Malaysia’s GE-13: What happened, What Now?

June 14, 2013

PART 1

By Clive Kessler, Guest Contributor

–  June 12 2013

In a brief commentary elsewhere (“Malaysia’s election result — no surprise to the knowledgeable,” Asian Currents, June 2013), I have noted one paradoxical but hugely important consequence of Malaysia’s recent national elections held on  May 5.

A paradox: anomalous domination

The remarkable, perhaps “counter-intuitive”, fact is that, while the election result itself  — namely, a fairly close but nonetheless comfortable victory of the UMNO-centred Barisan Nasional side over the Pakatan Rakyat opposition  —  came as no great surprise, that unremarkable result nonetheless had one quite surprising, even paradoxical, consequence.

From PRU13 an electorally weakened UMNO emerged politically even more dominant than it had been before. While still embattled in the broader political arena, UMNO was delivered a dominant position within the parliament, ruling coalition and government.

By bestowing it with that now dominant parliamentary position, PRU13 had delivered into UMNO’s hands an ascendancy over the governing BN coalition, government policy, parliament’s agenda and parliamentary process, and thereby over national political life — over the nation’s affairs and direction — of a quite unprecedented and perhaps irresistible kind.

What are the relevant facts here?The immediate challenge facing Najib, it had been said in the run-up to PRU13, was at best to win back the two-thirds majority (or 148 of the 222 seats in the Dewan Rakyat), or at least to improve on the 2008 yield of 140.

More modest and realistic than demanding recovery of the two-thirds majority, some suggested that even 145 would have been a “good result”, good enough to ensure his immediate political survival against critics, adversaries and doubters in his own camp.

In the event, worse even than at PRU12 in 2008, UMNO-BN won only 133 seats. For those who might be satisfied with nothing less than assured domination — a constitutionally unassailable and impregnable position — a shortfall of 8 seats had now almost doubled to 15.

Yet — as I noted in my summary review — behind all its archaising ceremonialism and cultural nostalgia, politics and political thinking within UMNO is nothing other than Realpolitik of the most ruthlessly pragmatic kind. And realistically, UMNO (if its interests, and nothing else, are to be the focus of analysis, as the party “hard men” insist) did not do at all badly.

Why? Because, paradoxically, its political domination was enhanced, not diminished, by the election result — despite the further decline in the government’s parliamentary numbers and the opposition’s advances.

Drawing a contrast between the post-election situation of UMNO-BN and its Pakatan Rakyat adversary is instructive here.

The Pakatan Rakyat coalition won a total of 89 seats. The Opposition coalition’s parliamentary numbers are reasonably balanced. All three of its constituent parties have a sizeable and, if not an equal then a comparable, presence in the Dewan Rakyat (DAP holds 38 seats, PKR 30, PAS 21). The smallest of the three, PAS, contributes about a quarter of the opposition’s parliamentary numbers, while the largest, DAP, more than two-fifths but less than a half.

Contrast that with the situation on the government side. Of BN’s 133 seats, UMNO now holds 88 (up from 79 in 2008). Its MPs amount to two-thirds of the total BN parliamentary representation.

UMNO alone has a parliamentary presence that is virtually the same as that of the combined opposition. Its shortfall of a single seat, if that troubles anybody who matters, is one that might be readily reversed through a by-election victory, the timely defection of an “unhappy” opposition MP, or even a successful appeal against the result in, say, Bachok or some other constituency where the UMNO candidate had fallen narrowly short of victory in the election night count.

Now compare UMNO’s situation among its governing BN partners with the more balanced situation in the opposition coalition’s parliamentary numbers.

After UMNO, the next largest party on that side of the households only 14 seats. The UMNO’s customary “primary partners” going back to Alliance Party times even preceding independence, the Chinese MCA and the Indian MIC, now together hold only 11 (7 and 4 respectively) and its newer ally Gerakan, 1 — the decline in their public plausibility and electoral viability coming as the result of, and signifying, the increasing UMNO dominance over its old BN partners in deciding national policy over the last decade.

After GE13, more even than before, the UMNO’s ability to head a government, and rule over the nation’s core in peninsular Malaysia, now rests disproportionately upon the seats that its fractious East Malaysian partners hold in Sarawak and Sabah (34 seats, together held by 8 different parties, many of them loose, unstable personal alliances of mercurial, opportunistic and “gymnastic” leaders.)

UMNO’s task will be to satisfy, appease and manage its increasingly assertive, and at times even restive, East Malaysian partners who now so heavily underwrite BN’s, and hence UMNO’s, ability to rule.But provided it can do that, in numerical and political terms UMNO now dominates — perhaps as never before — the national government.

Provided it can decide without internal strife what it wants to do, provided it “knows its own mind”, it will be in a powerful position in the years ahead to have its way on all significant political and policy issues, so long as its Sabah and Sarawak allies can be kept “in line”.

In national government, an era of unprecedented UMNO domination may now be in the offing.

UMNO’s oddly empowering victory

Some indication of the nature and sources of the UMNO’s success — of how it stands to grow greatly in effective power from its diminished parliamentary base — is suggested by the relative size of the three components within the opposition’s parliamentary delegation.

The Pakatan delegation is reasonably balanced, but not entirely so. It displays one anomalous feature. What is in many ways the most substantial member of the opposition coalition, the Islamic Party PAS, has the smallest parliamentary representation.

This is because, in Malaysia’s imbalanced and “malapportioned” electoral system, PAS unlike its coalition partners competes directly against UMNO for “bulk” Malay votes: that is, for support from the core, more traditionally-minded and less cosmopolitan Malay voters in the rural Malay heartlands. They are direct rivals for the support of the core part of the nation’s Malay political core component, the core of the core.

Those rural Malay areas are hugely favoured in the drawing of electoral boundaries — which is to say in their size, meaning the smaller number of votes that is necessary for them to elect an MP. It is in those parts of the country, in those electorates, that Malay domination of national political life is grounded.

And, of the Opposition parties, only PAS competes directly against UMNO for those votes. Their struggle is a “zero-sum game”. It is an “up and down” thing, a constant long-term oscillation. When UMNO does badly, PAS numbers increase and PAS political influence grows (and vice versa).

That has always been the basis of PAS’s political strength and long-term strategy. By its ability to win popular Malay support, and so to deprive UMNO of the credibility and legitimacy that substantial Malay support ensures, PAS can at times exercise enormous influence over UMNO, over its policies and direction, from outside.

But when UMNO does well, PAS numbers and its immediate influence upon UMNO thinking are diminished. When UMNO does well electorally, it denies PAS this important leverage. PAS’s ability to force itself upon its rival’s thinking in the setting of national priorities and direction — even to set terms that UMNO cannot resist —  declines.

When it succeeds in this way in freeing itself to some degree from the constraints imposed by PAS — from the strategic stranglehold that in its “good years” results from PAS’s political success and ensuing Malay “moral credibility” — UMNO wins for itself some significantly increased political “room for manoeuvre”.

That is what happened at the recent PRU13. The question to ask is why? How was it done?

The winning campaign

The key to the election result, and to UMNO’s improbable feat of drawing increased political strength from reduced parliamentary numbers and a weakened parliamentary position, was UMNO’s success in its head-on clash with PAS for Malay votes in the Malay heartlands — for the “core Malay vote”.

Much has been made of the fact that the two members of the Malay ethno-supremacist pressure group Perkasa whom UMNO directly or indirectly endorsed — Zulkifli Noordin in the Klang Valley “beltway” seat of Sham Alam and Ibrahim Ali in PAS “crown jewels” seat of Pasir Mas — lost to their adversaries. There was no comfort for UMNO in those two results.

This has prompted some commentators to suggest that the PRU13 results signal a clear repudiation by the national electorate as a whole, Malay as well as non-Malay, of Perkasa, its approach and what it stands for.

The nature of the winning campaign has to be more closely considered.

(i)  The International Level

The government’s PRU13 campaign operated at several levels. For international consumption, notably the foreign investment and diplomatic communities, one story was developed.

This was the beguiling story of Prime Minister Najib as the heroic but still shackled economic reformer, the eager and available driver of administrative transformation — and also of taxation reform, in the form of reduced corporate and personal taxation, all to be made good by the reasonably prompt post-election introduction of a goods and services tax (GST).

Glued onto this portrait was another. This was the picture of Najib as the self-proclaimed and internationally acclaimed, “global moderate”, the champion of interfaith conciliation and the determined enemy of all forms of political extremism, but especially that driven by religious militants and fanatics.

This “international campaign” projecting Najib as a soon to be unbound economic Prometheus and also a fastidious moderate who would “have no truck” with any crude, populist extremism was offered with a clear objective.

Its purpose was to win for the prime minister and his party a sympathetic hearing overseas and, with it, the indulgence of a free hand at home to wage the other parts of their multilevel campaign.Overseas, that portrait of Najib was reassuring, and people there would be satisfied with it. Nothing more to be asked for. Its plausibility had simply to be upheld. For example, against the free-lance meddling of a rogue Australian senator.

(ii)  The Domestic Pantomime

While this “image campaign” was offered internationally, the Najib who was seen for months on the campaign trail at home was something different. At home the prime minister cut a benign and ever-avuncular figure as he campaigned up and down the country by recourse to a kind of “Santa Claus politics” (as some called it). Its simplicity was that of a holiday pantomime. Or perhaps a traveling circus: “every few minutes something new, something different, something dramatic! something for everybody!”

There was something, something new, for somebody every day, a new inducement or “softener” for yet another interest group or finely drawn demographic category.

This was a campaign to the nation’s socially disaggregated parts, to its separate disarticulated elements, not to the nation as a whole.

It was not a campaign that projected any distinctive concept that the prime minister may have had, and wished to promote, of the Malaysian nation and its evolving destiny.It was instead a campaign directed to every individual voter and every special interest-group or social element. It was one that encouraged them all to ask “What is in this for me? For us?” — and which then provided an answer. Concretely and immediately, tangibly. An answer not in words or ideas but in palpable material benefits and — “just for you and people like you, in your same situation or predicament” — specified provisions.

Prime Minister Najib offered a vast menu of hand-outs  and rewards — at prospectively huge cost to public expenditure, to the national accounts and the government’s coffers — in the hope of attaching ever more securely to himself his own side’s loyal political followers, and of attracting the undecided to join them in supporting him and his cause.

This was hardly the kind of campaign that international investors, eager to see clear evidence of some sort of advance pre-election commitment to fiscal austerity and economic responsibility, can have been hoping to see UMNO run. Not what they had in mind!

But, though it involved huge public expenditures and costly promises, those promises had been accompanied by assurances of reduced corporate tax levels. So, overall, it may have pleased those foreign bystanders anyway: as a strategy that would make prompt Malaysian adoption of a GST to pay for it all inevitable.

It may have appealed to them as a neat way to make the fickle, imprudent and gullible people pay for all the offered benefits and promises that they had so unwisely and unaffordably chosen to accept. (Significantly, mention of the impending introduction of a GST was no part of the election campaign, neither UMNO-BN’s nor the Opposition’s.)

So allied to Najib “the great transformer in waiting” and Najib the global moderate was Najib “the great dispenser of treats and inducements” — who was also, or so it was hoped by some, “the canny, crafty promoter of a GST”, the masterful maker of traps and ambushes who was making the GST’s introduction necessary and laying the grounds for its general acceptance.

“Of course we may all have these benefits. We Malaysians are entitled to nothing less. But we Malaysians too — who else? — must pay for them. In doing so we will not only reward ourselves and ensure our government’s fiscal viability from which every citizen benefits. We can make Malaysia, more even than before, the up-to-date model of a developing nation and the envy of the entire postcolonial world”. It is not hard to script the arguments that will need to be made and invoked.

(iii)  The Real Campaign

UMNO-BN’s was a multi-level campaign.The first level projected Najib’s image internationally as an economic reformer and religious moderate. Here he was portrayed as an intelligent and polished progressive in a land where progressives were not conspicuously plentiful in official circles.

The second was a campaign that kept Najib — not so much Najib himself as his “simulacrum”, his carefully constructed image — prominent in the public eye. But only through very controlled and tightly managed situations. It projected him as a man less with a mission than with a wonderful “magic pudding” that might continually, without ever becoming exhausted, be parcelled out and distributed to the people for their enjoyable and cost-free consumption.

This second campaign, in many ways a media construct or artefact, was largely a diversion and a distraction. It was devised to create a plausible appearance of dynamism and momentum to what had become, among the world’s notable political parties, an ungainly, lumbering and sclerotic dinosaur. It was staged to divert unwelcome attention from the real campaign.

It was, of course, those two “show campaigns” that occupied and entirely seized the attention of the international media. Meanwhile, the real campaign was conducted with unremitting determination, even ruthlessness, beneath the “foreign radar”, out of view of most overseas reporters and commentators.

What was the “real” campaign?The nature of UMNO-BN election strategy was clear. Like all intelligent political analysts, those in the party’s “brains trust” and campaign “engine room” could see that the vast bulk of Chinese voters were lost to BN and were unlikely to be won back, no matter what the old ruling party bloc did or promised.

Much of the Indian vote too was lost, but not all of it was entirely beyond recall. Part of it might be won back with some dramatic gestures (most remarkable of which was the HINDRAF rapprochement). But while winning back that partial Indian support might do UMNO-BN’s political image some much needed good by providing some symbolic rehabilitation for its claims of intercultural accommodation, those Indian votes that might be won over would never be enough to secure an UMNO-BN victory.

So the strategy of the real campaign was focused elsewhere. It was a battle for Malay votes.UMNO-BN saw, as some who were not part of its campaign also understood, that the key to the election was the Malay votes. In comparison, nothing else really mattered much at all.

The key question was whether UMNO-BN, and especially UMNO itself, could win enough peninsular Malay votes, and enough of them in the right places — meaning in the right local constituencies — for UMNO, in association with its Sarawak and Sabah allies, to secure a clear parliamentary majority.

So the campaign was focused and conducted where it mattered.It was conducted in Malay terms and directed to a Malay audience. Meaning, the campaign was projected above all in the daily Malay-language press, notably the UMNO’s own Utusan Malaysia, and via the Malay-language programming of the television channels with the greatest Malay reach, principally TV3 and RTM.

It was a campaign conducted for the votes of Malays, mainly for those of the great bulk of the more “traditionally-minded” Malays, in the Malay rural heartland areas.

The UMNO campaign was simple: “all is at risk!” There is no protection, it kept hammering away, for you and your family, for all Malays, for the Malay stake in the country, for Islam or for the Malay rulers who are the ultimate bastion of our Malay-Islamic identity and national primacy — other than us here in UMNO.

It was a campaign that appealed to their sense of themselves — to their sense of Malay identity and of Malay centrality to national life. It was a campaign that sought to suggest how tenuous the basis of Malay identity had now become in national life, how insecure the Malay grip upon the Malay stake in the nation had become. Everything that was distinctively Malay about Malaysia, it was suggested, was now under threat.

It was a campaign that both cultivated and then also appealed to a Malay sense of political and cultural peril, even crisis. It was a campaign that consisted of a managed panic: that the Malays were now beleaguered in their own land, the Tanah Melayu. Their historic stake in the nation was being whittled away and was now in jeopardy.

It was a campaign that sought to suggest that, as political currents were now running, it was not fanciful but realistic to imagine that Malays might one day soon “hilang di dunia” (in the words of the classical formulation), that they might disappear from the face of the earth.

It was a campaign of controlled communal panic. Malays and their way of life are beleaguered, and, central to their way of life, Islam was in jeopardy. Malay historical primacy and political leadership, the religious ascendancy of Islam, and the constitutional position of the Malay state rulers as their “untrumpable” guarantors had become the sacred trinity of the UMNO campaign.

Everything that mattered to the Malay majority and its conventional loyalties was now at risk, it was suggested. It was threatened by the opposition Pakatan Rakyat coalition — of which of course, the Islamic Party PAS was a key component. In the division of political labour between the Pakatan partners, it fell to PAS to wage the direct contest against UMNO for votes in the nation’s Malay heartlands core.

So, above all else, the national election —  an election that would decide the Prime Minister’s and his party’s future — turned upon a contest for “the national Malay soul” between UMNO and PAS.

That was the real campaign.It was the campaign that won the election for UMNO-BN. And it was a campaign that the many overseas reporters and commentators who flocked to Kuala Lumpur for a week or two simply did not see or “read” or understand.

It went beneath their radar, it was beyond their social, professional and imaginative reach. It was outside their range of cultural accessibility — and also that, to be fair to them, of the vast majority of “like-minded” and “sympathetic” young urban Malaysians whom they were delighted to meet: who captured their attention, won their sympathy, and shaped their view of Malaysian society and politics.

For many of those intelligent, persuasive and globally-networked young Kuala Lumpur cosmopolitans, the Malay heartlands and those who live there are just as foreign and remote a world as they certainly were to the visiting journalists. The young sophisticates with their congenial “discourse” and “narratives” were nice people, but a very poor guide to what the election was really about — how it was being conducted where it really mattered.

But, to those who were running the “real” campaign that inattention was no problem. On the contrary. Let the foreign press write the stories that might please them, that seemed to centre upon the overseas journalists’ own effete concerns, not those of the rural Malay voters. Let them chase after stories that led them away from the real story, the main action.

After all, the “real campaign” for Malay votes in the heartlands — for a firm place within and a hold upon the Malay soul — would prosper best if it went unrecognised and unreported by the meddling and opinionated visitors of the international press. Let them meddle instead where their own interests and sympathies were engaged, not where their intruding curiosity might prove inconvenient, even embarrassing.

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/2013/06/12/malaysias-ge13-what-happened-what-now-part-1/

A Pluralistic Legal System: the Malaysian Experience

June 9, 2013

by Zaid Ibrahim (05-17-2013)

As a former colony, Malaysia was at the time of its independence in 1957[1] the beneficiary of Westminster-style parliamentary democracy. Predicated on a written document, the Federal Constitution, which declared itself the supreme law of the land, the arrangement accommodated the establishment of Islamic, or Shariah, courts and the native courts.

The concept of law, as it was to be understood moving forward, was reflected in the definition of “law” under the constitution: “law” includes written law, the common law in so far as it is in operation in the Federation or any part thereof, and any custom or usage having the force of law in the Federation or any part thereof.

I would like to think that this all embracing definition of law was intended by the founders of the constitution to serve the “needs of all “and yet the many communities comprising Malaysia were to be bound by laws and values “common” to them.

This arrangement also serves as a means by which society would operate a system of “checks and balances” as it resolved its disputes or shaped its entitlements or obligations by reference to the normative standards of the sub-communities within the nation. The Federal Constitution cemented these sub-communities together in a way that would over time lead to the creation of a unique Malaysian common law system.

Laws are useful instruments in bringing about societal change. Newly developed countries feel compelled to introduce new laws to replace those left behind by the colonial masters. These newly independent states do not always produce good laws but even when they are ineffective, they are harmless if left to the devices of lawyers, judges and competent legislators. The problem starts when over-zealous or self-serving politicians join the fray and try using laws to effect social change by force.

The compulsion imposed by these legislators often gives rise to conflicts and distorts the balance and harmony between the different   communities. In Pakistan, for example, such harmony had existed between civil and Islamic laws for many years until President Zia-ul-Haq upset the balance in 1976 by pushing for an Islamisation programme. Sudan’s break-up can be attributed partly to the attempt by its  leaders to impose religious laws on non-Muslims in that country.

Still, it would be unfair to Muslims if they are denied the right to live their lives in accordance with Islamic laws and values where they desire to do so. Their community identifies itself by certain practices which flow from such laws and values. Their value systems have to be accommodated at least in areas where those value systems would not  infringe on the public sphere or affect the rights of others. That is why in Malaysia personal laws for Muslims have been accorded a special place in the country’s legal system.

Things have, however, changed. Due to the harnessing of Islam for political purposes and an undue and dangerous emphasis of race and religion in politics that began in the late 1980s and gained traction in the 1990s, the role of Islam in Malaysian society has become more pronounced and so increasingly contentious as to threaten to undermine this multicultural and multi religious nation. To a large extent this has been made possible by a collapse of the Rule of Law which is the result of a style of government that was contemptuous of the essential checks and balances of democracy.

In the two plus decades since Dr Mahathir precipitated a constitutional crisis that resulted in, amongst other things, the sacking of the then Chief Justice and the creation of a subservient Judiciary, we have gone from being one of the more promising young democracies of the post-War era to a nation deeply undermined by corruption and the retrograde politics that perpetuates it.

In the process, a personal law system (the Shariah) that was aimed at allowing Muslims to regulate such personal matters as marriage, divorce, custody of children and inheritance has now threatened to become the general law of the land.  Islamists no longer feel satisfied that there are laws already in existence which can enrich their spiritual experience; they now want Islamic laws to reshape the way of life of all Malaysians; and to regulate the way in which things are done in Malaysia. As a result, the guarantees of fundamental liberties, equality and the equal protection of the law promised under the Constitution are threatened in very fundamental ways.

In the early years, this carefully-crafted system that had been put in place by the founding fathers served us well. The Islamic legal system, was limited in its scope purely to matters of personal law, matters that primarily pertained to the personal faith of the Muslim majority population. The law in the public sphere was for all purposes and intents secular, or religiously-neutral, law. A decision of the apex court in 1988 made this clear, explaining its decision by reference to the constitution being the supreme law.[2]

This dual system of Islamic and civil laws worked well in Malaysia because the civil courts and the secular Constitution were respected and they held sway in cases of conflicts. This was because the High Courts always had the power to review the decisions of the inferior courts, including the religious (Shariah) courts.  Under the then Constitution the High Courts had broad judicial powers vested in them and such powers enabled them to resolve conflicts emanating from the religious courts.   But in 2002, the then Prime Minister unilaterally and controversially declared Malaysia to be an Islamic state .

In 1988 he had amended the Constitution to remove any possibility of judicial review by the civil courts of any decision of the Shariah courts . This was done by removing any judicial power bestowed by the Constitution on  the High court. When Dr Mahathir made this declaration that Malaysia was an Islamic state  he did so knowing that there was a clear ruling by the nation’s highest court that Malaysia was a secular state, and that the Constitution reigned supreme. The Constitutional amendment  giving equal status to the Shariah Court and the civil court, and enjoining that the the High Courts are precluded from reviewing any cases or matter that fall within the jurisdiction of the Shariah court completed the dismantling of the checks and balance  we had since independence.

This so called ‘clear separation’ has resulted in severe injustice and hardship to many people. There have been many cases where a husband who is estranged from his wife has converted to Islam simply so that he can get custody of his children because, by doing so, he can ensure that the civil courts are  unable to touch him. As a Muslim he is entitled to come to the Shariah court for his entitlements, but his non-Muslim wife (or ex-wife) has no such recourse. She has to go to the civil court. In cases of this nature one of the parties will be left without remedy,  especially given that the judges in the civil courts will be reluctant to interfere contradict  or intervene with the decision of the Shariah court. They would not want to be  accused of not being sympathetic to the official religion. They will use the lack of jurisdiction as their excuse for not interfering.

In my book Ampun Tuanku I have tried to explain these cases in greater detail. In any case, it is not possible to regulate human affairs in tight compartments as mandated by the Malaysian legal system. It can only result in injustices and conflicts.

The extent to which religion has been used perversely by over-zealous politicians can be seen from an attempt made sometime back to prevent non-Muslims from using the word ‘Allah’.  In a challenge mounted against that attempt, the High Court, in a judgment delivered three years ago, decided that Christians can indeed use the word Allah in their bibles and their prayers.  This, said the court, is part of the freedom to practise their faith as guaranteed by the Constitution. The government refused to accept this decision as they felt they would lose the Muslim votes in the ensuing general election. What did they do?  They got the Christians who filed the suit to agree to a stay of that the decision for 30 days and stopped the appellate proceedings that  would have  followed the decision.  The 30 days have become three years and there is no appeal in sight.

Muslims in Malaysia believe that the word Allah belongs to them.  So no one else can use it regardless of the fact that the word was used by pre-Islamic Arabs even before Prophet Muhammad. The Coptic Christians  and   the Sikh religion have the word Allah appearing in their holy books.  The subject is undoubtedly sensitive  and certainly not a matter that can be taken lightly by any quarters. However in a  modern democracy; there are enough laws that cater for all situations and circumstances. Any responsible government should be confident of allowing the court to decide contentious and delicate issues  based on the laws;  and  to trust the court to do justice by balancing the rights  of the community.

Unfortunately in Malaysia we are still in  that stage in  our development  where  the  Muslim public are still unsure if man made laws are adequate to cater for their needs. This is what happens when the laws and the courts are, in effect, rendered irrelevant by politicians and religious extremists  in determining disputes and conflicts.

Malaysia is a federation of states. The Constitution is clear about the division of powers between the federal government and the states. The federal government has authority over commercial, criminal and constitutional laws, and only Parliament can legislate on these matters. The States, on the other hand, have authority over the personal laws of Muslims, and have limited power to create offences against the precepts of Islam and the Shariah Courts.

When, however, Islamisation became a battle cry, the proponents of Islamic laws were not interested in the so-called separation between civil and religious laws. They wanted the all-consuming Islamic laws to be the main body of laws for the country. Islam, after all, is all about a way of life, so in their minds only Islamic laws and the Shariah must prevail. As a result, the balance that existed in Malaysia since our independence in 1957 can no longer be found.

Allow me to illustrate the conflicts and injustices caused by this imposition by citing a few examples. The Constitution explicitly provides for freedom of religion, but if you are a Muslim, you do not have that right. Apostasy is not a crime under federal law yet a crime punishable by death in Islam, so no Malaysian judge (the majority of whom are Muslims) will make a ruling to defend this fundamental right to religious belief. Those who are interested in seeing how such cases play out in Malaysian courts can read the case of Lina Joy.[3]

The Constitution explicitly provides that criminal laws are within the exclusive purview of the federal Parliament and yet the state governments in Malaysia continue to defy this arrangement by passing criminal laws of their own – criminal laws and punishment in accordance with Islamic law. A multitude of criminal offences have been created by the state legislators based on Islamic law in defiance of federal legislation dealing with the same matter. Not only are the punishments different, the evidential rules required to prove these cases are also not the same. For example adultery is not a criminal offence under federal law but is an offence for Muslims under state law.

Homosexuality is still a crime punishable by imprisonment for up to twenty years under federal law but  the same offence  also exists under state law, except that state law requires  four witnesses for the prosecution to succeed (this is not so under federal law). Theft is an offence under federal law: the punishment varies from fines to imprisonment yet under one  state law Islamic principles are applied for the same offence and the punishment would involve amputation of limbs.

In Malaysia, freedom of expression is guaranteed under the federal constitution but some state laws provide otherwise For example , Islam can only be taught or propagated by those who have the written permission of the religious authorities. The highest court has ruled that the sanctity of the religion requires such stringent control. So Muslims have been imprisoned or fined for expressing their views on their own religion, when those views were contrary to the views and the understanding of the religious authorities.  This ruling from the highest Court came in the face of a clear provision , in the  Constitution which  provides for freedom of speech and expression for all citizens, including Muslims.

Under the Penal Code (which is a federal law), you can be charged for having sex with a girl below the age of 16. Under another federal law, the age of majority is stipulated as 18 years. But these laws mean nothing to the Shariah Courts. They have given permission to girls as young as 12 and 14 years old to be married, because Islam permits such marriages. They do not, in my view, have the powers to sanction “child marriages”, but who will stop them?

In Malaysia, the pluralist legal system is breaking down. Unless the Federal Court reversed the trend;  and it is only a matter of time before the Shariah laws and Shariah courts will reign supreme.  For a long time, criminal laws were accepted to be within the purview of the civil (read: secular) courts, but now the Shariah courts are widening their powers.

My son is a book publisher who translated into Malay and published the book Allah, Liberty and Love by the Canadian writer Irshad Manji.  Until 2003, the authority to ban books and to limit freedom of expression could only be exercised on the grounds of violation of public order or morality. This power was in the hands of the federal government. Now, state laws have been enacted to prosecute those publishing and disseminating materials which are deemed to be prejudicial to, or against, religious laws (as defined by the authorities). These state laws are clearly unconstitutional as they violate the freedom of speech and expression under the Constitution. My son, against whom a prosecution has been brought, is not being charged for offences against public order or morality, as he should be if at all.  Instead, the Shariah courts have now devised their own laws, regardless of what the Constitution provides.

Human rights have taken a back seat in the face of relentless religious onslaughts. Many Malaysian school boys who have exhibited effeminate traits and tendencies are taken to what is known as a ‘gay camp’ to change their personality. These camps seek to make the boys more “masculine” and to remind them of the evils that befall those who are gays or lesbians. Effeminate personalities are considered a curse: people need to be reoriented and changed.  Our national theatre is now currently showing a musical which depicts gays and lesbians as people who are forever engaging in sex and drugs and who ultimately get punished when lightning strikes them down.

I am aware that in this day and age, there is a growing demand for pluralist legal systems as societies are no longer as homogenous as they were, say, 100 years ago. Those calling for change say that truth and fundamental rights have to be redefined. In Britain today, Islamic arbitration courts are accepted as part of the legal system, although I understand that these are enforceable only if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Arbitration Act.  Similarly, Jews in Britain have their own rabbinical courts whose settlements have gained recognition. Allowing for religious and customary laws to exist within the larger unitary legal system may not be problematic if that larger unitary system holds sway in cases of conflict.

The fundamental legal principles and rights that affect people in the most basic way must remain inviolable; otherwise, societies will break down. No cohesive community can exist if ethnic groups are allowed to preserve unchanged all the elements of their religious beliefs. Religious beliefs and laws by their nature do not permit discussion and compromise. In such a situation, how do we inculcate and nurture shared values for the wider society?

I am all in favour of being progressive and allowing for respect for the laws and traditions of all communities. In other words a limited form of pluralist legal systems is acceptable. This however must not be at the expense of stability and social cohesion . Human rights are important and sacrosanct, but only when they serve the common good of the community, not otherwise.

A former Chief Justice of Australia, Sir Francis Gerard Brennan, suggested that there is no room in Australia for Shariah law to operate in parallel with the existing legal system. He said: A parallel system would undermine the cohesiveness of Australia’s multicultural society. No court could apply and no government could administer two parallel systems of law; especially if they reflect, as they would inevitably reflect, different fundamental standards and values”.[4] Sir Gerard said that in a democracy, the majority determined a country’s legal structure. Minority practices that offended the fundamental moral standards of the majority had to be abandoned.

I agree completely with his observations, except for the part about the majority’s right to determine the legal structure.  It is not about doing what is required by the majority – it is about having a legal system that will do justice to mankind as a whole.  If the majority advocates the rights of child marriages then we as lawyers must oppose this, for it is cruel and unacceptable by the moral standards of most people.

Practices and beliefs based on a particular community, no matter how large, which offend the fundamental moral norms, have to be rejected. Where there are insurmountable differences in moral standards, we will not have a peaceful community. We will always be in conflict. If we value freedom and liberty, then laws must allow for society to operate consistently with those values.

Malaysia’s rich heritage as a tolerant, multicultural society is now under severe threat because some politicians want to create an Islamic state, one that has its own legal system that is at odds with the essential values of tolerance, freedom and mutual accommodation. Muslims already have sufficient laws and a court system that caters to their personal needs and beliefs. Yet this is not enough for some. The plural system we have now is being undermined, and that is why those who advocate an acceptance of a parallel legal system must think again and re-examine their position. It is time such people looked at Malaysia more closely.

Of course, customary and traditional rights have their place in our system and they should be protected and enforced, but only as long as such rights do not violate the moral values common to the people  in that country ; and at the same time do not violate rights of other citizens. Laws and precepts that offend common morality have no place in any legal system.

 ________________

[1] The country was then merely the Federation of Malaya, but it became the Federation of Malaysia in 1965 with the accession of the former colonies of Sabah and Sarawak.

[2] Che Omar bin Che Soh v. Public Prosecutor [1988] 2 MLJ 55.

[3] Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & 2 Ors [2005] 4 CLJ 666.

[4] See, ‘Brennan dismisses idea of plural legal system’, Lawyers’ Weekly, 24 Aug 2012, accessible here.

http://zaiduntukrakyat.com/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=384&cntnt01origid=15&cntnt01returnid=80

Zaid Ibrahim’s latest book,Far & Sure; For Golf and Country, is a recommended read. It is about golf and more.

For Golf and Country is a view of our nation from the green, the quiet considerations of a man with Malaysia forever on his mind, irrespective of where he chooses to lay his clubs.

Jumping back and forth through his retirement, Zaid Ibrahim traverses the globe one golf course at a time, from Bukit Besi to Black Mountain, from Saujana to St. Andrews, in this collection of essays that are one part reflection, one part confession, and one part meditation.These 67 short vignettes make for quite the magnificent mishmash.

Whether he is contemplating the spiritual underpinnings of the sport or the complex relationship between mosque and state, Zaid Ibrahim brings his unique blend of irreverence, wit, and perceptive analysis to bear on the marvellous mania that is both golf and Malaysia.

Datuk Zaid Ibrahim’s New Book

bfm.my

[ Programme Segment: Bookmark ] This week’s Bookmark sees Umapagan Ampikaipakan explore ‘Far & Sure: For Golf and Country Guests’ with Datuk Zaid Ibrahim’s on the latter’s new book. Copy & paste code to embed…

http://lnkd.in/HeqxzK

Najib Vs Muhyiddin: The New Class War in UMNO

June 7, 2013

Comment: Talking to some UMNO veterans at the RSGC yesterday, I learned that DPM Muhyiddin is not likely to challenge Najib for the post of their party president. For them, unity in time of political crisis is more important than personal ambition. But in politics, anything is possible. The challenge against Najib will not be the DPM’s move. It could come from certain quarters in UMNO who represent the hardline politics of the party.

UMNO will find a way to deal with the leadership issue with a view to GE-14, 5 years down the road. Perhaps a deal between the two protagonists can be struck which gives Najib enough time to step down and hand over party affairs and premiership to his Deputy President and DPM. Saving face is important in our society. Maybe,this is the ideal solution. But given, Mahathir’s influence in UMNO, the former Prime Minister and his advisors will have a big say on who is going to be the next President and Prime Minister.

It is too premature for Dato Ariff to talk about the new class war in UMNO. For UMNO it will be war against the Opposition Pakatan Rakyat to the finish. To say “Muhyidin is expendable and easily forgotten if he can be held captive to the number two post” is to underestimate the DPM’s acumen, tenacity and political resilience.-Din Merican

by Dato Ariff Sabri @www.freemalaysiatoday.com

The official 13th general election maybe over, but the underground polls is not. It is still going on. The underground polls is coming and this clash will not be between cultural groups. It will be between the sad class – our own les miserables, Frantz Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth and the Malay-Chinese bourgeoisie.

The sad class is made up of the 11 million Malays who earn less than RM2,500 a month against the minted Malay CEOs such as Abdul Wahid Omar (former Maybank chief) who earned RM 7 million a year and the CIMB numero uno (Nazri Razak) who totals RM16-17 million a year.

The 11 million Malays are joined by the new entrants into a swelling army of the lumped proletariat, consisting of graduates from universities and colleges who don’t earn a decent salary to afford houses that now cost RM700,000-800,000.

These ‘new entrants’  can’t afford a RM400,000 house, a home that is deemed “affordable” by the ruling bourgeoisie.To support their ‘affordable’ truths is UMNO’s media complex.

We are at war with the UMNO media complex – the papers that it owns, the television channels, the radio talk shows and the lists goes on.UMNO controls every avenue of thought formation and has even convinced one part of the Malay thinking crowd into believing that the  community is under siege from marauding Chinese.

Don’t be surprised that the strings on the UMNO media complex are pulled by the shadowy denizens of the UMNO war room.

Bid to circumvent Muhyiddin

The UMNO media complex is loyal and serves only one master- the enfeebled UMNO President.It has already started a new phase by suggesting that many do not want a contest for the top posts in UMNO.

The many are the silent majority whose speech can only be deciphered by people like Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and Ahmad Maslan otherwise know by many as Najib’s minions.

That is an early attempt to circumvent Muhyidin from challenging Najib. Many people know that Najib has failed UMNO in so many areas.The nation is imperiled with Najib at the helm.

The UMNO media complex knows that only the Number One position matters. Muhyidin is expendable and easily forgotten if he can be held captive to the number two post.

Maybe the UMNO media complex’s generals underestimate the swollen-faced Muhyidin’s persona as a reflection of stupidity.Carl von Clausewitz, a famed German-Prussian military theorist, once said that “war is the continuation of politics by other means.”

This conventional definition of war as defined by Clausewitz is now extended onto the electronic front. That is the new means.

Shameless enemy

We blog writers who support Pakatan are the internet army. We are on the counter attack mode against the UMNO media complex ready to storm every hill on the battlefield.We will not yield an inch of ground to the ruthless, shameless enemy we are facing.

No sooner after talking piously about Malays, Islam and the King, the UMNO feudal lords and the UMNO nouveau bourgeoisie will retire into their chambers; where they all enjoy musical soirees, engage in business tete a tete  while the missus  poco-pocos all night long.

They have all but forgotten about the downtrodden masses, the brick and mortar people who had faithfully supported them.We have not forgotten them. We have one weapon which our enemy cannot destroy– righteous indignation.

(Dato Mohd Ariff Sabri Aziz is DAP’s Member of Parliament for Raub. He is better known as Sakmongkol AK47)

The Baling Spirit Lives On

June 6, 2013

Comment: Being a Kedahan, I know Baling town and its surrounds well. I have friends there who tell me that there is little progress. It is a sleepy town. If the new Menteri Besar, Mukhriz Mahathir is interested in bringing change via socio-economic development, he should focus on Bailing, not Pulau Langkawi and Changlun.

In the 1970s, Baling was the focus of student activists like Anwar Ibrahim and his associates because it was one of poorest parts of Malaysia. Where there is injustice and oppression, those who are concerned with the plight of the poor, the oppressed and the suppressed will act.

Fast forward to 2013, our present government is oblivious to the fact that Malaysians are unhappy with GE-13. The Government is not listening to their complaints of fraud and other irregularities in the last elections. As a result, by refusing to learn the lessons of Bailing (the revolt of the poor Malay smallholders and farmers in 1974 and  the Memali Incident of 1985), Najib is bound to repeat them.

He has allowed his tough talking Home Affairs Minister and the new Inspector-General of Police (above) a free hand to deal with protestors of the 505 Black Night movement. Both these personalities must know that they have a duty to ensure that June 15  peaceful protest is free of untoward incidents. Give Malaysians the chance for free expression, and listen to them and act.–Din Merican

by Mariam Mokhtar (06-03-13) @http://www.malaysiakini.com

Thirty-nine years ago, a little-known incident in Baling caused a seismic shift in Malaysian politics, but very few Malaysians are aware of the incident or realise its significance and the impact it created.

If the full details of this incident had been divulged in 1974, the government might have fallen. The Baling incident (BI) caused a nightmare for Abdul Razak Hussein, the Prime Minister at the time.

Today, the nightmare is recurring for Najib Abdul Razak, the leader of the current minority government. Najib feels he has no alternative but to instigate several crackdowns on the rakyat.

The Baling event referred to is not the historic meeting in 1955 of Tunku Abdul Rahman, who was the then Chief Minister of the Malayan government and Chin Peng, the leader of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM). Nor was it the Memali Incident of 1985, the shameful massacre of a defenceless community by forces loyal to Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s government.

BI which occurred in 1974 was shrouded in secrecy. It was a series of many small expressions of the bottled-up feelings of anger, betrayal, fear and resentment, of the rural poor.

In present-day Malaysia, the rakyat participated in democracy marches and rallies against oppression, injustice and the dictatorial rule of Najib and the BN government. In 1974, it was Abdul Razak, Najib’s father, who faced similar marches against social injustices.

The root cause of the BI was abject poverty and starvation. The rubber smallholders faced ruin when the global price of rubber plummeted. The farmers could not cope with the rising cost of living and rural families had to forage for food in the jungles.

Bizarrely, in 1974 Abdul Razak (right) announced in Parliament that the civil servants’ allowance would be increased by 50 percent, from RM1,000 to RM1,500.

When news broke of the deaths of a few children from eating ubi gadong, a type of poisonous wild yam, to stave off hunger pangs, the social unrest reached a tipping point. At its peak, around 25,000 of the rural poor took to the streets.

Like father, like son; both Abdul Razak and Najib unleashed the might of the FRU and the Police on peaceful protesters. Najib is a politician without imagination, but he knew that brutal action had served his father well.

A dark chapter in our history

In 2013 Najib merely employed his father’s tried and tested methods of retaliation. The consequences of 1974 opened a dark chapter in our history. Then, like now, information was heavily censored. Abdul Razak did not want the rakyat to know that an uprising had occurred in Kedah.

Five years earlier, the country had been overwhelmed by the May 13 clashes. The Chinese were convenient scapegoats.Abdul Razak was in a quandary. The district of Baling was mainly populated by Malays. The significance of the BI had to be suppressed.

In the BI there was no Chinese element, or communist subversives at work. BI was social unrest – a revolt by Malay smallholders and farmers. Peaceful hunger marches throughout Baling spread outwards from Baling town, Kulim and Sik.

News travelled fast and despite media censorship in 1974, students at University of Malaya, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia and Kolej Mara, as well as the universities’ teaching fraternity expressed their support for the uprising. They organised a series of meetings and urged the government to address the plight of the poor.

Syed Husin Ali (right), then an Associate Professor at University of Malaya, said: “At first they (the students) demonstrated within their campus. The police fired tear gas but some cannisters landed on the nearby squatter settlement, injuring some children.

“The students joined forces and gathered in the centre of KL. When the police acted against them, they took refuge in the National Mosque. Over 1,000 students were arrested and detained for a few days. Some squatters joined some students to ‘run riot’ at the highway, putting up blockades and smashing traffic lights.”

Abdul Razak warned of tough reprisals and over 40 students and lecturers were detained under the ISA. Among them was Anwar Ibrahim, who was detained for two years.

Syed Husin said: “I was detained for six years. I was an Associate Professor and considered recalcitrant for refusing to admit guilt. I was accused of being pro-communist and the brain behind the demos. They wanted me to serve as an example to create fear among those academic staff to prevent them from following my path. I think these are the reasons why I was incarcerated up to six years.”

The Education Minister then was Mahathir. He and Ungku Aziz, the Vice-Chancellor of UM at the time, produced the Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA).

The UUCA has effectively curbed students’ freedom and deprived universities of their autonomy. Students and lecturers are fearful of speaking out on issues which are deemed sensitive to BN. Our universities have never recovered from Mahathir’s despicable legacy.

Abdul Razak, his peers and successors’ children were sent abroad for their education, whilst the rest of the rakyat received a stifling Malaysian schooling.

Baling not an isolated incident

In 2013, history repeated itself and the nightmare which descended on Najib’s father is now his own. Today, Najib has warned that he would get tough with students Adam Adli Abdul Halim and Safwan Anang as well as other dissenters. The ISA has been repealed, so what has Najib up his sleeve?

Let this column warn both Najib and Mahathir, the joint rulers of Malaysia that their efforts to subjugate the rakyat will not succeed. Baling was not an isolated incident.

Prior to BI, there were unreported acts of unrest against the BN government. In Tasik Utara, Johor Baru, poor urban Malays camped in front the residence of then MB Osman Saat to voice their disgust at being cheated of housing and land.

In 1974 and in 2013, the Malays opposed the government, but Najib has created a red herring and claimed that in GE13, it was a Chinese tsunami. It is not! It is Malaysians fighting tyranny.  The wounds which Abdul Razak, Mahathir and Najib opened are still festering. Our awareness of their crimes and of their despotic rule are more acute.

Their policies have cast long shadows and there will be more Baling incidents until Najib and the illegitimate BN government step down.

Tun Dr. Mahathir: UMNO tidak relevan lagi

June 5, 2013

KOMEN: UMNO tidak relevan? Memang tepat sekali ! UMNO (1946) berbeza dengan  UMNO Baru (1987) yang ditubuhkan oleh Tun Dr. Mahathir sendiri dengan perlembagaan parti yang tidak bercorak demokrasi.

At RSGC

Kuasa di bawah Presiden UMNO tidak boleh di cabar seterusnya. Tun ingin memegang kuasa selamanya tetap beliau “bersara” dari aktif berpolitik kononnya dari tahun 2003.

Sekarang ini amat sukar untuk ahli UMNO memilih Presiden dan Timbalannya akibat manipulasi Tun yang begitu ghairah untuk menyandang kuasa sebagai Perdana Menteri selama mungkin. Kriteria yang diguna pakai  menjadi peminpin bukan lagi kebolehan. UMNO sekarang ini adalah parti  pengampu, feudal dan  dinasti.

Ini lah yang berlaku apabila TDM dipaksa melepaskan jawatan, beliau memilih AAB yang kemudian dikritik beliau sehebat hebatnya. Malah PM sekarang juga adalah dari senario yang sama.

Kesimpulannya UMNO hancur disebabkan oleh kerakusan beliau untuk berkuasa dan dikelilingi oleh mereka mereka yang kurang cerdik dan yang jadi kaki ampu. Jangan putar belitkan sejarah yang “direka” oleh beliau sendiri. Beliau sendiri yang suka memperlekeh pemimpin pemimpin UMNO .

Selain dari itu beliau juga memusnahkan sistem kerajaan dengan memilih mereka yang menyokong dasar-dasar  beliau sahaja. Ini bermula dari pemilihan Tun Ahmad Sarji sebagai Ketua Setiausaha Negara yang menurut perintah beliau dan juga Gabenor Bank Negara Jaafar Hussein. (Sebelum itu beliau tidak berani menyentuh Bank Negara kerana Gabenor Bank Negara seperti Tun Ismail Ali dan Tan Sri Aziz Taha tidak mengendahkan tuntutan beliau kerana perlantikan mereka dalah dari DYMM Agung).

Begitu juga kemusnahan di syarikat syarikat milik kerajaan (GLCs) dengan memilih mereka yang telah mengampu beliau didalam kerajaan untuk menerajui GLC sebagai ganjaran sewaktu pencen walau rekod mereka lemah atau tiada kaitan langsung dengan syarikat syarikat gergasi yang dahulunya diterajui oleh golongan professional dan menguntungkan !

Apa agenda Tun Dr Mahathir sebenarnya sekarang ? –Din Merican

oleh Harakah Daily

4hb. Jun 2003

KUALA LUMPUR: Setelah menang pilihanraya umum ke 13 walaupun tewas undi popular buat pertama kalinya dalam sejarah, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad mendedahkan wajah UMNO yang sebenar kepada umum.

(Kata Mahathir, orang Melayu sudah meluat dengan UMNO… tetapi hanya sebut selepas pilihan raya selesai)

Bagi Mahathir, ramai orang Melayu sudah merasa meluat dengan UMNO dan mengganggapnya tidak relevan dan perlu ditolak kerana parti itu tidak lagi berjuang untuk bangsa, agama dan tanahair.

“UMNO ternampak dan memang pun benar, berjuang untuk kepentingan orang-orang tertentu dalamnya dan ahlinya sahaja. UMNO berjuang untuk jawatan dan pangkat, untuk memperkayakan diri, untuk sagu hati, untuk poket sendiri,” tulis Mahathir di blognya.

Mahathir berkata pemimpin UMNO kini melariskan budaya memilih orang kurang berkobolehan untuk menyertai parti supaya kedudukan mereka tidak diancam sampai bila-bila.

“Untuk ini mereka berusaha mengurangkan kemungkinan diri mereka dicabar, kurangkan kemungkinan diganti oleh sesiapa yang lebih layak. UMNO adalah hak ahlinya, hak pemimpinnya yang sedia ada dan bukan hak orang Melayu. Setelah mereka mendapat tempat jangan benar orang Melayu lain, terutama yang memiliki kebolehan tertentu, menyertai Umno,” selar beliau.

Sekarang, Mahathir berkata UMNO sudah menjadi sebuah parti hanya untuk pemimpin dan ahli semasa, dari ketua cawangan kepada ketua bahagian.

“UMNO tidak perlu tambahan ahli, tidak perlu penyertaan sesiapa lagi kerana ahli yang sedia ada perlu memelihara habuan mereka. Jika terlalu banyak ahli, habuan perlu dikongsi. Dan habuan yang dikongsi tentulah tidak sebanyak sebelum berkongsi,” sindirnya lagi.

Akibatnya, kata Mahathir, mereka terutama yang berkebolehan, yang berbakat tidak dibenar masuk UMMO lagi.

“Yang boleh menyertai hanyalah yang kurang berkebolehan dibanding dengan yang sudah ada. Oleh kerana penyertaan dalam UMNO mestilah melalui cawangan, yang boleh masuk UMNO ialah yang kurang berkebolehan dari ketua cawangan,” katanya.

Mahathir juga menyindir bahawa pemimpin-pemimpin UMNO ini sering terlupa ajal boleh sampai bila-bila masa.

“Ketua cawangan manusia biasa yang boleh diserang penyakit, bahkan boleh mati pun. Satu hari ketua cawangan terpaksa lepaskan jawatannya. Penggantinya tentulah orang yang memiliki kebolehan yang kurang darinya. Dengan itu kebolehan ketua cawangan akan merosot sepanjang masa, tiap kali pengganti mengambil alih. Dan ini akan terjadi dalam keseluruhan parti,” katanya.

Akhirnya, Mahathir berkata UMNO hanya tinggal golongan yang tidak berbakat sehingga semakin kurang ahli yang berbakat dan layak untuk menjadi calon dalam PRU.

“Calon payung terjun yang berbakat akan dikalahkan. Dengan itu pemimpin Kerajaan juga akan terdiri dari yang tidak berkebolehan,” sindirnya lagi.

“Di mana pergi mereka yang berbakat ini?. Mereka pergi ke mana mereka di terima, tentunya parti lawan,” tambahnya lagi.

PERINGATAN: Komentar yang diutarakan melalui laman sosial ini adalah milik peribadi akaun laman sosial ini. Segala risiko akibat komentar yang disiarkan TIDAK menjadi tanggungjawab Harakahdaily. Komentar yang disiarkan menjadi tanggungjawab pemilik akaun sendiri. Para komentar dinasihatkan bertanggungjawab dalam menulis dan elakkan komentar melampau dan berbaur perkauman.

1BN Plan: UMNO-BN must change to remain relevant, say Najib and Deputy

June 4, 2013

by Terence Netto@http://www.malaysiakini.com

COMMENT: After years of keeping at the rear of change rather than in advance of it, UMNO and parts of BN find themselves – a month after a general election that has confirmed that the political dogmas of the past are inadequate to a transitional present – running on the spot.

Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak and Deputy Muhyiddin Yassin, in remarks made after their initially tentative conclusions about the import of the results of GE13 had mutated to firmer findings, intimated that BN and UMNO must change to stay relevant.

Muhyiddin, in particular, went a little further by suggesting a study of the possibility that a single party BN would be the way to proceed in contrast to persisting with the presently multi-component structure that has been in power since 1974 and, before that, holding the reins of government since independence through its precursor, Alliance.

Presumably, Muhyiddin was reacting to the phenomena of Malay voters in urban and semi-rural seats marking the ballot for DAP and Chinese all over the country ticking the box for PAS.

This factor was behind the Opposition Pakatan Rakyat’s gains in Selangor where BN had mounted an intense but ultimately fruitless campaign to recover the richest state in the country.

Possibly chastened by this phenomenon, Muhyiddin, hitherto assertive about the immutability of his Malay-ness and its lofty position in the UMNO-nurtured racial pecking order of the country, gave vent to an idea that many in UMNO would like to be amnesic about: his suggestion that BN could become a single party conglomerate was essentially a variation on a theme aired as early as 1951 by UMNO’s founder, Onn Jaafar.

Onn had to leave UMNO, chagrined by its resistance to an idea whose time had not then come but whose point could only be deferred, not interred. Six decades later, Muhyiddin, a scion of Johor UMNO where the party was birthed, has re-floated what a seer-like Onn had first proposed.

A stillborn idea

However, the reactions from within UMNO or from within its extra-territorial fold, PERKASA, to Muhyiddin’s idea confirmed what the British historian John Macauley, master of many intricate partisan maneuvers in his historical research, observed to be true about political parties.

Macauley said that it is in the nature of political parties to retain their original enmities far more firmly than their original principles. Talk of retention of original enmities, shortly after Muhyiddin spoke about a single BN party, PERKASA was on record as warning of grave consequences to those who “erase” UMNO.

The responses of other elements in the UMNO quarter were less dire though no less inhospitable.

UMNO Information Chief Ahmad Maslan said that conservative UMNO Malays would not countenance the idea of a unified BN party; Vice-President Ahmad Zahid Hamidi speculated that the idea arose from the desperation felt by BN component parties which had been annihilated at the recent polls; and UMNO eminence grise Dr Mahathir Mohamad observed that the idea’s time had not yet arrived.

In effect, the reactionaries were saying that what the average voter in the economically leading state of the country was signaling about his political preferences was not what the common UMNO member was inclined to go with.

Sure, less economically endowed Malays in the rural parts of the country had voted for UMNO, a decision prompted in part, in states like Kedah, by the incompetence of the former Menteri Besar from PAS, Azizan Abdul Razak, and abetted by the BRIM (1Malaysia cash handouts) payments they received that required of them a reciprocal obligation to vote the hand that fed them.

But this category of voter is not a demographic that is set to stay for long. If anything, it will recede as rural-to-urban migration accelerates, as people age, and as the threat of mounting insolvency incurred by profligate BN governance becomes palpable.

In short, UMNO and BN are riding a waning wave of voter preference but its leadership ranks are infested with people who cannot distinguish between their specific career interests and the long-term interests of the coalition of which their party is a dominant part.

Mired in fevered swamps

Too long in thrall to the dogmas of a race-centred worldview, large swatches of Umno and several components of the BN are mired in its fevered swamps, unable to disenthrall and thus renew their party.

Even the defeat at the polls to politicians like PERKASA firebrand Ibrahim Ali, who lost his Pasir Mas parliamentary seat in Kelantan, and to Zulkifli Noordin (right), the religious bigot and agitator, who was dumped with ease in the Shah Alam federal seat, is apparently not sufficient to convince Umno that the party, as presently constituted and led, is on sliding scale on the voter-preference graph.

Too long a stay in power – this more than a half-century UMNO-BN one aided by a rural voter-weightage that’s gone off the rails, and abetted by the machinations of an Election Commission that’s an adjunct of the government – leaves the anointed with the feeling that come what may, they are ordained to stay.

If it’s true that without vision, people perish, as the French philosopher Blaise Pascal held, then it must also be true that without reform and renewal, sclerotic political parties diminish and die. It’s just that some may mistake merely running on the spot as an adequate substitute for R & R.

GE-13: BN-UMNO’s own fault for Opposition gains

June 4, 2013

by J. D. Lovrenciear (jdlovrenciear@yahoo.com)

From the looks of things taking place it appears quite set that BN-UMNO is never going to learn. The cornerstone to any regaining of lost ground – especially in the world of politics, is to take responsibility and account for the mistakes as a sign of atonement.

But that seems to not make sense for BN-UMNO. Till this date, even after GE-13 delivered 52 % of popular votes for a potentially alternative government-in-waiting – which could as contested, be even a cool 60 %, BN-UMNO is still not able to confess that its reduced 47 % of popular votes is a reflection of people abandoning its fold.

Instead of taking a serious look at its political and politicking self, BN-UMNO takes it out on the opposition politicians and the PR party coalition.

The barring of Nurul Izzah is a case in point. One day she is told that she cannot enter a State in her own country, Sabah; and even before the citizens have caught up with their abated breath, the cops announce that she can now come in.

BN-UMNO’s refusal to learn to re-examine itself with humility is clearly observed from the many haughty statements, reprimands and warnings and unthinking statements belted from their camp.

People who voted not for BN or UMNO are told bluntly that they are ‘penghianat’ (traitors). One chap even had the audacity to state that those who do not support the BN system can leave the country. Since when did he take on the rights of His Majesty DYMM Yang DiPertuan Agung? Another says that opposition camp is out to create chaos. And so on and so forth.

Of course you cannot beat the Prime Minister who takes the trophy for shouting “Chinese tsunami” at the close of the polls.

The puzzle is, why is BN-UMNO behaving like this? Do its leaders not see the critical need to re-examine, reflect and re-appraise a strategy that will place them on a footing that enables the rakyat to forgive them for their sins against State, citizens and King?

Instead they unleash all kinds of hatched plans that get the police to swoop down on Opposition leaders hoping to instill fear in the hearts of citizens. Just imagine how many man hours and resources are wasted to get the police and the courts to see through all these sandiwara play-acts of supremacy.

Do they not learn that it is these acts against the leaders and MPs within opposition that is further riling the rakyat the wrong way up? Do they not come to their awakening that times have changed in the past thirty years.

Let BN-UMNO be told. What we witness in the many peaceful public protests – since the days of Bersih 1.0, 2.0 and the many Blackout 505 rallies is a reflection of the gradual shift taking place in the hearts and minds of the rakyat over the years.

Blaming the Opposition of instigation, provocation and scheming is not going to help BN-UMNO heal itself from the deep wounds inflicted upon it at GE-13. In fact, the lacerations were already being inflicted since the past two general elections. But BN-UMNO failed to learn from the signals sent out by the citizens. Instead it chose to lump the blame on one man, Anwar Ibrahim. How pathetical and foolish.

It went on the offensive. It chose to lambast the opponents. And what made it worse was its own inability to read the signals and respond with affirmative award-winning actions.

BN-UMNO took the well traveled path of the Mahathir era playing the race and religion cards. Even looking at the various cash-and-kind handouts and the ‘you help me, I help you’ mantras that drove BN-UMNO’s GE-13 war plan was already openly criticized by the rakyat. But BN-UMNO refused to acknowledge the feedback.

“We know what is best for you” and “We know what we are doing because we have been in this business for over five decades” seemed to be their conviction – an operative from a high pedestal.Such lack of remorse; lack of humility; vanity and misplaced pride – all these will slowly but surely wreck havoc on BN-UMNO eventually. And nobody should be blamed if BN-UMNO cracks up beyond repair.

Its leaders must remember that BN-UMNO needs its own remedy, i.e. the propagated ‘transformation’ more than the rakyat do. If the party cannot re-model itself to become relevant to the consuming-voter, any amount of re-branding will not stand the test of time.

It must with humility recognize that if there are voters swinging to the opposition camp in increasing numbers after giving BN a whooping majority in the past decades, it means they have given up hope for the weathered and worn horse. It is not about being ‘ungrateful’. It is about ‘disappointment’ in BN-UMNO; it is about a sense of betrayal felt by the very people who kept giving the vote to BN-UMNO every five years.

Learning, un-learning and re-learning – all of these are vital for politicians and their parties if they want to remain relevant in the fast changing times.

Blaming, threatening, punishing without justification, and pulling the carpet under the opponents’ feet – these are political currencies that have zero buying power in the new world order where democracy, civil liberties and free and fair elections are the yardsticks.

Good luck BN-UMNO. Do not say we never told you so. It is just that you were blinded by your own arrogance and wasteful ways. It is not about our being ungrateful or anti-national.

In fact, it is because the rakyat truly love this nation so much and revere their King with love and loyalty that they are willing to step forward in the broiling sun on the scorching tarmac and walk the distance in a peaceful manner to save State, King and citizens.

We are certain that if our DYMM Yang DiPertuan Agung was in the midst of all our Blackout 505 rallies for example, His Majesty too would be most impressed by the discipline, conduct and unity amongst the tens of thousands of His subjects.

Above all His Majesty would embrace the passion and hope with which His subjects sing the National Anthem and also recognize how muhibbah His subjects are as they help each other to find their way out of the mammoth crowds and take notice too how His subjects also do not forget to clean up the padang of all litter while chipping in a small contribution towards the cause

This BN-UMNO cannot see unfortunately.

No Respite for a scandal-rocked Malaysia (?)

June 3, 2013

NOTE: While we must not abandon our quest for good governance, we must not overlook the fact that the business of government must begin as the election is over. GE-13 has given the Prime Minister and his UMNO-BN the mandate to govern. The voters have in their wisdom also given us a strong Opposition in Parliament. Both the Government and the Opposition must now do their respective duty which is to serve the rakyat. I wish to ask Mr, Netto, how he proposes to “Ubah”? What does he have in mind? More protests? More electioneering?

I would rather abide by His Majesty’s advice that we should accept the election results and move on. As regards to the political future of the Prime Minister, it is wise to leave that decision to the UMNO membership. At the same time, civil society must continue to demand for electoral reforms and  transparency and accountability.

Not only are we scandal-sodden, but we are also in state of protest fatigue. Time to go forward, accept the imperfections of the electoral process, seek judicial review, and speak up for reform. We all have a duty to make Malaysia great again. And we can through constructive engagement. Our Government must listen and act with courage and wisdom or it will face the consequences of total rejection in GE-14.–Din Merican

by Terence Netto (06-02-13)@http://www.malaysiakini.com

COMMENT: The public must by now be feeling so blasé from the endless rounds of the weird masquerading as the normal in the government of Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak that the latest argument that his administration is deeper into weirdo land recalls the humourist who thought he had hit bottom and then heard someone tapping from underneath.

A scandal-sodden public can reasonably be expected to be groggy about the fact that the month and the year when a supposedly transformative PM compounded his cabinet of illicit personnel was exactly 25 years on from the trigger for all subsequent mutilations to what is regarded as the due process of constitutional governance.

This was the impeachment of then-Lord President Salleh Abas, an act of such monstrosity and cascading ill-effects that Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s attempt, on his prime ministerial watch (2003-09), to mitigate its virulence by offering sops to the wounded and the maimed among the affected justices is rather like Japan’s effort to come to terms with the victims, comfort women and Death Railway inductees, of its imperial past – measly and inadequate.

“Our parents sowed dragon’s teeth, our children know and reap the armed men,” goes a saying of uncertain patrimony but singular pertinence to our current predicament.

A Prime Minister, whom we have good reason to believe is a suspected felon in the cover-up of a murder case no less, is heading a government placed in power on minority say-so, and is now in charge of a cabinet composed of some people who have about as much right to be there as some dubiously obtained MyKad holders had in being on GE13′s electoral register.

The question at this stage is: Can things get any worse and if they do, will we see the removal of the coalition that has been in charge of this country since independence in 1957? Things can and will get worse. This we can predict from what has already happened and will continue to happen.

Recalcitrant cops

You can’t come to acquiring the statistic of a 218th death in police custody of a suspect since a count of such mortalities was kept since 2000 without there being something pathological in sections of our Police force.

It is a pathology for which there was a remedy, commended by no less than a royal commission of inquiry into the management of the Police force, which suggested, after a 15-month study of the problem, the formation of an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC).

The proposal, unveiled in March 2005 in a raft of recommendations for the revamping of the management of the force, was stiff-armed by a cabal of senior police officers who threatened to throw their support to the opposition if the government of Abdullah Badawi implemented it.

Talk of sedition – a charge hurled against student, social and political activists with promiscuous ease these days – the action of that coterie of recalcitrant police officers savoured of sedition, because the recommendation emanated from a royal commission, empaneled on authority of the Agong and was aimed at securing improvements to a vital limb of our criminal justice that carries the royal title on its coat of arms.

Depend upon it that could get conceivably worse. You not only have not seen any determination on the part of the Inspector-General of Police and his boss, the Home Affairs Minister, to do anything about this long suppurating sore on our criminal justice system, you have seen the leader of hitherto the shrillest protestant against such perversities join the government after having stunningly agreed to drop, as a condition of his enlistment in the ruling power structure, a demand for a cessation to custodial deaths.

Not only do things stay incorrigible, the government succeeds in enticing veritable watchdogs of good governance to join them in seeing how things can be bettered, the latter agreeing to enlist from the motive that puts one in mind of Dr Samuel Johnson’s observation of a second marriage – “the triumph of hope over experience.”

But often enough, the new enlistees turn over to discover that it is more a situation where drift, inertia and cynicism work their way to keep things the way they are or worse than that. There is no substitute for “Ubah.”

Malaysia’s election: Barisan Nasional’s paltry win

June 2, 2013

Lest We Forget: Barisan Nasional’s paltry win in GE-13

by Arnold Puyok (05-29-13), Universiti Malaysia Sarawak

The recent Malaysian election saw the ruling party Barisan Nasional (BN) retain its hold on power for another 5-year term after winning 133 out of 222 federal seats.

Malaysia’s first-past-the-post system sealed BN’s victory, despite the fact that Pakatan Rakyat (PR), the opposing coalition, won 54 per cent of the popular vote over BN’s 46 per cent.

PR’s de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim has since alleged that the election was tainted with countless irregularities such as erasable indelible ink, vote-buying, unregistered ballot boxes, and sabotage by officials from the Election Commission (EC).

It seems that Anwar will not concede defeat easily. He has organised massive rallies that have attracted thousands of Malaysians to protest the election results. It remains to be seen how far Anwar can go. Not all members in PR support mass rallies to challenge the election results. The new government has also warned that it will not tolerate any attempt to overthrow the government through illegal street protests. And for many ordinary Malaysians, the election is over, and it is time to move on.

The real question is why, despite the groundswell of support for PR, did it still fail to win the election? The answer lies in BN’s entrenched influence in the system.

First, BN has complete control over the electronic media outlets TV1, TV2, TV3, and to some extent ASTRO. News reports on these outlets are one-sided and often appear to be a form of government propaganda. BN-controlled print media such as Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian are also often used to attack the opposition and not to report objective news.

This has left the opposition with no choice but to depend on alternative media channels such as YouTube, blogs, and social networking sites to reach the public. But in rural areas without internet coverage, voters continue to depend on information disseminated by BN-controlled media organisations.

Additionally, unlike other Commonwealth countries with Westminster systems, Malaysia does not have clear guidelines to regulate the conduct of caretaker governments once parliament is dissolved. In the lead-up to the election, BN was accused of misusing government vehicles and staff during campaigning, and disbursing government funds to entice the voters. This is a fairly ‘normal’ practice for politicians from both sides of the political divide, given that the EC appears to lack the resolve to regulate the use of money in campaigning.

In the 2013 election BN supporters were allegedly given between RM50 and RM100 to vote for BN. For rural voters, who form the large bulk of support for BN, RM50 is a lot of money. Some were even promised development aid such as roof zincs and water tanks if they could ‘prove’ that they had voted for BN.

Malaysia’s electoral system is also designed to help BN remain in power. The largest party in BN, UMNO (United Malays National Organisation), knows that most of its support comes from the rural Malay voters. Through a process of electoral re-delineation — or ‘gerrymandering’ — BN has created more rural Malay areas, even though the number of voters in these areas is disproportionately small compared to urban areas.

This practice of skewing electoral boundaries in favour of BN is glaringly evident in Sabah — a ‘fixed deposit’ state for BN. UMNO needed to win more Malay seats to strengthen its grip on Sabah. Thus, more Malay seats were created at the expense of the non-Malay constituencies. All UMNO needed to do to form a government with a simple majority in the 60-seat Sabah Legislative Assembly was to win the 32 Malay-majority seats.

It is still possible for BN to win back the support of disgruntled voters who feel as though BN’s victory was improperly obtained.

First, BN has to address the alleged fraudulent practices in the electoral system. Asking the voters to leave the country if they are not happy with the way things are done in Malaysia is certainly not the way to improve the system’s weaknesses. Second, rather than attributing the major swing of Chinese support away from BN to ungratefulness and racism, BN should try and find out why Chinese voters are dissatisfied. In tackling this issue, BN must not neglect those who voted against it in Sabah and Sarawak.

Cutting development funds and withdrawing infrastructural projects in areas where BN did not win — a practice of former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad’s administration — is childish and runs counter to BN’s ‘People First’ pledge. Third, BN must act swiftly to initiate the various reforms in its election manifesto.

If BN can address all of these three issues boldly and effectively, it might be accepted by Malaysians as the ‘legitimate’ winner of the election. Otherwise, Malaysians have every reason to challenge the election results.

Arnold Puyok is Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Social Sciences, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak.

http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/05/29/malaysias-election-barisan-nasionals-paltry-win/

The Real Reason For Police Crackdown: UMNO fears the Truth

June 1, 2013

Ong Kar Jin believes there’s more to what meets the eye in this round of Police crackdowns.

Adam Adli. Tian Chua. Haris Ibrahim. Tamrin Ghafar. Safwan Anang. And now Hishammuddin Rais. One by one, these politicians and activists have been hauled up by the authorities in a crackdown reminiscent of 1988’s Operation Lalang.

The real question of course, is why. Now this may seem like an obvious answer to you; after all, they all probably have played a part in calling on people to go to street rallies, or have had a hand or two in organising them. The simple logic now is that the authorities are simply clamping down to ensure no more rallies will take place.

I must disagree. Let us take the rally reason at face value. Tamrin Ghafar, Hishammuddin Rais and Tian Chua have had very little to do with organising rallies. In terms of calling on people to rise and take to the streets to protest, they are only part of a growing chorus of NGO activists, politicians and ordinary citizens.

In any case, rallies have gone on for a very long time now, from BERSIH in 2007 all the way to the recent Suara Rakyat 505 Padang Amcorp rally. Barisan Nasional (BN) has managed to largely ignore them with the administration going on as normal, and have learnt valuable lessons that any crackdowns can only result in a terrible political backlash.

And if indeed there was to be a crackdown to prevent rallies, why the selective persecution? Why not hit out at the big players? Blogger Chegubard has made his stance and involvement in the Amcorp Mall rally very clear by his presence on the stage, yet has not been arrested.

Yet a crackdown still happened. And is still happening. Why? Has the government simply not learned? Have they grown a sudden fear to rallies?

I believe the situation needs a closer examination. Not all arrested so far called upon the rakyat to rise and take the fight to the streets. Not all were involved in organizing rallies. Yet the Home Ministry went right ahead knowing full well there would be a huge political backlash in arresting the above names. Again, the crucial question is why?

All those arrested thus far do, however, have something in common: they all spoke out against racism at a May 13 forum at the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall. Adam Adli called the May 13 riots a result of sedition by UMNO members and said they were used as an excuse to hold on to power in the aftermath of the devastating 1969 election results. Tian Chua boldly stated that unity has never been a real problem in Malaysia, but disunity is actively caused by UMNO itself.

Again, he labeled May 13 as a means to hold onto power, calling it a “toyol” to scare people. Most revealing is Tamrin Ghafar’s speech, where he revealed in his capacity as an ex-UMNO insider that the May 13 riots were part of a coup d’état to overthrow Tunku Abdul Rahman. He even implicated Mahathir Mohammad as one of the key players. Similar exhortations to relook at history were made by Haris Ibrahim and Safwan Anang.

I believe it is not rallies UMNO fears but a growing trend of historical revisionism. Should the spectre of May 13 be torn apart as an UMNO-orchestrated plot, Barisan Nasional would lose its status as a bringer of “stability” and a preserver of “delicate race relations”.  Previously such thoughts were restricted to the minds of academics such as Kua Kia Soong, but recently such reflections upon history have gained traction in popular imagination.

As George Orwell once said: “He who controls the present, controls the past. And he who controls the past, controls the future.”

The real fear of UMNO is not rallies. They have dealt with them aplenty before, from 1988’s protests, 1998’s Reformasi to 2007’s BERSIH. The real fear of UMNO is the revision of the “gospel truth” they have taught people as the history of the nation. Once the May 13 spectre loses ground, what would happen to the older voters who previously may have feared a change in government based on concerns over racial clashes? What would it say about BN’s smear campaign on Lim Kit Siang, who was not even in the Peninsula at the time of the riots?

And what other hidden histories will be revealed? Perhaps the next issue to catch people’s attention will be the struggle of the left-wing parties under PUTERA-AMCJA against the British (see Fahmi Redza’s documentary Sepuluh Tahun Sebelum Merdeka), which would then portray UMNO not as independence fighters but as British sycophants and collaborators. With such a huge blow to BN’s prestige as the Fathers of Independence, what sort of impact might that have on Malaysians?

No doubt such thoughts are haunting the minds of the authorities. As another quote from George Orwell goes: “In times of universal deceit, the telling of the truth is a revolutionary act.”To put it simply, UMNO fears the truth.

http://www.loyarburok.com/2013/05/31/real-reason-crackdown/

Post GE-13: Time to get serious about Government

June 1, 2013

by Din Merican

COMMENT: It has been nearly 4 weeks since GE13. The outcome was in a favour of Najib-led UMNO-Barisan, although Pakatan Rakyat garnered nearly 54 per cent of the total vote. Victory came late in the night of May 5 when the Election Commission chairman jubilantly announced that UMNO-BN was first past the post.

UMNO-BN celebrates while the Opposition and civil society activists rant about fraud and other irregularities which denied victory to Pakatan Rakyat; they have taken their case to the court of public opinion.

Our country is being disrupted by dissent. The UMNO-BN coalition, on the other hand, has formed the government with the consent of our King and has resorted to the law to arrest, detain and charge those who dare to challenge the results. Frankly, confrontation does not solve problems; it merely acerbates them.

Election Results and New Government

Today, our King has urged us to accept the election results. Rightly so because our country needs a government and so whether we like it or not, there is now a government with a mandate to govern. His Majesty is naturally concerned about his subjects and our country.

Let Prime Minister Najib and cohort govern while Parliament with a strong opposition must perform its legislative and oversight duties diligently. Election is over, but there is the business of government to conduct.

Dewan Rakyat: A House of Dignity

Our Parliamentarians must be Yang Berhormats, not a bunch of hooligans shouting down at each other across the aisle such that no sensible debate can take place. We must have a Speaker in Dewan Rakyat who can moderate the debate in an impartial manner, and not behave like a dictator. He must also allow ample time for debate.

We also need a Government that treats Parliament as equal partner, not a rubber stamp. This means that the Leader of the Opposition is consulted on issues of utmost importance to our country, for example,the national budget and security.

The Courts decide on Legitimacy

Legitimacy? That’s another question.We must leave it to the Courts, if it comes to that, to decide on the issue of legitimacy of the elections based on evidence provided by both UMNO-BN and Pakatan Rakyat. The case of Al Gore vs G W Bush comes to mind, where the popular vote favored the former while the electoral college system favored that latter. The Court of Florida decided in favour of Bush.

The court of public opinion cannot adjudicate on matters relating to our constitution and other laws. Otherwise anarchy reigns. For all its faults and frailties, our country is founded on the Rule of Law. Our third estate, the Judiciary, must administer the Law.

Electoral Reforms

At the same time, electoral reform proposals by BERSIH should be looked into by the Election Commission so that by GE-14 we have clean, fair and transparent voting system.

Here the wishes of Malaysians for free and fair elections must be respected. If the electoral process is severely flawed, then Malaysians cannot determine the government they want.

The above are my thoughts as I take time to celebrate the Official Birthday of His Majesty DYMM Yang diPertuan Agong today. In the spirit of discourse, I welcome your views, thoughts and criticisms.–Din Merican

Pak Kadiaq: Dr. Mahathir and Daim will decide on Najib’s Future

May 30, 2013

Tun Mahathir and Tun Daim will decide on Najib’s Future, says Pak Kadiaq

by Ida Lim@www.themalaysianinsider.com

Any open debate on Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s future as UMMO President and Prime Minister will be driven by the country’s longest-serving Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Tun Daim Zainuddin, veteran journalist Datuk Abdul Kadir Jasin said today.

Following the May 5 polls where Najib led his Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition to victory, observers have said that he is now seeking to secure his position as the party leader in the UMNO elections that are expected to take place this year.

“Dr Mahathir, Daim and several independent bloggers will determine whether Mohd Najib’s future as UMNO President and Prime Minister will be openly debated,” Abdul Kadir wrote in a blog post titled “Kesan Positif Sekatan dan Imbangan Selepas PRU13” (The positive effects of checks and balance after GE13), referring to former UMNO Minister Daim.

Abdul Kadir said that the two veteran UMNO leaders had even met and drawn up an action plan following the 13th general election where BN managed to hold on to power with a smaller haul of 133 federal seats, fewer than its 140-seat win in 2008.

“Daim met Dr Mahathir in Putrajaya few days after the May 5 general election where they were said to have made a ‘review’ of the results and the short-term and medium-term measures that they will take,” Abdul Kadir said.

Abdul Kadir also said that BN’s war room should acknowledge that it had lost out to Najib’s predecessor Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and his advisers, referring to the former BN chief who had retained power in 2008 despite his coalition losing its customary two-thirds parliamentary majority for the first time in history.

“Whatever it is, Abdullah can now hold his head up high because the accusation that his performance in PRU 2008 was hambar is no longer accurate because Mohd Najib’s achievement was even worse despite support by Dr Mahathir and Daim. Looking at Mohd Najib’s achievement, I myself feel that (I had) over-criticised Abdullah after GE 2008.

“Like it or not, Mohd Najib and his staff that run the ‘Bilik Perang’ (War Room) BN should sincerely, openly and transparently admit that their boasts had memakan diri (failed) and they lost to Abdullah and his Fourth Floor Boys.”

The Malaysian Insider previously reported that sources within BN had questioned the strategies used by the BN war room, but BN secretary-general Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor reportedly denied on May 15 that the war room had failed to achieve its targets, pointing out that BN had won the mandate to form the federal government.

On Monday, Abdul Kadir’s blog carried a transcript of Daim’s interview with local daily China Press, where the former Finance Minister blamed Najib’s advisers for BN’s failure to regain a two-thirds parliamentary majority, claiming that they had used the wrong strategy to drive BN’s election campaign.

In the same blog post today, Abdul Kadir noted that Najib still has backing from the influential Dr Mahathir and may experience less opposition from those trying to take him down.

“In the political arena, Mohd Najib Abdul Razak’s position will continue to be disputed. Just maybe not as outspoken as what happened to Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi after PRU 2008 because Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad is lebih mesra (more friendly) with Mohd Najib and many of the bloggers that used to be anti-Abdullah are now pro-Mohd Najib. They may not support any negative moves towards Mohd Najib, and may even demonise anyone that tries to bring down Mohd Najib.”

He said many harsh comments have been directed at Daim since his interview criticising Najib and his men was published.Dr Mahathir has said BN has no choice but to throw its weight behind Najib, who will likely survive his second term as prime minister due to a lack of an alternative, international business newswire Bloomberg reported on May 25.

“I think the party will support him because of a lack of an alternative,” 87-year-old Dr Mahathir was quoted as saying in Tokyo in a speech at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Japan.

Observers have said BN’s performance will likely affect 59-year-old Najib’s bid to stay on as UMNO president, with Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, 66, seen as a possible contender for the post.

Despite the BN’s poorer overall electoral results, Najib’s leadership had ensured UMNO succeeded in netting a significant nine more seats in Election 2013, giving the Malay party a total of 88 in the Dewan Rakyat compared to 79 in Election 2008.

Match Words with Action, Mr. Prime Minister

May 28, 2013

It’s Time to Walk the Talk, Mr. Prime Minister, or is it too late?

COMMENT: Our Prime Minister has established a reputation for himself as someone who does a lot of talking and sloganeering since he took over the premiership from Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in April, 2009. Plenty of talk but very short on action.

The last General Election is a referendum on him and some 53 per cent of the voters rejected his leadership. It is , therefore, going to be long uphill battle for Dato’ Seri Najib to regain his credibility.

His 1Malaysia is now in shambles thanks to the likes of Ibrahim Ali and Zul Nordin of PERKASA and other extreme elements within his own party. His economic transformation programme has proven to be choppy with our national debt is at all time high.

And now that he has failed to recapture Selangor and get 2/3rd majority in the 13th Parliament, he will face a serious challenge to his leadership. To survive, he must pander to the wishes of ultra-Malay nationalists in UMNO. UMNO will decide if he is to remain Prime Minister. This perhaps explains why he has chosen to be low key since May 5, 2013. He must blame himself, not the Chinese or anyone else, for the position he finds himself now.–Din Merican

Match Words with Action, Mr Prime Minister

by Terence Fernandez (05-23-13) @ http://www.mmail.com.my

“I BELIEVE we have learned our lesson because I keep telling that the political environment has changed. I see this as a structural change in society … people are becoming more aware and empowered. Values have changed and expectations have increased. As a government that wants to stay in power, you must realise that you have to respond to it. The era of government knows best is over.” — Datuk Seri Najib Razak, The Malay Mail December 7, 2012.

This excerpt from an interview we conducted with the Chief Executive last year resonated as I watched events unfold in Jinjang. The arrests of Batu MP Tian Chua, PAS member Tamrin Ghaffar (the son of the late Deputy Prime Minister Tun Ghafar Baba) and activist Haris Ibrahim have seen hundreds of people gather in front of the Jinjang lockup to protest a fresh spate of arrests in the wake of the general election.

They were detained for speaking at a forum on the May 13 riots. Days before the trio’s arrest, student Adam Adli was also detained for words he uttered at the same forum.

On Thursday, 1,000 copies of Suara Keadilan and Harakah were seized from various newsstands in the Klang Valley. Make no doubt about it but there may be a case for the prosecution in this “Ops Lalang” style crackdown. As the Home Ministry’s statement explains, these political gazettes were not licensed for mass sales, only “internal circulation”.

And calling people to take to the streets could be an offence under the vague provisions of the Sedition Act — another legislation that is prone to abuse. However, the trio was released, following a ballsy magistrate’s refusal to grant a remand order. Adam is on bail.

But if this may seem a victory of those calling for “change”, they still have their work cut out for them. Face it, one can shout in the streets till the cows come home but the ones who can make these changes are those in the corridors of power.

This means the Prime Minister who has received the mandate he requires to moot this change has to start keeping up with the demands of the rakyat. His words from the December 7 interview: “For me to complete my job I would require a strong mandate from the people. With a strong mandate from the people I can say: ‘Look, the people have spoken. They believe in the policies that I propounded’.” So okay, Najib did not really get the mandate he wanted.

The BN lost seven more parliamentary seats and 53 per cent of the population voted for the Opposition. But this is the hand both sides have been dealt with and the sore losers (and winners) must accept that if the Westminster system worked for them in gaining the seats they had won, this same system also dictates who will form the government of the day.

And this explanation of democracy 101 is how some of the winners of GE13 has been fending off the criticisms of their competitors — apart from telling more than half the population to migrate.

Truth be told, Najib may not have received the mandate he desired, but it is still an approval from the rakyat — a vote of confidence not so much for his party but for Najib to continue as premier. His position in UMNO, the party that decides the premiership, should be more than secure as the party did better attaining 88 seats in Parliament, as opposed to 79 in 2008.

So now is the time to put his words into motion and this means putting a leash on the likes of his former political secretary, Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi (left) whose words and conduct since the later became Home Minister has been far from reconciliatory.

Here’s another excerpt from the Najib interview: “I’m talking about beyond the 13th general election. I’m talking about a new, better Malaysia.” Well, Sir, events post-GE13 so far makes it seem that a “better Malaysia” is still far off. The people are still clamouring for reforms louder than ever. And it looks like they will be heard.

The inclusion of people like Khairy Jamaluddin and Datuk Paul Low in the Cabinet is a step forward for change but these “agents of change” can only do so much if they have the backing of the Big Boss who hopefully now, can stop looking over his shoulder so he can carry out his responsibilities to close to 29 million Malaysians — not 2,000 party delegates.

First thing when parliament convenes is to re-look the Sedition Act and the joke that is the Peaceful Assembly Act that has only resulted in a flip-flopping Police force which should be utilised to make our streets safer.

This must be followed by efforts to address the allegations against the electoral process as well as the impartiality of the Election Commission. Forget the Opposition’s claims; voters must be confident that their votes must account for something. Right now, many of us are not.

In a way Najib had begun this process by supporting the “Project IC” inquiry in Sabah. By agreeing to a full-scale investigation, Najib may be able to end the daily rallies as well as calls for a BERSIH 4.0. He will be showing true leadership.

Yes, Rome was not built in a day and the reforms Najib has initiated over the last three years are welcomed. But Malaysians are all grown up now. And they are getting restless. Cosmetic changes have outlived their appeal. Najib spoke of national reconciliation. It is time to match words with action. National reconciliation starts with you, Mr Prime Minister.

Terence is managing editor.  Feedback: terence@mmail.com.my
He can be followed on Twitter @TerenceFnandez

http://www.mmail.com.my/story/mr-prime-minister-time-walk-talk-56958

Moulding a new breed of Foreign Service Officers

May 27, 2013

by Balan Moses (05-26-13)@www.nst.com.my

GETTING THE JOB DONE: Nation can use services of veteran diplomatic practitioners schooled in unconventional diplomacy

IT was a veritable who’s who of the old diplomatic crowd that gathered last Wednesday to celebrate one of their own who had literally written the book on the kind of diplomacy that they were weaned on and went on to be master of.

The school of unconventional diplomacy of yore was amply and ably represented at the launching of Tan Sri Ahmad Kamil Jaafar’s memoirs — Growing up the Nation — with many really using it as an excuse to meet the crowd that they were most comfortable with.

The banquet hall at the hotel in downtown Kuala Lumpur was almost bursting at the seams as seasoned hands crowded the limited space to share notes from the past, catch up on the latest on the diplomatic grapevine or just shoot the breeze with some of the same ilk.

That they were made of almost the same cloth could be seen from their vintage with the likes of Tan Sri Albert Tallala, K.T. Ratnam, Tan Sri Razali Ismail, Datuk Khor Eng Hee, Datuk Tan Koon San, Datuk Syed Ariff Fadzillah, Datuk Deva Mohd Ridzam (left), Datuk Abdul Majid Khan and Datuk S. Thanarajasingam present to support Kamil, their compatriot and comrade in arms.

Also present was former Prime Minister, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, whose career profile was laced with years of hands-on diplomatic experience that eventually held him in good stead as foreign minister. His presence at the august gathering was also courtesy of the fact that he and Kamil went back many years to their youth and later in the diplomatic service.

It was obvious to me, and others there, that these men and women had many tales to tell which would never see print or even be heard because they did things their way, often the unconventional way, which would be frowned upon by the contemporary set of diplomats.

One of their own — Tun Khalil Yaacob (right), the Yang di-Pertua Negeri of Malacca, erstwhile diplomat and good buddy of Kamil from the Malay College Kuala Kangsar — was given the honour of launching the book which he did with panache as he delved into a common past with friends like Kamil and Razali who went on to etch their names in the annals of Malaysian history.

Khalil was spot on as he lamented the paucity of books by retired diplomats as opposed to books by greying politicians.

Surely, the reason for the absence of books by diplomats could be the fact that they were “complicit” to many things in the heady days of diplomacy in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s when one may have had to think outside the box in a mission thousands of kilometres away from Wisma Putra in tackling issues.

Certainly that was the way Kamil (left) operated as he played diplomatic legerdemain with the bureaucracy in his ministry and in the civil administration to get things done fast and efficiently to protect the interests of Malaysia and Malaysians abroad.

He was a master in unconventional diplomacy by his own tacit admission in his book, never looking back as he blazed new trails on the international circuit with “collusion” from former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad who gave him as much rope as he wanted on specific tasks.

As Secretary-General in 1989 (after 27 years in the foreign service) and until his retirement in 1996, he can be presumed to have given the same amount of latitude to his subordinates in the Foreign Ministry in getting the job done to protect Malaysia’s interests at home and abroad.

Razali (right), in his extempore address made with the abandon of a man who has seen and said it all, touched on the fact that Kamil had the “effrontery and impudence to write this book”.

The former Malaysian permanent representative to the United Nations  said Kamil had done very well as a diplomat in dealing with his political master (read Dr Mahathir)  who gave him free rein “as long as nothing went wrong”.

I am told that this has not quite been the situation for some time as politicians sought to supersede the career diplomat in crafting the foreign policy of the state, something that would not have gone down well with people like Kamil who knew the craft inside out and were not influenced by politics.

Much has been written about the average diplomat of today who are unable to match the language skills of the likes of Kamil or Razali who could mesmerise English-speaking audiences with their adroit use of language complete with nuanced interjections.

Language skills notwithstanding, the relatively free hand that the executive gave to the diplomatic service is perhaps a thing of the past, never to be enjoyed again by the foreign service. This is what even former political leaders like Dr Mahathir have decried as they mourned the loss of multi-talented diplomats who used a mélange of diplomatic skills, personal charisma, national aspirations and that “x” factor that seems to be in short supply today to further the interests of the nation abroad.

It is still not too late today to use our veteran diplomatic practitioners schooled in the ways of unconventional diplomacy to mould a new breed of Malaysian foreign service officers who can deal with the real world in tested and proven ways of the past.

Congratulations to Dr Johan Saravanamuttu and Dr Farish Ahmad Noor

May 26, 2013

I congratulate my good friends, Dr Johan Saravanamuttu of ISEAS, and Dr. Farish Ahmad Noor of The Rajaratnam School, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore for making the ICAS Book Prize 2013 Shortlist. 

Dr. Saravanamuttu’s excellent book is on Malaysia’s Foreign Policy while Dr Farish Noor deals with Political Islam in his book, Islam on the Move: The Tablighi Jama’at in Southeast Asia. He also wrote a two volume study on PAS–Din Merican

ICAS Book Prize 2013 Shortlists

The Reading Committees for the ICAS Book Prize (IBP) and the Reading Committee for the Best Ph.D have decided on the short lists with 5 books and 3 Ph.Ds in each category.

Humanities

Julia F. Andrews and Kuiyi Chen, The Art of Modern China. University of California Press: Berkeley/Los Angeles/ London 2012.

Jeffrey W. Cody, Nancy S. Steinhardt, and Tony Atkin, Chinese Architecture and the Beaux-Arts. University of Hawai’i Press / Hong Kong University Press: Honolulu / Hong Kong 2011.

Michael Dillon, China. A Modern History. I.B.Tauris: London / New York 2010.

Paul A. Van Dyke, Merchants of Canton and Macao. Politics and Strategies in Eighteenth-Century Chinese Trade. Hong Kong University Press: Hong Kong 2011.

James McHugh, Sandalwood and Carrion. Smell in Indian Religion and  Culture. Oxford University press: Oxford / New York 2012.

 Best Ph.D Humanities

Song Chen, Managing the Territories from Afar: The Imperial State and the Elites in Sichuan, 755-1279 (2011).

Ayeski Irani, Sacred Biography, Translation, and Conversion: The Nabivamsa of Saiyad Sultan and the Making of Bengali Islam, 1600-present (2011).

Birgit Magdalena Tremml, When Political Economies Meet: Spain, China and Japan in Manila, 1517-1644 (2012).

 Social Sciences

C. Fred Blake, Burning Money: The Material Spirit of the Chinese Lifeworld. University of Hawai’i Press: Honolulu 2011.

Dan Breznitz and Michael Murphree, Run of the Red Queen: Government, Innovation, Globalization, and Economic Growth in China. Yale University Press: New Haven / London 2011.

Miriam Kahn, Tahiti. Beyond the Postcard. Power, Place, and Everyday Life. University of Washington Press: Seattle / London 2011.

Farish A. Noor, Islam on the Move: The Tablighi Jama’at in Southeast Asia. Amsterdam University Press: Amsterdam 2012.

Johan Saravanamuttu, Malaysia’s Foreign Policy, the First Fifty Years: Alignment, Neutralism, Islamism. ISEAS Publishing: Singapore 2010.

 Best Ph.D Social Sciences

Roberto Benedicto, Bright Lights, Gay Globality. Mobility, Class, and Gay Life in Twenty-first Century Manila (2010)

Thomas Cliff,  Oil and Water Experiences of Being Han in 21^st-Century Korla, Xinjiang (2012)

Aaron Mulvany, Flood of Memories. Narratives of Flood and Loss in Tamil South India (2011)

 The IBP Reading Committee Accolades

In view of the overwhelming response to the competition (250 books and 100 Ph.Ds) we have decided to institute a new category: The Reading Committee Accolades. These Reading Committee Accolades are entirely separate from the established Prizes, and it is thus quite possible that there will be works receiving these accolades that are not included in the Long or Short lists in each Prize category. No work in any category will receive more than one award (Prize/Accolade). The authors whose works are selected for these Accolades will receive three books from the IBP list at choice.

IBP Reading Committee Accolades for the Humanities and Social Sciences will be given in each of the following categories but the Reading Committee has to consider whether these should be in each category. [1] Publishers Accolade for outstanding production values. [2] Most accessible and captivating work for the non-specialist reader Accolade. [3] Specialist publication Accolade. [4] Teaching tool Accolade. [5] Ground-breaking subject matter Accolade. [6] Edited volume Accolade.

IBP Reading Committee Accolades for the Ph.D theses’s will be given in the following categories: [1] Most accessible and captivating work for the non-specialist reader Accolade. [2] Specialist publication Accolade. [3]Ground-breaking subject matter Accolade.

http://www.icassecretariat.org/icas-book-prize-2013-shortlists

No Compassion, only Ambition in search of Power

May 24, 2013

In browsing through my wife Dr.Kamsiah’s Facebook, I found this picture (below) by an Iraqi artist.

It is painful to think what is life about without one’s mother. Her mother could have been killed leaving behind a little girl who has no one to turn to in her journey of life. Leaders like George W. Bush have no compassion; they are consummate egoists whose quest for power knows no bounds.–Din Merican

Forces of darkness gaining upper hand, warns Bishop Dr. Paul Tan

May 24, 2103

COMMENT : We have two new faces at the Office, one a newly minted (out of old and used materials) Minister of Home Affairs and  the other a fresh Inspector General of Police in the mould of his much despised predecessor twice removed Tan Sri Musa Hassan.

Both are desperate to make an impact on the political scene by using an antiquated Sedition Act against irate citizens, civil society activists, and dissidents who are unhappy with the way GE-13 was handled by the Election Commission.

Only a wounded tiger behaves in this manner.Bishop Paul has raised the prospect of more crackdowns against those who dare to speak against injustice and good governance. The good Bishop said it aptly: “…these arrests are an unnerving reminder that bad law is unjust and encourages evil enforcement”.

If that is the case, citizens have the right to express their dissatisfaction by peaceful demonstration against abuse of the Law for political ends. The Holy Koran enjoins Muslims to do the right and forbid the wrong :

وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ وَالْمُؤْمِنَاتُ بَعْضُهُمْ أَوْلِيَاء بَعْضٍ يَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ وَيُقِيمُونَ الصَّلاَةَ وَيُؤْتُونَالزَّكَاةَ وَيُطِيعُونَ اللّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ أُوْلَـئِكَ سَيَرْحَمُهُمُ اللّهُ إِنَّ اللّهَ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ

And the believers , men and women , are protecting friends one of another; they enjoin the right and forbid the wrong , and they establish worship and they pay the poor-due , and they obey Allah and His messenger . As for these , Allah will have mercy on them . Lo! Allah is Mighty , Wise .–Verse 71, Surah At-Taubah

Since May 5, 2013, the Prime Minister has been completely silent. He talks of a national reconciliation yet he allows the suppression of political expression and makes a mockery of his transformation agenda.

Transformation is not just economic development, but also social and political enlightenment. Development, transformation and democracy are inseparable facets of freedom and liberation of the Malaysian mindset.

Why were they so happy? They should be ashamed of themselves, the moment you have phantom voters, it discredits the entire electoral process.

The Election Commission Chairman (left in celebratory mood) and his side kick Deputy should understand that Malaysians support BERSIH for free and fair elections.  My God protect my friends, Tian Chua, Haris Ibrahim and Tamrin Ghaffar and others who are waiting for that “strange visit” from the Royal Malaysian Police.

Bishop Paul says, “Christian teaching required its followers to uphold justice, promote equality and oppose the violation of human rights”. Not just Christians, dear Bishop, all Malaysians should stand up for what is right and reject what is wrong for the good of OUR Malaysia.–Din Merican

by Terence Netto@http://www.malaysiakini.com

Catholic Bishop Dr Paul Tan Chee Ing said the latest arrests under the Sedition Act were for him “an eerie reminder of Operation Lalang” – the October 1987 detentions under the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA) of more than 100 opposition and social activists.

“I hope I’m wrong but these arrests are an unnerving reminder that bad law is unjust and encourages evil enforcement,” said the head of the Catholic Church in the Melaka-Johor diocese who as a priest in Kuala Lumpur in 1987 was informed by the Special Branch then that he was on the list of religious activists – the others were French priest Pierre Gautier and La Salle Brother Anthony Rogers – marked for arrest.

Anthony Rogers, then an aide to Gautier in the Office of Human Development in the Catholic archdiocese of Kuala Lumpur, was taken in under the ISA dragnet that year but Jesuit-trained Paul Tan and Gautier were left unscathed.

Yesterday, several social and political activists were either charged under the Sedition Act or detained for investigation under the law. This flurry of prosecutorial and investigative activity under the Sedition Act has raised concerns that the public is about to witness a repeat of the infamous ‘Operation Lalang’.

Antiquated Law

“That was one of the darkest chapters of our history,” said Bishop Paul, in reference to the period when several score political and social activists were detained under the ISA and held in Kamunting for periods from a few months to a few years.

“The Sedition Act is an antiquated law that should, like the ISA, have been consigned to the dustbin of history,” opined the prelate in remarks to Malaysiakini.

“I think we should have left that part of our history well and truly behind but it appears that the forces of darkness and forces of light are in contention in this country once again and right now, judging from the trend of the last few days, one is gaining the upper hand over the other,” asserted Bishop Paul.

“Heaven forbid that this should come to pass,” he remarked. “It would be most unfortunate if the forces for retrogression gain the upper hand for that would mean that this country will slide back into the quagmire from which the forces of progress have struggled to free us,” he declared.

The Bishop reiterated that Christian teaching required its followers to uphold justice, promote equality and oppose the violation of human rights.

Postscript: Dedicated to my wife Dr. Kamsiah and Women Rights Activists like Zainah Anwar and her colleagues at Sisters in Islam. Stand Up for Justice and Do What is right.Make Male Domination history.