Art Harun articulates about Social Contract

Below is the open letter written by Art Harun at his blog ARTiculations of which I took the liberty to reproduce it here.

My sincere apologies to Art Harun.




***





An open reply to Dr Mohd Ridhuan Tee Abdullah
by Art Harun.

Dear Doctor,

I refer to your article "Accused as criminals better than being evil."

Before I join issue with you on several matters in your article, allow me to state some disclaimers. This is to prevent me from being labeled anti this and that or pro this and that.

First and foremost I am just an ordinary citizen of this country of ours who is just concerned with the well being of our country. Although I have my own political views, I am not affiliated to nor am I associated with any political party at all. I am a Malay and a Muslim. I am not anti-Malay or anti-Islam. Nor am I pro non-Malays or non-Muslims.

Now that I have made that clear, I shall address some of the issues raised.

Firstly, the "social contract". These two words have become a cliche in Malaysia. Whenever somebody or some parties raise some sensitive issues which the Government does not wish to address, they will be referred to the "social contract". Soon, I suppose when a thief snatches a handbag from a poor woman, he will shout to the woman, "social contract"!

What is the "social contract"? I will not repeat what it is as I have written about it here. The first thing to note about it is that any social contract is not cast in stone. It may change as the society and state change and the need of the two parties to the contract evolve with time. What was deemed good 52 years ago may not be good anymore now, and vice versa.

If we take our Federal Constitution as an example, there have been hundreds of amendments made to it. That is the nature of it. It is a breathing and living contract which changes or ought to change according to the time.

Being so, questioning the provisions of the social contact is not a blasphemous act. Nor is it an act of treason. It is in fact a necessity for our society and our state to evolve into a progressive one. With all due respect, for you to label a certain party as "ultra kiasu" just because it apparently questions - if at all they did that - the "social contract" is unbefitting of your stature as a respectable ulamak and a well known senior lecturer. It is like labeling your own students "kiasu" for asking too many questions.

Why can't we be positive about things? Are we so used to be told what to do, what to hear and what to say all these while that we have forgotten to engage with each other properly without any ill feeling? If an ulamak and academician like yourself can't engage properly and without emotion, I shudder to think of the prospect of this nation of ours. Have we all closed our heart and soul to any opposite views?

The second thing to note about the social contract is the fact that this contract, like any other contract, has two parties to it. The first party is the people. The second party is the State (or the government). It runs two ways. The people say "I give you, the government, some of my rights in exchange of you giving me certain benefits". So, the obligations exist on both side of the fence. Not only one.

That means both side must conform to the social contract. Both sides have their own respective obligations to perform. Nowadays, we talk as if only the people are supposed to perform the social contract. We talk as if the government does not have any obligation to perform under the social contract. That is an obvious misconception.

The thing is this. The government is powerful because it holds the power. If the people do not perform the social contract, the government would come with all its might and prosecute him or her. I ask you, what can the people do if the government does not perform its side of the bargain? Do you expect the people to keep quiet?

Thirdly, it is to be noted that as a living document, the terms of the social contract may be renegotiated from time to time. Among others, John Locke posits as such. Locke even posits the rights of rebellion in the event the social contracts lead to tyranny.

Of course I am not advocating a rebellion here. I am stating that the people have every right to question about the social contract and to scrutinise the performance of its terms by the government. And the people have every right - in fact it is arguable that it is the people's duty - to prevent a tyranny or an act of tyranny.

Being so, I am sure it is not such a sin as made out by you for any party to question the social contract. That is within his or her right as a party to the social contract.

The next issue which I wish to address is the misstatement of the real issues in contemporary Malaysia. I have to state this because when the issues are misstated, the arguments in support would also go wrong. Emotions can seep in and everything will turn ugly.

The issues at hand, in my opinion, are not the status of Islam as the religion of the Federation or the special positions enjoyed by the Malays and the natives of Borneo. Those are entrenched in the Federal Constitution.

I have chosen the words in the preceding paragraph deliberately. Nowadays, when the arguments for "equality" are raised, the other side quickly jump and say "you are questioning the status of Islam" or "you are questioning the special rights of the Malays" or worse still, "you are questioning the position of the Malay rulers".

Notice how the issues have been misstated to suit their purpose. What are in existence are not "special rights" but "special positions" and the parties which enjoy these positions are not only the Malays but also the natives of Sabah and Sarawak. Please read this article for further explanation on this issue.

On the position of Islam, I don't think anybody in their right mind would question the status of Islam as the religion of the Federation. But dear Doctor, you must be wise enough to discern between official religion and the law of the country. These are two different things. Similarly, you must also be unemotional enough to discern the difference between Bahasa Malaysia as the official language and the rights of the people to speak whatever language they wish.

What have been raised in contemporary Malaysia is not the status of Islam as the religion of the Federation. Many events have taken place so far in relation to inter-faith integration that would call for a closer look at the freedom of religion as enshrined in our Constitution in order to find solutions. These events were perhaps not within the foresight of the fathers of our nation when the Constitution was being drafted.

It is then left to us, the children of today, to take the bull by the proverbial horn and try to find acceptable solutions to everybody in accordance with the common standard of fairness and civility.

Among others, these problems are:

* the controversy surrounding inter-faith marriages between Muslims and non-Muslims where a non-Muslim would convert to Islam to marry a Muslim but later re-convert to his or her original faith;

* the controversy surrounding the forced indoctrination of a certain faith - whether Islam or other faith - on children who are below the age of majority;

* the controversy surrounding the issue of apostasy in Islam;

* the controversy surrounding the unfair allocation of budget for the erection of temples or churches as compared to the mosques and suraus;

* the controversy surrounding the right to practise Islam by Muslims in accordance with their sectarian beliefs;

* the controversy surrounding some fatwas issued by some body of ulamaks;

* the controversy surrounding the usage of the word "Allah" to signify God;

* the controversy surrounding the publication of Bible in Bahasa Malaysia;

* the controversy surrounding moral policing.

These are issues which are being raised. They have nothing to do with the status of Islam under the Constitution or the status of the Malay rulers. Like it or not, these issues exist and will persist so long as we huddle ourselves in our dark caves, secure in our belief that those people who raise these issues are ultra kiasu and they have treasonous tendency.

This nation is built, from day one, by one strength and that strength is the unity of her people, regardless of race or religion. There is no such thing as this is "our" nation and not "theirs". In fact, may I respectfully point out that you, as a Chinese Muslim, are contradicting yourself when you refer to this land as "our own land" if what you meant by "our own land" is that this land is the land of the Malays. Please dear Doctor. Be more sensitive to the feelings of all Malaysians. You are after all an influential ustaz or teacher whose views are respected by many.

Now, as this nation of ours go into adulthood, it must confronts issues which naturally arise in the course of nation building. It must confront these issues unemotionally and with great respect to everybody involved. Lest the very basis of this nation, namely, the unity of her people, would just fade away and we can bet our last dime that destruction would be on its way. I fear for my children. I fear for this nation if we continue to count "our rights" as opposed to "theirs". There is no "opposite parties" mind you. We are in this together.

Now you have come up with a rather ingenious formula. It is based on the entitlement to more rights for the majority. It is numerical power, which many argue is the direct result of democracy. Jeremy Bentham postulates the utilitarian principle under which it is said that whatever brings the most happiness to the greatest number of people would be good. It would appear that you have managed to reduce the utilitarian principle into a science by reducing the yardstick of happiness and greatest number of people into a mathematical formula.

But with respect, you are threading on a dangerous path. Stretched to its logical conclusion, you are validating the might of the majority over the helplessness of the minority. In the end, finally, what matters in your equation is the numbers involved. What if, in the future, the non-Muslims become the majority in this country, may I ask you? Would you accept their lording over you as a minority then?

What about the ban of the Islamic minarets in Switzerland? Do you, as a Muslim, accept that because after all Christians are the majority in Switzerland? What about the ban of the hijab and head scarf in France? Do you accept that on the same basis, ie, that Christians are the majority in France? What about the killing of Muslims Bosnians by the Serbs and Croats? You accept that too? After all Christians are the majority in that region. What if the Israelis manage to forcefully fill Gaza with Israelis leaving the Palestinians to be the minority, would you accept the desecration of everything that is Islam in Gaza?

What you are preaching, in my humble opinion, is political expediency suited for the current moment and nothing else. You are not seeing the bigger picture. With respect, you fail to look into ourselves as Muslims and spot our weaknesses as an Ummah against the backdrop of globalisation and openness. You pay scant regard to spirituality and our ability as Muslims, to face this new aged world on any ground other than the strength in numbers and loudness of our voice.

You mentioned Ibn Khaldun in your article. Can you point out the existence of what Ibn Khaldun termed in his "Muqadimmah" as the spirit of "assabiya" in our contemporary Muslim society? Do we have "assabiya" nowadays? Or is it a matter of whatever is mine is mine and yours is yours? In your mathematical formula, you are in fact preaching against Ibn Khaldun's "assabiya." The communal spirit, comradeship and camaraderie are obviously not important in your formula.

What about the numerical superiority of the non-Muslims in education for instance? Non-Muslims do get 9As or 10As in the examinations. Based on your numerical formula, wouldn't they have the right to be in our public university? If so, why don't they get what they are entitled to?

What about the numerical superiority in the non-Muslims' contribution to our national coffers through the payment of taxes, duties and investments made? If your numerical superiority formula is applied, wouldn't the non-Muslims then have more rights to build churches and temples compared to Muslims?

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying they are so entitled. But I am just applying your formula to real situations.

Non-Muslims' festivities should be limited to the percentage of their numbers. Sorry Doctor, I am laughing at the suggestion. Is that what matters? Festivities? Public holidays? They should have less number of temples and churches and we should have more mosques and suraus? (You seem to suggest that there are far too many churches and temples in Malaysia but have you seen the state of these churches and temples? Some are by the side of the road and in shop lots. Some are just housed in a small doggie house.) How much space we occupy on our way to our graves? And how big our graves are? Good God, who is kiasu? What have we, the good people of Malaysia, become? And why have we descended into this deep pit of triviality? Oh my goodness.

Sometime I find your reasoning inconsistent Doctor. While you preach goodness and high morality and you make such huge outcry against the evil of living immorally as practised by some politicians and the likes, at the same time you don't really mind a newspaper which sometime write obvious lies and spread hatred. This is because, according to you, this newspaper is being frank. Well, is it okay to be bad as long as we are frank about it? You view with contempt the act of living together outside marriage by some non-Muslims but you can accept the act of lying and spreading hatred because the perpetrator is being frank? The last time I checked Doctor, even Hitler was being frank in wanting to kill all the Jews that ever walked the Earth. Was that okay?

The only way out of this racial and religious time bomb which is ticking fast in contemporary Malaysia to my mind is for all of us to confront all the issues in an unemotional manner. We should list them all out in the open. We should accept that those issues constitute problems and acknowledge that fact. We cannot deny their existence. We should stop assigning guilt. We should avoid pointing fingers. We should not adopt the my-religion-is-more-righteous-than-yours attitude.

After we manage to do that, we should then sit down and find the solutions as best as we can.

And we better do it fast. Because the longer we delay it, the more insidious and deep they will become. Soon more people will misuse those issues for whatever personal purpose which they may have. The situation may then become irreversible.

May God give all of us the wisdom.

Salam.

Posted by art harun at 15:54

****

SOURCES:

An open reply to Dr Mohd Ridhuan Tee Abdullah

The Malaysian Insider

The Malaysian Bar

The Malaysian Insider: Don pushes racial line in 1Malaysia

The Malaysian Insider: Tuduhan penjahat lebih baik dari berjahat

From Dr Rafick to dr ridzuan tee



***

Zaid torches Utusan, reports Malaysiakini

Zaid torches Utusan for stoking racial flames
Jun 1, 09 7:00pm
Malaysiakini.com

Zaid Ibrahim has lashed out at Utusan Malaysia for playing up racial sentiments.

He said the articles which appeared in the daily's Sunday edition reminded him of how far removed the paper is from the reality of life in Malaysia.

"This is probably the reason why its readership is on the decline. It's theme and main plot is race, race and race," he added in a blog posting.

Zaid cited a particular article with the heading 'Melayu dikhianati?' (Malays betrayed) penned by Awang Selamat.

In the article, the former Umno leader said, the writer lamented that he is hurt by the demands, which reek of racism, of the non-Malays since the last general election.

"In other words, Malaysians must not hurt the feelings of Awang Selamat because when Awang Selamat is hurt, Umno is hurt and when Umno is hurt, the Malays are hurt.

"This is the logic of Awang Selamat," he added.

Zaid said the writer made no mention of the 'extreme' demands made by the non-Malays in his article.

"If they (the non-Malays) are asking about scholarships, land allocation and employment opportunities, can't these questions be addressed rationally and based on facts?

"Why get hurt so easily?" he asked.

Are all their demands baseless?

The former de facto law minister also questioned if all the demands of the non-Malays, whose rights are enshrined under the Federal Constitution, were baseless?

According to Awang Selamat, he said, this appears to be the case because "50 years ago Umno and the Malays were generous enough to offer citizenship to their (non-Malays) ancestors."

"Since Umno had been gracious in according them citizenship, their descendants should never make any demands because they must always be grateful to Umno," he added.

Zaid pointed out that this is the exact mindset which is no longer viable and has been rejected by all races.

When a citizen, be it a Malay, Chinese or Indian, asks for something, he said it is the duty of the government and the media to evaluate it in order to grant the request.

"If the demand is excessive, explain but don't raise history to cover up shortcomings. Do not get angry always, threaten and dish out pieces of incomplete history for political mileage," he said.

Zaid also reminded that the country obtained independence because the British agreed with the alliance on the terms. "When we agree, we must honour the agreement," he said.

In view of this, he said there was no reason to state that "we were being generous in granting citizenship to the Chinese and Indians."

"The fact is, that is the term we agreed to. At the time, it was impossible for the British to relinquish Malaya if the issue of citizenship for Chinese and Indians was not resolved.

"The British were strict on this issue and Umno agreed. That is the price which the Alliance accepted with an open heart. Does Utusan have different historical facts?" he added.

Zaid said even if one went by the perception that Umno was generous in giving citizenship to non-Malays, there is still no room for Awang Selamat's 'feudalist mindset' in a modern nation.

Those with 'blind hearts'

Meanwhile, he said another article by senior writer Zulkiflee Bakar had advised Utusan readers not to be 'historically blind'.

"I suppose Malays like myself are historically blind. But history is not difficult to learn and I am interested in knowing more.

"However, the most unfortunate people are those whose hearts are blind. When our hearts are blind, no amount of facts or knowledge can fill the void," he added.

Zaid said instead of stoking racial sentiments, Utusan should help the prime minister find ways to develop the economy via pragmatic and just policies.

"To Utusan, the Malays fail because of the Chinese and Indians. Wake up Utusan, non-Malays and Malays themselves can tell the difference between the Malay race and Umno, they know that when an Umno policy is criticised, it is not challenging the Malays but Umno.

"Much effort is being put into creating friction between the Malays and Chinese. Believe me, racial flames will not burn as brightly as before," he said.

"The Malay mindset has changed. They know the challenges that lie ahead in the world and the changes which they must make. Only Utusan has not realised this," he added.

Source: Malaysiakini.com

Also read: Dari Lensa Zi


****

Whatever Awang and his Utusan says, it must be intended to represent the Malays as all Malays are deemed to be represented by Awang.

****

The Whites and Blacks and all those who migrated to USA, Britain, Australia, etc, must also be grateful to the ... uh, still the Whites, who after all are now the legitimized originator.

Oh, we Malaysians must also be grateful to the British to grant us Independence and citizenship.

Oh, we must also be thankful to those who allowed and granted the British control over us.

Oh, we must be thankful to Awang for generously giving citizenship to Filipinos and Indonesians who came here as illegal immigrants working in the Plantation and Construction Industry and ultimately acquiring the citizenship to boost the electoral lists.

Oh, we must also be thankful to Param (the man called Parameswara).

We are after all thankful.

****

meMelayukan & the Hell Parody

People can criticise Rulers, says Asri
By Shannon Teoh
The Malaysian Insider

LAMPETER (Wales), May 2 — Regardless of the state of the monarchy in Malaysia, a society that wants to move forward should shed medieval and feudal traditions, said former Perlis mufti Mohamad Asri Zainul Abidin.

The maverick Islamic scholar, who has a strong following among young Muslims in Malaysia, said that the idea of being Malay and Muslim should be decoupled and addressed separately.

Speaking at his home in Lampeter, he disagreed with the conventional understanding that Malays have been Islamised but instead that they have "meMelayukan (to influence with Malay) Islam."

Asri said that Malays had to stop equating Islam with the Malays.

"If Malays want to defend their rights, go ahead based on Bumiputera rights or whatever. But you cannot say Islam does not defend you because you are Chinese or Indian. Islam was not given just to the Malays.

"Do not in your efforts to defend Malay rights relate it to Islam. Islam was not sent down by God to protect Malays but all of humanity," he explained, saying that such moves in the past had caused non-Malays to be fearful of the religion as it appeared to be intent on removing their culture.

During the interview, Asri expressed his consternation over ideas that have taken root in Malaysia under the guise of Islamic principles.

"Sometimes there are terms which we cannot understand. Daulat (sovereignty) for example. What is the meaning of daulat? Does this mean that if you criticise a Ruler, then you will be cursed by God? This is not in Islam," he said.

*******************************************************
Source: The Malaysian Insider

**********************************************************

They will all go to hell, but you might end up joining them
By Yusseri Yusoff
The Malaysian Insider

APRIL 30 — If there is one thing that demonstrates that we are probably just a bunch of people who happen to live on the same land, it is the issue of religious conversion. This is the one thing that shows, starkly, why we still have some distance to go before we can safely say that we are one united nation.

Last week, five ministers sat down and came up with the policy that a child is to be raised in the faith of the parents when they were married even if one spouse then decides to become a Muslim. It was a decision that was greeted warmly by the non-Muslims, as well as the odd Muslim or two. But for seemingly the majority of Muslims, it was not received very well.

PKR Zulkifli Noordin argues that the matter is resolved in spite of the policy because the court asserted that one of the parents can decide which faith the child is to be in. What Zulkifli did not say, but seemed to imply, is that the one parent is to obviously be the Muslim parent. What Zulkifli did not say, but seemed to imply, is that the moment one of the parents converts into Islam, that parent is automatically elevated in status and therefore has the upper hand.

But then, Zulkifli has also always believed that converting a child into Islam is not really conversion but more of a reversion. Because he believes that every child that has not reached puberty is considered Muslim under certain interpretations of Syaria law. This, of course, might be rather shocking news to the parents of the children, but try telling that to Zulkifli.

Similarly, the Muslim coalition of NGOs calling itself Pembela protests the policy where one of the members, Yusri Mohamad, said: “In Article 12 section 4 of the Constitution, the faith of a child who is not yet an adult is determined by the parents. The courts have interpreted that the parents have the right to decide regardless if they are the husband or wife.”

Pembela's argument was that the policy would deny the parent who converted his or her right and responsibility over the future of the children, saying that it would not be fair to those who want to convert into Islam.

What is not said, but seemingly implied, is that as long as one of the parents is a Muslim, then he or she can convert the children, even if the other one disagrees. Because as a Muslim, the parent has a responsibility to raise the children to be faithful and good Muslims.

To make clear why this reasoning breaks down, let's flip it the other way. Say that the other parent who has not converted decides that the children should be in the religion of the unconverted parent, how is the “right to decide” not applied to the parent?

Or, let's say that the other parent who has not converted then decides to convert from, for example, Hinduism to Catholicism, just as his or her erstwhile partner converts into Islam. How is the “right to decide” not applied to the now Catholic parent?

If denying the right of the converted Muslim parent to raise the children in his or her faith is unfair, how is it fair to deny the unconverted parent the right to raise the children in her or his faith?

Wait, you know what, I'm going to stop beating about the bush and get straight to the point. The basic foundation of the protests by the Muslim groups is that Islam is the one true religion, the faith of the one true God, the Absolute Truth and that every other religion on the face of the earth is false. False deities, false faiths, false, false, false. As such, certain rights are inalienable to the Muslims, and absolutely alienated from the non-Muslims.

And this reasoning scares the pants out of some non-Muslims in Malaysia, and pisses off a lot of the others. In some cases, achieving both at the same time.

I write this as a Malay, ergo a Muslim. I write this as a Muslim who looks on uncomfortably at all the custody battles and conversion arguments. I write this as a Muslim who finds it hard to accept that it's okay to assume primacy over others, simply because their beliefs are considered false … rendering them as less than worthy of the same consideration as Muslims.

Islam is a religion of justice, fairness, equality and compassion. It's well past time that we prove it, isn't it? And stop scaring the pants out of, and pissing off, our fellow Malaysian brothers and sisters. They will all end up going to hell, of course, but you never know, you might end up joining them.

************************************************************

Source: The Malaysian Insider

*************************************************************

Indonesia: A maturing Democracy

I’m ready for Kalla’s challenge, says Yudhoyono
The Malaysian Insider

JAKARTA, Feb 23 – Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has said his relationship with Vice-President Jusuf Kalla would not be affected if his Number 2 challenged him in July’s presidential election.

Dr Yudhoyono, in an exclusive interview with the Metro TV station on Saturday, said Kalla’s nomination would not affect the way they carried out their duties in the remaining months of their term.

He was responding to Kalla’s statement last Friday that he was ready to fight for the top spot if his Golkar party wished it.

“We have the people’s mandate to work together until October. If political conditions dictate that we should compete against each other in July, then I’m ready,” Dr Yudhoyono said.

Source: The Malaysian Insider

*************************************************************************************

Malaysia: A murmuring Democracy

Dr M mocks BN over Perak deadlock
By Leslie Lau
Consultant Editor

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 23 – Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has ridiculed Umno president Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi for asking Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir to lodge a police report against the Perak State Assembly Speaker.

Writing in his popular chedet.cc blog, he said that while it was possible for the Speaker to commit a crime, “the suspension of any assemblyman is not a crime which the police can take action against.”

In his latest blog post, Dr Mahathir poured scorn on Abdullah’s suggestion for Zambry to lodge a police report against Speaker V Sivakumar over the suspension of the Perak MB and his entire state executive council.

“If the decision of the Speaker can be considered a crime, then what will happen when the Parliamentary Speaker suspends opposition members for whatever reasons?

“And this happens frequently. Will opposition members lodge police reports? If they can, then can we consider the police to have powers over the Parliamentary Speaker?”

The former PM also commented on Zambry’s statement that he would attend the state assembly sitting despite the suspension.

He said that under the legislature’s standing orders, the Speaker can direct officers of the assembly to remove Zambry.

“Also, where will Zambry sit? What if Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin sits in the mentri besar’s chair? Will the Speaker ask his officers to force Nizar to vacate the chair?

“Let us all as citizens watch what happens next.”

Source: The Malaysian Insider and Che Det: Timah Bukan Perak


TIMAH BUKAN PERAK
By Dr. Mahathir Mohamad
on February 22, 2009 7:42 PM

1. Kita sedang melihat banyak peristiwa yang pelik berlaku di Perak yang dahulu terkenal dengan timahnya. Tetapi tidak ada yang lebih lucu daripada nasihat Perdana Menteri kepada Dato' Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir, Menteri Besar Barisan Nasional supaya beliau membuat laporan polis berkenaan dengan penggantungannya oleh Speaker Dewan Undangan Negeri Perak.

2. Jika keputusan yang dibuat oleh Speaker boleh dianggap sebagai satu jenayah, apa akan jadi jika Speaker Dewan Rakyat menggantung ahli pembangkang kerana apa-apa sebab? Dan ini kerap berlaku. Apakah ahli pembangkang akan lapor kepada polis? Jika boleh maka bolehlah kita anggap bahawa polis berkuasa keatas Speaker Dewan.

3. Memang ada jenayah yang boleh dilakukan oleh Tuan Speaker tetapi menggantung seseorang ahli Dewan bukanlah diantara jenayah yang boleh diambil tindakan oleh Polis.

4. Sekarang dilaporkan yang Dr Zambry akan hadir sidang Dewan Undangan Negeri Perak. Mengikut aturan peraturan Dewan, Speaker boleh arah pegawai Dewan untuk keluarkan Yang Amat Berhormat Dr Zambry dari Dewan. Dapatkah pegawai berkenaan yang bukan terdiri daripada parti Pakatan Rakyat berbuat demikian?

5. Dimana pula tempat duduk YAB Zambry? Apakata kalau YB Dato Seri Mohamed Nizar Jamaluddin duduk di tempat Menteri Besar? Apakah pegawai Dewan akan disuruh oleh Speaker untuk paksa Nizar kosongkan kerusinya? Apakah YAB Zambry akan berada di Dewan atau di luar Dewan setelah Speaker mengarah pegawai sekat YAB Zambry daripada berada dalam Dewan.

6. Bersama-samalah kita rakyat lihat akan peristiwa yang akan berlaku.

*************************************************************************************

Fear Factor (1)

“We should not be fighting over power. We should be sharing it. If we continue to fight then others will come in and take over from us (Umno)”

- Senator Tan Sri Jins Shamsuddin

??? Who are the others who will come in and take over from Umno? MCA? Gerakan? MIC? DAP? PKR? PAS? Communist? American? Japanese? Chinese? Indians? Singh? Umno ex-leaders? Mahathir? Who??? Would those "suspected who" be arrested under the ISA for threatening Umno?

Gombak Action Committee lodged a police report against Anwar Ibrahim yesterday alleging that he was a threat to national security and the country’s stability.

Its secretary-general, Mohd Mustafa Latiff said Anwar had given a “negative impression” of the government with his takeover plan.

“We urge the police to investigate him. He should be investigated under the Sedition Act and Internal Security Act for his misleading crossover statements.”

It is truly scary nowadays! Anyone can make police report and that unfortunate soul may just end up in Kamunting. All it takes is for Syed Hamid to issue a detention order. All that is needed is for someone within Umno to instigate another from Umno to make a police report and claim a person to be a threat to national security.

National security is now a new vocabulary. Political dissent and differences are classified as "negative impression" and will be construed as posing a threat to national security. Virtually, anything dislike or differed with the oligarchy will now be construed as a national security problem. Democracy means abide by the whims and fancies of what those in power and those with power wanted and preferred.

Fear factor rules the nation now!

The Liberal -Discretionary Choice of Sedition

PM: "I instructed Tengku Adnan"

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said yesterday that he had instructed Umno secretary-general Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor to lodge a police report against DAP chairman Karpal Singh for making allegedly seditious remarks about the Sultan of Perak.

The prime minister and Umno president said Karpal's questioning of Sultan Azlan Shah's prerogative as the state's head of religion had angered many, including non-Malays.

"It was seditious and insulting to the Sultan, that is how it is seen in the eyes of the rakyat," he said.

He said it was the right of the state governments to move any of their civil servants without consulting the heads of state.

At the same time, the Barisan Nasional Backbenchers Club lodged a police report against DAP chairman Karpal Singh yesterday for questioning the Sultan of Perak Sultan Azlan Shah's decision to reinstate Datuk Jamry Sury as head of the Perak Religious Department.

Seven members led by its chairman and Bintulu MP, Datuk Seri Tiong King Sing, did so at 4.15pm at the Brickfields police station.

Tiong, in the report, said he was acting to protect the rights and sovereignty of the Malay Rulers under the Federal and state Constitutions.

Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had said that Karpal had "disputed" the provisions of the Constitution by questioning the sultan's prerogatives as the Perak head of religion.

In another development, a coalition of more than 300 Malay non-governmental organisations lodged a police report against Karpal for "disrespecting the Malay rulers".

Council of Malay Solidarity president Osman Abu Bakar, in his report, claimed that Karpal had on separate occasions "insulted" the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the Tengku Mahkota of Kelantan and Sultan Azlan Shah.

"Karpal Singh is biadap (rude)," Osman told reporters outside the Brickfields police station where he had lodged the report five minutes before Tiong.

Perak Umno youth had lodged a police report on Sunday (May 4) which claimed that Karpal's statements were seditious in nature.

"The act of continuously challenging the Sultan of Perak's prerogatives can be construed as an attempt to incite anger among the Malays," he said at the state Umno headquarters.

(source: NST: 'Many Malaysians upset with Karpal' and NST: BN backbenchers lodge report against Karpal)

It was seditious and insulting to the Sultan, that is how it is seen in the eyes of the rakyat. Let's observe other events whether it was also seditious and insulting to the Sultan and Agong.

Abdullah: It's Unconstitutional

In the immediate response to the appointment of State Assemblyman for Kijai Datuk Ahmad Said as the MB of Terengganu by the Regency Advisory Council, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi defended his choice of former MB Datuk Idris Jusoh for the post, saying “the appointment of anyone other than Idris is unconstitutional and invalid.” He said this was because the majority of the assemblymen in Terengganu wants Idris, the Jertih assemblyman to be reappointed the MB. “There will be no change to this,” Abdullah said after presenting the prizes to the F1 winners.

(reference: NST: Abdullah says Idris should be menteri besar)

Sultan murka Idris?

However, the Yang diPertuan Agong who is also the Sultan of Terengganu was apparently not happy with Idris. It is also believed that the sultan was also unhappy with the “apparent cockiness” shown by Idris during his tenure as menteri besar.

Sources told Malaysiakini today that the pressure on Idris from state Umno leaders and fellow state representatives were still apparent but they continue to support him for the menteri besar post to toe the party line. “It is simply because they don’t want to be seen as going against prime minister Abdullah’s choice,” said a source close to the state party leadership. “Furthermore, Idris is also the state Umno leader. It would not be sending a right signal if the state representatives leave him isolated, especially when the present political climate is so favourable to the opposition,” he added.

Source fears that the boycott plan by the 22 BN state representatives will draw a wider wedge between the palace and Umno.

Idris was originally slated to be sworn in on March 10 at Istana Maziah but that ceremony was postponed at the eleventh hour to a date that was to be determined later.

It’s the sultan’s prerogative

Constitutional law expert Prof Abdul Aziz Bari said that it was the sultan’s prerogative to appoint Ahmad to the post.


“Given the law, namely that it is the ruler's judgment and satisfaction, there is nothing Idris or the prime minister can do about it. "

"Legally the prime minister has got no business here as it is a matter for the sultan to decide,” he added. However, Abdul Aziz said that the sultan must make his position clear by stating why he took the present position.

Abdul Aziz also ruled out any possible claims that the sultan had acted beyond his powers in appointing Ahmad.

“I believe he has got all the information pertaining to what has taken place in the state. And, like what has been done by the rulers of Perak, Perlis and Selangor, he has a duty to appoint a government that is stable and has the necessary support,” he said.

(source: Malaysiakini)


24 BN Rep will not accept Sultan's choice of MB

Twenty-two out of the 24 Barisan Nasional state assemblymen, five MPs and four out of the eight Umno divisions in Terengganu have thrown their support behind state Umno liaison chief Datuk Seri Idris Jusoh as the menteri besar.

State Umno secretary Datuk Rosol Wahid, in a hastily arranged press conference last night, also said Kijal state assemblyman Datuk Ahmad Said, who was picked by the palace to be menteri besar, did not have the support of the seven divisions as was alleged on Saturday. He said support for Idris came from Umno division heads from Kuala Terengganu, Jertih, Kuala Nerus and Besut at a meeting at Seri Perdana, Putrajaya, with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and Idris.

Present at the meeting to show support for Idris were the 22 state assemblymen and leaders from state Umno Youth, Puteri and Wanita movements.

"The 22 of us, the MPs and the divisions want to state our unequivocal support for Idris," Rosol said.

"Ahmad is all alone. He stands alone as the menteri besar."

Rosol also alleged that there was a move to "buy over" some of the assemblymen in the form of timber concessions and cash to support Ahmad.

(source: NST: 22 reps, 5 MPs and 4 divisions back Idris)

Natang; Siapa?

Police are looking for two men from Kuala Besut involved in carrying a banner insulting the Yang di-Pertuan Agong two weeks ago.

They have been identified as Hassan Salleh, a lorry driver in his 20s from Kampung Gertak Seratus, and Rizal Awang, a contract worker in his 30s from Kampung Tok Sabah.

Police have pictures of the two holding up a banner at Seri Iman, the official residence of the menteri besar, protesting the appointment of Datuk Ahmad Said as the new Menteri Besar of Terengganu. It also included a rude remark believed to be directed at the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

State police chief Datuk Ayub Yaakub said the two may be investigated under Section 11(2) of the Copyright Act 1984 for printing banners illegally.

(source: NST: 2 men sought over banner insult to king)

The banner insulted the Yang diPertuan Agong, our King, and the police investigation and charges will be under Section 11(2) of the Copyright Act 1984 for printing banners illegally. What an insult to the Malaysians as a whole as our King and his choice and discretion to appoint Ahmad Said is referred by such name.

Notable Quotes:

Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail:

"Although the matter is under the jurisdiction of the Regency Advisory Council, of which any decision can be reached by the council itself, it is my opinion that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong should be advised so that he is clear on the facts and legalities of the issue."

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, Datuk Zaid Ibrahim:

"It's important for everyone, including the monarch, to respect the law, and in this case the law is quite clear."

"The discretion of the monarch ... is not an absolute personal discretion. It has to be exercised in a way that the constitution expects."

(quotes with reference to the appointment of the Terengganu menteri besar Ahmad Said)

(source: A-G to seek audience with king)

Senior lawyer and Bar Council member Datuk Muhammad Shafee Abdullah:

"If a ruler persists in appointing a person from the winning party who does not command the confidence of the majority, the democratic process is put in jeopardy."

"This unpleasant state of affairs ought to be avoided in order to bring harmony between the various institutions." (with reference to the appointment of the Terengganu menteri besar Ahmad Said)

Retired Court of Appeal judge Datuk Shaik Daud Md Ismail:

"The ruler has to pick someone who commands the confidence of the majority of the assembly." (with reference to the appointment of the Terengganu menteri besar Ahmad Said)

Senior lawyer and Bar Council member, Roger Tan:

"In a democracy, the ruler cannot frustrate the will of the people."

"In the absence of an express constitutional provision, one always relies on conventions which have developed since independence, which is that the leader of the party with the majority number of seats is appointed ..."

(with reference to the appointment of the Terengganu menteri besar Ahmad Said)

(source: NST: Discretion 'not absolute')

Excerpts from the question-and-answer session with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi at a 20-minute press conference after the Umno supreme council meeting.

Q: Is the appointment of Ahmad constitutional?

A: It was done in accordance with the Terengganu state constitution. We don't want to engage on the issue of its legality. It has been more than two weeks since we were declared the winner, so it is our intention to ensure that the people of Terengganu have a government to look after their interests and carry out projects planned for the progress of the state.

(source: NST: 'Appointment followed state constitution')

Read also:

OPINION: Rulers have to enlighten people

Tormented People of the Nation

More Pain & More Anguish!

Sharlinie was kidnapped and not found. It's more than 2 weeks now and yet the ongoing police search leads to nothing; no signs, no symptom, no clues.

But police said they were fruitful. The police justified this by proving that they had conducted several search operations in search of Sharlinie's abductors and had netted a total of 185 illegal immigrants and illegal workers.

So, it was a great effort and fruitful scoop.

However ACP Arjunaidi Mohammed was quick to emphasise that the operations were conducted to locate Sharlinie and not aimed at ferreting out illegal immigrants. The police are looking for Sharlinie and not illegal immigrants.

So, the illegal immigrants and workers now sigh a great relief. They can feel safe and comfortable with the assurance from the District Police Chief.

In the search for Sharlinie, the police conducted their searches at various construction work sites. Why do they think Sharlinie could possibly be placed at work sites, I am puzzled. Maybe, it's not to leave any stone unturn; maybe, construction sites are playgrounds for illegals and criminals; Maybe Sharlinie was abducted and had to perform hard labor at construction works. Maybe, and so many maybe.

Despite the best efforts by the police and forensic units, no trace of Sharlinie, who went missing on Jan 9, was detected.

The police force seems unable to do much about Sharlinie. They couldn't do much about Nurin. They couldn't do much about so many other crime cases - rape cases, robbery cases, Mat Rempit cases.

But one thing they are effective and highly capable.


The police arrested 56 people who took part in an illegal assembly to protest rising prices.

The NST reported that, about 200 people took part in a demonstration near Suria KLCC shopping center. The protest was organized by PROTES (the Coalition Against Inflation).

The police went as far as possible to get the courts to grant an injunction to bar the gathering and to get the court to empower them to arrest those who participated in the gathering.

The police were at full force to act. About 1,300 policemen were on duty to carry out the arrest. Federal Reserve Units (FRU) were later called in to handle those who resists arrest.

No wonder the criminals are a damn happy lots. In fact the aspiring criminals were extremely delighted as they see themselves as successful entrepreneurs of the future. They know there aren't enough police personnels to deal with their plan and targets. They can now plan their targets when there is demonstrations or gatherings or vigils because the whole police contingent would be deployed to arrest protesters and leave them safe to conduct their businesses.

Yesterday, I was driving around KL areas and did not go to KLCC and the golden triangle areas. The drive was free flow. In fact the cars were at high speed and almost every car overtook me, including proton hatchback, Wira, Waja, Kancils and Kenaris. I was wondering what's the reason there weren't roadblocks and speed-traps at various certified and specified locations around KL. The journey yesterday confirmed there was none. I thought the police had rested yesterday; but now I know they were not resting; they were hard at work at KLCC.

The people are not allowed to protest against rising prices. They were not allowed to submit memorandum to the King. They were not allowed to submit memo to the British High Commission. They were not allowed to celebrate Human Rights Day. They were not allowed Freedom Walk. They were not allowed to carry out a vigil. No, the police is against these events.

It's now the primary duties of police to stop demonstrations; it's now a secondary role of the police to catch criminals, because they are hard to catch and they made the police job difficult but the protesters made the police job easy as they gather together as a group, within a confined area, and have proper identifications such as printings on T-shirts, caps, banners, flags, etc.

The criminals are not so cooperative. They do not gather in groups at specific areas and do not apply for permits to conduct their operations. They do not shout slogans to identify their intentions. They just go quietly doing their jobs and leaving no traces of their crimes. Why can't the criminals conduct themselves like those protesters so that the police can sent a contingent of personnels and FRUs to arrest them? Why can't the criminals cooperate with the police and make the life of our police easier? Afterall, they too are Malaysian citizens, just like PROTES members, BERSIH members, and HINDRAF members.

Has the police being made the new enemies of the people? Had the police made themselves much hated by the people?

Had the police being made the new buddies of the criminals? Had the police made themselves much loved by the criminals?

Maybe, Merdeka Centre for Opinion Research should conduct two more surveys or polls, one from the ordinary people and another from those criminals and those aspiring criminals, to understand the people better.

A-G drop charges on 31 Hindrafs

31 demonstrators acquitted and discharged of attempted murder

The Sessions Court here today acquitted and discharged 31 people charged with attempting to murder a police officer during an illegal assembly organised by the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) in front of the Sri Subramaniam temple in Batu Caves, near here, on Nov 25.


Judge Nursinah Adzmi made the decision after allowing the application by Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail to withdraw the charges against them.

Prior to this, all the 31 claimed trial to a number of charges, including attempted murder under Section 149/307 of the Penal Code.

However, out of the 31, only six including five college students were acquitted and discharged of all charges while the rest are still facing other charges.

The six are L. Thiyagarajan, 31, K. Thinagaranpillay, 23, A. Vasantarao, 19, S. Ramesh Kumar, 22, S. Mugilan Dever, 20, and G. Suman, 20.

Of the remaining 25, 16 changed their plea to guilty to the charge of causing damage to seven cars and two gates of the temple under Section 149/440 of the Penal Code.

Eight of the 25 also changed their plea to being in an illegal assembly under Section 27 (5) (a) of the Police Act 1967 while another accused, to an alternative charge of displaying criminal force to put fear into the police officers during the illegal assembly.

Nursinah also allowed them to be freed on bail of RM500 each in one surety.

It was clear under Criminal Law theory that the charge of attempted murder could not be sustained and all of them would be free. However, if the full trial is to take place, it may take several years with several postponements, as was the usual cases, and that by itself will cause tremendous hardship and stresses on the families and the victims.

The A-G knows, and this is the strategy... by arrest and charge them for attempted murder, it is an unbailable offence, and they would have to be sent to Sg Buloh jail till the dispensation of the case at the court, who is facing serious backlogs on criminal and civil cases.

This is what Mohd Kamal Abdullah said in his Blog Kamal-Talks:

[Quote]

"The fabricated charge of causing hurt to the police officer seems really absurd. The government and attorney-general has stooped so low in prosecuting these innocent people just to prove that they are strong, powerful and can do anything. From this episode, it is clear that there is no justice for the poor, ordinary rakyat. The rich and powerful can create any situation to cause harm to these poor souls." [unquote]

Thank God! Now they can go home and be their families and also take care of their families.

In a separate case, Six murder accused were freed by the High Court without their defence being called.

Justice Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim threw out the case against the six because he found that the prosecution had not done enough to locate two crucial witnesses to justify the use of their police statements in their absence from the trial.

The judge said the prosecution had therefore, failed to prove a prima facie case against Muhammad Hussein Abdullah, Muruges Arumugam, Tiagurajan Sinnasamy, Arul Krishnasamy, Siva Munusamy, and Munisvaran Ramachandran.

"Without their statements, there is no proof that the First to Sixth Accused are involved in this case,'' the judge ruled.

The six were alleged to have killed Regka Singh, 45, at a vacant house in Kampung Semangat, on Feb 21, 2003, between 11am and 6pm.

The judge also said the prosecution could not prove that the injury sustained by the victim had led to the victim’s death.

This case is 2003, and now it's 2007. So, it takes 4-years to dispensed off a case. So, whether those arrested are guilty or not, they had to be staying at Sg Buloh for 4-years before they know their fate.

This is a murder case; someone had died. The 31 Indians were facing a charge for attempted murder where no one died or had schemed to kill someone. It was supposed to be an assembly of people to peacefully sent a petition to the British Embassy. The police came to Batu Cave and the various acts by the police led to the outcome. What a case!!!

What then is Our Culture

Peaceful Street demonstration to air grievance is not our culture!

Submitting memorandum to our King is also not our culture!

Discrimination is also not our culture!

What then is our culture?

This this our culture?

Islamic brethens and law-makers requesting for a fist-fight?

Did Islam Hadhari profess any abstainment?

Non-Muslims Law-makers so request for a fist-fight?

Both cases, the requests are from the Barisan Nasional, the ruling party representatives.

This must mean, it is our culture!

This must also be our culture as Barisan Nasional Reoresentatives are the actors.

Anything done or seen to have been done by our elected legislators must be our culture.

What about non-legislators such as Ahmad Fairuz, Lingham, etc?

Mesjid Jamek demo, Bukit Bintang suffered.

MCA senator Lee Chong Meng led a group of 80 NGOs from Bukit Bintang to protest against BERSIH's demonstration saying their business had suffered many millions of losses due to the recent event to present a memo to the King.

The demonstration takes place in Dataran Merdeka, Mesjid Jamek and Mesjid Negara. Lee Chong Meng's team of businessmen from Bukit Bintang suffered millions of losses? That's damn elaborative!

Lee Chong Meng could not provide the evidence of losses but said the impact is millions of losses felt by Bukit Bintang businessmen. He also said Tour operators from China and Japan and Hong Kong called to express their concern. He did not say whether these overseas tour operators did also call to express concern about the other major issues such as whether to bring along their marriage certificate or about our high crime rate, rape cases and murder cases. It seems the tourist didn't asked about Altantunya, Nurin's murder, Mat Rempit and their menace, and the Jakim enforcers. They only are worried about Bersih's demonstration???

Lee Chong Meng may be trying to represent the MCA and the Chinese of Malaysia. His act is trying to suggest that Malaysian Chinese do not want clean and fair election because we prefer a corrupt government and also prefer to be discriminated by UMNO and it's Agenda. Maybe, MCA is suggesting that Malaysian Chinese should support the corrupt system, accept phantom voters and live under oppression and suppression; afterall, the MCA ministers and their leaders also shared part of the spoils of leftovers and themselves are so rich that their family and children have enough of wealth to last them more than 3 generations, and if necessary, they can migrate elsewhere without worry as they are filthy rich. Those of you who aren't, they won't feel sorry for you; afterall, it's you who vote them in to represent you.

The Decaying & Degeneration of Democracy

Over the last few years, the waters have reversed their flow. The very essence of law is that it develops within society of its own vitality. The peoples' demand for human rights and liberties is no longer resting on mere statutory provisions or legislative protection, but like what Lord Denning puts it, "... it's now an incoming tide flowing up the estuaries. It is now like a tidal wave bringing down our sea wall and flowing inland over our fields and houses - to the dismay of all [those in power]."

"The evil in this world [of ours] has roots so vast and deep that law cannot be sufficient defence against it." (Del Vecchio)

For whilst lawmakers undoubtedly had influenced our society it is equally true that the society now demands greater influences on the application of law to ensure that justice is not only said but seen to be done, and that the balance needs to be addressed with a more even hand.

Thus Shu-hsiang wrote to the prime Minister of Cheng in 536 B.C. as follows:

"...Anciently, the early kings conducted their administering by deliberating on matters as they arose; they did not put their punishments and penalties into writing, fearing that this would create a contentiousness among the people which could not be checked. Therefore they used the principles of social rightness to keep the people in bounds, held together through their administrative procedures, maintaining good faith and presented them with benevolence.

"When the people know what penalties are, they lose their fear of authority and acquire a contentiousness which causes them to make their appeal to the written words of the laws...

"Today sir, you have built dykes and canals, set up an administration which evokes criticism and cast books of punishments. Is it not going to be difficult to bring tranquility to the people in this way?

"...As soon as people know the grounds on which to conduct disputation, they will reject the accepted ways of behavior and make their appeal to the written word, arguing to the last over the tip of an awl or knife. Disorderly litigations will multiply and bribery will become current. By the end of your era, Cheng will be ruined.

"I have heard it said that a state which is about to perish is sure to have many governmental regulations."

All contemporary evidence suggests, despite the blind faiths of politicians, that the way to the millennium is not likely to be paved with more statutory control and using it to oppress and suppress the citizens.

"If we could stand off from the world and view it at the moment, what would we see? Would we observe a society in the early infancy of man, or would we see already signs of degeneracy and decay?"

When power is assumed by a ruler, it still has an almost supernatural content; and then, by instinct, men realize that it must be tempered by wisdom. Wisdom seeks righteousness, and righteousness seeks certain stable values and principles. We aspire to justice, but the best we can contrive, and all we can hope from any legal system is to minimize injustice.

Legal rules, based on an instinctive respect for life, freedom, truth, fairness, harmony and justice, are at the core of all human law. Society, when faced with an extraordinary situation, must survive by finding a solution, or fall into anarchy.


(ref: R.H. Hickling; An Introduction to the Concept of Law in Malaysia, Pelanduk Publication, 2001)