyat. Policemen formed-up in three ranks to protect the ‘elites’, from the rakyat.

The demonstrators travelled to Sogo, by public transport, before walking to KLCC. They had gathered to demand the release of jailed opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim. They were outraged by the goods and services tax (GST), 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), the rising cost of everyday items, and the current sweep on opposition politicians and social activists.

The Kita Lawan crowd came from all walks of life. Najib’s ‘1Malaysia’ was better represented at Sogo than at KLCC.

The KLCC elite were from the great and the not-so-good. They arrived at KLCC in chauffeured, air-conditioned comfort, along roads cleared by the police.

Guests rarely attend obscenely ostentatious Malay weddings merely for the company, the food or the atmosphere. One can hardly enjoy oneself in a hall of several hundred guests, all attempting to outdo one another in bling and fancy ‘baju’. The presence of royalty dampens the atmosphere, because protocol must be observed. By the time the bride and groom work their way around the ballroom to mix and mingle, they will have sore wrists.

The main thing on the minds of the wedding guests was curiosity. Meeting Nooryana and her groom was secondary. The overriding need was to see how the FLOM had arranged the no-expense-spared wedding of the decade. Leaked photos of the venue show that they were probably not disappointed.

Guests and the host families shared one nagging doubt. They feared that they might have to share the joyous occasion with the Kita Lawan protestors. They need not have worried. The inspector-general of police (IGP) performed admirably and is in line for another decoration and medal, to add to the several adorning his ample chest.

Underestimating the rakyat’s determination

At Sogo, the protesters were determined to continue the rally, despite the arrest of key Kita Lawan leaders. The IGP wrongly assumed that the protesters would act like headless chickens. Khalid Abu Bakar was wrong! He underestimated the rakyat’s determination. The rain and the IGP’s threats were not going to stop them.

The previous night, PAS deputy president Mohamad Sabu was arrested in a commando-style raid, with armed police wearing balaclavas, as he was having supper. The IGP probably believes Mat Sabu, as he is fondly known, to be as crafty as James Bond in evading capture.

In Kuala Lumpur, that same night, Hishamuddin Rais (left), the philosopher, playwright and social activist, was kidnapped in dramatic fashion on a major road near Dataran Merdeka. Witnesses thought that Hisham’s kidnappers were triad members, or possibly Tiga Line gangsters, alleged mates of Home Minister Zahid Hamidi. Hisham’s attackers were later identified as policemen.

These police thugs were enacting the IGP’s alleged new standard operating procedure (SOP) for arresting people. First, the person concerned is trailed by plain clothes policemen on motorbikes and in cars. Then, several of them will rush the victim, and bundle him into a waiting car. The car speeds off with the motorbikes as outriders.

Malaysia’s best education in the world programmes us to be un-inquisitive, not to question and not be critical. Several allegations have been made about the cost of this wedding. If the exclusive boxed wedding invitation and scroll were alleged to have cost a lot of money, just imagine the value of the ‘hantaran’ and other expenses.

No wonder Najib is the finance minister. He can magically stretch his monthly wage of RM23,000 to fund this grand event. It is particularly galling that he asks the rakyat to tighten their belts.

Despite the allegations in the New York Times, he has not revealed the source of his inherited wealth. The rakyat knows his father died as a man of modest means. Najib has not denied the allegations that the FLOM was using the rakyat-funded government jet to sort out last minute wedding preparations, last December.

The great wealth, social and class divide between Malaysians is as wide as the chasm between Sogo and KLCC. Only the rakyat can bridge this gap.

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

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 31 March 2015, 7:12 pm and is filed under
Mariam Mokhtar
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Defer the  seven anti-terrorism bills for debate in next Parliamentary meeting  starting on May 18  while establish Select Committee to study and make recommendations

Today’s arrest of two more editors, Edge publisher Ho Kay Tat and The Malaysian Insider (TMI) chief executive Jahabar Sadiq, in addition to the arrest of three senior TMI editors, Lionel Morais, Amin Shah Iskandar and Zulkifli Sulong yesterday are the latest in the police crackdown in the past week and  a campaign to impose the reign of white terror in the country.

These arrests raise one disturbing question – whether the police and the government-of-the-day can be trusted with untrammelled powers, like the one they are asking under the anti-terrorism laws.

This question could not have come at a more appropriate time as Parliament was presented with seven anti-terrorism bills, which would empower the Executive with the untrammelled power of indefinite detention without trial that cannot be challenged in court.

The Internal Security Act was the most infamous example where countless numbers of ISA detainees were incarcerated for no crime except for  holding different political views from those in power – the most iniquitous recent example being the mass ISA arrests under Operation Lalang which not only victimised Opposition MPs and leaders, but also the civil society and the media.

In fact, with the over 100 police arrests in the past week, the question can be legitimately asked whether the country is seeing a replay of Ops Lalang dragnet!

I was an ISA victim of the Ops Lalang dragnet in 1987.

I remember that when I was detained for a second time under the ISA and was sent to Kamunting Detention Centre in 1987 with other Operation Lalang detainees, we found to our horror long-serving ISA detainees who had been forgotten by the authorities – who had served for more than 10 years, one over 13 years and another 16 years.

It was as a result of our highlighting such gross injustices and violations to human rights in Parliament and outside that these long-serving ISA detainees were released shortly after.

This is one shocking outcome of unchecked and unchallengeable indefinite detentions without trial.

To prevent any recurrence of such injustices and human rights violations, I call on the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi to defer the  seven anti-terrorism bills for debate in next Parliamentary meeting  starting on May 18 and meanwhile, set up a bipartisan Select Committee to study and make recommendations on the anti-terrorism bills to Parliament before May 18.

Meanwhile, the Home Minister and the Inspector-General of Police should end the reign of “white terror”, immediately releasing the five editors from TMI as there is reason why police investigations against them cannot be carried out without having to flex police muscles to put them under lock-and-key, just as the country was witness to the gross abuse of police power when Members of Parliament and State Assemblymen were humiliated,  chained or handcuffed and forced to be incarcerated in police lock-ups when efficient police work would have obviated such harsh police treatment.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 31 March 2015, 11:52 am and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Parliament
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


No Evidence that Harsher Punishment = Less Crimes!

By Martin Jalleh

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 31 March 2015, 10:24 am and is filed under
Islam
,
Martin Jalleh
,
PAS
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


PAS may suffer a double whammy in next general elections, completely wiped out in Johor, Perak and Malacca, virtually wiped out in Pahang and Kedah and may even lose power in Kelantan after 25 years of rule

If Pakatan Rakyat cannot be saved, it will cost all the three component parties dearly, as a result of the  popular disenchantment of the voters throughout the country over the grave breach of trust and  failure of the PR parties to be loyal and sincere to the Pakatan Rakyat Common Policy Framework and the operational principle of  Pakatan Rakyat consensus that no single party or leader could exercise a veto in PR.

In the three Pakatan Rakyat parties, it will be PAS which is likely to suffer the most in the 14th General Elections in such circumstances.

PAS is in danger of losing nearly all of its parliament and state assembly seats outside the northern states as a result of the enactment of the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code 2015 and PAS President and MP for Marang, Datuk Seri Hadi Awang’s  private member’s bill on hudud implementation.

With a loss of 30% of non-Muslim votes, PAS will lose 7 parliament and 29 state seats it won in the 13GE in 2013.

PAS will be completely wiped out in Johore, Perak and Malacca and virtually wiped out in Selangor,  Pahang and Kedah.

In Johore, PAS will lose all 4 state seats, namely Sungai Abong, Maharani, Parit Yaani and  Puteri Wangsa.

In Perak, it will lose all the five state seats, namely Titi Serong, Gunong Semanggol, Selinsing, Changkat Jering and Sungai Rapak.

In Malacca, it will lose its sole State Assembly seat of Bukit Baru.

In Selangor, it will lose all its parliamentary seats (Hulu Langat, Shah Alam, Kota Raja, Sepang) and 14 out of the 15 state seats in Selangor.  The Selangor state assembly seats currently held by PAS which are in danger are: Sabak, Taman Templer, Gombak Setia, Hulu Kelang, Lembah Jaya, Chempaka, Dusun Tua, Seri Serdang, Paya Jaras, Meru, Selat Klang, Sijangkang, Morib and Tanjong Sepat. The only Selangor seat PAS may win again will be Bangi.

In Pahang, it will lose two out of three state states, namely Beserah and Tanjung Lumpur.

In Kedah, it will lose the five state assembly seats of Alor Mengkudu, Kubang Rotan, Kuala Ketil and Merbau Pulas.

With a loss fo 30% non-Muslim votes, PAS will be left mostly with parliament and state assembly seats in the  northern states. It will retain 14 parliament seats (9 in Kelantan, 4 in Terengganu and 1 in Perak). It will retain 54 state seats, 51 of which are in Kedah (5), Kelantan (32) and Terengganu (14) with only 3 state seats outside these states – 1 in Pahang, 1 in Pulau Pinang and 1 in Selangor.

The loss of PAS state government  in Terengganu in 2004 general election and the PAS-dominated Kedah state government  in 2013 general election are warning signs  that PAS must not take for granted that it is sure to get Malay-Muslim support, as it might be caught by a “double whammy” in the 14th General Elections of being  completely wiped out in Johor, Perak and Malacca, virtually wiped out in Pahang and Kedah and may even lose power in Kelantan after 25 years of rule.

If PR cannot be saved, can Barisan Nasional be saved.

This looks more and more grim with the Prime Minister and UMNO/BN President, Datuk Seri Najib Razak prolonging his “labour pains” into the 12th day, paralysed from issuing a statement which the first five Prime Ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Hussein, Tun Mahathir and Tun Abdullah would have no hesitation in reiterating and reaffirming the core nation-building principle of BN and previously Alliance that hudud laws are against the Malaysian Constitution, the 1963 Malaysia Agreement and not suitable for a multi-racial,  multi-religious and multi-cultural nation like Malaysia.

If we re-examine the events of the past year in the hudud controversy, the political parties which have changed their stand on hudud law and implementation apart from PAS are the Barisan Nasional parties including UMNO, MCA, Gerakan, MIC and SUPP in allowing the Kelantan UMNO State Assemblymen to support PAS Kelantan in the Kelantan State Assembly on hudud implementation.

If PR and BN cannot be salvaged, then Malaysians must think the unthinkable before the 14GE of a new Federal Government coalition which is post-BN, post-PR with a new Prime Minister from one of the present MPs who could currently be  in BN or PR, from Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah or Sarawak and a man or a woman.

Critics have hurled a variety of accusations against  me of proposing a new “unity government” between the DAP and UMNO, of proposing a DAP-PKR-MCA-Gerakan coalition and even insinuating that I am begging to get into Najib’s Cabinet.

Clearly, these critics do not understand what “post-BN, post-PR” means.  I am not advocating any “unity government” between DAP and UMNO or BN, or even more far-fetched, any DAP-PKR-MCA-Gerakan coalition.

I have stressed that the new Post-BN, Post-PR Federal Coalition before the 14th GE should  be fully inclusive of all Malaysian races, religions and regions, in other words, a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-regional new Malaysian coalition government comprising Muslims and non-Muslims, Malays and non-Malays, and Malaysians from Peninsular Malaysia, Sarawak and Sabah.

Its top priority is to defend constitutionalism and the rule of law, but these must not be its only concerns.

I have touched on

•	Five  fundamental principles of defending constitutionalism like Islam as the official religion and freedom of practice for other religions; constitutional monarchy; Bahasa Malaysia as official language and free use and study of other languages and upholding the guarantee and spirit of Federalism in the Malaysia Agreement 1963;

•	Ten-Point Programme for a High-Performance, Sustainable and Equitable Economy;

•	Nine-Point  Agenda to restore the doctrine  of separation of powers among the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary as well as the independence, professionalism and integrity of national institutions; and

•	Seven immediate tasks to promote national unity and understanding among the diverse races, religions and cultures in the country.

The new post-BN post-PR coalition must work to ensure a clean, free and fair Electoral System, based on six reforms to restore the sovereignty of the people in a meaningful parliamentary democracy, viz:

1. Enable all citizens age 18 and above to vote via automatic registration.

2. Eliminate all weaknesses in the electoral system by cleaning the electoral roll; abolish postal votes for voters within the country and ensure all citizens outside the country can vote.

3. Ensure the media provides political parties fair and just space, reasonable campaign period and a clean and free election process.

4. Re-delineate constituencies to mirror the principle of One Citizen, One Vote, One Value  in order to guarantee a more fair and just representation.

5. Grant political parties campaign expenditures based on the percentages of votes in general elections.

6. Enact more effective laws to punish candidates or political parties that are involved in corruption or vote-buying practices

(Speech to DAP Federal Territory state and branch leaders in Kuala Lumpur on Monday, 30th March 2015 at 8 pm)

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 31 March 2015, 8:17 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Najib Razak
,
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Teach the virtue of radical moderation

– Jakarta Globe

31 March 2015

The latest survey of Setara Institute for Democracy and Peace should come as a dire warning: The poll of nearly 700 students from 76 high schools in Jakarta and 38 high schools in Bandung shows that 7% of respondents agreed with the Islamic State movement’s aim of establishing a global Islamic State – meaning one in every 14 students agrees with the militants’ aims.

Those surveyed who agreed with Isis’s mission said they did so because they believe the IS has established an Islamic caliphate.

More worrisome, the students said they agreed that Indonesia’s five founding principles, Pancasila – which enshrine the right to religious freedom and tolerance of others’ beliefs – should be replaced with a universal Islamic ideology.

The ability to accept others’ beliefs as equally valid to one’s own is perhaps the highest virtue – and one we must teach in schools.

Radical moderation and pluralism are the only responsible lessons our society can offer in the face of alternative extremisms.

This means welcoming the Indonesian Military (TNI) in waging war on Isis as an emergency measure only and more strictly limiting its involvement in civilian affairs than if Isis’s threat did not exist, since repression complicates efforts and invites violence. We should fight ideology with ideology.

If we can deter the Isis ideology taking root in schools without the military, a draconian terrorism law or the government’s excessive presence in people’s private lives. Crucial to fighting radical ideology is preserving freedom of expression, perhaps Indonesia’s proudest achievement since Suharto’s fall.

Indonesia is both majority Muslim and majority moderate. It’s time for the moderates, especially its clerics, to speak against Isis’s ideology and work with government to stop extremism before it grows up. – Jakarta Globe, March 31, 2015.

– See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/teach-the-virtue-of-radical-moderation-jakarta-globe#sthash.EizSRwDA.dpuf

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 31 March 2015, 10:36 am and is filed under
Islam
,
Islamic state
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The seven anti-terrorism bills for download and scrutiny

DR4 – 2015 — Penal Code (Amendment) Bill

DR4 – 2015 — Penal Code (Amendment) Bill – google drive

DR5 – 2015 — Prison (Amendment) Bill

DR5 – 2015 — Prison (Amendment) Bill – google drive

DR6 – 2015 — Special Measures Against Terrorism in Foreign Countries Bill

DR6 – 2015 — Special Measures Against Terrorism in Foreign Countries Bill – google drive

DR7 – 2015 — Security Offences (Special Measures) (Amendment) Bill

DR7 – 2015 — Security Offences (Special Measures) (Amendment) Bill — google drive

DR8 – 2015 — Prevention of Crime (Amendment) Bill

DR8 – 2015 — Prevention of Crime (Amendment) Bill — google drive

DR9 – 2015 — Akta Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (Pindaan) Rang Undang-undang (BM)

DR9 – 2015 — Akta Kanun Tatacara Jenayah (Pindaan) Rang Undang-undang (BM) – google drive

DR9 – 2015 — Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment Bill (EN)

DR9 – 2015 — Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment Bill) (EN) – google drive

DR10 – 2015 — Akta Pencegahan Keganasan Rang Undang-undang (BM)

DR10 – 2015 — Akta Pencegahan Keganasan Rang Undang-undang (BM) – google drive

DR10 – 2015 — Prevention of Terrorism Act Bill (EN)

DR10 – 2015 — Prevention of Terrorism Act Bill (EN) – google drive

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 31 March 2015, 5:39 pm and is filed under
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Will Najib do what a Prime Minister worth his salt would have done already  – immediately suspend Khalid as IGP before Khalid could cause more damage to  national and international confidence on police professionalism, the  rule of law and freedom of the press  in Malaysia

Will the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak do what a Prime Minister worth his salt would have done already – immediately suspend Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar as Inspector-General of Police before Khalid could cause more damage to national and international confidence on police professionalism, the rule of law  and freedom of the press in Malaysia.

It is clear that Khalid has a very pedantic and worse, most selective and elastic, definition of sedition, where even  the most innocuous statements made by Pakatan Rakyat leaders, NGO activists and now certain targetted media, are elastically regarded as sedition, while the most seditious speeches and statements like those made by the Minister for Agriculture and Agro-based Industries, Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaacob, the former Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Mashitah Ismail and UMNO Permatang Pauh Division Chairman Datuk Mohd Zaidi Mohd Said are arbitrarily interpreted by him as not seditious and therefore not worthy of harsh police action.

The situation is made worse if not hilarious by Khalid’s demonstrated poor command of English where he could find an offence of sedition which no ordinary people would think of, like DAP PJ Utara Tony Pua’s tweet of “Royal my foot” which only Khalid would interpret as an attack on the Malay royalty.

Khalid also twittered an order for police investigation of University of Malaya lecturer Dr. Khoo Ying Hoo for her article “Who owns the police”, miscomprehending it as “criminal defamation” of the police when it was only critical of high-handed police actions.

Then there was the faux pas of the arrest of PKR Secretary-General and MP for Pandan, Rafizi Ramli, humiliating him  by making a public spectacle of him in chains and without shoes, in police lock-up purple garb – all because the IGP miscomprehended Rafizi’s circular as a conspiracy to “break out” Anwar Ibrahim from Sungai Buloh prison, which was in nobody’s mind at all!

In other countries, a top police officer or civil servant who  had made such three egregious blunders in misjudgment and misconduct would have been hauled up and put on the mat, and would be too ashamed to appear in public at least for a while, but our IGP continues to strut about with neither shame nor remorse?

So when Khalid thumped his chest today about his “no tolerance for sedition”, he was only publicizing his selective, elastic and even miscomprehension of term and offence of sedition!

Khalid should belatedly realize that his job as the top cop of the world is hot to declare war on PR leaders, NGO activists and the free press exercising their constitutional and democratic right of freedom of speech, expression and assembly but to keep Malaysians safe from crime, the fear of crime – and now from terrorism and the fear of terrorism with the spectre of Islamic State coming to our shores.

He should immediately stop his frolic of conducting a one-man war on PR leaders, NGO activists and the free press, and become an exemplary top cop in the country.

The five top journalists in The Malaysian Insider should be released without any delay before more damage is done to Malaysia’s already fragile reputation of a free press in the world.

Furthermore, he should make a clear-cut statement that the arrest of the five top TMI journalists is not an excuse for the police to go on a “fishing expedition”, i.e. using their arrests to ferret information about TMI’s coverage of the RM42 billion 1MDB scandal.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 31 March 2015, 5:53 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Law & Order
,
Police
,
Press
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Crackdown may eventually backfire on BN, say analysts

by Anisah Shukry

The Malaysian Insider

1 April 2015

With more the 150 people arrested or investigated in the last two months mainly over freedom of expression, political analysts say the police crackdown might cripple dissent briefly, but would ultimately backfire on the ruling coalition.

While the arrest and investigations on opposition politicians, activists, academics and media personnel would cow the public for a while and drain the resources of those critical of Putrajaya, such actions would not be effective for long, they told The Malaysian Insider.

“In the short term, it certainly helps the ruling coalition because it has a chilling effect on the public and reduces the ability of the opposition to take advantage of the ongoing internal problems in Umno,” said Ibrahim Suffian, the director of independent pollster Merdeka Center.

“But in the longer run, it will affect public sentiment. These days, you can’t keep a lid on things. It will create problems and affect the legitimacy of the government.”

Dr Lim Teck Ghee, the director of think-tank Centre for Policy Initiatives, said urban and educated voters would see no logic for the arrests, despite the official justifications.

He said most Malaysians would rather have the police concentrate on their crime and security mission rather than take on a political role.

He added that Pakatan Rakyat had the clear advantage from the crackdown, even as its leaders continue to be arrested and remanded for several nights.

 “I think it has stiffened the resolve of party supporters and given them more reason to stay the course of getting BN out of power,” said Lim.

He said even if the trend continued, BN would not be able to destroy PR through such means, “unless there is indefinite detention, and even that is a big political risk for BN”.

“All this is doing is providing those arrested with temporary stays for one or several nights and distracting them from their normal life routine for a short while.

“We can see that they have all returned to the political fray as soon as they are out,” said Lim.

Close to 160 people have been investigated over February and March under the Sedition Act and the Peaceful Assembly Act. They have mostly been opposition politicians and activists, mainly over the #KitaLawan rallies held on March 7 and March 28.

In February, those expressing views against the Federal Court’s verdict to uphold Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy conviction were also hauled up.

Others detained or questioned included lawyers, lecturers and journalists for writing or tweeting critical views.

Dr Mohd Faisal Syam Abdol Hazis, a senior lecturer from the department of Political Studies at Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (Unimas), said BN’s previous strategies of trying to be inclusive and conduct reforms had failed, and the ruling coalition now felt that the only way for it to stay in power was to destroy PR.

Before the 2013 general election, Faisal said, BN’s strategy had been to listen to the electorate and introduce inclusive reforms, but that strategy failed due to lack of political will.

“Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak wanted to introduce reform, but he felt insecure and flip-flopped, so when the voters saw this, they knew he was not serious and change could only happen if BN was defeated.

“So BN tried that approach, failed, and will now focus on destroying the opposition. They are slowly going back to Mahathir’s tactics – destroying the opposition by charging them, making them ineligible to contest, draining their resources,” said Faisal, referring to the fourth prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

He said BN’s scare tactics might have worked during the time of Mahathir, but in the age of social media, Malaysians had moved beyond this and were willing to stand their ground, as proven by the #KitaLawan rallies.

Faisal said PR would only be defeated if the pact failed to prove to the public that they could become a better alternative to BN.

Even in that case, he said, BN would not necessarily triumph as a third coalition may take shape and could oust the ruling coalition in the next general election. – April 1, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 1 April 2015, 7:28 am and is filed under
Press
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


I can remove Anifah Aman’s name from the list of Prime Ministerial possibilities if he thinks that a Sabahan is  not qualified to be PM or he is not committed to constitutionalism and Malaysia Agreement 1963 on hudud

I can remove Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Anifah Aman’s name from the list of Prime Ministerial possibilities in a new post-BN, post-PR coalition in Putrajaya if he thinks that a Sabahan is not qualified to be a Prime Minister in Malaysia or he is not committed to constitutionalism and the Malaysia Agreement 1963 on hudud not suitable for a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural nation like Malaysia.

It is a pity that Anifah has followed others in Barisan Nasional in demonstrating superficial understanding of my proposal, as he probably suffers from the same disease  as other BN leaders – lazy to read and not really understanding what is being discussed and proposed.

Otherwise, he would have known that  a day earlier, I had mentioned three PKR leaders who could be potential Prime Ministerial candidates, viz. Nurul Izzah Anwar, Azmin Ali and Rafizi Ramli.

This was also the same statement where I mentioned three UMNO names as potential PM  candidates in a new post-BN, post PR coalition to “Save Malaysia” in order to defend constitutionalism and the rule of law.

I had said that the if  two political coalitions in the country, Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat, lose all public trust, credibility and legitimacy, then Malaysians must dare to think the unthinkable and move beyond a political scenario dominated by two political coalitions into a post-BN, post-PR new phase of Malaysian politics.

Unfortunately, daily political developments are only providing new fodder to a scenario where both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat are increasingly being discredited, as illustrated as follows:

*The call by  PAS President and MP for Marang, Datuk Seri Hadi Awang to all 136 Muslim MPs to support his private member’s bill on hudud, utterly heedless and contemptuous of the Pakatan Rakyat Common Policy Framework and the consensus decision that any private bill should be first presented to the PR  Leaderhsip Council for discussion.

*The 12-day “labour  pains” by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, despite earlier claims by the MCA and Gerakan Presidents that Najib would be issuing a statement declaring the UMNO/BN opposes Hadi’s private member’s bill.

In these circumstances, Malaysians must be prepared to break away from the present political mould since Merdeka in 1957 and Malaysia’s formation in 1963 to create a new political order – one where UMNO is not the natural pace-setter, where the Prime Minister need not come only from Peninsular Malaysia but can come from Sabah or Sarawak and one where the first woman Prime Minister could be named.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 1 April 2015, 3:04 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Prosecuted for pedestrian English…methinks

-Dr Azmi Sharom

Rakyat Times

30 March 2015

The IGP, Khalid Abu Bakar, (probably the most Twitter-savvy chief of police in the world) had this to say recently (as reported in an online news portal):

“We respected freedom of expression and speech but we will not tolerate the freedom to incite and disrespected the system under the federal constitution.”

The IGP also said, “This we cannot compromise. Any gathering or activities that is seditious we will take action on.”

I guess this is why the police have been on an arrest frenzy, locking up opposition politicians and activists. Anyway, I want to say ‘thank you’ to the IGP. Since he says he respects freedom of expression, I am sure he won’t mind me exercising my freedom of expression to ask him (in a non-inciting fashion) a few questions….

Alright then – my questions are as follows:

Exactly what were the people arrested inciting? Violence? If so, where is the evidence?

I thought all they were doing was trying to organise a peaceful assembly.

Is that seditious?

If assembling and marching peaceably are not seditious, then what exactly was said and done that is seditious? Can our IGP share with us? If he doesn’t have the time, perhaps he can just tweet what it was that is so seditious.

And why do the police treat opposition politicians and activists so differently from BN politicians and supporters who say blatantly racist things, have ‘illegal’ assemblies and threaten people with actual harm? Is there an SOP for this sort of difference in treatment?

And finally, I just love the way the IGP says “we respect human rights”, but in the same breath says they will clamp down against  these without any sort of real justification.

Hello! Our rights are ours. We don’t have to justify them. The authorities with the power, however, have to justify any action taken which infringes upon our rights. And the IGP has done no such thing. Vague statements about incitement and sedition do not cut it.

I sure hope he reads the Rakyat Times. Can someone tweet him this article, please?

Cheers!

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 1 April 2015, 6:40 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Release all media folk, stop the intimidation

By Seven former media practitioners in DAP

Malaysiakini

Mar 31, 2015

We strongly condemn the recent arrests of four senior editors and the CEO of a media group under the draconian and repressive Sedition Act, in what is a clear and blatant attempt to silence and intimidate the media.

At about 6pm yesterday, three editors of online news portal The Malaysian Insider (TMI) – managing editor Lionel Morais, Bahasa Malaysia editor Amin Shah Iskandar, and features and analysis editor Zulkifli Sulong – were arrested and the TMI office raided under Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act and the Section 233 of the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) Act.

This morning, two more senior personnel – chief executive Jahabar Sadiq and CEO of The Edge Group (which owns TMI) Ho Kay Tat – were arrested when they went to the Dang Wangi police station to give their statements to the police.

They were arrested in relation to an article published on March 25, which said the Conference of Rulers had rejected a proposal to amend a federal law that would pave the way for hudud to be enforced in Kelantan. This was later denied by the Keeper of the Ruler’s Seal, who lodged a police report against the article.

As former journalists ourselves, we condemn the actions of the police in their heavy-handed and indiscriminate use of this pre-Independence law – a sign that the government is desperately clutching at straws to assert its iron grip over an increasingly aware and angered citizenry.

If indeed certain parties had taken issue to the report, which they believe to be erroneous, there is always the option to take civil action and sue the news portal, or to issue a denial to the report. The right of reply is one granted to all; there is no need to arrest and detain the media for performing its duties.

Arresting journalists and editors is sheer intimidation and a form of bullying, and a disgraceful act for a nation that claims to be a democracy.

Perhaps the government needs to be reminded that Malaysia last year dropped to a historic low in the World Press Freedom Index, plunging to a rank of 147th out of 180 countries – a dismal ranking that is a result of continued harassment of the media, tight control over printing licences and the muzzling of free speech.

Malaysia was ranked 145 out of 179 countries in 2013, which was a drop of 23 points from 2012, further showing the slippery slide backwards in freedom of the press.

We cannot underestimate the importance of a free press as a key element of a vibrant and effective democracy, and the continued persecution of the media – as well as politicians and activists – is a sign that Malaysia is not the ‘best democracy in the world’ as espoused by Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak.

The situation today is reminiscent of 1987’s Ops Lalang, a massive crackdown which saw more than 100 activists, politicians and intellectuals arrested under the Internal Security Act; publication licences of three newspapers revoked; and which has forever left a black mark on press freedom in our country.

We demand the immediate release of not only the TMI editors and executives, but of all those still detained.

1. Lim Kit Siang (DAP parliamentary leader, former journalist of Singapore Straits Times);

2. Chow Kon Yeow (exco member, Penang, former journalist of The Star);

3. Ng Wei Aik (MP for Tanjong, former journalist of Nanyang Siang Pau);

4. Lee Kee Hiong (state assemblyperson for Kuala Kubu Baru, former journalist of Tong Bao);

5. Wong May Ing (state assemblyperson for Pantai Remis, former journalist of Oriental Daily);

6. Wong Shu Qi (state assemblyperson for Senai, former journalist of Merdeka Review);

7. Medaline Chang She Yun (DAP Wanita publicity secretary, former sub-editor at Star Publications).

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 1 April 2015, 12:09 pm and is filed under
Police
,
Press
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


TMI arrests will galvanise journalistic independence, academics and rights groups say

By Zurairi AR

Malay Mail Online

April 1, 2015

KUALA LUMPUR, April 1 — Independent journalism in Malaysia will continue to flourish and might even grow bolder due to public demand following the arrests of senior media personnel in The Malaysian Insider (TMI) and The Edge for alleged sedition, academics and rights groups have suggested.

Despite that, they conceded that the immediate effect will largely result in many news outlets toning down their editorial voice, considering there are still many reforms needed to ensure a free and fair media landscape in the country.

“Independent journalism will pause, reflect on what’s happening and why, and, I believe, will resist. You must remember that independent journalism in Malaysia as elsewhere — online and offline — emerged and grew in resistance to controls and coercion,” said Zaharom Nain, a vice-dean with University of Nottingham Malaysia’s Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences.

“These journalists — and new ones emerge all the time — are often not ‘cari makan’ individuals,” he added, using the Malay phrase that refers to “salary men”.

“They are here for a cause — if nothing else, to tell the truth as they see it. That won’t stop. Stupid, bumbling attempts at silencing them will only make them, however small in number, bolder,” warned Zaharom, who is also the founder of the university’s Centre for the Study of Communications and Culture (CSCC).

Online and independent media caught steam prior to the 2008 general elections as an alternative to the heavily-regulated mainstream media, which is dominated by publications owned by, or linked to, component parties of ruling coalition Barisan Nasional.

However, recent developments have resulted in the arrests of several journalists for alleged sedition and defamation suits by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak himself, leading some news firms to practise self-censorship to avoid unwanted attention.

“Press freedom will quickly erode in Malaysia as long as journalists continue to practise heavy self-censorship or face serious legal threats when they speak out,” said Judy Taing, a senior officer with London-based human rights group, Article 19.

“Freedom of expression is enshrined in the Malaysian constitution, however recent events suggest that it has become more of a privilege than a protected right,” she said.

After news portal Malaysiakini’s Penang-based reporter Susan Loone was probed for sedition in September last year, TMI became the next to be affected as four of its senior editorial members and their publisher were detained for alleged sedition this week.

However, Evelyn Balais-Serrano from the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (Forum-Asia) advised against self-censorship, claiming that the situation now is much different from two or three decades ago although it remains a longstanding issue.

“Today, the demand for credible information from independent sources is much higher than ever before. Certainly, some media organisations will feel the heat and be pressured to exercise caution in their reporting as a result of the current situation.

“But in the long-term, the demand for independent and credible information will not wane, and will in fact be stronger”, said Evelyn, who is Forum-Asia executive director.

Not everyone was optimistic, with Gayathry Venkiteswaran of Bangkok-based Southeast Asian Press Alliance (Seapa) predicting that the arrests will spook reporters when it comes to writing about “untouchable issues” such as religion and Malay rulers.

“In the immediate term, the impact could be to push journalists back behind the lines,” said Gayathry, who is Seapa’s executive director.

“The challenge has always been to get journalists from across the language and ownership to resist the censorship and intimidation together. Hopefully this latest case could spark a more united voice,” she said.

Sonia Randhawa of the Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) also admitted to the much-needed reforms Putrajaya must take to regain the trust of the industry, especially with the laggard reform of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, and ongoing denial of print licenses to online news outlets.

“Unfortunately Putrajaya fails to recognise that an independent media is an asset to the government. It can help to weed out corruption and inefficiency, it pushes the government to be the best it can be, for the sake of all Malaysians. An echo chamber is unable to do that,” said CIJ director Sonia.

“So, yes, these actions will continue to undermine initiatives to push the boundaries on what can or cannot be reported, but it takes more than a lack of arrests to guarantee media independence,” she added, listing out the reform of the Sedition Act 1948 itself as one example.

“It’s up to Malaysian journalists and citizens to decide how much they value their media system, and how they want to fight to preserve and nurture its freedoms,” said CSCC director Tessa J. Houghton in an email interview.

Houghton also advised journalists to educate themselves on ways to safeguard themselves and their information, especially regarding sources, given the high stakes involved in some of the recent breaking stories.

“Access to information is as (or more) important for journalists as it is for the rest of us, and it only takes one (however unintended) breach of trust for the entire system to suffer,” said Houghton.

Last week, TMI ran a report citing an unnamed source as claiming that the Conference of Rulers had rejected proposed legal amendments that would allow hudud to be enforced.

This was later denied by the Keeper of the Rulers’ Seal, who also lodged a police report over the article.

TMI’s editors Lionel Morais, Zulkifli Sulong and Amin Iskandar were then arrested Monday night under the Sedition Act 1948 and the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 to assist in investigations.

The trio were released last night after a magistrate denied the police’s request for a remand order to hold them beyond 24 hours.

The news portal’s chief executive Jahabar Sadiq and Ho Kay Tat, CEO of The Edge Media Group that owns TMI, were arrested yesterday morning under the same laws when they went to the Dang Wangi district police headquarters to have their statements recorded.

The duo remain under detention at the Dang Wangi district police headquarters and will be taken to court later in the morning for a remand hearing.

Umno member Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah has since urged journalists to continue reporting without fear or favour despite the arrests.

Saifuddin, who is currently a columnist and used to be an editor, also conceded that things have gone from “bad to worse” now, amid a slew of investigations under the Sedition Act 1948 that have primarily targeted opposition politicians and social activists.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 1 April 2015, 7:14 am and is filed under
Press
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


When the success of one nation casts shadows on the failures of another

Julia Yeow

The Malaysian Insider

31 March 2015

Not many were shocked at the news that Singapore’s founding father Lee Kuan Yew died on March 23, weeks after being in intensive care. But I believe most were taken aback by the overwhelming outpouring of grief that followed. The unending crowds who queued for hours to pay their last respects and the thousands of honest, poignant outpourings of grief and tributes gave those of us who were mere observers a glimpse into the mark Kuan Yew made, not just on Singapore, but on the world.

Almost every accolade given to Kuan Yew has acknowledged his role in driving a tiny nation from obscurity into one of the world’s most successful economies. Article after article, and in every obituary and compliment, the success of Kuan Yew and that of Singapore – the absolute object of his passion – have been laid out for all the world to behold and, for some of us, to envy.

As Singapore’s closest neighbours, both geographically and sociopolitically, it’s hard not to notice the stark contrast between our two nations, especially in the glowing light of Kuan Yew’s tributes. Our two countries share a unique relationship in that we were once one nation that was ultimately separated by the politics of different ambitions. We had a common goal once, and our founding fathers shared the same vision for a unified, successful Malaysia.

But today, it seems that all we have in common with Singapore is a part of our history. Since its unceremonious ejection from Malaysia 50 years ago, Singapore’s dizzying rise to become one of Asia’s, and the world’s, powerhouses is impressive indeed. Wikipedia tells me that this tiny nation has the most open economy in the world, is the 7th least corrupt and has one of the highest GDPs per capita in the world. For a country of some 5 million, its top two universities have repeatedly ranked as some of the best universities in the world. Not too shabby, for what was once a backwater colonial outpost surrounded by pirate-infested waters, with no natural resources to speak of.

While Malaysia has also made strong developmental gains, it doesn’t take an economist to conclude that our country is staggering behind most of her Asian peers. Sections of Malaysia’s economy are still heavily controlled by the state, we ranked 50 out of 175 countries in the latest Corruption Perceptions Index and our real GDP per person is almost one-fifth that of Singapore’s last year. Our local universities, once the pride of the region and alma mater of some of the best talents, are now so poorly ranked, it’s almost painfully embarrassing for all of us who used to be proud to be local graduates.

That Malaysia, with her bounty of natural and human resources, has failed miserably to keep up with Singapore is a sad reflection of the policies we’ve undertaken in the last 50 years. Where one has chosen unwavering pragmatism and a merit-based administrative policy to push its nation forward, the other is still proclaiming the supposed inherent superiority of one race over others.

Singapore is able now to move beyond focusing entirely on economic policy, to addressing problems such as social mobility and a rapidly ageing society to further better the quality of life of its citizens. Malaysia seems to be obsessed with proposing-debating-and-proposing-again the implementation of hudud, instead of fighting the deeply-rooted disease of corruption and inefficiency which leads to the billions of ringgit that slip out of our country’s coffers every year.

After what has been an emotional roller-coaster for most of its citizens, Singaporeans will pick up the pieces of their grieving hearts and they will move on. As they mourn, they will do so by celebrating the legacy left by an incorruptible leader who was far from infallible, but fought for what he believed to be the best for his country.

For us in Malaysia, Kuan Yew’s death has unfortunately left many of us in a similar state of “mourning” for what-could-have-been of our nation. But similar to our southern neighbours, we, too, must pick up the pieces of our disappointed hearts and fight on. Malaysia is rich in culture and resources, and we are a uniquely passionate people. If I am to humbly disagree with one thing that Kuan Yew believed in, it would be that Malaysia would never, and can never, rise from the ashes. I know many dear, fellow Malaysians who share his sentiments. But if there’s one thing about Lee Kuan Yew I hope to learn from, it is his inexhaustible determination to make a dream come true.

So let’s play our part – never stop sounding out the wrongs regardless of political divide, and do our bit, no matter how small, to make this country as it should be. Let’s persevere in the hope of a united, prosperous Malaysia that we can all stand tall and be proud of. – March 31, 2015.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 1 April 2015, 7:00 am and is filed under
1Malaysia
,
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why Islam Needs a Reformation

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Wall Street Journal

March 20, 2015

To defeat the extremists for good, Muslims must reject those aspects of their tradition that prompt some believers to resort to oppression and holy war.

“Islam’s borders are bloody,” wrote the late political scientist Samuel Huntington in 1996, “and so are its innards.” Nearly 20 years later, Huntington looks more right than ever before. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, at least 70% of all the fatalities in armed conflicts around the world last year were in wars involving Muslims. In 2013, there were nearly 12,000 terrorist attacks world-wide. The lion’s share were in Muslim-majority countries, and many of the others were carried out by Muslims. By far the most numerous victims of Muslim violence—including executions and lynchings not captured in these statistics—are Muslims themselves.

Not all of this violence is explicitly motivated by religion, but a great deal of it is. I believe that it is foolish to insist, as Western leaders habitually do, that the violent acts committed in the name of Islam can somehow be divorced from the religion itself. For more than a decade, my message has been simple: Islam is not a religion of peace.

When I assert this, I do not mean that Islamic belief makes all Muslims violent. This is manifestly not the case: There are many millions of peaceful Muslims in the world. What I do say is that the call to violence and the justification for it are explicitly stated in the sacred texts of Islam. Moreover, this theologically sanctioned violence is there to be activated by any number of offenses, including but not limited to apostasy, adultery, blasphemy and even something as vague as threats to family honor or to the honor of Islam itself.

It is not just al Qaeda and Islamic State that show the violent face of Islamic faith and practice. It is Pakistan, where any statement critical of the Prophet or Islam is labeled as blasphemy and punishable by death. It is Saudi Arabia, where churches and synagogues are outlawed and where beheadings are a legitimate form of punishment. It is Iran, where stoning is an acceptable punishment and homosexuals are hanged for their “crime.”

As I see it, the fundamental problem is that the majority of otherwise peaceful and law-abiding Muslims are unwilling to acknowledge, much less to repudiate, the theological warrant for intolerance and violence embedded in their own religious texts. It simply will not do for Muslims to claim that their religion has been “hijacked” by extremists. The killers of Islamic State and Nigeria’s Boko Haram cite the same religious texts that every other Muslim in the world considers sacrosanct.

Instead of letting Islam off the hook with bland clichés about the religion of peace, we in the West need to challenge and debate the very substance of Islamic thought and practice. We need to hold Islam accountable for the acts of its most violent adherents and to demand that it reform or disavow the key beliefs that are used to justify those acts.

As it turns out, the West has some experience with this sort of reformist project. It is precisely what took place in Judaism and Christianity over the centuries, as both traditions gradually consigned the violent passages of their own sacred texts to the past. Many parts of the Bible and the Talmud reflect patriarchal norms, and both also contain many stories of harsh human and divine retribution. As President Barack Obama said in remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast last month, “Remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.”

Yet today, because their faiths went through a long, meaningful process of Reformation and Enlightenment, the vast majority of Jews and Christians have come to dismiss religious scripture that urges intolerance or violence. There are literalist fringes in both religions, but they are true fringes. Regrettably, in Islam, it is the other way around: It is those seeking religious reform who are the fringe element.

Any serious discussion of Islam must begin with its core creed, which is based on the Quran (the words said to have been revealed by the Angel Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammad) and the hadith (the accompanying works that detail Muhammad’s life and words). Despite some sectarian differences, this creed unites all Muslims. All, without exception, know by heart these words: “I bear witness that there is no God but Allah; and Muhammad is His messenger.” This is the Shahada, the Muslim profession of faith.

The Shahada might seem to be a declaration of belief no different from any other. But the reality is that the Shahada is both a religious and a political symbol.

In the early days of Islam, when Muhammad was going from door to door in Mecca trying to persuade the polytheists to abandon their idols of worship, he was inviting them to accept that there was no god but Allah and that he was Allah’s messenger.

After 10 years of trying this kind of persuasion, however, he and his small band of believers went to Medina, and from that moment, Muhammad’s mission took on a political dimension. Unbelievers were still invited to submit to Allah, but after Medina, they were attacked if they refused. If defeated, they were given the option to convert or to die. (Jews and Christians could retain their faith if they submitted to paying a special tax.)

No symbol represents the soul of Islam more than the Shahada. But today there is a contest within Islam for the ownership of that symbol. Who owns the Shahada? Is it those Muslims who want to emphasize Muhammad’s years in Mecca or those who are inspired by his conquests after Medina? On this basis, I believe that we can distinguish three different groups of Muslims.

The first group is the most problematic. These are the fundamentalists who, when they say the Shahada, mean: “We must live by the strict letter of our creed.” They envision a regime based on Shariah, Islamic religious law. They argue for an Islam largely or completely unchanged from its original seventh-century version. What is more, they take it as a requirement of their faith that they impose it on everyone else.

I shall call them Medina Muslims, in that they see the forcible imposition of Shariah as their religious duty. They aim not just to obey Muhammad’s teaching but also to emulate his warlike conduct after his move to Medina. Even if they do not themselves engage in violence, they do not hesitate to condone it.

It is Medina Muslims who call Jews and Christians “pigs and monkeys.” It is Medina Muslims who prescribe death for the crime of apostasy, death by stoning for adultery and hanging for homosexuality. It is Medina Muslims who put women in burqas and beat them if they leave their homes alone or if they are improperly veiled.

The second group—and the clear majority throughout the Muslim world—consists of Muslims who are loyal to the core creed and worship devoutly but are not inclined to practice violence. I call them Mecca Muslims. Like devout Christians or Jews who attend religious services every day and abide by religious rules in what they eat and wear, Mecca Muslims focus on religious observance. I was born in Somalia and raised as a Mecca Muslim. So were the majority of Muslims from Casablanca to Jakarta.

Yet the Mecca Muslims have a problem: Their religious beliefs exist in an uneasy tension with modernity—the complex of economic, cultural and political innovations that not only reshaped the Western world but also dramatically transformed the developing world as the West exported it. The rational, secular and individualistic values of modernity are fundamentally corrosive of traditional societies, especially hierarchies based on gender, age and inherited status.

Trapped between two worlds of belief and experience, these Muslims are engaged in a daily struggle to adhere to Islam in the context of a society that challenges their values and beliefs at every turn. Many are able to resolve this tension only by withdrawing into self-enclosed (and increasingly self-governing) enclaves. This is called cocooning, a practice whereby Muslim immigrants attempt to wall off outside influences, permitting only an Islamic education for their children and disengaging from the wider non-Muslim community.

It is my hope to engage this second group of Muslims—those closer to Mecca than to Medina—in a dialogue about the meaning and practice of their faith. I recognize that these Muslims are not likely to heed a call for doctrinal reformation from someone they regard as an apostate and infidel. But they may reconsider if I can persuade them to think of me not as an apostate but as a heretic: one of a growing number of people born into Islam who have sought to think critically about the faith we were raised in. It is with this third group—only a few of whom have left Islam altogether—that I would now identify myself.

These are the Muslim dissidents. A few of us have been forced by experience to conclude that we could not continue to be believers; yet we remain deeply engaged in the debate about Islam’s future. The majority of dissidents are reforming believers—among them clerics who have come to realize that their religion must change if its followers are not to be condemned to an interminable cycle of political violence.

How many Muslims belong to each group? Ed Husain of the Council on Foreign Relations estimates that only 3% of the world’s Muslims understand Islam in the militant terms I associate with Muhammad’s time in Medina. But out of well over 1.6 billion believers, or 23% of the globe’s population, that 48 million seems to be more than enough. (I would put the number significantly higher, based on survey data on attitudes toward Shariah in Muslim countries.)

In any case, regardless of the numbers, it is the Medina Muslims who have captured the world’s attention on the airwaves, over social media, in far too many mosques and, of course, on the battlefield.

The Medina Muslims pose a threat not just to non-Muslims. They also undermine the position of those Mecca Muslims attempting to lead a quiet life in their cultural cocoons throughout the Western world. But those under the greatest threat are the dissidents and reformers within Islam, who face ostracism and rejection, who must brave all manner of insults, who must deal with the death threats—or face death itself.

For the world at large, the only viable strategy for containing the threat posed by the Medina Muslims is to side with the dissidents and reformers and to help them to do two things: first, identify and repudiate those parts of Muhammad’s legacy that summon Muslims to intolerance and war, and second, persuade the great majority of believers—the Mecca Muslims—to accept this change.

Islam is at a crossroads. Muslims need to make a conscious decision to confront, debate and ultimately reject the violent elements within their religion. To some extent—not least because of widespread revulsion at the atrocities of Islamic State, al Qaeda and the rest—this process has already begun. But it needs leadership from the dissidents, and they in turn stand no chance without support from the West.

What needs to happen for us to defeat the extremists for good? Economic, political, judicial and military tools have been proposed and some of them deployed. But I believe that these will have little effect unless Islam itself is reformed.

Such a reformation has been called for repeatedly at least since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent abolition of the caliphate. But I would like to specify precisely what needs to be reformed.

I have identified five precepts central to Islam that have made it resistant to historical change and adaptation. Only when the harmfulness of these ideas are recognized and they are repudiated will a true Muslim Reformation have been achieved.

Here are the five areas that require amendment:

1. Muhammad’s semi-divine status, along with the literalist reading of the Quran.

Muhammad should not be seen as infallible, let alone as a source of divine writ. He should be seen as a historical figure who united the Arab tribes in a premodern context that cannot be replicated in the 21st century. And although Islam maintains that the Quran is the literal word of Allah, it is, in historical reality, a book that was shaped by human hands. Large parts of the Quran simply reflect the tribal values of the 7th-century Arabian context from which it emerged. The Quran’s eternal spiritual values must be separated from the cultural accidents of the place and time of its birth.

2. The supremacy of life after death.

The appeal of martyrdom will fade only when Muslims assign a greater value to the rewards of this life than to those promised in the hereafter.

3. Shariah, the vast body of religious legislation.

Muslims should learn to put the dynamic, evolving laws made by human beings above those aspects of Shariah that are violent, intolerant or anachronistic.

4. The right of individual Muslims to enforce Islamic law.

There is no room in the modern world for religious police, vigilantes and politically empowered clerics.

5. The imperative to wage jihad, or holy war.

Islam must become a true religion of peace, which means rejecting the imposition of religion by the sword.

I know that this argument will make many Muslims uncomfortable. Some are bound to be offended by my proposed amendments. Others will contend that I am not qualified to discuss these complex issues of theology and law. I am also afraid — genuinely afraid — that it will make a few Muslims even more eager to silence me.

But this is not a work of theology. It is more in the nature of a public intervention in the debate about the future of Islam. The biggest obstacle to change within the Muslim world is precisely its suppression of the sort of critical thinking I am attempting here. If my proposal for reform helps to spark a serious discussion of these issues among Muslims themselves, I will consider it a success.

Let me make two things clear. I do not seek to inspire another war on terror or extremism — violence in the name of Islam cannot be ended by military means alone. Nor am I any sort of “Islamophobe.” At various times, I myself have been all three kinds of Muslim: a fundamentalist, a cocooned believer and a dissident. My journey has gone from Mecca to Medina to Manhattan.

For me, there seemed no way to reconcile my faith with the freedoms I came to the West to embrace. I left the faith, despite the threat of the death penalty prescribed by Shariah for apostates. Future generations of Muslims deserve better, safer options. Muslims should be able to welcome modernity, not be forced to wall themselves off, or live in a state of cognitive dissonance, or lash out in violent rejection.

But it is not only Muslims who would benefit from a reformation of Islam. We in the West have an enormous stake in how the struggle over Islam plays out. We cannot remain on the sidelines, as though the outcome has nothing to do with us. For if the Medina Muslims win and the hope for a Muslim Reformation dies, the rest of the world too will pay an enormous price—not only in blood spilled but also in freedom lost.

This essay is adapted from Ms. Hirsi Ali’s new book, “Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now,” to be published Tuesday by HarperCollins. Her previous books include “Infidel” and “Nomad: From Islam to America, A Personal Journey Through the Clash of Civilizations.”

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 1 April 2015, 6:57 am and is filed under
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.