Text of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's U.N. Address
Published: 9/19/2006
Madam President,
Distinguished Heads of State and Government,
Distinguished Heads of Delegation,
Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen
I praise the Merciful, All-Knowing and Almighty God for blessing me with another opportunity to address this Assembly on behalf of the great nation of Iran and to bring a number of issues to the attention of the international community.
I also praise the Almighty for the increasing vigilance of peoples across the globe, their courageous presence in different international settings, and the brave expression of their views and aspirations regarding global issues.
Today, humanity passionately craves commitment to the Truth, devotion to God, quest for Justice and respect for the dignity of human beings. Rejection of domination and aggression, defense of the oppressed,and longing for peace constitute the legitimate demand of the peoples of the world, particularly the new generations and the spirited youth, who aspire a world free from decadence, aggression and injustice, and replete with love and compassion. The youth have a right to seek justice and the Truth; and they have a right to build their own future on the foundations of love, compassion and tranquility. And, I praise the Almighty for this immense blessing.
Madame President,
Excellencies,
What afflicts humanity today is certainly not compatible with human dignity; the Almighty has not created human beings so that they could transgress against others and oppress them.
By causing war and conflict, some are fast expanding their domination, accumulating greater wealth and usurping all the resources, while others endure the resulting poverty, suffering and misery.
Some seek to rule the world relying on weapons and threats, while others live in perpetual insecurity and danger.
Some occupy the homeland of others, thousands of kilometers away from their borders, interfere in their affairs and control their oil and other resources and strategic routes, while others are bombarded daily in their own homes; their children murdered in the streets and alleys of their own country and their homes reduced to rubble.
Such behavior is not worthy of human beings and runs counter to the Truth, to justice and to human dignity. The fundamental question is that under such conditions, where should the oppressed seek justice? Who, or what organization defends the rights of the oppressed, and suppresses acts of aggression and oppression? Where is the seat of global justice?
A brief glance at a few examples of the most pressing global issues can further illustrate the problem.
A. The unbridled expansion of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons
Some powers proudly announce their production of second and third generations of nuclear weapons. What do they need these weapons for? Is the development and stockpiling of these deadly weapons designed to promote peace and democracy? Or, are these weapons, in fact, instruments of coercion and threat against other peoples and governments? How long should the people of the world live with the nightmare of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? What bounds the powers producing and possessing these weapons? How can they be held accountable before the international community? And, are the inhabitants of these countries content with the waste of their wealth and resources for the production of such destructive arsenals? Is it not possible to rely on justice, ethics and wisdom instead of these instruments of death? Aren`t wisdom and justice more compatible with peace and tranquility than nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? If wisdom, ethics and justice prevail, then oppression and aggression will be uprooted, threats will wither away and no reason will remain for conflict. This is a solid proposition because most global conflicts emanate from injustice, and from the powerful, not being contented with their own rights, striving to devour the rights of others.
People across the globe embrace justice and are willing to sacrifice for its sake.
Would it not be easier for global powers to ensure their longevity and win hearts and minds through the championing of real promotion of justice, compassion and peace, than through continuing the proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons and the threat of their use?
The experience of the threat and the use of nuclear weapons is before us. Has it achieved anything for the perpetrators other than exacerbation of tension, hatred and animosity among nations?
B. Occupation of countries and exacerbation of hostilities
Occupation of countries, including Iraq, has continued for the last three years. Not a day goes by without hundreds of people getting killed in cold blood. The occupiers are incapable of establishing security in Iraq. Despite the establishment of the lawful Government and National Assembly of Iraq, there are covert and overt efforts to heighten insecurity, magnify and aggravate differences within Iraqi society, and instigate civil strife.
There is no indication that the occupiers have the necessary political will to eliminate the sources of instability. Numerous terrorists were apprehended by the Government of Iraq, only to be let loose under various pretexts by the occupiers.
It seems that intensification of hostilities and terrorism serves as a pretext for the continued presence of foreign forces in Iraq.
Where can the people of Iraq seek refuge, and from whom should the Government of Iraq seek justice?
Who can ensure Iraq`s security? Insecurity in Iraq affects the entire region. Can the Security Council play a role in restoring peace and security in Iraq, while the occupiers are themselves permanent members of the Council? Can the Security Council adopt a fair decision in this regard?
Consider the situation in Palestine:
The roots of the Palestinian problem go back to the Second World War. Under the pretext of protecting some of the survivors of that War, the land of Palestine was occupied through war, aggression and the displacement of millions of its inhabitants; it was placed under the control of some of the War survivors, bringing even larger population groups from elsewhere in the world, who had not been even affected by the Second World War; and a government was established in the territory of others with a population collected from across the world at the expense of driving millions of the rightful inhabitants of the land into a diaspora and homelessness. This is a great tragedy with hardly a precedent in history. Refugees continue to live in temporary refugee camps, and many have died still hoping to one day return to their land. Can any logic, law or legal reasoning justify this tragedy? Can any member of the United Nations accept such a tragedy occurring in their own homeland?
The pretexts for the creation of the regime occupying Al-Qods Al-Sharif are so weak that its proponents want to silence any voice trying to merely speak about them, as they are concerned that shedding light on the facts would undermine the raison d`être of this regime, as it has. The tragedy does not end with the establishment of a regime in the territory of others. Regrettably, from its inception, that regime has been a constant source of threat and insecurity in the Middle East region, waging war and spilling blood and impeding the progress of regional countries, and has also been used by some powers as an instrument of division, coercion, and pressure on the people of the region. Reference to these historical realities may cause some disquiet among supporters of this regime. But these are sheer facts and not myth. History has unfolded before our eyes.
Worst yet, is the blanket and unwarranted support provided to this regime.
Just watch what is happening in the Palestinian land. People are being bombarded in their own homes and their children murdered in their own streets and alleys. But no authority, not even the Security Council, can afford them any support or protection. Why?
At the same time, a Government is formed democratically and through the free choice of the electorate in a part of the Palestinian territory. But instead of receiving the support of the so-called champions of democracy, its Ministers and Members of Parliament are illegally abducted and incarcerated in full view of the international community.
Which council or international organization stands up to protect this brutally besieged Government? And why can`t the Security Council take any steps?
Let me here address Lebanon:
For thirty-three long days, the Lebanese lived under the barrage of fire and bombs and close to 1.5 million of them were displaced; meanwhile some members of the Security Council practically chose a path that provided ample opportunity for the aggressor to achieve its objectives militarily. We witnessed that the Security Council of the United Nations was practically incapacitated by certain powers to even call for a ceasefire. The Security Council sat idly by for so many days, witnessing the cruel scenes of atrocities against the Lebanese while tragedies such as Qana were persistently repeated. Why?
In all these cases, the answer is self-evident. When the power behind the hostilities is itself a permanent member of the Security Council, how then can this Council fulfill its responsibilities?
C. Lack of respect for the rights of members of the international community
Excellencies,
I now wish to refer to some of the grievances of the Iranian people and speak to the injustices against them.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is a member of the IAEA and is committed to the NPT. All our nuclear activities are transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eyes of IAEA inspectors. Why then are there objections to our legally recognized rights? Which governments object to these rights? Governments that themselves benefit from nuclear energy and the fuel cycle. Some of them have abused nuclear technology for non-peaceful ends including the production of nuclear bombs, and some even have a bleak record of using them against humanity.
Which organization or Council should address these injustices? Is the Security Council in a position to address them? Can it stop violations of the inalienable rights of countries? Can it prevent certain powers from impeding scientific progress of other countries?
The abuse of the Security Council, as an instrument of threat and coercion, is indeed a source of grave concern.
Some permanent members of the Security Council, even when they are themselves parties to international disputes, conveniently threaten others with the Security Council and declare, even before any decision by the Council, the condemnation of their opponents by the Council. The question is: what can justify such exploitation of the Security Council, and doesn`t it erode the credibility and effectiveness of the Council? Can such behavior contribute to the ability of the Council to maintain security?
Excellencies,
A review of the preceding historical realities would lead to the conclusion that regrettably, justice has become a victim of force and aggression.
Many global arrangements have become unjust, discriminatory and irresponsible as a result of undue pressure from some of the powerful;
Threats with nuclear weapons and other instruments of war by some powers have taken the place of respect for the rights of nations and the maintenance and promotion of peace and tranquility;
For some powers, claims of promotion of human rights and democracy can only last as long as they can be used as instruments of pressure and intimidation against other nations. But when it comes to the interests of the claimants, concepts such as democracy, the right of self-determination of nations, respect for the rights and intelligence of peoples, international law and justice have no place or value. This is blatantly manifested in the way the elected Government of the Palestinian people is treated as well as in the support extended to the Zionist regime. It does not matter if people are murdered in Palestine, turned into refugees, captured, imprisoned or besieged; that must not violate human rights.
-Nations are not equal in exercising their rights recognized by international law. Enjoying these rights is dependent on the whim of certain major powers.
-Apparently the Security Council can only be used to ensure the security and the rights of some big powers. But when the oppressed are decimated under bombardment, the Security Council must remain aloof and not even call for a ceasefire. Is this not a tragedy of historic proportions for the Security Council, which is charged with maintaining the security of countries?
-The prevailing order of contemporary global interactions is such that certain powers equate themselves with the international community, and consider their decisions superseding that of over 180 countries. They consider themselves the masters and rulers of the entire world and other nations as only second class in the world order.
Excellencies,
The question needs to be asked: if the Governments of the United States or the United Kingdom who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the organs of the UN can take them to account? Can a Council in which they are privileged members address their violations? Has this ever happened? In fact, we have repeatedly seen the reverse. If they have differences with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security Council and as claimants, arrogate to themselves simultaneously the roles of prosecutor, judge and executioner. Is this a just order? Can there be a more vivid case of discrimination and more clear evidence of injustice?
Regrettably, the persistence of some hegemonic powers in imposing their exclusionist policies on international decision making mechanisms, including the Security Council, has resulted in a growing mistrust in global public opinion, undermining the credibility and effectiveness of this most universal system of collective security.
Excellencies,
How long can such a situation last in the world? It is evident that the behavior of some powers constitutes the greatest challenge before the Security Council, the entire organization and its affiliated agencies.
The present structure and working methods of the Security Council, which are legacies of the Second World War, are not responsive to the expectations of the current generation and the contemporary needs of humanity.
Today, it is undeniable that the Security Council, most critically and urgently, needs legitimacy and effectiveness. It must be acknowledged that as long as the Council is unable to act on behalf of the entire international community in a transparent, just and democratic manner, it will neither be legitimate nor effective. Furthermore, the direct relation between the abuse of veto and the erosion of the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Council has now been clearly and undeniably established. We cannot, and should not, expect the eradication, or even containment, of injustice, imposition and oppression without reforming the structure and working methods of the Council.
Is it appropriate to expect this generation to submit to the decisions and arrangements established over half a century ago? Doesn`t this generation or future generations have the right to decide themselves about the world in which they want to live?
Today, serious reform in the structure and working methods of the Security Council is, more than ever before, necessary. Justice and democracy dictate that the role of the General Assembly, as the highest organ of the United Nations, must be respected. The General Assembly can then, through appropriate mechanisms, take on the task of reforming the Organization and particularly rescue the Security Council from its current state. In the interim, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the African continent should each have a representative as a permanent member of the Security Council, with veto privilege. The resulting balance would hopefully prevent further trampling of the rights of nations.
Madame President,
Excellencies,
It is essential that spirituality and ethics find their rightful place in international relations. Without ethics and spirituality, attained in light of the teachings of Divine prophets, justice, freedom and human rights cannot be guaranteed.
Resolution of contemporary human crises lies in observing ethics and spirituality and the governance of righteous people of high competence and piety.
Should respect for the rights of human beings become the predominant objective, then injustice, ill-temperament, aggression and war will fade away.
Human beings are all God`s creatures and are all endowed with dignity and respect.
No one has superiority over others. No individual or states can arrogate to themselves special privileges, nor can they disregard the rights of others and, through influence and pressure, position themselves as the "international community".
Citizens of Asia, Africa, Europe and America are all equal. Over six billion inhabitants of the earth are all equal and worthy of respect.
Justice and protection of human dignity are the two pillars in maintaining sustainable peace, security and tranquility in the world.
It is for this reason that we state:
Sustainable peace and tranquility in the world can only be attained through justice, spirituality, ethics, compassion and respect for human dignity.
All nations and states are entitled to peace, progress and security. We are all members of the international community and we are all entitled to insist on the creation of a climate of compassion, love and justice.
All members of the United Nations are affected by both the bitter and the sweet events and developments in today`s world.
We can adopt firm and logical decisions, thereby improving the prospects of a better life for current and future generations.
Together, we can eradicate the roots of bitter maladies and afflictions, and instead, through the promotion of universal and lasting values such as ethics, spirituality and justice, allow our nations to taste the sweetness of a better future.
Peoples, driven by their divine nature, intrinsically seek Good, Virtue, Perfection and Beauty. Relying on our peoples, we can take giant steps towards reform and pave the road for human perfection. Whether we like it or not, justice, peace and virtue will sooner or later prevail in the world with the will of Almighty God. It is imperative, and also desirable, that we too contribute to the promotion of justice and virtue.
The Almighty and Merciful God, who is the Creator of the Universe, is also its Lord and Ruler. Justice is His command. He commands His creatures to support one another in Good, virtue and piety, and not in decadence and corruption.
He commands His creatures to enjoin one another to righteousness and virtue and not to sin and transgression. All Divine prophets from the Prophet Adam (peace be upon him) to the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him), to the Prophet Jesus Christ (peace be upon him), to the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him), have all called humanity to monotheism, justice, brotherhood, love and compassion. Is it not possible to build a better world based on monotheism, justice, love and respect for the rights of human beings, and thereby transform animosities into friendship?
I emphatically declare that today`s world, more than ever before, longs for just and righteous people with love for all humanity; and above all longs for the perfect righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet.
0, Almighty God, all men and women are Your creatures and You have ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirsts for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by You, and make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Thaksin had divisive style
Thaksin had divisive style
POSTED: 0845 GMT (1645 HKT), September 20, 2006
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/20/thailand.thaksin.ap/index.html
BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) -- Eighteen months ago, tycoon-turned-politician Thaksin Shinawatra won a landslide election victory and became a rising star on the regional stage. Today, he is out of a job after a coup d'etat and considering life in exile.
It was a dramatic fall for the 57-year-old billionaire known as the CEO prime minister for his corporate style but also a fate that critics said was deserved.
He had no shortage of enemies in Thailand who claimed he was authoritarian, arrogant and someone who survived by pitting the rural majority against the country's urban elite.
"We warned Thaksin a long time ago about this. We repeatedly said that Thaksin and his system would be a condition for a coup," said Suriyasai Katasila, a spokesman for the anti-Thaksin protest group People's Alliance for Democracy.
"Thaksin and the government just claimed that they won the election by a landslide, so they could use their power as they pleased," he said.
Thai Army Chief Gen. Sonthi Boonyaratklin Tuesday night led a rapid, well-orchestrated overthrow while Thaksin was away in New York. (Full story)
Thaksin is reportedly headed to London to meet his family and it remains unclear whether he will return to Thailand.
Thaksin, who hails from a family of silk merchants and was educated in the United States, rose to power in 2001 on a raft of populist policies as Thailand was recovering from Asia's devastating financial crisis. He described himself a new breed of politician, who could revitalize Thailand by running it like a company.
But even before he took office, Thaksin courted controversy.
A week before the 2001 election, Thaksin was charged with concealing assets in his telecommunications empire by transferring shares to relatives, his chauffeur, maid and others. At one point, two of his domestic servants were among the top 10 shareholders on Thailand's stock exchange.
Despite his questionable ethics, Thaksin won over voters by accusing the incumbent Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai of failing to properly manage the country's economy and of neglecting the poor.
Thaksin nurtured his core constituency in the countryside, lavishing the poor rural majority with virtually free health care, a three-year debt suspension program for farmers and low-interest loans for poor villages.
But his popularity in the countryside was matched by growing criticism in the cities, where activists and intellectuals portrayed him as an autocrat masquerading as a democrat. They accused him of disregarding human rights, muffling the press and blurring the lines between his private businesses and politics.
Thaksin came under fire for his war on drugs in 2003 that left 2,300 Thais dead over a three-month period. He was also accused of mishandling the worsening Muslim insurgency in southern Thailand, after he imposed a state of the emergency that led to rights abuses and failed to stem the violence that has left more than 1,700 dead since 2004.
Despite his problems, Thaksin was overwhelmingly re-elected in 2005 to a second term when his Thai Rak Thai party won 377 of the 500 seats in the House of Representatives. His main defense against critics since then has been that he enjoys a mandate endorsed by 19 million voters.
But that didn't stop protesters mostly in Bangkok from launching a campaign to oust Thaksin in October.
What started as a quirky protest led by publisher Sondhi Limthongkul caught fire in January, after Thaksin sold the family's controlling stake of Shin to Singapore's state investment company, Temasek Holdings, for 73.3 billion baht (US$1.9 billion). No tax was paid on the sale.
Critics say the Shin deal involved insider trading and tax dodges and complained that national assets -- including communications satellites -- were sold to a foreign government.
Anger over the sale helped the movement attract middle class voters, students and business leaders, prompting street rallies that became nightly protests and at times drew over 100,000 people who demanded his resignation.
Thaksin responded by dissolving Parliament in February and called snap elections to defuse the protests. But opposition parties boycotted the polls and millions of voters marked an abstention box on their ballots as a protest against the prime minister.
Because a minimum vote rule was not met in some constituencies, the Parliament could not be convened. The vote was later ruled invalid by the courts, forcing the new polls to be held later this year.
Thaksin initially said he would step down to ease the crisis but in recent weeks has been acting and talking like a politician on the come back trail.
With elections expected for later this year, Thaksin briefly resumed his weekly radio show and predicted his Thai Rak Thai party would win the vote. At times he hinted that he would return as prime minister if the party won, at others he said he was considering bowing out of politics.
Just days ago in New York, Thaksin seemed to unaware of the events unfolding back home. He made light of the ongoing political crisis, comparing Thailand to a "child learning to walk" but refusing to say what his future held.
"I, for one, haven't seen a child learning to walk without bumping his bottom constantly," he told a crowd in New York. "As adults, we must learn to live with the pain and the pangs of democracy, lest we throw out the baby with the bathwater."
.
POSTED: 0845 GMT (1645 HKT), September 20, 2006
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/20/thailand.thaksin.ap/index.html
BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) -- Eighteen months ago, tycoon-turned-politician Thaksin Shinawatra won a landslide election victory and became a rising star on the regional stage. Today, he is out of a job after a coup d'etat and considering life in exile.
It was a dramatic fall for the 57-year-old billionaire known as the CEO prime minister for his corporate style but also a fate that critics said was deserved.
He had no shortage of enemies in Thailand who claimed he was authoritarian, arrogant and someone who survived by pitting the rural majority against the country's urban elite.
"We warned Thaksin a long time ago about this. We repeatedly said that Thaksin and his system would be a condition for a coup," said Suriyasai Katasila, a spokesman for the anti-Thaksin protest group People's Alliance for Democracy.
"Thaksin and the government just claimed that they won the election by a landslide, so they could use their power as they pleased," he said.
Thai Army Chief Gen. Sonthi Boonyaratklin Tuesday night led a rapid, well-orchestrated overthrow while Thaksin was away in New York. (Full story)
Thaksin is reportedly headed to London to meet his family and it remains unclear whether he will return to Thailand.
Thaksin, who hails from a family of silk merchants and was educated in the United States, rose to power in 2001 on a raft of populist policies as Thailand was recovering from Asia's devastating financial crisis. He described himself a new breed of politician, who could revitalize Thailand by running it like a company.
But even before he took office, Thaksin courted controversy.
A week before the 2001 election, Thaksin was charged with concealing assets in his telecommunications empire by transferring shares to relatives, his chauffeur, maid and others. At one point, two of his domestic servants were among the top 10 shareholders on Thailand's stock exchange.
Despite his questionable ethics, Thaksin won over voters by accusing the incumbent Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai of failing to properly manage the country's economy and of neglecting the poor.
Thaksin nurtured his core constituency in the countryside, lavishing the poor rural majority with virtually free health care, a three-year debt suspension program for farmers and low-interest loans for poor villages.
But his popularity in the countryside was matched by growing criticism in the cities, where activists and intellectuals portrayed him as an autocrat masquerading as a democrat. They accused him of disregarding human rights, muffling the press and blurring the lines between his private businesses and politics.
Thaksin came under fire for his war on drugs in 2003 that left 2,300 Thais dead over a three-month period. He was also accused of mishandling the worsening Muslim insurgency in southern Thailand, after he imposed a state of the emergency that led to rights abuses and failed to stem the violence that has left more than 1,700 dead since 2004.
Despite his problems, Thaksin was overwhelmingly re-elected in 2005 to a second term when his Thai Rak Thai party won 377 of the 500 seats in the House of Representatives. His main defense against critics since then has been that he enjoys a mandate endorsed by 19 million voters.
But that didn't stop protesters mostly in Bangkok from launching a campaign to oust Thaksin in October.
What started as a quirky protest led by publisher Sondhi Limthongkul caught fire in January, after Thaksin sold the family's controlling stake of Shin to Singapore's state investment company, Temasek Holdings, for 73.3 billion baht (US$1.9 billion). No tax was paid on the sale.
Critics say the Shin deal involved insider trading and tax dodges and complained that national assets -- including communications satellites -- were sold to a foreign government.
Anger over the sale helped the movement attract middle class voters, students and business leaders, prompting street rallies that became nightly protests and at times drew over 100,000 people who demanded his resignation.
Thaksin responded by dissolving Parliament in February and called snap elections to defuse the protests. But opposition parties boycotted the polls and millions of voters marked an abstention box on their ballots as a protest against the prime minister.
Because a minimum vote rule was not met in some constituencies, the Parliament could not be convened. The vote was later ruled invalid by the courts, forcing the new polls to be held later this year.
Thaksin initially said he would step down to ease the crisis but in recent weeks has been acting and talking like a politician on the come back trail.
With elections expected for later this year, Thaksin briefly resumed his weekly radio show and predicted his Thai Rak Thai party would win the vote. At times he hinted that he would return as prime minister if the party won, at others he said he was considering bowing out of politics.
Just days ago in New York, Thaksin seemed to unaware of the events unfolding back home. He made light of the ongoing political crisis, comparing Thailand to a "child learning to walk" but refusing to say what his future held.
"I, for one, haven't seen a child learning to walk without bumping his bottom constantly," he told a crowd in New York. "As adults, we must learn to live with the pain and the pangs of democracy, lest we throw out the baby with the bathwater."
.
Exploiting China’s economic dominance
Exploiting China’s economic dominance
Bede Hong
Sep 19, 06 3:24pm
In the second part of this three-part interview on the country’s economic woes, analyst Tony Pua shares his views on China’s growing dominance and Malaysia’s ambivalent policies towards the economic giant.
The 34-year-old Oxford University graduate, who runs an IT company in Cyberjaya, also speaks on the need for Malaysia to find it’s next competitive niche, in addition to ICT (Information and Communications Technology).
Malaysiakini: What do you think of Malaysia’s policies on China?
Pua: I think there has been quite a few references on China all around, in the budget and economic reports. It was mentioned all over. The government does recognise the impact of China on the region, whether as a threat or as an opportunity in manufacturing and investment and so on. But do we have enough of a specific policy to deal with China?
Tourism statistics since the lady’s case (the nude squad incident, first believed to involve a Chinese national but later confirmed as a Malaysian) has not been good. One of my investors, from China, said to me ‘What are you Malaysians trying to do to us Chinese?’ [laughs].
It showed that the news (of the nude squat and other similar incidents) were quite widely reported there (China). The statistics (on Chinese tourists) clearly showed that form just above half a million or 550,000 in 2004, it became 352,000 in 2005, which is a 36 percent drop. It has increased a bit this year compared to last year, but in the first five months it’s still 33 percent below the 2004 figures.
Even the numbers two years ago are low, a special report by CLSA (Asia-Pacific brokerage firm) and WTO (World Trade Organisation) indicated that China would be the second largest travel and tourism spenders by 2015.
Yeah, we are getting a lot of Middle East tourists and that’s a good thing. But relative to the top 10 country spenders, China is number two. And there’s no other Asian country on this list. And China is so close to us. It’s only a three-hour flight from the southern tip of China. Why shouldn’t we try to get more of these people?
They have something like 29 million tourists, they grew by 43 percent last year and they are larger than the Japanese market today, which is 17 million tourists.
The next slide (referring to a slide Pua had presented at a DAP forum on Sept 6) shows where the Chinese go today. Number one destination? Singapore. And I basically ask, what do they have in Singapore? [laughs] Why do they have more visitors than we do?
You know, they go there to see the fake Merlion, which is a useless entity. Now why don’t they come here and see our natural assets and islands and so on?
I was away for the last few days because my investor was from China. He came down and I took him to Tanjung Jara (Terengganu). And a lot of the (tourism industry) staff (there) were asking questions. ‘So where are these people from?’ I said from China. And they said ‘Oh Taiwan’. I said ‘No, China’[laughs]
It shows that no Chinese (national) goes to Tanjung Ara. And the most you get are some tourists from Taiwan. If you ask China people, when they come to Malaysia where do they go? They spend two days here during a hop over between Singapore and Thailand. They go to Kuala Lumpur for one day, Penang for one day. Next flight, Bangkok. That’s it. That’s not tourism in Malaysia.
We are only after Singapore, Thailand, Japan and Korea. So we can do a lot more in that area in terms of visits since we are placing so much importance on tourism and ‘Visit Malaysia 2007'.
How do you find our airports?
It is only in the past year that they started announcing the departures and arrivals in Mandarin Signboard-wise it is still in English, Malay (Bahasa Malaysia) and Japanese. Now given the quantity of Chinese people coming in, shouldn’t we have more signboards to attract the business.
So that sort of little things make a difference. I find that my Chinese investor really knows minimal English. I find that if I had not been around, he could not travel around Malaysia. If it’s not friendly for them to travel, they will not come here.
What is the role of IT in this country?
In 1997, 1998, we were promoting the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) as the next big thing. Then sometime in 2004, 2005 the ICT thing sort of died, or became a lot more low key [laughs] and bio-technology became the next big thing.
Talk to JJ (Science, Technology and Innovation Minister Dr Jamaluddin Jarjis). Basically, he is only interested in talking bio-tech. You can talk to him about ICT a little bit, and then he would divert the conversation back to bio-technology [laughs].
I did a simple comparison with Singapore. It (bio-technology) is a thing that would give the country a competitive advantage, compared to the threat, say from China and India. They are taking away all our manufacturing investments. Intel is even shedding resources in Penang today.
It’s very simple. China is the place to be. So we need to find our next niche, whether ICT or bio-tech. So we are struggling to find this next new thing so we don’t get caught up in a manufacturing war down the road. Right thing to do, but are we executing the right policies?
So now, they say they are giving RM210 million in grants and so on. Sounds a bit big for those who haven’t seen the numbers.
But, Singapore to date, has already spent SD4 billion, which about RM10 billion just on infrastructure for bio-technology. You know Singapore, when they commit, they do spend a bit and they have committed a further SD8 billion more in the next four years.
Can we compete with those numbers?
Even if we want to, we cannot afford to compete with those numbers. Because they have the money to pay for it. So from that perspective, will bio-technology be our competitive advantage, or potential competitive advantage?
I’m not sure. I don’t think so. If we are going to do bio-technology, we need to be focussed. Focussed in areas we know Singapore won’t do. You can, for example, manufacture all the generic drugs. I know, it’s not as exciting, it’s not sexy.
But we can do the generic type drugs which India has been doing for a while. And as the many reports have stated, our SSO (shared outsourcing services) business is not too bad.
It’s a distant third from number one and two, but it’s still third. Maybe we should spend more money promoting that so sort of investments in Malaysia. It takes away the threat of China and India, but it doesn’t fall into the space of trying to compete with Singapore for bio-technology.
And we’re just right next to Singapore. We don’t even have a geographical advantage! So from a strategic perspective, have we really thought up the right polices?
India is number one in terms of outsourcing, followed closely by China, followed by Malaysia in a distant third. But we have been consistently third for the last couple of years. One can be (skeptical) with reports, but it means we are
somewhere there. But it means we are somewhere there. We may think of focussing on areas that we can win. I’m sure by outsourcing you can (employ) a lot more than the current figures of 20,000 people.
What about the MSC? How about outsourcing, you mentioned about that.
I think the IT industry needs to be developed. No matter what, the IT industry needs to be developed. It will be a supporting industry to the economy. It won’t just be an innovation industry. We will not have a Microsoft here.
To be fair, not just in Malaysia. In places like Singapore, they could barely come out with their own IT software. It’s very difficult. There was so much grant, promotion and Singapore couldn’t do it.
Geographical, market size, everything (posed a problem).
Maybe it’s education...
Even Singapore’s education is good.
Maybe if you compare to South Korea or Japan...
Korea does not have that many products. Worldwide the only place where they are producing real money making software products is the United States. It is given partly to the market size and market reach. You got Malaysia, who’s going to buy your software from you?
It’s good that they are promoting ICT, but it should be not from an innovative perspective. People who innovate, will innovate. You don’t have to tell them to innovate. But the rest of it you need to turn it into a supporting industry to promote the rest of the economy.
You have the construction sector, you have the manufacturing sector, the services sector. Because all sectors of the economy rely on ICT today. You don’t want to be forever dependent on foreign software.
And MSC, the cost, (that has already been spent) there. If I were the government, I will leave it be.
Is it a failure?
I don’t think it’s a failure. But some of the spending that they have done there is a pure waste of time. To create a Cyberjaya ... maybe they needn’t have done that.
But they have done that ... a lot of people did relocate there. It is growing at a slow pace, but not at an exponential rate ... it’s not a Silicon Valley. It will not be Silicon Valley.
The most important thing for MSC companies to grow is the domestic market. And one of the biggest spenders in the market, is the government. The rest of the ministries do not care for MSC companies. They care for their own vested interest suppliers.
See all the suppliers that are out there? None of them are MSC because they can’t be bothered. I can continue to get the jobs from the Ministry without having to be a MSC-based company. So being an MSC-based company doesn’t help me get jobs from the ministries.
It should. If you want to promote MSC, it should. The government should be saying, that one of the conditions should be that you are an MSC company. In fact that could be the sole condition - that you are an MSC company.
Bede Hong
Sep 19, 06 3:24pm
In the second part of this three-part interview on the country’s economic woes, analyst Tony Pua shares his views on China’s growing dominance and Malaysia’s ambivalent policies towards the economic giant.
The 34-year-old Oxford University graduate, who runs an IT company in Cyberjaya, also speaks on the need for Malaysia to find it’s next competitive niche, in addition to ICT (Information and Communications Technology).
Malaysiakini: What do you think of Malaysia’s policies on China?
Pua: I think there has been quite a few references on China all around, in the budget and economic reports. It was mentioned all over. The government does recognise the impact of China on the region, whether as a threat or as an opportunity in manufacturing and investment and so on. But do we have enough of a specific policy to deal with China?
Tourism statistics since the lady’s case (the nude squad incident, first believed to involve a Chinese national but later confirmed as a Malaysian) has not been good. One of my investors, from China, said to me ‘What are you Malaysians trying to do to us Chinese?’ [laughs].
It showed that the news (of the nude squat and other similar incidents) were quite widely reported there (China). The statistics (on Chinese tourists) clearly showed that form just above half a million or 550,000 in 2004, it became 352,000 in 2005, which is a 36 percent drop. It has increased a bit this year compared to last year, but in the first five months it’s still 33 percent below the 2004 figures.
Even the numbers two years ago are low, a special report by CLSA (Asia-Pacific brokerage firm) and WTO (World Trade Organisation) indicated that China would be the second largest travel and tourism spenders by 2015.
Yeah, we are getting a lot of Middle East tourists and that’s a good thing. But relative to the top 10 country spenders, China is number two. And there’s no other Asian country on this list. And China is so close to us. It’s only a three-hour flight from the southern tip of China. Why shouldn’t we try to get more of these people?
They have something like 29 million tourists, they grew by 43 percent last year and they are larger than the Japanese market today, which is 17 million tourists.
The next slide (referring to a slide Pua had presented at a DAP forum on Sept 6) shows where the Chinese go today. Number one destination? Singapore. And I basically ask, what do they have in Singapore? [laughs] Why do they have more visitors than we do?
You know, they go there to see the fake Merlion, which is a useless entity. Now why don’t they come here and see our natural assets and islands and so on?
I was away for the last few days because my investor was from China. He came down and I took him to Tanjung Jara (Terengganu). And a lot of the (tourism industry) staff (there) were asking questions. ‘So where are these people from?’ I said from China. And they said ‘Oh Taiwan’. I said ‘No, China’[laughs]
It shows that no Chinese (national) goes to Tanjung Ara. And the most you get are some tourists from Taiwan. If you ask China people, when they come to Malaysia where do they go? They spend two days here during a hop over between Singapore and Thailand. They go to Kuala Lumpur for one day, Penang for one day. Next flight, Bangkok. That’s it. That’s not tourism in Malaysia.
We are only after Singapore, Thailand, Japan and Korea. So we can do a lot more in that area in terms of visits since we are placing so much importance on tourism and ‘Visit Malaysia 2007'.
How do you find our airports?
It is only in the past year that they started announcing the departures and arrivals in Mandarin Signboard-wise it is still in English, Malay (Bahasa Malaysia) and Japanese. Now given the quantity of Chinese people coming in, shouldn’t we have more signboards to attract the business.
So that sort of little things make a difference. I find that my Chinese investor really knows minimal English. I find that if I had not been around, he could not travel around Malaysia. If it’s not friendly for them to travel, they will not come here.
What is the role of IT in this country?
In 1997, 1998, we were promoting the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) as the next big thing. Then sometime in 2004, 2005 the ICT thing sort of died, or became a lot more low key [laughs] and bio-technology became the next big thing.
Talk to JJ (Science, Technology and Innovation Minister Dr Jamaluddin Jarjis). Basically, he is only interested in talking bio-tech. You can talk to him about ICT a little bit, and then he would divert the conversation back to bio-technology [laughs].
I did a simple comparison with Singapore. It (bio-technology) is a thing that would give the country a competitive advantage, compared to the threat, say from China and India. They are taking away all our manufacturing investments. Intel is even shedding resources in Penang today.
It’s very simple. China is the place to be. So we need to find our next niche, whether ICT or bio-tech. So we are struggling to find this next new thing so we don’t get caught up in a manufacturing war down the road. Right thing to do, but are we executing the right policies?
So now, they say they are giving RM210 million in grants and so on. Sounds a bit big for those who haven’t seen the numbers.
But, Singapore to date, has already spent SD4 billion, which about RM10 billion just on infrastructure for bio-technology. You know Singapore, when they commit, they do spend a bit and they have committed a further SD8 billion more in the next four years.
Can we compete with those numbers?
Even if we want to, we cannot afford to compete with those numbers. Because they have the money to pay for it. So from that perspective, will bio-technology be our competitive advantage, or potential competitive advantage?
I’m not sure. I don’t think so. If we are going to do bio-technology, we need to be focussed. Focussed in areas we know Singapore won’t do. You can, for example, manufacture all the generic drugs. I know, it’s not as exciting, it’s not sexy.
But we can do the generic type drugs which India has been doing for a while. And as the many reports have stated, our SSO (shared outsourcing services) business is not too bad.
It’s a distant third from number one and two, but it’s still third. Maybe we should spend more money promoting that so sort of investments in Malaysia. It takes away the threat of China and India, but it doesn’t fall into the space of trying to compete with Singapore for bio-technology.
And we’re just right next to Singapore. We don’t even have a geographical advantage! So from a strategic perspective, have we really thought up the right polices?
India is number one in terms of outsourcing, followed closely by China, followed by Malaysia in a distant third. But we have been consistently third for the last couple of years. One can be (skeptical) with reports, but it means we are
somewhere there. But it means we are somewhere there. We may think of focussing on areas that we can win. I’m sure by outsourcing you can (employ) a lot more than the current figures of 20,000 people.
What about the MSC? How about outsourcing, you mentioned about that.
I think the IT industry needs to be developed. No matter what, the IT industry needs to be developed. It will be a supporting industry to the economy. It won’t just be an innovation industry. We will not have a Microsoft here.
To be fair, not just in Malaysia. In places like Singapore, they could barely come out with their own IT software. It’s very difficult. There was so much grant, promotion and Singapore couldn’t do it.
Geographical, market size, everything (posed a problem).
Maybe it’s education...
Even Singapore’s education is good.
Maybe if you compare to South Korea or Japan...
Korea does not have that many products. Worldwide the only place where they are producing real money making software products is the United States. It is given partly to the market size and market reach. You got Malaysia, who’s going to buy your software from you?
It’s good that they are promoting ICT, but it should be not from an innovative perspective. People who innovate, will innovate. You don’t have to tell them to innovate. But the rest of it you need to turn it into a supporting industry to promote the rest of the economy.
You have the construction sector, you have the manufacturing sector, the services sector. Because all sectors of the economy rely on ICT today. You don’t want to be forever dependent on foreign software.
And MSC, the cost, (that has already been spent) there. If I were the government, I will leave it be.
Is it a failure?
I don’t think it’s a failure. But some of the spending that they have done there is a pure waste of time. To create a Cyberjaya ... maybe they needn’t have done that.
But they have done that ... a lot of people did relocate there. It is growing at a slow pace, but not at an exponential rate ... it’s not a Silicon Valley. It will not be Silicon Valley.
The most important thing for MSC companies to grow is the domestic market. And one of the biggest spenders in the market, is the government. The rest of the ministries do not care for MSC companies. They care for their own vested interest suppliers.
See all the suppliers that are out there? None of them are MSC because they can’t be bothered. I can continue to get the jobs from the Ministry without having to be a MSC-based company. So being an MSC-based company doesn’t help me get jobs from the ministries.
It should. If you want to promote MSC, it should. The government should be saying, that one of the conditions should be that you are an MSC company. In fact that could be the sole condition - that you are an MSC company.
Pope Benedict Criticizes Islam
Pope Benedict Criticizes Islam
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
September 19, 2006
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3968
[NY Sun title: "The West Should Be Free To Criticize Islam"]
"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
These words, expressed six centuries ago by a Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, in dialogue with an Iranian scholar, spur three reflections.
Pope Benedict XVI offered the above quote, neither endorsing nor condemning it, in his academic speech, "Faith, Reason and the University: Memories and Reflections," delivered in German last week in Germany. It served to introduce his erudite critique of the Western concept of reason since the Enlightenment.
But did he have other purposes? The head of the Benedictine order, Abbot Notker Wolf, understood the pope's quote as "a blatant allusion to [Iran's President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad." Vatican insiders told the London Sunday Times that Benedict "was trying to pre-empt an aggressive letter aimed at the papacy by the president of Iran, which was why he cited the debate involving a Persian."
First reflection: Benedict has offered elusive comments, brief statements, and now this delphic quotation, but he has not provided a much-needed major statement on this vital topic of Islam. One hopes it is in the offing.
Whatever the pope's purpose, he prompted the near-predictable furor in the Muslim world. Religious and political authorities widely condemned the speech, with some calling for violence.
In Britain, while leading a rally outside Westminster Cathedral, Anjem Choudary of Al-Ghurabaa called for the pope "to be subject to capital punishment."
In Iraq, the Mujahideen's Army threatened to "smash the crosses in the house of the dog from Rome" and other groups made blood-curdling threats.
In Kuwait, an important website called for violent retribution against Catholics.
In Somalia, the religious leader Abubukar Hassan Malin urged Muslims to "hunt down" the pope and kill him "on the spot."
In India, a leading imam, Syed Ahmed Bukhari, called on Muslims to "respond in a manner which forces the pope to apologise."
A top Al-Qaeda figure announced that "the infidelity and tyranny of the pope will only be stopped by a major attack."
The Vatican responded by establishing an extraordinary and unprecedented security cordon around the pope. Further away, the incitement spurred some violence, with more likely on the way. Seven churches were attacked in the West Bank and Gaza, one in Basra, Iraq (prompting this ironic headline at the "RedState" blog: "Pope implies Islam a violent religion ... Muslims bomb churches"). The murder of an Italian nun in Somalia and two Assyrians in Iraq also appear connected.
Second reflection: this new round of Muslim outrage, violence, and murder has a by-now routine quality. Earlier versions occurred in 1989 (in response to Salman Rushdie's novel, The Satanic Verses), 1997 (when the U.S. Supreme Court did not take down a representation of Muhammad), 2002 (when Jerry Falwell called Muhammad a terrorist), 2005 (the fraudulent Koran-flushing episode), and February 2006 (the Danish cartoon incident).
Vatican leaders tried to defuse the pope's quote, as well as his condemnation of jihad (holy war). The papal spokesman, Federico Lombardi, S.J., said Benedict did not intend to give "an interpretation of Islam as violent. … inside Islam there are many different positions and there are many positions that are not violent." Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the secretary of state, indicated that the pope "sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful."
Then, in what may be an unprecedented step by a pope, Benedict himself proffered the sort of semi-apology often favored by those feeling the heat. "I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address," reads the official Vatican translation into English, "which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims. These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought."
In the Italian original, however, Benedict says only sono rammaricato, which translates as "I am disappointed" or "I regret."
Third reflection: the Muslim uproar has a goal: to prohibit criticism of Islam by Christians and thereby to impose Shariah norms on the West. Should Westerners accept this central tenet of Islamic law, others will surely follow. Retaining free speech about Islam, therefore, represents a critical defense against the imposition of an Islamic order
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
September 19, 2006
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3968
[NY Sun title: "The West Should Be Free To Criticize Islam"]
"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
These words, expressed six centuries ago by a Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, in dialogue with an Iranian scholar, spur three reflections.
Pope Benedict XVI offered the above quote, neither endorsing nor condemning it, in his academic speech, "Faith, Reason and the University: Memories and Reflections," delivered in German last week in Germany. It served to introduce his erudite critique of the Western concept of reason since the Enlightenment.
But did he have other purposes? The head of the Benedictine order, Abbot Notker Wolf, understood the pope's quote as "a blatant allusion to [Iran's President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad." Vatican insiders told the London Sunday Times that Benedict "was trying to pre-empt an aggressive letter aimed at the papacy by the president of Iran, which was why he cited the debate involving a Persian."
First reflection: Benedict has offered elusive comments, brief statements, and now this delphic quotation, but he has not provided a much-needed major statement on this vital topic of Islam. One hopes it is in the offing.
Whatever the pope's purpose, he prompted the near-predictable furor in the Muslim world. Religious and political authorities widely condemned the speech, with some calling for violence.
In Britain, while leading a rally outside Westminster Cathedral, Anjem Choudary of Al-Ghurabaa called for the pope "to be subject to capital punishment."
In Iraq, the Mujahideen's Army threatened to "smash the crosses in the house of the dog from Rome" and other groups made blood-curdling threats.
In Kuwait, an important website called for violent retribution against Catholics.
In Somalia, the religious leader Abubukar Hassan Malin urged Muslims to "hunt down" the pope and kill him "on the spot."
In India, a leading imam, Syed Ahmed Bukhari, called on Muslims to "respond in a manner which forces the pope to apologise."
A top Al-Qaeda figure announced that "the infidelity and tyranny of the pope will only be stopped by a major attack."
The Vatican responded by establishing an extraordinary and unprecedented security cordon around the pope. Further away, the incitement spurred some violence, with more likely on the way. Seven churches were attacked in the West Bank and Gaza, one in Basra, Iraq (prompting this ironic headline at the "RedState" blog: "Pope implies Islam a violent religion ... Muslims bomb churches"). The murder of an Italian nun in Somalia and two Assyrians in Iraq also appear connected.
Second reflection: this new round of Muslim outrage, violence, and murder has a by-now routine quality. Earlier versions occurred in 1989 (in response to Salman Rushdie's novel, The Satanic Verses), 1997 (when the U.S. Supreme Court did not take down a representation of Muhammad), 2002 (when Jerry Falwell called Muhammad a terrorist), 2005 (the fraudulent Koran-flushing episode), and February 2006 (the Danish cartoon incident).
Vatican leaders tried to defuse the pope's quote, as well as his condemnation of jihad (holy war). The papal spokesman, Federico Lombardi, S.J., said Benedict did not intend to give "an interpretation of Islam as violent. … inside Islam there are many different positions and there are many positions that are not violent." Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the secretary of state, indicated that the pope "sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful."
Then, in what may be an unprecedented step by a pope, Benedict himself proffered the sort of semi-apology often favored by those feeling the heat. "I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address," reads the official Vatican translation into English, "which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims. These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought."
In the Italian original, however, Benedict says only sono rammaricato, which translates as "I am disappointed" or "I regret."
Third reflection: the Muslim uproar has a goal: to prohibit criticism of Islam by Christians and thereby to impose Shariah norms on the West. Should Westerners accept this central tenet of Islamic law, others will surely follow. Retaining free speech about Islam, therefore, represents a critical defense against the imposition of an Islamic order
Malam merdeka: Antara Paloh, Jepun dan Komunis
Malam merdeka: Antara Paloh, Jepun dan Komunis
Mon Sep 18, 06 01:47:06 PM
Oleh M Khalel Kas
PADA malam kemerdekaan (31 Ogos) lalu anak bongsuku, Nu'man merenggek meminta untuk membuka peti ajaib (televisyen) kerana ingin melihat sebuah tayangan filem Melayu yang dinamakan Paloh.
Disebabkan tidak mahu menghampakan harapannya, dan juga berjanji setia bahawa akan
melipatgandakan usaha mengulangkaji pelajarannya pada hari esok, maka tontonlah dia bersama-sama dengan diri ini pada jam 10.00 malam - 12.55 pagi.
Cerita Paloh, arahan Adman Salleh yang dibikini lebih berkisar di sekitar kehidupan masyarakat di zaman Jepun dan kekalutan Tanah Melayu akibat pemberontakan Komunis.
Dalam asyik menonton itu, Nu'man bertanya,"Ayah, komunis tu jahat ke?"
Disebabkan malas untuk beranalogi dan berhujah serta memikirkan minda anak 9 tahun, maka aku menjawab, "Ya, jahat!"
"Kalau jahat, Jepun baiklah?"tanya dia kembali.
Aku terkelu sekejap. Dan seperti tadi kerana mata mula berpinar kerana tidak berehat sepanjang hari itu di samping 'malasnya' untuk 'berfantasi' dalam menjawab, maka jawab lagi oleh diriku,"Ya Man...Jepun pun jahat."
"Habis tu...kalau Jepun jahat, komunis jahat, siapa pula baik dalam cerita ni,"soalnya lagi.
Ishh...makin jauh dia beranimasi. Aku mula bercelik. Hmmm...apa cerita Paloh ini sebenarnya?
Aku mula membulatkan mata. Rasa kesal mula menebal, sebab 'buta' seni dan tidak peduli tentang perkembangan filem tempatan.
Sambil mencongak sejarah yang diingati semasa belajar lebih 20 tahun dulu, aku pun menjelaskan.
"Malaysia mula merdeka pada 31 Ogos 1957. Bukan senang kita nak merdeka. Kita terpaksa berjuang, dan ramai yang pernah terkorban dalam menuntut kemerdekaan dari tangan Inggeris. Sebelum Inggeris, kita pernah dijajah oleh Jepun, Portugis dan Belanda. Di zaman Jepun, ramai yang sengsara akibat kekejaman yang dibawa oleh pemerintah Jepun. Dan bila Jepun kalah dalam Perang Dunia Ke-2, British kembali perintah Tanah Melayu. Dan bermulalah suara-suara yang menuntut kemerdekaan daripada British ketika itu. Di situlah munculnya, nama-nama seperti Tunku Abdul Rahman yang akhirnya berjaya menyakinkan British agar melepaskan Tanah Melayu kepada anak-anak tempatan,"jelasku panjang lebar.
Aku lihat Nu'man angguk. Cuma sesekali dia geleng kepala.
Aku pun bertanya,"kenapa geleng...tak faham ke?"
Dia geleng lagi.
Aku bertanya lagi,"Dah tu, adik keliru?"
Dia terus geleng. Kali ini dia tuding jari ke kaca televisyen. Di kaca televisyen, kelihatan watak Ahmad (askar upahan Jepun), sedang duduk bersama dengan ayah Siew Lan di samping seorang Komrad Komunis.
Kata Nu'man, "Abis tu...takkan Komunis jahat juga. Tengok tu. Dia sedang pakat dengan orang-orang kampung untuk kalahkan Jepun. Jadi komunis pun baik...bukan jahat. Komunis pun tuntut merdeka."
Aku berpinar. Ya tuhan! Ke situ fikiran anak kecil ini. Komunis yang diajarkan di sekolah-sekolah selama berpuluh tahun bahawa adalah puak penganas, malah anggotanya tidak pernah diiktiraf oleh pemerintah dianggap sebagai pejuang kemerdekaan oleh anak kecilku yang baru berusia 9 tahun.
Memanglah, kalau nak difikirkan; ramai sebenarnya yang terbabit dalam memperjuangkan kemerdekaan tanahair ini. Baik dari zaman Kesultanan Melayu Melaka dahulu sehinggalah ke zaman ini, termasuklah memerdekakan diri dan minda dari segala penjajahan buruk laku dalam psikologi jiwa serta fahaman masa kini.
Namun, akal sikecil yang meletakkan tentangan Komunis terhadap Jepun dan British sebagai antara pejuang kemerdekaan bukan satu perkara yang boleh diperlekehkan.
Walaupun, ramai sengsara ketika Komunis bermaharalela suatu waktu dahulu, namun jika diambil sedikit dari sudut penentangan terhadap penjajah, kita masih wajar mengakui sumbangan mereka.
(Mengingat peristiwa itu - maka berita mengenai kematian Rashid Maidin pada pagi 1 September 2006 di Selatan Thailand wajar kita renungkan - terutama buat anak-anak muda yang sudah tidak kenal sesiapa lagi yang terbabit dalam proses kemerdekaan negara; berikut serba sedikit perihal siapakah Rashid Maidin terutamanya bagi anak-anak muda masa kini. Sumber: Wikipedia)
Rashid Maidin (atau Rashid Mydin; lahir: 10 Oktober 1917) ialah pemimpin kanan Melayu dalam Parti Komunis Malaya.
Rashid dilahirkan di Kampung Gunung Mesah, Gopeng, Perak. Gunung Mesah terletak di tepi jalan utama antara Gopeng dengan Ipoh. Di sini ada perkampungan Melayu yang dipenuhi rumah-rumah papan dan sekarang bertukar kepada rumah batu separuh.
Isteri pertamanya, Hamidah binti Abdul Rashid, kini menetap di Gopeng.
Kerjaya politik
Pada mulanya, Rashid menyertai Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM) yang kemudian diharamkan oleh kerajaan British kerana dituduh berhaluan kiri dan menentang British secara seluruh.
Ketika berjuang dalam PKMM, Rashid pernah ditahan beberapa kali oleh kerajaan British di pusat tahanan Tanjung Beruas, Melaka serta di Larkin, Taiping, Morib dan Tanjung Beruas. Dia pernah mengetuai mogok lapar dalam pusat tahanan tersebut bersama Pak Sako. Sebagai orang tahanan, mereka dibenarkan bekerja di luar pusat tahanan. Upah yang diberi ialah 75 sen sehari.
Rashid menyertai Parti Komunis Malaya (PKM) pada tahun 1951 dan menjadi ahli jawatankuasa pusat PKM bersama Ishak Haji Mohamad (Pak Sako), Ahmad Boestamam dan Abdullah C.D di Perak.
Pemberontakan bersenjata menentang British
Rashid memilih PKM sebagai wadah perjuangan yang baru. Selepas diburu oleh pihak berkuasa Malaysia, Rashid dan gerombolannya melarikan diri ke dalam hutan berhampiran sempadan Malaysia dengan Thailand.
Di sana Rashid berkahwin dengan seorang gadis Cina yang juga merupakan ahli PKM. Isterinya kini bernama Latifah. Chin Peng memberi kepercayaan kepadanya untuk memimpin Regimen ke-10 PKM di Bentong, Pahang.
Kini
Rashid Maidin menetap di perkampungan yang dinamakan "Perkampungan Malaysia" di sempadan Thailand Selatan. Jumlah rumah 62 buah dan penduduk di situ lebih kurang 200 orang.
Rumahnya dua tingkat yang diubahsuai daripada rumah asal yang hanya mempunyai satu bilik. Kiri kanan dipenuhi pokok dokong, rambutan dan buah-buahan tempatan, iaitu pemandangan yang biasa dilihat di kampung-kampung di Malaysia. Di kampung itu, dia mengajar anak-anak kampung mengaji al-Quran.
Sahabatnya, Pak Sako berkata Rashid Maidin kuat beragama.
* Mungkin penerangan penulis terutamanya mengenai sedutan kehidupan dan 'watak' dalam arena kemerdekaan iaitu Rashid Maidin akan menimbulkan sedikit kegelisahan,jika tidak banyak terhadap anak-anak masa kini, mahupun para pimpinan negara serta yang lain.
Namun, buat dengan niat untuk menjauhkan sumbangan serta pengorbanan ahli kemerdekaan yang lain, cuma nama Rashid Maidin agak 'jauh' dari pendengaran dan fahaman sejarah dalam diri anak-anak muda masa kini.
Dan seperkara, ketentuan Yang Maha Kuasa; beliau meninggal dunia pada tangal 1 September 2006 - sehari selepas kita menyambut kemerdekaan. Al-Fatihah buat semua yang terkorban dalam usaha menuntut kemerdekaan negara.
Mon Sep 18, 06 01:47:06 PM
Oleh M Khalel Kas
PADA malam kemerdekaan (31 Ogos) lalu anak bongsuku, Nu'man merenggek meminta untuk membuka peti ajaib (televisyen) kerana ingin melihat sebuah tayangan filem Melayu yang dinamakan Paloh.
Disebabkan tidak mahu menghampakan harapannya, dan juga berjanji setia bahawa akan
melipatgandakan usaha mengulangkaji pelajarannya pada hari esok, maka tontonlah dia bersama-sama dengan diri ini pada jam 10.00 malam - 12.55 pagi.
Cerita Paloh, arahan Adman Salleh yang dibikini lebih berkisar di sekitar kehidupan masyarakat di zaman Jepun dan kekalutan Tanah Melayu akibat pemberontakan Komunis.
Dalam asyik menonton itu, Nu'man bertanya,"Ayah, komunis tu jahat ke?"
Disebabkan malas untuk beranalogi dan berhujah serta memikirkan minda anak 9 tahun, maka aku menjawab, "Ya, jahat!"
"Kalau jahat, Jepun baiklah?"tanya dia kembali.
Aku terkelu sekejap. Dan seperti tadi kerana mata mula berpinar kerana tidak berehat sepanjang hari itu di samping 'malasnya' untuk 'berfantasi' dalam menjawab, maka jawab lagi oleh diriku,"Ya Man...Jepun pun jahat."
"Habis tu...kalau Jepun jahat, komunis jahat, siapa pula baik dalam cerita ni,"soalnya lagi.
Ishh...makin jauh dia beranimasi. Aku mula bercelik. Hmmm...apa cerita Paloh ini sebenarnya?
Aku mula membulatkan mata. Rasa kesal mula menebal, sebab 'buta' seni dan tidak peduli tentang perkembangan filem tempatan.
Sambil mencongak sejarah yang diingati semasa belajar lebih 20 tahun dulu, aku pun menjelaskan.
"Malaysia mula merdeka pada 31 Ogos 1957. Bukan senang kita nak merdeka. Kita terpaksa berjuang, dan ramai yang pernah terkorban dalam menuntut kemerdekaan dari tangan Inggeris. Sebelum Inggeris, kita pernah dijajah oleh Jepun, Portugis dan Belanda. Di zaman Jepun, ramai yang sengsara akibat kekejaman yang dibawa oleh pemerintah Jepun. Dan bila Jepun kalah dalam Perang Dunia Ke-2, British kembali perintah Tanah Melayu. Dan bermulalah suara-suara yang menuntut kemerdekaan daripada British ketika itu. Di situlah munculnya, nama-nama seperti Tunku Abdul Rahman yang akhirnya berjaya menyakinkan British agar melepaskan Tanah Melayu kepada anak-anak tempatan,"jelasku panjang lebar.
Aku lihat Nu'man angguk. Cuma sesekali dia geleng kepala.
Aku pun bertanya,"kenapa geleng...tak faham ke?"
Dia geleng lagi.
Aku bertanya lagi,"Dah tu, adik keliru?"
Dia terus geleng. Kali ini dia tuding jari ke kaca televisyen. Di kaca televisyen, kelihatan watak Ahmad (askar upahan Jepun), sedang duduk bersama dengan ayah Siew Lan di samping seorang Komrad Komunis.
Kata Nu'man, "Abis tu...takkan Komunis jahat juga. Tengok tu. Dia sedang pakat dengan orang-orang kampung untuk kalahkan Jepun. Jadi komunis pun baik...bukan jahat. Komunis pun tuntut merdeka."
Aku berpinar. Ya tuhan! Ke situ fikiran anak kecil ini. Komunis yang diajarkan di sekolah-sekolah selama berpuluh tahun bahawa adalah puak penganas, malah anggotanya tidak pernah diiktiraf oleh pemerintah dianggap sebagai pejuang kemerdekaan oleh anak kecilku yang baru berusia 9 tahun.
Memanglah, kalau nak difikirkan; ramai sebenarnya yang terbabit dalam memperjuangkan kemerdekaan tanahair ini. Baik dari zaman Kesultanan Melayu Melaka dahulu sehinggalah ke zaman ini, termasuklah memerdekakan diri dan minda dari segala penjajahan buruk laku dalam psikologi jiwa serta fahaman masa kini.
Namun, akal sikecil yang meletakkan tentangan Komunis terhadap Jepun dan British sebagai antara pejuang kemerdekaan bukan satu perkara yang boleh diperlekehkan.
Walaupun, ramai sengsara ketika Komunis bermaharalela suatu waktu dahulu, namun jika diambil sedikit dari sudut penentangan terhadap penjajah, kita masih wajar mengakui sumbangan mereka.
(Mengingat peristiwa itu - maka berita mengenai kematian Rashid Maidin pada pagi 1 September 2006 di Selatan Thailand wajar kita renungkan - terutama buat anak-anak muda yang sudah tidak kenal sesiapa lagi yang terbabit dalam proses kemerdekaan negara; berikut serba sedikit perihal siapakah Rashid Maidin terutamanya bagi anak-anak muda masa kini. Sumber: Wikipedia)
Rashid Maidin (atau Rashid Mydin; lahir: 10 Oktober 1917) ialah pemimpin kanan Melayu dalam Parti Komunis Malaya.
Rashid dilahirkan di Kampung Gunung Mesah, Gopeng, Perak. Gunung Mesah terletak di tepi jalan utama antara Gopeng dengan Ipoh. Di sini ada perkampungan Melayu yang dipenuhi rumah-rumah papan dan sekarang bertukar kepada rumah batu separuh.
Isteri pertamanya, Hamidah binti Abdul Rashid, kini menetap di Gopeng.
Kerjaya politik
Pada mulanya, Rashid menyertai Parti Kebangsaan Melayu Malaya (PKMM) yang kemudian diharamkan oleh kerajaan British kerana dituduh berhaluan kiri dan menentang British secara seluruh.
Ketika berjuang dalam PKMM, Rashid pernah ditahan beberapa kali oleh kerajaan British di pusat tahanan Tanjung Beruas, Melaka serta di Larkin, Taiping, Morib dan Tanjung Beruas. Dia pernah mengetuai mogok lapar dalam pusat tahanan tersebut bersama Pak Sako. Sebagai orang tahanan, mereka dibenarkan bekerja di luar pusat tahanan. Upah yang diberi ialah 75 sen sehari.
Rashid menyertai Parti Komunis Malaya (PKM) pada tahun 1951 dan menjadi ahli jawatankuasa pusat PKM bersama Ishak Haji Mohamad (Pak Sako), Ahmad Boestamam dan Abdullah C.D di Perak.
Pemberontakan bersenjata menentang British
Rashid memilih PKM sebagai wadah perjuangan yang baru. Selepas diburu oleh pihak berkuasa Malaysia, Rashid dan gerombolannya melarikan diri ke dalam hutan berhampiran sempadan Malaysia dengan Thailand.
Di sana Rashid berkahwin dengan seorang gadis Cina yang juga merupakan ahli PKM. Isterinya kini bernama Latifah. Chin Peng memberi kepercayaan kepadanya untuk memimpin Regimen ke-10 PKM di Bentong, Pahang.
Kini
Rashid Maidin menetap di perkampungan yang dinamakan "Perkampungan Malaysia" di sempadan Thailand Selatan. Jumlah rumah 62 buah dan penduduk di situ lebih kurang 200 orang.
Rumahnya dua tingkat yang diubahsuai daripada rumah asal yang hanya mempunyai satu bilik. Kiri kanan dipenuhi pokok dokong, rambutan dan buah-buahan tempatan, iaitu pemandangan yang biasa dilihat di kampung-kampung di Malaysia. Di kampung itu, dia mengajar anak-anak kampung mengaji al-Quran.
Sahabatnya, Pak Sako berkata Rashid Maidin kuat beragama.
* Mungkin penerangan penulis terutamanya mengenai sedutan kehidupan dan 'watak' dalam arena kemerdekaan iaitu Rashid Maidin akan menimbulkan sedikit kegelisahan,jika tidak banyak terhadap anak-anak masa kini, mahupun para pimpinan negara serta yang lain.
Namun, buat dengan niat untuk menjauhkan sumbangan serta pengorbanan ahli kemerdekaan yang lain, cuma nama Rashid Maidin agak 'jauh' dari pendengaran dan fahaman sejarah dalam diri anak-anak muda masa kini.
Dan seperkara, ketentuan Yang Maha Kuasa; beliau meninggal dunia pada tangal 1 September 2006 - sehari selepas kita menyambut kemerdekaan. Al-Fatihah buat semua yang terkorban dalam usaha menuntut kemerdekaan negara.
In Defense of Pope Benedict
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9709
September 18, 2006
In Defense of Pope Benedict
The Catholic Church is an enemy of the War Party
Justin Raimondo
What is an erudite and perhaps overly scholarly pope to do in the face
of a news media that insists on cherry-picking his pronouncements --
buried amidst references to obscure Byzantine emperors and abstruse
theological constructs -- and making of them blazing headlines?
There isn't much he can do, and perhaps this is for the best. Benedict
XIV is blunter and more assertive than his predecessor, and if I were a
practicing Catholic -- which I am not -- I would be glad of it. In an
era dominated by relativism and political correctness, where all
religions are supposedly equal and truth is a matter of opinion (usually
someone else's), it is refreshing to see someone uphold what they
believe and defend it against all comers.
Clearly, Benedict had no idea that, in returning to the University of
Regensburg, where he once taught theology, and delivering a lecture with
the supremely inoffensive title of "Faith, Reason, and the University --
Memories and Reflections," he would be charged with launching the Tenth
Crusade. Yet that is plainly happening.
Out of a complicated and thoroughly delightful narrative on the
relationship between faith and reason -- intended to illustrate his
point that Catholicism is the only authentic alternative to the
"primitive" irrationalism of Protestant and Islamic mystics, on the one
hand, and godless rationalism on the other -- the fanatics (egged on by
the media) have latched on to a few paragraphs, which are citations and
not even the words of this pope. What is fascinating is his point that
the long-term trend within Christian circles, Catholic as well as
Protestant, has amounted to a process of "de-Hellenization," i.e., an
attempt to divorce Christianity from what the "reformers" regard as
alien accretions of the Hellenistic period. Yet the gospels were written
in Greek, notes Benedict, and he goes on to explain, in so many words,
how the Christian concept of the logos -- in the beginning, writes Saint
John, was the Logos -- assumes a rational, benevolent God.
After reflecting on his experience at the university, where theology was
put on a par with philosophy and the other disciplines, and noting that,
within the university, no one thought this at all odd, Benedict continues:
"I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by
professor Theodore Khoury (Muenster) of part of the dialogue carried on
-- perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara -- by the erudite
Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the
subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.
"It was probably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during
the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would
explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than the responses
of the learned Persian. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures
of faith contained in the Bible and in the Koran, and deals especially
with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly
to the relationship of the 'three Laws': the Old Testament, the New
Testament, and the Koran."
Let's stop here, and note one error. The dialogues set down by Manuel
did not occur during the siege of Constantinople, but much earlier,
during the emperor's youth, when he was held as a hostage at the court
of the Turkish sultan; his father, John V, was a Turkish vassal, who
paid yearly tribute to the sultan. At the Turkish court, young Manuel
passed the time by engaging in a series of dialogues with a scholarly
Persian, and later recorded them from his notes. This historical context
is important, in view of the controversy that has arisen -- and arise it
did, when the pope got around to his point:
"In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point -- itself rather
marginal to the dialogue itself -- which, in the context of the issue of
'faith and reason,' I found interesting and which can serve as the
starting point for my reflections on this issue.
"In the seventh conversation ('diálesis' -- controversy) edited by
professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy
war). The emperor must have known that sura 2:256 reads: 'There is no
compulsion in religion.' It is one of the suras of the early period,
when Mohammed was still powerless and under [threat]. But naturally the
emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the
Koran, concerning holy war."
Much is being made of the pope's alleged error in citing this particular
sura as being of "the early period," but, contra Andrew Sullivan, it is
not central to his point -- which is that Islam lacks a moderating
Hellenistic influence, and therefore doesn't rule out the vision of a
capricious and irrational deity presiding over a universe based on
reason. Nature, says the pope, reflects its Creator, yet some deny this:
"Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment
accorded to those who have the 'Book' and the 'infidels,' [the Emperor]
turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question
on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these
words: 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you
will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by
the sword the faith he preached.'"
The German translation of this paragraph differs from the English one,
as Wikipedia notes: "According to the German text, the pope's original
comment was 'He addresses his interlocutor in an astoundingly harsh --
to us surprisingly harsh -- way.'" This is important, given the
earsplitting brouhaha arising from this citation.
It doesn't matter to the pope's critics -- not all of them Muslims, by
any means -- that this is a citation, and, taken in context, clearly
doesn't reflect the pope's personal views. And it surely doesn't matter
that Manuel was speaking from the bitterest of experiences: that he
personally lived through and witnessed the Turkish invasion of the
medieval Balkans, where many thousands were faced with the choice
recently offered to those two Fox News employees by their captors in
occupied Palestine -- convert or die. The pope's accusers could care
less that Benedict is here concerned chiefly with rescuing the
Hellenistic spirit of theology as philosophical inquiry from the assault
of various fundamentalists, both Christian and Muslim. To the Catholics,
both Greek and Roman, not to act in accordance with reason is alien to
God's nature. To the devout Muslim, however -- and, the pope would
doubtless aver, to Protestant sects as well -- God is utterly
transcendent. To buttress this point, Benedict cites the leaders of the
Reformation as well as "the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who
points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound
even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the
truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry."
This nightmare universe ruled over by a malevolent God, where reason is
overthrown, is a Bizarro World, where good is evil, godliness is mass
murder, and anything is permitted. All wars, in such a world, are "just"
wars. The same theology that rejects this vision and required the
Vatican to come out against the American invasion of Iraq has inspired
this pope to underscore the Hellenistic roots of a Christian faith
anchored in a vision of a rational universe:
"The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the
faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is
incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. 'God is
not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably ("syn logo") is contrary
to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would
lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason
properly, without violence and threats.... To convince a reasonable
soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any
other means of threatening a person with death....'"
These words of the Emperor Manuel II Paleologus might well be addressed
to George W. Bush, a mad Emperor intent on spreading the "democratic"
faith through violence. The Turks gave up forcible conversions some
centuries ago: today, the United States has revived this abhorrent
practice and made it the principal element of its foreign policy of
"regime change." Unfortunately, no one has read that far into Benedict's
speech: the critics stopped near the beginning, where the
sensationalistic quote has been ripped out of its proper context and
emblazoned in headlines from Cairo to Canberra.
It is nonsense to characterize the Vatican as the enemy of Islam and the
ally of Bush and the neocons in their efforts to spark a disastrous
"clash of civilizations." Just as the Catholic Church was perhaps the
most authoritative and powerful voice raised against the invasion of
Iraq, so the Vatican clearly put the onus on the Israelis for launching
an unjust war against Lebanon -- and for essentially the same reasons.
The Church has consistently condemned the brutalities of the Israeli
occupation of the Holy Land and clearly sympathizes with the plight of
the Palestinians. John Paul II characterized the Iraq war as "a defeat
for humanity," and, citing the massive antiwar demonstrations that
occurred all around the world on the eve of the invasion, called on
Catholics to fast in protest. Benedict is not deviating from these
stances, but is, instead, seeking to buttress the intellectual
foundations of the doctrine -- based on the interplay of faith and
reason -- that gives rise to the Church's antiwar, albeit not
pacifistic, stance.
This may be too complex for a newspaper headline, but I doubt the pope
is much concerned with this, even after being scolded for his apparent
naiveté by the New York Times editorial board. If speaking up for the
timeless principles of the Church is considered too provocative and an
argument against forcible conversion is now "controversial," then one
wonders how we can possibly avoid the world war we all fear.
The current controversy is being compared to the tasteless caricatures
of Muhammad that appeared in many European newspapers, but the reality
is quite different, almost the complete opposite: the cartoons were a
deliberate provocation, whereas the pope's comments were not intended to
give offense. Indeed, in its defense of reason and dialogue as the
alternative to violence, the pope's lecture was and is a valuable
contribution to the cause of peace.
That extremists of every stripe -- including Western secularists, who
hate the Catholic Church -- are rejecting the Vatican's explanations and
condemning the pope's remarks as "insensitive" is hardly surprising.
These people disdain the restraints imposed on their actions by the
logos, or the rule of reason, and prefer to believe that their
ideological and religious views transcend the need for rational or moral
justification. As long as the Vatican stands against this worrying
modern trend, it opposes the War Party of every nation. Apologize? This
pope has had to face a veritable storm of demands for apologies from the
beginning of his tenure, but has yet to have any cause for contrition.
I would add that the War Party ought to resist the temptation to make of
Manuel II Paleologus a saint. He was the third to last emperor of
Byzantium, a capable and ceaselessly beleaguered ruler, who -- through a
combination of shrewdness and good luck -- managed to preserve the
Empire a good 50 years beyond its natural life span. His strategy was to
avoid confrontation.
By currying favor with the Turks and playing off the Venetians and the
Genoans against the various sultans and would-be sultans, Manuel took
advantage of the divisions among the many predators who came to feed on
the decaying remnants of the Eastern Roman Empire. By neocon lights,
Manuel was hardly an exemplar, since he pursued a policy of submitting
to vassalage to the Turkish sultans as the price to be paid for
continued Byzantine suzerainty.
He was, in short, a practitioner of what the neocons call "appeasement,"
and what historians of the period point to as some pretty adept
diplomacy. And, by the way, it wasn't the Turks who really destroyed the
Empire of the East, but the marauding Crusaders, who took Constantinople
during the Fourth Crusade: after that, old Byzantium never regained its
former power and grandeur. Western intervention, ostensibly launched to
save Christendom and the Holy Land, wound up paving the way for the
invasion of Europe by the Turks. So forget Manuel II Paleologus, guys --
and drop the Byzantine analogy before it's even raised.
September 18, 2006
In Defense of Pope Benedict
The Catholic Church is an enemy of the War Party
Justin Raimondo
What is an erudite and perhaps overly scholarly pope to do in the face
of a news media that insists on cherry-picking his pronouncements --
buried amidst references to obscure Byzantine emperors and abstruse
theological constructs -- and making of them blazing headlines?
There isn't much he can do, and perhaps this is for the best. Benedict
XIV is blunter and more assertive than his predecessor, and if I were a
practicing Catholic -- which I am not -- I would be glad of it. In an
era dominated by relativism and political correctness, where all
religions are supposedly equal and truth is a matter of opinion (usually
someone else's), it is refreshing to see someone uphold what they
believe and defend it against all comers.
Clearly, Benedict had no idea that, in returning to the University of
Regensburg, where he once taught theology, and delivering a lecture with
the supremely inoffensive title of "Faith, Reason, and the University --
Memories and Reflections," he would be charged with launching the Tenth
Crusade. Yet that is plainly happening.
Out of a complicated and thoroughly delightful narrative on the
relationship between faith and reason -- intended to illustrate his
point that Catholicism is the only authentic alternative to the
"primitive" irrationalism of Protestant and Islamic mystics, on the one
hand, and godless rationalism on the other -- the fanatics (egged on by
the media) have latched on to a few paragraphs, which are citations and
not even the words of this pope. What is fascinating is his point that
the long-term trend within Christian circles, Catholic as well as
Protestant, has amounted to a process of "de-Hellenization," i.e., an
attempt to divorce Christianity from what the "reformers" regard as
alien accretions of the Hellenistic period. Yet the gospels were written
in Greek, notes Benedict, and he goes on to explain, in so many words,
how the Christian concept of the logos -- in the beginning, writes Saint
John, was the Logos -- assumes a rational, benevolent God.
After reflecting on his experience at the university, where theology was
put on a par with philosophy and the other disciplines, and noting that,
within the university, no one thought this at all odd, Benedict continues:
"I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by
professor Theodore Khoury (Muenster) of part of the dialogue carried on
-- perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara -- by the erudite
Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the
subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.
"It was probably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during
the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would
explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than the responses
of the learned Persian. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures
of faith contained in the Bible and in the Koran, and deals especially
with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly
to the relationship of the 'three Laws': the Old Testament, the New
Testament, and the Koran."
Let's stop here, and note one error. The dialogues set down by Manuel
did not occur during the siege of Constantinople, but much earlier,
during the emperor's youth, when he was held as a hostage at the court
of the Turkish sultan; his father, John V, was a Turkish vassal, who
paid yearly tribute to the sultan. At the Turkish court, young Manuel
passed the time by engaging in a series of dialogues with a scholarly
Persian, and later recorded them from his notes. This historical context
is important, in view of the controversy that has arisen -- and arise it
did, when the pope got around to his point:
"In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point -- itself rather
marginal to the dialogue itself -- which, in the context of the issue of
'faith and reason,' I found interesting and which can serve as the
starting point for my reflections on this issue.
"In the seventh conversation ('diálesis' -- controversy) edited by
professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy
war). The emperor must have known that sura 2:256 reads: 'There is no
compulsion in religion.' It is one of the suras of the early period,
when Mohammed was still powerless and under [threat]. But naturally the
emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the
Koran, concerning holy war."
Much is being made of the pope's alleged error in citing this particular
sura as being of "the early period," but, contra Andrew Sullivan, it is
not central to his point -- which is that Islam lacks a moderating
Hellenistic influence, and therefore doesn't rule out the vision of a
capricious and irrational deity presiding over a universe based on
reason. Nature, says the pope, reflects its Creator, yet some deny this:
"Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment
accorded to those who have the 'Book' and the 'infidels,' [the Emperor]
turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question
on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these
words: 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you
will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by
the sword the faith he preached.'"
The German translation of this paragraph differs from the English one,
as Wikipedia notes: "According to the German text, the pope's original
comment was 'He addresses his interlocutor in an astoundingly harsh --
to us surprisingly harsh -- way.'" This is important, given the
earsplitting brouhaha arising from this citation.
It doesn't matter to the pope's critics -- not all of them Muslims, by
any means -- that this is a citation, and, taken in context, clearly
doesn't reflect the pope's personal views. And it surely doesn't matter
that Manuel was speaking from the bitterest of experiences: that he
personally lived through and witnessed the Turkish invasion of the
medieval Balkans, where many thousands were faced with the choice
recently offered to those two Fox News employees by their captors in
occupied Palestine -- convert or die. The pope's accusers could care
less that Benedict is here concerned chiefly with rescuing the
Hellenistic spirit of theology as philosophical inquiry from the assault
of various fundamentalists, both Christian and Muslim. To the Catholics,
both Greek and Roman, not to act in accordance with reason is alien to
God's nature. To the devout Muslim, however -- and, the pope would
doubtless aver, to Protestant sects as well -- God is utterly
transcendent. To buttress this point, Benedict cites the leaders of the
Reformation as well as "the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who
points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound
even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the
truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry."
This nightmare universe ruled over by a malevolent God, where reason is
overthrown, is a Bizarro World, where good is evil, godliness is mass
murder, and anything is permitted. All wars, in such a world, are "just"
wars. The same theology that rejects this vision and required the
Vatican to come out against the American invasion of Iraq has inspired
this pope to underscore the Hellenistic roots of a Christian faith
anchored in a vision of a rational universe:
"The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the
faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is
incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. 'God is
not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably ("syn logo") is contrary
to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would
lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason
properly, without violence and threats.... To convince a reasonable
soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any
other means of threatening a person with death....'"
These words of the Emperor Manuel II Paleologus might well be addressed
to George W. Bush, a mad Emperor intent on spreading the "democratic"
faith through violence. The Turks gave up forcible conversions some
centuries ago: today, the United States has revived this abhorrent
practice and made it the principal element of its foreign policy of
"regime change." Unfortunately, no one has read that far into Benedict's
speech: the critics stopped near the beginning, where the
sensationalistic quote has been ripped out of its proper context and
emblazoned in headlines from Cairo to Canberra.
It is nonsense to characterize the Vatican as the enemy of Islam and the
ally of Bush and the neocons in their efforts to spark a disastrous
"clash of civilizations." Just as the Catholic Church was perhaps the
most authoritative and powerful voice raised against the invasion of
Iraq, so the Vatican clearly put the onus on the Israelis for launching
an unjust war against Lebanon -- and for essentially the same reasons.
The Church has consistently condemned the brutalities of the Israeli
occupation of the Holy Land and clearly sympathizes with the plight of
the Palestinians. John Paul II characterized the Iraq war as "a defeat
for humanity," and, citing the massive antiwar demonstrations that
occurred all around the world on the eve of the invasion, called on
Catholics to fast in protest. Benedict is not deviating from these
stances, but is, instead, seeking to buttress the intellectual
foundations of the doctrine -- based on the interplay of faith and
reason -- that gives rise to the Church's antiwar, albeit not
pacifistic, stance.
This may be too complex for a newspaper headline, but I doubt the pope
is much concerned with this, even after being scolded for his apparent
naiveté by the New York Times editorial board. If speaking up for the
timeless principles of the Church is considered too provocative and an
argument against forcible conversion is now "controversial," then one
wonders how we can possibly avoid the world war we all fear.
The current controversy is being compared to the tasteless caricatures
of Muhammad that appeared in many European newspapers, but the reality
is quite different, almost the complete opposite: the cartoons were a
deliberate provocation, whereas the pope's comments were not intended to
give offense. Indeed, in its defense of reason and dialogue as the
alternative to violence, the pope's lecture was and is a valuable
contribution to the cause of peace.
That extremists of every stripe -- including Western secularists, who
hate the Catholic Church -- are rejecting the Vatican's explanations and
condemning the pope's remarks as "insensitive" is hardly surprising.
These people disdain the restraints imposed on their actions by the
logos, or the rule of reason, and prefer to believe that their
ideological and religious views transcend the need for rational or moral
justification. As long as the Vatican stands against this worrying
modern trend, it opposes the War Party of every nation. Apologize? This
pope has had to face a veritable storm of demands for apologies from the
beginning of his tenure, but has yet to have any cause for contrition.
I would add that the War Party ought to resist the temptation to make of
Manuel II Paleologus a saint. He was the third to last emperor of
Byzantium, a capable and ceaselessly beleaguered ruler, who -- through a
combination of shrewdness and good luck -- managed to preserve the
Empire a good 50 years beyond its natural life span. His strategy was to
avoid confrontation.
By currying favor with the Turks and playing off the Venetians and the
Genoans against the various sultans and would-be sultans, Manuel took
advantage of the divisions among the many predators who came to feed on
the decaying remnants of the Eastern Roman Empire. By neocon lights,
Manuel was hardly an exemplar, since he pursued a policy of submitting
to vassalage to the Turkish sultans as the price to be paid for
continued Byzantine suzerainty.
He was, in short, a practitioner of what the neocons call "appeasement,"
and what historians of the period point to as some pretty adept
diplomacy. And, by the way, it wasn't the Turks who really destroyed the
Empire of the East, but the marauding Crusaders, who took Constantinople
during the Fourth Crusade: after that, old Byzantium never regained its
former power and grandeur. Western intervention, ostensibly launched to
save Christendom and the Holy Land, wound up paving the way for the
invasion of Europe by the Turks. So forget Manuel II Paleologus, guys --
and drop the Byzantine analogy before it's even raised.
We cannot afford to maintain these ancient prejudices against Islam
We cannot afford to maintain these ancient prejudices against Islam
The Pope's remarks were dangerous, and will convince many more Muslims that the west is incurably Islamophobic
Karen Armstrong
Monday September 18, 2006
The Guardian
In the 12th century, Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny, initiated a dialogue with the Islamic world. "I approach you not with arms, but with words," he wrote to the Muslims whom he imagined reading his book, "not with force, but with reason, not with hatred, but with love." Yet his treatise was entitled Summary of the Whole Heresy of the Diabolical Sect of the Saracens and segued repeatedly into spluttering intransigence. Words failed Peter when he contemplated the "bestial cruelty" of Islam, which, he claimed, had established itself by the sword. Was Muhammad a true prophet? "I shall be worse than a donkey if I agree," he expostulated, "worse than cattle if I assent!"
Peter was writing at the time of the Crusades. Even when Christians were trying to be fair, their entrenched loathing of Islam made it impossible for them to approach it objectively. For Peter, Islam was so self-evidently evil that it did not seem to occur to him that the Muslims he approached with such "love" might be offended by his remarks. This medieval cast of mind is still alive and well.
Last week, Pope Benedict XVI quoted, without qualification and with apparent approval, the words of the 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." The Vatican seemed bemused by the Muslim outrage occasioned by the Pope's words, claiming that the Holy Father had simply intended "to cultivate an attitude of respect and dialogue toward the other religions and cultures, and obviously also towards Islam".
But the Pope's good intentions seem far from obvious. Hatred of Islam is so ubiquitous and so deeply rooted in western culture that it brings together people who are usually at daggers drawn. Neither the Danish cartoonists, who published the offensive caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad last February, nor the Christian fundamentalists who have called him a paedophile and a terrorist, would ordinarily make common cause with the Pope; yet on the subject of Islam they are in full agreement.
Our Islamophobia dates back to the time of the Crusades, and is entwined with our chronic anti-semitism. Some of the first Crusaders began their journey to the Holy Land by massacring the Jewish communities along the Rhine valley; the Crusaders ended their campaign in 1099 by slaughtering some 30,000 Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem. It is always difficult to forgive people we know we have wronged. Thenceforth Jews and Muslims became the shadow-self of Christendom, the mirror image of everything that we hoped we were not - or feared that we were.
The fearful fantasies created by Europeans at this time endured for centuries and reveal a buried anxiety about Christian identity and behaviour. When the popes called for a Crusade to the Holy Land, Christians often persecuted the local Jewish communities: why march 3,000 miles to Palestine to liberate the tomb of Christ, and leave unscathed the people who had - or so the Crusaders mistakenly assumed - actually killed Jesus. Jews were believed to kill little children and mix their blood with the leavened bread of Passover: this "blood libel" regularly inspired pogroms in Europe, and the image of the Jew as the child slayer laid bare an almost Oedipal terror of the parent faith.
Jesus had told his followers to love their enemies, not to exterminate them. It was when the Christians of Europe were fighting brutal holy wars against Muslims in the Middle East that Islam first became known in the west as the religion of the sword. At this time, when the popes were trying to impose celibacy on the reluctant clergy, Muhammad was portrayed by the scholar monks of Europe as a lecher, and Islam condemned - with ill-concealed envy - as a faith that encouraged Muslims to indulge their basest sexual instincts. At a time when European social order was deeply hierarchical, despite the egalitarian message of the gospel, Islam was condemned for giving too much respect to women and other menials.
In a state of unhealthy denial, Christians were projecting subterranean disquiet about their activities on to the victims of the Crusades, creating fantastic enemies in their own image and likeness. This habit has persisted. The Muslims who have objected so vociferously to the Pope's denigration of Islam have accused him of "hypocrisy", pointing out that the Catholic church is ill-placed to condemn violent jihad when it has itself been guilty of unholy violence in crusades, persecutions and inquisitions and, under Pope Pius XII, tacitly condoned the Nazi Holocaust.
Pope Benedict delivered his controversial speech in Germany the day after the fifth anniversary of September 11. It is difficult to believe that his reference to an inherently violent strain in Islam was entirely accidental. He has, most unfortunately, withdrawn from the interfaith initiatives inaugurated by his predecessor, John Paul II, at a time when they are more desperately needed than ever. Coming on the heels of the Danish cartoon crisis, his remarks were extremely dangerous. They will convince more Muslims that the west is incurably Islamophobic and engaged in a new crusade.
We simply cannot afford this type of bigotry. The trouble is that too many people in the western world unconsciously share this prejudice, convinced that Islam and the Qur'an are addicted to violence. The 9/11 terrorists, who in fact violated essential Islamic principles, have confirmed this deep-rooted western perception and are seen as typical Muslims instead of the deviants they really were.
With disturbing regularity, this medieval conviction surfaces every time there is trouble in the Middle East. Yet until the 20th century, Islam was a far more tolerant and peaceful faith than Christianity. The Qur'an strictly forbids any coercion in religion and regards all rightly guided religion as coming from God; and despite the western belief to the contrary, Muslims did not impose their faith by the sword.
The early conquests in Persia and Byzantium after the Prophet's death were inspired by political rather than religious aspirations. Until the middle of the eighth century, Jews and Christians in the Muslim empire were actively discouraged from conversion to Islam, as, according to Qur'anic teaching, they had received authentic revelations of their own. The extremism and intolerance that have surfaced in the Muslim world in our own day are a response to intractable political problems - oil, Palestine, the occupation of Muslim lands, the prevelance of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, and the west's perceived "double standards" - and not to an ingrained religious imperative.
But the old myth of Islam as a chronically violent faith persists, and surfaces at the most inappropriate moments. As one of the received ideas of the west, it seems well-nigh impossible to eradicate. Indeed, we may even be strengthening it by falling back into our old habits of projection. As we see the violence - in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon - for which we bear a measure of responsibility, there is a temptation, perhaps, to blame it all on "Islam". But if we are feeding our prejudice in this way, we do so at our peril.
· Karen Armstrong is the author of Islam: A Short History
The Pope's remarks were dangerous, and will convince many more Muslims that the west is incurably Islamophobic
Karen Armstrong
Monday September 18, 2006
The Guardian
In the 12th century, Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny, initiated a dialogue with the Islamic world. "I approach you not with arms, but with words," he wrote to the Muslims whom he imagined reading his book, "not with force, but with reason, not with hatred, but with love." Yet his treatise was entitled Summary of the Whole Heresy of the Diabolical Sect of the Saracens and segued repeatedly into spluttering intransigence. Words failed Peter when he contemplated the "bestial cruelty" of Islam, which, he claimed, had established itself by the sword. Was Muhammad a true prophet? "I shall be worse than a donkey if I agree," he expostulated, "worse than cattle if I assent!"
Peter was writing at the time of the Crusades. Even when Christians were trying to be fair, their entrenched loathing of Islam made it impossible for them to approach it objectively. For Peter, Islam was so self-evidently evil that it did not seem to occur to him that the Muslims he approached with such "love" might be offended by his remarks. This medieval cast of mind is still alive and well.
Last week, Pope Benedict XVI quoted, without qualification and with apparent approval, the words of the 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." The Vatican seemed bemused by the Muslim outrage occasioned by the Pope's words, claiming that the Holy Father had simply intended "to cultivate an attitude of respect and dialogue toward the other religions and cultures, and obviously also towards Islam".
But the Pope's good intentions seem far from obvious. Hatred of Islam is so ubiquitous and so deeply rooted in western culture that it brings together people who are usually at daggers drawn. Neither the Danish cartoonists, who published the offensive caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad last February, nor the Christian fundamentalists who have called him a paedophile and a terrorist, would ordinarily make common cause with the Pope; yet on the subject of Islam they are in full agreement.
Our Islamophobia dates back to the time of the Crusades, and is entwined with our chronic anti-semitism. Some of the first Crusaders began their journey to the Holy Land by massacring the Jewish communities along the Rhine valley; the Crusaders ended their campaign in 1099 by slaughtering some 30,000 Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem. It is always difficult to forgive people we know we have wronged. Thenceforth Jews and Muslims became the shadow-self of Christendom, the mirror image of everything that we hoped we were not - or feared that we were.
The fearful fantasies created by Europeans at this time endured for centuries and reveal a buried anxiety about Christian identity and behaviour. When the popes called for a Crusade to the Holy Land, Christians often persecuted the local Jewish communities: why march 3,000 miles to Palestine to liberate the tomb of Christ, and leave unscathed the people who had - or so the Crusaders mistakenly assumed - actually killed Jesus. Jews were believed to kill little children and mix their blood with the leavened bread of Passover: this "blood libel" regularly inspired pogroms in Europe, and the image of the Jew as the child slayer laid bare an almost Oedipal terror of the parent faith.
Jesus had told his followers to love their enemies, not to exterminate them. It was when the Christians of Europe were fighting brutal holy wars against Muslims in the Middle East that Islam first became known in the west as the religion of the sword. At this time, when the popes were trying to impose celibacy on the reluctant clergy, Muhammad was portrayed by the scholar monks of Europe as a lecher, and Islam condemned - with ill-concealed envy - as a faith that encouraged Muslims to indulge their basest sexual instincts. At a time when European social order was deeply hierarchical, despite the egalitarian message of the gospel, Islam was condemned for giving too much respect to women and other menials.
In a state of unhealthy denial, Christians were projecting subterranean disquiet about their activities on to the victims of the Crusades, creating fantastic enemies in their own image and likeness. This habit has persisted. The Muslims who have objected so vociferously to the Pope's denigration of Islam have accused him of "hypocrisy", pointing out that the Catholic church is ill-placed to condemn violent jihad when it has itself been guilty of unholy violence in crusades, persecutions and inquisitions and, under Pope Pius XII, tacitly condoned the Nazi Holocaust.
Pope Benedict delivered his controversial speech in Germany the day after the fifth anniversary of September 11. It is difficult to believe that his reference to an inherently violent strain in Islam was entirely accidental. He has, most unfortunately, withdrawn from the interfaith initiatives inaugurated by his predecessor, John Paul II, at a time when they are more desperately needed than ever. Coming on the heels of the Danish cartoon crisis, his remarks were extremely dangerous. They will convince more Muslims that the west is incurably Islamophobic and engaged in a new crusade.
We simply cannot afford this type of bigotry. The trouble is that too many people in the western world unconsciously share this prejudice, convinced that Islam and the Qur'an are addicted to violence. The 9/11 terrorists, who in fact violated essential Islamic principles, have confirmed this deep-rooted western perception and are seen as typical Muslims instead of the deviants they really were.
With disturbing regularity, this medieval conviction surfaces every time there is trouble in the Middle East. Yet until the 20th century, Islam was a far more tolerant and peaceful faith than Christianity. The Qur'an strictly forbids any coercion in religion and regards all rightly guided religion as coming from God; and despite the western belief to the contrary, Muslims did not impose their faith by the sword.
The early conquests in Persia and Byzantium after the Prophet's death were inspired by political rather than religious aspirations. Until the middle of the eighth century, Jews and Christians in the Muslim empire were actively discouraged from conversion to Islam, as, according to Qur'anic teaching, they had received authentic revelations of their own. The extremism and intolerance that have surfaced in the Muslim world in our own day are a response to intractable political problems - oil, Palestine, the occupation of Muslim lands, the prevelance of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, and the west's perceived "double standards" - and not to an ingrained religious imperative.
But the old myth of Islam as a chronically violent faith persists, and surfaces at the most inappropriate moments. As one of the received ideas of the west, it seems well-nigh impossible to eradicate. Indeed, we may even be strengthening it by falling back into our old habits of projection. As we see the violence - in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon - for which we bear a measure of responsibility, there is a temptation, perhaps, to blame it all on "Islam". But if we are feeding our prejudice in this way, we do so at our peril.
· Karen Armstrong is the author of Islam: A Short History
1988 judicial crisis: Quit or be sacked, Dr M told Salleh
1988 judicial crisis: Quit or be sacked, Dr M told Salleh
Sep 18, 06 8:56pm
Former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad had summoned then Lord President Salleh Abas to his office 18 years ago and told him to either quit or face a tribunal.
Salleh answered that he would not resigned and added that the prime minister “could do what he pleased”.
“I told him I would not resign because if I did, I could not show my face to anyone and I might as well die,” wrote Salleh in his private notes right after the meeting on May 27, 1988.
The notes narrating the meeting was reproduced by the latest edition of Aliran magazine.
Also present at the meeting were then deputy prime minister Ghafar Baba and then chief secretary to the government, Sallehuddin Mohamed.
According to Salleh, Mahathir told him that he was asked to step down because of a letter which he had written to the King regarding the state of relationship between the judiciary and the executive.
“I told him that I wrote the letter simply because judges had informed me that they were concerned about the present situation and asked to express their views through me,” wrote Salleh.
“Mahathir then said that I made speeches indicating that I am biased and I am not qualified to sit in the Umno case.”
At that time, Umno was facing internal turmoil and a legal suit by party members resulted in the High Court declaring the party illegal.
Salleh had then decided to set up a nine-member Supreme Court to hear the appeal against the disbarring of the party. Meanwhile, Mahathir had also set up another party under the name Umno Baru to assume the role and functions of the illegal Umno.
Salleh said he denied the charges at the meeting with Mahathir.
While Mahathir was levelling these accusations against him, both Ghafar and Sallehuddin sat at the same table without saying a word.
“The prime minister himself, from the beginning to the end, did not even look me in the eyes. He was looking down his table all the time.”
“I could detect Ghafar was strangely silent and Sallehuddin only caught me by the side of his eyes but he too appeared to be subdued. Ghafar kept his head down while Sallehuddin was writing in a notebook.”
No desire to quit
Salleh added that Mahathir promised him all retirement entitlements should he decide to accept his offer to resign.
“I told him that I was entitled to nothing as I was not yet 60. Obviously he was surprised when told I was not 60 yet. Finally, he said that if I did not step down he would institute a judicial tribunal to remove me.
“He said that I could see the Agong if I wanted to and he would not stop me from doing so. I told him I would not be resigning and he could do what he pleased.”
Salleh said that since there were nothing else te be said, he left after shaking the hands of Mahathir, Ghafar and Sallehuddin.
“None of the three looked me straight in my face.”
He said that he was not even accompanied out of the prime minister’s office by his aides and that he had to look for his driver on his own.
At the end of his note, Salleh wrote that he had no desire to quit until he had reached the age of 65.
He had also written a Quranic verse which says:
“No misfortune will fall on us expect what has been decreed by Allah. He is our protector and in whom the believers should place their trust.”
He ended his note: “This passage from the Quran struck my heart as I entered the door of the Prime Minister’s Office and it remained with me during the course of our discussion till the end, and to my exit from his room.”
Calls for judicial review
Mahathir stuck true to his words and set up a special tribunal which tried Salleh on charges of misconduct and for questioning constitutional amendments that seriously eroded the powers of the judiciary.
Salleh was then sacked.
Two of five supreme court judges - George Seah and Wan Sulaiman Pawanteh - who had ruled that the tribunal was convened unconstitutionally were sacked along with Salleh after being found guilty of misconduct by another tribunal.
Some have described the dismissal of the top judges from the Supreme Court - then the country's highest court, now renamed as Federal Court - as Malaysia’s darkest hours in its judicial history.
A month ago, Salleh broke his silence and supported the Bar Council’s call in reviewing the 1988 judicial crisis.
Last week, government backbencher Zaid Ibrahim also called for a review of the issue, adding that “he (Salleh) was not sacked because he wrote a letter to the King or because of his speech delivered in Universiti Malaya. It was because he wanted a nine-judge panel to hear the Umno case.”
Sep 18, 06 8:56pm
Former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad had summoned then Lord President Salleh Abas to his office 18 years ago and told him to either quit or face a tribunal.
Salleh answered that he would not resigned and added that the prime minister “could do what he pleased”.
“I told him I would not resign because if I did, I could not show my face to anyone and I might as well die,” wrote Salleh in his private notes right after the meeting on May 27, 1988.
The notes narrating the meeting was reproduced by the latest edition of Aliran magazine.
Also present at the meeting were then deputy prime minister Ghafar Baba and then chief secretary to the government, Sallehuddin Mohamed.
According to Salleh, Mahathir told him that he was asked to step down because of a letter which he had written to the King regarding the state of relationship between the judiciary and the executive.
“I told him that I wrote the letter simply because judges had informed me that they were concerned about the present situation and asked to express their views through me,” wrote Salleh.
“Mahathir then said that I made speeches indicating that I am biased and I am not qualified to sit in the Umno case.”
At that time, Umno was facing internal turmoil and a legal suit by party members resulted in the High Court declaring the party illegal.
Salleh had then decided to set up a nine-member Supreme Court to hear the appeal against the disbarring of the party. Meanwhile, Mahathir had also set up another party under the name Umno Baru to assume the role and functions of the illegal Umno.
Salleh said he denied the charges at the meeting with Mahathir.
While Mahathir was levelling these accusations against him, both Ghafar and Sallehuddin sat at the same table without saying a word.
“The prime minister himself, from the beginning to the end, did not even look me in the eyes. He was looking down his table all the time.”
“I could detect Ghafar was strangely silent and Sallehuddin only caught me by the side of his eyes but he too appeared to be subdued. Ghafar kept his head down while Sallehuddin was writing in a notebook.”
No desire to quit
Salleh added that Mahathir promised him all retirement entitlements should he decide to accept his offer to resign.
“I told him that I was entitled to nothing as I was not yet 60. Obviously he was surprised when told I was not 60 yet. Finally, he said that if I did not step down he would institute a judicial tribunal to remove me.
“He said that I could see the Agong if I wanted to and he would not stop me from doing so. I told him I would not be resigning and he could do what he pleased.”
Salleh said that since there were nothing else te be said, he left after shaking the hands of Mahathir, Ghafar and Sallehuddin.
“None of the three looked me straight in my face.”
He said that he was not even accompanied out of the prime minister’s office by his aides and that he had to look for his driver on his own.
At the end of his note, Salleh wrote that he had no desire to quit until he had reached the age of 65.
He had also written a Quranic verse which says:
“No misfortune will fall on us expect what has been decreed by Allah. He is our protector and in whom the believers should place their trust.”
He ended his note: “This passage from the Quran struck my heart as I entered the door of the Prime Minister’s Office and it remained with me during the course of our discussion till the end, and to my exit from his room.”
Calls for judicial review
Mahathir stuck true to his words and set up a special tribunal which tried Salleh on charges of misconduct and for questioning constitutional amendments that seriously eroded the powers of the judiciary.
Salleh was then sacked.
Two of five supreme court judges - George Seah and Wan Sulaiman Pawanteh - who had ruled that the tribunal was convened unconstitutionally were sacked along with Salleh after being found guilty of misconduct by another tribunal.
Some have described the dismissal of the top judges from the Supreme Court - then the country's highest court, now renamed as Federal Court - as Malaysia’s darkest hours in its judicial history.
A month ago, Salleh broke his silence and supported the Bar Council’s call in reviewing the 1988 judicial crisis.
Last week, government backbencher Zaid Ibrahim also called for a review of the issue, adding that “he (Salleh) was not sacked because he wrote a letter to the King or because of his speech delivered in Universiti Malaya. It was because he wanted a nine-judge panel to hear the Umno case.”
Rustam Sani’s Vox Populi
Rustam Sani’s Vox Populi
M. Bakri Mua (www.bakrimusa.com)
One heartening development in Malaysia (and elsewhere) in the last few
years is the emergence of personal blogs and the Internet news and
commentary portals. This development may prove to be even more
transforming socially, politically and in many other ways than the
introduction of the printing press five centuries ago.
Rustam Sani’s Vox Populi (http://suara-rustam.blogspot.com) is the
latest. He came on aboard a few weeks ago, and has been busy updating
it regularly. His recent essays dealt with the current political
leadership crisis, as well as commentaries on such topical issues as
education.
A sampling of recent topics includes “The Silat Bunga of Abdullah and
Mahathir,” and “Something is Rotten in the Kingdom of Higher
Education.” Rustam is indeed the voice of the people.
As elsewhere, blogging is now fast becoming mainstream in Malaysia.
This process is hastened considerably by the many bloggers who were
once mainstream journalists, beginning first with the late MGG Pillai,
and later with the likes of Kadir Jasin, (www.kadirjasin.blogspot.com)
and Ahirudin Atan (www.rockybru.blogspot.com) entering the scene.
The younger pioneers like Nizam Zakaria are still there, active as ever
and expanding their field of commentary. I particularly enjoy his take
on the local arts scene and his excerpting his new novels.
Even more encouraging is the appearance of many blogs and Internet
portals using the Malay language, as with Kassim Ahmad’s
(www.kassimahmad.blogspot.com). His website also serves as a readily
accessible repository of his earlier essays and commentaries, including
his banned works like Hadith: A Re-Evaluation. Kassim, like Rustam,
is facile in both Malay and English. Unlike many, they both stick to
one or the other language with their essays; there is thankfully no
jumbling mixture of rojak that I find so irritating and difficult to read.
The appearance of many blogs in Malay indicates that the Malay masses
are now no longer captive to the mainstream media and government
propaganda machinery (they are both the same). My favorites include
Laman Marhean and Agendadaily.
While many are lamenting the current political leadership crisis in
UMNO, there is already one positive consequence to this: the spawning
of many new websites and blogs in the Malay language.
These enterprising and productive individuals are doing more than those
bureaucrats and pseudo scholars at Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka and other
public agencies to project our national language globally. Unlike
Dewan’s glut of salaried men and women, these cyber contributors cost
the government not a penny!
Introducing Rustam Sani
I first heard of Rustam Sani in 1985 when he delivered the public
oration on the occasion of Kassim Ahmad receiving an Honorary Doctorate
of Letters from Universiti Kebangsaan. That Kassim deserved the honor
was beyond question, nonetheless I found the university’s action
surprising, although a very pleasing one. Kassim had then just
released his harrowing account of detention under the ISA, Universiti
Kedua (Second University).
Kassim is an independent thinker; it must have taken great courage for
those at the university to so honor him. Rustam was then head of its
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, and who nominated Kassim. I
was heartened that at least there was one soul at the university brave
enough to go against the grain and managed to convince his colleagues
in the university senate to go along.
Rustam and I share many commonalities. We both attended English
schools in our respective little towns (Tanjong Malim for him, and
Kuala Pilah for me). We then went on to the “big school” for our Sixth
Form, the venerable Victoria Institution for Rustam, and Malay College
for me.
Fromthe University of Malaya Rustam went on to Reading and Kent in
Britain. Later as a Fullbright-Hayes scholar, he obtained double
masters from Yale. Like me, he returned home, but unlike me, he stayed
and put up with the system.
Ponteng (opting out) was never a consideration for him; the
nationalist’s blood runs too deep in Rustam’s veins. His father, the
late Ahmad Boestaman, was a firebrand nationalist and an early leader
in the movement for Merdeka. Firebrand is an apt adjective, for
Boestaman was active in API (lit. fire), the acronym for Angkatan
Pemuda Insaf (The Committed Youth Movement).
Boestaman later founded the socialist Parti Rakyat Malaysia and served
in Parliament in the early 1960s. It was tribute to the way things
were then that young Rustam did not suffer the consequences of having a
father active in opposition politics. How different things are today!
Tribulations of A Social Scientist
Life as a social scientist in Malaysia must be terribly trying, both
professionally and personally. Your field of enquiry touches on so
many “sensitive issues,” at least sensitive to the establishment. You
cannot follow your intellectual interests, unless the authorities grant
you permission. That is quite apart from the funding issue.
When you have someone like Rustam who dares to think differently, life
could be even more difficult, on as well as off campus. Rustam was
lucky to have been spared the harsh fate meted out to Kassim Ahmad,
Syed Hussin Ali, and others. Perhaps Allah in His Infinite Mercy and
Wisdom decided that the Boestaman family had suffered enough, and thus
spared Rustam the fate endured by his father. The British detained
Ahmad Boestaman for eight years for his leftist activities during the
Emergency. Just to show that Malaysian leaders did learn a thing or
two from their British masters, the Tunku later jailed Ahmad Boestaman
for four years under the ISA in 1963. He became the first sitting
Member of Parliament to be so detained. That is a mark of distinction
and honor in my book, not a blemish.
On campus, unless you toe the official line you would definitely be
sidelined no matter how productive you are. Rustam was one productive
academic; I came across his writings many times when researching for my
books. Unfortunately, on Malaysian campuses intellectual productivity
is not valued. To advance, suffice that you are an enthusiastic
cheerleader for the authorities.
Far from being satisfied as a detached scholar-analyst, Rustam was
actively engaged as a political practitioner and activist with Parti
Rakyat. He walks the talk; he practices what he preaches.
Off campus, the same oppressive atmosphere prevails. The pages of the
mainstream publications and airtime of radio and television are the
exclusive preserve of unabashed supporters of the status quo. To these
pundits, their sultans would always be donning a samping sutra (silk
cummerbund) even when they are wrapped in bark loincloth. Once that
sultan is out of power, these cheerleaders would, without skipping a
beat, go on praising the next one and unhesitatingly damning the old
one. Witness the current vulgar vilification of Mahathir by his once
ardent supporters.
The mainstream media have lost their precious credibility, as well as
balance and objectivity! In the end it is their readers (and thus the
nation) who are not being well served. It is not a surprise that the
blossoming of the Internet news portals and blogosphere coincides with
(or perhaps the cause of) the decline of the mainstream media.
When Gutenberg introduced his printing press five centuries ago, he did
more than simply made reading materials readily available for the
masses. He emancipated them, freeing them from the tight controls of
the clergy and ruling class who then had exclusive access to written
works. They were the exclusive arbiter and interpreter on matters
religious and others. The masses need only follow them meekly, as a
flock of sheep would their shepherd.
The ready availability of the printing press upended all that. The
resulting mass literacy made possible the reformation, and an end to
the Medieval Age.
The Internet, by democratizing news, information, and commentaries,
would have a similar if not far greater transforming effect. Rustam
Sani’s Vox Populi (Voice of the People), and others like his, would
ensure that we would not regress.
M. Bakri Mua (www.bakrimusa.com)
One heartening development in Malaysia (and elsewhere) in the last few
years is the emergence of personal blogs and the Internet news and
commentary portals. This development may prove to be even more
transforming socially, politically and in many other ways than the
introduction of the printing press five centuries ago.
Rustam Sani’s Vox Populi (http://suara-rustam.blogspot.com) is the
latest. He came on aboard a few weeks ago, and has been busy updating
it regularly. His recent essays dealt with the current political
leadership crisis, as well as commentaries on such topical issues as
education.
A sampling of recent topics includes “The Silat Bunga of Abdullah and
Mahathir,” and “Something is Rotten in the Kingdom of Higher
Education.” Rustam is indeed the voice of the people.
As elsewhere, blogging is now fast becoming mainstream in Malaysia.
This process is hastened considerably by the many bloggers who were
once mainstream journalists, beginning first with the late MGG Pillai,
and later with the likes of Kadir Jasin, (www.kadirjasin.blogspot.com)
and Ahirudin Atan (www.rockybru.blogspot.com) entering the scene.
The younger pioneers like Nizam Zakaria are still there, active as ever
and expanding their field of commentary. I particularly enjoy his take
on the local arts scene and his excerpting his new novels.
Even more encouraging is the appearance of many blogs and Internet
portals using the Malay language, as with Kassim Ahmad’s
(www.kassimahmad.blogspot.com). His website also serves as a readily
accessible repository of his earlier essays and commentaries, including
his banned works like Hadith: A Re-Evaluation. Kassim, like Rustam,
is facile in both Malay and English. Unlike many, they both stick to
one or the other language with their essays; there is thankfully no
jumbling mixture of rojak that I find so irritating and difficult to read.
The appearance of many blogs in Malay indicates that the Malay masses
are now no longer captive to the mainstream media and government
propaganda machinery (they are both the same). My favorites include
Laman Marhean and Agendadaily.
While many are lamenting the current political leadership crisis in
UMNO, there is already one positive consequence to this: the spawning
of many new websites and blogs in the Malay language.
These enterprising and productive individuals are doing more than those
bureaucrats and pseudo scholars at Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka and other
public agencies to project our national language globally. Unlike
Dewan’s glut of salaried men and women, these cyber contributors cost
the government not a penny!
Introducing Rustam Sani
I first heard of Rustam Sani in 1985 when he delivered the public
oration on the occasion of Kassim Ahmad receiving an Honorary Doctorate
of Letters from Universiti Kebangsaan. That Kassim deserved the honor
was beyond question, nonetheless I found the university’s action
surprising, although a very pleasing one. Kassim had then just
released his harrowing account of detention under the ISA, Universiti
Kedua (Second University).
Kassim is an independent thinker; it must have taken great courage for
those at the university to so honor him. Rustam was then head of its
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, and who nominated Kassim. I
was heartened that at least there was one soul at the university brave
enough to go against the grain and managed to convince his colleagues
in the university senate to go along.
Rustam and I share many commonalities. We both attended English
schools in our respective little towns (Tanjong Malim for him, and
Kuala Pilah for me). We then went on to the “big school” for our Sixth
Form, the venerable Victoria Institution for Rustam, and Malay College
for me.
Fromthe University of Malaya Rustam went on to Reading and Kent in
Britain. Later as a Fullbright-Hayes scholar, he obtained double
masters from Yale. Like me, he returned home, but unlike me, he stayed
and put up with the system.
Ponteng (opting out) was never a consideration for him; the
nationalist’s blood runs too deep in Rustam’s veins. His father, the
late Ahmad Boestaman, was a firebrand nationalist and an early leader
in the movement for Merdeka. Firebrand is an apt adjective, for
Boestaman was active in API (lit. fire), the acronym for Angkatan
Pemuda Insaf (The Committed Youth Movement).
Boestaman later founded the socialist Parti Rakyat Malaysia and served
in Parliament in the early 1960s. It was tribute to the way things
were then that young Rustam did not suffer the consequences of having a
father active in opposition politics. How different things are today!
Tribulations of A Social Scientist
Life as a social scientist in Malaysia must be terribly trying, both
professionally and personally. Your field of enquiry touches on so
many “sensitive issues,” at least sensitive to the establishment. You
cannot follow your intellectual interests, unless the authorities grant
you permission. That is quite apart from the funding issue.
When you have someone like Rustam who dares to think differently, life
could be even more difficult, on as well as off campus. Rustam was
lucky to have been spared the harsh fate meted out to Kassim Ahmad,
Syed Hussin Ali, and others. Perhaps Allah in His Infinite Mercy and
Wisdom decided that the Boestaman family had suffered enough, and thus
spared Rustam the fate endured by his father. The British detained
Ahmad Boestaman for eight years for his leftist activities during the
Emergency. Just to show that Malaysian leaders did learn a thing or
two from their British masters, the Tunku later jailed Ahmad Boestaman
for four years under the ISA in 1963. He became the first sitting
Member of Parliament to be so detained. That is a mark of distinction
and honor in my book, not a blemish.
On campus, unless you toe the official line you would definitely be
sidelined no matter how productive you are. Rustam was one productive
academic; I came across his writings many times when researching for my
books. Unfortunately, on Malaysian campuses intellectual productivity
is not valued. To advance, suffice that you are an enthusiastic
cheerleader for the authorities.
Far from being satisfied as a detached scholar-analyst, Rustam was
actively engaged as a political practitioner and activist with Parti
Rakyat. He walks the talk; he practices what he preaches.
Off campus, the same oppressive atmosphere prevails. The pages of the
mainstream publications and airtime of radio and television are the
exclusive preserve of unabashed supporters of the status quo. To these
pundits, their sultans would always be donning a samping sutra (silk
cummerbund) even when they are wrapped in bark loincloth. Once that
sultan is out of power, these cheerleaders would, without skipping a
beat, go on praising the next one and unhesitatingly damning the old
one. Witness the current vulgar vilification of Mahathir by his once
ardent supporters.
The mainstream media have lost their precious credibility, as well as
balance and objectivity! In the end it is their readers (and thus the
nation) who are not being well served. It is not a surprise that the
blossoming of the Internet news portals and blogosphere coincides with
(or perhaps the cause of) the decline of the mainstream media.
When Gutenberg introduced his printing press five centuries ago, he did
more than simply made reading materials readily available for the
masses. He emancipated them, freeing them from the tight controls of
the clergy and ruling class who then had exclusive access to written
works. They were the exclusive arbiter and interpreter on matters
religious and others. The masses need only follow them meekly, as a
flock of sheep would their shepherd.
The ready availability of the printing press upended all that. The
resulting mass literacy made possible the reformation, and an end to
the Medieval Age.
The Internet, by democratizing news, information, and commentaries,
would have a similar if not far greater transforming effect. Rustam
Sani’s Vox Populi (Voice of the People), and others like his, would
ensure that we would not regress.
Srebrenica: 'A triumph of evil'
Srebrenica: 'A triumph of evil'
By CNN's Graham Jones
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 Posted: 1125 GMT (1925 HKT)
LONDON, England (CNN) -- It is now remembered as the worst atrocity in Europe since World War II.
In a five-day orgy of slaughter at Srebrenica in July 1995, up to 8,000 Muslims were systematically exterminated in what was described at the U.N. war crimes tribunal as "the triumph of evil."
What made it worse was the genocide took place in what had been designated a U.N. "safe area" three months earlier.
A judge at The Hague tribunal was later to describe what happened in Srebrenica as "truly scenes from hell written on the darkest pages of human history."
Thousands of Bosnian Muslims had sought refuge in the spa town of Srebrenica in 1995 as the Bosnian Serb army marched towards them.
They were protected by just 100 lightly equipped Dutch peacekeepers -- who proved no match for the advancing, heavily-armed Serb army.
Denied reinforcements, the Dutch were forced to stand aside while Serb troops intent on "ethnic cleansing" did their worst -- the peacekeepers even witnessing the summary execution of civilians.
In the days before the onslaught, 30,000 Muslims fleeing the advancing Serb army were crammed into the town. Within days there was not one Muslim left.
A great number fled -- only for many of them to be wiped out in Serb ambushes -- but the men who stayed fared the worst.
Thousands of men and boys as young as 10 were rounded up and murdered. Those who tried to hide in their homes were, according to evidence at the trial of Serb General Radislav Krstic at The Hague in March 2000, "hunted down like dogs and slaughtered."
Serbian TV footage shows woman and children being separated from the men and put on buses.
In a sickening show of "reassurance" Bosnian Serb commander-in-chief General Ratko Mladic -- now on the war crimes tribunal's most wanted list with political leader Radovan Karadzic -- told the women everyone would be taken out by bus out and safely reunited.
When the cameras were turned off the real face of the Serb army emerged as the slaughter began.
More than 60 truckloads of refugees were taken from Srebrenica to execution sites where they were bound, blindfolded, and shot with automatic rifles.
Some of the executions were carried out at night under arc lights. Industrial bulldozers then pushed the bodies into mass graves.
Some were buried alive, a French policeman who collected evidence from Bosnian Muslims, Jean-Rene Ruez, told The Hague tribunal in 1996.
He gave evidence that Bosnian Serb forces had killed and tortured refugees at will. Streets were littered with corpses, he said, and rivers were red with blood. Many people committed suicide to avoid having their noses, lips and ears chopped off, he said.
Among other lurid accounts of mass murder, Ruez cited cases of adults being forced to kill their children or watching as soldiers ended the young lives.
"One soldier approached a woman in the middle of a crowd," he said. "Her child was crying. The soldier asked why the child was crying and she explained that he was hungry. The soldier made a comment like, 'He won't be hungry anymore.' He slit the child's throat in front of everybody."
Later it was revealed that Mladic had been able to press on unhindered by issuing ultimatums to the U.N. protection force.
It was suggested the U.N. high command had promised to stop air strikes against the Serb army in return for the release of 370 U.N. soldiers held prisoner -- and Mladic took this as the green light to attack Srebrenica.
The Commander of the Dutch U.N. troops, Col. Thomas Karremans, told The Hague tribunal in 1996 that he had first requested NATO air strikes when Mladic's troops began their assault on July 6, but that the request was not granted until July 11 when Srebrenica fell. By then, Karremans said, it "was too late and too little."
Karremans said a long Serb blockade before the attack had left the lightly armed Dutch battalion desperately short of food and fuel, but requests for fresh supplies went unheeded.
In 1999 the U.N. admitted its error in expecting 100 Dutch troops to deter the Bosnian Serb army.
By CNN's Graham Jones
Wednesday, May 3, 2006 Posted: 1125 GMT (1925 HKT)
LONDON, England (CNN) -- It is now remembered as the worst atrocity in Europe since World War II.
In a five-day orgy of slaughter at Srebrenica in July 1995, up to 8,000 Muslims were systematically exterminated in what was described at the U.N. war crimes tribunal as "the triumph of evil."
What made it worse was the genocide took place in what had been designated a U.N. "safe area" three months earlier.
A judge at The Hague tribunal was later to describe what happened in Srebrenica as "truly scenes from hell written on the darkest pages of human history."
Thousands of Bosnian Muslims had sought refuge in the spa town of Srebrenica in 1995 as the Bosnian Serb army marched towards them.
They were protected by just 100 lightly equipped Dutch peacekeepers -- who proved no match for the advancing, heavily-armed Serb army.
Denied reinforcements, the Dutch were forced to stand aside while Serb troops intent on "ethnic cleansing" did their worst -- the peacekeepers even witnessing the summary execution of civilians.
In the days before the onslaught, 30,000 Muslims fleeing the advancing Serb army were crammed into the town. Within days there was not one Muslim left.
A great number fled -- only for many of them to be wiped out in Serb ambushes -- but the men who stayed fared the worst.
Thousands of men and boys as young as 10 were rounded up and murdered. Those who tried to hide in their homes were, according to evidence at the trial of Serb General Radislav Krstic at The Hague in March 2000, "hunted down like dogs and slaughtered."
Serbian TV footage shows woman and children being separated from the men and put on buses.
In a sickening show of "reassurance" Bosnian Serb commander-in-chief General Ratko Mladic -- now on the war crimes tribunal's most wanted list with political leader Radovan Karadzic -- told the women everyone would be taken out by bus out and safely reunited.
When the cameras were turned off the real face of the Serb army emerged as the slaughter began.
More than 60 truckloads of refugees were taken from Srebrenica to execution sites where they were bound, blindfolded, and shot with automatic rifles.
Some of the executions were carried out at night under arc lights. Industrial bulldozers then pushed the bodies into mass graves.
Some were buried alive, a French policeman who collected evidence from Bosnian Muslims, Jean-Rene Ruez, told The Hague tribunal in 1996.
He gave evidence that Bosnian Serb forces had killed and tortured refugees at will. Streets were littered with corpses, he said, and rivers were red with blood. Many people committed suicide to avoid having their noses, lips and ears chopped off, he said.
Among other lurid accounts of mass murder, Ruez cited cases of adults being forced to kill their children or watching as soldiers ended the young lives.
"One soldier approached a woman in the middle of a crowd," he said. "Her child was crying. The soldier asked why the child was crying and she explained that he was hungry. The soldier made a comment like, 'He won't be hungry anymore.' He slit the child's throat in front of everybody."
Later it was revealed that Mladic had been able to press on unhindered by issuing ultimatums to the U.N. protection force.
It was suggested the U.N. high command had promised to stop air strikes against the Serb army in return for the release of 370 U.N. soldiers held prisoner -- and Mladic took this as the green light to attack Srebrenica.
The Commander of the Dutch U.N. troops, Col. Thomas Karremans, told The Hague tribunal in 1996 that he had first requested NATO air strikes when Mladic's troops began their assault on July 6, but that the request was not granted until July 11 when Srebrenica fell. By then, Karremans said, it "was too late and too little."
Karremans said a long Serb blockade before the attack had left the lightly armed Dutch battalion desperately short of food and fuel, but requests for fresh supplies went unheeded.
In 1999 the U.N. admitted its error in expecting 100 Dutch troops to deter the Bosnian Serb army.
What Lies Beneath Mahathir's Attacks
What Lies Beneath Mahathir's Attacks
2006-06-29 15:38:11 MYT
The conflict that is brewing between former premier Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and his successor Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi goes much deeper than the four issues which the former has raised to the government.
Essentially, the conflict represents an intra-Malay/UMNO conflict over access to resources, business opportunities and power.
Approaching the issue from a purely political perspective would not enable one to decipher the nature and the dimension of the present conflict. Instead, an approach which takes into account the subtle linkages between politics and economics would be more appropriate.
Only then would one be able to provide a better and more realistic assessment of the basis of the present conflict and how race, religion and nationalism have been invoked to hide the clamour for wealth and power between the two power bases in Malaysian society.
UMNO politics, in general, has become much more materialistic in the last few decades or so. Gone are the days when ideological differences took centre stage.
Today, the struggle in UMNO--all in the name of religion, God and race--is invariably related to the acquisition of material wealth and the need to maintain this wealth by seeking access to politics or political patronage.
While money politics was outwardly shunned as the evil that would destroy Malay unity, it has proved impossible to dismantle. In fact, one could argue that, without money politics, UMNO would have fragmented a long time ago.
Efforts by UMNO leaders to rid the party of money politics have merely been feeble attempts to hide the stark reality of corruption, patronage and moral decay.
Access To Resources
This has been happening for some time. Past conflicts in UMNO, centred on certain key personalities, have sometimes led to splits in the party over the acquisition of wealth and power. For instance, the conflict between Tun Dr Mahathir and Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah in the 1980s was not about higher politics, but about access to wealth and power.
Similarly, the conflict between Tun Dr Mahathir and Datuk Seri Abdullah is about forces aligned to these two leaders competing for scarce resources and power. The conflict has become bitter and acrimonious because the Mahathir side seems to have lost access to material wealth by way of contracts, business opportunities and favouritism.
Furthermore, the entry of Datuk Seri Abdullah's relatives in the competition for resources has complicated the picture so much so that Tun Dr Mahathir, in an indirect swipe at Datuk Seri Abdullah, recently told the media that he had never shown favouritism to his family members or relatives while in office.
It is quite obvious that when Tun Dr Mahathir raised the four issues to the Abdullah administration, the implicit argument was that his friends had lost out in the competition for government contracts and business licences and that the forces aligned to Datuk Seri Abdullah had gained unfairly.
The four issues in question are the decision to accede to Singapore by cancelling the half-bridge project, the sale of Proton's motorcycle company Augusta to an outsider, the removal of Proton's former head Tengku Mahaleel and the issuance of Approved Permits (APs) to certain individuals and groups.
In seeking a response, Tun Dr Mahathir invoked both the nationalistic and pro-bumiputera arguments to buttress his claims. On the bridge issue, he attacked the government for not being nationalistic and not standing up to Singapore.
With regard to the other three issues, he raised the spectre of how deserving bumiputras have been sidelined by the present regime and how the present system of awarding APs favours groups or individuals close to ministers.
In fact, the AP controversy had appeared much earlier when Tun Dr Mahathir criticised International Trade and Industry Ministry Rafidah Aziz for not being transparent about the awarding of such permits.
Indeed, he has been raising these issues consistently at different forums, not because he wants to criticise the government but because he has come to be seen as the leader of a group within UMNO that is generally dissatisfied with the administration's policies and programmes.
In the last few years, the Abdullah government has sidelined many Malay entrepreneurs and businessmen, especially those still loyal to Tun Dr Mahathir. In addition, the rise of Datuk Seri Abdullah's son-in-law, Khairy Jamaluddin, in the corporate world has been a sore point for many Malay business leaders.
Very recently, one of Tun Dr Mahathir's closest aides, Mathias Chang, criticised Khairy and a senior newspaper editor for messing up some of the programmes initiated by Tun Dr Mahathir.
Erosion Of Image
Even if it is not clear if Tun Dr Mahathir is raising these issues for altruistic reasons or for nationalistic reasons, it does not negate the validity of his arguments. After all, many government policies and programmes are shrouded in mystery--no one knows the actual beneficiaries. Also, corruption is still rampant in the government despite the rhetoric adopted by Datuk Seri Abdullah's regime that it would eradicate it.
Despite many allegations of corruption, there are ministers and officials who have never been investigated or removed from their positions. Tun Dr Mahathir's point about the controversial removal of Tengku Mahaleel, who was apparently doing a good job as Proton head, has never been clarified to the public.
Also, the criticism of Datuk Seri Rafidah's handling of the APs still begs an explanation.
Datuk Seri Abdullah's "good guy" image is fast eroding in Malaysian politics. His policy of silence on controversial matters of societal or public concern might become a liability.
While he offered Islam Hadhari or progressive Islam as an alternative to the PAS ideology, he has never taken the party to task--unlike Tun Dr Mahathir--for its controversial stance in a multiracial Malaysian society.
To date, he has refused to confront Tun Dr Mahathir or refute his statements. Perhaps the general public does not want him to confront Tun Dr Mahathir, but surely it expects some kind of rational response to the issues raised.
It is rather unfortunate that it has taken a person like Tun Dr Mahathir to highlight the problems of the government. After all, the situation might be new, but the opposition has raised the same issues for many years.
While he may be emerging as the new saviour of Malaysia, the public will never forget that the seeds of decay were sown during his long tenure in office. Still, being open-minded, they nonetheless think that he should be given a fair hearing by the government.
In many ways, Malaysian politics has not changed. Politics within political parties has not transcended the narrow confines of ethnicity, race, religion and crass materialism. In fact, the revival of ethnicity and religion seems to be invariably related to the way resources are allocated in society.
Politics in UMNO is not about taking the country to greater heights and improving race relations, but about how certain individuals can gain access to wealth and power in the never-ending game of greed and corruption.
By P Ramasamy
The Straits Times/ANN
2006-06-29 15:38:11 MYT
The conflict that is brewing between former premier Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and his successor Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi goes much deeper than the four issues which the former has raised to the government.
Essentially, the conflict represents an intra-Malay/UMNO conflict over access to resources, business opportunities and power.
Approaching the issue from a purely political perspective would not enable one to decipher the nature and the dimension of the present conflict. Instead, an approach which takes into account the subtle linkages between politics and economics would be more appropriate.
Only then would one be able to provide a better and more realistic assessment of the basis of the present conflict and how race, religion and nationalism have been invoked to hide the clamour for wealth and power between the two power bases in Malaysian society.
UMNO politics, in general, has become much more materialistic in the last few decades or so. Gone are the days when ideological differences took centre stage.
Today, the struggle in UMNO--all in the name of religion, God and race--is invariably related to the acquisition of material wealth and the need to maintain this wealth by seeking access to politics or political patronage.
While money politics was outwardly shunned as the evil that would destroy Malay unity, it has proved impossible to dismantle. In fact, one could argue that, without money politics, UMNO would have fragmented a long time ago.
Efforts by UMNO leaders to rid the party of money politics have merely been feeble attempts to hide the stark reality of corruption, patronage and moral decay.
Access To Resources
This has been happening for some time. Past conflicts in UMNO, centred on certain key personalities, have sometimes led to splits in the party over the acquisition of wealth and power. For instance, the conflict between Tun Dr Mahathir and Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah in the 1980s was not about higher politics, but about access to wealth and power.
Similarly, the conflict between Tun Dr Mahathir and Datuk Seri Abdullah is about forces aligned to these two leaders competing for scarce resources and power. The conflict has become bitter and acrimonious because the Mahathir side seems to have lost access to material wealth by way of contracts, business opportunities and favouritism.
Furthermore, the entry of Datuk Seri Abdullah's relatives in the competition for resources has complicated the picture so much so that Tun Dr Mahathir, in an indirect swipe at Datuk Seri Abdullah, recently told the media that he had never shown favouritism to his family members or relatives while in office.
It is quite obvious that when Tun Dr Mahathir raised the four issues to the Abdullah administration, the implicit argument was that his friends had lost out in the competition for government contracts and business licences and that the forces aligned to Datuk Seri Abdullah had gained unfairly.
The four issues in question are the decision to accede to Singapore by cancelling the half-bridge project, the sale of Proton's motorcycle company Augusta to an outsider, the removal of Proton's former head Tengku Mahaleel and the issuance of Approved Permits (APs) to certain individuals and groups.
In seeking a response, Tun Dr Mahathir invoked both the nationalistic and pro-bumiputera arguments to buttress his claims. On the bridge issue, he attacked the government for not being nationalistic and not standing up to Singapore.
With regard to the other three issues, he raised the spectre of how deserving bumiputras have been sidelined by the present regime and how the present system of awarding APs favours groups or individuals close to ministers.
In fact, the AP controversy had appeared much earlier when Tun Dr Mahathir criticised International Trade and Industry Ministry Rafidah Aziz for not being transparent about the awarding of such permits.
Indeed, he has been raising these issues consistently at different forums, not because he wants to criticise the government but because he has come to be seen as the leader of a group within UMNO that is generally dissatisfied with the administration's policies and programmes.
In the last few years, the Abdullah government has sidelined many Malay entrepreneurs and businessmen, especially those still loyal to Tun Dr Mahathir. In addition, the rise of Datuk Seri Abdullah's son-in-law, Khairy Jamaluddin, in the corporate world has been a sore point for many Malay business leaders.
Very recently, one of Tun Dr Mahathir's closest aides, Mathias Chang, criticised Khairy and a senior newspaper editor for messing up some of the programmes initiated by Tun Dr Mahathir.
Erosion Of Image
Even if it is not clear if Tun Dr Mahathir is raising these issues for altruistic reasons or for nationalistic reasons, it does not negate the validity of his arguments. After all, many government policies and programmes are shrouded in mystery--no one knows the actual beneficiaries. Also, corruption is still rampant in the government despite the rhetoric adopted by Datuk Seri Abdullah's regime that it would eradicate it.
Despite many allegations of corruption, there are ministers and officials who have never been investigated or removed from their positions. Tun Dr Mahathir's point about the controversial removal of Tengku Mahaleel, who was apparently doing a good job as Proton head, has never been clarified to the public.
Also, the criticism of Datuk Seri Rafidah's handling of the APs still begs an explanation.
Datuk Seri Abdullah's "good guy" image is fast eroding in Malaysian politics. His policy of silence on controversial matters of societal or public concern might become a liability.
While he offered Islam Hadhari or progressive Islam as an alternative to the PAS ideology, he has never taken the party to task--unlike Tun Dr Mahathir--for its controversial stance in a multiracial Malaysian society.
To date, he has refused to confront Tun Dr Mahathir or refute his statements. Perhaps the general public does not want him to confront Tun Dr Mahathir, but surely it expects some kind of rational response to the issues raised.
It is rather unfortunate that it has taken a person like Tun Dr Mahathir to highlight the problems of the government. After all, the situation might be new, but the opposition has raised the same issues for many years.
While he may be emerging as the new saviour of Malaysia, the public will never forget that the seeds of decay were sown during his long tenure in office. Still, being open-minded, they nonetheless think that he should be given a fair hearing by the government.
In many ways, Malaysian politics has not changed. Politics within political parties has not transcended the narrow confines of ethnicity, race, religion and crass materialism. In fact, the revival of ethnicity and religion seems to be invariably related to the way resources are allocated in society.
Politics in UMNO is not about taking the country to greater heights and improving race relations, but about how certain individuals can gain access to wealth and power in the never-ending game of greed and corruption.
By P Ramasamy
The Straits Times/ANN
Zainah Anwar on Friday: Making taboo a cherished tradition
Artikel Zainah (NST)
Zainah Anwar on Friday: Making taboo a cherished tradition
16 Jun 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT next on the laundry list of the forbidden? On Tuesday, it was pluralism and liberalism that posed a danger to the faith of Muslims. On Wednesday it was kongsi raya and open house.
Tomorrow will it be the Barisan Nasional multi-ethnic coalition system that is haram because such close co-operation might undermine the faith of the Muslims in Umno.
So what else will those bent on turning this country into a theocratic dictatorship focus their attention on next?
The Ninth Malaysia Plan has been launched. National priorities and challenges have been identified and everyone is rolling up their sleeves to get to work. And what did some of our ulama do?
They met for two days to declare so much of what we love and celebrate about Malaysia and being Malaysian, as threats to the Muslim faith.
What else could be in the 22 resolutions passed by the Majlis Muzakarah of our ulama this week? What among the 11 fatwas passed by the Majlis Ulama Indonesia or from the thousands in the Wahhabi catalogue of fatwas did they decide to adopt?
They say they do this because they love Islam and want to
protect the Muslim faith. But don’t they realise that they are turning Muslims and others against Islam?
What they are preaching is a hate ideology that even their master ideologues in Saudi Arabia are now trying to reverse.
According to the Mufti of Perak Datuk Seri Harussani Zakaria, the National Fatwa Council has decided that kongsi raya and open house to celebrate the festivals of others will "damage the faith of Muslims and is tantamount to syirik".
One wonders how the Fatwa Council came to such a conclusion? Did it decide to follow the much quoted fatwa issued by the Wahhabi ulama of Saudi Arabia which forbids the wishing of Merry Christmas to Christians, as such a practice is "more loathsome to God than imbibing liquor, or murder, or fornication".
This reasoning from the teachings of the Wahhabi ideologue Ibn Taymiyya and his student Ibn al-Qayyim Jawziyya, is the most quoted justification to ban Muslim celebration of other festivals.
That to celebrate with others their religious festivities is tantamount to approving their religious faith, thus constituting syirik.
Another Saudi fatwa cautions that, "the most dangerous form of imitating the unbelievers, the most destructive and the most prevalent among the Muslims, is sharing with the unbelievers their celebrations".
These fatwas are widely circulated within Muslim communities in the West to isolate and "protect" Muslims from the evils of the infidel host society.
Ulama who believe that pluralism and liberalism are a threat to the faith of Muslims, must, of course, believe that celebrating the festivities of Christians, Chinese, Hindus, and Dayaks constitute a liberal action that recognises our pluralist heritage and must therefore be forbidden.
While leaders of all faiths are promoting inter-faith dialogue and understanding in the wake of Islam bashing post-Sept 11, our own ulama who should know better what it me! ans to
live together in peace and harmony within a multi-religious and multi-ethnic state, choose to fuel the fires of hatred and bigotry towards Islam.
It pains me that our religious leaders and Islamist activists, while bemoaning Islamophobia, and declaring that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, themselves utter statements that just feed the prejudices of others against Islam and Muslims.
Pity them who think our faith is so weak that lighting a Christmas tree, donning a floppy red Santa cap, joining the fun and vigour of a lion dance, could lead us up the path of kafirland.
It seems in 2004, ABIM — the Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia — asked the Fatwa Council to issue a fatwa and establish clear guidelines on Muslim involvement in activities held during kongsi raya which could be considered as against Islamic tenets.
Some of the activities listed out included Muslim shop assistants wearing Santa C! laus
outfits, Muslim youth taking part in lion dances and Muslim dignitaries lighting up Christmas trees.
In that memorandum, ABIM quoted a hadith that Muslims were allowed to celebrate only two festivals, Hari Raya Puasa and Hari Raya Haji. It questioned on what basis Muslims should be allowed to celebrate the festivities of other communities and urged for a fatwa. So here it is.
Yet again, the question that arises is why, in the whole range of diversity of opinions on any particular issue affecting Muslims, our ulama almost always choose the most conservative, the most intolerant opinion.
What is it about learning to live together, to celebrate our differences and share our festivities, that pose a threat to certain Muslims?
On the range and scale of problems and challenges besetting the Muslim community, how is it that a joyous celebration of our rich multi-ethnic traditions to promote peace and harmony c! ould
become the subject of a fatwa?
What gives me hope is that Malaysians are no longer willing to take this lying down.
What the ideologues of the Islamic state are trying to do is to silence this national conversation by waging a campaign against liberalism and pluralism in the name of Islamic authenticity and purity.
They will not win because again and again Malaysians have shown that we are in the end a pragmatic people who believe in celebrating the diversity and plurality of Malaysian society that has been a blessing to us all. This is a tradition that we must jealously protect and promote.
Zainah Anwar on Friday: Making taboo a cherished tradition
16 Jun 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT next on the laundry list of the forbidden? On Tuesday, it was pluralism and liberalism that posed a danger to the faith of Muslims. On Wednesday it was kongsi raya and open house.
Tomorrow will it be the Barisan Nasional multi-ethnic coalition system that is haram because such close co-operation might undermine the faith of the Muslims in Umno.
So what else will those bent on turning this country into a theocratic dictatorship focus their attention on next?
The Ninth Malaysia Plan has been launched. National priorities and challenges have been identified and everyone is rolling up their sleeves to get to work. And what did some of our ulama do?
They met for two days to declare so much of what we love and celebrate about Malaysia and being Malaysian, as threats to the Muslim faith.
What else could be in the 22 resolutions passed by the Majlis Muzakarah of our ulama this week? What among the 11 fatwas passed by the Majlis Ulama Indonesia or from the thousands in the Wahhabi catalogue of fatwas did they decide to adopt?
They say they do this because they love Islam and want to
protect the Muslim faith. But don’t they realise that they are turning Muslims and others against Islam?
What they are preaching is a hate ideology that even their master ideologues in Saudi Arabia are now trying to reverse.
According to the Mufti of Perak Datuk Seri Harussani Zakaria, the National Fatwa Council has decided that kongsi raya and open house to celebrate the festivals of others will "damage the faith of Muslims and is tantamount to syirik".
One wonders how the Fatwa Council came to such a conclusion? Did it decide to follow the much quoted fatwa issued by the Wahhabi ulama of Saudi Arabia which forbids the wishing of Merry Christmas to Christians, as such a practice is "more loathsome to God than imbibing liquor, or murder, or fornication".
This reasoning from the teachings of the Wahhabi ideologue Ibn Taymiyya and his student Ibn al-Qayyim Jawziyya, is the most quoted justification to ban Muslim celebration of other festivals.
That to celebrate with others their religious festivities is tantamount to approving their religious faith, thus constituting syirik.
Another Saudi fatwa cautions that, "the most dangerous form of imitating the unbelievers, the most destructive and the most prevalent among the Muslims, is sharing with the unbelievers their celebrations".
These fatwas are widely circulated within Muslim communities in the West to isolate and "protect" Muslims from the evils of the infidel host society.
Ulama who believe that pluralism and liberalism are a threat to the faith of Muslims, must, of course, believe that celebrating the festivities of Christians, Chinese, Hindus, and Dayaks constitute a liberal action that recognises our pluralist heritage and must therefore be forbidden.
While leaders of all faiths are promoting inter-faith dialogue and understanding in the wake of Islam bashing post-Sept 11, our own ulama who should know better what it me! ans to
live together in peace and harmony within a multi-religious and multi-ethnic state, choose to fuel the fires of hatred and bigotry towards Islam.
It pains me that our religious leaders and Islamist activists, while bemoaning Islamophobia, and declaring that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, themselves utter statements that just feed the prejudices of others against Islam and Muslims.
Pity them who think our faith is so weak that lighting a Christmas tree, donning a floppy red Santa cap, joining the fun and vigour of a lion dance, could lead us up the path of kafirland.
It seems in 2004, ABIM — the Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia — asked the Fatwa Council to issue a fatwa and establish clear guidelines on Muslim involvement in activities held during kongsi raya which could be considered as against Islamic tenets.
Some of the activities listed out included Muslim shop assistants wearing Santa C! laus
outfits, Muslim youth taking part in lion dances and Muslim dignitaries lighting up Christmas trees.
In that memorandum, ABIM quoted a hadith that Muslims were allowed to celebrate only two festivals, Hari Raya Puasa and Hari Raya Haji. It questioned on what basis Muslims should be allowed to celebrate the festivities of other communities and urged for a fatwa. So here it is.
Yet again, the question that arises is why, in the whole range of diversity of opinions on any particular issue affecting Muslims, our ulama almost always choose the most conservative, the most intolerant opinion.
What is it about learning to live together, to celebrate our differences and share our festivities, that pose a threat to certain Muslims?
On the range and scale of problems and challenges besetting the Muslim community, how is it that a joyous celebration of our rich multi-ethnic traditions to promote peace and harmony c! ould
become the subject of a fatwa?
What gives me hope is that Malaysians are no longer willing to take this lying down.
What the ideologues of the Islamic state are trying to do is to silence this national conversation by waging a campaign against liberalism and pluralism in the name of Islamic authenticity and purity.
They will not win because again and again Malaysians have shown that we are in the end a pragmatic people who believe in celebrating the diversity and plurality of Malaysian society that has been a blessing to us all. This is a tradition that we must jealously protect and promote.
Sikap Dalam Berpolemik
Saya tidak mahu terlibat langsung dengan hal-hal polemik. Saya amat sedih tiap kali Islam di-polemikkan dan isu-isu dibangkitkan dan dihangatkan secara umum dan meluas sebab:
(1) Dalam kehangatan perang lidah, al-Qur'an dan Hadith, lantaran itu Allah, Rasulullah dan Islam akan diheret ke sana ke sini, ke hulu ke hilir, menjadi bahan untuk menang bahas dan debat. Bagi saya ini menjatuhkan kesucian Allah, Rasulullah dan Islam walau pun niat awalnya, dan mungkin juga seterusnya, adalah untuk memuliakan mereka dan mempertahankan kesucian Islam. Pada umumnya tidak ada sesiapa pun mempunyai niat buruk, baik yang menyokong atau yang menentang, tapi sayangnya, dan amat menyedihkan, kerana di-akhirnya inilah akibatnya.
(2) Polemik mengundang polarisasi sebab yang terlibat dan yang mendengar pasti akan memiihak, menyebelahi salah satu pasukan yang berdebat. Dalam perbahasan, tentunya ada penyokong dan ada penentang - maka berpecahlah Umat. Ia juga menjadi amat pelik apabila mereka yang melaungkan penyatuan Ummah dan perpaduan Ummah adalah juga yang mengakibatkan perpecahan Ummah.
(3) Dalam perbahasan dan debat, tentunya ada yang kalah dan ada yang menang, dan tak semestinya yang benar itu sentiasa dapat kemenangan sebab medan perbahasan tidak sama rata -
(a) ada pihak dapat ruang bahas lebih luas dari yang lain
(b) ada yang mempunyai kepetahan hujah yang lebih baik
(c) ada juga yang mendapat sokongan politik yang menguatkan bahas mereka
Justeru itu yang silap dan salah mungkin "menang" bahas. Lebih menyedihkan, sekiranya yang benar itu tewas, maka kebenaran sudah nampak kalah, dan keadaan ini akan di manipulasikan olih mereka yang mempunyai agenda tersendiri.
(4) Dalam polimik yang melibatkan para ulama dan cendiakawan - sama ada terlibat langsung atau dilibatkan - kita sebenarnya melaga-lagakan mereka sesama sendiri, dan lantaran itu, menjatuhkan status 'ulama selaku pewaris Rasul, apatah lagi diri mereka sendiri secara peribadi. Lantaran itu juga, pusat atau punca rujuk kita sudah di lemahkan. Terlalu ramai 'ulama dan cendiakawan yang telah menjadi mangsa polemik, yang telah kita musnahkan status 'ulama mereka sebab kita heret mereka mempertahankan hujah kita. Akibatnya apabila kita kalah, maka status mereka turut terjejas. Para penyokong pasukan-pasukan yang berdebat mungkin juga akan terbawa-bawa dengan emosi debat, hilang pedoman, hingga memomok-momokkan para 'ulama dan cendiakawan yang terlibat dan lantaran itu kesucian 'ilmu yang ada pada mereka itu turut terhina.
(5) Kita perlu sedar bahawa di setiap masa - sejak jenerasi Nabi Adam a.s. lagi - sudah ada yang engkar kepada Allah dan melanggar perentah Allah s.w.t., dan menjadi musuh Allah; apatah lagi di zaman kita sekarang. Dalam lain perkataan, kita perlu sentiasa waspada terhadap usaha-usaha musuh Islam dan Umamt memainkan jarum mereka, secara terbuka atau halus, dan jangn hendaknya kita memberi mereka peluang dan ruang memusnahkan kita melalui perbuatan dan tangan kita sendiri.
Saya berpengang pada dasar benar dan bijak; tak cukup hanya benar sahaja, kita perlu juga bijak - "We must be right and wise". Lantaran itu, isu-isu yang terbangkit sekarang, pada himat saya, wajarlah ditanggani secara tertutup hinggalah diumumkan secara bijak. Saya tidak menentang perbahas ilmu, apatah lagi perbincangan dan perbahasan yang mempertahankan kesucian Islam dan untuk kebaikan Umat tetapi perlulah dilakukan dengan bijak - benar dan bijak - di kalangan mereka yang ahli dalamnya, dan kemudiannya disampaikan keperingkat umum secara jelas dan mudah supaya dapat menjadi panduan dan amalan, atau pun sebagai ingatan dan nasihat.
Saya juga telah di hubungi oleh pemberita untuk memberi pendapat. Saya jawab, saya tak ikuti perkembangan ini dan tidak berminat terlibat dengannya sebab saya sedar bahawa jawapan saya sudah pasti akan menambahkan lagi kehangatan perang lidah ini - apa untungnya kepada Umat?
Mohon berbanyak maaf sekiranya tulisan saya ini menyinggung perasaan sesiapa. Saya hanya memohon agar semua pihak ambil kira emosi dan tahap iman and ilmu masyakat umum Malaysia, baik Islam atau pun bukan Islam, supaya Islam tidak jadi mangsa niat ikhlas dan murni mana-mana pihak.
18 Jun 2006
Seorang sarjana perbandingan agama
(1) Dalam kehangatan perang lidah, al-Qur'an dan Hadith, lantaran itu Allah, Rasulullah dan Islam akan diheret ke sana ke sini, ke hulu ke hilir, menjadi bahan untuk menang bahas dan debat. Bagi saya ini menjatuhkan kesucian Allah, Rasulullah dan Islam walau pun niat awalnya, dan mungkin juga seterusnya, adalah untuk memuliakan mereka dan mempertahankan kesucian Islam. Pada umumnya tidak ada sesiapa pun mempunyai niat buruk, baik yang menyokong atau yang menentang, tapi sayangnya, dan amat menyedihkan, kerana di-akhirnya inilah akibatnya.
(2) Polemik mengundang polarisasi sebab yang terlibat dan yang mendengar pasti akan memiihak, menyebelahi salah satu pasukan yang berdebat. Dalam perbahasan, tentunya ada penyokong dan ada penentang - maka berpecahlah Umat. Ia juga menjadi amat pelik apabila mereka yang melaungkan penyatuan Ummah dan perpaduan Ummah adalah juga yang mengakibatkan perpecahan Ummah.
(3) Dalam perbahasan dan debat, tentunya ada yang kalah dan ada yang menang, dan tak semestinya yang benar itu sentiasa dapat kemenangan sebab medan perbahasan tidak sama rata -
(a) ada pihak dapat ruang bahas lebih luas dari yang lain
(b) ada yang mempunyai kepetahan hujah yang lebih baik
(c) ada juga yang mendapat sokongan politik yang menguatkan bahas mereka
Justeru itu yang silap dan salah mungkin "menang" bahas. Lebih menyedihkan, sekiranya yang benar itu tewas, maka kebenaran sudah nampak kalah, dan keadaan ini akan di manipulasikan olih mereka yang mempunyai agenda tersendiri.
(4) Dalam polimik yang melibatkan para ulama dan cendiakawan - sama ada terlibat langsung atau dilibatkan - kita sebenarnya melaga-lagakan mereka sesama sendiri, dan lantaran itu, menjatuhkan status 'ulama selaku pewaris Rasul, apatah lagi diri mereka sendiri secara peribadi. Lantaran itu juga, pusat atau punca rujuk kita sudah di lemahkan. Terlalu ramai 'ulama dan cendiakawan yang telah menjadi mangsa polemik, yang telah kita musnahkan status 'ulama mereka sebab kita heret mereka mempertahankan hujah kita. Akibatnya apabila kita kalah, maka status mereka turut terjejas. Para penyokong pasukan-pasukan yang berdebat mungkin juga akan terbawa-bawa dengan emosi debat, hilang pedoman, hingga memomok-momokkan para 'ulama dan cendiakawan yang terlibat dan lantaran itu kesucian 'ilmu yang ada pada mereka itu turut terhina.
(5) Kita perlu sedar bahawa di setiap masa - sejak jenerasi Nabi Adam a.s. lagi - sudah ada yang engkar kepada Allah dan melanggar perentah Allah s.w.t., dan menjadi musuh Allah; apatah lagi di zaman kita sekarang. Dalam lain perkataan, kita perlu sentiasa waspada terhadap usaha-usaha musuh Islam dan Umamt memainkan jarum mereka, secara terbuka atau halus, dan jangn hendaknya kita memberi mereka peluang dan ruang memusnahkan kita melalui perbuatan dan tangan kita sendiri.
Saya berpengang pada dasar benar dan bijak; tak cukup hanya benar sahaja, kita perlu juga bijak - "We must be right and wise". Lantaran itu, isu-isu yang terbangkit sekarang, pada himat saya, wajarlah ditanggani secara tertutup hinggalah diumumkan secara bijak. Saya tidak menentang perbahas ilmu, apatah lagi perbincangan dan perbahasan yang mempertahankan kesucian Islam dan untuk kebaikan Umat tetapi perlulah dilakukan dengan bijak - benar dan bijak - di kalangan mereka yang ahli dalamnya, dan kemudiannya disampaikan keperingkat umum secara jelas dan mudah supaya dapat menjadi panduan dan amalan, atau pun sebagai ingatan dan nasihat.
Saya juga telah di hubungi oleh pemberita untuk memberi pendapat. Saya jawab, saya tak ikuti perkembangan ini dan tidak berminat terlibat dengannya sebab saya sedar bahawa jawapan saya sudah pasti akan menambahkan lagi kehangatan perang lidah ini - apa untungnya kepada Umat?
Mohon berbanyak maaf sekiranya tulisan saya ini menyinggung perasaan sesiapa. Saya hanya memohon agar semua pihak ambil kira emosi dan tahap iman and ilmu masyakat umum Malaysia, baik Islam atau pun bukan Islam, supaya Islam tidak jadi mangsa niat ikhlas dan murni mana-mana pihak.
18 Jun 2006
Seorang sarjana perbandingan agama
How We Perpetuate The Myths Of Empire
‘Amok’ Season Again: How We Perpetuate The Myths Of Empire
Farish A. Noor
Ho hum... Another day, another amok.
Perhaps it is no longer possible for us to wish for an UMNO General
Assembly where the delegates would refrain from uttering the same
lamentable slogan of ‘Malays in danger’. Perhaps it is too late for us
to imagine of an UMNO assembly where the keris would not be unsheathed
in public, accompanied by the familiar rhetoric of blood and belonging.
Perhaps it is too late for us to hope that one day the leaders of UMNO
would grow up and leave behind the colonial construction of the Malays
of the past.
The recent UMNO General Assembly proved to be the predictable letdown
that many had expected it to be. Despite the appeals of the leader of
the party, and his reminder that Malaysia’s struggle for independence
was a collective effort on the part of all communities, the baying
echoes of the Malay heartland resonated time and again. The keris was
unsheathed and stabbed heavenwards; and all talk was of insidious
‘threats’ and ‘conspiracies’ against the Malay race.
Forgotten was the simple fact that the category of Malayness itself was
a colonial construct in the first place. And likewise forgotten was
the fact that the racialised politics of exclusive communitarianism
dates back to the bad old days of Empire. ‘Melayu mudah lupa’ was the
old adage, though how true the saying is, is questionable considering
how some Malays have never forgotten how to play to the gallery
whenever it suits them.
In the midst of this, the reproduction of the Malay archetype goes on
in earnest. As the UMNO delegates bemoaned the fate of the Malays,
every conceivable stereotype and cliché was brought out of the closet
and put to work. Our former colonial masters would have been proud:
After a century of colonial indoctrination, the Malays (of UMNO at
least) have finally internalised the myth of the irrational, backward
and lazy Malay as never before. One is reminded of the words of Frank
Swettenham who described this as the land of the amok. In his words:
“Malaya, land of the pirate and the amok, your secrets have been well
guarded, but the enemy has at last passed your gate, and soon the
irresistible juggernaut of Progress will have penetrated to your
remotest fastness, ‘civilised’ your people, and stamped them with the
seal of a higher morality.”(1)
Former UMNO leader Mohamad Rahmat was among the first off the starting
post when he uttered the dreaded A-word: “Don’t test the Malays, they
know ‘amok’”. Melaka delegate Hasnoor Sidang Hussein added more blood
to the feast when he bluntly stated, “UMNO is willing to risk lives and
bathe in blood in defence of race and religion.” UMNO Youth Exco
member Azimi Daim added, “When tension rises, the blood of Malay
warriors will run in our veins,” (Prompting the obvious question:
What happens when there is no tension? Whose blood is running in their
veins then?) But the first prize for grandstanding has to go to Perlis
delegate Hashim Suboh who directed his question to UMNO leader
Hishamuddin Onn: “Datuk Hisham has unsheathed his keris, waved his
keris, kissed his keris. We want to ask Datuk Hisham: when is he going
to use it?”
The threat of going keris-waving bloody amok has become so commonplace
by now that we have grown accustomed to it. Ranked alongside other
familiar threats like the recurrence of ‘May 13’ or yet another
‘Operasi Lalang’, the ever-present threat of the Malays going amok is
now seen as part and parcel of the political vocabulary of Malaysia and
Malaysian politicians in particular. Blood and violence have become
part of our political language.
Yet how many of these great ‘defenders’ of the race, who are willing to
spill blood (whose blood, one wonders?) in defence of their race, are
aware of the long-term implications of their words and deeds? How many
of these great communitarians are aware of the simple fact that with
every reiteration of the threat of amok, the stereotype of the
irrational Malay is being sedimented and hegemonised? During cheerless
times such as these it would pay to take a trip back down memory lane
and look at how the ideology of racialised politics and racial
stereotypes were first introduced to the Malaysian imagery.
The phenomenon of amok is and has been seen as something particular and
specific to the peoples of the Malay Archipelago. Indeed, writings on
the phenomenon date back to the 16th century, beginning with the first
European encounters with the peoples of the region. From the start, it
was argued by many an Orientalist scholar, the Malay people were
essentially an irrational, emotional and highly-strung race. The
introduction of the pseudo-scientific concept of ‘Race’ (a crucial tool
in the ideological construction of the colonised “Other” which
justified the divisive and hierarchical politics of Empire) was made
possible with the attribution of certain essentialist traits to the
colonised subjects themselves. In the case of the Malays, the
phenomenon of amok was seized upon as that all-important debilitating
factor that subsequently justified paternalistic colonisation of this
weaker, irrational and emotional ‘race’ of human beings…
During the British colonial era, colonial functionaries and
administrators in Malaya conducted their affairs with the Malays
according to their own decidedly jaundiced understanding of Malay
culture, politics and history.(2) To further reinforce the general
observations made about the Malays, the colonial authorities also
relied upon pseudo-scientific instruments like ethnographic studies and
the population census which were employed to help locate and identify
the different native groupings and rank them according to the violent
hierarchy of colonial discourse. Alongside the claims of the governors
and architects of Empire, the Eurocentric theories of racial scientists
and social Darwinists added scientific credibility and justification to
the policies of divide et impera that were being implemented in the
colonies and were translated into political realities through the
creation of a racially segregated and stratified plural society.
As Alatas (1977) and Winzeler (1990) have shown, colonial studies of
Malay characteristics and cultural practices were often used to justify
paternalistic attitude towards the colonised Malay subjects. Malay
cultural traits such as amok, latah and others were superficially
studied and documented, with undue emphasis on the more sensational
aspects of the phenomenon.(3) Such studies were also used to further
consolidate the belief that the Malays as a people were culturally and
genetically inferior to their Western rulers due to their (Malays) weak
character. The stereotype of the child-like, unstable and unreliable
Malay was thus developed on all possible levels and in all possible
spheres: from orientalist literature to ‘serious’ academic studies,
from the field of health and welfare to public housing and town
planning. So pervasive and influential were the beliefs regarding the
culturally and environmentally-determined defects of the Malays that
they would endure even up to the postcolonial era in the perceptions of
Europeans and Asians alike.(4)
So when UMNO leaders of today reach for their kerises and mouth their
slogans of blood and defiance, are they aware of the fact that their
very rhetoric bears the stains of a colonial anthropology and ethnology
which were part and parcel of the colonial construction of the Malays?
Having accepted the simplified colonial construction of the Malays as a
fixed, static, essentialised ‘race’, are these leaders prepared to
perpetuate these colonial fictions just a while longer? It is ironic,
to say the least, that the very party that claims the right to wear the
mantle of anti-colonialism in Malaysia should be the one that protects
and preserves the colonial heritage the longest. Every time a Malay
leader utters the threat of yet another bloody amok in the streets, one
cannot help but hear the scornful laughter of the colonial
administrators of the past, trailing away in the distance, harping back
to the days when the Malays were cast as that irrational race, going
amok at the drop of a hat….
Dr Farish A Noor is a Malaysian political scientist and human rights
activist. Visit his website at www.othermalaysia.org
Endnotes:
(1) See: Frank A Swettenham: ‘Malay Sketches’. The Bodley Head,
London. 1895.
(2) See: : S. H. Alatas, ‘The Myth of the Lazy Native: A Study of the
Image of the Malays, Filipinos and Javanese from the 16th to the 20th
century and Its Function in Colonial Capitalism’, Frank Cass
Publishers, London, 1977.
(3) See: Alatas (1977) and Robert Winzeler, ‘Malayan Amok and Latah
as ‘History Bound’ syndromes’, in ‘The Underside of Malaysian History :
Pullers, Prostitutes, Plantation Workers’, Edited by Peter J. Rimmer &
Lisa M. Allen 1990.
(4) As late as the year 1960, European social scientists and
academics would still be lamenting the fate of the ‘disabled’ Malays.
In his survey for the Fabian Society, the socialist leader John Lowe
described the Malays as ‘an unsophisticated, technically underdeveloped
rural people’ (pg. 1) As far as the Malay race was concerned, Lowe’s
condemnation of them was a blanket one: ‘The mass of the Malay
peasantry are traditionalist, suspicious and often superstitious,
offering formidable resistance to change’ (pg. 22). [See: John Lowe,
‘The Malayan Experiment’. Fabian International and Commonwealth Bureau.
Research Series no. 213. The Fabian Society, London. 1960.]
Farish A. Noor
Ho hum... Another day, another amok.
Perhaps it is no longer possible for us to wish for an UMNO General
Assembly where the delegates would refrain from uttering the same
lamentable slogan of ‘Malays in danger’. Perhaps it is too late for us
to imagine of an UMNO assembly where the keris would not be unsheathed
in public, accompanied by the familiar rhetoric of blood and belonging.
Perhaps it is too late for us to hope that one day the leaders of UMNO
would grow up and leave behind the colonial construction of the Malays
of the past.
The recent UMNO General Assembly proved to be the predictable letdown
that many had expected it to be. Despite the appeals of the leader of
the party, and his reminder that Malaysia’s struggle for independence
was a collective effort on the part of all communities, the baying
echoes of the Malay heartland resonated time and again. The keris was
unsheathed and stabbed heavenwards; and all talk was of insidious
‘threats’ and ‘conspiracies’ against the Malay race.
Forgotten was the simple fact that the category of Malayness itself was
a colonial construct in the first place. And likewise forgotten was
the fact that the racialised politics of exclusive communitarianism
dates back to the bad old days of Empire. ‘Melayu mudah lupa’ was the
old adage, though how true the saying is, is questionable considering
how some Malays have never forgotten how to play to the gallery
whenever it suits them.
In the midst of this, the reproduction of the Malay archetype goes on
in earnest. As the UMNO delegates bemoaned the fate of the Malays,
every conceivable stereotype and cliché was brought out of the closet
and put to work. Our former colonial masters would have been proud:
After a century of colonial indoctrination, the Malays (of UMNO at
least) have finally internalised the myth of the irrational, backward
and lazy Malay as never before. One is reminded of the words of Frank
Swettenham who described this as the land of the amok. In his words:
“Malaya, land of the pirate and the amok, your secrets have been well
guarded, but the enemy has at last passed your gate, and soon the
irresistible juggernaut of Progress will have penetrated to your
remotest fastness, ‘civilised’ your people, and stamped them with the
seal of a higher morality.”(1)
Former UMNO leader Mohamad Rahmat was among the first off the starting
post when he uttered the dreaded A-word: “Don’t test the Malays, they
know ‘amok’”. Melaka delegate Hasnoor Sidang Hussein added more blood
to the feast when he bluntly stated, “UMNO is willing to risk lives and
bathe in blood in defence of race and religion.” UMNO Youth Exco
member Azimi Daim added, “When tension rises, the blood of Malay
warriors will run in our veins,” (Prompting the obvious question:
What happens when there is no tension? Whose blood is running in their
veins then?) But the first prize for grandstanding has to go to Perlis
delegate Hashim Suboh who directed his question to UMNO leader
Hishamuddin Onn: “Datuk Hisham has unsheathed his keris, waved his
keris, kissed his keris. We want to ask Datuk Hisham: when is he going
to use it?”
The threat of going keris-waving bloody amok has become so commonplace
by now that we have grown accustomed to it. Ranked alongside other
familiar threats like the recurrence of ‘May 13’ or yet another
‘Operasi Lalang’, the ever-present threat of the Malays going amok is
now seen as part and parcel of the political vocabulary of Malaysia and
Malaysian politicians in particular. Blood and violence have become
part of our political language.
Yet how many of these great ‘defenders’ of the race, who are willing to
spill blood (whose blood, one wonders?) in defence of their race, are
aware of the long-term implications of their words and deeds? How many
of these great communitarians are aware of the simple fact that with
every reiteration of the threat of amok, the stereotype of the
irrational Malay is being sedimented and hegemonised? During cheerless
times such as these it would pay to take a trip back down memory lane
and look at how the ideology of racialised politics and racial
stereotypes were first introduced to the Malaysian imagery.
The phenomenon of amok is and has been seen as something particular and
specific to the peoples of the Malay Archipelago. Indeed, writings on
the phenomenon date back to the 16th century, beginning with the first
European encounters with the peoples of the region. From the start, it
was argued by many an Orientalist scholar, the Malay people were
essentially an irrational, emotional and highly-strung race. The
introduction of the pseudo-scientific concept of ‘Race’ (a crucial tool
in the ideological construction of the colonised “Other” which
justified the divisive and hierarchical politics of Empire) was made
possible with the attribution of certain essentialist traits to the
colonised subjects themselves. In the case of the Malays, the
phenomenon of amok was seized upon as that all-important debilitating
factor that subsequently justified paternalistic colonisation of this
weaker, irrational and emotional ‘race’ of human beings…
During the British colonial era, colonial functionaries and
administrators in Malaya conducted their affairs with the Malays
according to their own decidedly jaundiced understanding of Malay
culture, politics and history.(2) To further reinforce the general
observations made about the Malays, the colonial authorities also
relied upon pseudo-scientific instruments like ethnographic studies and
the population census which were employed to help locate and identify
the different native groupings and rank them according to the violent
hierarchy of colonial discourse. Alongside the claims of the governors
and architects of Empire, the Eurocentric theories of racial scientists
and social Darwinists added scientific credibility and justification to
the policies of divide et impera that were being implemented in the
colonies and were translated into political realities through the
creation of a racially segregated and stratified plural society.
As Alatas (1977) and Winzeler (1990) have shown, colonial studies of
Malay characteristics and cultural practices were often used to justify
paternalistic attitude towards the colonised Malay subjects. Malay
cultural traits such as amok, latah and others were superficially
studied and documented, with undue emphasis on the more sensational
aspects of the phenomenon.(3) Such studies were also used to further
consolidate the belief that the Malays as a people were culturally and
genetically inferior to their Western rulers due to their (Malays) weak
character. The stereotype of the child-like, unstable and unreliable
Malay was thus developed on all possible levels and in all possible
spheres: from orientalist literature to ‘serious’ academic studies,
from the field of health and welfare to public housing and town
planning. So pervasive and influential were the beliefs regarding the
culturally and environmentally-determined defects of the Malays that
they would endure even up to the postcolonial era in the perceptions of
Europeans and Asians alike.(4)
So when UMNO leaders of today reach for their kerises and mouth their
slogans of blood and defiance, are they aware of the fact that their
very rhetoric bears the stains of a colonial anthropology and ethnology
which were part and parcel of the colonial construction of the Malays?
Having accepted the simplified colonial construction of the Malays as a
fixed, static, essentialised ‘race’, are these leaders prepared to
perpetuate these colonial fictions just a while longer? It is ironic,
to say the least, that the very party that claims the right to wear the
mantle of anti-colonialism in Malaysia should be the one that protects
and preserves the colonial heritage the longest. Every time a Malay
leader utters the threat of yet another bloody amok in the streets, one
cannot help but hear the scornful laughter of the colonial
administrators of the past, trailing away in the distance, harping back
to the days when the Malays were cast as that irrational race, going
amok at the drop of a hat….
Dr Farish A Noor is a Malaysian political scientist and human rights
activist. Visit his website at www.othermalaysia.org
Endnotes:
(1) See: Frank A Swettenham: ‘Malay Sketches’. The Bodley Head,
London. 1895.
(2) See: : S. H. Alatas, ‘The Myth of the Lazy Native: A Study of the
Image of the Malays, Filipinos and Javanese from the 16th to the 20th
century and Its Function in Colonial Capitalism’, Frank Cass
Publishers, London, 1977.
(3) See: Alatas (1977) and Robert Winzeler, ‘Malayan Amok and Latah
as ‘History Bound’ syndromes’, in ‘The Underside of Malaysian History :
Pullers, Prostitutes, Plantation Workers’, Edited by Peter J. Rimmer &
Lisa M. Allen 1990.
(4) As late as the year 1960, European social scientists and
academics would still be lamenting the fate of the ‘disabled’ Malays.
In his survey for the Fabian Society, the socialist leader John Lowe
described the Malays as ‘an unsophisticated, technically underdeveloped
rural people’ (pg. 1) As far as the Malay race was concerned, Lowe’s
condemnation of them was a blanket one: ‘The mass of the Malay
peasantry are traditionalist, suspicious and often superstitious,
offering formidable resistance to change’ (pg. 22). [See: John Lowe,
‘The Malayan Experiment’. Fabian International and Commonwealth Bureau.
Research Series no. 213. The Fabian Society, London. 1960.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)