Daniel Pipes: ‘I watch with frustration as the Israelis don't get the point'

Interview: ‘I watch with frustration as the Israelis don't get the point'
by Ruthie Blum
Jerusalem Post
June 9, 2006
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3667


Daniel Pipes. "The basic problem is that the Arabic-speaking Muslims have had a great deal of difficulty in coping with modern life, and blame others for their problems." Photo: Ariel Jerozolimski


In Israel last month to receive the "Guardian of Zion" award from Bar-Ilan University's Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies, Middle East scholar and author Daniel Pipes pulled no punches. In his acceptance speech at the King David Hotel before a distinguished gathering of academics, politicians, business people and the media, Pipes did something that - while perhaps, par for his own lonely course of late - was unconventional to say the least. It certainly strayed from the pro forma podium fare that was the focus of his predecessors' professions of dedication to the Jewish state and its capital. Rather than emphasizing his heart-felt connection to the land and people of Israel, he gave a lecture on "The Muslim Claim to Jerusalem."

With the customary articulateness and the scholarly adherence to historical data that are the trademarks of his writings - among them a weekly column in these pages - Pipes produced empirical evidence to demonstrate that any and all Arab claims to "al-Quds" are, and have always been, merely utilitarian. Period.

In other words, Pipes showed himself a Guardian of Zion and Jerusalem not by direct professions of love, but by refuting the fallacious arguments of those he identifies, in no uncertain terms, as Israel's mortal enemies.

Another feature of the annual ceremony that distinguished it from that of previous years was the opening of the floor to questions from the audience following the lecture. This spiced the festive dinner with the flavor of a debate; though in this case, there was clearly more a sense of serene agreement among the few hundred attendees than skepticism or hostility. Which may have been something of an unusual experience for Pipes, who is under constant attack from the Left for his portrayal of the Islamist agenda, and for his calling to task the departments of Middle East studies at North American universities - through his Middle East Forum's Campus Watch project - for what he considers to be academic malpractice.

Nor has he been winning any popularity contests among former political and intellectual allies on the Right - not, that is, since conservatives first split over the wisdom of Ariel Sharon's unilateral disengagement plan. While neoconservative appointees in the Bush Administration - like many Bush-backers elsewhere - have remained loyal to the policies of the American president and the former Israeli prime minister, others, like Pipes, have been sounding alarm bells about both.

In an hour-long interview with The Jerusalem Post in his suite at the King David on the eve of the award ceremony, Pipes pinpointed what he considers to be Israel's fundamental failing: a shift from victory-driven warfare to conflict management.

"In the end, one side will win and one side will lose," he said, shrugging matter-of-factly, his mild-mannered tone seemingly at odds with his message. "What's so striking is that Israel, which is a modern, sophisticated, globalized country, seems not to understand this. Very few Israelis are aware of the need to win. As an outsider, I watch with frustration as the Israelis don't get the point."

Were you surprised to have won this particular award?
Yes, it came as a surprise.

Why?
Well, the prior recipients were people I admired, and I didn't quite see myself in their league. [Previous recipients were William Safire, Arthur Cohn, Ruth Wisse, Charles Krauthammer, Cynthia Ozick, Sir Martin Gilbert, A.M. Rosenthal, Herman Wouk and Elie Wiesel.]

You didn't see yourself "in their league" or you don't share their views on Israel?
Those who won this award have been, as the title suggests, "Guardians of Zion" - in other words, defenders of Israel. That description applies less well to me. If anything, I lambaste Israel.

What do you "lambaste" Israel for?
Israelis have lost their way when it comes to relations with the Arabs, and more specifically, when it comes to war goals. I criticize Israelis - and I mean the body politic, not specifically the leadership - for thinking that management of the conflict is the best that can be done.

As opposed to…?
As opposed to winning. Over the course of the past 15 years, one has seen a host of proposals on how to manage the conflict. Some of these proposals became government policy; many others are simply proposals. What they have in common, from Left to Right, is that they see this conflict as unwinnable, as merely manageable.

The security fence is a case in point. I am for it. Clearly, it has had - and in the future, when it's completed, will have even more - the effect of keeping out would-be murderers. But a wall is not the way to win a conflict. A wall is a tactical mechanism to protect oneself, not a strategic way of winning a war. Winning a war requires imagination - perspective - to impose your will on your enemy. That is classically what victory means: imposing your will on your enemy. It doesn't mean massacring or impoverishing the enemy, but causing him to give up his goals. This notion is virtually absent from Israeli political discussion.

You say that Israelis have "lost their way" in relation to the Arabs. This implies a shift. When do you see this shift from aiming to win the conflict to merely managing it as having taken place?
A profound shift took place during the decade between the 1982 war in Lebanon and the 1993 Oslo Accord.

Is criticizing Israel the only difference between yourself and prior Rennert award winners?
No, there is another. I focus on Muslims rather than defend Israel. I don't spend time on the British boycott of Israeli universities, or on the bias against Israel at the United Nations. I don't justify Israel. I don't fit the pattern in the sense that I look at Israel primarily from the Palestinian, Arab, Muslim point of view. My work involves not so much the defense of Israel as looking at Syria, the Palestinians, etc.

Is there really such a thing as an Arab "point of view?" After all, there are so many different Arab and Muslim countries in the world.
There are enormous numbers of differences and exceptions among them, but I think in general one can draw a broad outline of a viewpoint, yes.

So, from an Arab point of view, what constitutes the imposition of will on an enemy?
I understand this conflict between Israel and the Arabs to be defined by war goals. Israel's war goals consist of winning the acceptance of its Arab enemies, in particular that of the Palestinians. Acceptance means no longer using force - or other means, for that matter - to eliminate the Jewish state. The Arab war goals, conversely, are to eliminate the Jewish state. I see this as binary - as black and white. One side wins, one side loses. Compromise cannot take place. Oslo was a grand experiment in compromise, and it failed. In the end, one side imposes its will on the other.

Now, if the Arabs impose their will on Israelis, it means there will be no sovereign Jewish state. There could be a Jewish population living under Palestinian or other Arab rule. Or it could be that the Jews flee. It could be that they're murdered. But there's no more sovereign Jewish state.

Should the Israelis win, the Arabs acknowledge, however grudgingly, that Israel's there and is a permanent fact of life. They don't have to have trade with it, or sponsor Hebrew classes in their schools - these would be nice things, but they're not necessary. A cold peace, as it were, would work. But unlike the one with Egypt, there truly must be acceptance.

What's so striking is that Israel, which is a modern, sophisticated, globalized country, seems not to understand this. Very few Israelis are aware of the need to win. As an outsider, I watch with frustration as the Israelis don't get the point.

And the Palestinians?
The Palestinians, who have not scaled the same sophisticated heights, ironically, do understand that their goal is to win.

How much of this is connected to pressure from Washington?
I have been struck for 15 years now by how Israelis make their own destiny with little reference to Washington. Looking at the relationship schematically, until the 1967 war, Washington exerted little diplomatic pressure on Israel, for there was no one to negotiate with on the Arab side. But then, even in the midst of the Six Day War, president Lyndon B. Johnson had formulated the outline of the land-for-peace policy that all these decades later still drives US diplomacy toward the Arab-Israeli conflict.

This became more real when [Egyptian President Anwar] Sadat took office and with the diplomacy that did ensue, especially in 1973.

For the next 20 years, constant tension divided Washington and Jerusalem. Washington advised Jerusalem to take the plunge, and Jerusalem responded with caution, pointed out that the Arabs say one thing in Arabic and another in English - that they are not sincere.

This tension finally dissolved in 1993, when, under [prime minister] Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli government said, in effect, "OK, United States, you're right. Let's give it a try."

Since then, there basically has been no tension, other than modest, temporary strains under [prime minister Binyamin] Netanyahu.

The degree of agreement between Washington and Jerusalem has been remarkable, as has been Jerusalem's initiative. Consider three examples: The Oslo Accord was done in Oslo, not in Washington, to keep the Americans from knowing about it. At the tail end of [prime minister] Ehud Barak's and [US president] Bill Clinton's time in office, in January 2001, the former pushed the latter to come up with some arrangement that would finally settle matters at Taba. And there was [prime minister Ariel] Sharon's change of heart concerning Gaza in November 2003.

What about "occupation"? What is its role in all of this?
The Palestinians hold the notion of occupation dear to them, to the point that no matter what Israel does - even withdraw forces completely from Gaza - they say the occupation continues. Israelis are trying to "un-occupy," in terms of currency, utilities and much else, and the Palestinians are saying, "No, we're your unwanted stepchild, and we're yours."

They found that this word, ihtilal (occupation), is a very useful one, domestically and internationally.

What is the ultimate Palestinian war goal, then, statehood or the elimination of Israel?
Oh, definitely the elimination of Israel. That is to say, there is far wider agreement on this than on the notion of a Palestinian state. Recall that making the region Israel controls into southern Syria drove Arab politics in the early 1950s. Then came the heyday of Pan-Arab nationalism in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Today, Hamas strives for an Islamic state whose boundaries need not be those of Mandatory Palestine. All of these outlooks agree on the need to eliminate Israel but disagree on what should replace it.

There is much talk now about the regimes in Egypt and Jordan being in danger of destabilization as a result of the chaos in the Palestinian Authority. If so, why are these countries more actively siding with the PA than with Israel?
The Palestinian cause is a challenge to most Arab leaders - something they ride at their peril. It has a potential to challenge their regimes from the outside. So they handle the issue with great caution. Most Arab leaders, especially those of Jordan and Egypt, would like to end this conflict. Indeed, in both cases, their predecessors tried, by signing formal peace agreements with Israel, to pull out.

Why did that not succeed?
In both cases, the population said no. They had given their proxy to their governments and said, "Here, leaders, you're in charge of anti-Zionism."

When the leaders betrayed them by signing formal peace agreements - Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994 - the popular reaction was, "We're taking back our proxy; we've got to do this ourselves."

You see a ratcheting up in popular attitudes toward Israel.

I lived in Egypt for three years before the signing of the peace agreement with Israel, and Israel was hardly ever a topic. Egyptians did not engage in economic boycotts of firms that were dealing with Israel or rumored to be sending money to Israel. No songs celebrated hatred of Israel. Political cartoons were nasty toward Israel, but just politically, not religiously.

I conclude that we see a far deeper anti-Israel sentiment in the post-1979 period than before then. The same goes for Jordan, where the king signed a particularly warm agreement with Israel, the popular reaction to which was, "No! We will not have trade. We will not have other forms of contact with Israel."

What does this imply?
That, contrary to common perception - according to which Arab governments foment trouble with Israel as a cheap way of diverting attention from their own malpractices - the issue of Israel is a grass-roots issue that scares them. We witnessed this, for example, during the violence of late 2000-early 2001, when massive demonstrations took place on Arab streets and the governments dealt with them very gingerly. A prime minister might head a demonstration in a show of solidarity, but he was clearly nervous about it.

Any comments on the actions of the Egyptian and Jordanian governments lately?
They have begun to revert to their pre-1967 roles - Egypt in Gaza and Jordan in the West Bank. They exert nothing like the control they enjoyed before June 5, 1967, but both governments now - with Israelis pulling back and Hamas surging in power - are nervously concerned with what's taking place in their former territories.

Many Israelis who favored disengagement from Gaza say that the success of the withdrawal can be seen in the chaos - perhaps civil war, even - now taking place in the PA between Hamas and Fatah.
I disagree. First, I see no causal effect between the Israeli withdrawal and the anarchy in the PA - which began much earlier. I documented it from February 2004 in a blog titled "The Growing Palestinian Anarchy."

Second, I'm not altogether sure that this violence benefits Israel. Short-term, there's a diversion of attention away from Israel. But long-term, the forces unleashed now might well harm Israel.

Third, this surely is not the way to judge the withdrawal, which needs to be assessed from Israel's point of view on the basis of whether it has enhanced Israeli interests and security or not. I'd say there are strong reasons to claim it has not.

Is there a causal relationship between Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon and the events leading up to disengagement from Gaza?
I definitely think there was. There are a few pieces of evidence. First, a number of statements by Palestinian leaders indicated how deeply they were influenced by the Israeli withdrawal in May 2000. Second, it vindicated the Palestinian use of violence. This requires some background.

The great debate among Palestinians is not over goals; the elimination of Israel is a consensus goal among 80 percent of the Palestinian population, while the other 20% has no voice. The debate among that 80% for two decades has been how best to deal with Israel.

The PLO answer is to engage it. Look at all the benefits it won by making fraudulent statements and giving empty assurances: It got the Palestinian Authority, a proto-military force, greater world support and so forth.

To which Hamas replies that the PLO has degraded itself, lost its purpose and betrayed the purity of the cause. This has been the key debate among Palestinians.

In this light, the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, driven by Hizbullah, signalled that Palestinians, too, can achieve their goals without negotiations, without trucking with the enemy. Just relentlessly hammer away, kill, attack, year after year, and the Israelis will take flight. There's no need for negotiations, for agreements, for international involvement. This powerful argument resonated in Palestinian circles.

How so?
The first manifestation of this came just two months later, in July 2000 at Camp David. Despite Barak's quite extraordinary offers, Yasser Arafat not only said no, but he did so without making any reciprocal offers. I mean, he was pressured to go there by the US government. And he showed up. But he said no to everything, and the talks collapsed. Two short months later, the violence began - violence in good part inspired by Hizbullah tactics - a very different form of violence from what had been seen before: particularly the suicide bombing, a Hizbullah tactic, and the use of videos to build up the would-be suicide bomber giving testimonial, or then showing the actual scene of the attack. So, whether tactical or strategic, Hizbullah set the pace. Showed the Palestinians how to do it.

How did this affect the withdrawal from Gaza?
The dominant Palestinian slogan last summer was, "Today Gaza, tomorrow Jerusalem."

There's no question that they saw the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza as a vindication of their use of force. I'd be hard-pressed to gainsay them, because it's quite clear to me that had there not been violence in Gaza, the Israeli military and the Israeli civilians would still be there. They only left because of the violence.

And the West Bank?
The same applies there. Should there be a withdrawal there, too, it's because it became too difficult. When things get painful - whether in Lebanon or Gaza - Israelis leave. That sends a signal that violence works. It presumably will be applied in Jerusalem, Haifa and Tel Aviv as well.

How would the White House have responded after President Bush's June 24, 2002 speech, had Sharon gone to Washington and, instead of proposing disengagement, requested that the PA be treated as an enemy that had to be defeated militarily as part of the war on terror?
It would have been a hard sell. US policy towards the Arab-Israeli conflict, since 1993, has been premised on the idea that since 1993, Palestinians and Israelis are "partners for peace" - that their war is over and it's now a matter of finding the modalities of a resolution. Therefore, the sort of things that the US government does vis-à-vis the Taliban or al-Qaida are wrong, illegitimate and counterproductive for Israel to pursue vis-à-vis the Palestinians. America is at war, while Israel is making peace.

The US government would have to be addressed on this level, something along the lines of, "No, Mr. President, we're not at peace; we're at war, just like you are. We tried negotiations, but they failed. Just as the US government is engaged in an asymmetric war, where the vastness of the US is arrayed against al-Qaida, so, too, in a lesser disproportion, Israel is arrayed against the PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad."

But Israeli leaders did not make the case, because it is not their view. Instead, Sharon agreed with Bush in principle and actually disagreed a lot on the ground - which was a reasonable approach, and it did work.

I came out against that June 24th speech, which I thought rewarded terrorism. But I understand that the Israeli prime minister would rather not tangle with the US president. So he said, "Good idea" - both with this and the roadmap - and then implemented his own way. I, as an American foreign policy analyst, don't need to do that.

As an American foreign policy analyst, how do you explain the split among the neoconservatives regarding the Israeli policy of unilateral territorial withdrawals?
I attribute the split to Sharon and his change of views. Given his personal history and his being prime minister, he had a lot of credibility on the Right. As he made his pirouette from one outlook to another - from opposing unilateral withdrawal to favoring it - a lot of people went with him. Basically, they said to him, "Arik, you understand this more deeply than I, and you see it further than I do, so I'm following you."

Can the Arab world democratize?
Yes. There's nothing in the Arab DNA that is anti-democratic.

Do you see it making such a transformation?
Possibly, but it will take a long time. A lot of things have to change. The basic problem is that the Arabic-speaking Muslims have had a great deal of difficulty in coping with modern life, and blame others for their problems. They're not introspective and not productive and constructive in their self-criticism. A notable exception would be the UN's Arab Human Development Report of 2002 - which made one take note. But it's such a wisp in the overall conspiratorial mindset, which requires profound changes taking place.

Profound changes in Islam, you mean? Like some kind of reformation?
Religious reformation is certainly very important, but changes are also needed outside the religious sphere. A sense of taking responsibility for themselves. An attempt to be introspective, to figure out what the problems are.

There are positive examples. The ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Muhammad Bin Rashed Al Maktoum, has recently come out with a book titled My Vision, for instance. He's of note, because he actually achieved something. He stayed away from ideology and built an economic success story. He did this through intelligence and good practices.

But such positive elements are few and far between. The Arabic-speaking Muslim world - as the Muslim world as a whole, perhaps even more so - is in a state of anger, denial, fury, extremism and conspiracism that creates problems for the entire world. It's a threat to us all, including to those Muslims who want to live a modern, civilized life.

Do you think that they're demographically "a threat to us all?"
The Muslim demographic upsurge is striking. But there's every reason to see it as temporary. Europe went through a huge population burst at a point in its development, then had a demographic levelling and is now experiencing collapse. A number of Muslim countries are already going through a demographic decline.

And the Muslim population in Europe?
That's a different story. European women have an average of something like 1.4 children, when 2.1 is what's necessary for continuity. In other words, one-third of the needed population is never born. That one-third is primarily being replaced by immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries which are nearby, with which there are colonial relationships, or which are particularly eager to get to Europe because of troubles in their own countries. Europeans are not really coming to terms with this phenomenon. They do not bother to figure out how to adapt to their population deficit or to decide which immigrants they want.

In December 2002, a month after the Turkish elections, you attended the Herzliya Conference, where you were chided for being pessimistic about the rise to power of the Islamist party. How do things look now in Turkey?
Things look bad, especially of late. [Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip] Erdogan is turning out to be a skilled, savvy, cautious politician who is moving to promote the Islamist agenda. Whether it be foreign policy, the judiciary, the role of the military, relations with majority-Muslim states or Turkey's regional standing, the Islamist influence is paramount.

The great question about Turkey is whether Erdogan and his colleagues see themselves as countering the Ataturk Revolution - as being the anti-Ataturk cadres - or whether they're willing to work within the Ataturk structure.

I can't say for sure that they're revolutionaries, that their goal is to upend the system. But it certainly seems more likely than not, and more so with time.

Another one of your projects is Campus Watch. You have been accused of being an academic witch-hunter where the free flow of ideas in the universities is concerned.
Campus Watch is specifically concerned with Middle East studies in the United States and Canada, and what we perceive on the basis of Martin Kramer's book, Ivory Towers on Sand, to be the failure of this enterprise. We criticize the substantive work, the extremism and the imposition of political views on students. And we hope that by bringing this to the attention of the general public, two positive results will follow: First, that Middle East specialists will be more cautious; and second, that universities will make sure that there's more intellectual diversity.

We've been quite successful in the former, where we see repeatedly specialists being aware of Campus Watch and being more cautious. We have not even begun to have any achievement in the latter area, where appointments are still very much skewed.

How have you been successful in the former?
By attracting attention to problems with Middle East studies. For example, our work uncovered the wretched excesses of Middle East studies at Columbia University and we initially noted Juan Cole, the professor now much in the public eye because of his possible move to Yale.

Do Middle East studies differ from other academic areas in this respect?
No. They are perfectly representative of many social science and humanities fields, whether it be Latin American studies or anthropology or English literature. We focus on the Middle East because it has a prominence other areas lack. Take a concept like jihad, which is central to understanding the war on terror, and you hear historians of Islam, religious specialists or others, almost without exception saying that jihad is moral self-improvement - becoming a better colleague; working on behalf of women's rights; working against apartheid. They are generally unwilling to state what it really is, which is warfare that expands Muslim control of land. This is a very important concept, and whom does one turn to for an understanding of it? Not to politicians, not to the media, but to specialists. And they have failed, betrayed their profession, by not being candid as to what this means. This is disinformation and dissimulation. It is what we criticize.

When, in his victory speech in January 2005, PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas said the period of the "little jihad has ended, and now the big jihad is beginning," there was much debate in Israel as to the meaning of his statement. Some local Middle East analysts said that "little jihad" was warfare, and that "big jihad" meant internal spiritual ascension. Are you saying they were spreading disinformation?
Not in this case. A secondary meaning of the word jihad comes from Sufism and means, in fact, moral self-improvement. But, when used in the public sphere - when Osama bin Laden uses it, or in statements by Islamic Jihad - it normally refers to warfare to extend Muslim control.

Do you envision a situation in which there will be a reverse shift - in Israel and elsewhere in the West - from managing conflicts to imposing victory on the enemy?
I don't know. Sometimes I'm optimistic and think that the unending failures of not striving for victory will eventually lead someone to figure this out. On the other hand, I see how mistaken policies can go on year after year.

Were you optimistic in this way on 9/11? Did you believe it was the event that would "lead someone to figure this out?"
Yes, I was, with "united we stand" being the slogan of that period, and with the sense of resolve, the willingness to undo the Taliban regime. The 50-50 division in the United States now between those who understand we are at war and those involved in a glorified police operation was not something I expected.

But now, having seen that division, and having seen what happened after the 2004 Madrid train bombings, the 2005 London bombings and other major terrorist incidents, I'm no longer surprised.

IPPs - yet another Dr M mistake
Jun 9, 06 5:35pm

Can former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad explain why he approved such generous contracts to the independent power producers (IPPs) which cost the country billions of ringgit? That’s the question on everyone’s lips after former Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB) chief Ani Arope told The Star that he was sacked in 1996 for refusing to sign the grossly unfair deal with the IPPs.

In the June 6 interview, Ani said that TNB was “harassed” by the government’s Economic Planning Unit to ink the one-sided Power Purchasing Agreements (PPAs) deal. “They said you just take it and I refused to sign the contracts. And then, I was put out to pasture,” he said.

When asked how the IPPs were created, he gave a terse answer: “Ask our previous prime minister (Mahathir).” DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng said that Mahathir should respond to the former national power utility chief’s accusations. “The PPAs are the cause of the huge losses faced by TNB where TNB is forced to pay RM3.3 billion in capacity payments annually for power it does not use or sell.

“Such huge payments has given TNB one of the highest reserve margin in the world of 40% as compared to China’s 5%, Japan 5% and Europe 5%. To sustain and protect the profits of IPPs, 27 million Malaysians have to pay 12% increase in tariff hikes as well as higher inflation,” he lamented. Many more questions But Lim has more questions for Mahathir.

According to his estimates, national oil company Petronas has earned RM500 billion in profits over the past 32 years. He claimed that much of the money has been misused, among others, to pay for:

The RM5 billion losses suffered by national steel company Perwaja.

The failed attempt in 1981 to corner the London tin market through Maminco, causing losses of nearly RM400 million when tin prices plummeted in 1982.

The RM2.5 billion bailout of Bank Bumiputra to cover its losses in 1984. The government bailed out the bank again in 1989 and in 1998 by another RM2 billion.

The RM10 billion losses suffered by Bank Negara in 1992 after speculating in the forward foreign-exchange market.

The RM1.8 billion shares buyout bailout of Malaysia Airlines executive chairman Tajudin Ramli 29% stake in 2000 at RM8 per share, which was almost three times the market price.


Lim said that the RM40 billion in Petronas earnings this year should be not be misused for mega-projects but instead distributed to the people of Malaysia. “Every needy Malaysian would receive at least RM2,000 each a year or for a household of five, RM 10,000. At times of inflation when everything is rising, including the crime rate, only our salaries do not go up. The time has come to alleviate the sufferings of the people and reduce their financial burdens by distributing Petronas oil revenue to 27 million Malaysians,” said Lim.

Police report lodgedMeanwhile, PKR Vice-Youth chief Shamsul Iskandar Mohd Akin has called on the government to investigate Mahathir's allegations, especially on the abuses of the Approved Permits (APs).

He said that the findings of such a probe should be made public and those responsible prosecuted for corrupt practices.

Shamsul added that PKR had lodged a police report on the cavalier way in which government's money was spent especially in the development of the administrative capital, Putrajaya, which was largely funded by Petronas.

"We lodge this report for we believe that the sufferings of the people, especially due to the increase in fuel prices and electricity tariff, should be quickly addressed by the present government by being more responsible and transparent in spending government's money."

Dr M: Why didn't they resign back then?

Dr M: Why didn't they resign back then?
Beh Lih Yi and Wong Yeen Fern
Jun 9, 06 9:14pm

Former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad today said that ministers who disagreed with him during his tenure should have voiced their opposition and resigned then.

“They (the ministers) are saying it’s a collective responsibility (pertaining to the decisions made by the current administration). So it means the cabinet reversed the very decision they agreed to before.

“Now, (when) they have a new leader, they disagree. If they did not agree before, tell me and resign but they did not,” he told a packed press conference in Kuala Lumpur.

Mahathir, who has fired a volley of criticism against his successor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, stressed that his questions are not being addressed.

“Is it because they have no answers? Is that why they are trying to demonise me and make me appear very bad?” he asked.

“Those who disagree with me (for speaking out) say ‘Dr Mahathir has no right to talk’, ‘go to sleep’ (pergi tidur lah) and ‘don’t disturb others’ (jangan kacau orang) - that’s all they keep saying,” he added.

Mahathir said he felt slighted when the people who supported the mega-projects under his leadership are now against them.

However, the former premier said he controlled himself and refrained from making any remarks but ‘bowing’ to Singapore was the final straw.

“When we bowed to Singapore (over the half bridge issue), I was ashamed. Why so afraid of Singapore?” he said.

Asked if he was ‘happy’ with Abdullah’s response to his criticism, Mahathir replied: “I’m very happy with all the comments. He said it is my right to speak, very good, thank you very much. So, I am now speaking to you because he said I have the right to speak, but some say I have no right.”

When pointed out that Abdullah has not answered any of his questions, the former premier said: “Because other people can answer the questions, he wants to keep quiet.”

Mahathir said he will mention things which he felt are wrong and added that judging from the way ministers have been rallied into supporting everything the prime minister says, there is not much room for debate in the cabinet.

‘I want answers’

The 82-year-old former premier vowed to keep pushing for answers over the irregularities in Approved Permits, the management of Proton, the selling of Italian motorcycle manufacturer Augusta by Proton and the scrapped half-bridge issue.

Asked to comment on the remarks made by his former political nemesis Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah that Umno could see a split because of Mahathir’s criticism, the former premier responded with a tinge of sarcasm.

“I think Tengku Razaleigh is competent to make such a remark because once upon a time (1987) he challenged me (for the Umno presidency). When he lost, he formed a new party (Semangat 46) and split the party (Umno).

“So he knows about this, that’s why he is advising me now not to do that just like (Mahathir’s former deputy) Musa Hitam because he did not follow (Umno’s) tradition and he made that mistake. So now he wants to warn me not to make the mistake,” he added.

According to Mahathir, the trend in the country today is to keep mouths shut.

“So I have to open my mouth, other people would also like to open their mouths, but ... tak apalah, saya jadi mangsa sikit (it’s alright, I’ll become the victim),” he said.

Mahathir reiterated that he needed answers and it did not matter who provided them.

“I am interested in knowing why Augusta was sold (by Proton) to a euro 2 company, why you (Proton) sack a CEO who has been managing well and made the company profitable as well as why is the bridge not being built when work has already started,” he said.

No problems with PM

The former premier stressed that he is not arguing with his handpicked successor but merely disagrees with some of the decisions made.

“I don’t have a problem with the government but I have problems with these things (decisions) that are made, takkan sampai cannot tanya (has it come to a point that you cannot even ask),” he said.






He also dismissed the need for a mediator as offered by Perlis Menteri Besar Shahidan Kassim.

As for the opposition telling him to retire gracefully, Mahathir replied: “I never follow what the opposition says.”

On Information Minister Zainuddin Maidin’s remark that Mahathir is being influenced by outsiders, he said: “A lot of people talk lah, I tak berani nak cakap (I’m afraid to talk).”

Responding to another question, Mahathir said he met with Abdullah briefly in Tokyo recently.

Asked if he posed his questions directly to the prime minister during that meeting, Mahathir replied: “No, we had only 10 minutes, he was telling me a lot of things and I was listening.”

Mahathir was also sarcastic about the overwhelming media presence this evening, saying "they can't publish anyway".

The former premier has previously accused the current administration of imposing a media blackout on his views.

However, his scathing remarks made it to the front-pages of all major dailies yesterday, prompting a wave of criticism and show of support for Abdullah.

Musa's diagnosis: He's suffering from PMS

Musa's diagnosis: He's suffering from PMS
Jun 9, 06 7:37pm

Former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad is suffering from PMS (Post-Prime Ministerial Syndrome), said his ex-deputy Musa Hitam today.

Musa told Bernama this when asked to respond to Mahathir’s scathing remarks against his successor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

According to him, the 82-year-old former premier’s criticisms were not only improper but detrimental for Umno and the country as well.

In jest, Musa said Mahathir was undergoing a post-prime ministerial syndrome, which caused him to think that “only he is right”.

According to the former deputy premier, he had also experienced a similar syndrome but he managed to check himself.

"I just told myself to shut up. I told myself... look give up, withdraw. You cannot go on doing this. Let the others take over. They can do. They may or may not be doing as well as I want to do but they are now in place.

"They have been given the full support, the full support of the party, of the rakyat. I suggest stop interfering with them," he said.

Musa stepped down as deputy prime minister in February 1986 following differences of opinion with Mahathir.

Enough is enough

In the 75-minute interview with the national news agency, Musa said he decided to speak up because he did not want the situation to get out of hand.

"All I can say now is that... Dr Mahathir just stop it. Enough is enough. Don't do anything. If he continues (with his remarks), no one will gain. Only Dr Mahathir will be satisfied, but those who are against us will benefit," he said.

Musa also said if there had been a promise between Mahathir and Abdullah before, it should not be binding but what was important was Abdullah's promise to the people who had been given the mandate to him as prime minister.

Responding to a question, he said Mahathir appeared to be reneging on his promise of non-interference by hurling criticisms against the current administration.

He also expressed regret that his former boss was resorting to using unkind words.

“... Dr Mahathir seems to be unabashed. He had cast aside the ethics or tradition which had long been known among Umno members in general, when he blatantly and openly criticised Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

“(He) not only made criticisms on issues but also used very unkind words to the prime minister. The most unkind word was that he (Abdullah) was not his first choice as (deputy premier) Najib ( Abdul Razak) was the one who garnered the highest votes. But it was clear in Umno's history itself, that was a norm,” he said.

Causing a split

By bringing this up intentionally, Musa claimed that Mahathir “appeared to have directly wanted to split the two (Abdullah and Najib)”.

Elaborating on the negative impacts of such statements, Musa said Mahathir was implying that he favours Najib and sees him as a better candidate compared to Abdullah.

He said the fact is that Abdullah was given a huge mandate by the people in the last general elections and even Mahathir did not garner that many votes during his tenure.

“Abdullah is not Mahathir. Abdullah has given hope that under his administration there will be greater tolerance and transparency...” he added.

Nobody can dispute that change has transpired since Abdullah took over the reins from Mahathir in 2003, he pointed out.

He said Abdullah has his fair share of weaknesses and so does Mahathir. Musa claimed that he too is critical of Abdullah on certain issues but these are conveyed via the proper channels.

When Mahathir was heading the country and party, he always called on members to channel their grouses against the government through the right channels.

“Mahathir says that he is an ordinary person now which means he is an ordinary member (in Umno) so he should act like an ordinary member and keep to the (party) tradition,” he added.

Stab in the back

According to Musa, the former premier’s vocal criticism only serves to benefit the opposition and nobody else.

“During Mahathir’s era, there were allegations of corruption. Mahathir asked, 'where is the proof?' Now, Mahathir is alleging corruption but where is the proof?” he said.

Musa said it is the people who ultimately decide if a government headed by a particular leader is fit to continue ruling and this is the essence of democracy.

“In my view, Mahathir has great confidence in himself and his capabilities until he has not met anyone better than him. The reality is, he had four deputies (during his 22-year tenure) and he probably accused everyone of them of stabbing him from behind.

“After choosing someone, he won’t say ‘you have to do the right thing’. He will say, 'this is the way to do it'. He cannot understand after 22 years that different people interpret and do things differently,” he added.

“When I met him (Mahathir), he has told me directly ‘you stabbed me from the back’. I am not afraid to say this. He said ‘you stabbed me from the back’ several times. I took it well and with humour from a political standpoint. To me, I did not stab him from the back, I think he stabbed me from the back. This is politics.

“If to say that the prime minister (Abdullah) is now stabbing him from the back, what he (Mahathir) has done is to retaliate repeatedly. Stabbing the prime minister from the back. This is not appropriate. This helps nobody but those who want to see the party and country destroyed. Who is he helping? I am sure he will deny this arrogantly,” he said.

An elderly woman and her little grandson, whose face was sprinkled
with bright freckles, spent the day at the zoo.
Lots of children were waiting in line to get their cheeks painted by
a local artist who was decorating them with tiger paws. You've got
so many freckles, there's no place to paint!" said a girl in the
line said to the little fella.

Embarrassed, the little boy dropped his head. His grandmother knelt
down next to him. "I love your freckles. When I was a little girl I
always wanted freckles," she said, while tracing her finger across
the child's cheek. Freckles are beautiful."

The boy looked up, "Really?"

Of course," said the grandmother. "Why... just name me one thing
that's prettier than freckles."

The little boy thought for a moment, peered intensely into his
grandma's face, and softly whispered, Wrinkles."

A wise woman who was traveling in the mountains found a precious
stone in a stream.

The next day she met another traveler who was hungry, and the wise
woman opened her bag to share her food. The hungry traveler saw the
precious stone and asked the woman to give it to him. She did so
without hesitation.

The traveler left, rejoicing in his great fortune. He knew the stone
was worth enough to give him security for a lifetime. But a few days
later he came back to return the stone to the wise woman.

"I've been thinking," he said, "I know how valuable the stone is,
but I give it back in the hope that you can give me something even
more precious. Give me what you have within you that enabled you to
give me the stone."

Keindahan Tangan Ibu

Keindahan tangan ibu.......


Ketika ibu saya berkunjung, ibu mengajak saya untuk shopping bersamanya
kerana dia menginginkan sepasang kurung yg baru.

Saya sebenarnya tidak suka pergi membeli belah bersama dengan orang
lain, dan saya bukanlah orang yang sabar, tetapi walaupun demikian kami
pergi juga ke pusat membeli belah tersebut. Kami mengunjungi setiap
butik yang menyediakan pakaian wanita, dan ibu saya mencuba sehelai
demi sehelai pakaian dan mengembalikan semuanya. Seiring hari yang berlalu,
saya mulai penat dan kelihatan jelas riak2 kecewa di wajah ibu.

Akhirnya pada butik terakhir yang kami kunjungi, ibu saya mencuba satu
baju kurung yang cantik . Dan kerna ketidaksabaran saya, maka untuk kali ini
saya ikut masuk dan berdiri bersama ibu saya dalam fitting room, saya
melihat bagaimana ibu mencuba pakaian tersebut, dan dengan susah
mencuba untuk mengenakannya. Ternyata tangan-tangannya sudah mulai dilumpuhkan
oleh penyakit radang sendi dan sebab itu dia tidak dapat melakukannya,
seketika ketidaksabaran saya digantikan oleh suatu rasa
kasihan yang dalam kepadanya.

Saya berbalik pergi dan cuba menyembunyikan air mata yang
keluar tanpa saya sedari. Setelah saya mendapatkan ketenangan lagi,
saya kembali masuk ke fitting room untuk membantu ibu mengenakan pakaiannya.
Pakaian ini begitu indah, dan ibu membelinya.

Shopping kami telah berakhir, tetapi kejadian tersebut terukir dan
tidak dapat kulupakan dari ingatan . Sepanjang sisa hari itu, fikiran
saya tetap saja kembali pada saat berada di dalam fitting room tersebut
dan terbayang tangan ibu saya yang sedang berusaha mengenakan
pakaiannya. Kedua tangan yang penuh dengan kasih, yang pernah menyuapi, memandikan
saya, memakaikan baju, membelai dan memeluk saya, dan terlebih dari semuanya, berdoa
untuk saya, sekarang tangan itu telah menyentuh hati saya dengan cara
yang paling berbekas dalam hati saya.

Kemudian pada malam harinya saya pergi ke kamar ibu saya mengambil tangannya, lantas
menciumnya ... dan yang membuatnya terkejut, saya memberitahunya
bahwa bagi saya kedua tangan tersebut adalah tangan yang paling indah
di dunia ini. Saya sangat bersyukur bahwa Tuhan telah membuat saya
dapat melihat dengan sejelasnya, betapa bernilai dan berrharganya kasih
sayang yang penuh pengorbanan dari seorang ibu. Saya hanya dapat
berdoa bahwa suatu hari kelak tangan saya dan hati saya akan memiliki
keindahannya tersendiri.

Dunia ini memiliki banyak keajaiban, segala ciptaan Tuhan yang begitu
agung, tetapi tak satu pun yang dapat menandingi keindahan tangan
Ibu...

With Love to All Mother

" JIKA KAMU MENCINTAI IBUMU KIRIMLAH CERITA INI KEPADA ORANG LAIN, AGAR
SELURUH ORANG DIDUNIA INI DAPAT MENCINTAI DAN MENYAYANGI INSAN BERGELAR IBU".


SELAMAT HARI IBU.....

Wawancara bersama Dr Mahmoud Zahar, Menteri Luar Palestin
Posted on Tuesday, June 06

Sewaktu Mahmoud Zahar menghadiri persidangan NAM di Kuala Lumpur, wartawan palestinkini.info telah berpeluang untuk menemui beliau di lobi hotel Marriot Putrajaya. Beliau telah diwawancara mengenai pelbagai isu terkini Palestin selama hampir setengah jam. Berikut adalah perincian lanjut mengenai wawancara tersebut:


Maszlee Malik (MM): Selamat Datang ke Malaysia, apakah pandangan anda mengenai Malaysia secara umum?

Dr Mahmoud Zahar (MZ): Terima Kasih. Malaysia adalah sebuah negara yang indah dan cantik. Anda semua bertuah menjadi rakyat Malaysia. Kami di Palestin sentiasa mendengar yang elok-elok tentang Malaysia, dan kami menyangkakan Malaysia adalah sebuah negara yang mendaulatkan sistem Islam. Kami juga sentiasa mendengar bahawa rakyat Malaysia amat prihatin terhadap isu Palestin.

MM: Selepas anda berada di sini, bagaimana persepsi tersebut?

MZ: Cukuplah saya mengatakan, saya amat berbangga dengan Malaysia, cuma saya merasakan umat Islam di Malaysia perlu berusah alebih lagi untuk memastikan sistem Islam yang adil dan indah dapat dinikmati oleh semua.

MM: Kita berbalik kepada isu Palestin pula. Anda telah dijemput oleh kerajaan Malaysia ke persidangan NAM mewakili kerajaan Palestin yang telah dipilih secara demokratik oleh rakyat. Farouq Qadumi pula mendakwa beliau juga merupakan wakil kerajaan Palestin yang sah kerana beliau mewakili PLO dan Fatah. Ini mengelirukan banyak pihak, terutamanya rakyat Malaysia. Siapakah wakil Palestin yang sebenar?

MZ: Saya telah diundang oleh menteri Luar anda untuk mewakili kerajaan Palestin yang sah ke persidangan NAM. Kerajaan Palestin adalah mewakili rakyat Palestin, kerana mereka telah memilih kami lewat pilihanraya 25 Januari yang lalu. Kerajaan yang diterajui oleh saudara Ismail Haneyyah telah memilih saya untuk menjadi menteri luar yang mewakili mereka. Rombongan saya adalah rombongan yang mewakili kementerian luar Palestin mewakili rakyat Palestin. Bersama saya terdapat pegawai kementerian yang mewakili Fatah, Front Demokratik dan juga PA saya yang merupakan mantan wartawan akhbar di Gaza. Rombongan kami tidak syak lagi mewakili rakyat Palestin yang sah, dan kami telah dijemput secara rasmi melalui saluran diplomatik (G to G).


Faruq Qaddumi (gambar), kehadirannya di persidangan NAM masih menjadi misteri

MM: Bagaimana pula dengan Farouq Qadumi? Di dalam akhbar Utusan Malaysia, beliau mengatakan bahawa beliau adalah wakil yang sah dan wakil rasmi "negara Palestin" (State of Palestine) dan beliau datang untuk mengajar anda selok belok hubungan diplomatik?

MZ: Beliau hanya mewakili dirinya sendiri dan tidak langsung diundang ke persidangan NAM ini. Saya telah memastikan perkara ini dengan Menteri Luar anda. Beliau (Menteri Luar) terpaksa menerima Qadumi kerana Qadumi telah mendesak beliau untuk menerimanya menjadi wakil Palestin di persidangan NAM. Ini bukanlah kali pertama beliau membuat kacau seumpama ini. Di Khartoum, sewaktu persidangan Liga Arab diadakan, beliau telah melakukan perkara yang serupa terhadap Presiden Mahmoud Abbas. Beliau telah memalukan Mahmoud Abbas yang mewakili Palestin. Beliau juga pernah melakukan perkara yang sama kepada Yaser Arafat sewaktu hidup beliau. Pendekata, beliau sememangnya mempunyai agenda beliau yang tersendiri. Untuk pengetahuan anda juga, beliau (Qadumi) tidak tinggal di Palestin, beliau tinggal di villanya di Tunisia dan tidak pernah menjenguk kem-kem pelarian Palestin pun. Rakyat Palestin tahu akan hal ini. Ada pihak yang mengatakan beliau mewakili Fatah di dalam persidangan ini, ini tidak benar!, wakil Fatah ada bersama saya sebagai wakil kementerian luar dan juga sebagai pegawai di bawah kementerian saya. Beliau juga tidak bersetuju dengan Qadumi. Seperti yang telah dikatakan oleh wakil dari Cuba, Malaysia sepatutnya bersikap lebih teliti sebelum membuat keputusan menerima Qadumi. Saya berharap agar Malaysia tidak tersilap lagi selepas ini.

MM: Mengapa anda membokikot persidangan NAM pula?, bukankah anda boleh menyuarakan suara rakyat Palestin di sana?, bukankah tindakan anda hanya akan melihatkan bahawa anda seorang yang tidak profesional?

MZ: Anda mahu melihat kami bertengkar di hadapan orang ramai?, saya bukan memboikot persidangan. Saya tidak mahu nanti apa sahaja yang saya suarakan mewakili rakyat Palestin akan dibangkang oleh Qadumi di hadapan orang ramai. Bukankah ini akan memalukan rakyat Palestin sahaja. Biarlah saya mengalah untuk mengelakkan risiko yang lebih besar. Apa yang lebih penting saya telah berpeluang untuk bertemu dengan PM anda untuk mengadakan perbincangan dua hala.

MM: Saya rasa tindakan anda ini matang, tetapi apakah pula kata media? Yang jelas media telah memanipulasi tentang isu ini.

MZ: Media yang jujur dan profesional tidak akan besikap sedemikian. Hanya media yang pro-Zionis dan tidak profesional sahaja yang akan memanipulasi isu ini untuk pihak-pihak yang tertentu. Saya harap media di Malaysia tidak akan melakukan sikap yang sama seperti media-media korup di luar sana.

MM: Berbalik kepada isu bantuan, adakah kerajaan Malaysia menyalurkan apa-apa bantuan kepada rakyat Palestin melalui anda?, anda telah bertemu dengan PM...

MZ: PM anda telah berjanji untuk menyokong kerajaan yang telah dipilih oleh rakyat Palestin. Dia seorang yang baik hati dan lembut kata-kata. Beliau juga komited untuk memberikan bantuan, tetapi beliau tidak memberikannya melalui saya ataupun kerajaan Palestin yang disokongnya itu. Sepatutnya tindakan beliau selari dengan kata-katanya. Jika beliau menyokong kami, maka bantuan perlu disalurkan melalui kami juga. Saya tidak tahu apakah yang difikirkan oleh PM anda. Walau bagaimanapun, sikap beliau ingin memberikan sokongan kepada kami pada kapisiti beliau sebagai pengerusi OIC serba sedikit telah menaikkan imej kami di kalangan negara-negara OIC yang lain. Apa yang penting juga beliau tidak menghalang segala usaha rakyat untuk isu Palestin ini.

Media yang jujur dan profesional tidak akan besikap sedemikian. Hanya media yang pro-Zionis dan tidak profesional sahaja yang akan memanipulasi isu ini untuk pihak-pihak yang tertentu

MM: Saya difahamkan anda baru pulang dari Indonesia dan Brunei. Bagaimanakah sambutan kerajaan dan rakyat di kedua-dua buah negara?

MZ: Saya ingin merakamkan kepada dunia takjubnya saya kepada Indonesia. Kerajaannya begitu positif, terutamanya ketua speaker Dewan Rakyat mereka, iaitu Dr Hidayat Nurwahid. Kerajaan Indonesia bersikap begitu pro-aktif berbanding kerajaan-kerajaan negara Islam yang lain. Kempen untuk membantu rakyat Palestin begitu hebat di sana. Saya juga kagum dengan inisiatif Partai Keadilan Sejahtera (PKS) di Indonesia. Mereka telah menganjurkan rapat umum sebagai solidariti berasama rakyat Palestin. Puluhan ribu telah menghadiri rapat umum tersebut. Mereka begitu serius di dalam usaha membantu rakyat Palestin, walaupun di waktu yang sama mereka turut sibuk membantu mangsa bencana alam di dalam Indonesia sendiri. Mereka telah menyalurkan bantuan melalui saya dan juga saluran-saluran yang lain. Saya mendoakan agar Allah akan memberikan kekuatan kepada rakyat Indonesia dan semoga Allah akan mencurahkan rezeki kepada umat Islam di sana dan semoga Islam akan berdaulat di bumi tersebut.

MM: Brunei pula?

MZ: Sultan Brunei merupakan seorang yang begitu bersimpati kepada isu Palestin. Ketika bertemu dengan beliau, saya merasakan beliau seorang yang begitu ikhlas di dalam kata-katanya. Beliau berjanji untuk menyokong Palestin di dalam setiap mesyuarat di peringkat antarabangsa.

MM: Bagaimana dengan bantuan?

MZ: Beliau belum menjanjikan apa-apa lagi setakat ini.

MM: Kita kembali ke Palestin. Sekarang in kita didedahkan oleh media antarabangsa mengenai perpecahan dalaman rakyat Palestin, secara spesifik di antara HAMAS dan Fatah. Apakah ini akan membawa kepada peperangan saudara seperti yang diramalkan oleh Condoleeza Rice?

Jawapan kepada jamaah "centric"

Jawapan kepada Jamaah centric!!!
Jun 2006


Maszlee Malik
(Jawapan ini panjang. Harap para pembaca dapat bersabar membacanya !)



Ketika mengilhamkan artikel ini saya sedang menghirup kopi putih pahit di salah sebuah Kopitiam di Petaling Jaya. Kopitiam membawa kenangan lebih 20 tahun lalu di JB bersama arwah datuk saya. Dia penggemar kopi, saya pula telah ditarbiyyah oleh beliau untuk menggemari roti bakar dan telur separuh masak kopitiam. Itu semua kini adalah nostalgia, mungkin puteri-puteri saya kurang menggemari kopitiam seperti saya. Mereka hanya hanya akan teruja jika saya membawa mereka ke kopitiam milik Cina muslim di Uptown, Village Park. Empunya kopitiam tersebut telah memeluk Islam bersama isterinya pada tahun lepas. Kenangan mengislamkan mereka amat manis buat diri saya yang masih mentah dalam aktiviti berdakwah kepada bukan Islam.



Sebelum ke kopitiam, saya sempat menziarahi satu gerai buku-buku milik missionary Kristian di Wisma Atria, Damansara Utama, PJ. Banyak juga buku-buku gospel berbahasa Melayu di sana, kebanyakannya berbahasa Indonesia. Apa yang pasti, kebanyakan bahan-bahan dakwah atau dakyah mereka amat menarik. Kebanyakannya user friendly, up to date dan juga bergitu menarik perhatian. Samada button bagde, reminder cards, t-shirt, buku-buku, CD, VCD, kalendar dan juga bahan-bahan lain. Kebanyakan pengunjungnya adalah kaum Tionghua yang baru pulang dari gereja. Gerai tersebut milik seorang Kristian Protestant. Isterinya dan beliau silih berganti menjaga gerai tersebut. Saya sempat berkenalan dengan isterinya kerana saya berhajatkan VCD berkaitan Holy Land (Palestin). Dia mengatakan "Israel", saya mengatakan "Aliyah", dia tersenyum. Ya, bagi golongan Protestant, Israel amat penting untuk menyambut kedatangan Jesus buat kali kedua. Aliyah pula lebih merupakan nama Kristian bagi Jerusalem, tetapi jarang digunakan oleh golongan Protestant. Hanya golongan Ortodoks dan Katolik sahaja sukakan istilah "Aliyah", Apa yang pasti, beliau tersenyum sinis dengan pembetulan tersebut. Saya hanya memperkenalkan diri saya sebagai Ustaz Lee..



Di sebelah gerai tersebut, ada gerai menjual barang-barang keagamaan kaum Tao. Berhadapan dengan gerai Tao tersebut, ada gerai badan kebajikan Hindu Rama. Di pintu masuk pula, berdiri beberapa sukarelawan pertubuhan Buddhist Tzu Chi mengutip derma untuk rumah orang cacat mereka. Begitu harmoni kepelbagaian agama di Malaysia. Hati saya bergetus di pagi minggu ini, "Ke manakah pertubuhan Islam?". Sehingga saat saya mencoretkan artikel ini, saya terimbau usaha gagal yang pernah saya inisiatifkan pada tahun 2003 yang lalu. Ketika itu, saya telah berjaya mengumpulkan Fong, Khai, Ravi, Sharil dan beberapa rakan yang lain untuk melakukan usaha dakwah kepada non-muslim di PJ. Sibuk, tidak istiqamah dan mungkin juga kurangnya komitmen sepenuh hati, usaha kami terbengkalai. Sudut yang menarik, ide untuk menubuhkan gerai menjual bahan-bahan Islam yang user friendly di wisma Atria pernah dimasukkan ke dalam minit mesyuarat kami yang kedua. Semoga Allah memberikan kekuatan kepada kami untuk menghidupkannya semula. Pesanan Dr Fuad Yeoh, timbalan presiden MACMA (Pertubuhan Cina Muslim, Malaysia) kepada saya, tidak akan dilupakan. Kata beliau, "Jika anta nak buat kerja dakwah kepada non-muslim, anta kena full time!". Benarlah kata-kata beliau itu. Terjawablah kegusaran saya, mengapa beliau aktif bersama MACMA.





DDMM (Dakwah Dalam Masyarakat Majmuk)



Usaha berdakwah kepada non-muslim di Malaysia masih lagi tidak begitu agresif. Mengikut statistik ACCIN, bilangan yang memeluk Islam dari tahun 1957 sehingga 2005, hanya 50,000 orang. Bilangan ini jauh lebih kecil daripada bilangan mereka yang menghuni pusat Serenti. Usaha bersepadu perlu dilakukan demi menyelamatkan Islam dan survival umat Islam di bumi Malaysia. Fenomena rakyat Malaysia memeluk Islam beramai-ramai era Tun Datu Mustapha dan Tun Rahman Yaakob suatu masa dahulu hanya tinggal kenangan. Di mana silapnya?, jangan salahkan orang lain, walaupun itu perkara yang paling mudah untuk dilakukan. Tanyakan kepada diri kita, apakah yang telah kita lakukan, dan apakah yang akan kita lakukan...





Saya sentiasa memberikan tabik hormat kepada Jamaah IIS (Islamic Information Service) dalam hal ini. Kerja dan usaha tak jemu Kak Sabariah, bersama-sama aktivis mereka seperti Shah Kirit, Lim Jui Soon, Engku Fauzi dan lain-lain mempunyai impak mereka yang tersendiri. Jamaah tersebut adalah sebahagian daripada usaha jamaah mereka yang lebih besar untuk berdakwah kepada non-muslim di seluruh Malaysia. Nama-nama seperti Hj Ayob, Daniel Boi, Muhammad Fitri, Nicholas Sylvester dan lain-lain merupakan di antara aktivis jamaah tersebut. ACCIN juga merupakan inisiatif jamaah ini. Sayangnya, jamaah ini tidak begitu berkembang di IPT-IPT berbanding jamaah-jamaah yang berorientasikan gerakan Islam ala-haraki. Mungkin tugas berdakwah kepada non-muslim terlalu berat dan mencabar berbanding dengan menghadiri usrah-usrah, tamren, mukhayyam, kolokium, seminar dan juga wacana-wacana harakiyah. Saya sentiasa mendoakan agar ada satu momentum akan dihasilkan di kalangan siswa-siswi IPT untuk usaha ini, Kita perlukan lebih dari seorang Shah, kita lebih daripada seorang Lim, dan kita perlukan 1000 lagi pelapis Ahmad Deedat untuk melawan arus Kristianisasi di Malaysia ini.







Remaja oh Remaja



Semalamnya saya telah berkesempatan untuk menjadi panelis satu forum mengenai remaja. Saya bukan orang yang pakar memahami remaja. Saya juga bukan seorang motivator "by profession" ataupun "by default ". Buku "300 persoalan remaja" yang kini menjadi bahan tazkirah di segelintir sekolah-sekolah menengah itupun dihasilkan kerana kegeraman saya terhadap situasi remaja kini yang semakin teruk. Saya seorang yang naif di dalam usaha dakwah kepada remaja, terutamanya dakwah kepada remaja yang bermasalah. Alhamdulillah, panelis yang seorang lagi, Puan Rosmawati seorang yang begitu berpengalaman dalam persoalan ini. Moderator, Cik Roha, aktivis dakwah remaja juga dapat menampung kelemahan saya. Mungkin saya hanya boleh berteori, tetapi mereka berdua begitu berpengalaman. Sebagai pengurus rumah bimbingan remaja tersasar, Puan Rosmawati ataupun yang lebih mesra dengan panggilan Kak Ros telah memaparkan statistik-statistik yang amat mengejutkan para hadirin. Beliau juga tidak lupa berkongsi pengalaman menguruskan para remaja yang tersasar.



Walau bagaimanapun, perkongsian yang lebih menarik ialah ceritanya mengenai pengalaman beliau bersama aktivis dakwah remaja yang lain berdakwah di tempat-tempat umum. Mereka telah menemui para remaja secara berdepan di KLCC, stesen-stesen LRT, dan lain-lain hot spot. Mereka juga sedang mengaktifkan dakwah dengan mengedarkan booklet secara percuma kepada para remaja bepeleseran di Lembah Klang. Saya kagumi, dan saya akui kelemahan saya dan betapa hebatnya usaha mereka ini. Apa yang menariknya, mereka memerlukan penglibatan lebih ramai pihak, termasuk para siswa dan siswi dari IPTA dan IPTS di seluruh negara. Rupanya masih banyak kerja di luar sana...





Novel Islami



Saya bukan penggemar novel. Novel terakhir yang saya pernah habiskan pembacaannya adalah novel "The Profits of War" karangan Ari Ben Menashe pada 13 tahun yang lalu. Sikap buruk saya ini berkemungkinan ada kaitannya dengan sikap " hyper active" saya semenjak kecil lagi. Sungguhpun begitu saya amat mengkagumi usaha para penggiat seni sastera Islam di tanah air. Nama-nama seperti Faisal Tehrani, Zaid Akhtar, Abu Hassan Morad, Azizi Abdullah, Shanon Ahmad dan lain-lain lagi, adalah nama-nama yang patut diberikan pujian. Jihad mereka melalui seni sastera adalah satu usaha yang amat-amat diperlukan di bumi Malaysia ini. Seni sastera mempunyai kuasa mereka yang tersendiri. Kebanjiran bumi ini dengan novel-novel picisan dan juga cinta nafsu perlu diseimbangkan. Oleh kerana seni sastera itu tiada sempadan, satu arus Islami diperlukan untuk mengimbanginya. Semoga apa yang mereka lakukan akan dapat diteruskan oleh bakat-bakat muda yang lain. Saya yakin di luar sana, ramai lagi para penulis prolifik di dalam genre ini akan muncul. Ianya perlu disemarakkan, jamaah mereka ini perlu dipopularkan demi menyelamatkan aqidah umat Islam yang diselewengkan melalui sastera murahan dan novel-novel barat yang sa! rat dengan agenda masing-masing.



Para penulis novel Islami di Indonesia amat kreatif dan lebih maju ke hadapan di dalam hal ini. Jika anda berpeluang untuk ke Jakarta, kunjungilah toko-toko buku Islami. Berdozen-dozen novel Islami, antologi cerpen Islami dan lain-lain perisian Islam dari genre ini boleh didapati. Mungkin populasi mereka yang ramai itu memberikan kesan juga terhadap produksi bahan-bahan tersebut. Walau bagaimanapun, kita juga berhak untuk lebih maju ke hadapan dalam perkara ini. Sekali lagi ruang dakwah dalam genre ini memerlukan para mujahid untuk menyertainya. Masih banyak kerja di luar sana tu...





Filem Islam



"Cinta Madinah" merupakan satu drama yang amat istimewa bagi saya. Bukan kerana pencetus ilhamnya, Abu Hassan Morad a.k.a Cikgu Abu itu sepupu isteri saya. Bukan juga kerana sesetengah penggambaran itu dilakukan di rumah kakak ipar saya. Bukan juga keistimewaannya kerana ada Wardina. Ianya amat istimewa bagi saya, kerana drama tersebut merupakan satu percubaan mewarnai seni perfileman tanah air dengan isi kandungan Islam. Mungkin ramai yang memberikan komentar, drama tersebut begitu kaku, lembap dan juga tidak begitu menarik. Sekurang-kurangnya, kehadirannya akan menjadi pencetus untuk drama-drama Islamik yang lain. Kelemahan adalah perkara yang lazim bagi sebarang percubaan pertama. Insha Allah, di masa-masa akan datang kebanyakan kelemahan akan berjaya diatasi. Apa yang pasti, bumi Malaysia dahagakan filem-filem dan drama-drama Islamik.



Al-Qaradawi di dalam banyak penulisannya telah menyentuh persoalan ini. Di dalam buku terkini beliau, "Fiqh al-Lahwi", beliau sekali lagi menekankan kepentingan membanjirkan dunia perfileman dengan perisian Islam. Jikalaulah kita berasa marah dan geram terhadap filem Sepet, Gubra dan Ahmad's Dream, mengapa kita tidak melawannya kembali?



Dari dahulu lagi, kata-kata Muhammad Ahmad Rashid di dalam bukunya "Sina'at al-Hayat" menjadi kegemaran saya. Beliau menggalakkan para duat memberikan alternatif kepada kemaksiatan dan kerosakan yang melanda umat Islam. Beliau telah memetik pepatah Arab yang berbunyi: "Daripada anda memarahkan kegelapan, lebih baik anda menyalakan lilin! (untuk menghilangkan kegelapan)". Sekarang ini, di dalam menyikapi arus perfileman yang dikabusi dengan kabus jahiliyah, kita memerlukan lebih ramai para penyala lilin.



Cikgu Abu dan jamaah "Layar Consult" mereka memerlukan jamaah-jamaah perfileman lain untuk turut merancakkan jihad mereka. Qaradawi juga pernah menyarankan komedi-komedi Islam sebagai wadah dakwah. Saya pernah menonton satu komedi terbitan OVA (Odio Video Arqam) lebih 15 tahun yang lalu. Sekarang ini ianya mungkin tiada lagi di dalam koleksi mantan aktivis-aktivis OVA. Sekarang ini juga, kita mungkin memerlukannya sekali lagi. Kita amat-amat memerlukan komedi Islam yang dapat menggantikan lawak-lawak murahan Senario dan juga Phua Chu Kang. Komedi yang bermesejkan Islam akan lebih mudah diingati oleh masyarakat berbanding ceramah-ceramah di surau dan masjid. Sekali lagi, saya semakin menyedari, kerja di luar sana masih banyak...





Palestin dan al-Aqsa



Ada orang yang memanggil saya Ustaz Maszlee Palestin, ada pula yang memanggil saya Ustaz Maszlee HAMAS, dan tidak kurang juga yang melabelkan saya sebagai Ustaz al-Aqsa. Saya senang dengan label-label tersebut. Saya berdoa agar label-label tersebut akan menjadi doa bagi dri saya yang amat lemah dan kurang bertaqwa ini. Semoga label-label tersebut juga akan menjadi tazkirah dan peringatan bagi diri saya sentiasa, di kala iman saya menurun. Semoga label-label tersebut juga akan menjadi picu untuk menginggatkan saya kepada bai'ah (sumpah) saya kepada Allah SWT untuk mewaqafkan diri saya demi perjuangan memerdekakan al-Aqsa.



Pesanan Syaikh Ata' Ayyash, aktivis dakwah di Mafraq, Jordan dan juga bapa saudara "The Engineer" Yahya Ayyash sentiasa bermain di koklea saya. "Apabila anda pulang, pastikan anda menjadi wakil rakyat Palestin untuk meletakkan al-Aqsa di dalam jiwa rakyat Malaysia". Terkadang, apabila saya terlupakan isu Palestin, ataupun sibuk dengan isu lain, saya terasa seolah-olah telah mengkhianati masjid al-Aqsa. Saya rasa seperti ingin memaki diri saya dengan sumpah Herzl apabila dituduh ingin melupakan bumi Palestin. " Curse upon my right hand, if I ever forget you Jerusalem!!!".



Di dalam buku "al-Aqsa Dalam Bahaya", saya telah cuba menjadikannya sebagai wadah untuk saya menjayakan bai'ah saya itu. Majalah-majalah dan laman-laman web yang dulunya hanya menceritakan tentang palestin apabila perlu, telah saya cuba warnakan dengan penulisan-penulisan mengenai isu tersebut. Laman web palestinkini juga merupakan salah satu daripada inisiatif saya untuk menunaikan bai'ah berkenaan. Saya yakin, di luar sana ramai lagi yang mempunyai kelayakan, kemampuan dan juga usaha di dalam jihad yang murni ini. Saya memerlukan mereka, Palestin memerlukan mereka, al-Aqsa memerlukan mereka. Tampillah untuk kita bersama-sama meletakkan nama kita di dalam cacatan para syuhada al-Aqsa melalui kemampuan dan bidang masing-masing.



Keadaan rakyat palestin semakin tertekan. AS dan EU telah bersepakat dengan rejim Zionis untuk memulaukan kerajaan palestin pimpinan HAMAS. Menteri-menteri kabinat dan anggota majlis legaslatif sudah dua bulan tidak bergaji. Makanan mula kehabisan di Gaza. Kajian terakhir yang dikeluarkan oleh Bank Dunia, mereka meramalkan ekonomi Palestin akan merudum sebanyak 27% pada penghujung tahun 2006. Pengangguran pula akan meningkat sebanyak 39.6%. Bilangan mereka yang hidup dibawah tahap kemiskinan akan meningkat kepada 50%, dan ini merupakan 67% daripada jumlah keseluruhan penduduk Palestin di Gaza dan di Tebing Barat. Statistik ini telah dikeluarkan oleh Herald Tribune pada bulan Mac yang lepas.



Masjid al-Aqsa pula bila-bila masa sahaja akan roboh dan digantikan dengan kuil Yahudi.



Di dalam mesyuarat al-Quds Institute (QI) pada bulan Disember yang lalu, cawangan-cawangan QI di seluruh dunia berjaya mengutip USD 10 juta di dalam mensyuarat berkenaan. Salah seorang peserta dalam nada yang sedih telah menyuarakan kekesalannya. Menurut beliau, fakta terkini menunjukkan kerajaan Zionis menerima bantuan sebanyak USD 900 juta setahun dari Zionis AS sahaja. Bantuan itu hanya untuk membantu usaha mereka menYahudikan Baitul Maqdis yang diisytiharkan sebagai "ibu kota abadi" mereka. Apakah pula sumbangan kita di Malaysia?



Usaha kutipan derma bagi Palestin di Malaysia tidak begitu rancak. Jika ada pun hanya bermusim. Usaha penerangan, dan kempen kesedaran juga belum mencapai tahap yang maksima, yang ada hanyalah di tahap memuaskan sahaja. Banyak kerja yang perlu dilakukan. Saya terus insaf, berhubung isu Palestin dan Masjid al-Aqsa ini, masih banyak yang perlu dilakukan. Perkembangan terkini, laman web www.palestinkini.info yang menjadi satu-satunya laman web berbahasa Melayu di Malaysia membekalkan isu Palestin setiap hari telah digodam. Bukan kali pertama ianya digodam, setakat ini, sudah lima kali ianya digodam. Penggodamnya tidak lain dan tidak bukan adalah golongan Zionis. Jangan terkejut jika laman web yang serba dhaif ini telah disenaraikan sebagai laman web pro pengganas oleh pihak Mossad. Ternyata jihad untuk Palestin dan al-Aqsa memerlukan ketabahan dan kesabaran. Apa yang pasti ia memerlukan lebih ramai lagi aktivis-aktivis untuk melakukan sesuatu di Malaysia.





Jawapan kepada Jamaah Centric



Ketika saya diminta untuk menjawab dan membalas artikel-artikel yang mengkritik isu Ummah centric yang saya bawa, saya menolaknya. Sesuatu yang baru pastinya akan menerima reaksi yang pelbagai. Walaupun saya melihat kebanyakan yang mengkritik ide tersebut sebenarnya salah mentafsirkan ide tersebut. Adalah tidak benar mengatakan saya menolak jamaah-jamaah yang wujud. Adalah tidak benar juga bagi mereka yang beranggapan saya mengajak orang kepada jamaah yang baru bernama " ummah centric". Adalah tidak tepat juga mereka yang menuduh saya menyeru agar semua orang tidak perlu taat kepada organisasi masing-masing. Apa yang saya serukan adalah sikap terbuka fikiran, berlapang dada, menghargai kerja-kerja orang lain, bekerjasama, bantu membantu, bahu membahu tanpa mengira jamaah. Saya juga menolak ide menjadikan jamaah sebagai benteng kita untuk bermesra dengan orang lain, hatta dengan musuh politik kita sekalipun selagi mana mereka itu muslim. Hakikatnya, bukan mudah untuk membina keterbukaan dan perasaan berlapang dada di dalam hati manusia. Lebih sukar lagi untuk mengajak manusia untuk tidak bersikap taksub dan mendahulukan husnul zan (berbaik sangka) berbanding dengan bersikap prasangka. Walau bagaimanapun saya tetap meyakini bahawa waktu akan menjadi penawarnya.



Saya yakin, para penulis tersebut tidak akan menulis kecuali untuk tujuan yang ikhlas dan mulia. Samada Ustaz Nasarudin Tantawi, Ust Hasrizal mahupun Ustaz Idris Ahmad, saya yakin mereka semua merupakan orang yang gigih berjihad dan berdakwah dengan cara yang mereka yakini. Cuma mereka semua tersilap faham ataupun masih awal lagi untuk mereka menerima pendekatan drastik pemikiran saya. Saya yakin Ust Tantawi dan Ust Idris Ahmad akan menjadi pemimpin PAS yang karismatik di masa akan datang. Begitu juga Ust Hasrizal yang saya yakin akan menjadi motivator yang terkenal satu hari nanti. Buku-buku dan tulisan-tulisan Ustaz Nasarudin begitu saya kagumi, begitu juga dengan tulisan-tulisan Ustaz Hasrizal. Mereka berdua merupakan penulis prolifik dan mempunyai masa depan yang amat cerah untuk perjuangan Islam di bumi Malaysia. Saya akan sentiasa mendoakan agar Allah akan menghimpunkan saya bersama mereka di syurga nanti. Jika ada pendapatan kami yang berbeza, itu adalah sifat tabi'i ! manusia. Saya yakin, walaupun dalam isu ummah centric ini kami berbeza pendapat, tetapi 99.999% perkara lain, kami bersama. Anggaplah teguran dan kritikan mereka itu sebagai pandangan ikhlas mereka dan teguran buat diri saya yang lemah ini. Itulah indahnya ummah ini.



Jika anda inginkan saya menjawab juga penulisan-penulisan yang mengkritik ummah centric serta meneruskan polemik ini. Cukuplah saya katakan kepada anda: "Kerja dakwah masih lagi banyak di luar sana, saya belum mempunyai masa untuk menjawabnya...."



Bagaimana pula anda ?



Selamat berjuang untuk semua!

A bridge too far for Malaysia's premier

A bridge too far for Malaysia's premier
By Mageswary Ramakrishnan
June 2006


KUALA LUMPUR - A growing tussle between Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and his strong-willed predecessor, Mahathir Mohamad, has complicated the premier's reform plans and cast a dark cloud over the political scene.


Abdullah rose to power with Mahathir's overt blessing in 2003, and with a promise to reform the links between government and business that characterized Mahathir's 22-year tenure. Nearly three years later, a series of politically charged policy decisions has put the two leaders on a collision course that is testing Abdullah's grip on power.


Abdullah's recent decision to suspend construction of a half-built bridge from Malaysia's Johor province to Singapore reportedly infuriated Mahathir, 80, who made an executive decision to build the massive bridge two months before announcing his resignation in 2003.


Mahathir had earlier promised to inspect the bridge's construction, even if he was no longer in power. His son sits on the board of one of the Malaysian companies involved in the bridge's construction.


Abdullah also recently sacked the chief executive officer of the national car maker, Proton, a well-known Mahathir associate. Mahathir, who currently serves as a senior adviser to the company, publicly condemned the decision. Proton was largely shielded from international competition during Mahathir's tenure, where high tariffs made foreign cars as much as triple the price of Proton's cars. Abdullah has since moved tentatively to reduce those trade barriers.


On his resignation, Mahathir overtly decided against taking on the title of mentor minister, as Lee Kwan Yew did in Singapore to maintain a measure of influence over major government policies. Now that Abdullah's policies have exposed chinks in Mahathir's political legacy, the tough-talking former premier is fighting back with a surprising vengeance.


Mahathir's beefs against Abdullah's government center primarily on the latter's slow but steady drive to dismantle the various nationalistic economic programs Mahathir conceived and built up in pursuit of rapid economic growth. Political insiders say that Mahathir also resents Abdullah's conciliatory diplomatic approach toward Singapore and the West, including the United States - countries with which Mahathir frequently took issue as de facto spokesman for the developing world.


In a recent interview with Malaysiakini, coincidentally the online newspaper his government had raided and frequently harassed, Mahathir vented his anger against Abdullah through a series of not-so-veiled accusations. He opined broadly that the prime minister's family members should not be allowed to conduct business with the government.


The comments were an apparent jab at Abdullah's son, Kamaluddin Abdullah, who is head of the government-linked oil-and-gas company Scomi. Kamaluddin has come under heavy political fire for his alleged involvement in producing parts that were subsequently sent to Libya and deployed as centrifuges in Tripoli's nuclear program. (Libya has since announced it would scrap its nuclear program in an agreement with Washington.)


According to media reports, Kamaluddin claims that he was unaware of how the devices were to be used. However, the prime minister's critics claim that his government has moved to cover up details of the scandal through detaining Sri Lankan businessman Buhary Syed Abu Tahir - one of Kamaluddin's business partners who is also an alleged senior figure in the proliferation network of Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan - under the Internal Security Act (ISA), which allows for indefinite detention without trial.


Abdullah signed the detention order, which was not publicly announced, in his capacity as home minister, according to media reports. The use of the ISA against potential government critics for alleged national-security purposes harks to the darkest days of Mahathir's authoritarian rule.


Other government critics note that Abdullah's son-in-law, Khairy Jamaluddin, has rapidly risen to the post of deputy chief of the United Malay National Organization's (UMNO's) youth wing, putting him in line for a future leadership position inside the ruling party.


Broad allegations of nepotism and abuse of power in government, particularly stemming from Mahathir and his supporters, are clearly aimed at undermining Abdullah's reform credentials, even though many of his initiatives have in reality pushed crucial reforms forward.


Waning popularity
Mahathir has aired his complaints and grievances at a time Abdullah's popularity is clearly on the wane. Growing indications are that Abdullah, who won a landslide electoral victory in 2004 on a clean-government ticket, has not been able to stem the systemic government corruption he inherited from Mahathir's administration.


On the economic front, the cost of living is rapidly rising, and street protests against the government's decision to raise fuel prices have become an almost weekly affair. Moreover, an emboldened civil society has called on his government to divulge more information about the finances of Petronas, the national oil-and-gas giant. Political insiders say the strains have led to infighting among Abdullah's senior advisers, and the soft-spoken and fervently religious premier has failed to bridge the growing internal divisions inside his UMNO party.


How many of these allegations are anti-Abdullah spin leveled by his political rivals is difficult to discern. A thick veil of opacity still surrounds the workings of government, a holdover from Mahathir's days in power that Abdullah has for whatever reason decided to keep intact.


"If Abdullah has been making reforms, the results are not seen. It's something I cannot see myself. It's one of his weaknesses," said Mohammad Agus Yusoff, a senior Kuala Lumpur-based political scientist.


Increasingly, Abdullah is being portrayed as a slow and indecisive leader - in direct contrast to the firebrand, can-do image Mahathir carefully crafted for himself. Abdullah's critics point in particular to his recent flip-flop on the government's policy toward illegal migrant workers, a lightning-rod political issue here. First Abdullah announced a crackdown, then called it off without explanation. "Abdullah's most telling weakness is his inability to make decisions," said a local political reporter, requesting anonymity.


Abdullah has also been slighted both by his supporters and by his critics for his inability to shake up the political status quo, which he boldly vowed to do while on the 2004 election trail. Abdullah's cabinet notably returned many discredited politicians, many of whom are known to have direct ties to Mahathir.


"Abdullah's cabinet lineup shocked the nation," said political scientist Mohammed Agus. "Ministers whose reputation has taken a serious whack due to graft are still there."


Perhaps most troubling is Abdullah's apparent willingness to crack down on dissent, eerily similar to the oppressive tactics Mahathir used to stay in power unopposed for more than 22 years. Abdullah in January ordered the sacking of two editors of a Chinese-language daily newspaper, representing a crude and direct intervention in the workings of the press.


The newspaper stood accused of wrongly identifying as a Chinese national a woman who was caught on camera being strip-searched by security personnel. Abdullah's government had apologized to Beijing over the incident based on information in the news reports.


"People thought he would be different, more tolerant of dissenting views," said the news reporter, adding: "All that was mere lip service."


With such reform setbacks, and with Mahathir nipping at his heels, Abdullah's political clout is waning inside UMNO. His proposal to form an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) was openly rejected by the UMNO-controlled parliament and many top-ranking police officers have threatened to resign if the new body is created. Police officers have also publicly vowed they will vote for opposition candidates at the next general elections in 2008 if the IPCMC is implemented.


Faced with such opposition, Abdullah has since gone quiet on one of the Malaysia's most pressing reform issues: police reform. "His attitude now shows, quite clearly, he has no voice, no power," a civil-rights activist who supports the IPCMC legislation said on condition of anonymity. "He is a weak prime minister."


Less than two years into his term, Abdullah's ability to effect political change has clearly diminished. As Mahathir and his supporters go on the offensive against his government, Abdullah will need to spend valuable political energy just to maintain his grip on power, leaving him less time and clout to dismantle the political and economic system Mahathir built and Abdullah had once boldly vowed to change.


Mageswary Ramakrishnan is a Kuala Lumpur-based journalist.

TNB got a raw deal

The Star Online
Tuesday June 6, 2006


Ani: TNB got a raw deal

WHEN the Government decided to approve the request from Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB) to raise electricity tariffs, the plight of the national utility took centre-stage. Naturally, the knee-jerk reaction among consumers was not favourable. The 12% rise in tariffs appears to have re-ignited the debate on how good the going is for independent power producers (IPPs) at the cost of the national utility’s cashflow. The imbalance between the generation side of the business and that of transmission and distribution has put a strain on TNB. To understand the privatisation of the power generation sector, one needs to take a look back in history to understand that the country's IPPs came about as a result of the Government's effort to address the issue of stable power supply after the landmark 1992 blackout. Lending a historical perspective to the issue of IPPs is former TNB executive chairman Tan Sri Ani Arope, who headed the national utility from 1990 to 1996. It was during his tenure that the first generation IPPs were created. StarBiz deputy news editor JAGDEV SINGH SIDHU has the story.

STARBIZ: What happened after the first major blackout in 1992?

Ani: TNB had plans in place to pump out more energy by building plants in Pasir Gudang and Paka. Financing was no problem and our credit standing was very high. We had the land acquired and were ready to move in and plant up.

But we were told by the Economic Planning Unit (EPU) that it had its own plans. We cautioned EPU that if those plants, which would take two years to complete, were not built, Malaysia would get another major blackout. When you have a place with 250 engineers, it does not make sense to say (the blackout) is because of poor planning. But the EPU said it had its own plans and we were told to surrender the land.

Then it surfaced that it wanted to privatise the power plants. I am not anti-IPPs per se. It is good to have other players but it has to be done fairly. It has to be fair to the consumers, not just TNB, which is a conduit. TNB, because of the electricity hike, has been treated as the whipping boy. The focus should be on the consumers.

When the generous terms were given to the IPPs, all my other peers around the world asked what was happening. They said they would like to have a share in the IPPs. They said (the contracts to IPPs) were “too darn generous.'' (The terms) were grossly one sided.



How was the Malaysian model of IPPs created?

Ask our previous Prime Minister.



How was the process of negotiations with IPPs conducted?

There was no negotiation. Absolutely none. Instead of talking directly with the IPPs, TNB was sitting down with the EPU. And we were harassed, humiliated and talked down every time we went there. After that, my team was disappointed. The EPU just gave us the terms and asked us to agree. I said no way I would.



What about the pricing and terms of the contracts?

It was all fixed up. (They said) this is the price, this is the capacity charge and this is the number of years. They said you just take it and I refused to sign the contracts. And then, I was put out to pasture.



Why did you disagree with the terms?

It was grossly unfair. At 16 sen per unit (kWh) and with the take or pay situation, actually it was 23 sen per unit. With 23 sen, plus transmission and distribution costs, TNB would have had to charge the consumer no less than 30 sen per unit. If mixed with TNB’s cost, the cost would come down but that was at our expense because we were producing electricity at 8 sen a unit. We can deliver electricity at 17 sen per unit.

And then there is a capacity charge. Nobody produces excess electricity like Malaysia and it goes to waste because there are no batteries to store that power. TNB only needs a reserve of 15% to 20%.



TNB was producing electricity at 8 sen a unit. What should have been the right price for IPPs to sell to TNB?

Twelve sen. They could not beat our price as we had already amortised our assets. But for the new guys or even ourselves to come in then and (having) to meet interest charges and to make a small profit, it would cost 12 sen a unit.

This was what we told one IPP. The IPP agreed to it but the EPU said that unless the IPP raised its price, the contract would not be given to the IPP. So he got it for 14 sen per unit.

And then, there is the cost pass-through. If the price of fuel went up, the extra cost is passed through to us. And in other words, it is passed on to the consumer.



Under what terms would you have agreed to the IPPs being set up?

Have an independent buyer for the electricity and in one way, let TNB come in and bid for the plants. Get other people to come in. Get a commission to see (to) our needs and TNB can be one of the producers.



It is argued that the IPPs' contracts are too lucrative but there are IPPs in other countries in Africa or Asia that have better terms.

There are IPPs charging 50 to 60 US cents per unit but they use diesel. Take our own situation and compare oranges with oranges. Then it is fair. Do whatever is fair.



How were you affected by the process of awarding the IPP contracts?

I felt sick. It was morally wrong and not fair. If it is legal and not fair, I will not do it. If it is fair and illegal, I still won’t do it. It has to be legal and fair.

We work for the consumers, workers and shareholders. TNB is morally obligated to these three, but the consumers come first, otherwise we won’t be around. It is then the workers and the shareholders.

When I said that, they said ‘Dia ingat bapak dia-punya’ (He thinks this is his father’s company). This job is an amanah (trust). You are entrusted with this responsibility and you carry it out to the best of your ability. I do not want somebody to come and urinate on my grave. In the Malay culture, that is about the worst insult they can do to a man.



Do you think you did the right thing by not signing the agreements?

Absolutely.



How should a contract with the IPPs work?

In Australia, they call the IPPs and ask “what is your price''. They will pay the IPP that offers the best price. What they could have done is to throw the net wider and ask everybody (if they) are good, it would be awarded to them. But in our case, the contracts were ready-made and we were asked to sign.



What is your view on the impending renegotiation with the IPPs?

It has to be legal and fair. If we were to negotiate unfairly and illegally, the whole world will be looking at us and they will say “don’t sign anything with Malaysia because if things go against the country, the Government will void the agreement”.

We have to look at this very carefully.

But what we can do now is to say, can we bring down the capacity charge. Anything above the 15% reserve margin, we will call for bids.

The second thing is that the IPPs would have by now paid up their whole capital investments in their plants and it is all gravy (or profit) from now. Could we not bring this down a bit? Instead of paying a small amount to (a special fund), why not increase the (payment) for future planting up? In that manner, we can control the price of electricity. Otherwise, it's going to escalate.



Who in your opinion should get involved in the negotiations?

The consumers should be there. For me, you should get a very independent body. Then, you can bring in TNB, the IPPs, the consumers and Energy Commission. But these bodies and consumers should not make a judgment.

Sikap kerajaan punca Islam liberal berkembang

Sikap kerajaan punca Islam liberal berkembang
Mon Jun 05, 06 03:03:18 PM
Oleh Maslan Yusoh

KOTA BHARU, 5 Jun (Hrkh) - Ancaman Islam liberal terus berkembang di negara ini kerana kerajaan dianggap tidak mempamerkan sikap tegas bagi membendung gejala tersebut.


Dr Mohd Nur Manuty dari Pusat Kajian Modeniti dan Masyarakat Madani Kuala Lumpur berkata, ancaman Islam liberal terus berlangsung kerana sikap kerajaan sendiri membiarkan ideologi memesongkan itu berkembang.


"Perjuangan yang diasaskan kumpulan Inter Religious Council (IFC) tidak akan berhenti sehinggalah agama Islam tidak lagi dijadikan agama rasmi Malaysia," katanya ketika membentang kertas kerja pada seminar Ancaman Islam Liberal di Balai Islam, kelmarin.


Seminar sehari itu dianjurkan Jabatan Hal Ehwal Agama Islam Kelantan dengan kerjasama Gabung Profesional Kelantan. Ribuan mengikuti seminar terbabit.


Turut membentang kertas kerja pada seminar tersebut, Dr Ugi Suharto dari Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia, Dr Ahmad Bazli Shafie dari Universiti Sains Teknologi Malaysia dan Adian Husaini (Institute For The Study Of Islamic Thought and Cilivization, Jakarta).


Perasmiannya disempurnakan Menteri Besar, Tuan Guru Dato' Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat. Teks ucapannya dibaca anggota Exco, Ustaz Hassan Mohamood.


Oleh itu, Dr Mohd Nur berharap Majlis Raja-Raja Melayu menolak cadangan menolak penubuhan IFC kerana ia cukup merbahaya kepada masa depan agama Islam di negara ini.


Menurutnya, kewujudan IFC secara tidak langsung akan menjejaskan kedudukan Raja-Raja Melayu sebagai ketua agama Islam.


IFC digagaskan Majlis Perundingan Agama Buddha, Kristian, Hindu dan Sikh melalui memorandum kepada Majlis Peguam bertarikh 21 Ogos 2001.


Antara tuntutannya kepada kerajaan iaitu seseorang anak yang dilahirkan oleh ibu bapa Islam tidak seharusnya terus menjadi orang Islam.


Bagaimanapun kata bekas Presiden Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia itu, perjuangan IFC turut mendapat sokongan daripada 50 anggota Parlimen Barisan Nasional (BN) suatu ketika dahulu.


Menurutnya, aliran pemikiran Islam liberal sudah berani mencemuh ulama -ulama dan dengan jelas mereka mahu melebarkan fahaman pluralisme agama.


"Golongan ini telah diraikan dengan begitu hebat sekali di Barat sehingga ceramah mereka bagi satu jam dibayar sehingga 10,000 Euro dan mendapat tiket penerbangan kelas pertama," katanya.


Dr Ugi berpendapat hanya melalui dua kaedah sahaja dapat mengelakkan orang Islam terjebak dengan fahaman Islam liberal iaitu mendalami ilmu agama dan belajar secara berguru.


Manakala Dr Ahmad Bazli pula mengulas panjang lebar mengenai hermeneutik iaitu satu kaedah baru memahami al Quran.

Pertahan Identiti Dari Globalisasi dan Hegemoni Barat

Pertahan Identiti Dari Globalisasi dan Hegemoni Barat
Fri Jun 02, 06 01:11:17 PM
Oleh Dr. Shafie Abu Bakar

1. Antara Dasar dan Amalan
agi Malaysia, untuk mengatakan ianya tidak mempunyai dasar pelajaran Negara, tidak dapat dikatakan, kerana sekurang-kurang wujudnya dasar yang dikenali dengan `Dasar Pelajaran Kebangsaan` yang berasaskan `Dasar Pelajaran Razak` dan disempurnakan dengan berbagai-bagai penyata seperti Penyata Rahman Talib, Hussein Onn dan sebagainya.


Dasar Pelajaran Kebangsaan ini bertujuan untuk menyatupadukan rakyat yang berbagai kaum dengan menggunakan bahasa Melayu dan kurikulum bersepadu. Tetapi dari segi praktiknya, walaupun dasar ini berjalan, terdapat polisi-polisi mendatang yang menjadi hambatan-hambatan dan dipersoalkan. Dasar ini terumbang ambing dikocakkan oleh desakan kepentingan golongan elit, koporat, penswastaan, komersialisme, politik, perkauman dan globalisme. Desakan-desakan ini mencabar dasar pelajaran kebangsaan. Pihak pelaksana dasar pelajaran (Kementerian Pelajaran) kelihatan menerima tekanan dengan menyelitkan polisi-polisi yang kontradiksi tanpa penelitian dan penilaian yang mendalam dan matang.


2. Sekolah Antarabangsa
Sebagai contohnya polisi baru yang diumumkan oleh Kementerian Pelajaran mulai Rabu 17 Mei 2006 bahawa:


``The Education Ministry announced on Wednesday that Malaysian students will soon be allowed to attend international schools, doing away with the former stringent enrolment criteria


Pada asalnya sekolah antarabangsa didirikan biasanya di ibu-ibu kota bagi menyediakan pendidikan terbuka bagi anak-anak pegawai-pegawai kedutaan luar dan anak-anak para ekspertis luar menghantar anak-anak mereka belajar yang melayakkan anak-anak tersebut menyambung pelajaran di sekolah-sekolah seumpamanya di Negara mana keluarga mereka bertukar tanpa terganggu dari segi pelajaran.


Bagi rakyat Malaysia tidak dibenar belajar di sekolah seumpama ini kecuali mendapat keizinan Kementerian Pelajaran dengan syarat keluarganya adalah rakyat luar Negara dan pernah tinggal di luar negera sekurang-kurangnya tiga tahun berturut-turut.


Tindakan Kementerian Pelajaran bercadang membenarkan pelajar-pelajar Malaysia belajar di sekolah antarabangsa, bererti memberi peluang lebih banyak lagi sekolah-sekolah antarabangsa didirikan di Negara ini yang setakat ini jumlah sekolah sedemikian di Negara ini sebanyak 32 buah dengan jumlah pelajar seramai 10,603 orang. Dari jumlah ini 20% daripadanya adalah merupakan pelajar-pelajar Malaysia. Dengan keizinan ini kelak makin bertambahlah sekolah-sekolah antara bangsa di Negara ini pada masa akan datang. Tindakan Kementerian Pelajaran ini atas alasan-alasan antaranya menjadikan Malaysia `hub` pendidikan bertaraf antarabangsa, memberi peluang bagi ibubapa menghantarkan anak-anak mereka ke sekolah elit dan bermutu tinggi, mengelak dari berlakunya `brain drain` anak-anak terpilih dari belajar ke luar Negara untuk mendapat pendidikan terbaik, mendidik anak-anak dengan budaya dan nilai antarabangsa yang tidak terdapat pada sekolah-sekolah kebangsaan di Malaysia, memudahkan anak-anak yang terdidik di sekolah antarabangsa ini menyambung pengajian ke mana-mana pengajian di luar Negara, memenuhi egoisme golongan elit dan hartawan memperlihatkan kemampuan mereka menghantar anak-anak mereka ke sekolah ternama dan termahal yang membezakan status mereka dengan rakyat biasa dan marhaen yang tidak mampu menghantar anak-anak mereka belajar di sekolah-sekolah elit dan ternama `International School` biarpun otak dan prestasi anak-anak mereka tidak lebih baik dari otak anak-anak dari kalangan rakyat biasa dan marhaen. Dan kes khusus bagi membendung ibubapa di Malaysia dari menghantar anak-anak mereka belajar di Negara jiran yang dianggap bermutu sebagaimana tindakan diambil setengah ibubapa di Johor Bharu menghantar anak-anak mereka belajar di Singapura, walaupun anak-anak ini keletihan kerana terpaksa bangun diawal pagi menghadapi kesesakan lalu lintas pergi dan balik petang dan malam, demi kononnya untuk mendapat didikan di sekolah yang dianggap mereka sebagai `standard` dan bermutu.


3. Memperlekehkan Dasar Pendidikan Negara
Tindakan Kementerian Pelajaran untuk membuka ruang dan memberi peluang kepada ibubapa menghantarkan anak-anak mereka belajar di sekolah-sekolah antarabangsa secara langsung atau secara tidak langsung adalah memperlekehkan Dasar Pendidikan Negara lantaran dengan membuka peluang sedemikian Kementerian Pelajaran seolah-olah menerima hakikat bahawa pendidikan di sekolah antarabangsa lebih bermutu dari dasar pendidikan kebangsaan. Apakah ertinya usaha kerajaan selama ini meningkatkan mutu sekolah kebangsaan dengan berbagai-bagai kemudahan seperti makmal, computer, perpustakaan dan perkeranian, meningkatkan latihan perguruan dari maktab-maktab perguruan kepada institute perguruan, menghantar guru-guru lepasan ijazah dan perguruan mengajar di sekolah-sekolah kebangsaan, mempromosi guru besar, pengetua dan guru-guru pakar, menyediakan bangunan-bangunan yang lebih selesa dan bersesuaian dan mengubah kaedah penilaian dari berorientasikan peperiksaan semata-mata kepada lebih bersifat ko-kurikulum, kreatif dan inovatif


Dengan membuka peluang belajar di sekolah antarabangsa adalah menggugat dasar pelajaran kebangsaan yang menyatukan pelajar-pelajar di Negara ini dengan satu dasar pelajaran. Kita harus akui anak-anak yang dididik melalui dasar pelajaran kebangsaan telah berjaya ditanam ke dalam jiwa mereka rasa kebanggaan terhadap negera dengan rasa ke Malaysiaan Generasi yang terdidik dengan dasar pelajaran kebangsaan tidak lagi kekok untuk berkomunikasi antara mereka dari berbagai kaum melalui penggunaan bahasa kebangsaan. Melalui sekolah antarabangsa, walaupun mungkin diwajibkan mempelajari bahasa kebangsaan kelak sebagai salah satu mata pelajaran, tetapi penekanan terhadap bahasa tersebut tidaklah sebagaimana di sekolah kebangsaan dan mereka tidak menggunakan di dalam komunikasi sehari-hari dan mungkin memandang rendah terhadapnya. Pengakuan pelajar di sekolah antarabangsa berikut dapat dijadikan ukuran bahawa:


``I was only exposed to English and other foreign languages. For along time I did not use Bahasa Malaysia and it was hard for me to speak properly


Dengan membenarkan sekolah antarabangsa memperluaskan operasi mereka di Negara ini akan menggugat Dasar Pelajaran Kebangsaan. Oleh kerana kurikulum sekolah antarabangsa yang kelak akan berkembang akan mewujudkan dua aliran yang bertentangan dan melahirkan pelajar-pelajar yang berlainan orientasi, budaya dan nilai yang tidak membantu penyatuan dan integrasi kaum yang mengukuhkan perpaduan bangsa Malaysia. Jika pihak kementerian beranggapan bahawa pendidikan di sekolah antarabangsa ini lebih bermutu dan masyarakat diorientasi dengan pandangan ini, maka ianya menghakiskan keyakinan rakyat terhadap keunggulan dasar pelajaran kebangsaan.


Dengan membuka peluang pelajaran di sekolah antarabangsa mewujudkan jurang pemisah antara golongan elit dan berada dengan rakyat biasa. Pengajian di sekolah antarabangsa memerlukan biaya yang tinggi. Seorang pelajar memerlukan bayaran sebanyak RM4,000/= sebulan bagi bayaran persekolahan, iaitu melebihi bayaran pengajian peringkat ijazah lanjutan universiti tempatan. Perbelanjaan sedemikian tidak mampu ditanggung oleh rakyat biasa. Ini mewujudkan jurang kemampuan belajar di antara golongan elit dan berada dengan rakyat biasa. Keadaan ini tidak wajar dilihat dari segi keadilan dan memasyrakatkan pendidikan.


4. Apa Kurangnya Persekolahan di Malaysia ?
Pandangan tinggi terhadap sekolah antarabangsa lebih bersifat psikologi dan ilusi. Kerana nama (International School) dan elitnya sekolah ini (kerana bayaran mahal), dan di luar kemampuan orang biasa, maka ianya dianggap bermutu dan ada kelas, sedangkan hakikat sebenarnya tidak lebih baik dari sekolah-sekolah biasa yang sederhana baik, apa lagi yang baik-baik di Negara kita. Ibu bapa Malaysia yang mau menghantar anak-anak mereka ke sekolah antarabangsa, kerana anak mereka tidak cemerlang yang melayakkan mereka terpilih ke sekolah-sekolah yang baik di Negara ini.


Hakikat sebenarnya pendidikan di Negara kita tidak kurang baiknya, bahkan lebih baik dari sekolah antarabangsa. Sekolah-sekolah cemerlang di Negara ini seperti sekolah-sekolah asrama penuh, sekolah sains, sekolah menengah kebangsaan agama, sekolah Mara, sekolah yayasan, sekolah agama dan sekolah harian biasa yang juga tidak kurang mengeluarkan pelajar-pelajar cemerlang. Telah beratus ribu pelajar cemerlang yang dihasilkan oleh sekolah-sekolah sedemikian yang dihantar ke universiti-universiti terkemuka luar Negara di dalam berbagai-bagai bidang dan mereka telah pulang dengan kejayaan dan mencurah khidmat baktinya pada Negara. Lebih kurang 50,000 orang pelajar keluaran dari sekolah-sekolah sedemikian setiap tahun juga terpilih belajar di universiti-universiti tempatan di dalam berbagai-bagai bidang dan mereka berjaya dan tidak berkurang mutunya juga berkhidmat di dalam berbagai bidang dan sektor di dalam Negara ini.


Adalah diakui hak memberi pelajaran kepada anak-anak dan memilih corak pengajian yang diingini adalah hak kebebasan ibu bapa. Bagi mereka yang tidak menyetujui dengan pendidikan yang disediakan di negara ini dan mereka berkemampuan dari segi material, mereka boleh menghantar anak-anak mereka belajar bukan saja di Singapura, tetapi di England, Amerika, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, German, Perancis, Rusia dan sebagainya. Biarlah mereka dengan ideal dan ilusi mereka. Tidak banyak mereka yang sedemikian. Mereka yang melihat apa yang sukar dan dikejauhan sebagai indah bermutu dan lupa yang dekat dan berhampiran adalah lebih bermutu. Sebenarnya tidak berlaku apa yang dikatakan sebagai `brain drain`, kerana berapa jauh mereka mengembara dan terpesona, akhirnya mereka akan kembali menjejak bumi nyata. Jumlah mereka ini jauh lebih kecil dari jumlah pelajar cemerlang yang melalui persekolahan Negara.


Sebenarnya pengajian peringkat sekolah- rendah hingga menengah, penting di dalam memupuk nilai, budaya, integrasi, kecintaan dan penyatuan bangsa. Hasrat ini dapat dikatakan hampir tercapai, walaupun tidak dapat dikatakan sepenuhnya. Sekiranya beberapa polisi kerajaan misalnya mewujudkan sekolah-sekolah integrasi antara kaum setakat ini tidak/belum mencapai kejayaan, adalah dibimbangkan pembukaan sekolah antarabangsa akan lebih melebarkan jurang antara kaum dan antara yang berada dengan yang tidak berada. Untuk menguasai bahasa-bahasa dan memahami berbagai budaya peringkat ini boleh dicapai pada peringkat selepas pengajian persekolahan, iaitu pada peringkat pengajian tinggi baik di dalam maupun di luar Negara.


5. Usaha Me`Malenglish`kan Malaysia ?
Kita melihat usaha membuka ruang kepada perkembangan sekolah antarabangsa di Negara ini adalah merupakan rangkaian teratur dari pihak yang mempunyai agenda khusus yang tidak menyenangi dasar pendidikan Negara dan mau me`Malenglish`kan dasar pendidikan Negara dan kalau boleh menjadikan Negara ini sebagai `Little England` atau `Little America` yang kononnya melambangkan Malaysia sebagai Negara maju.


Sebenarnya selepas merdeka, khususnya selepas 1970an dasar pendidikan negara telah berada di atas landasan yang betul. Hasil dari dasar ini telah mewujudkan 7 universiti terunggul di Negara ini dan mengeluarkan pelajar yang bermutu setanding kalaupun tidak lebih baik dari pelajar-pelajar yang terus dihantar ke luar Negara. Namun senario perubahan ekonomi dan politik berlaku selepas separuh kedua zaman pemerintahan Dr. Mahathir yang memperkenalkan dasar pengkoporatan dan penswastaan. Politik Umno bertukar dari pejuang-pejuangnya yang tulen kepada penguasaan secara langsung atau tidak langsung oleh kalangan koporat dan penswastaan. Kewangan menjadi perhitungan utama dalam politik lantaran itu berlakulah politik wang (rasuah politik). Wang menguasai pemilihan kepimpinan. Atas faktor komersil dari golongan koporat, swasta dan hartawan yang menguasai media melakukan tekanan agar polisi dan dasar bahasa diubah atas kepentingan komersil dan alasan globalisasi. Kehendak mereka berjaya apabila polisi menggunakan bahasa Inggeris bagi matapelajaran metametik dan sains dilaksanakan di sekolah-sekolah atas kehendak Dr. Mahathir dan diluluskan cabinet pada pertengahan 2002. Ianya dituruti penggunaannya secara bertahap hingga kepada peringkat pengajian tinggi. Polisi ini tidak saja melanggar dasar pelajaran, tetapi untuk jangka panjang melumpuhkan bahasa Melayu sebagai bahasa ilmu yang telah berjaya dilaksanakan selama ini. Pada masa akan datang memperkatakan sesuatu ilmu secara akademik hatta bagi mata pelajaran sastera dan agama tidak dianggap ilmiah dan berprestage kalau tidak disampaikan di dalam bahasa Inggeris. Maruah bahasa Melayu akan menurun sebagai bahasa rakyat kelas bawahan. Perubahan polisi dari menggunakan bahasa Melayu di dalam Matematik dan Sains ke dalam bahasa Inggeris mendapat tentangan sebahagian dari rakyat. Seminar dan kongres diadakan bagi menyuarakan penentangan ini. Seperti Kongres Pendidikan Melayu ke 2 yang disertai lebih dari 1,000 cendikiawan yang menegaskan bahawa:


``Kongres Pendidikan Melayu Kedua menggesa kerajaan mengkaji semula penggunaan bahasa Inggeris sebagai kaedah pengajaran matapelajaran Matematik dan Sains di sekolah, kerana ia boleh mengancam kedaulatan bahasa dan jati diri bangsa Melayu.


Penggunaan bahasa Inggeris dalam Matematik dan Sains adalah kehendak politik, golongan elit koporat dan swasta. Di dalam hal ini dilihat usaha membuka peluang belajar di sekolah antarabangsa yang pada dasarnya menggunakan bahasa Inggeris adalah bagi mengukuhkan kedudukan bahasa Inggeris di dalam pembelajaran di Malaysia. Ianya merupakan pertambahan ruang bagi bahasa tersebut di dalam pendidikan di Malaysia. Sudah tentulah banyak lagi ruang akan dibuka bagi mengukuhkan bahasa Inggeris sebagai sistem pendidikan di Malaysia yang secara tidak langsung melumpuhkan bahasa Melayu yang akhirnya bertarap bahasa rakyat yang tidak berdaya ilmiah.


6. Globalisasi dan Hegemoni
Dengan tidak bersetuju dibuka sekolah antarabangsa kepada rakyat Malaysia, bukan bererti kita menentang peluang untuk rakyat mempelajari keilmuan, khususnya melalui bahasa Inggeris, kerana ada alternative yang lain di Negara ini bagi mereka mempelajarinya. Di dalam keadaan dunia tanpa sempadan dan pengaruh Negara yang kuat dengan kemajuan teknologi, intelektual, ekonomi, budaya dan telekomunikasi, kita dan bahagian dunia lain tidak dapat menolak kemaraan mereka dan terpaksa menerima, tetapi sewajarnya dengan pendekatan terbaik bagi kepentingan kita. Kemaraan secara globalisasi mereka. kita terima, umpamanya kita terpaksa mengakui akan kepentingan bahasa Inggeris sebagai bahasa dunia yang penting dan kita jadikannya sebagai part and parcel di dalam kurikulum pendidikan kita. Kita juga menerima pengaruh mereka di dalam bidang-bidang yang lain seperti teknologi, ekonomi, telekomunikasi dan sebagainya, tetapi kewaspadaan kita, jangan sampai kehadiran pengaruh luar secara globalisasi ini bersifat hegemoni terhadap kita. Membicarakan persoalan hegemoni ini Chandra Muzaffar mengatakan:


``… hegemony at the global level is sustained by a network of military, political, economic, cultural, media and academic elites functioning within different societies.`` (Global Ethic Or Global Hegemony ?, 2005: 118).


``This hegemonic worldview shaped by the West is further reinforced by ideas, concepts, standard and benchmarks which are rooted to a greater or lesser degree in the Western, more specifically, the American experience. Consequently, the non-Western intelligentsia have got into the habit of imbibling and absorbing, almost uncritically, the leading ideas on democracy and govermence, the market and the economy, education and health, art and architecture and indeed every other facet of life from western sources because we are psychologically convinced of their innet superiority. A defeated, dominated civilization has the tendency to try to imitate the hegemonic civilization


Pokoknya hegemony barat yang lebih superior di dalam berbagai bidang adalah satu bentuk penjajahan baru yang amat sukar ditangkis, bahkan terpaksa diterima bagi survival. Namun penerimaan kita seharus secara bijaksana dan terpilih dan penyesuaian agar dengan cara sedemikian kita dapat menyelamatkan identiti Negara, budaya dan bangsa kita. Seharusnya kita menyedari bahawa globalisasi dan dunia tanpa sempadan adalah:


``Globalisation is more than the spread of neo-liberalism. Thre are also other processes embedded within it. One of these is cultural, i.e. the homogenization of cultures which often threatens the national identities of many countries that have difficulties in coping with it. This is not to say that national cultures would be wiped out by the globalizing processes. However, there is the strong tendency of their marginalization and commodification, thus creating an identity crises.


7. Pertahan Identiti
Di dalam hal ini kita tidak menyetujui dibuka sekolah antarabangsa kepada rakyat Malaysia secara bebas, kerana ianya mengundang kontradiksi dengan dasar pelajaran Negara, melahirkan golongan pelajar elit yang marginal dan ego dengan pengajian mereka dan asing dari didikan dan budaya masyarakat Malaysia. Kita juga tidak setuju dengan mewajibkan penggunaan bahasa Inggeris di dalam matapelajaran Matematik dan Sains, kerana ianya membunuh kemampuan bahasa Melayu di dalam bidang-bidang berkenaan yang ternyata selama ini berkemampuan. Pengukuhan bahasa Inggeris dapat dilakukan dengan berbagai-bagai pendekatan yang lain. Kita perlu mengukuhkan dasar pelajaran yang bersifat Malaysia, beridentiti Malaysia dan tidak dihegemoni oleh Barat. Kalau pelajar luar datang ke Malaysia, mereka perlu dapat menikmati pelajaran secara menu Malaysia, bukan sebagai citarasa barat berada di bumi asing hasil dari globalisasi dan hegemoni Barat. Kita tidak patut melayan kehendak segelintir golongan elit dengan mengorbankan dasar pelajaran Negara yang bersifat Malaysia yang berakar pada rakyat dan Negara ini.


Bangi,
5 J. Awal 1427
2 Jun 2006.


`` (Globalisation Culture & Inequalities, Bangi, 2004: 20)..`` (Ibid. pp. 120-121).Secara lanjutnya beliau mengatakan:`` (MM, Ahad 27 Mac 2005: 11). Berbagai fakta dikemukakan termasuk pendapat UNESCO bahawa penggunaan bahasa Ibunda paling sesuai digunakan bagi pembelajaran anak-anak dan setengah juta pelajar akan tercicir. Namun atas kemahuan golongan elit, koporat dan kuasa politik suara dan desakan rakyat disepikan. Dasar ini masih dipersoalkan. Kajian secara ilmiah di atas kemampuan, keberkesanan dan kemahiran pelajar menggunakan bahasa Inggeris tidak dilakukan. Keputusan peperiksaan yang dijalankan tidak boleh dijadikan ukuran, kerana lebih dari 80% murid-murid memilih membuat jawapan di dalam bahasa Melayu yang dibolehkan. Manakala keputusan berdasarkan graft yang angkubahnya berdasarkan peratusan pencapaian, bukan pada tingginya jawapan yang betul. Jika peratusan jawapan serendah 19%, maka pencapaian 19 markah katakan matematik sebagai pencapaian gred A + dan makin menurun ke bawah..`` (NST, Friday May 19, 2006: 6). .`` ((NST, Friday May 19, 2006: 6).