8 pertubuhan Islam bantah cadangan sidang meja bulat DAP

8 pertubuhan Islam bantah cadangan sidang meja bulat DAP
Thursday, January 12 2005

KUALA LUMPUR, 12 Jan (Hrkh)- Lapan pertubuhan Islam membantah cadangan memansuhkan Perkara 121 (1A) Perlembagaan Persekutuan mengenai kuasa-kuasa Mahkamah Syariah.

"Kami dari organisasi-organisasi tersenarai di bawah dengan tegas menolak resolusi yang dicadangkan dalam perbincangan meja bulat Parlimen baru-baru ini yang dianjurkan oleh DAP yang mencadangkan pemansuhan Perkara 121 (1A) Perlembagaan Persekutuan.
"Cadangan pemansuhan itu jika diterima oleh kerajaan, akan merendahkan status sistem kehakiman syariah, dan akan menyebabkan kehakiman mahkamah syariah berada di bawah kehakiman sivil yang sekular sebagaimana berlaku di era penjajah," kata kenyataan itu.

Ia telah ditandatangani oleh Haji Mohd Azmi Abdul Hamid, Setiausaha Sekretariat Jawatankuasa Bertindak Undang-Undang Syariah.
Kenyataan itu disokong oleh:
1.Datuk Syeikh Azmi Hj.Ahmad
Pengerusi Institut Penyelidikan dan Pengembangan Syariah Malaysia ( ISRA)
2.Prof Madya Saleh Hj. Ahmad
Persatuan Ulama Malaysia (PUM)
3.Syeikh Hj. Abu Bakar Hj. Awang (PUK)
Yang Dipertua Persatuan Ulama Kedah
4.Hj. Abdul Ghani Samsudin
Pengerusi Sekretariat Himpunan Ulama Rantau Asia (SHURA)
5.Mohammad Buruk
Presiden Persatuan Peguam Syaraei Malaysia (PGSM)
6.Yusri Mohammad
Presiden Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM)
7.Zaid Kamaruddin
Presiden Jamaah Islah Malaysia (JIM)
8.Mohd Azmi Abdul Hamid
Presiden TERAS Pengupayaan Melayu (TERAS)

Bagi mereka, setiap orang Islam yang menghayati sistem hidup Islam akan pasti menentang sebarang percubaan yang mahu meletakkan undang-undang Syariah berada dibawah undang-undang sivil.

Isu yang berbangkit daripada kes Moorty, dan kes-kes lain sebelum ini, ialah dakwaan berlakunya penafian untuk mendapat keadilan kepada orang bukan Islam berhubung perkara yang berkait bidang kuasa mahkamah Syariah kerana mereka dikatakan tidak mempunyai akses kepada mahkamah tersebut.

Perlembagaan menghadkan bidang kuasa mahkamah ini untuk mendengar hanya kes di mana melibatkan orang Islam sahaja.

Isu-isu dalam kes seperti ini adalah berkaitan dengan pertikaian fakta dan aplikasi Undang-undang Islam, kata kenyataan itu.

Dalam kes Moorty, isunya ialah sama ada beliau seorang Islam pada masa kematiannya. Untuk menjawab persoalan ini pihak mahkamah perlu mengambilkira bukti dan memutuskan sama ada beliau secara sukarela mengucap dua kalimah syahadah dan jika beliau berbuat demikian, sama ada beliau berhenti menjadi Islam di bawah undang-undang Islam berdasarkan kepada dakwaan amalannya yang tidak Islamik, yang perlu dibuktikan.

Mahkamah Syariah adalah forum terbaik untuk memutuskan isu ini, kata kenyataan itu.
Bagi mereka, Hakim Mahkamah Syariah dilatih bukan hanya untuk memutuskan persoalan fakta tetapi juga persoalan undang-undang Islam di mana hakim Mahkamah Sivil tidak mendapat latihan mengenainya dan pengetahuan berkaitan Undang-undang Islam.
Penyelesaian logik dan mudah kepada masalah ini ialah untuk meminda Perlembagaan bagi memberikan kepada orang bukan Islam hak akses kepada sistem kehakiman Syariah.
Sebagai tambahan dari itu apa yang diperlukan ialah sebuah Bench Syariah dalam Mahkamah Persekutuan, yang hakim-hakimnya dianggotai oleh mereka yang cukup berkelayakan dan berwibawa dalam undang-undang sivil dan Islam, untuk mendengar dan memutuskan rayuan yang dikemukakan daripada sistem kehakiman Syariah di mana kes melibatkan pihak Islam dan bukan Islam.

Dilaporkan bahawa perbincangan berlangsung dengan begitu hangat sekali dalam pertemuan meja bulat itu dan dakwaan juga! dibuat terhadap angkatan tentera yang kononnya memaksa kanak-kanak beragama Hindu untuk menjadi Islam, kata kenyataan itu.

"Adalah amat tidak bertanggungjawab di pihak DAP dan mereka yang berjuang menentang aplikasi undang-undang syariah dalam komuniti Islam, untuk mengelirukan isu ini dan membakar perasaan perkauman," kata kenyataan itu lagi.

Bagi mereka, adalah juga suatu yang tidak wajar dan salah di pihak bekas Peguam Negara, Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman untuk mengecam Hakim-hakim Mahkamah Sivil dengan mendakwa mereka kurang keberanian dan menyalahkan mereka dalam konflik yang timbul daripada Perkara 121 (1A).

"Beliau, yang turut bertanggungjawab merangka Perkara 121 (1A) itu, seharusnya dapat menjangka konflik seperti itu dan menyediakan penyelesaian dengan cara menyediakan akses kepada bukan Islam dalam sistem kehakiman Syariah," kata kenyataan itu.

Cadangan beliau supaya Perlembagaan atau Courts of Judicature Act dipinda untuk memestikan hakim-hakim mendengar kes tidak mengira apa bidang sekalipun sebenarnya layak disifatkan sebagai seorang pegawai penjajah yang tidak sensitif kepada sejarah, budaya dan aspirasi warga yang merdeka, katanya.

"Kami menggesa kerajaan supaya mengambil tindakan tegas terhadap mereka yang memutarbelitkan isu akses kepada mahkamah, dan mengapikan perasaan perkauman untuk tujuan politik dan tujuan lain.

"Kami seterusnya mencadangkan dan menggesa kerajaan supaya meminda Perlembagaan untuk menyediakan akses kepada orang bukan Islam dalam Mahkamah Syariah dan melantik anggota kehakiman syariah dalam Mahkamah Persekutuan untuk mendengar rayuan dari pihak-pihak yang berkaitan daripada kes-kes Mahkamah Syariah yang melibatkan pihak Islam dan bukan Islam.

"Hanya hakim yang mempunyai integriti yang tidak dipersoalkan dan pengetahuan yang mendalam mengenai undang-undang sivil dan Syariah sahaja perlu dilantik sebagai anggota Hakim dalam Bench Syariah yang kami cadangkan itu," kata kenyataan ! itu lagi.
-zs

Shahrir queries Cabinet decision to defer law

The Sun, Kuala Lumpur
Shahrir queries Cabinet decision to defer law
B. Suresh Ram, Thu, 12 Jan 2006

KUALA LUMPUR: Barisan Nasional Backbenchers Club president Datuk Shahrir Abdul Samad says he is puzzled as to why the cabinet felt the need to defer the Islamic Family Law (Federal Territories) (No. 2) Act only now.

"The bill for the legislation originated from the government. When we discussed it in the Dewan Rakyat (last November) we were also not happy with it," he said. He said "in fact, the MPs in their debate told the government to take the bill back to make the necessary changes".

"We welcome it (to defer the implementation of the act) but the question remains, what happened ?" "Why defer now, after the bill has been endorsed by the Dewan Rakyat and the Senate? Instead of going through all the trouble, the government ould have gone through and scrutinised it before tabling," he added.

Shahrir also questioned the cabinet's second thoughts of implementing the legislation. The Malaysian Syariah Lawyers Association says the move by the cabinet to defer the gazetting and implementation of the law would only lead to more controversies. Association president Muhamad Burok said: "The bill was controversial when it was debated and finally passed by Parliament last December. Now with the cabinet decides to defer the implementation of the law."

This only shows there is no separation of law between the three organs of legislative, executive and the judiciary," he said, when contacted yesterday. "We are a little disappointed (with the decision)," he said."The law has been passed by both houses of Parliament but now the Executive says that it will nor proceed with it," he added.

He said the due process of the law (when it comes to the application of the law) should take its course and "we can review it". Muhamad said the Executive's decision would set a precedent on such matters (in the enforcement of future laws) in the future."The system of democracy in our country is now open for questioning following such a move," he added.

Meanwhile, National Human Rights Society (Hakam) spokesman Malik Imtiaz said the cabinet decision was a good move."It will allow for a full understanding of all the issues involved in the law before implementation. "Besides reviewing the provisions of the law, the government should take into account the view sof women groups and civil society, such as human rights groups," he added.

Awam also welcomed the move to defer the implementation of the law."It is heratening that they are aware of it and putting a stop to it," said Awam president Judith Loh. However, she said the question remains as to who were the parties engaged in the scrutinisation process, as well as how the process will be conducted.

"The civil society as well as Muslim women throughout the country should be involved and engaged in the scrutinisation of the bill," he added.

The son-in-law of the prime minister but an enemy of UMNO

HE IS THE SON-IN-LAW of the Prime Minister but he has brought UMNO, the leading party in the National Front, to its knees. He caused so much damage that it is probably too late for him to withdraw. His actions to show he is a rich man – by buying 3 per cent of ECM Libra for RM9.2 million, for example – has backfired on Pak Lah and UMNO. But Mr Khairy Jamaluddin thinks he can ride through, going after his critics with defamation suits, answering no questions, riding rough shod over UMNO members. Pak Lah cannot reshuffle his cabinet, as he should have by now, because Mr Khairy wants his men in it. The more power Mr Khairy has in Pak Lah's government, the more split UMNO will be. The National Front is no longer as the first prime minister, Tengku Abdul Rahman, had envisaged it: a meeting of equals, in which the Malaysian Chinese Association and Malaysian Indian Congress leaders in cabinet had as much say as he himself. He used to say that the item on hand was not discussed in the cabinet if either disagreed. It was brought later, after negotiations had removed the objection. That was then. Now, the non-UMNO leaders in the National Front want to be known as the first to support an UMNO proposal. After all, it was their vote that made Malaysia an Islamic nation in practice, or that women are made second-class citizens.

Today, what Mr Khairy says goes in Pak Lah's administration. His only office in government was as his political secretary a few years ago. He is involved in high flying companies because he is Pak Lah's son- in-law. ECM Libra is one such. He does not have any experience after his studies. He got a PPE (philosophy, politics, economics) at Oxford, and LL.M from the London School of Economics. (In Malaysia, he would be a philosopher, politician, economist, international lawyer as his father-in-law is a Islamic scholar because he has a degree in Islam from the University of Malaya!) He tried his best to stand for elections to Parliament from Rembau, from whence he came, but was not allowed to. The opposition to him was too strong there. He made a mess in Pengkalen Pasir, for UMNO could have won with a larger majority there in the byelection had he stayed away. UMNO had already lost votes for insisting on Dato' Annuar Musa, who is hated in the state, as the UMNO chief. Kelantan could have three more byelections, as UMNO state assemblymen may have to vacate their seats. If PAS wins any one of the seats, UMNO would be in the state assembly what it was before Pengkalen Pasir.

What saved Mr Khairy in Pengkalen Pasir was the presence of the deputy prime minister and defence minister, Dato' Seri Najib Tun Razak. But Pengkalen Pasir was known as "Khairy's preserve". Millions of ringgit was spent on the marginal state seat to win it. But the UMNO crowing stopped soon after it started. Three UMNO state assemblymen are sick and may soon vacate their seats. So, he would have to be in the state should the byelections take place. He cannot refuse to go. He wants to be Prime Minister, preferably after his father-in-law. So far his political moves have alienated the power brokers in UMNO. Questions were asked how he got so much money. To silence his critics, which included a defamation suit against harakahdaily.com and the PAS MP, Mr Husam Musa, he bought into ECM Libra. In the past, he could have got away with it. But UMNO is divided into factions, most of them against Pak Lah's, and this includes that of Dato' Seri Najib. In UMNO itself he has enemies, who will join hands with people outside even if they don't agree with them. Mr Khairy cannot be a leader in Malaysia if UMNO rejects him. UMNO also does not care if he is in a foreign list of movers and shakers in 2006.

UMNO is split into factions. The tendency is to remove those against the leader. But the leader, in this instance the prime minister, is forced to accept those elected by the general assembly. To even the chances that they would not be elected, he calls for general election before the party elections in 2007 or 2008. But this may not work. As it would not work for people like Mr Khairy to move in as leaders by ignoring the party. His attempt to bring the other leaders down has so far failed, even if he got Dato' Isa Samad, the former mentri besar of Negri Sembilan, from the cabinet as federal territories minister, who comes from Linggi, which practices adat temenggong not the adat perpateh in practice in most of Negri Sembilan. He is in the opposition to Pak Lah in the UMNO elections in 2007.

At present, one in two MPs are in the federal government – as ministers, deputy ministers and parliametary secretaries. There are about 90 MPs in government. He wants to reduce that. He also wants to sack, it is rumoured, six cabinet ministers, all of whom had gone to Mecca so that they would not be. Even Tun Mahathir Mohamed, lord of all he surveyed, could not prune it, and his cabinet reshuffles in 22 years of office, was consequential. Pak Lah is stopped in his tracks. He is confused. He son-in-law has made it clear that his men must hold cabinet posts. There is already talk that Pak Lah is not his own man. He informed the cabinet yesterday he has signed a treaty with Japan, which gives Japan most favoured nation status and allows that country to import tax free its cars. In return, Malaysia will get tax free status in Japan for fruits they do not want. The United States has been pushing Malaysia to sign this treaty for a while – Tun Mahathir refused, because it was to Malaysia's disadvantage. It now wants Malaysia to support Australia and New Zealand as members of ASEAN. Pak Lah must explain why he only informed, and not discussed with, his cabinet about the agreement with Japan.

His enemies in UMNO blame Mr Khairy for his father-in-law's moves. He will be blamed whatever he does. The principal question he will have to answer is how he can get access to official papers when he holds no official position. Before he answers he does, how could he hold it when he is paid to work elsewhere. He has stepped on so many toes that he is in trouble with one or other groups. He cannot operate without people on his side, but he believes he can. He therefore attracts enemies from within the UMNO leaders and the rank and file. His presumption that the people do not matter, and they can be brought to his side with a few last minute speeches. It did not work in Rembau. It would not work elsewhere. Or would it?

M.G.G. Pillai

Why is Tun Daim defending himself out of court?

THE FORMER FINANCE MINISTER, Tun Daim Zainuddin, is on a rampage after he was implicated in the Metramac scandal, and Mr Justice Sri Ram, about to retire, said some snasty things about him. Metramacs lawyer, Mohamed Shafee Abdullah, is facing a possible contempt of court charges for what he said after the Appeal Court hearings. Tun Daim and his compatriots assume that justice will only be served if judgement go their way. They could be excused if they had said this after the Federal Court had made its judgement, when all avenues of legal proceedings would then be over. But he, and his lawyer, is wrong. People go to court when their versions cannot agree, and the judge decides, as in the Metramac case, on the balance of probabilities. That is if everything is right and proper. Tan Sri Vincent Tan, a friend of the UMNO establishment then but not anymore, took me to court, arranged for a hearing at double-quick time, without my knowledge. I had some lawyer who called me saying he was going to discharge himself if I did not give him any instructions.

That was a Saturday before the Monday of the trial in 1994, and when I first knew I was being sued. I asked the lawyer for proof that I had engaged him. He had none, either from me or the seven other defendants. I went to Mr Karpal Singh, who could only come at the weekend, so I defended myself. In such circumstances where the plaintiff had not given his side of the dispute, there is provision for the plaintiff's defence to be adduced in open court. I was not allowed to. The judge was hostile from the start. He would not give a postponement so that I could a lawyer of my choice of lawyer "because I would then not be the judge." We lost. in the Court of Appeal, Mr Justice Sri Ram told Mr Karpal, early in the proceedings, to look out of the windows. He looked, and said he could see nothing. "Well, don't you see your appeal floating down the window." We knew then we had lost. But as we were leaving the court building, one of the three judges asked us to look at a certain page of the judgement. We did and gave us the reason to get the permission to appeal to the Federal Court, which we got.

The chief justice, Tun Eusoff Chin, decided he would be part of the three judges, while he was around, who heard permission to appeal. In the Federal Court, Tun Eusoff sat. My lawyer asked that he be recused, but he refused, saying there were not enough judges to go around. This request was made after I had distributed photographs of he and Tan Sri Vincent Tan's lawyer and their families holidaying in New Zealand. But Tun Eusoff took the view that it did not matter as there was no further appeal. So he thought. I lost again, but I appealed to the Federal Court to reverse itself. But I could do it only after Tun Eusoff retired. I filed the appeal, with a different set of lawyers as Mr Karpal Singh felt the Federal Court would not order what I wanted, shortly before Tun Eusoff was due to be sworn in as governor of Penang. Since he was a party of a court action, he was not appointed. The Federal Court in 2003 said it would rehear my appeal. So far it has not.This is what ordinary people face. Is Tun Daim an ordinary person? He says, in his press statement by was of justification that the then finance minister, Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim. But Dato' Seri Anwar could not rock the boat be rejecting Tun Daim's requests, particularly as work had started and he was watching Dato' Seri Anwar like a hawk. Tun Daim's political secretary, now the Jeli MP, and known as the wakil pos' for he won because of the 5,000 votes from the army camp there, had been double promoted to deputy minister of finance, to make sure Dato' Seri Anwar did not act on his own. Tun Daim also says that the cabinet agreed with him on his projects. Did they? The cabinet ministers knew which side their bread was buttered, and voted accordingly. He lost because his group is no longer in power. A different group is. And Tun Daim has the added disadvantage of being aligned to Tun Mahathir Mohamed.

In Malaysian politics, if you are on the wrong side, you stand to lose if you are right, or the other side wants a victory. You can fight in the courts. But it is no use. You are fighting an uphill battle. But if you are on the right side one, you lose all advantages you thought you had when you lost office. Tun Daim thought he was clever in making sure the finance minister was his man. It was the practice of the finance minister to be the UMNO Treasurer; that was so when Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah and Tun Daim were in office. But when Dato' Anwar was finance minister, Tun Daim remained the UMNO Treasurer. Why? Tun Daim will have to explain that in court.

It was when the man thought he was a sucker, he broke out of Tun Daim's clutches, that it was thought necessary, mostly in Tun Daim's eyes, that he had to be destroyed at all cost. Now he does not have any advantage. He is on the wrong side, even if he remains in UMNO. Asking the cabinet to declassify its papers so that he could clear his name is just too much. The case is not over. Why is he screaming now?

M.G.G. Pillai

Daim wants cabinet to declassify its papers to clear his name

The Straits Times, Singapore
27 January 2006
By Reme Ahmad, Straits Times

MALAYSIA'S former finance minister Daim Zainuddin has called for Cabinet minutes relating to toll-road operator Metramac to be declassified, in the latest attempt to clear his name in a multimillion-dollar scandal involving the company.

Tun Daim has maintained that all decisions about the company were made collectively by the Cabinet of the day. Declassifying the Cabinet minutes would allow the public to see whether he played a key role behind the scenes, as said in a judgment by the Court of Appeal, Tun Daim said yesterday evening in a detailed statement.

Tun Daim is the second former finance minister to be drawn into the controversy that has captivated the public. Former finance minister Anwar Ibrahim last week issued a statement to say he was implicated through 'insinuatory and utterly mischievous means' though his name was not mentioned in the court judgment.

The Court of Appeal had concluded two weeks ago that tycoon Tan Sri Halim Saad and his partner Anuar Othman were able to gain a stake in, and misappropriate RM32.5 million (S$14.1 million) from, Metramac, due to their links with Tun Daim.

Metramac built and operated a highway in Kuala Lumpur but ran into trouble after public protests in 1990 led to a suspension of toll collection. The troubled company was later bought over by Metro Juara and received compensation from the government. Metro Juara shareholders Tan Sri Halim and Datuk Anuar were widely considered to be proteges of Tun Daim.

Judge Gopal Sri Ram wrote in a judgment approved by two other appellate judges that RM32.5 million had been siphoned from the company's accounts by Datuk Anuar and Tan Sri Halim, and concluded that this was a breach of company laws and possibly an aggravated form of criminal breach of trust.

Tan Sri Halim had denied any criminal misappropriation, saying the RM32.5 million was due to him and Datuk Anuar because they had lent the money earlier 'from our own pockets'. Tun Daim has also denied that the tycoon or his partner had enjoyed his patronage.

Yesterday, top lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, who represents current shareholders of Metramac, was taken to task by the Court of Appeal over a complaint letter against Justice Sri Ram's remarks in the judgment.

The Hamas Victory

CounterCurrents,org

The Hamas Victory
By Uri Avnery 27 January, 2006
GlobalResearch.ca

If Ariel Sharon had not been in a deep coma, he would have jumped out of his bed for joy.The Hamas victory fulfils his most ardent hopes.

For a whole year now, he did everything possible to undermine Mahmoud Abbas. His logic was quite obvious: The Americans wanted him to negotiate with Abbas. Such negotiations would inevitably have lead to a situation that would have compelled him to give up almost all of the West Bank. Sharon had no intention of doing so. He wanted to annex about half of the territory. So he had to get rid of Abbas and his moderate image.

During the last year, the situation of the Palestinians got worse from day to day. The actions of the occupation made normal life and commerce impossible. The West Bank settlements were continuously enlarging. The Wall which cuts off about 10% of the West Bank was nearing completion. No important prisoners were released. The aim was to impress on the Palestinians that Abbas is weak ("a chicken without feathers", as Sharon put it), that he cannot achieve anything, that offering peace and observing a cease-fire leads nowhere.

The message to the Palestinians was clear: "Israel understands only the language of force."Now the Palestinians have put in power a party that speaks this language.

WHY DID Hamas win?

Palestinian elections, like German ones, consist of two parts. Half the members of parliament are elected on straight party lists (like in Israel), the other half are elected individually in their districts. This gave Hamas a huge advantage.

In the party lists elections, Hamas won with only a slight majority. This would suggest that as far as the general political line is concerned, the majority is not far from Fatah - two states, peace with Israel.

Many of the votes given to Hamas had nothing to do with peace, religion and fundamentalism, but with protest. The Palestinian administration, run almost exclusively by Fatah, is tainted with corruption. The "man in the street" felt that the people on top don't care about him. Fatah was also blamed for the terrible situation created by the occupation.

Also, the glory of the martyrs and the indomitable fight against the immensely superior Israeli army added to the popularity of Hamas. In the personal-regional elections, the situation of Hamas was even better. Hamas had more creditable candidates, untainted by corruption. Its party machine was far superior, its members far more disciplined. In every district, there were several Fatah candidates competing with each other. After the death of Yasser Arafat, there is no strong leader capable of imposing unity. Marwan Barghouti, who could perhaps have done the job, is held in an Israeli prison - another big Israeli gift for Hamas.

PEOPLE WHO believe in conspiracy theories can assert that it is all part of a devious Israeli plan. Some people even believe that Hamas was an Israeli invention right from the beginning. That is, of course, a wild exaggeration. But it is indeed the case that in the years before the first intifada, the Islamic organization was the only Palestinian group that had practically a free run in the occupied territories.The logic went like this: Our enemy is the PLO. The Islamists hate the secular PLO and Yasser Arafat. So we can use them against the PLO. Moreover, while all political institutions were banned, and even Palestinians who worked for peace were arrested for carrying out illegal political activity, no one could control what was happening in the mosques. "As long as they are praying, they are not shooting," was the innocent opinion in the Israeli military government.

When the first intifada broke out at the end of 1987, this was proved wrong. Hamas was formed, partly in order to compete with the Islamic Jihad fighters. Within a short time, Hamas became the core of the armed uprising. But for almost a year, the Israeli Security Service did not act against them. Then policy changed and Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the spiritual leader, was arrested.

All this happened more through stupidity than design. Now the Israeli government is faced with a Hamas leadership that was democratically elected by the people.

WHAT NOW? Well, a strong feeling of deja vu. In the 70s and 80s, the Israeli government declared that it would never ever negotiate with the PLO. They are terrorists. They have a charter that calls for the destruction of Israel. Arafat is a monster, a second Hitler. So, never, never, never --- In the end, after much bloodshed, Israel and the PLO recognized each other and the Oslo agreement was signed.

Now we are hearing the same tune again. Terrorists. Murderers. The Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel. We shall never never never negotiate with them. All this is very welcome to Sharon's Kadima party, which openly calls for the unilateral annexation of territory ("Fixing the borders of Israel unilaterally"). It will help the Likud and the Labor party hawks whose mantra is "We have no partner for peace", meaning - to hell with peace.

Gradually, the tone will change. Both sides, and the Americans, too, will climb down from the tall tree. Hamas will state that it is ready for negotiations and find some religious basis for this. The Israeli government (probably headed by Ehud Olmert) will bow to reality and American pressure. Europe will forget its ridiculous slogans.

In the end, everybody will agree that a peace, in which Hamas is a partner, is better than a peace with Fatah alone. Let's pray that not too much blood is spilled before that point is reached.

Why the West must reOrient

Asia Times Online 28 January 2006

Why the West must reOrient
By Francesco Sisci

BEIJING - The West in recent decades has been attempting to change China through criticism and apocalyptic predictions. These help China to avoid traps, to prevent possible stumbles and to be careful about the direction it takes and the decisions it makes. For instance on human-rights issues, all the criticism helps the Chinese Communist Party to be on its toes, and in this way we Westerners help to make China a more harmonious society.

Yet while we help China to change, we overlook the fact that we should change ourselves, because China's growth has brought a systemic change to the world at large. As it spearheads the general growth of Asia, particularly Southeast Asia and India, it foreshadows a different world, where for the first time in at least two centuries the West will become an economic minority.

It is as if we were facing a huge climatic change, as if we went from the glacial era to a temperate era, or vice versa. In this climatic change, we are going to die if we don't change our habits. It is not because China is a threat, that it is malevolently planning an attack on the West. It is because there is a change of climate, and those who do not adapt to the new environment will inevitably suffer.

Failing to perceive change is common in history. In the late 16th century, William Shakespeare thought Venice was the most advanced country in the world, and this was the main reason he set some of his best plays in Venice, for instance The Merchant of Venice and Othello. Romeo and Juliet is set in Verona, near Venice.Yet the reality was that England was the country leading the changes in Europe and Venice was in decline. But England still looked up to Venice, and while the example of Venice drove England to change, Venice itself failed to perceive what was happening. One can argue that if the Venetians had recognized the changes in England, they might have considered England a threat, as the one country taking away the old Venetian supremacy.

But in fact the situation was much more complex. The strong presence of the Turks made Mediterranean trade with the Far East more complicated and costly. At the same time, the new Atlantic routes brought into Europe the wealth of America, its gold and its new crops, while at the same time providing access to Asian goods and spices.

In a nutshell, the whole historical environment was changing, yet people not only in Venice but also in England, as Shakespeare proves, failed to see it coming.

Perhaps this has also to do with our psychological defense mechanism whereby we rule out things we don't like: often when it's too painful to accept our reality we misread it. This is a natural process, but one that can be structured to serve specific motives and goals. Then it becomes an ideology.

A similar process is at work with the Western approach to China. We often fail to recognize the climate change heralded by China's growth. However, this psychological and ideological process in the West does not harm China much because China is discreet in taking our criticisms, accepting those that help it improve itself while rejecting those that are not useful. But while this process helps China, it hurts the West because it hides the climate change, robbing us of the time we need to prepare for the new environment.

Randy Peerenboom in his book China's Long March toward Rule of Law argues that the present authoritarianism is good for China. Of course there are excesses; there are cases when a forceful reaction of the police is unnecessary and unhelpful. He argues that perhaps 20% of the authoritarian regime could be dispensed with without endangering the country, and actually improving the situation. But overall, he claims, authoritarianism as practiced in China is helping the country to develop, and the whole world benefits from this development.

Peerenboom backs this view with statistics and data, but his findings also ring true on another level. They are easy to believe because people in the streets of Beijing or Shanghai look optimistic - they smile, they seem happy, while people in New York or Rome don't.

Peerenboom's findings should be a stepping stone toward consideration in the West as to how we should change to cope with China's change. But the book is bound to be controversial, because it says to the Venice of our times that England has a different model and if we don't change they will overtake us.

This realization changes the focus of attention, from China to the West.

We are the ones who should consider making important changes while looking at the Chinese reality and studying it in a very cold and non- ideological fashion. Thus ideological attacks against China and the Communist Party seem part of a larger misreading of China. They lend credence to the theory of a clash of civilizations. In fact China can be hardly called communist. Yet the calls to the Chinese communists to convert to democratic rule sound very similar to the past attitude when the West was saying to the Chinese and other non-Western people: You heathens must convert to Christianity and Western values or we'll send you to hell.

It is true that this approach worked with the poor native Americans in the 19th century. But even back then it did not work in China, which was too big and too complex to be completely overtaken by the West. In fact we had the opposite experience, for any power that has taken over China ultimately has become Chinese itself. It was true for the Mongols of the Yuan Empire, the Manchu of the Qing Dynasty, and could be also true of the Westerners: if they were to rule China, in a few decades they could well become Chinese. More important, after being sinicized the conquerors were upstaged by Chinese rebellions, which eventually took over the former victors and expanded the Chinese borders. For instance, the Manchu have become a de facto integral part of China with both their culture and their territory. The Qing in the Chinese modern imagination were not a foreign power winning China, they are part of Chinese history, fully digested in it.

A similar phenomenon has happened to the West already. Rome, which conquered Greece militarily, was itself conquered by Greek culture.

So we have two situations. First, it is very difficult to take over China. The West did not succeed in its attempt a century ago when China was weak, and is much less likely to succeed now when China is stronger. And second, if the West were to take control of China, it could be worse for the West, because China could sinicize the West and take it over.Therefore if we want to preserve ourselves and our differences, we have to preserve China. And to preserve ourselves before this massive transformation, we must change many things. But how?

We should tell China: We need you to be democratic because the world needs to be mutually politically transparent; we are transparent and you should be as well. There should be something like the World Trade Organization agreement, a World Political Agreement (WPO).

But if under such an arrangement China were to change, an even bigger change would be in store for us. Our democratic structures seem out of sync with the present world. They were coined and groomed in a much smaller and less interconnected world, and now we find that our political structures are at the same time too democratic and not democratic enough.

For instance in the European Union, many rules are dictated and imposed by bureaucrats who are not elected and possibly are less accountable than Chinese mandarins. There is a huge deficit of democracy in the EU. Why can these bureaucrats impose rules on milk or the content of my chocolate bar? What is their legitimacy? What is their interest, their goals? These notions are fuzzy in every single EU country, where lively domestic politics, with its tempo of lively, fierce political campaigns, draws more attention than distant and murky dealings in Brussels.

At the same time, for instance in Italy, a country that is part of the European Union, every small town is rich enough to send a representative to Miami. Having done so it feels the right - and there is no legal obstacle to it - to establish direct political relations with Florida, often without even knowing that Florida's capital is Tallahassee and not Miami. But in a national agreement maybe the issues of foreign policy should be the responsibility of the state. In one case there seems to be too little democracy, in the other case too much. Neither can work - they both make the West weak vis-a-vis the climate change brought about by China.

Thus it is essential that we understand China as it actually is, and not as it appears through some ideological lens. And perhaps we should start thinking of a WPO. Jared Diamond in his latest book Collapse speaks about civilizations that took a wrong turn and collapsed. It sounds as if he is speaking of us, the Western world: there is a huge change, and we fail to recognize it and adapt to it. As Diamond says, those who do so perish.

Francesco Sisci is Asia editor of the Italian daily La Stampa.

NST Dalam Gerhana: Suara Orang Melayu Sudah Mati

Dari Laman Web Kelab Maya UMNO http://www.kmu.net.my

NST Dalam Gerhana: Suara Orang Melayu Sudah Mati

Editorial

Sejak zaman kebangkitan Nasionalisme negara pasca pengenalan Dasar Ekonomi Baru, The New Straits Times Press (NSTP) merupakan antara salah satu lambang perjuangan orang Melayu memerdekakan aset-aset negara ini.

Pada 1972, NSTP telah menjadi milik rakyat negara ini sepenuhnya dengan perpisahan dari Straits Times Singapore. Sejak itu orang Melayu menguasai kepimpinan NST dan Berita Harian atau pada masa-masa tertentu wujud jawatan Ketua Pengarang Kumpulan NSTP yang mengawal kedua-dua akhbar berbahasa Melayu dan Inggeris di bawah stable NSTP.

Nama-nama seperti Mazlan Nordin, A. Samad Ismail, Kadir Jasin merupakan antara Ketua Pengarang Kumpulan yang meninggalkan begitu banyak jejak-jejak perjuangan nasionalisme ekonomi orang Melayu dan rakyat Malaysia. Mereka bukan sahaja bersedia mengkritik kerajaan malah sentiasa menjadi benteng negara menghadapi sebarang perbalahan dengan Singapura. Hari ini, NSTP sudah tidak lagi boleh diharapkan untuk berlawan hujah dengan Singapura. Sebaliknya, perlantikan Datuk Kalimullah Hassan Mesrul sebagai Ketua Pengarang NSTP telah menjadikan budak-budak Singapura menguasai syarikat akhbar orang Melayu dalam bahasa Inggeris ini.

Satu demi satu pengarang-pengarang besar Melayu di kumpulan NSTP terpaksa berundur secara terhormat. Nama-nama seperti Datuk Ahmad Talib, Ahmad Rejal Arbie, Zainul Ariffin secara diam-diam dipencilkan. Bagi Pengarang besar seperti Ahmad Talib yangb erpengalaman menjadi Timbalan Ketua Pengarang kepada beberapa Ketua Pengarang Kumpulan sejak Kadir Jasin, tentulah berasa terhina dengan sikap Kalimullah yang menjadikan beliau sebagai Group General Manager, Communications and Editorial Marketing. Satu jawatan yang bukan sahaja menyisihkan Ahmad Talib daripada kumpulan editorial, malah bolehlah dianggap sebagai menghina beliau sebagai seorang wartawan dan pengarang yang telah lama menyumbang bakti dalam kumpulan NSTP.

Kalimullah bukanlah datang dengan kredibiliti dan integeriti yang hebat untuk layak dinobatkan sebagai Ketua Pengarang akhbar tertua di Malaysia -NSTP. Jika pengarang-pengarang NSTP merupakan mereka yang telah terbukti ampuh dan penuh pengalaman, Kalimullah diparacutkan ke dalam NSTP tanpa sebarang pengalaman pengurusan akhbar yang relevan. Hanya kerana bersandarkan hubungan dengan Nor Mohamamed Yaakob dan kemudiannya Pak Lah, beliau berjaya menjawat satu jawatan yang dulunya hanya dimiliki oleh mereka yang telah teruji dan terbukti dalam bidang kewartawanan.

[Sehingga hari ini kalangan pemerhati media berasa amat hairan bagaimana seorang wartawan yang hanya layak menjadi koresponden NST Singapura; tidak lepas security clearance untuk menjadi Setiausaha Akhbar Tun Ghafar Baba (ketika beliau menjadi Timbalan Perdana Menteri); yang telahpun disenaraihitamkan oleh Sanusi Joned (pada awalnya Sanusi turut membantu Kalimullah ini); dikatakan mempunyai hubungan akrab dengan beberapa individu dalam Internal Security Department of Singapore; dan gagal untuk mendapat perhatian Dr. Mahathir, boleh dengan tiba-tiba menjadi ketua Pengarang sebuah akhbar yang berpengaruh di Malaysia.]

Nilai kewartawanan Melayu dan Malaysia di NSTP yang dibina oleh Tan Sri Nordin Sopiee, Mazlan Nordin, Samad Ismail dan Kadir Jasin sudah dipijak-pijak dengan perlantikan Kalimullah.

Selain penyingkiran Ahmad Talib, Kalimullah mula menyingkirkan mana-mana editor kanan atau wartawan senior ke jawatan-jawatan pentadbiran bagi membolehkan beliau membawa masuk wartawan-wartawan yang tidak mengambil kira nasionalisme dan semangat Jalan Riong yang dibanggakan selama ini.

Hari ini, Brendan Pariera, koresponden NST Singapura, yang baru beberapa bulan dibawa masuk ke dalam NST sudah dilantik menjadi Editor Kumpulan NST. Ini bermakna selepas Datuk Hishammudin Aun yang menguasai kedua-dua kumpulan, orang yang besar di NST ialah Brendan. Hina sangatkah para wartawan NST yang telah lama memerah keringat menyumbang bakti ke pada akhbar ini sehingga diketepikan seorang demi seorang koresponden NST Singapura yang dahulunya tiada kerja lain kecuali memburukkan negara Malaysia ini.

Jika dahulu NST pernah kecoh dengan seorang ahli politik yangmempunyai taraf PR Australia, hari ini NST sendiri melantik Editor Kumpulan (Group Editor) NST daripada rakyat Malaysia yang memegang taraf PR Singapura. Brendan bukan sahaja anti UMNO suatu ketika dahulu, malah sepanjang hidup beliau dikatakan mendapat didikan dan asuhan di Singapura.

idak cukup Brendan, kini kalimullah membawa masuk agen-agen akhbar asing yang suatu ketika dahulu hanya bekerja memburukkan Malaysia. Mengapa orang seperti Rajan Moses, Nadarajah (bekas koresponden Far Eastern Economic Review) dan beberapa orang lagi bekas koresponden media asing di Malaysia mendapat tempat yang istimewa kepada Kalimullah dan NST? Sejak pengambilalihan 1972, NST merupakan sebagai benteng intelektual orang Melayu yang menulis dalam bahasa Inggeris. NST juga dilihat benteng terakhir bila berhadapan dengan media-media asing yang cuba memburukkan Malaysia.

Hari ini Intelektual Melayu di NST sudah mati. Lebih menyedihkan bukan sahaja intelektual Melayu telah mati di NST, malah roh dan semangat orang Melayu juga telah mati bila bekas wartawan hingusan NST Singapura dan kini Editor Kumpulan NST, Brendan Preira menulis "Notes From a divise year" pada 25 Disember 2005 lalu.

Roh DEB, Suara Orang Melayu dan jerih perih Tun Razak meMalaysiakan NST akhirnya dikuburkan dengan percaturan politik yang salah, melantik si kitol menjadi penguasa NSTP. Hari ini, orang Melayu sudah membeli akhbar The Star milik MCA. Kalimullah mungkin berjaya "memaksa"beberapa wakil rakyat dan menteri membeli secara bundle akhbarnya untuk menaikkan jualan dan namanya.

Namun orang Melayu secara keseluruhan sudah tidak melihat NST sebagai suara mereka.

[The Hamas electoral victory:] Democracy's bitter fruit

[The Hamas electoral victory:] Democracy's bitter fruit
by Daniel PipesNational PostJanuary 27, 2006http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3321

Now that Hamas has apparently won the Palestinian elections, the West is hoist with its own petard.

On the one hand, Hamas is a terrorist group that unabashedly targets Israeli civilians and calls for the elimination of the Jewish state. On the other hand, it just won what observers deem to have been a reasonably fair election, and so enjoys the legitimacy that comes from the ballot box. Every foreign ministry now confronts a dilemma: Nudge it to moderation or give up on it as irredeemably extremist? Meet with Hamas members or avoid them? Continue to donate to the Palestinian Authority or starve it of funds?

This double bind is of our own making because, with Washington in the lead, virtually every Western government adopted a two-prong approach to solving the problems of the Middle East.
The negative prong consists of fighting terrorism. A "war on terror" is underway, involving military forces in the field, toughened financial laws, and an array of espionage tools.

The positive prong involves promoting democracy. The historical record shows that democratic countries almost never make war on each other, and tend to be prosperous. Therefore, elections appear to be what the doctor ordered for the maladies of the Middle East.

But that combination has failed this troubled region. The first functional election in the Palestinian Authority has thrown up Hamas. In December, 2005, the Egyptian electorate came out strongly for the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamic party, and not for liberal elements. In Iraq, the post-Saddam electorate voted in a pro-Iranian Islamist as prime minister. In Lebanon, the voters celebrated the withdrawal of Syrian troops by voting Hezbollah into the government. Likewise, radical Islamic elements have prospered in elections in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.
In brief, elections are bringing to power the most deadly enemies of the West. What went wrong? Why has a democratic prescription that's proven successful in Germany, Japan and other formerly bellicose nations not worked in the Middle East?

It's not Islam or some cultural factor that accounts for this difference; rather, it is the fact that ideological enemies in the Middle East have not yet been defeated. Democratization took place in Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union after their populations had endured the totalitarian crucible. By 1945 and 1991, they recognized what disasters fascism and communism had brought them, and were primed to try a different path.

That's not the case in the Middle East, where a totalitarian temptation remains powerfully in place. Muslims across the region – with the singular and important exception of Iran – are drawn to the Islamist program with its slogan that "Islam is the solution." That was the case from Iran in 1979 to Algeria in 1992 to Turkey in 2002 to the Palestinian Authority this week.

This pattern has several implications for Western governments:

Slow down: Take heed that an impatience to move the Middle East to democracy is consistently backfiring by bringing our most deadly enemies to power.

Settle in for the long run: However worthy the democratic goal, it will take decades to accomplish.

Defeat radical Islam: Only when Muslims see that this is a route doomed to failure will they be open to alternatives.

Appreciate stability: Stability must not be an end in itself, but its absence likely leads to anarchy and radicalization.

Returning to the dilemma posed by the Hamas victory, Western capitals need to show Palestinians that – like Germans electing Hitler in 1933 – they have made a decision gravely unacceptable to civilized opinion. The Hamas-led Palestinian Authority must be isolated and rejected at every turn, thereby encouraging Palestinians to see the error of their ways.