A Humane Warrior: Searching for a Saladin
By AMIR BUTLER
CounterPunch [www.counterpunch.org], 28-30 May 2005
Sir Ridley Scott's treatment of the Crusades in Kingdom of Heaven
focuses attention on a chapter of history that is barely remembered
in our societies, yet provides the prism through which Muslims view
their relations with the West.
The central storyline is mostly fictional, however the historical
backdrop is essentially accurate; with its progression from the
treaty broken by Crusader bandit-knights, to the attack on the Castle
of Kerak, and the subsequent surrender of Jerusalem to Saladin's armies.
Saladin, the 12th century Muslim ruler and vanquisher of the
Crusaders, has long been romanticized in both Muslim and non-Muslim
literature as a figure who personified bravery, chivalry and honor.
Even Dante's Divine Comedy, where history's heroes and villains are
categorised into different levels of hell, describes Saladin as
standing 'alone, apart' in the highest level afforded to non-
Christians; alongside the likes of Plato, Homer and Dante's own
guide, Vergil.
In the Muslim world, the name 'Saladin' resonates with meaning. For
this reason, his name peppers the speeches of Osama Bin Laden, and
Saddam Hussein frequently described himself as Saladin II. Saladin
is, for Muslims, the symbol of a golden age of honour and dignity;
and he is, for figures such as Saddam and Bin Laden, a useful
rhetorical device for giving legitimacy to their own causes.
Muslims revere Saladin because he was an embodiment of Islamic
principles; and non-Muslims revered him for what they saw of his
chivalry. He became a window through which the medieval world came to
see something of Islam; and he now represents a window through which
Muslims see something of their past. A past filled with acts of
kindness that seem out of place in today's dystopian world of made-
for-TV decapitations, kidnapping of engineers, and the torture of
prisoners of war.
Although he lived as a military leader at a time characterised by its
violence, Saladin could teach our contemporary leaders -- both Muslim
and non-Muslim -- something about chivalry and respect for humanity.
Whilst besieging the Castle of Kerak, on his march to Jerusalem,
Saladin learnt that a wedding ceremony was underway in a part of the
castle. He didn't make some utilitarian judgement about 'collateral
damage' and continue the attack. Rather, he ordered his soldiers to
refrain from bombarding that wing.
Whilst Crusaders had, according to reports of the time, massacred
Jews, Christians and Muslims to the point that, "our men waded in
blood up to their ankles", Saladin did not extract revenge or conduct
any of his own massacres on recapturing the city 88 years later.
Instead, he granted the Crusaders protected passage to the coast.
When Richard the Lion Heart attempted to then recapture Jerusalem, he
was confronted both by Saladin's military might and his clemency.
Despite having violated a treaty by slaughtering 3,000 men at Acre,
when Richard's horse was killed at Jaffa, Saladin sent two of his own
horses to replace it. "It is not right," he wrote. "That so brave a
warrior should have to fight on foot." When Richard fell sick during
the siege, Saladin sent his personal physician to care for him.
After his death in 1193, they did not find Swiss bank accounts of
money pilfered from his people, but an empty personal treasury;
emptied by his charity to those in need.
For Muslims, Saladin represents a moment in their history of strong
and honorable leadership in the face of tremendous opposition.
Tyrants and dictators have since misappropriated his name and legacy;
but Saladin was everything that the secular and politically emaciated
dictators of the Muslim lands are not: a leader who was powerful yet
just; victorious yet clement; and who was inspired not by a love of
power or a thirst for wealth, but by faith alone.
In the end, Saladin was victorious over the crusading armies of
Europe, but perhaps his greatest victory was not militarily, but
morally. For real victory, Saladin said, "is changing the hearts of
your opponents by gentleness and kindness."
Amir Butler is a writer based in Melbourne, Australia. He can be
reached at: amir@amirbutler.com
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Usia Timbalan-Timbalan Presiden PAS!
APA ADA PADA USIA?
Belajar dari sejarah. Sejarah mengajar kita perkara dan peristiwa yang lalu yang mampu memberikan pengajaran dan panduan untuk kita mengayun langkah berkembara di dunia yang penuh cabaran dan dugaan ini. Berjayalah mereka yang sentiasa menimba ilmu dari khazanah pengalaman silam yang tiada nilai harganya.
PAS kini telah melampaui usia 50 tahun. Lebih lima dekad berlalu, pastilah banyak pengalaman yang dapat ditimba dan dipelajari bagi mereka yang mahu belajar dari pengalaman yang lampau.
Gesaan untuk kembali menyelak sejarah lalu ini berbangkit apabila pada hari ini ada suara yang mula mahu mengenakan syarat usia bagi menentukan kelayakan seseorang itu untuk menjadi pemimpin. Usia muda dikira tidak layak kurang berpengalaman dan berbagai lagi. Benarkah demikian? Apakah sejarah dalam PAS contohnya memang mengenakan syarat sedemikian?
Almarhum Dr Burhanuddin Al Helmi
Menyertai PAS melalui jemputan AJK Kerja PAS Pusat. Tanggal 25 Disember 1956 dilantik menjadi Yang Dipertua Agung PAS (kini Presiden) pada usia 46 tahun.
Almarhum Dr Zulkifli Muhammad
Dipilih sebagai Timbalan Yang Dipertua Agung PAS (kini Timbalan Presiden) pada tahun 1956 pada usia 39 tahun.
Allahyarham Dato Asri Muda
Menjawat jawatan Timbalan Presiden PAS pada usia 41 tahun dan Presiden pada tahun 1971 ketika usianya 48 tahun
Almarhum Ustaz Fadzil Nor
Menjawat jawatan Timbalan Presiden pada usia 46 tahun
Tuan Guru Hj Abd. Hadi Awang
Timbalan Presiden: 42 tahun
Sumber: Roslan SMS
Belajar dari sejarah. Sejarah mengajar kita perkara dan peristiwa yang lalu yang mampu memberikan pengajaran dan panduan untuk kita mengayun langkah berkembara di dunia yang penuh cabaran dan dugaan ini. Berjayalah mereka yang sentiasa menimba ilmu dari khazanah pengalaman silam yang tiada nilai harganya.
PAS kini telah melampaui usia 50 tahun. Lebih lima dekad berlalu, pastilah banyak pengalaman yang dapat ditimba dan dipelajari bagi mereka yang mahu belajar dari pengalaman yang lampau.
Gesaan untuk kembali menyelak sejarah lalu ini berbangkit apabila pada hari ini ada suara yang mula mahu mengenakan syarat usia bagi menentukan kelayakan seseorang itu untuk menjadi pemimpin. Usia muda dikira tidak layak kurang berpengalaman dan berbagai lagi. Benarkah demikian? Apakah sejarah dalam PAS contohnya memang mengenakan syarat sedemikian?
Almarhum Dr Burhanuddin Al Helmi
Menyertai PAS melalui jemputan AJK Kerja PAS Pusat. Tanggal 25 Disember 1956 dilantik menjadi Yang Dipertua Agung PAS (kini Presiden) pada usia 46 tahun.
Almarhum Dr Zulkifli Muhammad
Dipilih sebagai Timbalan Yang Dipertua Agung PAS (kini Timbalan Presiden) pada tahun 1956 pada usia 39 tahun.
Allahyarham Dato Asri Muda
Menjawat jawatan Timbalan Presiden PAS pada usia 41 tahun dan Presiden pada tahun 1971 ketika usianya 48 tahun
Almarhum Ustaz Fadzil Nor
Menjawat jawatan Timbalan Presiden pada usia 46 tahun
Tuan Guru Hj Abd. Hadi Awang
Timbalan Presiden: 42 tahun
Sumber: Roslan SMS
Ringgit Peg to Stay
Malaysian PM says peg to stay after Anwar warns of economic "disaster"
KUALA LUMPUR (AFP) Monday, 30 May 2005 - Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has insisted the ringgit currency's peg to the US dollar would stay, after former deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim warned of "disastrous consequences" if it was not revalued.
"So many people have been asking for it. The peg stays on," Abdullah told reporters, adding that contrary to reports, Malaysia would not necessarily wait for a revaluation of the Chinese yuan before moving to adjust the ringgit.
"I never said we will wait for China," he said.
Anwar, who was a highly acclaimed finance minister from 1991 before being sacked by then Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad in 1998, commented on the fixed exchange rate as part of a scathing attack on the government's economic management and its record on fighting corruption.
"The Malaysian economy is not sustainable in the long-term. And partly it is because of our failure to take the necessary measures to de-peg or un-peg (the ringgit) earlier," he told a public forum on Southeast Asian political reform Sunday.
"It has to be done now, otherwise we will be rendered not only not competitive, but we will have disastrous consequences to the economy," he said.
Malaysia's bourse has been falling for three consecutive weeks, a decline analysts say is partly due to receding optimism that the government will re-peg the ringgit this year.
Hopes that an anticipated revaluation of the yuan would put pressure on the ringgit to be re-pegged faded last week after Credit Suisse First Boston said that based on meetings with senior Malaysian government officials and bankers, it believed a change was unlikely this year.
In his most hard-hitting speech against the government since his release from prison in September last year, after being convicted of corruption and sodomy, Anwar accused Malaysia's leadership of being in a "state of denial" about the health of the economy.
He said Malaysia's competitiveness was declining, along with its ability to attract foreign direct investment. Anwar also accused the government of condoning corruption, which would have run-on effects to the economy.
"There is a culture of corruption because of the failure of the leadership to deal with it," he said.
Mahathir controversially pegged the ringgit to the dollar and imposed capital controls in 1998 to insulate the country from the fallout of the financial crisis which was sweeping across Asia.
However, sharp declines in the value of the dollar have meant Malaysia's imports are now costlier, leading to calls for the ringgit to be revalued.
Abdullah said earlier this month that Malaysia would not adjust its currency peg of 3.80 ringgit to the dollar for the time being but was closely watching developments in the capital market.
KUALA LUMPUR (AFP) Monday, 30 May 2005 - Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has insisted the ringgit currency's peg to the US dollar would stay, after former deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim warned of "disastrous consequences" if it was not revalued.
"So many people have been asking for it. The peg stays on," Abdullah told reporters, adding that contrary to reports, Malaysia would not necessarily wait for a revaluation of the Chinese yuan before moving to adjust the ringgit.
"I never said we will wait for China," he said.
Anwar, who was a highly acclaimed finance minister from 1991 before being sacked by then Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad in 1998, commented on the fixed exchange rate as part of a scathing attack on the government's economic management and its record on fighting corruption.
"The Malaysian economy is not sustainable in the long-term. And partly it is because of our failure to take the necessary measures to de-peg or un-peg (the ringgit) earlier," he told a public forum on Southeast Asian political reform Sunday.
"It has to be done now, otherwise we will be rendered not only not competitive, but we will have disastrous consequences to the economy," he said.
Malaysia's bourse has been falling for three consecutive weeks, a decline analysts say is partly due to receding optimism that the government will re-peg the ringgit this year.
Hopes that an anticipated revaluation of the yuan would put pressure on the ringgit to be re-pegged faded last week after Credit Suisse First Boston said that based on meetings with senior Malaysian government officials and bankers, it believed a change was unlikely this year.
In his most hard-hitting speech against the government since his release from prison in September last year, after being convicted of corruption and sodomy, Anwar accused Malaysia's leadership of being in a "state of denial" about the health of the economy.
He said Malaysia's competitiveness was declining, along with its ability to attract foreign direct investment. Anwar also accused the government of condoning corruption, which would have run-on effects to the economy.
"There is a culture of corruption because of the failure of the leadership to deal with it," he said.
Mahathir controversially pegged the ringgit to the dollar and imposed capital controls in 1998 to insulate the country from the fallout of the financial crisis which was sweeping across Asia.
However, sharp declines in the value of the dollar have meant Malaysia's imports are now costlier, leading to calls for the ringgit to be revalued.
Abdullah said earlier this month that Malaysia would not adjust its currency peg of 3.80 ringgit to the dollar for the time being but was closely watching developments in the capital market.
Root Out This Sinister Cultural Flaw
Root out this sinister cultural flaw
Even vote-hungry politicians fail to see anti-semitism for what it is
Karen Armstrong, Wednesday April 6, 2005, The Guardian
In 1492, the year that is often said to inaugurate the modern era,
three very important events happened in Spain. In January, the Catholic
monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella conquered the city of Granada, the last
Muslim stronghold in Europe; later, Muslims were given the choice of
conversion to Christianity or exile. In March, the Jews of Spain were
also forced to choose between baptism and deportation. Finally, in
August, Christopher Columbus, a Jewish convert to Catholicism and a
protege of Ferdinand and Isabella, crossed the Atlantic and discovered
the West Indies. One of his objectives had been to find a new route to
India, where Christians could establish a military base for another
crusade against Islam. As they sailed into the new world, western
people carried a complex burden of prejudice that was central to their
identity.
Western Europe found it impossible to live side by side with people of
other faiths. Islamic Spain had been the great exception. As was
customary in the Muslim world, Jews, Christians and Muslims had
coexisted there for centuries in relative harmony. But the Catholic
monarchs brought their ingrained anti-semitism to the Iberian
peninsula, and the chief targets of their Spanish Inquisition were
Jews. Ever since the armies of the First Crusade conquered Jerusalem in
1099, Jews and Muslims had become the epitome of everything that
western Christians believed they were not.
Almost every time a pope called for a crusade to the Middle East, Jews
were attacked at home. Christians seemed to find it psychologically
impossible to accept the Jewish roots of their religion. At the same
time, Islam was stigmatised as a religion of the sword, addicted to
jihad, at a time when Christians were fighting their own brutal holy
wars. Christians blamed Muslims for giving too much power to menials
and women at a time when the social structure of Europe was deeply
hierarchical.
It would be wrong to imagine that we have left these hag-ridden
prejudices behind. They may take new forms, but even in the
post-Enlightenment era anti-semitism and Islamophobia are alive and
well. We recently witnessed the extraordinary spectacle of a government
that had proposed legislation outlawing religious hatred comparing
Michael Howard to Fagin. We also saw Ken Livingstone comparing a Jewish
reporter to a Nazi guard in a concentration camp.
We have not absorbed the lessons of the past; already - at some level
- we seem to have forgotten Auschwitz. Prince Harry found it acceptable
to go to a fancy dress party as a Nazi; is this attitude common among
the young? After the Fagin debacle, the government added insult to
injury by branding Howard a pig and a mongrel, jibes that come straight
out of Nazi propaganda, and Howard himself lost the moral high ground
by attacking the Gypsies, who were also victims of Nazi persecution.
This is a sinister development. Racial and religious stereotyping
became a chronic disease in Europe at the time of the Crusades. We
developed the habit of projecting our own fears and anxieties on to
other people, who thus became a distorted mirror image of ourselves.
This led to some of the most shameful incidents in western history.
September 11 has, perhaps inevitably, stirred up the old Islamophobia.
The action of an extremist minority has confirmed the old violent image
of Islam. The government is right to be concerned about religious
hatred; what is worrying is that it failed to connect this with its own
behaviour. These episodes are a reminder that anti-semitism is still so
ingrained in our culture that even vote-hungry politicians can fail to
see it for what it is. We cannot continue to ignore this deep cultural
flaw, which can surface in the most unexpected ways.
So entrenched is our anti-semitism that even support for the Jewish
people can be tainted by prejudice. Lord Balfour, who crafted the
declaration in favour of a Jewish homeland in 1917, had anti-semitic
feelings, which, his daughter recalled, greatly disturbed him.
Christian fundamentalists in the United States, who strongly influence
American policy in the Middle East, are also prey to anti-semitic
fantasies. They are zealous supporters of Israel, because they believe
that unless Jews are living in the Holy Land and fulfilling the ancient
prophecies, the second coming of Christ will be delayed. But the
Israelis are simply there in a "holding" capacity, because once the
last days have begun, the Antichrist will massacre them all.
We cannot ask other nations to dismantle their habits of hatred when
we fail to be aware of our own cultural bias. Muslims are well aware of
this anti-semitic strain in the Christian Zionism of the US. How can we
expect them to abandon their resentment of Israel when our own ideology
is so muddled? Why should they be impressed by our liberal culture when
we persistently cultivate an inaccurate image of Islam that has its
roots in the medieval prejudice of the crusaders? And how can Israelis
feel secure enough to make peace when they see that anti-semitism is
still rife among the British establishment?
For centuries, Jews and Muslims were the shadow-self of Europe. Sadly,
we have passed our anti-semitism to the Muslim world. Until the 20th
century, anti-semitism was not part of Islamic culture. The Qur'an
speaks respectfully of all the "people of the Book" and honours the
Jewish prophets. But now our anti-semitic mythology is one of the few
western products that Muslim extremists are happy to import. It is
another sad twist in the tragic and convoluted history of the three
religions of Abraham.
Karen Armstrong is the author of The Battle for God, A History of
Fundamentalism.
Even vote-hungry politicians fail to see anti-semitism for what it is
Karen Armstrong, Wednesday April 6, 2005, The Guardian
In 1492, the year that is often said to inaugurate the modern era,
three very important events happened in Spain. In January, the Catholic
monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella conquered the city of Granada, the last
Muslim stronghold in Europe; later, Muslims were given the choice of
conversion to Christianity or exile. In March, the Jews of Spain were
also forced to choose between baptism and deportation. Finally, in
August, Christopher Columbus, a Jewish convert to Catholicism and a
protege of Ferdinand and Isabella, crossed the Atlantic and discovered
the West Indies. One of his objectives had been to find a new route to
India, where Christians could establish a military base for another
crusade against Islam. As they sailed into the new world, western
people carried a complex burden of prejudice that was central to their
identity.
Western Europe found it impossible to live side by side with people of
other faiths. Islamic Spain had been the great exception. As was
customary in the Muslim world, Jews, Christians and Muslims had
coexisted there for centuries in relative harmony. But the Catholic
monarchs brought their ingrained anti-semitism to the Iberian
peninsula, and the chief targets of their Spanish Inquisition were
Jews. Ever since the armies of the First Crusade conquered Jerusalem in
1099, Jews and Muslims had become the epitome of everything that
western Christians believed they were not.
Almost every time a pope called for a crusade to the Middle East, Jews
were attacked at home. Christians seemed to find it psychologically
impossible to accept the Jewish roots of their religion. At the same
time, Islam was stigmatised as a religion of the sword, addicted to
jihad, at a time when Christians were fighting their own brutal holy
wars. Christians blamed Muslims for giving too much power to menials
and women at a time when the social structure of Europe was deeply
hierarchical.
It would be wrong to imagine that we have left these hag-ridden
prejudices behind. They may take new forms, but even in the
post-Enlightenment era anti-semitism and Islamophobia are alive and
well. We recently witnessed the extraordinary spectacle of a government
that had proposed legislation outlawing religious hatred comparing
Michael Howard to Fagin. We also saw Ken Livingstone comparing a Jewish
reporter to a Nazi guard in a concentration camp.
We have not absorbed the lessons of the past; already - at some level
- we seem to have forgotten Auschwitz. Prince Harry found it acceptable
to go to a fancy dress party as a Nazi; is this attitude common among
the young? After the Fagin debacle, the government added insult to
injury by branding Howard a pig and a mongrel, jibes that come straight
out of Nazi propaganda, and Howard himself lost the moral high ground
by attacking the Gypsies, who were also victims of Nazi persecution.
This is a sinister development. Racial and religious stereotyping
became a chronic disease in Europe at the time of the Crusades. We
developed the habit of projecting our own fears and anxieties on to
other people, who thus became a distorted mirror image of ourselves.
This led to some of the most shameful incidents in western history.
September 11 has, perhaps inevitably, stirred up the old Islamophobia.
The action of an extremist minority has confirmed the old violent image
of Islam. The government is right to be concerned about religious
hatred; what is worrying is that it failed to connect this with its own
behaviour. These episodes are a reminder that anti-semitism is still so
ingrained in our culture that even vote-hungry politicians can fail to
see it for what it is. We cannot continue to ignore this deep cultural
flaw, which can surface in the most unexpected ways.
So entrenched is our anti-semitism that even support for the Jewish
people can be tainted by prejudice. Lord Balfour, who crafted the
declaration in favour of a Jewish homeland in 1917, had anti-semitic
feelings, which, his daughter recalled, greatly disturbed him.
Christian fundamentalists in the United States, who strongly influence
American policy in the Middle East, are also prey to anti-semitic
fantasies. They are zealous supporters of Israel, because they believe
that unless Jews are living in the Holy Land and fulfilling the ancient
prophecies, the second coming of Christ will be delayed. But the
Israelis are simply there in a "holding" capacity, because once the
last days have begun, the Antichrist will massacre them all.
We cannot ask other nations to dismantle their habits of hatred when
we fail to be aware of our own cultural bias. Muslims are well aware of
this anti-semitic strain in the Christian Zionism of the US. How can we
expect them to abandon their resentment of Israel when our own ideology
is so muddled? Why should they be impressed by our liberal culture when
we persistently cultivate an inaccurate image of Islam that has its
roots in the medieval prejudice of the crusaders? And how can Israelis
feel secure enough to make peace when they see that anti-semitism is
still rife among the British establishment?
For centuries, Jews and Muslims were the shadow-self of Europe. Sadly,
we have passed our anti-semitism to the Muslim world. Until the 20th
century, anti-semitism was not part of Islamic culture. The Qur'an
speaks respectfully of all the "people of the Book" and honours the
Jewish prophets. But now our anti-semitic mythology is one of the few
western products that Muslim extremists are happy to import. It is
another sad twist in the tragic and convoluted history of the three
religions of Abraham.
Karen Armstrong is the author of The Battle for God, A History of
Fundamentalism.
Law and Politics: A Personal Perspective
Law and Politics: A Personal Perspective
Anwar Ibrahim, Senior Associate Member, St. Antony’s College, Oxford
University, former Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister of
Malaysia, at the plenary session, Lawasia Conference 2005, Gold Coast,
Queensland, 22 March, 2005.
Let me begin by expressing my profound gratitude to Law Asia for their
unflinching support for the cause of justice and the rule of law. May I
take this opportunity again to commend my legal team represented here
today by Chris Fernando for their sacrifice and dedication. If I could
manage such legal luminaries in my legal team, with all their
idiosyncrasies, I believe I’ve passed a very important acid test.
But still when I walked in just now I was struck by a certain sense of
déjà vu. The last time I addressed a gathering of lawyers as big as
this was in Kuala Lumpur 10 years ago. On that occasion, I had said in
passing that there were only two kinds of lawyers: those who know the
law, and those who know the judge.
I assure you this was no laughing matter then. Obviously the cap fitted
some of our judges. And as fate would have it, one particular person
ended up presiding in my appeal against my so called corruption
conviction. And of course the outcome was a foregone conclusion.
The discourse on legal philosophy is said to have started from two
short dialogues in Socratic circles. One dialogue shows the fate that
awaits those philosophers who define law as mere decrees regardless of
their moral content. One philosopher says that laws are commands of the
sovereign and it doesn’t matter whether they are just or unjust. The
other philosopher tells him that unjust laws are nothing but brute
force.
I say this not because six years of incarceration have transformed me
into a jurist much less a philosopher. I say this because six years,
well it’s actually eight years including the two spent much earlier;
so, all these years behind bars, have made me realise what it’s like to
be at the receiving end of unjust laws administered by unjust
politicians. The earlier charge sheet was long but there was to be no
trial. There was no need for a defence lawyer because I wasn’t going to
be given the opportunity to make my case and get myself out. I was put
there pursuant to an executive order signed by the Minister of Home
Affairs. This was my first real experience of the interplay of law and
politics: the law was unjust and the politics was expedient. But
nothing in that two-year detention had prepared me for the events of
September 2, 1998.
On that fateful night, a gang of commandos armed with assault rifles
stormed into my house while I was holding a peaceful press conference
witnessed by thousands of friends and supporters. This was the
interchange of law and politics acted out with frightening precision in
a combination of brute force and sheer political power. These events
were not played out in some tin pot dictatorship. They were played out
in a country consistently touted as a democracy with all its trappings
including a written constitution which guarantees fundamental liberties
and the due process of law. In one fell swoop, the might of the law
banished me from the halls of power into the confines of solitary
incarceration. Yet, in the silence of the cold and damp nights,
loneliness and despondence often gave way to contemplation of the
larger questions of life.
Questions more urgent and more compelling such as why should a fourteen
year old boy be kept in prison awaiting trial just for stealing a few
cans of sardine from a supermarket? Or why should another human being
be whipped simply because he had worked in the country without a
permit? Then there were other pressing issues and events that were
unfolding in the world outside.
In today’s account therefore, I just want to share with you my personal
perspective of the subject at hand without feelings of resentment,
anger, bitterness or animosity.
The Interplay of Law and Politics
Let us for the moment equate law with the judiciary and politics with
the executive. We know that in theory the two are independent of each
other. We also know that in practice, at least in certain jurisdictions
that I am familiar with, the indiscriminate interplay of law and
politics may produce dire consequences. True, too much judicial
activism may lead to charges of illegitimate usurpation of legislative
power. But too little activism may well give rise to an emasculated
judiciary where politicians impose their will on judges in order to
perpetuate their own hold on power. Perhaps the language that I’ve used
here is a bit strong. So instead of calling it emasculation of the
judiciary let me rephrase it as the “abdication of judicial
responsibility.”
When the law is subjugated to the tyranny of politics, the
administration of justice becomes both farcical and perverse. And the
consequences are harsh and cruel. In a true democracy, the use of
judicial high handedness to bring down a political opponent can be
checked by a transparent court system and a process of accountability.
In a dictatorship masquerading as a democracy, however, where the
judges are subservient to the political masters, judicial
highhandedness is given free rein and transparency is conspicuous by
its absence. Those prosecuted for political reasons are thus condemned
even before the trial begins. Instead of being the ultimate guardians
of our liberty from executive tyranny, the judiciary is then
transformed into principals in the destruction of the very process they
were entrusted to protect. I say this not so much to inculpate judges
per se, but rather as an indictment against those politicians who are
so obsessed with holding on to power that they won’t think twice about
destroying the foundations of judicial independence.
This goes to the root of the problem. If only the judges who had been
assigned to try me for the spurious charges that were leveled had acted
according to the dictates of law and not the dictates of men, then this
entire farcical episode would not have happened.
Take for instance, the corruption charge. The axiom goes that judgments
must be based solely and entirely on factual evidence tested through
the rigours of an adversarial system. But when the trial judge insists
on disallowing relevant evidence crucial to establishing my defence
while at the same time allowing spurious hear-say evidence from the
prosecution, the evidence gathering process is so flawed that that
alone should occasion a serious miscarriage of justice.
And then when lawyers adduce overwhelming evidence of the Public
Prosecutor’s office actively attempting to induce certain parties to
fabricate evidence against the accused; Instead of the prosecutors
being called to account, the judge threatens and in fact did carry out
his threat by throwing lawyers into jail for contempt.
Free judiciary
Perhaps I am being rather self-centred here because the implications go
further than me. Indeed, the undermining of judicial independence by
political interference has negative repercussions not only on society
at large but on the nation as a whole. An independent judiciary on the
other hand will be an effective bulwark against the arbitrariness of
executive action. For instance, Malaysia’s Internal Security Act still
continues to be used arbitrarily against those seen as possible threats
to the ruling elite. The efficacy of the habeas corpus legislation with
its noble intentions has been consistently thwarted by compliant
judges. And now the current war on terrorism, has taken on an adverse
dimension with some countries enacting legislation which impinges on
basic human rights. It is a great tragedy that countries that have
consistently espoused and embraced such universal values could in a
moment of desperation succumb to such draconian measures at the altar
of security.
Furthermore, judges who decide according to the dictates of the
invisible hand (and I’m not referring to the invisible hand of Adam
Smith), these judges also exert a toll on the nation’s business
environment for very often the inability to assert independence seems
to be inversely proportional to the degree of integrity. Like I’ve said
before, not only must judges display the requisite level of competence
and expertise, they must be above suspicion. And where judges are not
seen to be absolutely above board, the establishment of equity and fair
play in commercial and economic deliberations will be largely illusory.
This would also partly explain why Malaysia continues to occupy dismal
positions in the corruption index.
In Asia, unlike Europe and the Americas there is no regional court of
human rights where aggrieved parties can take their cases for review.
In Africa, there is a Human Rights Commission but not a court. Until
there is a similar mechanism set up in Asia I would like to urge this
conference to consider activating the proposed Asia Pacific Commission
of Justice.
As regards to my recent acquittal by the Federal Court, ie. Malaysia’s
highest court of the land, there are some who see this as an
exoneration for the Malaysian judiciary; that indeed, the decision is a
clear testimony that judges in Malaysia are now finally able to decide
without fear or favour. I wish I could agree with this view, but the
reality suggest otherwise. As the saying goes, one swallow does not
make a summer.
Likewise, an acquittal for one man is no vindication of the entire
judiciary.
For Malaysia, let me be as bold as to suggest that a complete overhaul
of the judiciary and the legal service is warranted.
This revamping must be guided by the ultimate aim of restoring full
independence to the judiciary in order to give effect to the doctrine
of the separation of powers.
The Rule of Law
As power and authority are predicated on the rule of law which, to my
mind, is the use of law to curb the abuse of law-making power, laws
must meet the criterion of justness. If laws are manifestly unjust then
the rule of law itself is in jeopardy. As society matures, the people's
expectations of the moral dimension of justice is greater. According to
John Rawls, every individual possesses rights founded on justice which
are inviolable. Laws and institutions, no matter how efficient and well
arranged, must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust.
In my humble view, the polemics on law and politics will be mere
philosophizing if it is bereft of this issue of justice. The idea of
justice to man is so central that no society is devoid of its
conception. Whole societies have been stirred into action in the
pursuit of justice and good governance, overthrowing colonial powers
and foreign oppressors. But even today, more than half a century after
independence, these societies continue to fight oppression from within.
They continue to fight the tyranny of autocratic rule, a tyranny
characterised by the rule of men, and not the rule of law. They
continue to fight a dictatorship which bears all the trappings of
democracy but which remains corrupt and self-serving at the core. And
until the holders of the people’s trust finally regard that power and
authority are but duty and obligation and not right and privilege, this
battle for justice will rage on.
Conclusion
In the final analysis, lawyers and judges constitute one of the crucial
institutions of civil society where there are constitutional safeguards
for the protection of the people's civil rights and liberties. But it
has been said that when men are pure laws are useless. When men are
corrupt, laws are broken. Perhaps, it will be appropriate for me to end
with the words of the great humanist Henry Thoreau who said that the
law will never make men free. It is men who have got to make the law
free.
Thank you.
Anwar Ibrahim, Senior Associate Member, St. Antony’s College, Oxford
University, former Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister of
Malaysia, at the plenary session, Lawasia Conference 2005, Gold Coast,
Queensland, 22 March, 2005.
Let me begin by expressing my profound gratitude to Law Asia for their
unflinching support for the cause of justice and the rule of law. May I
take this opportunity again to commend my legal team represented here
today by Chris Fernando for their sacrifice and dedication. If I could
manage such legal luminaries in my legal team, with all their
idiosyncrasies, I believe I’ve passed a very important acid test.
But still when I walked in just now I was struck by a certain sense of
déjà vu. The last time I addressed a gathering of lawyers as big as
this was in Kuala Lumpur 10 years ago. On that occasion, I had said in
passing that there were only two kinds of lawyers: those who know the
law, and those who know the judge.
I assure you this was no laughing matter then. Obviously the cap fitted
some of our judges. And as fate would have it, one particular person
ended up presiding in my appeal against my so called corruption
conviction. And of course the outcome was a foregone conclusion.
The discourse on legal philosophy is said to have started from two
short dialogues in Socratic circles. One dialogue shows the fate that
awaits those philosophers who define law as mere decrees regardless of
their moral content. One philosopher says that laws are commands of the
sovereign and it doesn’t matter whether they are just or unjust. The
other philosopher tells him that unjust laws are nothing but brute
force.
I say this not because six years of incarceration have transformed me
into a jurist much less a philosopher. I say this because six years,
well it’s actually eight years including the two spent much earlier;
so, all these years behind bars, have made me realise what it’s like to
be at the receiving end of unjust laws administered by unjust
politicians. The earlier charge sheet was long but there was to be no
trial. There was no need for a defence lawyer because I wasn’t going to
be given the opportunity to make my case and get myself out. I was put
there pursuant to an executive order signed by the Minister of Home
Affairs. This was my first real experience of the interplay of law and
politics: the law was unjust and the politics was expedient. But
nothing in that two-year detention had prepared me for the events of
September 2, 1998.
On that fateful night, a gang of commandos armed with assault rifles
stormed into my house while I was holding a peaceful press conference
witnessed by thousands of friends and supporters. This was the
interchange of law and politics acted out with frightening precision in
a combination of brute force and sheer political power. These events
were not played out in some tin pot dictatorship. They were played out
in a country consistently touted as a democracy with all its trappings
including a written constitution which guarantees fundamental liberties
and the due process of law. In one fell swoop, the might of the law
banished me from the halls of power into the confines of solitary
incarceration. Yet, in the silence of the cold and damp nights,
loneliness and despondence often gave way to contemplation of the
larger questions of life.
Questions more urgent and more compelling such as why should a fourteen
year old boy be kept in prison awaiting trial just for stealing a few
cans of sardine from a supermarket? Or why should another human being
be whipped simply because he had worked in the country without a
permit? Then there were other pressing issues and events that were
unfolding in the world outside.
In today’s account therefore, I just want to share with you my personal
perspective of the subject at hand without feelings of resentment,
anger, bitterness or animosity.
The Interplay of Law and Politics
Let us for the moment equate law with the judiciary and politics with
the executive. We know that in theory the two are independent of each
other. We also know that in practice, at least in certain jurisdictions
that I am familiar with, the indiscriminate interplay of law and
politics may produce dire consequences. True, too much judicial
activism may lead to charges of illegitimate usurpation of legislative
power. But too little activism may well give rise to an emasculated
judiciary where politicians impose their will on judges in order to
perpetuate their own hold on power. Perhaps the language that I’ve used
here is a bit strong. So instead of calling it emasculation of the
judiciary let me rephrase it as the “abdication of judicial
responsibility.”
When the law is subjugated to the tyranny of politics, the
administration of justice becomes both farcical and perverse. And the
consequences are harsh and cruel. In a true democracy, the use of
judicial high handedness to bring down a political opponent can be
checked by a transparent court system and a process of accountability.
In a dictatorship masquerading as a democracy, however, where the
judges are subservient to the political masters, judicial
highhandedness is given free rein and transparency is conspicuous by
its absence. Those prosecuted for political reasons are thus condemned
even before the trial begins. Instead of being the ultimate guardians
of our liberty from executive tyranny, the judiciary is then
transformed into principals in the destruction of the very process they
were entrusted to protect. I say this not so much to inculpate judges
per se, but rather as an indictment against those politicians who are
so obsessed with holding on to power that they won’t think twice about
destroying the foundations of judicial independence.
This goes to the root of the problem. If only the judges who had been
assigned to try me for the spurious charges that were leveled had acted
according to the dictates of law and not the dictates of men, then this
entire farcical episode would not have happened.
Take for instance, the corruption charge. The axiom goes that judgments
must be based solely and entirely on factual evidence tested through
the rigours of an adversarial system. But when the trial judge insists
on disallowing relevant evidence crucial to establishing my defence
while at the same time allowing spurious hear-say evidence from the
prosecution, the evidence gathering process is so flawed that that
alone should occasion a serious miscarriage of justice.
And then when lawyers adduce overwhelming evidence of the Public
Prosecutor’s office actively attempting to induce certain parties to
fabricate evidence against the accused; Instead of the prosecutors
being called to account, the judge threatens and in fact did carry out
his threat by throwing lawyers into jail for contempt.
Free judiciary
Perhaps I am being rather self-centred here because the implications go
further than me. Indeed, the undermining of judicial independence by
political interference has negative repercussions not only on society
at large but on the nation as a whole. An independent judiciary on the
other hand will be an effective bulwark against the arbitrariness of
executive action. For instance, Malaysia’s Internal Security Act still
continues to be used arbitrarily against those seen as possible threats
to the ruling elite. The efficacy of the habeas corpus legislation with
its noble intentions has been consistently thwarted by compliant
judges. And now the current war on terrorism, has taken on an adverse
dimension with some countries enacting legislation which impinges on
basic human rights. It is a great tragedy that countries that have
consistently espoused and embraced such universal values could in a
moment of desperation succumb to such draconian measures at the altar
of security.
Furthermore, judges who decide according to the dictates of the
invisible hand (and I’m not referring to the invisible hand of Adam
Smith), these judges also exert a toll on the nation’s business
environment for very often the inability to assert independence seems
to be inversely proportional to the degree of integrity. Like I’ve said
before, not only must judges display the requisite level of competence
and expertise, they must be above suspicion. And where judges are not
seen to be absolutely above board, the establishment of equity and fair
play in commercial and economic deliberations will be largely illusory.
This would also partly explain why Malaysia continues to occupy dismal
positions in the corruption index.
In Asia, unlike Europe and the Americas there is no regional court of
human rights where aggrieved parties can take their cases for review.
In Africa, there is a Human Rights Commission but not a court. Until
there is a similar mechanism set up in Asia I would like to urge this
conference to consider activating the proposed Asia Pacific Commission
of Justice.
As regards to my recent acquittal by the Federal Court, ie. Malaysia’s
highest court of the land, there are some who see this as an
exoneration for the Malaysian judiciary; that indeed, the decision is a
clear testimony that judges in Malaysia are now finally able to decide
without fear or favour. I wish I could agree with this view, but the
reality suggest otherwise. As the saying goes, one swallow does not
make a summer.
Likewise, an acquittal for one man is no vindication of the entire
judiciary.
For Malaysia, let me be as bold as to suggest that a complete overhaul
of the judiciary and the legal service is warranted.
This revamping must be guided by the ultimate aim of restoring full
independence to the judiciary in order to give effect to the doctrine
of the separation of powers.
The Rule of Law
As power and authority are predicated on the rule of law which, to my
mind, is the use of law to curb the abuse of law-making power, laws
must meet the criterion of justness. If laws are manifestly unjust then
the rule of law itself is in jeopardy. As society matures, the people's
expectations of the moral dimension of justice is greater. According to
John Rawls, every individual possesses rights founded on justice which
are inviolable. Laws and institutions, no matter how efficient and well
arranged, must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust.
In my humble view, the polemics on law and politics will be mere
philosophizing if it is bereft of this issue of justice. The idea of
justice to man is so central that no society is devoid of its
conception. Whole societies have been stirred into action in the
pursuit of justice and good governance, overthrowing colonial powers
and foreign oppressors. But even today, more than half a century after
independence, these societies continue to fight oppression from within.
They continue to fight the tyranny of autocratic rule, a tyranny
characterised by the rule of men, and not the rule of law. They
continue to fight a dictatorship which bears all the trappings of
democracy but which remains corrupt and self-serving at the core. And
until the holders of the people’s trust finally regard that power and
authority are but duty and obligation and not right and privilege, this
battle for justice will rage on.
Conclusion
In the final analysis, lawyers and judges constitute one of the crucial
institutions of civil society where there are constitutional safeguards
for the protection of the people's civil rights and liberties. But it
has been said that when men are pure laws are useless. When men are
corrupt, laws are broken. Perhaps, it will be appropriate for me to end
with the words of the great humanist Henry Thoreau who said that the
law will never make men free. It is men who have got to make the law
free.
Thank you.
Long Fight Back for Malaysia's Invisible Man
Long fight back for Malaysia's invisible man
Simon Tisdall
Tuesday May 31, 2005, The Guardian
Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysia's leading opposition figure, launched a
series of rallies and speeches across the country at the weekend -
but you would not know it from reading the newspapers.
An establishment politician turned pro-democracy "icon" who was
beaten and jailed by the government of the former prime minister
Mahathir Mohamad, Anwar drew an estimated crowd of 10,000 people in
Penang. Up to 40,000 were expected in northern Kedah yesterday.
But most Malaysians are unaware of Anwar's travelling reform
campaign. The media blackout is total. Officially, he is Malaysia's
invisible man.
Interviewed at his home in Kuala Lumpur, Anwar said Abdullah Ahmad
Badawi, Dr Mahathir's successor, had ordered the gag.
"Editors tell me it is the personal instruction of the prime minister
that you should not report or mention Anwar at all," he said.
Various reasons had been given, all of them preposterous, he said.
"I'm a threat to the nation, a threat to security, I will split the
Malays ... Actually, they don't try to justify it. It's brute force."
Editors would be quietly removed, advertising withdrawn, or
publishing licences withheld if newspapers disobeyed. That was
typical of the roundabout way repression worked in Malaysia, he
suggested.
Leaders of Umno, the main ruling party, say that Anwar, who was
deputy prime minister and heir apparent before an explosive falling-
out in 1998, no longer matters.
But such indifference hardly squares with tight restrictions on his
political activities, media gags, continuous surveillance - and the
big turnouts for the "illegal" rallies organised, by word of mouth,
by his People's Justice party (PKR), led by his wife, Wan Azizah Wan
Ismail.
The PKR is pushing for tougher anti-corruption measures, economic and
electoral reforms, an end to detention without charge, judicial and
media independence, and a reversal of institutionalised workplace and
educational discrimination against Chinese and Indian minorities.
Western governments that criticised Anwar's trial view current
tensions as an internal matter. A diplomat said it was misleading to
see him as "some sort of white knight" and pointed to inconsistencies
between his present stance and his time in office.
But such attitudes were another example of denial, Anwar said.
"People in the west say Malaysia is a moderate Islamic country, there
are no bombings, it's a democracy. And they are fearful of the
Islamic parties. So they think it is safer to deal with Umno.
"But how do you have moderation and democracy when there are no basic
rights? This is a very repressive system but repressive mostly
without violence. It is civilised repression. It was learned from the
British."
Corruption was endemic, unemployment was rising, police abuses went
unchecked, foreign investment was declining and the country's
democratic institutions, dominated by Umno since independence, were
dangerously weak, he said. Without reforms, Malaysia could become all
the things the west most feared.
Some Malaysians believe Anwar blew his chances in 1998. Others are
waiting for him to emerge from the shadows. He is exploring a common
platform with opposition and Islamic groups. He still has allies
inside Umno and among Malaysia's numerous royal families.
But the road back after six years in jail and a current period of
recuperation and study in the US and Britain will be tough.
"He's in a weak position right now," a western diplomatic source
said. "He is well aware that if he wants to come back to power, he
can only do so through Umno."
Beyond the haze of official harassment and obfuscation, two things
seem clear. One is that given a level playing field, Anwar can still
hope to lead his country one day. The second is that Malaysia will
eventually be forced to embrace the reformasi agenda he espouses.
The question is whether he is up for a fight that could lead him back
to jail, to a deal with ruling party modernisers or to a Ukraine-
style popular insurgency before the 2008 election.
"He's our hero," said Amien Rais, a leader of Indonesia's 1998
democratic constitutional revolution. "I hope in three or four years
we will see him in a different position."
Anwar vows to return. "I am a Malaysian. This is my home," he told
supporters in Kuala Lumpur on Sunday. "I shall be back."
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
Simon Tisdall
Tuesday May 31, 2005, The Guardian
Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysia's leading opposition figure, launched a
series of rallies and speeches across the country at the weekend -
but you would not know it from reading the newspapers.
An establishment politician turned pro-democracy "icon" who was
beaten and jailed by the government of the former prime minister
Mahathir Mohamad, Anwar drew an estimated crowd of 10,000 people in
Penang. Up to 40,000 were expected in northern Kedah yesterday.
But most Malaysians are unaware of Anwar's travelling reform
campaign. The media blackout is total. Officially, he is Malaysia's
invisible man.
Interviewed at his home in Kuala Lumpur, Anwar said Abdullah Ahmad
Badawi, Dr Mahathir's successor, had ordered the gag.
"Editors tell me it is the personal instruction of the prime minister
that you should not report or mention Anwar at all," he said.
Various reasons had been given, all of them preposterous, he said.
"I'm a threat to the nation, a threat to security, I will split the
Malays ... Actually, they don't try to justify it. It's brute force."
Editors would be quietly removed, advertising withdrawn, or
publishing licences withheld if newspapers disobeyed. That was
typical of the roundabout way repression worked in Malaysia, he
suggested.
Leaders of Umno, the main ruling party, say that Anwar, who was
deputy prime minister and heir apparent before an explosive falling-
out in 1998, no longer matters.
But such indifference hardly squares with tight restrictions on his
political activities, media gags, continuous surveillance - and the
big turnouts for the "illegal" rallies organised, by word of mouth,
by his People's Justice party (PKR), led by his wife, Wan Azizah Wan
Ismail.
The PKR is pushing for tougher anti-corruption measures, economic and
electoral reforms, an end to detention without charge, judicial and
media independence, and a reversal of institutionalised workplace and
educational discrimination against Chinese and Indian minorities.
Western governments that criticised Anwar's trial view current
tensions as an internal matter. A diplomat said it was misleading to
see him as "some sort of white knight" and pointed to inconsistencies
between his present stance and his time in office.
But such attitudes were another example of denial, Anwar said.
"People in the west say Malaysia is a moderate Islamic country, there
are no bombings, it's a democracy. And they are fearful of the
Islamic parties. So they think it is safer to deal with Umno.
"But how do you have moderation and democracy when there are no basic
rights? This is a very repressive system but repressive mostly
without violence. It is civilised repression. It was learned from the
British."
Corruption was endemic, unemployment was rising, police abuses went
unchecked, foreign investment was declining and the country's
democratic institutions, dominated by Umno since independence, were
dangerously weak, he said. Without reforms, Malaysia could become all
the things the west most feared.
Some Malaysians believe Anwar blew his chances in 1998. Others are
waiting for him to emerge from the shadows. He is exploring a common
platform with opposition and Islamic groups. He still has allies
inside Umno and among Malaysia's numerous royal families.
But the road back after six years in jail and a current period of
recuperation and study in the US and Britain will be tough.
"He's in a weak position right now," a western diplomatic source
said. "He is well aware that if he wants to come back to power, he
can only do so through Umno."
Beyond the haze of official harassment and obfuscation, two things
seem clear. One is that given a level playing field, Anwar can still
hope to lead his country one day. The second is that Malaysia will
eventually be forced to embrace the reformasi agenda he espouses.
The question is whether he is up for a fight that could lead him back
to jail, to a deal with ruling party modernisers or to a Ukraine-
style popular insurgency before the 2008 election.
"He's our hero," said Amien Rais, a leader of Indonesia's 1998
democratic constitutional revolution. "I hope in three or four years
we will see him in a different position."
Anwar vows to return. "I am a Malaysian. This is my home," he told
supporters in Kuala Lumpur on Sunday. "I shall be back."
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
Monday, May 30, 2005
Kemiskinan di Merbok
Kemiskinan di Parlimen Merbok: JKKK, Penghulu pilih kasih agih bantuan
Friday, May 27 2005
Oleh Salmiyah Harun
KUALA LUMPUR, 27 Mei (Hrkh) - Presiden Teras Pengupayaan Melayu (Teras), Mohd Azmi Abdul Hamid akur sememangnya wujud sikap pilih kasih di kalangan penghulu dan Jawatankuasa Kampung di kawasan Parlimen Merbok dalam pengagihan dan penyenaraian nama untuk bantuan.
Beliau berkata, pihaknya juga ada menerima aduan dari kalangan penduduk miskin di parlimen itu yang tidak berpuas hati kerana mereka tidak diberi perhatian.
"Saya tidak menafikan rungutan memang wujud, penduduk kena menghadapi beberapa halangan, malah ada yang rasa tersisih kerana tidak mendapat apa yang diminta dan sesuatu yang diminta pula dipanjangkan permohonan bahkan berakhir begitu sahaja," katanya semasa dihubungi.
Beliau berkata demikian mengulas satu kajian sekumpulan penyelidik Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) terhadap masalah kemiskinan di kawasan Parlimen Merbok, Kedah mendapati wujud sikap pilih kasih di kalangan penghulu dan Jawatankuasa Kemajuan dan Keselamatan Kampung (JKKK) dalam pengagihan serta penyenaraian nama untuk bantuan.
Beliau juga mendakwa, JKKK sememangnya tidak ada sikap ingin mengambil tahu apa yang berlaku kepada pelajar-pelajar sekolah di kawasan mereka bahkan JKK juga tidak mengetahui jumlah pelajar yang akan menduduki peperiksaan.
"Bagi pelajar miskin di mana mereka boleh dapatkan duit untuk bayaran peperiksaan dan yuran sekolah begitu juga nasib ibu tunggal juga kurang diberi perhatian," jelas beliau.
Azmi yang merupakan anak tempatan, berkata, Teras juga pernah membuat kajian rambang bagi setaip khariah tentang projek pembangunan yang tidak dilaksanakan untuk penduduk di kawasan Merbok.
"Memang tidak dapat dinafikan wujudnya sikap pilih kasih di kalangan JKKK berdasarkan komponen maklumat yang diperolehi daripada kajian rambang itu," tegasnya.
Friday, May 27 2005
Oleh Salmiyah Harun
KUALA LUMPUR, 27 Mei (Hrkh) - Presiden Teras Pengupayaan Melayu (Teras), Mohd Azmi Abdul Hamid akur sememangnya wujud sikap pilih kasih di kalangan penghulu dan Jawatankuasa Kampung di kawasan Parlimen Merbok dalam pengagihan dan penyenaraian nama untuk bantuan.
Beliau berkata, pihaknya juga ada menerima aduan dari kalangan penduduk miskin di parlimen itu yang tidak berpuas hati kerana mereka tidak diberi perhatian.
"Saya tidak menafikan rungutan memang wujud, penduduk kena menghadapi beberapa halangan, malah ada yang rasa tersisih kerana tidak mendapat apa yang diminta dan sesuatu yang diminta pula dipanjangkan permohonan bahkan berakhir begitu sahaja," katanya semasa dihubungi.
Beliau berkata demikian mengulas satu kajian sekumpulan penyelidik Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) terhadap masalah kemiskinan di kawasan Parlimen Merbok, Kedah mendapati wujud sikap pilih kasih di kalangan penghulu dan Jawatankuasa Kemajuan dan Keselamatan Kampung (JKKK) dalam pengagihan serta penyenaraian nama untuk bantuan.
Beliau juga mendakwa, JKKK sememangnya tidak ada sikap ingin mengambil tahu apa yang berlaku kepada pelajar-pelajar sekolah di kawasan mereka bahkan JKK juga tidak mengetahui jumlah pelajar yang akan menduduki peperiksaan.
"Bagi pelajar miskin di mana mereka boleh dapatkan duit untuk bayaran peperiksaan dan yuran sekolah begitu juga nasib ibu tunggal juga kurang diberi perhatian," jelas beliau.
Azmi yang merupakan anak tempatan, berkata, Teras juga pernah membuat kajian rambang bagi setaip khariah tentang projek pembangunan yang tidak dilaksanakan untuk penduduk di kawasan Merbok.
"Memang tidak dapat dinafikan wujudnya sikap pilih kasih di kalangan JKKK berdasarkan komponen maklumat yang diperolehi daripada kajian rambang itu," tegasnya.
Using Oil Wealth To Help The Poor
Chávez leads the way
In using oil wealth to help the poor, Venezuela's leader is an
example to Latin America
Richard Gott in Caracas
Monday May 30, 2005, The Guardian
A muddy path leads off the airport motorway into one of the small
impoverished villages that perch on the hills above Caracas, a
permanent reminder of the immense gulf between rich and poor that
characterises oil-rich Venezuela. Only 20 minutes from the heart of
the capital city a tiny community of 500 families lives in makeshift
dwellings with tin roofs and rough breeze-block walls. They have
water and electricity and television, but not much else. The old
school buildings have collapsed into ruin, and no children have
received lessons over the past two years.
Two Cuban doctors are established in a temporary surgery here on the
main track. They point out that preventative medicine is difficult to
practise in a zone where the old clay sewer pipes are cracked and
useless, leaving the effluent to flow unchecked down the hillside.
The older inhabitants have been here for years; they first came from
the country to take root on these steep hillsides in the 1960s. Many
are morose and despairing, unable to imagine that their lives could
ever change.
Others are more motivated and upbeat, and have enrolled in the ranks
of the Bolivarian revolution of President Hugo Chávez. They expect
great things from this government, and are mobilised to demand that
official attention be focused on their village. If their petition to
the mayor to repair their school and sewer pipes does not get
answered soon, they will descend from their mountain eyrie to block
the motorway, as they once did before during the attempted coup
d'état of April 2002.
Hundreds of similar shanty towns surround Caracas, and many have
already begun to turn the corner. In some places, the doctors brought
in from Cuba are working in newly built premises, providing eye
treatment and dentistry as well as medicines. Nearly 20,000 doctors
are now spread around this country of 25 million people. New
supermarkets have sprung up where food, much of it home-produced, is
available at subsidised prices. Classrooms have been built where
school dropouts are corralled back into study. Yet it is good to
start with the difficulties faced by the motorway village, since its
plight serves to emphasise how long and difficult is the road ahead.
"Making poverty history" in Venezuela is not a simple matter of
making money available; it involves a revolutionary process of
destroying ancient institutions that stand in the way of progress,
and creating new ones responsive to popular demands.
Something amazing has been taking place in Latin America in recent
years that deserves wider attention than the continent has been
accustomed to attract. The chrysalis of the Venezuelan revolution led
by Chávez, often attacked and derided as the incoherent vision of an
authoritarian leader, has finally emerged as a resplendent butterfly
whose image and example will radiate for decades to come.
Most of the reports about this revolution over the past six years, at
home and abroad, have been uniquely hostile, heavily influenced by
politicians and journalists associated with the opposition. It is as
if news of the French or the Russian revolutions had been supplied
solely by the courtiers of the king and the tsar. These criticisms
have been echoed by senior US figures, from the president downwards,
creating a negative framework within which the revolution has
inevitably been viewed. At best, Chávez is seen as outdated and
populist. At worst, he is considered a military dictator in the making.
Yet the wheel of history rolls on, and the atmosphere in Venezuela
has changed dramatically since last year when Chávez won yet another
overwhelming victory at the polls. The once triumphalist opposition
has retired bruised to its tent, wounded perhaps mortally by the
outcome of the referendum on Chávez's presidency that it called for
and then resoundingly lost. The viciously hostile media has calmed
down, and those who don't like Chávez have abandoned their hopes of
his immediate overthrow. No one is any doubt that he will win next
year's presidential election.
The Chávez government, for its part, has forged ahead with various
spectacular social projects, assisted by the huge jump in oil prices,
from $10 to $50 a barrel over the past six years. Instead of gushing
into the coffers of the already wealthy, the oil pipelines have been
picked up and directed into the shanty towns, funding health,
education and cheap food. Foreign leaders from Spain and Brazil,
Chile and Cuba, have come on pilgrimage to Caracas to establish links
with the man now perceived as the leader of new emerging forces in
Latin America, with popularity ratings to match. This extensive
external support has stymied the plans of the US government to rally
the countries of Latin America against Venezuela. They are not
listening, and Washington is left without a policy.
Chávez himself, a youthful former army colonel of 51, is now
perceived in Latin America as the most unusual and original political
figure to have emerged since Fidel Castro broke on to the scene
nearly 50 years ago. With huge charm and charisma, he has an infinite
capacity to relate to the poor and marginal population of the
continent. A largely self-educated intellectual, the ideology of his
Bolivarian revolution is based on the writings and actions of a
handful of exemplary figures from the 19th century, most notably
Simón Bolívar, the man who liberated most of South America from
Spanish rule. Chávez offers a cultural as well as a political
alternative to the prevailing US-inspired model that dominates Latin
America.
So, what does his Bolivarian revolution consist of? He is friendly
with Castro - indeed, they are close allies - yet he is no out-of-
fashion state socialist. Capitalism is alive and well in Venezuela -
and secure. There have been no illegal land seizures, no
nationalisations of private companies. Chávez seeks to curb the
excesses of what he terms "savage neo-liberalism", and he wants the
state to play an intelligent and enabling role in the economy, but he
has no desire to crush small businesses, as has happened in Cuba.
International oil companies have fallen over themselves to provide
fresh investment, even after the government increased the royalties
that they have to pay. Venezuela remains a golden goose that cannot
be ignored.
What is undoubtedly old fashioned about Chávez is his ability to talk
about race and class, subjects once fashionable that have long been
taboo, and to discuss them in the context of poverty. In much of
Latin America, particularly in the countries of the Andes, the long-
suppressed native peoples have begun to organise and make political
demands for the first time since the 18th century, and Chávez is the
first president in the continent to have picked up their banner and
made it his own.
For the past six years the government has moved ahead at a glacial
rate, balked at every turn by the opposition forces ranged against
it. Now, as the revolution gathers speed, attention will be directed
towards dissension and arguments within the government's ranks, and
to the ever-present question of delivery. In the absence of powerful
state institutions, with the collapse of the old political parties
and the survival of a weak, incompetent and unmotivated bureaucracy,
Chávez has mobilised the military from which he springs to provide
the backbone to his revolutionary reorganisation of the country. Its
success in bringing adequate services to the shanty towns in town and
country will depend upon the survival of his government. If it fails,
the people will come out to block the motorway and demand something
different, and yet more radical.
Richard Gott's book Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution will
be published by Verso in June. Rwgott@aol.com
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
In using oil wealth to help the poor, Venezuela's leader is an
example to Latin America
Richard Gott in Caracas
Monday May 30, 2005, The Guardian
A muddy path leads off the airport motorway into one of the small
impoverished villages that perch on the hills above Caracas, a
permanent reminder of the immense gulf between rich and poor that
characterises oil-rich Venezuela. Only 20 minutes from the heart of
the capital city a tiny community of 500 families lives in makeshift
dwellings with tin roofs and rough breeze-block walls. They have
water and electricity and television, but not much else. The old
school buildings have collapsed into ruin, and no children have
received lessons over the past two years.
Two Cuban doctors are established in a temporary surgery here on the
main track. They point out that preventative medicine is difficult to
practise in a zone where the old clay sewer pipes are cracked and
useless, leaving the effluent to flow unchecked down the hillside.
The older inhabitants have been here for years; they first came from
the country to take root on these steep hillsides in the 1960s. Many
are morose and despairing, unable to imagine that their lives could
ever change.
Others are more motivated and upbeat, and have enrolled in the ranks
of the Bolivarian revolution of President Hugo Chávez. They expect
great things from this government, and are mobilised to demand that
official attention be focused on their village. If their petition to
the mayor to repair their school and sewer pipes does not get
answered soon, they will descend from their mountain eyrie to block
the motorway, as they once did before during the attempted coup
d'état of April 2002.
Hundreds of similar shanty towns surround Caracas, and many have
already begun to turn the corner. In some places, the doctors brought
in from Cuba are working in newly built premises, providing eye
treatment and dentistry as well as medicines. Nearly 20,000 doctors
are now spread around this country of 25 million people. New
supermarkets have sprung up where food, much of it home-produced, is
available at subsidised prices. Classrooms have been built where
school dropouts are corralled back into study. Yet it is good to
start with the difficulties faced by the motorway village, since its
plight serves to emphasise how long and difficult is the road ahead.
"Making poverty history" in Venezuela is not a simple matter of
making money available; it involves a revolutionary process of
destroying ancient institutions that stand in the way of progress,
and creating new ones responsive to popular demands.
Something amazing has been taking place in Latin America in recent
years that deserves wider attention than the continent has been
accustomed to attract. The chrysalis of the Venezuelan revolution led
by Chávez, often attacked and derided as the incoherent vision of an
authoritarian leader, has finally emerged as a resplendent butterfly
whose image and example will radiate for decades to come.
Most of the reports about this revolution over the past six years, at
home and abroad, have been uniquely hostile, heavily influenced by
politicians and journalists associated with the opposition. It is as
if news of the French or the Russian revolutions had been supplied
solely by the courtiers of the king and the tsar. These criticisms
have been echoed by senior US figures, from the president downwards,
creating a negative framework within which the revolution has
inevitably been viewed. At best, Chávez is seen as outdated and
populist. At worst, he is considered a military dictator in the making.
Yet the wheel of history rolls on, and the atmosphere in Venezuela
has changed dramatically since last year when Chávez won yet another
overwhelming victory at the polls. The once triumphalist opposition
has retired bruised to its tent, wounded perhaps mortally by the
outcome of the referendum on Chávez's presidency that it called for
and then resoundingly lost. The viciously hostile media has calmed
down, and those who don't like Chávez have abandoned their hopes of
his immediate overthrow. No one is any doubt that he will win next
year's presidential election.
The Chávez government, for its part, has forged ahead with various
spectacular social projects, assisted by the huge jump in oil prices,
from $10 to $50 a barrel over the past six years. Instead of gushing
into the coffers of the already wealthy, the oil pipelines have been
picked up and directed into the shanty towns, funding health,
education and cheap food. Foreign leaders from Spain and Brazil,
Chile and Cuba, have come on pilgrimage to Caracas to establish links
with the man now perceived as the leader of new emerging forces in
Latin America, with popularity ratings to match. This extensive
external support has stymied the plans of the US government to rally
the countries of Latin America against Venezuela. They are not
listening, and Washington is left without a policy.
Chávez himself, a youthful former army colonel of 51, is now
perceived in Latin America as the most unusual and original political
figure to have emerged since Fidel Castro broke on to the scene
nearly 50 years ago. With huge charm and charisma, he has an infinite
capacity to relate to the poor and marginal population of the
continent. A largely self-educated intellectual, the ideology of his
Bolivarian revolution is based on the writings and actions of a
handful of exemplary figures from the 19th century, most notably
Simón Bolívar, the man who liberated most of South America from
Spanish rule. Chávez offers a cultural as well as a political
alternative to the prevailing US-inspired model that dominates Latin
America.
So, what does his Bolivarian revolution consist of? He is friendly
with Castro - indeed, they are close allies - yet he is no out-of-
fashion state socialist. Capitalism is alive and well in Venezuela -
and secure. There have been no illegal land seizures, no
nationalisations of private companies. Chávez seeks to curb the
excesses of what he terms "savage neo-liberalism", and he wants the
state to play an intelligent and enabling role in the economy, but he
has no desire to crush small businesses, as has happened in Cuba.
International oil companies have fallen over themselves to provide
fresh investment, even after the government increased the royalties
that they have to pay. Venezuela remains a golden goose that cannot
be ignored.
What is undoubtedly old fashioned about Chávez is his ability to talk
about race and class, subjects once fashionable that have long been
taboo, and to discuss them in the context of poverty. In much of
Latin America, particularly in the countries of the Andes, the long-
suppressed native peoples have begun to organise and make political
demands for the first time since the 18th century, and Chávez is the
first president in the continent to have picked up their banner and
made it his own.
For the past six years the government has moved ahead at a glacial
rate, balked at every turn by the opposition forces ranged against
it. Now, as the revolution gathers speed, attention will be directed
towards dissension and arguments within the government's ranks, and
to the ever-present question of delivery. In the absence of powerful
state institutions, with the collapse of the old political parties
and the survival of a weak, incompetent and unmotivated bureaucracy,
Chávez has mobilised the military from which he springs to provide
the backbone to his revolutionary reorganisation of the country. Its
success in bringing adequate services to the shanty towns in town and
country will depend upon the survival of his government. If it fails,
the people will come out to block the motorway and demand something
different, and yet more radical.
Richard Gott's book Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution will
be published by Verso in June. Rwgott@aol.com
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
Using Sword to Westernise Muslims
The Nation, Islamabad, Pakistan
30 May 2005
Using sword to westernise Muslims
By Abid Mustafa
Whenever western governments mention WMDs and Muslims in the same
breath, the western media immediately breaks into wild frenzy warning
its people that a catastrophic event of epic proportions is about to
unfold. Old European fables of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword
are reinvented to convey the impression that Muslims are extremely
dangerous, highly irresponsible and pay scant regard to human life.
Hence the mantra of disarming Muslim countries of WMD has become the
rallying cry of the West directed against the Muslim world.
In some cases the arguments are extended to justify the West’s
ongoing policy of regime change in Syria, Iran and perhaps Pakistan.
However, a close study of Islamic rule in the past contradicts the
popular western myth that Muslims are bloodthirsty people anxious to
wipe out the rest of mankind in the name of Islam.
The same however, cannot be said about the West. The West armed with
its secular doctrine and materialistic worldview proceeded to
exploit, plunder and colonise vast populations in order to control
resources and maximise wealth.
In pursuit of these newfound riches the West succeeded in destroying
civilisations such as the Incas, American Indians, Aztecs, and
Aborigines. Those who survived colonisation were forcibly converted
to Christianity, stripped of their heritage and sold into bondage to
western companies. For the indigenous people of Africa, India, Asia,
Middle East and others, the promises of freedom quickly evaporated
and were replaced by colonial rule. Rather than show remorse towards
such atrocities, the West could only gloat at its achievements.
Technologies such as cannons, pistols, steam engines, machine guns,
aeroplanes, mustard gas, etc, only hastened the acquisition of
colonies and the exploitation of its people. Resistance offered by
the natives towards their colonial masters was met by brute force –
often resulting in the destruction of entire communities. When the
West was not destroying the natives they were too busy annihilating
each other in a desperate bid to cling on to their precious colonies.
World Wars I and II are prime examples of the destructive nature of
western values.
This is a description of the Old World, where countries like England,
France, and Germany built empires and accumulated immense wealth on
the death and destruction of millions of innocent people. Is the New
World (America leading the West) any different today?
Take the example of the New World and its relationship with
Afghanistan and Iraq. Liberation has become occupation; democracy has
given way to colonial rule, devastation is termed as precision
bombing and the slaughter of innocent Muslims is described as
collateral damage. Meanwhile, American and British oil companies are
queuing up to exploit the oil wells of Iraq and transport the energy
reserves of the Caspian Sea to Europe via Afghanistan.
The Caliphate did not spread Islam by force, nor destroy
civilisations. When Islam spread to Egypt, many Coptic Christians did
not embrace Islam, and today they still number approximately 7
million. Likewise, when India was opened up to Islam, the inhabitants
were not coerced into accepting Islam. India today has a population
of more than 750 million Hindus.
Compare this to extermination of Muslim and Jews in the courts of the
Spanish Inquisitors during the much-coveted European renaissance.
Those Jews that survived the Spanish holocaust were warmly welcomed
by the Ottoman Caliphate. In Islamic Spain they flourished and became
important members of the Islamic society.
Today the world has more to fear from the destructive nature of
western values than WMDs in the hands of Muslims. In the past these
values were enforced upon nations either through direct colonial rule
or through tyrannical regimes loyal to the West. Presently, the
greatest danger-facing mankind is the constant threat of the West
imposing its values on the rest of the world through its own WMD.
30 May 2005
Using sword to westernise Muslims
By Abid Mustafa
Whenever western governments mention WMDs and Muslims in the same
breath, the western media immediately breaks into wild frenzy warning
its people that a catastrophic event of epic proportions is about to
unfold. Old European fables of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword
are reinvented to convey the impression that Muslims are extremely
dangerous, highly irresponsible and pay scant regard to human life.
Hence the mantra of disarming Muslim countries of WMD has become the
rallying cry of the West directed against the Muslim world.
In some cases the arguments are extended to justify the West’s
ongoing policy of regime change in Syria, Iran and perhaps Pakistan.
However, a close study of Islamic rule in the past contradicts the
popular western myth that Muslims are bloodthirsty people anxious to
wipe out the rest of mankind in the name of Islam.
The same however, cannot be said about the West. The West armed with
its secular doctrine and materialistic worldview proceeded to
exploit, plunder and colonise vast populations in order to control
resources and maximise wealth.
In pursuit of these newfound riches the West succeeded in destroying
civilisations such as the Incas, American Indians, Aztecs, and
Aborigines. Those who survived colonisation were forcibly converted
to Christianity, stripped of their heritage and sold into bondage to
western companies. For the indigenous people of Africa, India, Asia,
Middle East and others, the promises of freedom quickly evaporated
and were replaced by colonial rule. Rather than show remorse towards
such atrocities, the West could only gloat at its achievements.
Technologies such as cannons, pistols, steam engines, machine guns,
aeroplanes, mustard gas, etc, only hastened the acquisition of
colonies and the exploitation of its people. Resistance offered by
the natives towards their colonial masters was met by brute force –
often resulting in the destruction of entire communities. When the
West was not destroying the natives they were too busy annihilating
each other in a desperate bid to cling on to their precious colonies.
World Wars I and II are prime examples of the destructive nature of
western values.
This is a description of the Old World, where countries like England,
France, and Germany built empires and accumulated immense wealth on
the death and destruction of millions of innocent people. Is the New
World (America leading the West) any different today?
Take the example of the New World and its relationship with
Afghanistan and Iraq. Liberation has become occupation; democracy has
given way to colonial rule, devastation is termed as precision
bombing and the slaughter of innocent Muslims is described as
collateral damage. Meanwhile, American and British oil companies are
queuing up to exploit the oil wells of Iraq and transport the energy
reserves of the Caspian Sea to Europe via Afghanistan.
The Caliphate did not spread Islam by force, nor destroy
civilisations. When Islam spread to Egypt, many Coptic Christians did
not embrace Islam, and today they still number approximately 7
million. Likewise, when India was opened up to Islam, the inhabitants
were not coerced into accepting Islam. India today has a population
of more than 750 million Hindus.
Compare this to extermination of Muslim and Jews in the courts of the
Spanish Inquisitors during the much-coveted European renaissance.
Those Jews that survived the Spanish holocaust were warmly welcomed
by the Ottoman Caliphate. In Islamic Spain they flourished and became
important members of the Islamic society.
Today the world has more to fear from the destructive nature of
western values than WMDs in the hands of Muslims. In the past these
values were enforced upon nations either through direct colonial rule
or through tyrannical regimes loyal to the West. Presently, the
greatest danger-facing mankind is the constant threat of the West
imposing its values on the rest of the world through its own WMD.
PAS-PKR: Like Siamese Twins
Malaysia Today
www.malaysia-today.net
26 May 2005
PAS-PKR: like Siamese twins
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Whether one likes to admit it or not, the Islamic Party of Malaysia
(PAS) and the Peoples’ Justice Party (keADILan) are like Siamese
twins, just like Singapore and Malaysia. When Singapore sneezes,
Malaysia catches a cold. But Malaysia’s and Singapore’s relationship
can best be described as ‘dekat di mata, jauh di hati’ (literally
translated to mean ‘within eyesight but far from the heart’).
And this is how many would describe the relationship between PAS and
keADILan as well.
Is this a fair assessment of the situation? It does not matter. PAS
and keADILan are political parties and in politics it is perception
that counts, even if perception may be a far departure from reality.
PKR, the ‘official’ acronym allowed by Malaysia’s Registrar of
Societies (they just hate the word ‘keadilan’, which means justice,
so they have forbidden it from being used) saw life on 4th April 1999
amidst much pomp and fanfare when it was launched at the then newest
five-star hotel in Kuala Lumpur, the Renaissance Hotel. It was most
apt that this was the venue of the party’s launch as the ‘father’
that spawned the party, Anwar Ibrahim, is also known as The
Renaissance Man, an identity he acquired due to his now famous book,
The Asian Renaissance. Anwar’s battle cry, Reformasi, which means
reformation, another word for renaissance, strengthened this identity
further.
The most crucial thing in any political game (and this applies to
marketing as well) is positioning. If you create the right
positioning, you make it. Create the wrong positioning and you are
doomed to fail before the word ‘go’.
In this sense Anwar has very successfully played the positioning game
since his university days. And that positioning played a very
important role in his meteoric rise up the political ladder that saw
him move from political detainee to Prime Minister-in-waiting in less
than two decades.
In politics it is very difficult to separate fact from fiction or
reality from perception. People perceive you the way they want to.
Whatever you say and do will not help once they have formed an
opinion of you. You need to get it right from the start. It is easier
to build from scratch then try to repair a spoilt image later on.
Anwar and PKR got it right in the beginning. What PKR offered the
people was hope. Everyone needs hope. Hope is the only thing that
keeps us going. Those who lose hope lose the desire to go on living.
Those who lose hope end their lives in most tragic ways.
1999 was the year Malaysians became disillusioned with the ‘system’.
They wanted change and Anwar promised them this change. He gave them
hope. 30 years before that, in 1969, Malaysians went through this
same thing. In the 11 May general election that year, the ruling
Alliance Party was practically trounced and managed to form the
government with only a simple majority, the first and last time such
a phenomena was ever seen in Malaysia. It also lost a couple of
states to the opposition.
Many hoped 1999 would be history repeated. It almost happened. But
all was not lost. 1999 could have been the beginning of the end for
the ruling Barisan Nasional. Give another election or two and Barisan
Nasional would be history.
Then the opposition, still partying from its 1999 election ‘victory’,
went into self-destruct mode.
PAS probably thought it was so well-entrenched in the predominantly
Malay states it went ahead and introduced its Islamic law bill in the
Terengganu State Assembly. This was done without consultation with or
agreement from its three other partners in the Barisan Alternatif
opposition coalition; PKR, Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM) and the
Democratic Action Party (DAP). DAP chose to distance itself from PAS’
Islamic law bill by leaving the opposition coalition.
And that was the beginning of the end for Barisan Alternatif. The
ruling party did not even need to strengthen or reinvent itself.
Instead, the opposition did it a favour by self-destructing thereby
giving Barisan Nasional the time it needed to sort out its problems
and solve the Anwar political crisis that was having serious
repercussions on its political fortunes.
The opposition’s fortunes are currently at a standstill. Whether it
is able to recover or will continue its slide downwards is left to be
seen. It cannot keep moving sideways like it is doing now. It has to
either go up again, or go down for good.
And this would all depend on whether Barisan Alternatif is restored
to what it used to be in 1999, with DAP as a member of the opposition
coalition.
Some say PAS must stick to its principles and not ‘sacrifice’ Islam
for the sake of winning the general election. But what principles are
we talking about?
First of all, have all those who demand that PAS ‘stick to its
principles’ read the party constitution? Where in the constitution
does it say PAS aspires to set up an Islamic State? In fact, PAS is
going against its own party constitution by expounding an Islamic
State. Would this, therefore, not be considered going against the
party’s principle?
Secondly, PAS did try this a decade earlier in Kelantan when it won
the state with the help of Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah’s Semangat 46 in
the 1990 general election. It however did not succeed as the effort
was blocked by the Barisan Nasional controlled Parliament.
The attempt to introduce Islamic laws in Kelantan died a natural
death and until now, 15 years later, it is still a non-starter. If
PAS could not do it in Kelantan earlier, what made them think they
can do it in Terengganu a decade later? And the federal government
did warn PAS it would block Islamic laws from being introduced in
Terengganu just like it did a decade before that in Kelantan.
PAS was warned it was going to fail but it persisted. And it did fail
as warned. And this failure had far reaching ramifications resulting
in the break-up of the opposition coalition.
PAS should now know it will never be able to implement Islamic laws
in Malaysia as long as we continue with the present system of
choosing the government. If it wants to change the government through
an Islamic revolution a la Iran then that would be another matter.
Maybe then PAS would have a better chance of seeing success. But
Malaysians are not revolutionary by nature; they are materialistic;
so bloody revolutions do not work here. Anyway, unlike Iran, Malaysia
is only 50% Muslim, plus Malays are not as committed to Islam as the
Iranians are (maybe only about 20% are ‘practicing’ Muslims).
So you can kill the idea of an Islamic revolution. So that leaves
only one option left open to PAS; gain power through parliamentary
elections. But, to do that, it is not enough you have only Muslim
support. You need non-Muslim support as well. But non-Muslims do not
trust PAS. So there goes your non-Muslim support.
In a couple of days, PAS will be holding its party elections. If the
next general election is held in late 2007 or early 2008 as
predicted, this may be the last party election until after the
general election. This means whomsoever the delegates chose as their
new leaders over these next few days would be those leaders who will
lead PAS either to victory or defeat come the 12th General Election.
PAS needs to demonstrate it is a party for all Malaysians, not just
for ‘fundamentalist’ Muslims. And this will reflect in the leaders
the delegates choose.
The problem is: whatever happens to PAS would affect PKR as well. As
I said earlier, PAS and PKR are viewed as Siamese twins. In fact, PAS
is viewed as the elder twin and PKR as the younger sibling. This
perception may be inaccurate but this is how the public sees it.
The PAS delegates who will be choosing its leaders, tabling
resolutions, and debating issues would not only be determining the
future of their own party but the future of PKR as well. If PAS, or
the ‘new’ PAS, is seen as sensible, liberal, tolerant, and so on,
then this would augur well for PKR. But if PAS is seen as regressing
even further, then PKR would be punished for it.
This is very unfair, I know, but this is the reality of the whole
situation. PAS will sink and will drag PKR down with it. The only way
PKR can stay afloat would be by detaching itself from PAS. But that
would not solve PKR’s problems either, for a PKR going solo like DAP
would only mean it would be a party that is drifting and going nowhere.
PAS, PKR and DAP need one other. And they need to all be members of
one opposition coalition. Three ‘independent’ opposition parties
against the ruling coalition of 14 parties would be a cruel joke to
the opposition supporters who stood by Barisan Alternatif these last
six years.
PAS is a political party and let the delegates be reminded of this.
The job of political parties is to win elections. The aspiration of
political parties is to form the government. If the delegates
attending PAS’ general assembly these next few days cannot get this
through their heads, then they should not be in politics. If their
objective is to propagate religion instead of talking about how to
attain power, then they should get out of politics and go join a
dakwah (missionary) movement. And let the proper politicians attend
to the business of kicking the ruling Barisan Nasional out of office.
Sometimes, when the system is so corrupted, no amount of
reprogramming will help. We just have to reformat the hard disk and
reinstall everything all over again. Maybe this is what we need to do
here, wipe out everything and restart from scratch.
www.malaysia-today.net
26 May 2005
PAS-PKR: like Siamese twins
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Whether one likes to admit it or not, the Islamic Party of Malaysia
(PAS) and the Peoples’ Justice Party (keADILan) are like Siamese
twins, just like Singapore and Malaysia. When Singapore sneezes,
Malaysia catches a cold. But Malaysia’s and Singapore’s relationship
can best be described as ‘dekat di mata, jauh di hati’ (literally
translated to mean ‘within eyesight but far from the heart’).
And this is how many would describe the relationship between PAS and
keADILan as well.
Is this a fair assessment of the situation? It does not matter. PAS
and keADILan are political parties and in politics it is perception
that counts, even if perception may be a far departure from reality.
PKR, the ‘official’ acronym allowed by Malaysia’s Registrar of
Societies (they just hate the word ‘keadilan’, which means justice,
so they have forbidden it from being used) saw life on 4th April 1999
amidst much pomp and fanfare when it was launched at the then newest
five-star hotel in Kuala Lumpur, the Renaissance Hotel. It was most
apt that this was the venue of the party’s launch as the ‘father’
that spawned the party, Anwar Ibrahim, is also known as The
Renaissance Man, an identity he acquired due to his now famous book,
The Asian Renaissance. Anwar’s battle cry, Reformasi, which means
reformation, another word for renaissance, strengthened this identity
further.
The most crucial thing in any political game (and this applies to
marketing as well) is positioning. If you create the right
positioning, you make it. Create the wrong positioning and you are
doomed to fail before the word ‘go’.
In this sense Anwar has very successfully played the positioning game
since his university days. And that positioning played a very
important role in his meteoric rise up the political ladder that saw
him move from political detainee to Prime Minister-in-waiting in less
than two decades.
In politics it is very difficult to separate fact from fiction or
reality from perception. People perceive you the way they want to.
Whatever you say and do will not help once they have formed an
opinion of you. You need to get it right from the start. It is easier
to build from scratch then try to repair a spoilt image later on.
Anwar and PKR got it right in the beginning. What PKR offered the
people was hope. Everyone needs hope. Hope is the only thing that
keeps us going. Those who lose hope lose the desire to go on living.
Those who lose hope end their lives in most tragic ways.
1999 was the year Malaysians became disillusioned with the ‘system’.
They wanted change and Anwar promised them this change. He gave them
hope. 30 years before that, in 1969, Malaysians went through this
same thing. In the 11 May general election that year, the ruling
Alliance Party was practically trounced and managed to form the
government with only a simple majority, the first and last time such
a phenomena was ever seen in Malaysia. It also lost a couple of
states to the opposition.
Many hoped 1999 would be history repeated. It almost happened. But
all was not lost. 1999 could have been the beginning of the end for
the ruling Barisan Nasional. Give another election or two and Barisan
Nasional would be history.
Then the opposition, still partying from its 1999 election ‘victory’,
went into self-destruct mode.
PAS probably thought it was so well-entrenched in the predominantly
Malay states it went ahead and introduced its Islamic law bill in the
Terengganu State Assembly. This was done without consultation with or
agreement from its three other partners in the Barisan Alternatif
opposition coalition; PKR, Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM) and the
Democratic Action Party (DAP). DAP chose to distance itself from PAS’
Islamic law bill by leaving the opposition coalition.
And that was the beginning of the end for Barisan Alternatif. The
ruling party did not even need to strengthen or reinvent itself.
Instead, the opposition did it a favour by self-destructing thereby
giving Barisan Nasional the time it needed to sort out its problems
and solve the Anwar political crisis that was having serious
repercussions on its political fortunes.
The opposition’s fortunes are currently at a standstill. Whether it
is able to recover or will continue its slide downwards is left to be
seen. It cannot keep moving sideways like it is doing now. It has to
either go up again, or go down for good.
And this would all depend on whether Barisan Alternatif is restored
to what it used to be in 1999, with DAP as a member of the opposition
coalition.
Some say PAS must stick to its principles and not ‘sacrifice’ Islam
for the sake of winning the general election. But what principles are
we talking about?
First of all, have all those who demand that PAS ‘stick to its
principles’ read the party constitution? Where in the constitution
does it say PAS aspires to set up an Islamic State? In fact, PAS is
going against its own party constitution by expounding an Islamic
State. Would this, therefore, not be considered going against the
party’s principle?
Secondly, PAS did try this a decade earlier in Kelantan when it won
the state with the help of Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah’s Semangat 46 in
the 1990 general election. It however did not succeed as the effort
was blocked by the Barisan Nasional controlled Parliament.
The attempt to introduce Islamic laws in Kelantan died a natural
death and until now, 15 years later, it is still a non-starter. If
PAS could not do it in Kelantan earlier, what made them think they
can do it in Terengganu a decade later? And the federal government
did warn PAS it would block Islamic laws from being introduced in
Terengganu just like it did a decade before that in Kelantan.
PAS was warned it was going to fail but it persisted. And it did fail
as warned. And this failure had far reaching ramifications resulting
in the break-up of the opposition coalition.
PAS should now know it will never be able to implement Islamic laws
in Malaysia as long as we continue with the present system of
choosing the government. If it wants to change the government through
an Islamic revolution a la Iran then that would be another matter.
Maybe then PAS would have a better chance of seeing success. But
Malaysians are not revolutionary by nature; they are materialistic;
so bloody revolutions do not work here. Anyway, unlike Iran, Malaysia
is only 50% Muslim, plus Malays are not as committed to Islam as the
Iranians are (maybe only about 20% are ‘practicing’ Muslims).
So you can kill the idea of an Islamic revolution. So that leaves
only one option left open to PAS; gain power through parliamentary
elections. But, to do that, it is not enough you have only Muslim
support. You need non-Muslim support as well. But non-Muslims do not
trust PAS. So there goes your non-Muslim support.
In a couple of days, PAS will be holding its party elections. If the
next general election is held in late 2007 or early 2008 as
predicted, this may be the last party election until after the
general election. This means whomsoever the delegates chose as their
new leaders over these next few days would be those leaders who will
lead PAS either to victory or defeat come the 12th General Election.
PAS needs to demonstrate it is a party for all Malaysians, not just
for ‘fundamentalist’ Muslims. And this will reflect in the leaders
the delegates choose.
The problem is: whatever happens to PAS would affect PKR as well. As
I said earlier, PAS and PKR are viewed as Siamese twins. In fact, PAS
is viewed as the elder twin and PKR as the younger sibling. This
perception may be inaccurate but this is how the public sees it.
The PAS delegates who will be choosing its leaders, tabling
resolutions, and debating issues would not only be determining the
future of their own party but the future of PKR as well. If PAS, or
the ‘new’ PAS, is seen as sensible, liberal, tolerant, and so on,
then this would augur well for PKR. But if PAS is seen as regressing
even further, then PKR would be punished for it.
This is very unfair, I know, but this is the reality of the whole
situation. PAS will sink and will drag PKR down with it. The only way
PKR can stay afloat would be by detaching itself from PAS. But that
would not solve PKR’s problems either, for a PKR going solo like DAP
would only mean it would be a party that is drifting and going nowhere.
PAS, PKR and DAP need one other. And they need to all be members of
one opposition coalition. Three ‘independent’ opposition parties
against the ruling coalition of 14 parties would be a cruel joke to
the opposition supporters who stood by Barisan Alternatif these last
six years.
PAS is a political party and let the delegates be reminded of this.
The job of political parties is to win elections. The aspiration of
political parties is to form the government. If the delegates
attending PAS’ general assembly these next few days cannot get this
through their heads, then they should not be in politics. If their
objective is to propagate religion instead of talking about how to
attain power, then they should get out of politics and go join a
dakwah (missionary) movement. And let the proper politicians attend
to the business of kicking the ruling Barisan Nasional out of office.
Sometimes, when the system is so corrupted, no amount of
reprogramming will help. We just have to reformat the hard disk and
reinstall everything all over again. Maybe this is what we need to do
here, wipe out everything and restart from scratch.
Malaysia's Muslim Medicine Man Fights Demons
Malaysia Today
www.malaysia-today.net
25 May 2005
Malaysia's Muslim medicine man fights demons
Source: Reuters, By Jalil Hamid
Like pilgrims drawn to a shrine, about 200 Malaysian Muslims, some in
wheelchairs, queue from daybreak to consult a faith healer they call
"Ghost Buster".
Within the white stucco double-storey clinic, Haron Din recites
verses of the Koran as his aides struggle to hold down a woman who is
writhing on the carpeted floor, shrieking as if possessed. Then he
blesses a two-litre bottle of drinking water, which she will use
later to wash away evil spirits.
"These are people with spiritual problems, they have been possessed,"
the 65-year-old Muslim cleric, mystic healer and politician explained
later. "We get many such cases here." Welcome to "Darussyifa", or
"House of Remedy" in Arabic, where people go in search of cures for
strange diseases or even to stop their spouses from straying.
Haron, deputy spiritual chief of the conservative opposition group
Parti Islam se-Malaysia (PAS), is also a real-life ghost buster,
exorcising spirits from homes, offices and shops.
"There have been endless calls for us to go and 'treat' these
places," the bearded Haron said during a break between consultations.
Without a trace of irony, he paused to swallow a conventional pill
prescribed by his doctor for a heart problem.
"We don't chase ghosts per se," he continued, smiling.
"We would visit the place, we perform prayers and read the Koran.
From the feedback we received, we have been of help ... But it came
not from us, but from Allah."
He denied being a "bomoh", a Malay witch doctor, and said his
approach to healing was based on Muslim scripture and Hadith -- the
sayings of the prophet, Mohammad.
"Our healing is based on the holy book and the Hadith. We are not
bomohs and we have no association with spirits," he said. "We only
ask Allah's help."
BLACK MAGIC
Despite Malaysia's modernisation, traditional beliefs in possession,
evil spells and "black magic" are prevalent among the nation's 25
million people. Just over half are Muslims.
Even some socialites turn to bomohs.
One bomoh recalled how he twirled the severed tails of black cows to
exorcise demons from a factory belonging to the wife of a prominent
tycoon, purportedly capturing the evil spirits in bottles, which he
then tossed into the sea.
Haron, who studied Islamic sharia law at the respected Al-Azhar
University in Cairo, picked up his skills from his faith-healer
father, Lebai Din.
He set up Darussyifa 22 years ago, which opens seven days a week and
now doubles as an academy for young faith-healers. He has dozens of
faith healers working for him.
On a good day, some 400 people turn up to see him. For many people,
his treatment takes less than a minute or so and consists of blessing
bottled water which is used later for drinking or bathing.
Haron said his service was free, but aides said his patients donated
at least 1,500 ringgit ($390) per day.
His faith-healing business has helped him to enjoy a good life. He
lives in a double-storey house next door to his clinic in Bangi on
the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur. He has a fleet of nine cars and two
boats, which he says were donated by people whom he had cured.
Although widely respected in Malaysia as an elderly Islamic scholar,
Haron has detractors.
Malaysia's outspoken former leader Mahathir Mohamad, a medical doctor
by training, has scoffed at Haron's work.
Mahathir had asked why Haron turned to Western doctors for his heart
disease when his blessed water supposedly had healing powers.
Astora Jabat, who runs a local Islamic magazine, said he felt it was
wrong for Haron to describe his work as Islamic medicine.
"I don't agree with him because he says that's Islamic medicine. How
about the work of great Islamic scholars in the past like Ibnu Sina?".
Ibnu Sina, known as Avicenna, was a Persian physician at the turn of
the 11th century and his Canon of Medicine was a standard medical
text in Europe until the Renaissance.
Haron's clients include civil servants, housewives, students and
children.
One man said he had come to seek relief from an "unexplained pain" in
his body each morning.
"I have been coming here for the past two years. I'm feeling better
now," said 57-year-old Ghouse Mohamad Mahadom Sa Marican.
www.malaysia-today.net
25 May 2005
Malaysia's Muslim medicine man fights demons
Source: Reuters, By Jalil Hamid
Like pilgrims drawn to a shrine, about 200 Malaysian Muslims, some in
wheelchairs, queue from daybreak to consult a faith healer they call
"Ghost Buster".
Within the white stucco double-storey clinic, Haron Din recites
verses of the Koran as his aides struggle to hold down a woman who is
writhing on the carpeted floor, shrieking as if possessed. Then he
blesses a two-litre bottle of drinking water, which she will use
later to wash away evil spirits.
"These are people with spiritual problems, they have been possessed,"
the 65-year-old Muslim cleric, mystic healer and politician explained
later. "We get many such cases here." Welcome to "Darussyifa", or
"House of Remedy" in Arabic, where people go in search of cures for
strange diseases or even to stop their spouses from straying.
Haron, deputy spiritual chief of the conservative opposition group
Parti Islam se-Malaysia (PAS), is also a real-life ghost buster,
exorcising spirits from homes, offices and shops.
"There have been endless calls for us to go and 'treat' these
places," the bearded Haron said during a break between consultations.
Without a trace of irony, he paused to swallow a conventional pill
prescribed by his doctor for a heart problem.
"We don't chase ghosts per se," he continued, smiling.
"We would visit the place, we perform prayers and read the Koran.
From the feedback we received, we have been of help ... But it came
not from us, but from Allah."
He denied being a "bomoh", a Malay witch doctor, and said his
approach to healing was based on Muslim scripture and Hadith -- the
sayings of the prophet, Mohammad.
"Our healing is based on the holy book and the Hadith. We are not
bomohs and we have no association with spirits," he said. "We only
ask Allah's help."
BLACK MAGIC
Despite Malaysia's modernisation, traditional beliefs in possession,
evil spells and "black magic" are prevalent among the nation's 25
million people. Just over half are Muslims.
Even some socialites turn to bomohs.
One bomoh recalled how he twirled the severed tails of black cows to
exorcise demons from a factory belonging to the wife of a prominent
tycoon, purportedly capturing the evil spirits in bottles, which he
then tossed into the sea.
Haron, who studied Islamic sharia law at the respected Al-Azhar
University in Cairo, picked up his skills from his faith-healer
father, Lebai Din.
He set up Darussyifa 22 years ago, which opens seven days a week and
now doubles as an academy for young faith-healers. He has dozens of
faith healers working for him.
On a good day, some 400 people turn up to see him. For many people,
his treatment takes less than a minute or so and consists of blessing
bottled water which is used later for drinking or bathing.
Haron said his service was free, but aides said his patients donated
at least 1,500 ringgit ($390) per day.
His faith-healing business has helped him to enjoy a good life. He
lives in a double-storey house next door to his clinic in Bangi on
the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur. He has a fleet of nine cars and two
boats, which he says were donated by people whom he had cured.
Although widely respected in Malaysia as an elderly Islamic scholar,
Haron has detractors.
Malaysia's outspoken former leader Mahathir Mohamad, a medical doctor
by training, has scoffed at Haron's work.
Mahathir had asked why Haron turned to Western doctors for his heart
disease when his blessed water supposedly had healing powers.
Astora Jabat, who runs a local Islamic magazine, said he felt it was
wrong for Haron to describe his work as Islamic medicine.
"I don't agree with him because he says that's Islamic medicine. How
about the work of great Islamic scholars in the past like Ibnu Sina?".
Ibnu Sina, known as Avicenna, was a Persian physician at the turn of
the 11th century and his Canon of Medicine was a standard medical
text in Europe until the Renaissance.
Haron's clients include civil servants, housewives, students and
children.
One man said he had come to seek relief from an "unexplained pain" in
his body each morning.
"I have been coming here for the past two years. I'm feeling better
now," said 57-year-old Ghouse Mohamad Mahadom Sa Marican.
UMNO Wants Democracy?
50 Umno stalwarts want democracy restored in party
BY ROYCE CHEAH, The Star, 28 May 2005
Rallying behind the banner of Pemimpin Melayu (Malay Leaders), 50
Umno stalwarts claim that democracy was eroding in the party and want
it restored.
They want the party to break down all barriers that impede democratic
principles, citing the quota stipulations when nominees are named for
contests as an example.
"Anybody who wants to contest the president’s post must get about 70
nominations from the divisions."
"This hampers democracy because nobody can get so many nominations,
except for one person who won’t be named," said former Umno deputy
president Tun Abdul Ghaffar Baba, who heads the group.
"Winning or losing does not matter. It is about giving a chance to
everyone. That is a basic democratic principle," he told a press
conference.
He said the group handed the petition to party president Datuk Seri
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi at the KL International Airport after the prime
minister returned from Tokyo on Thursday night.
The matter was among four key issues in the petition, which also
highlighted the following:
The advent of money politics in Umno;
the target of 30% bumiputra participation in the country’s economy; and
making national schools the school of choice among students of all
races.
Among those who signed the petition were Tan Sri Sanusi Junid (former
vice-president, secretary general and Kedah Mentri Besar), Tan Sri
Mohamed Rahmat (former secretary-general and Cabinet minister), Tan
Sri Mohamed Yaacob (former Cabinet minister, Senate president and
Kelantan mentri besar), Tan Sri Hussein Ahmad (former Umno
information head and deputy minister) and Datuk Sri Dr Siti Zaharah
Sulaiman (former Wanita Umno chief and Cabinet minister).
All the others had also previously held key posts at state and
national levels, both in the party and the government.
Ghafar, who said the petition would also be submitted to the Umno
supreme council, added that the group also wants the leadership to
“do something” to wipe out money politics in the party.
On the issue of national schools, he said non-Malays shun these
schools because they are not confident in its basic education system.
"There must be improvement and a focus on improving the teaching of
English," Ghafar said.
With regards to the economic status of the Malays, he added,
"Although the government says the development of the Malay economy is
enshrined in the National Economic Plan, we feel there must be a
special blueprint for them."
Clarifying that the petition was not to criticise the Government, he
said it was to give an opinion on how to improve the situation.
BY ROYCE CHEAH, The Star, 28 May 2005
Rallying behind the banner of Pemimpin Melayu (Malay Leaders), 50
Umno stalwarts claim that democracy was eroding in the party and want
it restored.
They want the party to break down all barriers that impede democratic
principles, citing the quota stipulations when nominees are named for
contests as an example.
"Anybody who wants to contest the president’s post must get about 70
nominations from the divisions."
"This hampers democracy because nobody can get so many nominations,
except for one person who won’t be named," said former Umno deputy
president Tun Abdul Ghaffar Baba, who heads the group.
"Winning or losing does not matter. It is about giving a chance to
everyone. That is a basic democratic principle," he told a press
conference.
He said the group handed the petition to party president Datuk Seri
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi at the KL International Airport after the prime
minister returned from Tokyo on Thursday night.
The matter was among four key issues in the petition, which also
highlighted the following:
The advent of money politics in Umno;
the target of 30% bumiputra participation in the country’s economy; and
making national schools the school of choice among students of all
races.
Among those who signed the petition were Tan Sri Sanusi Junid (former
vice-president, secretary general and Kedah Mentri Besar), Tan Sri
Mohamed Rahmat (former secretary-general and Cabinet minister), Tan
Sri Mohamed Yaacob (former Cabinet minister, Senate president and
Kelantan mentri besar), Tan Sri Hussein Ahmad (former Umno
information head and deputy minister) and Datuk Sri Dr Siti Zaharah
Sulaiman (former Wanita Umno chief and Cabinet minister).
All the others had also previously held key posts at state and
national levels, both in the party and the government.
Ghafar, who said the petition would also be submitted to the Umno
supreme council, added that the group also wants the leadership to
“do something” to wipe out money politics in the party.
On the issue of national schools, he said non-Malays shun these
schools because they are not confident in its basic education system.
"There must be improvement and a focus on improving the teaching of
English," Ghafar said.
With regards to the economic status of the Malays, he added,
"Although the government says the development of the Malay economy is
enshrined in the National Economic Plan, we feel there must be a
special blueprint for them."
Clarifying that the petition was not to criticise the Government, he
said it was to give an opinion on how to improve the situation.
Saturday, May 28, 2005
Usaha Temukan Anwar dan Dr M
Zulkifli Mohamed
zulkiflimohamed@gmail.com
KULIM - 22 Mei: Memang ada usaha bekas Perdana Menteri, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, dan Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Abdul Razak, untuk menghubungi dan menemui bekas Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.
Gambaran sebenar dijelaskan oleh Pembantu Peribadi Penasihat Parti Keadilan Rakyat, Mohd Azmin Ali, yang juga selaku Naib Presiden Keadilan kepada Malaysia Today, Isnin.
Azmin ketika ditemui di Mahkamah Majistret, Kulim, untuk menghadiri perbicaraan kes pengundi hantu pilihan raya kecil Lunas 2000, mengesahkan berita tersebut.
Malah, beliau turut menjelaskan Datuk Seri Anwar sentiasa menjalinkan kerjasama dengan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Abdullah, bagi membincangkan beberapa perkara demi kepentingan negara.
Menurut Azmin, memang ada usaha untuk membawa Dr Mahathir bertemu dengan Datuk Seri Anwar, khususnya pada 21 Feb 2005 ketika Mahathir turut berada di Oxford menghadiri pertemuan kecil dengan beberapa tokoh akademik.
Sejurus selepas itu ada usaha daripada kroni-kroni beliau, iaitu sahabat baik Dr. Mahathir, Tan Sri Arumugam daripada General Electric Company (GEC) dan Usahawan Kamal Sidique, rakyat India yang mempunyai kerakyatan Britain,katanya.
Mereka telah menghubungi saya dan Datuk Seri Anwar untuk mengadakan pertemuan antara Dr Mahathir dan Datuk Seri Anwar. Namun, setelah kami berbincang, Datuk Seri Anwar merasakan tidak ada keperluan untuk mengadakan pertemuan tersebut dan beliau memberikan alasan tidak mahu mengkhianati ahli keluarganya, sahabat-sahabatnya dan rakyat Malaysia," jelas Azmin.
Menurut Azmin, Anwar mengambil pendekatan untuk memaafkan Dr Mahathir secara peribadi dan terbuka dan beliau merasakan itu sudah cukup untuk menutup babak-babak yang lama.
Kata Azmin, jika Dr. Mahathir ingin bertemu Datuk Seri Anwar, ia perlu dibuat secara terbuka dan bukannya dalam keadaan yang sulit. Pertemuan itu juga mesti dimaklumkan lebih awal apakah tujuan pertemuan itu.
Jika tujuannya untuk kepentingan politik beliau dan orang-orang tertentu, kita tidak mahu mencampurinya, tetapi jika pertemuan itu untuk beliau memohon maaf kita akan pertimbangkannya.
"Kita tidak mahu terperangkap sekali lagi dan diperkudakan oleh Dr Mahathir melalui pertemuan itu,kata Azmin
Menjawab soalan apakah pernah berlaku pertemuan atau perhubungan telefon antara Datuk Seri Anwar dan Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Dato' Sri Najib, Azmin menjelaskan, Memang berlaku perbincangan (melalui telefon) antara Datuk Seri Anwar dengan Dato' Sri Najib, sekitar awal Februari iaitu sebelum permohonan Dr Mahathir untuk bertemu Datuk Seri Anwar.
Kata Azmin, Dato' Sri Najib telah menghubungi Datuk Seri Anwar dengan menghubunginya melalui telefon bimbit saya.
Menurutnya, beliau menghubungi nombor saya, melalui tokoh usahawan, Kamal Sidique, yang pada awalnya saya ingatkan beliau sendiri yang ingin bercakap dengan Datuk Seri Anwar.
Maknanya, Dr. Mahathir dan Dato' Sri Najib menggunakan orang yang sama dan jelaslah konspirasi antara mereka berdua, kata Azmin.
Setelah saya menyerahkan telefon tersebut kepada Datuk Seri Anwar dengan andaian Kamal sendiri yang ingin berbicara dengan Datuk Seri Anwar, tetapi dalam beberapa saat kemudian Kamal telah menyerahkan telefon tersebut kepada Dato' Sri Najib,jelas Azmin.
Berlaku perbualan telefon yang ringkas. Saya berada di sisi beliau ketika itu. Datuk Seri Anwar dengan tegas memberitahu Dato' Sri Najib bahawa beliau tidak mahu mencampuri urusan dalaman Umno.
Katanya lagi, memang ada beberapa perkara yang dibangkitkan, tetapi Datuk Seri Anwar dengan jelas dan tegas tidak berminat mencampuri urusan dalaman Umno kerana beliau bukan lagi ahli Umno dan tidak berminat untuk kembali kepada Umno.
Azmin menegaskan, Datuk Seri Anwar tidak berminat untuk bersekongkol dengan masalah dalaman Umno. Beliau menyatakan kepada Dato' Sri Najib bahawa beliau mempunyai agenda yang lebih besar untuk bersama gagasan parti-parti pembangkang.
Apa masalah Umno yang dibangkitkan oleh Dato' Sri Najib, saya ingat itu kita tidak perlu dedahkannya,kata Azmin.
Azmin turut menyangkal dakwaan bahawa Anwar akan kembali ke pangkuan Umno kerana hubungan baiknya dengan Perdana Menteri, Abdullah Ahmad Badwi, ketika ini.
Soal Anwar kembali kepada Umno semata-mata kerana ada perbualan telefon dan pertemuan dengan Abdullah, saya kira itu adalah andaian meleset,jawab Azmin.
Memang kita sentiasa kekalkan hubungan yang positif dengan Perdana Menteri, kerana dengan jelas Anwar menyebut beliau membawa politik baru - iaitu bukan politik permusuhan dan persengketaan tetapi politik perpaduan.
Maknanya, apa sahaja yang boleh beliau membantu Abdullah selaku Perdana Menteri, bukan Presiden Umno, beliau akan berikan bantuan dan nasihat,jelas Azmin.
Saya tidak mahu menyatakannya secara formal, tetapi memang kita berkongsi beberapa maklumat dengan Perdana Menteri dengan tujuan untuk bersama-sama melihat satu suasana lebih positif, kerajaan lebih bersih, ruang demokrasi yang lebih luas, dan dari masa ke semasa memang kita ada perhubungan dengan Perdana Menteri dan penasihat-penasihat beliau untuk memastikan pengalaman dan pandangan kita dikongsi bersama dalam perkara ini, jelasnya ketika ditanya bentuk kerjasama yang diberikan Anwar.
Sebab itu, kata Azmin, Datuk Seri Anwar menyebut beliau tidak mahu bermain politik dengan mengadakan hubungan dengan orang lain. Bagaimanapun, beliau tetap terhutang budi kepada Perdana Menteri di atas pembebasannya.
Beliau selalu menyebut banyak kali, kalau Dr Mahathir sebagai Perdana Menteri, belum tentu beliau dibebaskan. Sebagai tanda penghargaan dan berterima kasih kepada Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Abdullah, kita bersedia untuk membantu beliau dalam projek, agenda dan program yang khusus,jelasnya.
Menurut beliau, Datuk Seri Abdullah menyambut baik apa sahaja pandangan dan saranan Datuk Seri Anwar. Sebagai selaku Perdana Menteri, beliau sudah tentu mengambil sedikit masa untuk meneliti saranan tersebut, tetapi beliau tidak tolak dan beliau mengambil sikap terbuka untuk mendengar pandangan dan saranan kita. Saya kira ini satu permulaan yang baik untuk mengadakan kerjasama yang lebih erat dengan Perdana Menteri.
Maknanya, kata Azmin program-program khusus kerajaan, perangi rasuah, memperluaskan ruang demokrasi, hak asasi, ini semua isu-isu yang menjadi agenda utama Datuk Seri Anwar.
Maka apabila Perdana Menteri Abdullah mewar-warkan agenda yang sama, sudah tentulah kita akan mendokongnya, tidak boleh menolak idea yang baik ini. Inilah yang saya maksudkan kerjasama dengan Perdana Menteri.
Datuk Seri Anwar menyebut yang beliau hendak membantu ialah Perdana Menteri, bukannya Presiden Umno, bukan parti. Itu kena jelas,tegas Azmin.
zulkiflimohamed@gmail.com
KULIM - 22 Mei: Memang ada usaha bekas Perdana Menteri, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, dan Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Abdul Razak, untuk menghubungi dan menemui bekas Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.
Gambaran sebenar dijelaskan oleh Pembantu Peribadi Penasihat Parti Keadilan Rakyat, Mohd Azmin Ali, yang juga selaku Naib Presiden Keadilan kepada Malaysia Today, Isnin.
Azmin ketika ditemui di Mahkamah Majistret, Kulim, untuk menghadiri perbicaraan kes pengundi hantu pilihan raya kecil Lunas 2000, mengesahkan berita tersebut.
Malah, beliau turut menjelaskan Datuk Seri Anwar sentiasa menjalinkan kerjasama dengan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Abdullah, bagi membincangkan beberapa perkara demi kepentingan negara.
Menurut Azmin, memang ada usaha untuk membawa Dr Mahathir bertemu dengan Datuk Seri Anwar, khususnya pada 21 Feb 2005 ketika Mahathir turut berada di Oxford menghadiri pertemuan kecil dengan beberapa tokoh akademik.
Sejurus selepas itu ada usaha daripada kroni-kroni beliau, iaitu sahabat baik Dr. Mahathir, Tan Sri Arumugam daripada General Electric Company (GEC) dan Usahawan Kamal Sidique, rakyat India yang mempunyai kerakyatan Britain,katanya.
Mereka telah menghubungi saya dan Datuk Seri Anwar untuk mengadakan pertemuan antara Dr Mahathir dan Datuk Seri Anwar. Namun, setelah kami berbincang, Datuk Seri Anwar merasakan tidak ada keperluan untuk mengadakan pertemuan tersebut dan beliau memberikan alasan tidak mahu mengkhianati ahli keluarganya, sahabat-sahabatnya dan rakyat Malaysia," jelas Azmin.
Menurut Azmin, Anwar mengambil pendekatan untuk memaafkan Dr Mahathir secara peribadi dan terbuka dan beliau merasakan itu sudah cukup untuk menutup babak-babak yang lama.
Kata Azmin, jika Dr. Mahathir ingin bertemu Datuk Seri Anwar, ia perlu dibuat secara terbuka dan bukannya dalam keadaan yang sulit. Pertemuan itu juga mesti dimaklumkan lebih awal apakah tujuan pertemuan itu.
Jika tujuannya untuk kepentingan politik beliau dan orang-orang tertentu, kita tidak mahu mencampurinya, tetapi jika pertemuan itu untuk beliau memohon maaf kita akan pertimbangkannya.
"Kita tidak mahu terperangkap sekali lagi dan diperkudakan oleh Dr Mahathir melalui pertemuan itu,kata Azmin
Menjawab soalan apakah pernah berlaku pertemuan atau perhubungan telefon antara Datuk Seri Anwar dan Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Dato' Sri Najib, Azmin menjelaskan, Memang berlaku perbincangan (melalui telefon) antara Datuk Seri Anwar dengan Dato' Sri Najib, sekitar awal Februari iaitu sebelum permohonan Dr Mahathir untuk bertemu Datuk Seri Anwar.
Kata Azmin, Dato' Sri Najib telah menghubungi Datuk Seri Anwar dengan menghubunginya melalui telefon bimbit saya.
Menurutnya, beliau menghubungi nombor saya, melalui tokoh usahawan, Kamal Sidique, yang pada awalnya saya ingatkan beliau sendiri yang ingin bercakap dengan Datuk Seri Anwar.
Maknanya, Dr. Mahathir dan Dato' Sri Najib menggunakan orang yang sama dan jelaslah konspirasi antara mereka berdua, kata Azmin.
Setelah saya menyerahkan telefon tersebut kepada Datuk Seri Anwar dengan andaian Kamal sendiri yang ingin berbicara dengan Datuk Seri Anwar, tetapi dalam beberapa saat kemudian Kamal telah menyerahkan telefon tersebut kepada Dato' Sri Najib,jelas Azmin.
Berlaku perbualan telefon yang ringkas. Saya berada di sisi beliau ketika itu. Datuk Seri Anwar dengan tegas memberitahu Dato' Sri Najib bahawa beliau tidak mahu mencampuri urusan dalaman Umno.
Katanya lagi, memang ada beberapa perkara yang dibangkitkan, tetapi Datuk Seri Anwar dengan jelas dan tegas tidak berminat mencampuri urusan dalaman Umno kerana beliau bukan lagi ahli Umno dan tidak berminat untuk kembali kepada Umno.
Azmin menegaskan, Datuk Seri Anwar tidak berminat untuk bersekongkol dengan masalah dalaman Umno. Beliau menyatakan kepada Dato' Sri Najib bahawa beliau mempunyai agenda yang lebih besar untuk bersama gagasan parti-parti pembangkang.
Apa masalah Umno yang dibangkitkan oleh Dato' Sri Najib, saya ingat itu kita tidak perlu dedahkannya,kata Azmin.
Azmin turut menyangkal dakwaan bahawa Anwar akan kembali ke pangkuan Umno kerana hubungan baiknya dengan Perdana Menteri, Abdullah Ahmad Badwi, ketika ini.
Soal Anwar kembali kepada Umno semata-mata kerana ada perbualan telefon dan pertemuan dengan Abdullah, saya kira itu adalah andaian meleset,jawab Azmin.
Memang kita sentiasa kekalkan hubungan yang positif dengan Perdana Menteri, kerana dengan jelas Anwar menyebut beliau membawa politik baru - iaitu bukan politik permusuhan dan persengketaan tetapi politik perpaduan.
Maknanya, apa sahaja yang boleh beliau membantu Abdullah selaku Perdana Menteri, bukan Presiden Umno, beliau akan berikan bantuan dan nasihat,jelas Azmin.
Saya tidak mahu menyatakannya secara formal, tetapi memang kita berkongsi beberapa maklumat dengan Perdana Menteri dengan tujuan untuk bersama-sama melihat satu suasana lebih positif, kerajaan lebih bersih, ruang demokrasi yang lebih luas, dan dari masa ke semasa memang kita ada perhubungan dengan Perdana Menteri dan penasihat-penasihat beliau untuk memastikan pengalaman dan pandangan kita dikongsi bersama dalam perkara ini, jelasnya ketika ditanya bentuk kerjasama yang diberikan Anwar.
Sebab itu, kata Azmin, Datuk Seri Anwar menyebut beliau tidak mahu bermain politik dengan mengadakan hubungan dengan orang lain. Bagaimanapun, beliau tetap terhutang budi kepada Perdana Menteri di atas pembebasannya.
Beliau selalu menyebut banyak kali, kalau Dr Mahathir sebagai Perdana Menteri, belum tentu beliau dibebaskan. Sebagai tanda penghargaan dan berterima kasih kepada Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Abdullah, kita bersedia untuk membantu beliau dalam projek, agenda dan program yang khusus,jelasnya.
Menurut beliau, Datuk Seri Abdullah menyambut baik apa sahaja pandangan dan saranan Datuk Seri Anwar. Sebagai selaku Perdana Menteri, beliau sudah tentu mengambil sedikit masa untuk meneliti saranan tersebut, tetapi beliau tidak tolak dan beliau mengambil sikap terbuka untuk mendengar pandangan dan saranan kita. Saya kira ini satu permulaan yang baik untuk mengadakan kerjasama yang lebih erat dengan Perdana Menteri.
Maknanya, kata Azmin program-program khusus kerajaan, perangi rasuah, memperluaskan ruang demokrasi, hak asasi, ini semua isu-isu yang menjadi agenda utama Datuk Seri Anwar.
Maka apabila Perdana Menteri Abdullah mewar-warkan agenda yang sama, sudah tentulah kita akan mendokongnya, tidak boleh menolak idea yang baik ini. Inilah yang saya maksudkan kerjasama dengan Perdana Menteri.
Datuk Seri Anwar menyebut yang beliau hendak membantu ialah Perdana Menteri, bukannya Presiden Umno, bukan parti. Itu kena jelas,tegas Azmin.
Dr M Savages Bush and Blair
'Father' of Malaysia savages Bush and Blair
Mahathir brands US a rogue nation terrorising innocents and stands by
claim that Jews 'rule the world by proxy'
Simon Tisdall in Kuala Lumpur
Friday May 27, 2005, The Guardian
Mahathir Mohamad, modern Malaysia's founding father and moderate
Islam's self-styled champion, denounced the Bush administration
yesterday as a "rogue regime" bent on terrorising innocent civilians.
He also said he was disappointed that Tony Blair, who he called a
"proven liar", had won re-election after joining the US invasion of
Iraq.
Reflecting the rage felt across the Muslim world over abuse scandals
in Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, and continuing violence in
Palestine and Iraq, Mr Mahathir said President George Bush and other
US politicians were "ignorant" people who believed might made right -
a return to colonial-era "old thinking".
Speaking to the Guardian at his offices in Putrajaya, near Kuala
Lumpur, Mr Mahathir also claimed that the Israeli government had been
given a free hand by Washington to continue to expropriate
Palestinian land and entrench its control over Jerusalem. The war on
terror would not end until the Middle East conflict was justly
resolved, he said.
Asked whether he regretted his statement that "Jews rule the world by
proxy", which caused an international furore in 2003, Mr Mahathir
said he took nothing back.
"US politicians are scared stiff of the Jews because anybody who
votes against the Jews will lose elections. The Jews in America are
supporting the Jews in Israel. Israel and other Jews control the most
powerful nation in the world. And that is what I mean [about Jews
controlling the world]. I stand by that view."
On his balcony overlooking the tower blocks, mosques, bridges and
artificial lakes of Putrajaya, Malaysia's new administrative capital
which he created in the 1990s, Mr Mahathir, 79, cuts a slight, almost
self-effacing figure. His personal manner is reserved and courteous
to a fault.
Earlier in the day, he had lectured students at his Perdana
Leadership Foundation on the importance of education and development
in the Muslim world to defend the Islamic faith. The problem was not
Islam itself, he said, but the many incorrect interpreta tions of the
Qur'an that were exploited by extremists.
"Islam is a positive, not a negative force. Today most Muslim
countries seem incapable of developing good governments, they are
always fighting each other, assassinating each other and doing all
the wrong things." Distortions of the Prophet's teachings had held
back the peoples of many Muslim countries, he said.
But Mr Mahathir's strongest criticism was directed outwards. Even
though he retired as Malaysia's longest-serving prime minister in
2003, many in the region still regard him as the country's leader and
one of Asia's most influential voices. His anger is undimmed; his rhetoric flows unstaunched.
"The US is the most powerful nation," he said. "It can ignore the
world if it wants to do anything. It breaks international law. It
arrests people outside their countries; it charges them under
American law. It kills them.
"The US war on terror is a way of terrorising people. If you are an
Iraqi and you are expecting to be bombed, aren't you terrified? If
you have done nothing, if you are an innocent Iraqi citizen and you
are expecting any time a rocket to fly in and blow you to pieces,
aren't you terrified?
"That is terror [and] the US is as guilty of terrorism as the people
who crashed their planes into the buildings ... Bush doesn't
understand the rest of the world. He thinks everybody should be a
neocon like him."
Mr Mahathir was equally scathing about Israeli policies in Palestine.
He said his visit to the West Bank last month had been deliberately
disrupted by the Israeli government. Specifically, he said he was
blocked from travelling to Jerusalem and Jenin, scene of some of the
worst Israeli violence in 2002, where he was to open a school funded
by Malaysia. Israel has denied impeding his visit.
"I suppose I was mistaken in thinking that there are parts of
Palestine that are under the control of the Palestinians. But
apparently the Israelis have occupied the whole of Palestine. They do
anything they like there," he said.
Mr Blair had discredited himself and Britain in Muslim eyes by
backing the Iraq war, Mr Mahathir said. "He was wrong and he was more
wrong because he tells lies. You know, Jack Straw came to see me [on
the eve of the war in January 2003] and I asked him,
'Why are you with the Americans?' He said we're trying to influence
the Americans not to take that kind of action. But it seems it was
the other way round.
"They [Britain] were influenced in supporting America to do something
that they knew was wrong ... They knew they were being lied to, and
yet they supported the Americans and today 300,000 Iraqis are dead
because of these lies.
"I think a person like Blair would feel very guilty and I am
disappointed that the British people would re-elect a person who
obviously told lies ... We're beginning to lose faith in the present
leadership of Britain." One eventual consequence, he suggested, could
be Malaysia's withdrawal from the Commonwealth.
Malaysia, which is encircled by conflicts in western Indonesia, the
Philippines and southern Thailand, fully supported the fight against
religious and political fanaticism, he said. But the west was going
about it the wrong way.
"Even if you get Bin Laden, you can't be sure there won't be another
Bin Laden. You cannot get terrorists to sign a peace treaty. The only
way to beat terror is to go for the basic causes.
"They don't blow themselves up for no reason, they're angry, they're
frustrated. And why are they angry? Look at the Palestinian
situation. Fifty years after you created the state of Israel, things
are going from bad to worse. "If you don't settle that, there will be no end to the war on terror. For how long are you going to go on examining people's shoes?"
Mahathir brands US a rogue nation terrorising innocents and stands by
claim that Jews 'rule the world by proxy'
Simon Tisdall in Kuala Lumpur
Friday May 27, 2005, The Guardian
Mahathir Mohamad, modern Malaysia's founding father and moderate
Islam's self-styled champion, denounced the Bush administration
yesterday as a "rogue regime" bent on terrorising innocent civilians.
He also said he was disappointed that Tony Blair, who he called a
"proven liar", had won re-election after joining the US invasion of
Iraq.
Reflecting the rage felt across the Muslim world over abuse scandals
in Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, and continuing violence in
Palestine and Iraq, Mr Mahathir said President George Bush and other
US politicians were "ignorant" people who believed might made right -
a return to colonial-era "old thinking".
Speaking to the Guardian at his offices in Putrajaya, near Kuala
Lumpur, Mr Mahathir also claimed that the Israeli government had been
given a free hand by Washington to continue to expropriate
Palestinian land and entrench its control over Jerusalem. The war on
terror would not end until the Middle East conflict was justly
resolved, he said.
Asked whether he regretted his statement that "Jews rule the world by
proxy", which caused an international furore in 2003, Mr Mahathir
said he took nothing back.
"US politicians are scared stiff of the Jews because anybody who
votes against the Jews will lose elections. The Jews in America are
supporting the Jews in Israel. Israel and other Jews control the most
powerful nation in the world. And that is what I mean [about Jews
controlling the world]. I stand by that view."
On his balcony overlooking the tower blocks, mosques, bridges and
artificial lakes of Putrajaya, Malaysia's new administrative capital
which he created in the 1990s, Mr Mahathir, 79, cuts a slight, almost
self-effacing figure. His personal manner is reserved and courteous
to a fault.
Earlier in the day, he had lectured students at his Perdana
Leadership Foundation on the importance of education and development
in the Muslim world to defend the Islamic faith. The problem was not
Islam itself, he said, but the many incorrect interpreta tions of the
Qur'an that were exploited by extremists.
"Islam is a positive, not a negative force. Today most Muslim
countries seem incapable of developing good governments, they are
always fighting each other, assassinating each other and doing all
the wrong things." Distortions of the Prophet's teachings had held
back the peoples of many Muslim countries, he said.
But Mr Mahathir's strongest criticism was directed outwards. Even
though he retired as Malaysia's longest-serving prime minister in
2003, many in the region still regard him as the country's leader and
one of Asia's most influential voices. His anger is undimmed; his rhetoric flows unstaunched.
"The US is the most powerful nation," he said. "It can ignore the
world if it wants to do anything. It breaks international law. It
arrests people outside their countries; it charges them under
American law. It kills them.
"The US war on terror is a way of terrorising people. If you are an
Iraqi and you are expecting to be bombed, aren't you terrified? If
you have done nothing, if you are an innocent Iraqi citizen and you
are expecting any time a rocket to fly in and blow you to pieces,
aren't you terrified?
"That is terror [and] the US is as guilty of terrorism as the people
who crashed their planes into the buildings ... Bush doesn't
understand the rest of the world. He thinks everybody should be a
neocon like him."
Mr Mahathir was equally scathing about Israeli policies in Palestine.
He said his visit to the West Bank last month had been deliberately
disrupted by the Israeli government. Specifically, he said he was
blocked from travelling to Jerusalem and Jenin, scene of some of the
worst Israeli violence in 2002, where he was to open a school funded
by Malaysia. Israel has denied impeding his visit.
"I suppose I was mistaken in thinking that there are parts of
Palestine that are under the control of the Palestinians. But
apparently the Israelis have occupied the whole of Palestine. They do
anything they like there," he said.
Mr Blair had discredited himself and Britain in Muslim eyes by
backing the Iraq war, Mr Mahathir said. "He was wrong and he was more
wrong because he tells lies. You know, Jack Straw came to see me [on
the eve of the war in January 2003] and I asked him,
'Why are you with the Americans?' He said we're trying to influence
the Americans not to take that kind of action. But it seems it was
the other way round.
"They [Britain] were influenced in supporting America to do something
that they knew was wrong ... They knew they were being lied to, and
yet they supported the Americans and today 300,000 Iraqis are dead
because of these lies.
"I think a person like Blair would feel very guilty and I am
disappointed that the British people would re-elect a person who
obviously told lies ... We're beginning to lose faith in the present
leadership of Britain." One eventual consequence, he suggested, could
be Malaysia's withdrawal from the Commonwealth.
Malaysia, which is encircled by conflicts in western Indonesia, the
Philippines and southern Thailand, fully supported the fight against
religious and political fanaticism, he said. But the west was going
about it the wrong way.
"Even if you get Bin Laden, you can't be sure there won't be another
Bin Laden. You cannot get terrorists to sign a peace treaty. The only
way to beat terror is to go for the basic causes.
"They don't blow themselves up for no reason, they're angry, they're
frustrated. And why are they angry? Look at the Palestinian
situation. Fifty years after you created the state of Israel, things
are going from bad to worse. "If you don't settle that, there will be no end to the war on terror. For how long are you going to go on examining people's shoes?"
FBI: Koran Mishandled
The Agence France-Presse
26 May 2005
FBI Documents Show Repeated Detainee Complaints Over Koran Mistreatment
Washington: Detainees interviewed by FBI agents at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba complained repeatedly that military guards and interrogators
mistreated the Koran, with one alleging that the Muslim holy book had
been flushed in a toilet, documents show.
The documents -- FBI summaries of interviews with detainees at the
military-run prison in 2002 and 2003 -- show that the treatment of
the Koran was a key point of contention between detainees and their
guards, one that prompted hunger strikes and threats of mass suicide.
Most complaints dealt with the handling of the Koran by guards or its
being taken away from detainees as a form of punishment. In some
cases, the detainees admitted to not having witnessed the alleged
mistreatment themselves.
But detainees also alleged that the Koran had been thrown or kicked
by guards, and one said it had been flushed in a toilet, according to
the documents.
In a summary dated August 1, 2002, a detainee told his FBI
interviewer that he personally had nothing against the United States
but that the guards at the detention facility "do not treat him well.
"Their behavior is bad. About five months ago, the guards beat the
detainees. They flushed a Koran in the toilet. The guards dance
around when the detainees are trying to pray. The guards still do
these things," the summary said.
Lawrence DiRita, the Pentagon spokesman, said investigators
conducting a "commanders inquiry" into a Newsweek report of a Koran
being flushed down a toilet recently found a log entry from August
2002 that recorded a similar allegation by the same detainee.
Brigadier General Jay Hood, the military commander in Guantanamo,
questioned the detainee who had made the allegation on around May 14,
he said.
"Apparently the inmate was very cooperative and would not reassert
this particular allegation," DiRita told reporters.
He said other allegations of mistreatment of the Koran were looked
into at the time by the commander of the guards, but he insisted
"they just weren't credible on their face" because they ran counter
to the policies in place at the prison.
Major General Geoffrey Miller, the commander in Guantanamo at the
time, said there was a small group of hard-core detainees who knew
that allegations of the Koran being mistreated would agitate other
detainees, DiRita said.
"They were very aware that this was a sensitive issue, and the
practice was to be sensitive about it," he said.
Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan called Wednesday for a
congressional investigation into the reports of desecrations of the
Koran.
"As Muslims, we say enough is enough," the influential African
American leader said from the pulpit of his south Chicago mosque.
Farrakhan said a delegation of Muslim, Christian and Jewish leaders
should participate in the investigation.
Farrakhan also demanded that the US military either charge and try
the detainees at Guantanamo Bay or release them to their families.
The latest FBI documents were released in response to a lawsuit by
the American Civil Liberties Union, which posted them on its website.
The names and other information were blacked out by censors.
The interview summaries contain a litany of other allegations by
detainees -- that they were beaten by guards, sexually molested by
female interrogators, shown pornographic images or had their heads
and beards shaved as punishment. The theme that the detainees'
religion or culture was under assault by guards runs through many of
the summaries.
In an FBI interview on March 6, 2004, a detainee charged that
military police "have been mistreating the detainees by pushing them
around and throwing their waste bucket to them in the cell, sometimes
with waste still in the bucket, and kicking the Koran."
A summary dated March 11, 2004 said that "some unknown detainees are
not talking in retaliation to an incident where a guard kicked the
Koran."
Another on July 30, 2002 said an uprising at the prison earlier that
month started when a detainee claimed a guard had dropped a Koran.
"In actuality, the detainee dropped the Koran and then blamed the
guard. Many other detainees reacted to this claim, and this initiated
the uprising," the summary said.
One detainee "stated he had heard a detainee had been severely beaten
by a guard and had died. (The detainee said) he heard the altercation
between the detainee and the guards began when the guards
disrespected the Koran," according to a summary dated January 21, 2003.
In a February 4, 2003 summary, another detainee was reported to have
commented that younger guards were a source of the problem. "They
often disgrace the Koran by throwing it on the cell floor and
frequently use profanity which many of the detainees find extremely
offensive," it said.
The treatment of the Koran at Guantanamo came under scrutiny after
four days of riots in Afghanistan earlier this month which claimed
the lives of at least 14 people.
Pentagon officials angrily blamed Newsweek for triggering the riots
with what they said was a "demonstrably false" report that
investigators had found that interrogators at Guantanamo had flushed
a Koran in a toilet to rattle Muslim prisoners.
Newsweek later retracted the story after its main source, an unnammed
senior US official, backed away from it.
© 2005 AFP
26 May 2005
FBI Documents Show Repeated Detainee Complaints Over Koran Mistreatment
Washington: Detainees interviewed by FBI agents at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba complained repeatedly that military guards and interrogators
mistreated the Koran, with one alleging that the Muslim holy book had
been flushed in a toilet, documents show.
The documents -- FBI summaries of interviews with detainees at the
military-run prison in 2002 and 2003 -- show that the treatment of
the Koran was a key point of contention between detainees and their
guards, one that prompted hunger strikes and threats of mass suicide.
Most complaints dealt with the handling of the Koran by guards or its
being taken away from detainees as a form of punishment. In some
cases, the detainees admitted to not having witnessed the alleged
mistreatment themselves.
But detainees also alleged that the Koran had been thrown or kicked
by guards, and one said it had been flushed in a toilet, according to
the documents.
In a summary dated August 1, 2002, a detainee told his FBI
interviewer that he personally had nothing against the United States
but that the guards at the detention facility "do not treat him well.
"Their behavior is bad. About five months ago, the guards beat the
detainees. They flushed a Koran in the toilet. The guards dance
around when the detainees are trying to pray. The guards still do
these things," the summary said.
Lawrence DiRita, the Pentagon spokesman, said investigators
conducting a "commanders inquiry" into a Newsweek report of a Koran
being flushed down a toilet recently found a log entry from August
2002 that recorded a similar allegation by the same detainee.
Brigadier General Jay Hood, the military commander in Guantanamo,
questioned the detainee who had made the allegation on around May 14,
he said.
"Apparently the inmate was very cooperative and would not reassert
this particular allegation," DiRita told reporters.
He said other allegations of mistreatment of the Koran were looked
into at the time by the commander of the guards, but he insisted
"they just weren't credible on their face" because they ran counter
to the policies in place at the prison.
Major General Geoffrey Miller, the commander in Guantanamo at the
time, said there was a small group of hard-core detainees who knew
that allegations of the Koran being mistreated would agitate other
detainees, DiRita said.
"They were very aware that this was a sensitive issue, and the
practice was to be sensitive about it," he said.
Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan called Wednesday for a
congressional investigation into the reports of desecrations of the
Koran.
"As Muslims, we say enough is enough," the influential African
American leader said from the pulpit of his south Chicago mosque.
Farrakhan said a delegation of Muslim, Christian and Jewish leaders
should participate in the investigation.
Farrakhan also demanded that the US military either charge and try
the detainees at Guantanamo Bay or release them to their families.
The latest FBI documents were released in response to a lawsuit by
the American Civil Liberties Union, which posted them on its website.
The names and other information were blacked out by censors.
The interview summaries contain a litany of other allegations by
detainees -- that they were beaten by guards, sexually molested by
female interrogators, shown pornographic images or had their heads
and beards shaved as punishment. The theme that the detainees'
religion or culture was under assault by guards runs through many of
the summaries.
In an FBI interview on March 6, 2004, a detainee charged that
military police "have been mistreating the detainees by pushing them
around and throwing their waste bucket to them in the cell, sometimes
with waste still in the bucket, and kicking the Koran."
A summary dated March 11, 2004 said that "some unknown detainees are
not talking in retaliation to an incident where a guard kicked the
Koran."
Another on July 30, 2002 said an uprising at the prison earlier that
month started when a detainee claimed a guard had dropped a Koran.
"In actuality, the detainee dropped the Koran and then blamed the
guard. Many other detainees reacted to this claim, and this initiated
the uprising," the summary said.
One detainee "stated he had heard a detainee had been severely beaten
by a guard and had died. (The detainee said) he heard the altercation
between the detainee and the guards began when the guards
disrespected the Koran," according to a summary dated January 21, 2003.
In a February 4, 2003 summary, another detainee was reported to have
commented that younger guards were a source of the problem. "They
often disgrace the Koran by throwing it on the cell floor and
frequently use profanity which many of the detainees find extremely
offensive," it said.
The treatment of the Koran at Guantanamo came under scrutiny after
four days of riots in Afghanistan earlier this month which claimed
the lives of at least 14 people.
Pentagon officials angrily blamed Newsweek for triggering the riots
with what they said was a "demonstrably false" report that
investigators had found that interrogators at Guantanamo had flushed
a Koran in a toilet to rattle Muslim prisoners.
Newsweek later retracted the story after its main source, an unnammed
senior US official, backed away from it.
© 2005 AFP
Agung Petitioned to Pardon Anwar
The Agence France-Presse
Malaysian king petitioned to pardon Anwar
KUALA LUMPUR, May 26 (AFP) - Malaysia's king has been petitioned to
grant a royal pardon to former deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim which would
enable him to re-enter politics, a group of supporters said Thursday.
Anwar was heir apparent to former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad before
being sacked in 1998 and jailed on charges of corruption and sodomy,
which he said were cooked up to prevent him challenging Mahathir for the
premiership.
Malaysia's Federal Court overturned Anwar's sodomy conviction last
September, saying the charges could not be proved beyond reasonable
doubt and criticised the police and prosecution for their handling of the
case.
However, because of the corruption charge, which alleged Anwar abused
his power to cover up sexual misconduct, he is barred from standing for
public office until 2008 under laws covering convicted criminals.
The pardon, if it is granted, would allow Anwar to formally enter
politics immediately.
The group, which calls itself the Secretariat for Anwar's Pardon,
said in a statement that the petition had been submitted Wednesday to King
Tuanku Syed Sirajuddin.
Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, Anwar's wife and leader of the opposition Parti
Rakyat Keadilan, said they were hopeful that the pardon would be
granted.
"If he gets a pardon then he will (be) in the political arena of
Malaysia. Now he cannot participate actively in politics, but with the pardon
he will definitely be able to do that," she told AFP.
She said the outcome would depend on Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi, who
took over when Mahathir retired in October 2003 and needs to make a
recommendation on the petition to the king, who holds a largely
ceremonial position.
Wan Azizah said she had no indication of whether the leader viewed the
request favourably.
The group argues that Anwar should be granted the pardon because of
abuse he suffered while in police custody and that the overturning of the second
conviction negates the corruption conviction.
Malaysian king petitioned to pardon Anwar
KUALA LUMPUR, May 26 (AFP) - Malaysia's king has been petitioned to
grant a royal pardon to former deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim which would
enable him to re-enter politics, a group of supporters said Thursday.
Anwar was heir apparent to former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad before
being sacked in 1998 and jailed on charges of corruption and sodomy,
which he said were cooked up to prevent him challenging Mahathir for the
premiership.
Malaysia's Federal Court overturned Anwar's sodomy conviction last
September, saying the charges could not be proved beyond reasonable
doubt and criticised the police and prosecution for their handling of the
case.
However, because of the corruption charge, which alleged Anwar abused
his power to cover up sexual misconduct, he is barred from standing for
public office until 2008 under laws covering convicted criminals.
The pardon, if it is granted, would allow Anwar to formally enter
politics immediately.
The group, which calls itself the Secretariat for Anwar's Pardon,
said in a statement that the petition had been submitted Wednesday to King
Tuanku Syed Sirajuddin.
Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, Anwar's wife and leader of the opposition Parti
Rakyat Keadilan, said they were hopeful that the pardon would be
granted.
"If he gets a pardon then he will (be) in the political arena of
Malaysia. Now he cannot participate actively in politics, but with the pardon
he will definitely be able to do that," she told AFP.
She said the outcome would depend on Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi, who
took over when Mahathir retired in October 2003 and needs to make a
recommendation on the petition to the king, who holds a largely
ceremonial position.
Wan Azizah said she had no indication of whether the leader viewed the
request favourably.
The group argues that Anwar should be granted the pardon because of
abuse he suffered while in police custody and that the overturning of the second
conviction negates the corruption conviction.
Martin Lings (1909-2005)
Martin Lings
Islamic scholar and master of Sufism
21 May 2005
Martin Lings, English and Islamic scholar: born
Burnage, Lancashire 24 January 1909; Lecturer in
Anglo-Saxon and Middle English, University of Kaunas
1935-39; Lecturer in English Literature, University of
Cairo 1940-51; Assistant Keeper, Department of
Oriental Printed Books and Manuscripts, British Museum
(from 1973 British Library) 1955-70, Deputy Keeper
1970-71, Keeper 1971-73 (Emeritus); married 1944
Lesley Smalley; died Westerham, Kent 11 May 2005.
Martin Lings was one of the most eloquent and serene
Western voices in the Islamic world. Through his rich
and varied oeuvre, translated into more than a dozen
languages, Lings transmitted a certain vision of the
sacred as embodied in Sufism, the esoteric, spiritual
dimension of Islam.
He combined vast knowledge with meticulous
scholarship, a poetic sensibility and an elegant
expression, which made the most profound subjects
accessible, and enthralled the large audiences who
flocked to his lectures. His intellectual power was
tempered with the gentleness and the humility of the
Sufi, and in old age he had acquired the aura of one
who had striven all his life towards sanctity.
Lings was born in 1909 in Lancashire. After Clifton
College in Bristol, he went to Magdalen College,
Oxford, and read English under C.S. Lewis, who
recognised his gifted student's spiritual ardour.
Young Martin was intensely pious and spent the hours
he was not working in prayer, specifically to the
Virgin Mary, requesting her guidance in finding his
spiritual path. After Oxford he travelled in Europe,
lecturing at various universities including Kaunas in
Lithuania, and in 1940 went to Egypt to teach English
Literature at the University of Cairo. He stayed 11
years, mastered the Arabic language, and on his return
to London in the 1950s took a degree followed by a
doctorate in Arabic Studies at the School of Oriental
and African Studies.
It was in Cairo that Lings met the French philosopher
René Guénon, one of the guiding lights of what became
known as the Traditionalist School of philosophy, one
aspect of which is the critique of the modern world,
with its excessive materialism and loss of the sacred.
Lings became Guénon's assistant and devotee, and
through him discovered "Sophia Perennis", the eternal
wisdom whose principles are enshrined in the world's
great religions and spiritual traditions, from
Zoroastrianism, Buddhism and Hinduism to Christianity,
Judaism and Islam, and in the light of which he would
live his whole life.
But the decisive encounter of Martin Lings's life, one
which would define his path and work, was with the
Swiss-German philosopher and Sufi master Frithjof
Schuon, under whose guidance Lings converted to Islam.
His attraction was to Sufism, which is the esoteric
essence of the religion. He was initiated by Schuon
into the path of the Shadhiliyya Tariqa (the Sufi
fraternity) of which the Algerian Sheikh Ahmad
Al-Alawi was a great representative. Later Lings wrote
his PhD on Al-Alawi and also a superb biography, A
Moslem Saint of the Twentieth Century (1961, revised
as A Sufi Saint of the Twentieth Century, 1971). Lings
rose to become a spiritual master himself, following
Schuon's death 10 years ago.
In 1944 Lings married his childhood friend Lesley
Smalley, who followed the same spiritual itinerary. On
their return from Cairo they settled in London, and
Martin became first Assistant and later the Keeper of
Oriental Books and Manuscripts of the British Museum,
where he stayed until his retirement in the early
1970s.
He spent the last 30 years of his life writing books,
and lecturing all over the world, to a growing
following. Among his numerous books are the
magisterial Muhammad: his life based on the earliest
sources (1983), Shakespeare in the Light of Sacred Art
(1966, reissued as The Secret of Shakespeare, 1984,
with an introduction by the Prince of Wales), in which
the roots of Shakespeare's oeuvre are traced to the
Platonic and Scholastic traditions, and the splendid
The Quranic Art of Calligraphy and Illumination (1976,
republished as Splendours of Qur'an Calligraphy and
Illumination, 2004). Lings's final work was Mecca, a
history of the sacred city from pre-Abrahamic times to
today, published last year.
At the time when so much nonsense is talked about "the
clashes of civilisations" and Islam is under siege,
the work of Martin Lings shines like a beacon. He
lived in a modest cottage in the middle of woods in
Kent. A keen and original gardener, he created a small
but ravishing garden with a view over the undulating
country all around. He was laid to rest among the
flowers and plants he had lovingly cultivated.
Shusha Guppy
Islamic scholar and master of Sufism
21 May 2005
Martin Lings, English and Islamic scholar: born
Burnage, Lancashire 24 January 1909; Lecturer in
Anglo-Saxon and Middle English, University of Kaunas
1935-39; Lecturer in English Literature, University of
Cairo 1940-51; Assistant Keeper, Department of
Oriental Printed Books and Manuscripts, British Museum
(from 1973 British Library) 1955-70, Deputy Keeper
1970-71, Keeper 1971-73 (Emeritus); married 1944
Lesley Smalley; died Westerham, Kent 11 May 2005.
Martin Lings was one of the most eloquent and serene
Western voices in the Islamic world. Through his rich
and varied oeuvre, translated into more than a dozen
languages, Lings transmitted a certain vision of the
sacred as embodied in Sufism, the esoteric, spiritual
dimension of Islam.
He combined vast knowledge with meticulous
scholarship, a poetic sensibility and an elegant
expression, which made the most profound subjects
accessible, and enthralled the large audiences who
flocked to his lectures. His intellectual power was
tempered with the gentleness and the humility of the
Sufi, and in old age he had acquired the aura of one
who had striven all his life towards sanctity.
Lings was born in 1909 in Lancashire. After Clifton
College in Bristol, he went to Magdalen College,
Oxford, and read English under C.S. Lewis, who
recognised his gifted student's spiritual ardour.
Young Martin was intensely pious and spent the hours
he was not working in prayer, specifically to the
Virgin Mary, requesting her guidance in finding his
spiritual path. After Oxford he travelled in Europe,
lecturing at various universities including Kaunas in
Lithuania, and in 1940 went to Egypt to teach English
Literature at the University of Cairo. He stayed 11
years, mastered the Arabic language, and on his return
to London in the 1950s took a degree followed by a
doctorate in Arabic Studies at the School of Oriental
and African Studies.
It was in Cairo that Lings met the French philosopher
René Guénon, one of the guiding lights of what became
known as the Traditionalist School of philosophy, one
aspect of which is the critique of the modern world,
with its excessive materialism and loss of the sacred.
Lings became Guénon's assistant and devotee, and
through him discovered "Sophia Perennis", the eternal
wisdom whose principles are enshrined in the world's
great religions and spiritual traditions, from
Zoroastrianism, Buddhism and Hinduism to Christianity,
Judaism and Islam, and in the light of which he would
live his whole life.
But the decisive encounter of Martin Lings's life, one
which would define his path and work, was with the
Swiss-German philosopher and Sufi master Frithjof
Schuon, under whose guidance Lings converted to Islam.
His attraction was to Sufism, which is the esoteric
essence of the religion. He was initiated by Schuon
into the path of the Shadhiliyya Tariqa (the Sufi
fraternity) of which the Algerian Sheikh Ahmad
Al-Alawi was a great representative. Later Lings wrote
his PhD on Al-Alawi and also a superb biography, A
Moslem Saint of the Twentieth Century (1961, revised
as A Sufi Saint of the Twentieth Century, 1971). Lings
rose to become a spiritual master himself, following
Schuon's death 10 years ago.
In 1944 Lings married his childhood friend Lesley
Smalley, who followed the same spiritual itinerary. On
their return from Cairo they settled in London, and
Martin became first Assistant and later the Keeper of
Oriental Books and Manuscripts of the British Museum,
where he stayed until his retirement in the early
1970s.
He spent the last 30 years of his life writing books,
and lecturing all over the world, to a growing
following. Among his numerous books are the
magisterial Muhammad: his life based on the earliest
sources (1983), Shakespeare in the Light of Sacred Art
(1966, reissued as The Secret of Shakespeare, 1984,
with an introduction by the Prince of Wales), in which
the roots of Shakespeare's oeuvre are traced to the
Platonic and Scholastic traditions, and the splendid
The Quranic Art of Calligraphy and Illumination (1976,
republished as Splendours of Qur'an Calligraphy and
Illumination, 2004). Lings's final work was Mecca, a
history of the sacred city from pre-Abrahamic times to
today, published last year.
At the time when so much nonsense is talked about "the
clashes of civilisations" and Islam is under siege,
the work of Martin Lings shines like a beacon. He
lived in a modest cottage in the middle of woods in
Kent. A keen and original gardener, he created a small
but ravishing garden with a view over the undulating
country all around. He was laid to rest among the
flowers and plants he had lovingly cultivated.
Shusha Guppy
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Future of the Malays
The New Straits Times, Kuala Lumpur
10 April 2005
THE BIG PICTURE: Separating the wheat from chaff
By Munir Majid
JUST recently, the issue of the future of the Malays - their achievement or their shortcoming - again came to the fore. It is an issue that will always be a concern of Malaysian politics, as Malays form the majority in the country. Their performance and well-being will determine where this country goes, along with the other races of course but, more so, given their numbers and position in government, administration and, slowly but surely, in the professions and the modern economy.
Thus, while it is axiomatic in our political system that the Malays must be secure and must feel secure, there is, increasingly, a direct correlation between how far and how fast Malaysia progresses with how well and how successfully the Malay performs in the polity.
One should not, however, hold the other to ransom.
The modernisation of Malaysia must mean the modernisation of the Malays. They must not want to modernise and then blame the system for leaving them behind. Any assessment of the status of the Malay today should not take the form of bleating and blaming. Neither should it, as Raja Nazrin Shah rightly said recently, take the habit of beating the Malay down to a worthless person.
There is too much evidence, especially nowadays, of so many worthy Malays, including those from much humbler backgrounds than the Raja Muda of Perak. So bleating, blaming and demeaning would not be right or true or worthwhile. All of it would be deleterious to the country's well- being, not to mention the Malays' future.
Least of all should the Malays be saying, "If I do not get it all my way I will blow the whole political house down". We are all in it together, not just the Malays and non-Malays, but also the Malays with different perspectives.
Let us be calm, unemotional and objective in approaching issues, acknowledging there are at least two sides to them, and discussing them without being threatening or judgmental.
Mind your language
THE issue of the national language is settled, but sometimes rumbles, when the use of English comes up, which does not seem to be settled.
First of all, it may be useful if we are clear on one thing: You can think filthy thoughts about the country in the national language, as in the English language, or any other language.
What is most important is love of your country and commitment to it. The national language is an important symbol and communicative characteristic of the country, of course, and the Malay language has that permanent place in our nation. Nothing will change that, whatever happens with the use of English or any other language.
If we get transfixed on English being the language of the colonialist, we might get stuck in time, as it is now the language of international commerce, and of science and technology.
We might not even be exactly accurate in perceiving it only as the language of the colonialist, as it was also the language of Jawaharlal Nehru, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Kwame Nkrumah, and Jomo Kenyatta - who all sent the colonialist packing.
The use of English does not per se come with colonialist baggage and does not belittle local traditions and language, unless, of course, those who use it feel so belittled.
Indeed, some of the best writers in the English language today, whether literary or academic, are non-white - people like Kazuo Ishiguro, Hanif Kureishi, Timothy Mo or the late Edward Said. Even before, there was the towering Tagore, and Iqbal.
Of course, in the liberal tradition of the West, there are also those whom I consider to be sellouts - like V.S. Naipaul and Salman Rushdie - but my point is about the mastery and use of the language at the highest level of excellence, better than the natives, a form of counter-domination.
If, however, the gripe about the use of English is based on the disadvantage it places on the Malay kid in learning science and mathematics, as Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah pointed out recently, then it is fair enough. The Government must ensure that the disadvantage is removed swiftly with clear focused action, and not just say it is looking into it, so that the Malays are not left further behind.
Get an overview
IF we see the big picture, and resist ideological and emotional temptations, and work hard at finding solutions by avoiding antagonistic stands, we will make the good come through. We must not concentrate on inconsequential matters, as Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad reminded Umno Youth a couple of days ago, and miss the wood for the trees.
Malays must eschew this tendency, particularly over language and religion.
When I interviewed Yasmin Alibhai Brown on Fast Forward on TV1 two Tuesdays ago, I got an irate email about how she could be considered a Muslim when she was an Ismailia, despite the fact that she considered herself a Muslim and was fighting for Muslim rights in Britain as she thought best. Really, I would leave the matter of whether she is a Muslim or not to Allah and not make it an issue of such heated human disputation that has cost, and still does, so many Muslim lives.
What would have been fruitful would have been a discussion on whether she was right, for instance, in insisting on individual freedom in moral issues, and yet express a concern over moral decay.
Actually, on this score, she was as intemperate as those who insist on the right to intrude without argument. In reality, as we all know if we did not jump in at the deep end to start with, there are quite a few more issues that have to be addressed other than the black and white answer.
There is both private and public morality. There is right to private expression, but no licence to public indecency. What is and is not can be discussed.
How to ensure the parameters are then clear can also be discussed. But let's not be righteous and judgmental about it, because then we would only get the dialogue of the deaf.
In religion, as with language, the Malays must work out in a clear and calm manner what is good, what bad. It clearly would be good for our race if we made progress, together with our religion, which is for all ages, and did not leave it behind.
10 April 2005
THE BIG PICTURE: Separating the wheat from chaff
By Munir Majid
JUST recently, the issue of the future of the Malays - their achievement or their shortcoming - again came to the fore. It is an issue that will always be a concern of Malaysian politics, as Malays form the majority in the country. Their performance and well-being will determine where this country goes, along with the other races of course but, more so, given their numbers and position in government, administration and, slowly but surely, in the professions and the modern economy.
Thus, while it is axiomatic in our political system that the Malays must be secure and must feel secure, there is, increasingly, a direct correlation between how far and how fast Malaysia progresses with how well and how successfully the Malay performs in the polity.
One should not, however, hold the other to ransom.
The modernisation of Malaysia must mean the modernisation of the Malays. They must not want to modernise and then blame the system for leaving them behind. Any assessment of the status of the Malay today should not take the form of bleating and blaming. Neither should it, as Raja Nazrin Shah rightly said recently, take the habit of beating the Malay down to a worthless person.
There is too much evidence, especially nowadays, of so many worthy Malays, including those from much humbler backgrounds than the Raja Muda of Perak. So bleating, blaming and demeaning would not be right or true or worthwhile. All of it would be deleterious to the country's well- being, not to mention the Malays' future.
Least of all should the Malays be saying, "If I do not get it all my way I will blow the whole political house down". We are all in it together, not just the Malays and non-Malays, but also the Malays with different perspectives.
Let us be calm, unemotional and objective in approaching issues, acknowledging there are at least two sides to them, and discussing them without being threatening or judgmental.
Mind your language
THE issue of the national language is settled, but sometimes rumbles, when the use of English comes up, which does not seem to be settled.
First of all, it may be useful if we are clear on one thing: You can think filthy thoughts about the country in the national language, as in the English language, or any other language.
What is most important is love of your country and commitment to it. The national language is an important symbol and communicative characteristic of the country, of course, and the Malay language has that permanent place in our nation. Nothing will change that, whatever happens with the use of English or any other language.
If we get transfixed on English being the language of the colonialist, we might get stuck in time, as it is now the language of international commerce, and of science and technology.
We might not even be exactly accurate in perceiving it only as the language of the colonialist, as it was also the language of Jawaharlal Nehru, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Kwame Nkrumah, and Jomo Kenyatta - who all sent the colonialist packing.
The use of English does not per se come with colonialist baggage and does not belittle local traditions and language, unless, of course, those who use it feel so belittled.
Indeed, some of the best writers in the English language today, whether literary or academic, are non-white - people like Kazuo Ishiguro, Hanif Kureishi, Timothy Mo or the late Edward Said. Even before, there was the towering Tagore, and Iqbal.
Of course, in the liberal tradition of the West, there are also those whom I consider to be sellouts - like V.S. Naipaul and Salman Rushdie - but my point is about the mastery and use of the language at the highest level of excellence, better than the natives, a form of counter-domination.
If, however, the gripe about the use of English is based on the disadvantage it places on the Malay kid in learning science and mathematics, as Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah pointed out recently, then it is fair enough. The Government must ensure that the disadvantage is removed swiftly with clear focused action, and not just say it is looking into it, so that the Malays are not left further behind.
Get an overview
IF we see the big picture, and resist ideological and emotional temptations, and work hard at finding solutions by avoiding antagonistic stands, we will make the good come through. We must not concentrate on inconsequential matters, as Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad reminded Umno Youth a couple of days ago, and miss the wood for the trees.
Malays must eschew this tendency, particularly over language and religion.
When I interviewed Yasmin Alibhai Brown on Fast Forward on TV1 two Tuesdays ago, I got an irate email about how she could be considered a Muslim when she was an Ismailia, despite the fact that she considered herself a Muslim and was fighting for Muslim rights in Britain as she thought best. Really, I would leave the matter of whether she is a Muslim or not to Allah and not make it an issue of such heated human disputation that has cost, and still does, so many Muslim lives.
What would have been fruitful would have been a discussion on whether she was right, for instance, in insisting on individual freedom in moral issues, and yet express a concern over moral decay.
Actually, on this score, she was as intemperate as those who insist on the right to intrude without argument. In reality, as we all know if we did not jump in at the deep end to start with, there are quite a few more issues that have to be addressed other than the black and white answer.
There is both private and public morality. There is right to private expression, but no licence to public indecency. What is and is not can be discussed.
How to ensure the parameters are then clear can also be discussed. But let's not be righteous and judgmental about it, because then we would only get the dialogue of the deaf.
In religion, as with language, the Malays must work out in a clear and calm manner what is good, what bad. It clearly would be good for our race if we made progress, together with our religion, which is for all ages, and did not leave it behind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)