Wednesday, 18 March 2009
Commissions were paid to an agent for the procurement of submarines through the Defence Ministry, Najib (then) being the defence minister. It is unthinkable that he had no knowledge that the agent was his adviser and aide, Abdul Razak Baginda. The commission paid out was exceedingly large, in excess of RM400 million.
This is the second time I have been invited to address a Rotary Club. Thank you for the honour. Given the times we live in, perhaps it might be appropriate for me to speak about the leadership transition that has been foisted upon us Malaysians.
I say ‘foisted’ because neither me nor anyone in this room had any role or say in the choice of the person who will lead Malaysia next. We were mere bystanders in a political chess game. And yet the transition is a subject of great consequence to the nation, one I would say is of great national interest.
Leadership is definitive; the individual who assumes the mantle of leadership of this nation, whomever that may be, is one who for better or worse will leave his mark on us. His will be the hand who guides us to greater success, or possibly gut-wrenching disaster.
Save for the dawn of Merdeka, never in the history of this country has the choice of prime minister been so crucial: Malaysia is in crisis. We are facing tremendous economic challenges with unavoidably harsh socio-political consequences. Our much undermined democracy is once again being assailed by those who would prefer a more autocratic form of governance.
Our public institutions are hollowed out caricatures, unable to distinguish vested party interests from national ones, unable to offer the man in the street refuge from the powerful and connected. Our social fabric that took us from colony to an independent nation and on through the obstacles of nation building has reached a point where it sometimes feel like we are hanging on by a thread. This is the Malaysia we live in.
PM’s resignation ill-fated
This is the Malaysia which Abdullah Ahmad Badawi leaves behind. Our prime minister will resign later this month - an ill-fated decision. I say ill-fated not because he has been a great prime minister and we would lose irreplaceable leadership, that is regrettably not the case as all things said and done, Abdullah could have done much more for Malaysia.
Rather, I say that his resignation is ill-fated because his departure will expose the country to forces which may take us down the road of perdition faster than ever. Much has been said of Pak Lah being a weak leader. However, what his critics have not adequately addressed are the consequences of replacing him as prime minister with the anticipated incoming president of Umno, Najib (Abdul) Razak.
It is an undeniable truth that the average Malaysian is anxious about the anticipated transition. Many would prefer it did not happen.
There are two reasons why this is so. The first has to do with the reasoning underlying Umno’s demand for the transition itself. The second has to do with Najib personally.
We must recall that after the 2008 general election - a great success for the nation but a fiasco for Umno – one of the chief complaints by the powers-that-be within Umno was that Abdullah’s feeble leadership led to the concept of Ketuanan Melayu being challenged and ultimately undermined.
His critics also lashed out at him for the latitude given to civil society, a move which they believed weakened a key aspect of Umno’s political leverage. It followed in Umno’s mind that in order to regain lost ground, it was necessary to reassert its ideology with greater strength.
There was nostalgia for Mahathir’s heavy-handed style of leadership and a return to the times when the party cowed many into subservience and submission.The conservatives in Umno yearned for a return to Mahathirism, hoping that it would become a cornerstone of the leadership transition plan. There has been much speculation and punditry on whether a return to the Mahathir era would be good for Malaysia.
Difference between then and now
Let me offer some of my own insight to this debate. The major difference between then and now is this: in most instances, Mahathir was harsh and dictatorial if he believed it was good for the country. But an authoritarian style of government under anyone else would be dictated by the need for self preservation and very little about the country’s interest.
The evidence is all around us. After March 8, (2008) when the prime minister ceased being the home minister, the threats of reprisal have escalated and a climate of fear re-cultivated. The detention of Raja Petra Kamarudin, Teresa Kok and Tan Hoong Cheng exemplify this turn for the worse, this appetite to use the sledgehammer.
The shameful power grab in Perak and wanton disregard for public opinion over how BN wrested control of the silver state make many people shudder at the prospect of a return to the dark days. If that was not depressing enough, we have had to bear witness to the police and the newly-minted Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) displaying their allegiance and support to the BN when all we needed and craved for were honest brokers.
It stands to reason that in the mind of the average Malaysian, having suffered a significant loss last March, Umno is on a rampage to regain what it lost by any method available and the man who is expected to lead it to victory is the man who succeeds Abdullah: Najib (Abdul) Razak.
A prime minister must have the confidence of the majority of the rakyat. In order for this to be the case, his integrity must be beyond question; not only must he be such a person character, he must be seen to be such a person. The office of prime minister is one of great trust, he who holds that office cradles the nation in his palms.
For this to be the case, there cannot be anything in the mind of the greater public that, correctly or otherwise, associates him with matters of criminality, wrongful action, improper conduct or abuses of power. In short, he must be beyond reproach in his dealings both official and private.
Without intending any accusation, it is regrettable that in the collective mind of the rakyat, Najib is not such a person. If a referendum were to be conducted on the subject or if the prime minister was to be elected directly by the rakyat, I do not think Najib would succeed. The reason for this is obvious: the rakyat has doubts, fuelled by the unanswered allegations against him and his unwillingness to confront these allegations.
It is not a mere trifle in the minds of the rakyat that despite a direct challenge from a member of parliament in the august House recently, the deputy prime minister remained silent, not even denying the implicit accusation made against him and demanding that it be repeated outside the chamber in the tried and tested method of refutation employed by parliamentarians throughout the world.
It has not assisted the cause of the incoming prime minister that the MP concerned was suspended for a year on a motion tabled by a fellow minister without the member having been afforded an opportunity to defend his position.
Evidence of SMS text-messages
Consider this. Commissions were paid to an agent for the procurement of submarines through the Defence Ministry, Najib (then) being the defence minister. It is unthinkable that he had no knowledge that the agent was his adviser and aide, Abdul Razak Baginda. The commission paid out was exceedingly large, in excess of RM400 million.
The defence minister was dutybound to direct enquiries to see if there had been any impropriety in the way the contracts were awarded when news of the commission surfaced; after all the price of the submarines would be considerably lower without the need for such commissions.
Taxpayers, you and I, have paid for those submarines at a price that in all probability factored in the commission. Taxpayers are yet to be told of an inquiry let alone the result of such an inquiry.Consider the Altantuya Shaariibuu affair. A young woman was brutally murdered, her corpse destroyed by explosives.
These explosives are not the usual type of explosives, yet no inquiry was held to determine how they were available to these killers. Those accused of her murder are police officers serving in the Unit Tindakan Khas, a highly specialised unit who amongst other things serve as bodyguards to the prime minister and the deputy prime minister.
Amidst evidence that the accused were employed to protect the PM and the DPM, they were directed to (Abdul) Razak Baginda through the aide of the deputy prime minister. Amongst other things, we have heard of the senior investigating officer admitting that the deputy prime minister was an important witness and yet no statement was taken.
It is not unreasonable to think that this is irregular, more so when evidence of SMS text-messages from the deputy prime minister concerning material matters have surfaced. The text-messages cannot be ignored, proverbially swept under the carpet.
Even if they do not establish - or are not capable of establishing - any culpability on the part of Najib, these issues must be addressed.
The air must be cleared, it is thick with accusations and doubts which can only undermine the office of the prime minister if he were to assume it. The deputy prime minister’s cause has not been aided by the fact that charges were preferred against (Abdul) Razak Baginda only after public outcry, the manner in which the prosecution was conducted and the decision of the High Court acquitting (Abdul) Razak Baginda not having been appealed.
Power grab an unmitigated disaster
The Perak affair was an unmitigated disaster for the nation. It is no secret that Najib led the charge there and is still overseeing matters.
In the minds of Malaysians, Perak is synonymous with the deputy prime minister. They now equate him with the high-handed tactics that were employed to seize power, tactics that included the disappearances of the three crucial assemblypersons and the blockading of the legislative assembly by the police.
In doing so, they equate the DPM with the hijacking of democracy, the only persons saying otherwise being those persons who have associations with Umno. In their minds, no responsible leader would allow for the undermining of the institutions of state and the constitution of this nation.
They ask, rightly so, whether this is the kind of leadership that Malaysians can expect from Najib when he becomes the prime minister.
With all of this, and more, how are we not to feel anxious? How are we to sleep peacefully at night? I know that I cannot. The situation is desperate and the air is pregnant with tension. We need the state of affairs to be resolved in a way that is in the best interests of the nation and the rakyat.
To an extent, this is a matter for the Barisan Nasional. I urge its members to put politics aside and think things through. We all want a better future, a safer and more prosperous life for our children, all of them, a Malaysia where our children can reach for the stars with the certainty that there is nothing to stop them from being the Malaysians they want to be.
Let the king be kingmaker
I do not believe that the Barisan Nasional will do what is necessary. Politics has a tendency of making those who embrace it cynical. The answer lies elsewhere, with His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
In this case, His Majesty plays the role of ‘kingmaker’. The discretion to appoint the prime minister who succeeds Abdullah lies with His Majesty. Though His Majesty is required under the constitution to appoint the person who commands the confidence of the majority of the members of parliament, it is a matter for His Majesty’s judgment.
Never before has such a heavy burden being laid on His Majesty to make a brave and correct choice.
For King and country, I urge His Majesty to take into consideration the prerequisites to appointment and the concerns of the rakyat. There is no constitutional obligation on His Majesty to appoint the president of Umno as the prime minister. There are still well qualified members of parliament from Umno who can be appointed PM to bring us back from the brink.
Malaysia needs someone who the rakyat can throw their weight behind without reservation. Someone they can trust and respect. Someone who has no scandal to distract him and thereby gain respect from the international community.
These are difficult times and be prepared for worst times to visit us. Malaysia needs a leader who will unite the country in the face of the adversity. Divided, we are weak. I am loath to say it, but for the reasons I have set out am compelled to say that Najib will most certainly divide us and in doing so, will nudge us closer to the edge.
Some of you may say that all efforts to promote the national interest are at this stage an exercise in futility. If truth be told, I am tempted to slip into cynical hopelessness too. I am fighting the temptation to give up for one simple reason: Malaysia and all that it represents. This is a blessed country, a country too valuable for us to turn our backs on.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Monday, March 9, 2009
True Stories from Bolehland!
- by James Chin
This is Malaysia, right? Bolehland, where if you know the right people, everything is possible. Strange stories of incredible things have happened in Bolehland. Bolehland is a “can do” attitude that we must all be proud of. Anything and everything is possible.
Just like Singapore with its “Kiasu” – afraid to lose – attitude, Bolehland means there are no obstacles too hard or difficult to overcome.
We like to laugh at the Singaporeans and their kiasu ways but I must say we are better off than our pesky neighbour since our antics are far superior to theirs.
I say this because there are a few stories in the past few weeks that confirmed that you can only make it if you have the right Bolehland attitude.
I shall repeat these stories here purely for illustration purposes. I do not know if they are true or not but all have been widely reported. Again, I need to stress I am merely repeating these allegations.
Case 1. Do you know that you have to see the Prime Minister to get a Perodua dealership? I am not kidding. It seems that a Perodua dealership is a licence to print money so only the highest political office can grant this patronage.
Don't believe me? Kindly refer to the press conference and confession by Chithirakala Vasu who thanked the great MIC leader for going to Tun Dr Mahathir, then the prime minister, to help her husband to get a Perodua dealership. Is it any wonder that our PM is always short of time since he has to deal with things like Perodua dealership?
Case 2. According to the French newspaper, Leberation (5th March 2009), a Malaysian company called Perimaker received 114 million euros (about RM500 million plus) for “support and coordination services” in a submarine deal made by the government.
It looks like the government cannot buy direct like most countries but must use a middlemen or company to buy submarines. No wonder every ambitious person I meet nowadays called themselves “consultant” since talking can net you RM500 million plus. My Hokkien friends tell me that in Bolehland, the most senior consultants are called “kantow-tants”.
Case 3. One Bahasa daily devoted a full page to the phenomenon of Malay men who leave their wives for “pondan” (transvestite) lovers. The Pertubuhan Kebaijkan Sahabat Insan Malaysia (Sidim) chairman had apparentl had received many complaints from wives whose husbands had left them for she-male lovers.
No doubt, after detailed investigations and scientific surveys, the blame for the husbands’ pondan leanings will be on the wives’ attitude. The chairman advised wives to “take care of your husbands’ hearts ... pamper them ... because in these cases some husbands say that they fall in with transvestites because they get extra services, and transvestites are more devoted than their own wives."
Now all these while I was under the impression – and I have heard our highest ranked politician say it a few times – Malaysia is an Islamic country.
So how can there be a “pondan” problem among the Muslim community? What are the police doing about this national security problem? Don’t they know that the fertility rate among Malays may be affected if nothing is done to stop this problem?
What happened to Wanita Umno or Puteri Umno? Do they agree that pondan issue is due to the wives?
Case No 4. On Feb 26, all drivers in the Klang Valley were hot under the collar when it was announced that toll rates would go up. Within 24 hours, the cabinet had reversed the decision. There was great joy in the streets. The government was listening to the “rakyat”. The “rakyat” can “save” on toll.
I don’t know about you, but if you had read the story carefully, it says although there is no toll increase, the government will compensate (actually, it means pay) the highway concessionaires millions of ringgit in lieu of the toll increase.
So, who lost? The toll operators have millions without collecting and money comes from the taxpayers. No wonder drivers are celebrating that the government is “listening” to the “rakyat”. I wonder how much it will cost the taxpayers like you and me everytime the government listens to the “rakyat”.
Case No 5. Jelapang ADUN Hee Yit Foong’s first public appearance at her service centre since leaving the DAP was on March 7, apparently to meet a constituent over complaints on drainage problems.
I salute her for her commitment to look after the longkang issues. If ADUNs do not look after longkang, they might do silly things like causing the fall of state government.
What I don’t understand is why did she arrive in a silver Mercedes-Benz? In Bolehland, apparently if you have a chance to sit and enjoy a drive in a Merc, you must do it.
After all, what sort of self-respecting ADUN would be seen in anything less than a Merc or Camry? The lowest one can accept is, of course, a Proton Perdana but then again, it might break down with gearbox problems outside your service centre. Then, how to escape?
It does not matter that people suspect you of winning a blue dacing lottery ticket with tons of money suddenly. You simply must show up in a Merc to confirm the story. The DAP really made a mistake by not appointing such a smart person as State Exco earlier. What talent!
James Chin is a Malaysian academic. The views expressed here are his own and do not reflect the views of institutions he is associated with. He can be contacted atJameschin1@gmail.com
This is Malaysia, right? Bolehland, where if you know the right people, everything is possible. Strange stories of incredible things have happened in Bolehland. Bolehland is a “can do” attitude that we must all be proud of. Anything and everything is possible.
Just like Singapore with its “Kiasu” – afraid to lose – attitude, Bolehland means there are no obstacles too hard or difficult to overcome.
We like to laugh at the Singaporeans and their kiasu ways but I must say we are better off than our pesky neighbour since our antics are far superior to theirs.
I say this because there are a few stories in the past few weeks that confirmed that you can only make it if you have the right Bolehland attitude.
I shall repeat these stories here purely for illustration purposes. I do not know if they are true or not but all have been widely reported. Again, I need to stress I am merely repeating these allegations.
Case 1. Do you know that you have to see the Prime Minister to get a Perodua dealership? I am not kidding. It seems that a Perodua dealership is a licence to print money so only the highest political office can grant this patronage.
Don't believe me? Kindly refer to the press conference and confession by Chithirakala Vasu who thanked the great MIC leader for going to Tun Dr Mahathir, then the prime minister, to help her husband to get a Perodua dealership. Is it any wonder that our PM is always short of time since he has to deal with things like Perodua dealership?
Case 2. According to the French newspaper, Leberation (5th March 2009), a Malaysian company called Perimaker received 114 million euros (about RM500 million plus) for “support and coordination services” in a submarine deal made by the government.
It looks like the government cannot buy direct like most countries but must use a middlemen or company to buy submarines. No wonder every ambitious person I meet nowadays called themselves “consultant” since talking can net you RM500 million plus. My Hokkien friends tell me that in Bolehland, the most senior consultants are called “kantow-tants”.
Case 3. One Bahasa daily devoted a full page to the phenomenon of Malay men who leave their wives for “pondan” (transvestite) lovers. The Pertubuhan Kebaijkan Sahabat Insan Malaysia (Sidim) chairman had apparentl had received many complaints from wives whose husbands had left them for she-male lovers.
No doubt, after detailed investigations and scientific surveys, the blame for the husbands’ pondan leanings will be on the wives’ attitude. The chairman advised wives to “take care of your husbands’ hearts ... pamper them ... because in these cases some husbands say that they fall in with transvestites because they get extra services, and transvestites are more devoted than their own wives."
Now all these while I was under the impression – and I have heard our highest ranked politician say it a few times – Malaysia is an Islamic country.
So how can there be a “pondan” problem among the Muslim community? What are the police doing about this national security problem? Don’t they know that the fertility rate among Malays may be affected if nothing is done to stop this problem?
What happened to Wanita Umno or Puteri Umno? Do they agree that pondan issue is due to the wives?
Case No 4. On Feb 26, all drivers in the Klang Valley were hot under the collar when it was announced that toll rates would go up. Within 24 hours, the cabinet had reversed the decision. There was great joy in the streets. The government was listening to the “rakyat”. The “rakyat” can “save” on toll.
I don’t know about you, but if you had read the story carefully, it says although there is no toll increase, the government will compensate (actually, it means pay) the highway concessionaires millions of ringgit in lieu of the toll increase.
So, who lost? The toll operators have millions without collecting and money comes from the taxpayers. No wonder drivers are celebrating that the government is “listening” to the “rakyat”. I wonder how much it will cost the taxpayers like you and me everytime the government listens to the “rakyat”.
Case No 5. Jelapang ADUN Hee Yit Foong’s first public appearance at her service centre since leaving the DAP was on March 7, apparently to meet a constituent over complaints on drainage problems.
I salute her for her commitment to look after the longkang issues. If ADUNs do not look after longkang, they might do silly things like causing the fall of state government.
What I don’t understand is why did she arrive in a silver Mercedes-Benz? In Bolehland, apparently if you have a chance to sit and enjoy a drive in a Merc, you must do it.
After all, what sort of self-respecting ADUN would be seen in anything less than a Merc or Camry? The lowest one can accept is, of course, a Proton Perdana but then again, it might break down with gearbox problems outside your service centre. Then, how to escape?
It does not matter that people suspect you of winning a blue dacing lottery ticket with tons of money suddenly. You simply must show up in a Merc to confirm the story. The DAP really made a mistake by not appointing such a smart person as State Exco earlier. What talent!
James Chin is a Malaysian academic. The views expressed here are his own and do not reflect the views of institutions he is associated with. He can be contacted atJameschin1@gmail.com
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Between Immigrants and Squatters! (Antara pendatang dam penumpang)
The writer is Syed Imran, an Arab-Malaysian born in Penang, Malaysia, an ex-Bernama journalist (1971-1998) and former press secretary to the Minister in PM’s Department. We received this through our email. It is a must read.
Antara pendatang dan penumpang
To begin with, I was quite reluctant to comment on the mess created by the statement made by Ahmad bin Ismail, the head of the Bukit Bendera, Pulau Pinang UMNO Division. Whether he made the statement in reference to Chinese Malaysians is no longer the question, as the issue has spread and has been hotly debated.
If it is not handled carefully and smartly, this issue could make clear water murky, giving opportunity to parties who are keen on seeing this country crash, not to mention falling into the hands of foreigners. In today’s borderless world, international electronic media coverage makes it difficult for any country to hide or deny any given event.
The main issue brought up by Ahmad Ismail revolves around the question of “squatters”, that is, that Chinese Malaysians are squatters in this country. He explained that he was referring to pre-independence days. However, it had hurt the sensitivity of the Chinese Malaysian community.
I don’t know Ahmad Ismail personally, but I was quite close to his late elder brother, Abdul Rahim Ismail, the owner of Rahim Construction Company that was once famous as an “Earth-Prince” (Bumiputra) construction firm in Pulau Pinang. I don’t know what has happened to the company after Abdul Rahim passed away.
Personally, I don’t agree with what Ahmad Ismail said for the following reasons.
To me, nearly 90 percent of Malaysians, especially those in the Peninsula, are immigrants, and all of us are actually squatters in the land of Allah anyways. We are anything but permanent owners, we are merely squatters. For example, I come from a family that squatted in this blessed land. My paternal grandfather and grandmother migrated from Mecca and Brunei, while my maternal grandmother came from Hadramut, Yaman. We are immigrants and squatters, as are almost everyone else in this country. As for Ahmad Ismail, he is also an immigrant having descended from an immigrant’s family who squatted in this country. Ahmad Ismail cannot deny the fact that his grandfather and grandmother moved from India to this country in search of a better life in this blessed land.
It is also the case with Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi whose maternal grandfather hailed from Guangdong in southern China. In short, Pak Lah’s grandfather, Allahyarhamah Kailan, whose name was Hasson Salleh or Hah Su Chiang, was an immigrant. He moved to Tanah Melayu from Guangdong in the mid-19th century. He stayed in Bayan Lepas as a rubber estate worker, a padi farmer and later became a diamond trader.
Najib Razak, Deputy Prime Minister, is also a descendant of an immigrant Bugis family that came from Sulawesi, Indonesia. Hishammudin Hussein cannot escape the fact that there is Turkish blood running through his veins.
The Malacca Malay sultanate was founded by an immigrant coming from Sumatra - Parameswara, a prince who practiced Hinduism. A reading of the history of Malay sultanates would reveal that some of them were founded by Bugis immigrants, while others were of Hadramut and Minangkabau parentage.
Almost all Malays living in this country are from outside Tanah Melayu, but are defined as “Malay Race” by the Federal Constitution. We are “Malay” in definition by the Constitution, that is, we are Muslims; we practice Malay customs and speak the Malay language. Unfortunately, the Malay language itself seems to have been killed by the Malays in UMNO when they named it the Malaysian language (Bahasa Malaysia).
Therefore, Arabs like Syed Hamid Albar and myself, Achehs like Sanusi Junid, Indians like Kader Sheikh Fadzir and Nor Mohamed Yakcop, Bugises like Najib, Minangs like Rais Yatim, Jawas like Mohamad Rahmat, and others from Madura, Pulau Buyan, Siam, Myanmar, Yunnan (China) and the Philippines are conveniently categorized as Malays.
They are accepted as Malays regardless of whether they speak Malay or otherwise at home like those of us who speak Arabic, the Jawas that speak Jawa, the Minangs that speak Minang, or the Mamak that speak Tamil.
These languages are anything but Malay if we look at it from the perspective of the Federal Constitution, so they should never have been declared Malays. But for the sake of political correctness, all of them are accepted as Malays and “Earth Princes” (bumiputra).
It is grossly unfair to point to the Chinese as immigrants when the Arabs, Indians, Achehs, Minangs, Bataks, Mandailings, Jawas, Maduras, and Bugises are immigrants no less in this country. We cannot deny the fact that most of the Chinese’s grandfathers and grandmothers migrated to this country in the days of the Malacca Malay sultanate, some of whom did so during the period of Kedah sultanate, Terengganu sultanate and Kelantan sultanate respectively. After Francis Light wrested Penang from the hands of the ruler of Kedah in 1786, more Chinese had arrived here.
We are all immigrants squatting in this country. Only the Negrito, Jakun, Semang, Jahut, Orang Laut, Orang Darat, Senoi, and other indigenous people groups (like the kadazan, dusuns, ibans and bidayuhs) can be correctly considered the original inhabitants of this country.
We must never forget the contributions and sacrifices made by all the races in building our nation in all its aspects, including the economy, social structure, national defense and, most importantly, national unity. We are all taxpayers whether or not we are descended from immigrants or squatters.
Antara pendatang dan penumpang
To begin with, I was quite reluctant to comment on the mess created by the statement made by Ahmad bin Ismail, the head of the Bukit Bendera, Pulau Pinang UMNO Division. Whether he made the statement in reference to Chinese Malaysians is no longer the question, as the issue has spread and has been hotly debated.
If it is not handled carefully and smartly, this issue could make clear water murky, giving opportunity to parties who are keen on seeing this country crash, not to mention falling into the hands of foreigners. In today’s borderless world, international electronic media coverage makes it difficult for any country to hide or deny any given event.
The main issue brought up by Ahmad Ismail revolves around the question of “squatters”, that is, that Chinese Malaysians are squatters in this country. He explained that he was referring to pre-independence days. However, it had hurt the sensitivity of the Chinese Malaysian community.
I don’t know Ahmad Ismail personally, but I was quite close to his late elder brother, Abdul Rahim Ismail, the owner of Rahim Construction Company that was once famous as an “Earth-Prince” (Bumiputra) construction firm in Pulau Pinang. I don’t know what has happened to the company after Abdul Rahim passed away.
Personally, I don’t agree with what Ahmad Ismail said for the following reasons.
To me, nearly 90 percent of Malaysians, especially those in the Peninsula, are immigrants, and all of us are actually squatters in the land of Allah anyways. We are anything but permanent owners, we are merely squatters. For example, I come from a family that squatted in this blessed land. My paternal grandfather and grandmother migrated from Mecca and Brunei, while my maternal grandmother came from Hadramut, Yaman. We are immigrants and squatters, as are almost everyone else in this country. As for Ahmad Ismail, he is also an immigrant having descended from an immigrant’s family who squatted in this country. Ahmad Ismail cannot deny the fact that his grandfather and grandmother moved from India to this country in search of a better life in this blessed land.
It is also the case with Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi whose maternal grandfather hailed from Guangdong in southern China. In short, Pak Lah’s grandfather, Allahyarhamah Kailan, whose name was Hasson Salleh or Hah Su Chiang, was an immigrant. He moved to Tanah Melayu from Guangdong in the mid-19th century. He stayed in Bayan Lepas as a rubber estate worker, a padi farmer and later became a diamond trader.
Najib Razak, Deputy Prime Minister, is also a descendant of an immigrant Bugis family that came from Sulawesi, Indonesia. Hishammudin Hussein cannot escape the fact that there is Turkish blood running through his veins.
The Malacca Malay sultanate was founded by an immigrant coming from Sumatra - Parameswara, a prince who practiced Hinduism. A reading of the history of Malay sultanates would reveal that some of them were founded by Bugis immigrants, while others were of Hadramut and Minangkabau parentage.
Almost all Malays living in this country are from outside Tanah Melayu, but are defined as “Malay Race” by the Federal Constitution. We are “Malay” in definition by the Constitution, that is, we are Muslims; we practice Malay customs and speak the Malay language. Unfortunately, the Malay language itself seems to have been killed by the Malays in UMNO when they named it the Malaysian language (Bahasa Malaysia).
Therefore, Arabs like Syed Hamid Albar and myself, Achehs like Sanusi Junid, Indians like Kader Sheikh Fadzir and Nor Mohamed Yakcop, Bugises like Najib, Minangs like Rais Yatim, Jawas like Mohamad Rahmat, and others from Madura, Pulau Buyan, Siam, Myanmar, Yunnan (China) and the Philippines are conveniently categorized as Malays.
They are accepted as Malays regardless of whether they speak Malay or otherwise at home like those of us who speak Arabic, the Jawas that speak Jawa, the Minangs that speak Minang, or the Mamak that speak Tamil.
These languages are anything but Malay if we look at it from the perspective of the Federal Constitution, so they should never have been declared Malays. But for the sake of political correctness, all of them are accepted as Malays and “Earth Princes” (bumiputra).
It is grossly unfair to point to the Chinese as immigrants when the Arabs, Indians, Achehs, Minangs, Bataks, Mandailings, Jawas, Maduras, and Bugises are immigrants no less in this country. We cannot deny the fact that most of the Chinese’s grandfathers and grandmothers migrated to this country in the days of the Malacca Malay sultanate, some of whom did so during the period of Kedah sultanate, Terengganu sultanate and Kelantan sultanate respectively. After Francis Light wrested Penang from the hands of the ruler of Kedah in 1786, more Chinese had arrived here.
We are all immigrants squatting in this country. Only the Negrito, Jakun, Semang, Jahut, Orang Laut, Orang Darat, Senoi, and other indigenous people groups (like the kadazan, dusuns, ibans and bidayuhs) can be correctly considered the original inhabitants of this country.
We must never forget the contributions and sacrifices made by all the races in building our nation in all its aspects, including the economy, social structure, national defense and, most importantly, national unity. We are all taxpayers whether or not we are descended from immigrants or squatters.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Law Today, Gone Tomorrow!
- The Dandelions
Were we all not amazed when David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear? The jaws of the world dropped – literary – at such magical feat. How did he do it? Perhaps David Copperfield was actually gifted with powers of the supernatural. Perhaps he dabbled in the occult.
But then, what is that compared to the kuasa sakti of our Home Minister, Syed Hamid Albar. With the flicker of his magical Harry Potter pen, he made law disappear. On January 21, he signed a directive under the Internal Security Act by way of gazette, allowing the conditional use of the word “Allah” in Christian publications. The gazette came into effect on February 16. On March 1, Syed Hamid Albar said that he would issue a fresh gazette to rescind the earlier gazette – the reason being – there were “mistakes” made in the drafting of the Feb 16 gazette.
This issue is in relation to the usage by the Catholic Church of the word “Allah” in their publication - the Catholic Herald. A legal suit was filed in the Kuala Lumpur High Court to challenge the ban by the government. In a surprising turn of event, Syed Hamid Albar issued the gazette allowing the use of the word “Allah”, provided there is a disclaimer to the effect that the words “For Christians” were clearly printed on the publications. But of course, this decision is now reversed, by reason of mistake.
I do not wish to dwell on the usage of the word “Allah”; let that be something for our dear courts to decide. I do wish to point out, however, of several foolish and unwarranted implications arising from this blunder from Syed Hamid Albar.
Firstly, how can someone make a “mistake” in issuing a directive, which later was put on print as gazette? Once a gazette is issued, it becomes law of the land, albeit subsidiary and secondary to the principal Act, the Internal Securities Act 1960. I don’t know the actual workings of the issuing of a gazette – but I’ve been made to understand that the document would have to be drafted and proof-read by at least 2 people and a committee before it could be signed by the minister.
So, who screwed up? The person who took wrong notes during the meeting? The AG’s Chambers who drafted the wordings of the gazette? The committee who was supposed to vet the document? The Minister, who was obviously half-asleep when he sign it? Or perhaps, it was the government printers, who took it upon themselves to print something else than what was instructed upon them?
In any event, it doesn’t appear as if the revered concept of ministerial responsibility - practised in jurisdictions of Westminster parliamentary systems – would apply to Syed Hamid Albar. Dear minister, this is not main-main punya perkara; for God’s sake, you’re issuing a law that binds the citizens of Malaysia. Where can mistake-mistake punya? In Japan, hara-kiri would have been an honourable outlet of redemption. But I guess, in Malaysia, the thought of resigning would not, however fleetingly, cross the mind of Syed Hamid.
Which brings to mind the actual wording of the gazette, entitled “Internal Security (Prohibition on Use of Specific Words on Document and Publication) Order 2009”: -
Paragraph 2(1):
“The printing, publication, sale, issue, circulation and possession of any document and publication relating to Christianity containing the words Allah, Kaabah, Baitullah and solat are prohibited unless on the front cover of the document and publication are written with the words “FOR CHRISTIANITY”.”
I fail to see, from the wordings of the order, how a “mistake” can arise? The provisions appear crisp and clear. The whole episode appears more to be a decision-taken-in-reverse, rather than a technical mistake. This appears evident, considering that there were calls by certain bodies, notably the Malaysian Islamic Da’wah Foundation, urging the government to withdraw permission for the conditional use of the word “Allah” in Christian publications.
This is definitely not the type of governmental decision that we want to see – laws being made - and un-made - not for the good of the citizens, but at the influential behest of certain important individuals or organizations.
Another damning implication arising from Syed Hamid Albar’s action in issuing a fresh gazette to cancel the earlier one – is that it creates an unhealthy precedent affronting the rules of retrospective laws. Article 7 (1) of the Federal Constitution provides that no person shall be punished for an act or omission which was not punishable by law when it was done or made.
For example, if smoking is not an offence today, then a law cannot be made tomorrow to declare smoking an offence today - this is retrospective laws. This means, I cannot be convicted of smoking yesterday, last week or last month by a law that operates retrospectively.
But by issuing “cancellation” orders, Syed Hamid may be doing just that. On February 16, the law allows me to use the word “Allah”. Because of that - I start printing, publishing and circulating to people in my church. 2 weeks later, a new law come up to revoke the old law – to the effect that there was no such law in the first place. This means, technically, I have committed an offence and can be charged under the ISA.
By doing what Syed Hamid has done, a precedent has been set. Let’s take another example: - say now, a law is passed today to legalize the smoking of marijuana – and people start doing just that, smoking marijuana - 6 months later the Home Minister revokes the law and puts everyone in bars. Is that possible?
All said and done, Syed Hamid Albar is truly Malaysia’s resident magician – Law today, gone tomorrow.
Were we all not amazed when David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear? The jaws of the world dropped – literary – at such magical feat. How did he do it? Perhaps David Copperfield was actually gifted with powers of the supernatural. Perhaps he dabbled in the occult.
But then, what is that compared to the kuasa sakti of our Home Minister, Syed Hamid Albar. With the flicker of his magical Harry Potter pen, he made law disappear. On January 21, he signed a directive under the Internal Security Act by way of gazette, allowing the conditional use of the word “Allah” in Christian publications. The gazette came into effect on February 16. On March 1, Syed Hamid Albar said that he would issue a fresh gazette to rescind the earlier gazette – the reason being – there were “mistakes” made in the drafting of the Feb 16 gazette.
This issue is in relation to the usage by the Catholic Church of the word “Allah” in their publication - the Catholic Herald. A legal suit was filed in the Kuala Lumpur High Court to challenge the ban by the government. In a surprising turn of event, Syed Hamid Albar issued the gazette allowing the use of the word “Allah”, provided there is a disclaimer to the effect that the words “For Christians” were clearly printed on the publications. But of course, this decision is now reversed, by reason of mistake.
I do not wish to dwell on the usage of the word “Allah”; let that be something for our dear courts to decide. I do wish to point out, however, of several foolish and unwarranted implications arising from this blunder from Syed Hamid Albar.
Firstly, how can someone make a “mistake” in issuing a directive, which later was put on print as gazette? Once a gazette is issued, it becomes law of the land, albeit subsidiary and secondary to the principal Act, the Internal Securities Act 1960. I don’t know the actual workings of the issuing of a gazette – but I’ve been made to understand that the document would have to be drafted and proof-read by at least 2 people and a committee before it could be signed by the minister.
So, who screwed up? The person who took wrong notes during the meeting? The AG’s Chambers who drafted the wordings of the gazette? The committee who was supposed to vet the document? The Minister, who was obviously half-asleep when he sign it? Or perhaps, it was the government printers, who took it upon themselves to print something else than what was instructed upon them?
In any event, it doesn’t appear as if the revered concept of ministerial responsibility - practised in jurisdictions of Westminster parliamentary systems – would apply to Syed Hamid Albar. Dear minister, this is not main-main punya perkara; for God’s sake, you’re issuing a law that binds the citizens of Malaysia. Where can mistake-mistake punya? In Japan, hara-kiri would have been an honourable outlet of redemption. But I guess, in Malaysia, the thought of resigning would not, however fleetingly, cross the mind of Syed Hamid.
Which brings to mind the actual wording of the gazette, entitled “Internal Security (Prohibition on Use of Specific Words on Document and Publication) Order 2009”: -
Paragraph 2(1):
“The printing, publication, sale, issue, circulation and possession of any document and publication relating to Christianity containing the words Allah, Kaabah, Baitullah and solat are prohibited unless on the front cover of the document and publication are written with the words “FOR CHRISTIANITY”.”
I fail to see, from the wordings of the order, how a “mistake” can arise? The provisions appear crisp and clear. The whole episode appears more to be a decision-taken-in-reverse, rather than a technical mistake. This appears evident, considering that there were calls by certain bodies, notably the Malaysian Islamic Da’wah Foundation, urging the government to withdraw permission for the conditional use of the word “Allah” in Christian publications.
This is definitely not the type of governmental decision that we want to see – laws being made - and un-made - not for the good of the citizens, but at the influential behest of certain important individuals or organizations.
Another damning implication arising from Syed Hamid Albar’s action in issuing a fresh gazette to cancel the earlier one – is that it creates an unhealthy precedent affronting the rules of retrospective laws. Article 7 (1) of the Federal Constitution provides that no person shall be punished for an act or omission which was not punishable by law when it was done or made.
For example, if smoking is not an offence today, then a law cannot be made tomorrow to declare smoking an offence today - this is retrospective laws. This means, I cannot be convicted of smoking yesterday, last week or last month by a law that operates retrospectively.
But by issuing “cancellation” orders, Syed Hamid may be doing just that. On February 16, the law allows me to use the word “Allah”. Because of that - I start printing, publishing and circulating to people in my church. 2 weeks later, a new law come up to revoke the old law – to the effect that there was no such law in the first place. This means, technically, I have committed an offence and can be charged under the ISA.
By doing what Syed Hamid has done, a precedent has been set. Let’s take another example: - say now, a law is passed today to legalize the smoking of marijuana – and people start doing just that, smoking marijuana - 6 months later the Home Minister revokes the law and puts everyone in bars. Is that possible?
All said and done, Syed Hamid Albar is truly Malaysia’s resident magician – Law today, gone tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
