The outward signs of a deeper struggle - Pitsuwan

The New Straits Times, Kuala Lumpur
24 February 2006


COMMENT: The outward signs of a deeper struggle
SURIN PITSUWAN

The turbulence in Thailand threatens to turn into a popular rebellion
against the rule of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. The underlying
cause is a clash between two models of leadership, says SURIN PITSUWAN.

MUCH like anything else in Thai society, the political drama playing
itself out on the streets of Bangkok is a phenomenon with deeper
roots and a complex structure.

While the Thais participating in the demonstrations themselves do not
quite understand how a personal conflict between two erstwhile
business partners, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and media tycoon
Sondhi Limthong- kul, could turn into a growing popular rebellion
threatening to bring down the once-invincible Thaksin regime, foreign
observers are even more bewildered at the speed with which things are
deteriorating, making major political change almost imminent once again.

For one thing, the drama is much more than parliamentary manoeuvring
between the overwhelming majority of the ruling Thai Rak Thai Party
and the feeble Opposition.

Any analysis based on that kind of assumption is totally off the mark
at this critical moment. It is not even a classic power play between
major factions within Parliament or among the various camps of the
ruling party. Neither is it a clash of contending interests among
traditional Thai power wielders, the military, the bureaucracy, the
political parties and the business community.

What lies at the foundation of the current drama is a clash of two
models of leadership whose stage is not in Parliament or at the Royal
Plaza, nor at Sanam Luang nor Rajdamneorn Avenue as in the past. The
drama is a psychological one and the stage is in the Thai psyche itself.

For the past 60 years, which means most of our democratic history,
the Thai people have been graced by a compassionate, wise, rational,
accommodating, gentle, spiritual and heavenly leadership.

Every time there was a national crisis — the student uprisings of Oct
14, 1973, the massacre of Oct 6, 1976, the Black May of 1992 and the
financial crisis of 1997 — the people could expect morally sound
guidance from their beloved sovereign.

The "traditional Thai leadership" has always served as an ethical
compass for Thai society with no distinction of economic class or
ethnic and religious background.

The admonition has always been based on traditional Thai values drawn
from Buddhist dharma and our cultural heritage. The advice has always
been welcome and received as "drops of gentle rain from heaven".

That leadership displays the best form of "soft power", which is now
a cliché in text books on the art of governance. It is dispensed with
a soft voice, gentle gesture, sometimes with humour, often from
behind the scenes, at other times with dry sarcasm. It was always
given with a sense of compassion and goodwill intended for the
benefit of the people, never selfish, never in jest.

For the past five years, the Thai people have been given a totally
different kind of leadership.

Selfish, bombastic, crude, rude, vulgar, aggressive, materialistic,
confrontational and devoid of any philosophical and ethical
dimensions. It was packaged as "intellectual, modern, informative and
rational". Some even went so far as to call it "digital leadership".

It is quick, precise, timely, reassuring and refreshing to impatient
people. But upon closer examination, it is only a "how-to" kind of
leadership.

How to get richer, how to gain more power, how to sell better, how to
get ahead of others, how to control people, how to deceive without
getting caught, how to rob and get away with it.

The counter counsel from the traditional leadership has been
"sufficient economy". "Live within your means. Do not spread yourself
too thin. Being in debt is a worse form of suffering." That is very
wise and very Buddhist indeed.So the Thai psyche now is suffering
from a form of schizophrenia, torn between two models of leadership.

While the "heavenly voice" is being eclipsed by the "divisive shout",
scolding Thais into the direction of self-destruction, the entire
Thai society is now in disarray. The traditional form of leadership
they were used to and lived by during the past six decades is more
certain, more sustainable and soothing.

They have now, for the past five years, been herded like cattle to a
distant mirage that appears to be receding further and further into
the horizon.

The Thais are now behaving like a patient being analysed on the couch
in a psychiatric ward. The unfortunate thing is, neither the doctor
nor the patient knows that the root cause of their disillusion lies
in their own karma. You reap what you sow. All sufferings have their
cause. And always it is our own doing.

The current wave of demonstrations could be seen as a symptom of a
suffering psyche, dislocated by over-consumption and unbalanced by
over-ambition, a psyche that is yearning for an even keel that can
only be provided by wise leadership.

The confrontation will not cease, the pressure will not be let up and
legitimacy will not be restored until that "crude, rude,
materialistic and confrontational" leadership gives way and is replaced.

For what is raging on the streets is not what we see at first sight.
It reflects a deeper malaise that is eroding the Thai sense of well-
being.

The psyche has to rid itself of this alien intrusion into its domain.
We can describe it as the traditional leadership reclaiming the power
and space being taken over by the digital one.

The traditional "prerogatives" are striking back. And the
psychological health of the Thai nation will have to return to the
idealised Buddhist sense of harmony and balance. All the forces are
now being unleashed to win this decisive battle. Until then, we will
see only instability and insecurity.

Thaksin and Sondhi only represent two sides of the Thai personality
that has found itself being torn to pieces because of the two styles
of leadership. The sickness will not be cured until the comforting
hand is back in control.

* The writer is an MP and a deputy leader of the Democrat Party. A
southern Thai Muslim, he served as Thailand’s Foreign Minister from
1997 to 2001.

Irving jailed for denying Holocaust

The Guardian, London


Irving jailed for denying Holocaust

Three years for British historian who described Auschwitz as a fairytale

Ian Traynor in Vienna
Tuesday February 21, 2006
The Guardian


David Irving, the discredited historian and Nazi apologist, was last
night starting a three-year prison sentence in Vienna for denying the
Holocaust and the gas chambers of Auschwitz.

Irving, who appeared in court confidently yesterday morning carrying
his book Hitler's War and a PG Wodehouse paperback, immediately vowed
to appeal against the sentence. "I'm very shocked," he said as he was
led from Vienna's biggest courtroom back to the cells where he has
been held for the past three months.

Article continues
"Stay strong David, best of luck to you," an English supporter
shouted after the sentence was read.

Irving, 67, had started the day affecting the image of an English
gent arraigned before a foreign court. "Frankly, questions about the
Holocaust bore me," he said. He clutched a copy of Hitler's War - "my
flagship, 35 years of work" - and from his blazer pocket he fetched
the Wodehouse book Eggs, Beans, and Crumpets. The trial was
"ridiculous", he claimed, adding that the Austrian law under which he
was being tried would be scrapped within a year.

Austria has Europe's toughest law criminalising denial of the
Holocaust. Irving went on trial for two speeches he delivered in the
country almost 17 years ago. He was arrested in November last year
after returning to Austria to deliver more speeches despite an arrest
warrant against him and being barred from the country.

In the two 1989 speeches he had termed the gas chambers of Auschwitz
a "fairytale" and insisted that Adolf Hitler had protected the Jews
of Europe. He referred to surviving witnesses of the Nazi death camps
as "psychiatric cases", and asserted that there were no extermination
camps in the Third Reich.

State prosecutor Michael Klackl said: "He's not a historian, he's a
falsifier of history." Arguments over freedom of speech were entirely
misplaced, he added: "This is about abuse of freedom of speech."

Irving's defence lawyer, Elmar Kresbach, appealed to the jury for
mercy for an ageing man with a 12-year-old daughter and an ill young
wife. Even if he did voice views which were "horrible" or
"repellent", he was no danger to Austria.

Last night Irving's wife Bente Hogh said he had brought his
imprisonment on himself by going to Austria despite the ban. She
said: "He was not jailed just for his views but because he's banned
from Austria and still went. David doesn't take advice from anyone.
He thought it was a bit of fun, to provoke a little bit."

Irving pleaded guilty but under Austrian law the trial went ahead.
Judge Peter Liebtreu called Irving "a racist, an anti-Semite, and a
liar", citing the verdict delivered by Justice Charles Gray at the
high court in London in 2000 when the historian lost a libel case
against an American writer and academic and was bankrupted.

Irving said that defeat had cost him $13m, but supporters were
sending donations to help him fight yesterday's case.

The judge repeatedly asked Irving if he still subscribed to the views
articulated in the 1989 speeches. "I made a mistake saying there were
no gas chambers in Auschwitz," he conceded. He claimed the Holocaust
figure of six million murdered Jews was "a symbolic number" and said
his figures totalled 2.7 million.

He said he was not sure how many died at Auschwitz, but he mentioned
a figure of 300,000, a fraction of the accepted total. And he still
believed Hitler protected the Jews and tried to put off the Final
Solution - the systematic killing of all European Jews - at least
until after the second world war.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

Mahkamah, masjid, and merger

The New Straits Times, Kuala Lumpur


COMMENT: Mahkamah, masjid, and merger
Mahadev Shankar

Feb 18 2006

BEFORE the Mahkamah Agong crossed the Sungei Gombak, the venerable
institution and the Masjid Jamek had stood side by side for nearly a
hundred years on a spur of land marking the confluence of the two
rivers which gave Kuala Lumpur its name.

Since it was opened in 1909, Masjid Jamek was the revered focus of
the faith of the Malay community.

Alongside it, separated by a low wall, was the Supreme Court building
in which was ensconced the Fountain of Justice to provide the healing
waters needed to damp down any tensions which might have ruffled the
tranquility of the multi-ethnic community.

Today, when the strident demands of religious fundamentalism and
exuberant irrationality are threatening to undermine the peace
between nations, it may yet profit us to ponder how our Masjid and
Mahkamah survived side by side in synergistic harmony for over a
hundred years.

By the late 1980s, the civil courts had decided hundreds of cases
which involved issues of Syariah, especially on matters of
succession, wakaf and so on.

Specific issues of Islamic law could be referred to the Majlis, whose
fatwa were scrupulously enforced by the civil courts.

It was the late Lord President Tun Mohamed Suffian's proud boast that
if you blocked the name of the judge on any page in the Malayan Law
Journal and only read the report, you could not guess the ethnic
origins of the author.

In terms of nation-building and integration of our multi-racial
community, the judiciary had already achieved homogeneity.

The merger of personal and customary law with the civil law was a
fact and blossoming into its full potential.

Alas, in the field of public law the judiciary found itself on a
collision course with the executive by the mid-Eighties. In 1988, not
just the Lord President and five judges of the Supreme Court were
unseated. Article 121 of the Constitution also came in for the
executive axe earlier that year.

The then Prime Minister was reported recently as having said, "I
suppose I got away with it!"

A Freudian slip perhaps, leaving us now to ask ourselves what he has
got us into since the pigeons have all come home to roost.

Before the Constitution Amendment Act 1988 (Act A 704), Article 121
(1) read:

"Subject to Clause 2 the judicial power of the Federation shall be
vested in two High Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction and status."

After the amendment Article 121(1) read:

"There shall be two High Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction and status."

The specific words "the judicial power" had disappeared and with it
presumably the unlimited original jurisdiction of the High Court
because the following new Article 121(1A) now provided:

"The courts referred to in Clause (1) shall have no jurisdiction in
respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts."

This clause by itself does not confer jurisdiction on the Syariah
courts. That had to come by legislation by the State in which each
Syariah court is located.

If all the parties to a dispute were Muslims and the point at issue
was manifestly within the purview of the Syariah Law, there should be
no difficulty.

But what if one of the parties to a dispute was not a Muslim? What if
the dispute involved some matters which were within the exclusive
preserve of the civil court and other matters which had to be
determined by Syariah principles?

And what if, notwithstanding that both parties were Muslims, the
factual matrix of the problem did not place the matter within the
purview of the Syariah court but within the jurisdiction of the High
Court?

In life nothing is so clear cut: In a number of cases the very
question whether "a matter was within the jurisdiction of the Syariah
court" could be a contested issue which could not be determined
without first determining which party was telling the truth.

The residuary unlimited original jurisdiction of the High Court
predicates that where it is not clear in which court jurisdiction
resides, that issue should be determined by the High Court and the
matter be remitted to the Syariah Court for disposal if that was the
right thing to do.

All judges take a solemn oath when appointed to office that they will
uphold the Constitution. To decline jurisdiction where it exists or
to decline jurisdiction if that issue is contested is an abdication
of the judicial oath.

The recent refusal of the High Court to exercise jurisdiction in such
a case has resulted in the present imbroglio where the Syariah Court
has now been left to determine whether a particular matter comes
within its jurisdiction when the facts required to confer that
jurisdiction are themselves in dispute.

The Shamala Sathiyaseelan case in 2004 is ironic in that the judge
there actually went so far as to admonish the Hindu wife on her
duties as to the upbringing of her children in the Islamic faith when
he should have said he had no voice in the matter at all if the
correct view was that Article 121(1A) denuded him of any jurisdiction
in the matter.

Confusion is further confounded even in cases where both parties are
Muslims.

Under the civil law women are regarded as feme sole, i.e. independent
persons with personal and property rights.

Indeed Article 8 was specifically amended by the Constitution
(Amendment) (No 2) Act 2001 to put beyond all doubt that in Malaysia
there should be no discrimination on grounds of gender and women are
to be treated as being equal to men in the eye of the law.

Situations may occur where a Muslim spouse may inflict bodily injury
or material damage to the property of the other spouse. Syariah law
may well provide relief for these matrimonial offences.

Sexual abuse of the minor children of the marriage by a previous
husband is regularly reported in the local Press. Such victims have
elected to sue for damages or initiate a criminal prosecution in a
civil court.

If the High Court, by virtue of Article 121 (1A), is to have no
jurisdiction because of the involvement of some Syariah elements in
the problem, why should the subordinate civil courts be in any better
position?

Further conundrums surface when we consider the differential approach
of the State Syariah Courts to powers of search and punishment — as
witnessed in the recent alleged breaking in and assault of a couple
suspected of khalwat — and the attempts to introduce hudud in
Terengganu and Kelantan.

We may now move on to consider other dire consequences which threaten
to follow if the law is not clarified.

The Federal Constitution is stated to be the supreme law of the
Federation and Article 8 lays down that:

"All persons are equal before the law and are entitled to equal
protection before the law."

Before Article 121(1A) of the Constitution came into force, a spouse
under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 had the equal
protection of that law in the event of divorce as regards rights to
maintenance, alimony and an equitable division of the family
property, in addition to guardianship and custody rights over the
children of the marriage.

Spouses also had inheritance rights under the Inheritance and Family
Provision Act 1971, and the Distribution Act 1958 in the event of
intestacy.

Recent cases have given rise to apprehensions that a de facto act of
conversion to Islam by one spouse could virtually render nugatory all
the antecedent protection that the aforesaid laws gave the other spouse.

In other words, notwithstanding the supremacy of the Federal
Constitution, it seems that the converting spouse can by that act
alone successfully trump all his antecedent legal liabilities and
achieve an effective "repeal", both of the Federal Constitution and
the aforesaid relevant laws in so far as he is concerned — something
which would need a two-thirds majority in Parliament for general
application! The "jurisdiction" of the High Court referred to in
Article 121(1A) is both civil and criminal.

The attempts by the State legislatures to introduce hudud in Kelantan
and Terengganu have taken the prospective unravelling of the Federal
Constitution into a far more perilous dimension which could estrange
the centre from the peripheral States.

The enforcement of the criminal law is a Federal matter, but why
should it now not be contended that the effect of the State
legislation in this respect is to override Federal law?

Law and order is not merely a State matter and any prospect of
further uncertainty in this area is simply too awful to contemplate.

The Prime Minister's announcement that all aspects of the
implementation of Article 121(1A) have to be clarified has been most
timely.

Unless such clarification provides iron-clad guarantees of antecedent
civil rights, the equal protection of the law given by Article 8 of
the Constitution is in danger of becoming a mirage.

Whatever may have been the political intention of Article 121(1A) at
the time it was passed, the manner in which it has been implemented
has virtually introduced an iron curtain between the Syariah courts
and the civil courts.

Any talk of merger in such a scenario will at best be a pious hope
and at worst an exercise in futility.

Merger will only be possible if those who have to apply the law in
Malaysia also have the wherewithal to temper and apply the law by the
application of common law and the rules of equity, only so far as the
circumstances of Malaysia's inhabitants permit and subject to such
qualifications as local circumstances render necessary.

This time-honoured formula, enshrined in the Civil Law Act 1956,
served us well until the 1988 amendment and could still be the glue
required to make a truly Malaysian identity credible.

Clarification when it comes must enable both the Syariah and the
civil courts to act in tandem with each other where there are
overlapping issues.

That objective could be achieved if every word in the Federal
Constitution is allowed to carry its purposive natural meaning, the
rights it guarantees all its citizens are respected, and "equal
protection of the law" is fleshed out by providing equal access to
justice.

Article 121(1A) can only be left alone as long as it is clearly
understood that a matter is only within the jurisdiction of the
Syariah Court when all the elements involved, both as to the identity
of the parties and the subject matter of the suit, are manifestly
within the ambit of its powers and limitations.

The law-givers who have been entrusted with the task of clarifying
the law will do well to keep in the forefront of their minds Article
4 of the Constitution:

"This Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law
passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this Constitution
shall to the extent of such inconsistency be void."

Authorititative identification and neutralisation of those laws
enacted after Merdeka which are inconsistent with the Constitution
are also a part of the process of clarification.

* Datuk Mahadev Shankar, a retired Court of Appeal judge, is a
consultant with a legal firm in Kuala Lumpur.

Is the cabinet reshuffle aimed at the country or the UMNO elections in 2007?

Is the cabinet reshuffle aimed at the country or the UMNO elections in 2007?

PAK LAH has resuffled his cabinet, so the newspapers and spinmeisters
said. But has he? He has organised his cabinet to be ready for the
2007 UMNO elections, not to run the country effectively. He has
blinked at a time when he should not. He hopes the changes would
destroy lhis enemies. But he has ensured divisions in the cabinet,
between the cabinet and UMNO rank-and-file, UMNO against the people.
The other politicial parties in the National Front did not count, and
he dropped what their leaders did not want. His predecessor, Tun
Mahathir Mohamed, is not unhappy at the cabinet resuffle especially
since many of his supporters are in it. Those who had watched Pak Lah
announcing the cabinet on television would have seen a glum prime
minister ill at ease while his deputy, linked to Tun Mahathir,
grinning away. When Pak Lah dismissed the AP scandal as a minor
mistake and that did not justifiy sacking the minister, he gave the
impression that in running the country, those in politicial offfice
are expected to fill their pockets with ill-gotten money.

He could have offset this by ensuring that it was his cabinet. But he
could not. He had no clear vision, whether it should be his cabinet
or whether it should help his teach win the 2007 UMNO elections. He
did not make any important appointments, most dropped had wanted to
quit anyway or move on to stare politics or retire. What we saw is
not musical chairs, for that entails that when the music stops, there
post less. It was jobs for the boys, even if they were not on his
side. He announced Mr Muhammad Taib, aquitted in Australia because
"he did not speak English" – rather strange for a University of
Malaysia graduate of the pre-1970s – for having on him RM3 million in
various currencies and which he had not declared. Mr Muhammad Taib, a
former mentri besar of Selangor, is a warlord who could stop Dato'
Khir Toyo so that he would not challenge Pak Lah's son-in-law for the
UMNO Youth deputy leadership. But why should Dato' Muhammed's
appointment to the Senate announced the same time as the cabinet
reshuffle?

TV3, run by Mr Khairy Jamaludin's acolyte, has daily coverage on
wrong in Selangor, obviously to put Mr Khir Toyo on the spoit. Mr
Khairy, who has never won an election contesting for it, may have to
face Dato' Khir in 2007 to defend his UMNO Youth deputy leadership.
Or challenge Dato' Hishamuddin Hussein for UMNO Youth leader. But
questions are asked on the UMNO ground if the problems in Selangor
are not in the rest of the states. His men were to have been in the
present cabinet, but his father-in-law could oblige for reasons of
his own survival. The warlords in UMNO had to be accommodated, which
is Datin Rafiidah Aziz remains in her post. That Mr Khairy's cousin
is the "AP King" and Datin Rafidah family's control of APs makes sure
one cannot accuse the other, a sort of insurance.

The aim is to make sure Pak Lah's team is in charge after 2007. The
individual cabinet portfolios do not matter. What the loser in the
Gerakan leadership told repoters after he was dropped, that he would
have to find a new job, says it all. The country runs on auto-pilot,
despite the cabinet. It has run that day for decades. It can continue
till 2007. But the ground is restive. They do not see that the
country must be sacrificed for UMNO leadership gains. The ministers
are unhappy that the Press, which echos occasionally these concerns
of the people, are more likely to be less deferential. The
alternative press and Internet have proved a more reliably bell-
wealther of what happens in the country. This is seen by the official
attacks on them but they will not go away. The cabinet resuffle to
strengthen Pak Lah's position in the UMNO leaderships stake is going
to be scruntised, and those in power must now explain what they need
not in the past.

The individual cabinet portfolios do not mean anything. Their holders
are proforma appointees, not to strengthen the country but to ensure
they collect ill-gotten gains and attack the whistleblowers. But this
is not to say those droppsed were by accident. Datuk Kadir Sheikh
Fadhir was dropped because he negotiated with Tun Mahathir about
Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah being deputy prime minister. Pak Lah never
forgets a slight, and given their background in UMNO, he went. Rest
assured that the new cabinet has members who are either too corrupt,
too effecient but corrupt, or useful for the vote bank. The
porftolios they hold therefore do not matter. At least until they
show they do. The country is wound up by news media – either official
or owned by one of other of the National Front partners or its
members – of changes that would come in the cabinet reshuffle. But
when the event takes place, the people are too tired to yawn.

M.G.G. Pillai

Attacks on Iran must remain an option, say Tories

The Times, London


Politics

The Times
February 16, 2006

Attacks on Iran must remain an option, say Tories
By Rosemary Bennett, Deputy Political Editor


MILITARY strikes against Iran should not be ruled out, the
Conservatives said last night as they criticised Tony Blair for
failing to deal effectively with the looming nuclear threat.

Liam Fox, the Shadow Defence Secretary, used a speech to US
Republicans to urge Mr Blair to follow the example set by President
Bush and leave all options open on Iran.

Dr Fox was in Washington as part of a Conservative Party delegation
to patch up relations with the White House after a falling out two
years ago.

He told the right-wing Heritage Foundation that permitting a state in
the Middle East to develop a nuclear weapon was a risk that should
not be taken.

The diplomatic route must be pursued and Iran reported to the
Security Council, but military action should also be kept as an option.

Dr Fox said: “Every pressure must be brought. But it was wrong for
the European Union’s foreign affairs spokesman Xavier Solana to rule
out the use of force. It is wrong for Britain’s Foreign Secretary,
Jack Straw, to echo him.

“Frederick the Great once observed that diplomacy without arms was
like music without instruments. We must keep all options open if we
are to stand any chance of a diplomatic solution to the Iranian crisis.”

Dr Fox’s hawkish tone was in contrast to the repositioning of the
Conservatives as a centre- ground party. But the Conservatives
believe that Tony Blair, bruised by Iraq, has been too quick to rule
out force in what could be a much more dangerous international
situation.

The Shadow Defence Secretary also used his speech to challenge
President Bush over plans to scale back a commitment to the Anglo-
American Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme for a new generation of
military jet aircraft.

He warned that the move could undermine British confidence in the
“special relationship” with America.

“This particular programme is of great importance to Britain. We are
relying on the JSF variant for use on our planned new aircraft
carriers. But this variant may apparently be cancelled. Those two
supercarriers will be central to our ability to project our power and
to protect our interests. Large sacrifices have been made elsewhere
in the defence budget to afford them,” he said.

If the project is scaled back, Dr Fox said that the ramifications
would be profound. “Such an outcome would confirm in many people’s
minds the mistaken idea that America cannot be relied upon to support
us, even while calling upon our support to fight its wars.”

Dr Fox is in Washington with George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor,
and William Hague, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, who flew out to join
them last night.

With David Cameron, the leader, on paternity leave for a fortnight,
David Davis finally achieved his lifelong ambition to run the
Conservative Party yesterday when he was made acting leader for 72
hours.

Mr Davis conducted yesterday morning’s strategy meeting while Mr
Hague prepared for Prime Minister’s Questions, opening the session
with a joke.

“I become leader at four o’clock and you’ll all be wearing ties by
five,” he told Mr Cameron’s casually-dressed team. Mr Davis will
remain as the acting leader until Mr Hague returns from the US on
Saturday.

Can Pak Lah be prime minister for long?

Can Pak Lah be prime minister for long?



DATUK SERI ABDULLAH AHMAD Badawi – formally but known to all and
sundry, even to himself, as Pak Lah – is trapped. There are many
reasons why: his son-in-law, the deputy prime minister, Tun Mahathir
Mohamed, his office, UMNO headquarters, the non-Malay and non-Islamic
parties in the ruling National Front, Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim, his
political enemies. The withdrawal of RM4.4 billion annually, because
his son-in-law wanted RM20 billion for his projects, led to Pak Lah
being trapped. Mr Khairy Jamaluddin proposed to meet a RM20 billion
shortfall in the 9th Malaysia Plan by raising the petrol price. He
had earlier proposed RM200 billion worth of projects, RM20 billion
less than the plan. Pak Lah dutifully told Malaysians the government
could not afford the fuel subsidies. It was a spin. But how does Mr
Khairy, known in some quarters as 'Satan's son', sit in on official
committees, when he has no right to and is not in the government.
make proposals he cannot and should not? Pak Lah has trapped himself
because he allows his son-in-law to interfere in the administration
of government.

Pak Lah goes about as a marionette, making explanations and
statements on cue. He means nothing and says the obvious but which is
given wide play because of who he is. He was in Bangi this week to
open a new agricultural park, harvested the fruit trees as part of
the opening ceremony. It normally takes three or four years to
harvest the fruits, but the trees were planted only last year. The
farmers who attended said they would not be allowed to pluck the
fruits, and saw it as another attempt to burnish his image. He does
all he can to keep his enemies at bay and so that his son-in-law
would be a force in government. Recently, he and the deputy prime
minister, Dato' Seri Najib Tun Razak, called on Tun Mahathir for
advise on the 9th Malaysia Plan. (But why see the former prime
minister so late in the day?) They also saw Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah,
a former finance minister and a powerful leader in UMNO but on the
outside. A ground swell, particularly in UMNO, believes the successor
to Pak Lah is Dato' Seri Najib, but he, cautious as ever, hopes to
accede withought fighting for it. Mr Khairy has put the knife in,
with incriminiting evidence which he will reveal if Dato' Seri Najib
ever becomes prime minister.

Those around Pak Lah makes the wrong moves. The official media, all
staffed by Khairy's acolytes, have blamed the Selangor mentri besar,
Dato' Seri Khir Toyo, for the recent Shah Alam flood, little
realising that federal polices accelerated it. The spin now is that
the pig droppings have entered the water supply. to enhance its
Islamic commitment. But in the recent floods in Kuala Lumpur and
Selangor, human waster has got into the water supply. So the water
supply is cut, in stages. It was done to suit official convenience,
not the public's. There should have warned people when it was
decided, not in the media the next day. But the attack on Dato' Seri
Khir is to stop him contesting the UMNO Youth leadership, so that Mr
Khairy can become leader without a contest. But the challenger is a
different man, probably from Dato' Seri Najib's camp.

There is a shuffling of support in UMNO. Many have deserted Pak Lah
for one of the other warlords in the party. Dato' Seri Najib will not
move against Pak Lah, strengthened by Mr Khairy's threat. One man who
can replace Dato' Seri Najib would not, unless he is invited, but he
is popular with UMNO and throughout the country. Those around Pak Lah
do not follow Malay mores and ethics to stop their rivals. Mr Khairy
is a past master in that. But he fell more often than not, alienating
the party and the country that he cannot survive for long after his
father-in-law steps down. Whoever is next prime minister will see to
that. He was not born with a silver spoon, but has made more than
RM500 million in his early thirties, mostly be selling government
assets to Singapore, and representing Singapore to buy Malaysian
assets. He now tries so that Singapore will take over a local bank,
not a local company. He makes mistakes, the latest is ECM Libra, of
which he is a director and shareholder, suing Mr Husam Musa, a PAS
MP, for asking questions of how Mr Khairy came to his wealth.

The days when leaders are selected in secret will continue, although
those selected must expect public scrutiny more than in the past.
They would not accept a man who feels Malaysians cannot do without
him. But they would others who reach the top, even if the winner
ignores them afterwards. Nor would the prime ministership be given
those who await it to land in their laps. A nod from the leader would
give one an inside track, but one has to want it badly to rise to the
top. Those who want to be prime minister after Pak Lah prefer to have
it fall on their laps. But leaders now in Malaysia do not arrive this
way. Normally, the prime minister will designate his successor. That
has been so since independence in 1957. But not now. More deputy
prime ministers have dropped out than moved on. Tun Hussein came from
the cold to be eventually prime minister. But Tun Abdul Razak, then
prime minister, looked over him;. Tun Mahathir had four deputy prime
ministers, the last of whom was Pak Lah to whom he reluctantly handed
over. This will not be so now. There is a move to unseat him before
the UMNO General Assembly next year.

M.G.G. Pillai

Abdullah Badawi diminta selesai kenaikan harga minyak atau letak jawatan

Abdullah Badawi diminta selesai kenaikan harga minyak atau letak jawatan
Mar 03, 06

Oleh Harakahdaily KUALA LUMPUR, 3 Mac (Hrkh) - Perdana Menteri, Dato' Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi disifatkan sebagai Perdana Menteri Malaysia yang paling lemah dan diminta menyelesaikan isu kenaikan harga minyak seger! a atau meletakkan jawatan.
Naib Presiden PAS, Husam Musa dalam ceramahnya di Kota Bharu baru-baru ini membuat tuntutan yang sama dan hari ini Naib Ketua Angkatan Muda Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) Shamsul Iskandar Mohd Akin membuat desakan yang sama.

Menurut Husam, beliau difahamkan bekas Perdana Menteri, Tun Dr Mahathir sendiri mempunyai pendapat yang sama dan difahamkan beliau juga meminta Abdullah berhenti menjelang tahun 2007 tahun depan.

Ini berikutan kegagalan Abdullah dalam menjalankan tugas sebagai Perdana Menteri dan sering diperalatkan oleh pihak-pihak tertentu untuk kepentingan masing-masing.
Yang terbaru, kenaikan harga minyak dikatakan tidak dibuat melalui Kabinet dan tidak juga melalui Majlis Tindakan Ekonomi Negara (MTEN). Ia hanya dibuat melalui Jabatan Perdana Menteri sahaja.

Pengumuman kenaikan harga minyak 30 sen seliter pula dibuat menjelang tengah malam bukan selepas mesyuarat Kabinet sebagaimana biasa.

Anak Presiden Gerakan, Lim Sin Pin sendiri telah melahirkan kekecewaannya dengan kenaikan harga minyak ketika rakyat Malaysia menghadapi pelbagai masalah.

PM paling lemah dalam sejarah

Angkatan Muda hari ini mengisytiharkan Abdullah Badawi sebagai Perdana Menteri yang paling lemah dalam sejarah perdana menteri negara ini.

Harakahdaily sebelum ini melaporkan, populariti Abdullah adalah paling rendah kini.
Tahun 2006 ini sahaja, beliau telah gagal sekurang-kurangnya di dalam tiga perkara iaitu:
Mengekalkan kabinet rasuah setelah menunggu ilham yang terlalu lama; Tidak konsisten di dalam tindakan beliau t! erhadap media yang melakukan penghinaan kepada Nabi Muhammad s.a.w. dan kegagalan yang terbaru iaitu menaikkan harga minyak di dalam keadaan di mana negara Malaysia merupakan negara pengekspot "net" (net exporter) dan mampu untuk menyerap kenaikan harga minyak di pasaran antarabangsa.

"Angkatan Muda ingin memberikan penegasan bagi pihak rakyat Malaysia bahawa PM Abdullah wajib menjelaskan kepada rakyat kemanakah perginya keuntungan Petronas yang turut naik hasil daripada kenaikan harga minyak di pasaran antarabangsa?" soal beliau.
Menurut laporan kewangan Petronas bagi tahun kewangan berakhir 31 Mac 2005 lalu, keuntungan Petronas ialah sebanyak RM 137.046 billion, meningkat sebanyak 40.5% berbanding tahun 2004. Keuntungan selepas cukai dan kepentingan minoriti ialah sebanyak RM 35.556 billion meningkat sebanyak 50.3% berbanding dengan tahun 2004. Dana bagi pemegang saham sahaja atau tabungan berjumlah 129.383 billion meningkat sebanyak 26 % berbanding denga! n tahun 2004.

Persoalannya, apakah rakyat masih lagi ingin dibebankan dengan kenaikan harga minyak walhal hasil negara terus meningkat? Apakah subsisdi sebanyak RM 4 billion yang dinyatakan oleh Timbalan Perdana Menteri tidak boleh ditampung oleh Petronas? soal Shamsul.
Menurut Iskandar, walaupun Abdullah cuba mengaburi mata rakyat dengan memberikan perbandingan harga minyak dengan Negara-negara ASEAN yang lain, hakikatnya Malaysia adalah negara pengekspot "net" (net exporter) dan mampu untuk menyerap kenaikan harga minyak di pasaran antarabangsa.

"Angkatan Muda merasakan bahawa harga minyak di Malaysia tidak seharusnya di bandingkan dengan Negara-Negara ASEAN kecuali Brunei. Selain dari Brunei, kesemua Negara-Negara ASEAN adalah PENGIMPOT minyak (temasuk Indonesia semenjak 2004).
"Jadi, tidak hairan sekiranya mereka terpaksa menaikkan harga minyak. Brunei pula tidak perlu menaikkan harga minyak kerana Brunei adalah Negara pengekspo! t minyak, seperti Malaysia. Kenaikkan harga minyak hanya akan menambah keuntungan dalam Negara mereka," katanya.

PM Abdullah nampaknya, kata beliau, begitu senyap dan sunyi tentang kenaikan keuntungan yang dicatatkan oleh Petronas.

Ini menyebabkan rakyat Malaysia kebingungan kerana pada waktu yang sama rakyat dihimpit dengan kenaikan harga minyak yang semakin tinggi.

Angkatan Muda juga melihat bahawa kenaikan harga minyak hanya akan merugikan rakyat serta kerajaan Malaysia.

Dengan tekanan inflasi yang semakin meninggi, kadar faedah yang dinaikkan dan ini akan menyebabkan kerugian kepada perbelanjaan kerajaan dari segi kenaikkan jumlah pembayaran hutang kerajaan, kata Sahmsul.

Bagi beliau, Abdullah seharusnya memikirkan kaedah untuk mengurangkan beban perbelanjaan meng! urus dari sudut lain dan bukan tertumpu hanya kepada penarikan subsidi minyak.
Pakar ekonomi menyatakan bahawa perbelanjaan mengurus kerajaan dapat dikurangkan sekurang-kurangnya 20% sekiranya amalan rasuah, kronisma dan nepotisma dapat diminimakan atau dihapuskan, katanya.

Bagi beliau, Abdullah seharusnya memikirkan jalan untuk menambah ketelusan serta kebebasan rakyat membetulkan perjalanan operasi kerajaan.

Ini akan mengurangkan tahap rasuah, kronisma serta salah guna kuasa yang menjadikan tanggungan perbelanjaan kerajaan menjadi tinggi dan hutang kerajaan menjadi semakin bertambah.

Langkah-langkah berikut adalah antara cadangan Angkatan Muda bagi mengurangkan kos operasi kerajaan:

Menjalankan tender terbuka dan menghentikan tender secara terus kerana ini akan mengurangkan kos apa-apa projek kerajaan;

Menjalankan analisa "cost-benefit" secara mendalam bagi apa-apa projek yang dicadangkan oleh kerajaan;

Menghapuskan akta draconian OSA, ISA, akta Mesin Cetak dan Media Elektronik, Akta Polis supaya perjalanan kerajaan menjadi telus dan rakyat bebas untuk mencegah rasuah yang berlaku di dalam operasi kerajaan. Langkah ini akan menjamin penurunan tanggungan kos;
Menambahbaik sistem pengangkutan awam supaya rakyat dapat memilih untuk tidak memandu kenderaan mereka;

Memberikan insentif bagi teknologi-teknologi alternatif seperti NGV bagi mengurangkan pergantungan kepada enjin yang menggunakan Petrol dan Diesel.

Setelah diberi peluang menjawat jawatan sebagai Perdana Menteri selama hampir tiga tahun Angkatan Muda beranggapan bahawa PM Abdullah adalah terlalu lemah dan tidak mampu lagi mentadbir negara ini. Rakyat Malaysia inginkan kepimpinan yang cekap, bertenaga dan berwibawa.

Rakyat perlukan perubahan kepimpinan, tegas berliau.

The rise in petrol price damages the National Front

The rise in petrol price damages the National Front



THE GOVERNMENT WILL SAVE RM1.4 billion by raising petrol prices but
it will cost Malaysians five times that. This saving will be spent on
public transport, says Dato' Seri Najib Tun Razak. So we must be
happy the petrol prices are up! In 1990, it was 1.10 a litre, today
it is 1.92 a litre. This is said to be inevitable. But is it? Its
explanation why it is necessary comes after the public rebelled. Will
the Malaysian government tell us, as rumours put it, why we are
selling oil to Taiwan at about RM20 till 2010. Again as rumours,
which turn out to be true most of the time, tell it, Malaysia is
paying Taiwan US$40 a barrel for all the oil we do not sell or use.
Most of that oil is left in the ground, but we pay nevertheless. When
this was raised with senior people in government, I was told that
this was an invalid contract, and that it cannot be true: "If what
you say is true, this is an unequal contract, and will be set aside."
But some talked as if they knew about the deal. This rumour may be
false, but before it gets wider publicity, the government must come
clean about it. But can there be an unequal contract when the sale is
on a willing buyer-willing seller case.

If general election was coming in the next few months, the government
would not have raised the oil price; if it did, it would have
absorbed it. There is no general election in the air, and there is
enough time to fool the people and be swept in power. But the
National Front government has blinked. It announced public spending
in transport of the savings. What is means RM1.4 billion would be
available every year. This is nonsene. This claim on improving public
transport is to hoodwink the people into believing that the RM1.4
billion savings is to improve public transport. There is, as far as I
know, no attempt at improving public transport before the petrol
hike. It this had been announced before the petrol rise, the reaction
would not be as sharp. I suspect the government was taken aback by
the public response that Dato' Seri Najib annonced this saving would
be put in improving public transport.

But a rise in petrol price affects the living costs of the people.
The salaries would not go up even 18 per cent, the percentage of
petrol price rise. But cost of every day items would go up sharply.
The National Front knows this. This is why the official statements
are made now to soften the attacks on it, not so that public
transport can be proved. The National Front – UMNO, MCA, MIC,
Gerakan, IPF, the Sarawak and Sabah parties, and others – have
assumed they know what the people want, that having voted them into
office, all their actions in office are to help the people. But over
the years, they have done the opposite. The long suffering Malaysian
have been glutton for punishment. They will gladly vote the National
Front into office election after election. It had an irritant
opposition from PAS, the only other political party which has the
wherewithal to become the government of the day, but that day is far
off. The National Front known this psychology of the voter only too
well. Their aim is power forever, and they will tell any tall tales
to ensure that.

But there is a fly in the National Front ointment. The younger
voters, particularly the Malays, do not believe in this widely held
belief that UMNO, its lead party, is there to ensure that their
rights are looked after. It had turned UMNO into a religious party,
which the National Front has endorsed. It fights a political battle
to have its version of Islam – called Islam Hadhari under the Pak Lah
administration – against the PAS version, which is actually the Islam
ordained in the Quran. This is understood by the UMNO leadership, for
when UMNO meets PAS head on – in Kelantan, Trengganu, Kedah and
Perlis – there is no mention of Islam Hadharii and the talk is of PAS
misusing the Quiran. UMNO has become Islamic, and takes PAS to task
over 'misuing' it. Malaysias only hear of PAS members joining UMNO
but after it became Islamic, many UMNO members have joined PAS. That
is not reported, for that in National Front eyes, is not important,
and the newspapers, in truth its propaganda organs, do not report it.

UMNO leaders – the other leaders in the National Front will not open
their mouths except to echo UMNO words, whether its members and the
communities they represent believe it or not – make their statements
in support, virtually telling the people that they would do as they
like. But it has to be careful now. The ordinary Malaysian do not
believe that. In the past, they had no avenues. Now they write or say
their piece on the Internet, which is more believed than the public
relations rags of the National Front which make their appearance as
newspapers. The Government makes sure that all newspapers follow a
line. It replies to Internet queries in formal press conferences,
which is reported as a secretary would write her report. The
Malaysian media, orwned by the government or National Front members,
do not report the opposition to government policy. So the reaction to
the petrol rise on the Internet is believed more than the reporting
by the official media, which acts as always the megaphone to
authority. The reporters, knowing which side their bread is buttered,
go along. But it is these reporters who know what is going on. In
Myanmar, for instance, it is these reporters who articulate what is
wrong with what they are writing, and more accurate and believable
than the diplomatic briefings. It is beginning to be so in Malaysia.

The National Front hopes that the Malaysian public will forget the
furore over the petrol price rises. As it hopes that it wants to make
women, non-Malays, non-Muslims second class citizens. The opposition
to these moves have only now accepted that Malaysians must be
canvassed against these moves. This will give the National Front a
head start, but it would have to fight hard to get Malaysian support.
In the heady days of Independence and before, UMNO could do all this
because it was a nationalist movement which brought independence. No
political party would get much support if it challenged a nationalist
movement. But since 1987 UMNO is a political party, and therefore
defeatable. This happened in India in the 1970s, and the first
opposition was led by a former member of Congress, Mr Morarji Desai.

UMNO and the National Front is going that path. This is inevitable
now, although it might be 20 or more years afterward. The rise in
petrol price, which it might be inevitable, is yet another reason why
the National Front and UMNO is on the defensive. Add to this Pak
Lah's irrelevant homilities, the belief that his son-in-law leads Pak
Lah by his nose, infighting in UMNO and the National Front. It will
be a long time before the National Front joins the opposition in the
centre, but it will have to learn the art of explaining its policies
to the Malaysian people, an art it forgot as the art of government
became more important than succouring those who voted them in.

M.G.G. Pillai

Muslims must ignore cartoons

The Pioneer, New Delhi
02 March 2006


Muslims must ignore cartoons

Violent protests against the Prophet's caricatures are anti-Islamic,
says Maulana Wahiduddin Khan

Once, when Prophet Mohammad was sitting with his companions at
Kabbah, a poetess called Hind approached him and recited a poem,
which said: "Mohammad is a condemned person and we deny him." (In the
Prophet's time, poets were rather like the journalists of today.) The
meaning of Mohammad is "one who is praiseworthy"; but she called him
"Muzammam", which means "the condemned one". The Prophet just smiled.
His companion, Abu Bakr, asked how he could smile at such derogatory
language. The Prophet replied, "My name, given to me by my family, is
Mohammad, while she talks of Muzammam; so all the curses apply to him
and not me. Why should I bother then?" For him, the slight was too
trivial to merit any reaction.

Unfortunately, Mohammad's followers are today behaving in a manner
that is quite the reverse of what he would have considered proper.
Just because a newspaper in Denmark, followed by other papers in
several European countries, printed some crude cartoons of the
Prophet, Muslims are traumatising the whole world with unwarranted
protests. They should have simply ignored the cartoons. Their anger
is totally unjustified, especially after the apology made by the
Jyllands-Posten's editor-in-chief, Mr Carsten Juste. Islam believes
that anyone can make a mistake and if he apologises, a Muslim should
forgive and forget.

Muslims mistakenly regard it as their duty to stop any visual
depiction of Prophet Mohammad. This is untrue. It is the followers of
Islam who are forbidden to do so in order to discourage idolatry.
Moreover, Islam forbids imposing its beliefs on people of other
faiths. Even in Muslim countries, Muslims cannot impose their laws or
culture on others.

Islamic history is full of incidents that illustrate how Islam not
only respects other faiths, but also insures that every citizen in a
Muslim country is able to practice his faith, even if it goes against
the beliefs of Islam. In Palestine, in seventh century AD, during the
rule of the second Caliph, Umar Farooq, Christians were regularly
allowed to take out their sacred cross in processions. Since Muslims
do not believe that Christ was ever crucified, but was raised up by
God, this Christian practice directly conflicted with Islamic belief.
Muslims, nevertheless, allowed Christians to practice their religion
as they pleased.

Today, in European countries, making a mockery of others has become
an integral part of journalism, for freedom of expression has turned
into a religion. They believe that anything goes, so long as it does
no physical harm to others. Islam, on the other hand, must preserve
its dignity by ensuring that no one makes light of the faith. Yet,
Muslims surely cannot burn buildings and injure people on the pretext
of their sentiments being hurt. In Islam, no such action should be
undertaken if it is likely to be counterproductive. That is, if the
curbing of a lesser evil causes a greater evil, it should be strictly
avoided.

Today, when the image of Islam has been tarnished by certain militant
Muslims, it is vital not to damage it further. If an undesirable or
provocative situation has been created, the only course should be to
deal with it calmly. The need of the hour is patience. Islam's
mission is to spread the message of peace, love, tolerance and
character-building, so that people may live in accordance with the
will of God. To do so effectively, the relationship between Muslims
and non-Muslims must be smooth. Muslims are only defeating their own
purpose by creating an environment of hate and mistrust. The Muslims
are playing into the hands of the divisive forces with their violent
protests. By increasing anti-Muslim feelings, they are uniting the
world against themselves. Instead, they should aim towards normalcy.

There will always be such incidents. How we respond to them should be
our major concern. A man once came to Mohammad and asked him to give
him a formula for managing all his life's affairs. The Prophet
advised him never to become angry even in the most provocative of
situations, never to find excuses to be angry and always be patient.
What others do is not as important as how we respond, as this is
within our control and it is we who are responsible for our activities.

According to Islam, this world is a moral testing ground where we are
faced at all times with adverse situations. These can never be of our
own choice, but we can certainly choose how to react to them. In
Quran, a verse says, "People of patience will be rewarded unlimited
reward." Much importance is given to patience because human beings
are being judged according to their reactions. Therefore, we have no
option but to be patient. Islam focuses on a person's response - it
should be a positive one - and not on others' actions.

One cartoon shows the Prophet wearing a turban that is shaped like a
bomb; and in another, he is wielding a knife. Muslims should have
mulled over why the turban, which had been a symbol of peace for more
than a thousand years, has now been shown as bomb; or why the
preacher of love and peace is depicted as a knife-wielding person.
They should have realised that it is the modern development of
militant Islam that must be blamed for defaming the Prophet's religion.

In acting as they have, Muslims protesters have given others the
opportunity to denigrate Islam. They should themselves repent and
mend their ways, rather than protest against others. Ironically, they
have opted for violence, which is haram (un-Islamic). No Islamic law
permits Muslims to burn buildings or physically harm people. Muslims
have no right to take the law into their own hands anywhere.

By all standards, the Muslim reaction is un-Islamic and unjustified.
At the most, Muslims should have expressed their displeasure by
writing against the cartoonists. This, at the very least, would have
been lawful. There is no justification for violence. The ulemas and
other responsible Muslims should come out openly and condemn these
protests.

In Islam, if you see wrong being committed, you should try to stop it
- or, at least, condemn it. Otherwise you, too, become responsible
for that wrong. Muslims all over the world should stop their violent
protests, as these are absolutely un-Islamic and counterproductive.

© CMYK Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

Kenaikan Harga Minyak: 6 Persoalan Pokok

Kenaikan Harga Minyak: 6 Persoalan Pokok


Kuala Lumpur, 1 Mac 2006 - Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM), seperti juga kami yakin sebahagian besar rakyat Malaysia yang lain, merasa terkejut, kesal dan terkilan dengan kenaikan mendadak harga yang diumumkan malam tadi. Sudah tentu keputusan ini akan disusuli perbahasan pro dan kontra dengan pelbagai angka, statisti! k, perangkaan, jadual perbandingan dan sebagainya, demi mempertahankan atau membantah tindakan ini. ABIM hanya berharap, dalam kehangatan perbahasan tentang isu ini nanti beberapa persoalan pokok yang begitu penting dan sangat dekat dihati rakyat dan pengguna akan terjawab dengan memuaskan. Persoalan-persoalan tersebut termasuk:

1. Pihak manakah yang lebih bersedia menanggung beban kenaikan harga minyak di pasaran antarabangsa juga beban belanjawan kewangan defisit Negara sejak beberapa tahun ini? Kerajaan atau rakyat? Adakah belanjawan negara sudah sampai ke tahap begitu kritikal sehingga beban ini dipindahkan pada kadar yang begitu tinggi dan mendadak kepada rakyat? Bukankah kita seb! agai Negara pengeluar minyak bukan hanya menanggung kesan negatif tetapi juga kesan positif kenaikan harga minyak? Adakah rakyat cukup kuat dan mampu memikul beban pada kadar tersebut?

2. Adakah perbendaharaan dan belanjawan Negara tidak mampu menghadapi kenaikan harga minyak kerana perbelanjaan luar kawal atau kurang berhemah kita sebelum ini? Adakah ini termasuk proses membayar balik ‘harga’ segala projek-projek mega serta beberapa perbelanjaan kurang berhemah sebelum ini? Jika ini benar, bukankah pihak kerajaanlah yang lebih bertanggungjawab di atas keputusan-keputusan tersebut? Bukankah pihak kerajaanlah yang sepatutnya lebih banyak membayar ‘harga’ polisi kewangan yang diput! uskan oleh kerajaan sendiri?

3. Rakyat bersedia dan telahpun beberapa kali tabah menerima kenaikan harga minyak akibat potongan subsidi baru-baru ini. Tetapi bukankah ada batas dan kadar yang munasabah yang patut ditanggung oleh rakyat? Kadar kenaikan yang begitu mendadak ini wajarkah terus ditanggung rakyat? Adakah pendapatan rakyat turut meningkat pada kadar yang sebanding dalam tempoh yang sama?

4. Antara alasan yang diberikan untuk memotong subsidi agar ianya dapat disalurkan kepada projek pembangunan dan meningkatkan sistem pengangkutan awam yang ada. Soalnya, bukankah kerajaan yang telah memilih polisi menggalakkan penggunaan dan pemilikan kereta individu selama ini? Termasuklah dengan mendokong kuat industri kereta nasional? Apakah sekarang kita betul-betul serius mahu mengutamakan pengangkutan awam? Jika betul itu sikap kita, sekali lagi wajarkah rakyat yang perlu menanggung beban perubahan dasar ini pada kadar yang terlalu tinggi?

5. Seperti sebelumnya kita dipujuk dengan perbandingan harga dengan beberapa Negara jiran. Soalnya, adakah situasi kita sama dengan mereka? Bu! kankah mereka lebih teruk terkesan oleh krisis kewangan berbanding kita? Bukankan kita lebih berjaya mengharusi krisis tersebut dan sepatutnya berada dalam kedudukan yang lebih baik? Di sudut lain, adakah rakyat mereka juga mendokong industri kereta nasional hingga menanggung harga kereta yang tinggi seperti kita?


ABIM menggesa persoalan-persoalan asasi diatas mendapat tanggapan sewajarnya oleh semua pihak terutama pihak kerajaan. Jika hakikatnya di akhir segala perbahasan pro dan kontra isu ini, persoalan-persoalan ini tidak mendapat penje! lasan yang benar-benar memuaskan, maka ABIM memohon agar keputusan menaikkan harga minyak yang diumumkan malam tadi dikaji semula.

Walau bagaimanapun jika jika apa sebab sekalipun kenaikan ini tetap dikekalkan, ABIM menggesa agar adalah sangat perlu beberapa langkah tambahan diambil untuk mengawal kesan-kesan negatif kepada rakyat terbanyak. Selain daripada langkah kawalan harga barangan lain yang lebih ketat, ABIM juga mencadangkan agar suatu sistem subsidi harga khas diperkenalkan bagi kategori pengguna yang memerlukan.

ABIM berpendapat dalam mengurus ekonomi Negara, kepentingan dan kebajikan rakyat terbanyak khususnya golongan berpendapatan rendah dan sederhana yang merupakan kelompok terbesar, perlu sentiasa diberi keutamaan dan diberatkan.




YUSRI MOHAMAD
Presiden ABIM

Bar votes against death penalty

The New Sunday Times, London
19 March 2006


Bar votes against death penalty
By Anis Ibrahim

KUALA LUMPUR, Sat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

The Malaysian Bar today called for the abolition of the death penalty
and an immediate freeze on all executions.


Lawyers also urged that death-row sentences be commuted, or reduced
to life sentences or fixed jail terms.

The resolutions were part of a motion carried out by the Bar at its
60th annual general meeting today.

Co-proposer Amer Hamzah Arshad said although the abolition of the
death penalty was often discussed by lawyers, this was the first time
such a motion had been proposed at a Bar AGM.

"It came about because a few of us realised that lawyers as a
collective body had not made a clear announcement on the matter."

Lawyers voted overwhelmingly in favour of abolishing the death
penalty, with 105 in favour, two votes against and 21 abstentions.

One of the resolutions passed called for an ‘immediate moratorium on
all executions pending abolition’.

"We will work with the Bar Council, non-governmental organisations
and the authorities to realise this.

"The workings of the moratorium will be looked into in detail," added
Amer.

At the AGM today, 2,404 lawyers signed in by 11.15 am, above the
quorum of 2,337.

Yeo Yang Poh, Ambiga Sreenevasan, Ragunath Kesavan and Vazeer Alam
Mydin Meera were returned unopposed as the Bar president, vice-
president, secretary and treasurer respectively for a second term.

"Credit goes to members of the Bar for being here so soon after the
reconvened 59th AGM in October.

"They’ve come today despite an unfair and oppressive quorum
requirement," said Yeo at a Press conference after the AGM.

One-fifth of the Bar must attend an AGM for it to be considered
valid. "This is seen as difficult to achieve, owing to the number of
lawyers, and unfair, as other professional bodies are not subject to
similar requirements.

Yeo, however, said it was unlikely that lawyers would be faced with
the same problem at the next AGM.

"The authorities have indicated that they understand the difficulties
we face and they are in principle agreeable to changing the quorum
requirement.

"We are confident it will be a more workable and practical figure by
next year."

The Bar has proposed that the quorum for AGMs and extraordinary
general meetings be fixed at 350 and 700 respectively.

The Bar also unanimously carried a motion to ask the Prime Minister
to urgently implement the Independent Police Complaints and
Misconduct Commission as recommended by the Royal Commissions on the
Police Force.

A motion of no confidence against the Attorney-General for being
"extremely slow" in prosecuting criminal abuse of police powers was,
however, defeated.

Yeo said while there had been few suits against police personnel for
alleged abuse of power, lawyers felt it was unfair to blame the A-G
for it.

"We were unanimous in deciding that the problem should not be
attributed to one person.

"Many things are not within the A-G’s powers."

Ends

Indonesia opens a gusher

Asia Times Online
17 March 2006


Southeast Asia

Indonesia opens a gusher
By Bill Guerin

JAKARTA - Spurred by the personal intervention of President Susilo
Bambang Yudhoyono, Indonesia has brought to a dramatic end a four-
year dispute between US oil giant ExxonMobil, the world's largest oil
company, and Pertamina, Indonesia's largest state enterprise. The
dispute involved rights to a massive oil discovery.

The Cepu oil-and-gas block, Indonesia's largest oil discovery in
decades, has estimated recoverable reserves of as much as 600 million
barrels of high quality reserves and 2 billion barrels of lesser-
quality reserves. The field is also estimated to hold 11 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas. Tapping the find promises to return
Indonesia to the status of a petroleum-exporting country, and
Yudhoyono's bold intervention in the deal was interpreted widely as a
signal move towards a more foreign investment-friendly policy regime.

Exxon, which joined with Mobil Oil in 1998 in the largest industrial
merger ever, has been operating in Indonesia since 1898. Its local
operations are integrated under the subsidiary ExxonMobil Oil
Indonesia Inc, which currently operates Indonesia's Arun gas field
and is also developing a huge contested gas field near the Natuna
Islands in the South China Sea.

Yudhoyono, who pledged early in his term to settle the protracted
negotiations surrounding the Cepu contract, intervened in big-bang
fashion last week, which came in the middle of a high-profile visit
to Jakarta by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

The president fired six of Pertamina's seven directors and appointed
Ari H Soemarno as the new director, replacing Widya Purnama, who was
widely viewed to be at the core of the disagreement with ExxonMobil.
Washington had lobbied heavily for a resolution, and the new contract
signed on Wednesday gives Exxon the lead role.

The deal simultaneously represents a defeat for nationalist elements
in Indonesia's legislature, suggesting that, contrary to the claim of
his critics, Yudhoyono does indeed have the political will to take
decisions in the national interest - even if it means siding with
foreign investors.

Dwindling reserves
Although Indonesia is Asia's only member of the global Organization
of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) cartel, dwindling oil output
and decades of mismanagement at Pertamina has reversed the country's
energy fortunes, making Indonesia a net oil importer for the past two
years. While the 2006 state budget assumes oil production of 1.075
million barrels per day (bpd), the actual figure dropped to an
average of around 970,000 bpd throughout last year.

Contradictory regulations, security problems, bureaucratic tangles
and corruption, not to mention years of well-documented mismanagement
at Pertamina, have stymied investment in new exploration in the oil
and gas sector and led to declining output - although the Cepu
agreement should go some way towards restoring the global oil
industry's faith in Indonesia.

At a time when domestic fuel consumption is growing annually at 4%-5%
and export demand for Indonesia's oil and gas is up almost 20% year-
on-year, the urgency for a settlement with ExxonMobil was paramount.
Current crude oil reserves are expected to be depleted by 2018, and
Indonesia is in desperate need of new sources to boost production and
resume its position as a net oil exporter. Last year the country had
a massive US$7.3 billion oil trade deficit.

At full production capacity, which would require about $2 billion in
new investments, it is estimated by 2008 Cepu could produce around
180,000 bpd. Analysts estimate that once Cepu is fully online, it
would increase national production by some 20% and would restore
Indonesia as a net oil exporter.

In Indonesia, the state owns all rights to petroleum and mineral
finds. Foreign companies participate in the industry through
production sharing and work contracts, which historically have often
been prone to disagreement. Oil and gas contractors are required to
finance all exploration, production and development costs in their
contract areas, and are entitled to recover those expenses through
sales revenues.

The enactment of new oil and gas legislation in June 2003 ended
Pertamina's long-running regulatory role in the sector, which critics
said often led to a conflict of interest with its production
activities. The law effectively ended the state concern's upstream
monopoly on handling exploration and refining contracts, and last
year its longtime control over domestic distribution of fuel and
petroleum-based products came to a close. Pertamina's regulatory role
in the upstream sector was taken over by the state-managed Upstream
Oil and Gas Implementing Body (BP Migas).

In January, a high-powered business delegation from the US, including
representatives of oil companies ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and
mining giant Freeport McMoRan, had pressed the Indonesian government
to review its taxation policy on production sharing contracts and
provide better incentives for their exploration activities.
Specifically, they requested that the government give a clear-cut
policy and explicit job descriptions for BP Migas and Pertamina,
towards the aim of preventing future conflicts of interest.

BP Migas had earlier cited the Cepu difficulties as motivation for a
new government plan to force foreign oil and gas investors to provide
multimillion dollar performance bonds before they be allowed to sign
production sharing contracts. The state agency now must approve all
work and spending plans of production sharing contractors, including
the Pertamina-ExxonMobil deal, and is responsible for determining
what expenditures can be counted as expenses for oil and gas
production operations.

New age contract
The Cepu deal cuts across Indonesia's geography in complicated ways.
Part of the Cepu block is in Blora regency, Central Java, while
another part is in Bojonegoro regency, East Java. Under the new
agreement, Pertamina and ExxonMobil will each have a 45% equity
holding in the block, with the remaining 10% - legally considered a
participating interest - going to local administrations in East Java
and Central Java, distributed 6.7% and 3.3% respectively.

ExxonMobil's local subsidiary, PT Mobil Cepu Ltd, will operate the
block under a 30-year production-sharing contract with the
government, under the supervision of the so-called Cepu Operation
Committee (COC), drawn jointly from officials from ExxonMobil,
Pertamina and local administrations. The committee will be empowered
to take decisions on operations, development and budget, while
Pertamina's subsidiary, PT Pertamina EP Cepu, will be the deputy
operator of the block.

The ExxonMobil deal had featured prominently in Indonesia-US
bilateral relations. On a visit to Washington last year, Yudhoyono
told US oil executives that amendments to current laws governing oil
and gas deals were in the works, which would offer more lucrative
fiscal incentives, including a revision of the current 15% to 85%
revenue split between oil producers and the government, as well as
changes to the 35% to 65% split on natural gas deals.

For the Cepu deal, Exxon's take will range from 6.75% to 13.5%,
depending on global oil prices. Although the contract's production
split will give the government and local contractor the same 85% and
15% shares, the deal stipulates that global oil prices must average
$45 per barrel or higher to maintain that pay structure, an
unprecedented clause for an Indonesian energy deal. If world prices
fall below $35, the split would diminish to 70% and 30% respectively.

Political energy
In August 1990, Pertamina, which was the governing Golkar Party's
cash cow under former president Suharto, granted a 20-year concession
to operate the Cepu block field to Humpuss Patragas (HPG), then owned
by Suharto's youngest son, known locally as "Tommy", who is currently
serving a jail sentence for ordering the murder of a supreme court
judge. That deal was in cooperation with Australian Ampolex, which at
the time owned a 49% stake in the field.

The deal was that HPG would get 35% of its production costs rebated
after production. Pertamina and the contractor, HPG, would split the
revenue from any excess oil produced over the agreed limits in the
contract on a 65%-35% basis. But after years of unsuccessful
exploration activities, HBG ran up severe debts and encountered cash
flow problems, and was later forced to sell its 51% holding in the
Cepu block to the Indonesian Bank Restructuring Agency (IBRA), a
state-run asset rehabilitation agency established in the wake of the
1997-98 Asian financial crisis.

ExxonMobil Oil Indonesia bought both HPG's and Ampolex's stakes
reportedly for around $90 million, through Mobil Cepu Ltd, acquiring
100% ownership. Soon thereafter, ExxonMobil discovered a huge
reservoir of oil, the largest found in Indonesia for decades, that
Pertamina had failed to hit on after nearly 30 years of plumbing the
site.

Exxon said it was willing and able to invest $2 billion to develop
the potentially lucrative field, but because the initial work
contract was due to expire in 2010, the company sought a 20-year
extension under the original terms. Pertamina proposed to act as the
project's sole operator during the first five years under a new
contract, a suggestion that Exxon flatly rejected unless the state-
owned company put in half the development costs.

Despite the deadlock, Pertamina had said it was willing to go it
alone in developing Cepu - even at the risk of facing a protracted
arbitration lawsuit. Widya Purnama, Pertamina's president director at
the time, said in October 2005 that the state oil firm had set aside
$120 million to start drilling 30 wells in the Cepu's Sukawati and
Banyu Urip fields.

Indonesian vested interest groups famously run exclusive agendas,
aiming to bolster narrow personal benefits over broad national
interests. Pertamina has neither the capital nor the expertise needed
to develop such a major oil project, analysts say, and Hestu Bagyo,
head of Pertamina's Cepu block exploration and production unit, has
conceded this point in public.
Still, nationalistic sentiments have run on high since the 1997-98
Asian financial crisis, often ensnaring foreign investors. Other high-
profile business disputes with foreign investors, such as with
Mexican cement producer Cemex, US gold miner Newmont and the one
brewing with US mining giant Freeport, reflect the risk to foreigners
doing business in Indonesia. But with global commodity prices spiking
up, foreign investors are nonetheless seeking new deals in
Indonesia's resource rich territories, and hopes are that Yodhoyono's
recent intervention will mitigate the political risks to new and
existing investments.

Analysts say the resolution of the ExxonMobil deal, which is expected
to start production in about 2.5 years, will bring massive benefits
to the central government and also shore up newly-autonomous local
regions. At peak production, citing the conservative future estimates
of global oil prices averaging $35 per barrel, the government would
earn as much as US$1.5 billion a year from the deal - excluding the
revenues that would go to Pertamina as contractor.

"The project will create jobs, and of course it will bring benefits
to the local economy," says Energy and Mineral Resources Minister
Purnomo Yusgiantoro. Exxon has said it also plans to build roads,
schools, medical clinics and other infrastructure for the project.

Marginal dissent
Nationalistic commentators had demanded that Pertamina maintain sole
control of the Cepu block for the first five years of the project,
and thereafter manage it with ExxonMobil managers on a rotating
basis. American control would amount to another form of colonization,
they claimed, and in any case they argued that Pertamina's local
staffing expenses would keep down costs.

Although Yudhoyono's intervention has broadly cheered foreign
investors, it's not yet clear that the nationalists have been
completely pushed into the shadows. Over 400 Muslim protesters staged
a rally in front of the US Embassy on Tuesday, slamming what they
said was US interference in Indonesia's domestic affairs, citing in
particular ExxonMobil's deal in Cepu and Freeport's investment in
Papua. The protesters were predominantly from the Muslim radical
Islamic groups Hizbut Tahrir and Majelis Mujahideen, led by convicted
cleric Abu Bakar Baashir, the alleged leader of the militant Jemaah
Islamiyah organization accused of masterminding the Bali bombings.

It's not just Islamic radicals that are making nationalistic demands,
however. Sutarjo Suryoguritno, deputy speaker of the House of
Representatives, warned that a ruling in favor of ExxonMobil would be
tantamount "to us being colonized again ... I urge the government to
return to the true path. We should take a firm stance, that the oil
block is the right of Indonesia and its people," he told reporters.
"We'll take every means, including legal and political measures, to
fight the decision," echoed Tjatur Sapto of the National Mandate Party.

Yudhoyono, with his strong democratic mandate, at least for now is
firmly in control and has shown no sign of being influenced by the
nationalist opposition. He has important backing for his pro-foreign
investment decisions from the secular-minded Golkar Party, which
commands the most seats in the House of Representatives.

Agusman Effendy, chairman of the commission responsible for mining
and energy and a political heavyweight from the secular Golkar Party,
recently said that it was essential that the Cepu block start
production as soon as possible. "We should not lose the momentum."

Bill Guerin, a Jakarta correspondent for Asia Times Online since
2000, has worked in Indonesia for 20 years, mostly in journalism and
editorial positions. He has been published by the BBC on East Timor
and specializes in business/economic and political analysis related
to Indonesia. He can be reached at softsell@prima.net.id.

(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about sales, syndication and republishing .)

The case against Slobodan Milosevic

The Guardian, London


Comment

Criminal proceedings

The case against Slobodan Milosevic would never have held up in a
proper court of law

John Laughland
Tuesday March 14, 2006
The Guardian


I was one of the last western journalists to meet Slobodan Milosevic.
Having been called to The Hague as a potential witness, I spent an
hour in his cell in January last year. Like most who met him, I found
him polite and intelligent. "We will win," he told me. "Freedom is a
universal value. They have no evidence against me."

Such statements will shock those who have been assured that Milosevic
was a nationalist dictator bent on establishing a racially pure
Greater Serbia. But civilised societies ought to be reluctant to
condone criminal convictions based on hate campaigns. The fact is
that Milosevic's enemies have never been able to produce a single
rabid nationalist, let alone racist, quotation from his mouth, while
in the four years of his trial at The Hague not a single witness has
testified that he ordered war crimes.

Instead, witnesses have been trooping into The Hague for nearly two
years now, testifying that there was neither genocide in Kosovo nor
any plan to drive out the civilian ethnic Albanian population, and
that Milosevic could not be held responsible either for the break-up
of Yugoslavia or the subsequent civil war in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Establishing criminal responsibility is an exact science and the fact
is that Milosevic was not in charge of Yugoslavia when it was
breaking up. The 1991 order telling the (multi-ethnic) Yugoslavian
army to fight the secessionist states, Croatia and Slovenia, was
given by the then head of the federal government, Ante Markovic, a
darling of the west - and western intervention made the situation
much worse. Milosevic is often accused of upsetting the internal
balance of the Yugoslavian federal constitution, but few seriously
believe that a political system modelled on Switzerland's stood any
chance of long surviving Tito.

The Hague prosecution issued the original indictment against
Milosevic for Kosovo in May 1999, at the height of Nato's attack on
Yugoslavia and in apparent justification of it. It was not until a
year and a half later, and between seven and 10 years after the
events, that the indictments for Bosnia and Croatia were added. This
was presumably done because the prosecutors realised that Nato's
allegations about genocide in Kosovo could not stand up in court. But
the Bosnia and Croatia indictments were problematic too. Milosevic
has always denied moral or legal responsibility for the atrocities
committed by the Bosnian Serbs, for instance in 1995 at Srebrenica,
because, as president of neighbouring Serbia, he was not in charge of
Bosnia or the Bosnian Serbs. Even if he had influence over the
Bosnian Serbs, that is a long way from criminal responsibility

If the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia were
a proper court of law, the charges against him would have been
dismissed long ago. Unfortunately, it is a highly politicised organ,
created on the initiative of the very states which attacked
Yugoslavia in 1999, and whose judges have disgraced themselves by
bending the rules to facilitate the prosecution's task. In 2004, the
judges imposed defence counsel on Milosevic, even though the ICTY's
charter states that defendants have the right to defend themselves,
and even though they knew he was too sick to stand trial. On February
24 2006, at the prosecution's insistence, they rejected Milosevic's
request to be transferred to a heart clinic: he died a fortnight later.

It is corrosive of the core values of western civilisation for the
chief Hague prosecutor, Carla del Ponte, now to say that Milosevic
escaped justice by dying, for this assumes that "justice" means not
due process but a guilty verdict. The day we start to believe that we
will have abandoned the rule of law completely.

· John Laughland is the author of Le Tribunal Pénal International:
Gardien du Nouvel Ordre Mondial (The International Criminal Tribunal:
Guardian of the New World Order)

UMNO uses Islam without explaining to continue in power

UMNO uses Islam without explaining to continue in power

THE GATHERING OF THE converted met yesterday (12 March 2006) to
discuss the inexhorable move in Malaysia to be an Islamic state. No
governmnent or official representative was there to give its view.
That is not to say no UMNO representative was there. He was, but to
chart his own support base outside UMNO, after his suspension as an
UMNO member. Would he have said what he did had he been in the good
books of the party? He got claps and cheers but did he mean what he
said? Would his speech have been different had he been an official
UMNO representative? No official explanation is given at the best of
times for moves taken about Islam and its role in Malaysia. Every one
shies of discussing it, is presumed not to discuss it, especially by
non-Muslims. So, Malaysia becomes Islamic by default. The non-Malay
political parties in the National Front will not discuss, even with
UMNO, and will agree with any moves on Islam that UMNO takes. As they
did, as they would do if pesky questions about it are asked by
opposition members of parliament.

So publicly, the non-Muslim parties in the National Front agree with
UMNO's move to make Malaysia an Islamic state – they would not be in
the cabinet otherwise – but privately look to NGOs and others to
persuade them to oppose it. What was discussed then was not new, but
it came too late for it to be useful. But is this how the position of
religion should be discussed? It is now an issue even with the Malay-
Muslim community. But the National Front government keeps mum as it
turns the country Islamic. The constitution is turned upside down,
with the Malay version made the primary version, although it was
translated into Malay more than 20 years later, and the words have a
different meaning when translated into Malay. At the discussion
yesterday in Petaling Jaya, one example was given: precepts have been
translated into Malay as order. In a dispute, the Malay version holds
supreme, so the English meaning is ignored, although that was not the
intention of the framers.

At the same time, the Malays, constitutionally Muslims, have accepted
as untouchable by the non-Muslim any moves to make Malaysia more
Islamic, not on legal principles but on what they think it should
be. They may decide otherwise in private, but in public they show a
different face, that of the mob, to force Islam and its precepts on
the non-Malay. This is challenged by Malays and non-Malays alike, but
usually in secret. The speakers at yesterday's forum, including
Muslims, said the Malay ground had this fixation that Islam was not
allowed to be discussed by the non-believers, who must accept what is
given them. History is suspended – whatever the struggle for
independence, Malaya would not have got it had not the Malaysian
Chinese Association and the Malaysian Indian Congress joined with the
UMNO. Today, officially the non-Malay is a lesser breed, and their
leaders accept it.

But such gathering as yesterday's would not matter as it is of
outsiders in Kuala Lumpur. Some speakers said that similar groups in
the state should be enouraged to agree with their views. That is
dangerous. There should already be such groups there, in tandem with
the capital, that could be brought together to form a united bloc.
Any attempt to form it will play into the National Front's scheme of
things. This gathering was allowed because the people's problems are
put into constitutional focus. It was academic, at best, and what was
discussed would never see the light of day. People like to hear
contrary views, especially on what the government does, and this was
one such. It would not be surprising if the government used the
gathering to prove their case.

There is however no discussion on what the man-in-the-street is
worried of. He suddenly finds he has no recourse to the courts
because of his religion or some other matter. The judiciary, which is
his arbiter when he has a problem, now deserts him. The narrow
interpretation it gives is mixed up with his religion, and usually
denies the relief the non-Muslim asks for. The critical voices have
developed now because enough citizens deny the National Front has a
right to continued rule. The National Front and its government do not
explain, and announces its decisions, as if from Mount Olympus. That
is now questioned – by UMNO members and non-Muslim and non-Malay
members of the National Front.

Even Islam says there should be discussion before a decision is
reached, especially if it affects non-Muslims. So first the
government should welcome criticism of its plans, even of making
Malaysia an Islamic state, and adopt some of it into its laws. But
that would be difficult for a start because it has acted, certainly
for more than 35 years, as if its electoral victories gave it the
right not to discuss with others what they had planned. This has
resulted in passing laws that were soon amended because of the
opposition. The Islamic Family Laws Bill is one such. The Muslim
women protested. The bill is held in escrow. Plans are afoot to amend
it, but the minister in charge, a woman, thought it fit to discuss
with the Islamic authorities first before amending it. The question
of asking the women is out in the present system.

UMNO has tied itself in knots over Islam. It is pushed by UMNO as a
counterweight to the non-Malays, who denied their place in the
government and uniformed services, make hay in the private sector.
Some of whom get what they want by being close to the prime minister.
Since all Malays in Malaysia are by constitutional definition Muslim,
this march into an Islamic state would keep out the non-Malays. When
it makes laws affecting only Muslims, it finds opposition from the
Malays. Out of the blue, Malaysians are told that Islamic Hadhari, an
ill-thought politicial version of Islam accepted only in Malaysia,
takes precedence over Islam, which Prophet Mohamed had founded in the
7th century. There is a move in Malaysia to judge Islam by its
punishments not on what it stands for. There is no attempt to explain
Islam, and this is also PAS's fault, to the non-Muslim, whose doubts
are ignored because he is not a Muslim.

Islam is seen narrowly by the courts, by Malay judges, who
unfortunately confuse precepts in Islam as orders, and their judgment
is often not by logic but by their subconscious memory of Islam. This
is why there is no avenue for the non-Muslim in seeking justice over
a spouse, usually a husband, who has become a Muslim. She cannot go
to the civil courts, nor to the sharia courts, which will not
entertain her because she is not a Muslim. The confusion has come
about because Islam has been introduced into the mainstream
unthinkingly. Islam is more than what UMNO or PAS say it is. But
UMNO, as head of the National Front, takes a narrow interpretation so
that it can better PAS politically, and that spreads to the federal
government, and those states it controls. It is confusion today
because the non-Malays in the National Front agreed with UMNO on
this. This has come to confusion today.

The public forum yesterday brought out. But the speakers are not in
the mainstream of UMNO politics, and those present were mostly non-
Muslims. That represented the divide over Islam, even if most of the
speakers were Muslim and Malay. If the government continues to keep
mum over explaining its policies to the general public, then these
views would dominate. The people get their information from other
than government sources, and are angry. Continuing to keep quiet and
sitting on its high horse will not work, even if Islam is discussed.
The importance of this forum is that more Malaysians are interested.
But is this debate taking place elsewhere in the country? Perhaps.
But unless that also happens independently of Kuala Lumpur, the
National Front is safe, and not only on Islam but the government as
well.

M.G.G. Pillai

Time the silent majority became outraged

Malaysia Today
13 March 2006


Time the silent majority became outraged

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Marina Mahathir has just kicked up a storm. Many are outraged with
her comments about the way Muslim women in Malaysia are treated. She
feels Muslim women are not only given a raw deal but are relegated to
second-class citizens.

I have come across Muslim women who have been abandoned by their
husbands. Some are even close family friends and that makes it rather
awkward when I personally know both husband and wife. So it is best
one does not take sides in such a situation, especially when there
are always two sides to any story. After a certain period of time,
they are allowed to file for a divorce. But when the case comes up
for hearing in the syariah court, the judge asks the wife to go home
and try to reconcile with the husband.

Sometimes the husband does not turn up for the hearing, so the case
gets postponed and fixed for a later date. This goes on for some
time. Finally, after some number of years, she gets her divorce and
the husband is made to pay alimony. But he does not and she goes to
court again. But the ex-husband is not brought to book. He is just
advised that according to Islam he should pay alimony. Finally, she
gets nothing.

What is worse is when the husband suddenly comes home after a very
long absence, so she loses her right to file for a divorce since she
is no longer abandoned. She is kept lingering as a ‘married’ woman
with an absentee husband she sees once every three months. She does
not get any maintenance from her husband, and because she has many
kids at home and cannot afford a babysitter, she cannot go out to
earn a living. So it is a Catch 22 situation. You will be surpised to
know that some desperate ones end up as prostitutes, the only avenue
left for the woman to support her children.

Such things are not rare. So is Marina totally wrong in her
assumption that Muslim women get a raw deal? By the way, Islam is not
to blame for this. It is the male-dominated syariah courts that are
at fault.

Anyway, why are these people outraged? Is it because Marina is the
daughter of one-time Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad whom they
dislike so much -- so the sins of the father are borne by the
children? Or is it because Marina does not have the proper Islamic
credentials and does not carry the title ‘Ustazah’ before her name --
so she is not qualified to talk about Islam? Or is it because what
Marina said was a load of crap -- so she should not be allowed to
speak? Or is it because what she said has some truth in it -- and the
truth hurts? Or is it because what she said gives Islam a bad name --
and we do not want our dirty linen washed in public?

Should we hate Marina because we also hate her father, Dr Mahathir?
Then we should love Najib because we also love his father, Tun Razak,
and we should love Hishammuddin because we also love his father,
Hussein Onn.

Should Marina be barred from speaking because she does not have the
proper Islamic credentials such as a degree from the Medina or Cairo
universities? Well, many of us do not have an economics or law
degree, or any degree for that matter. So should we be blogging
comments about human rights, transparency, good governance,
independence of the judiciary, the 30 sen rise in petrol price and
the impact to the economy, corruption, respecting the spirit of the
constitution, and much more? We are equally as unqualified as Marina,
so we should shut our mouths and just allow people like ex-judges,
economists like Jomo, and such experts talk.

We say that Dr Mahathir is undemocratic for disallowing freedom of
speech. But we disallow his daughter from speaking as well. Are we
not equally undemocratic?

We say that Islam is a peaceful religion. We say that Islam practices
justice and fairplay. We say that Islam respects fundamental rights.
We say that Islam is a tolerant religion. But in the same breath we
do not tolerate anyone saying something that we perceive as opposed
to our view. Justice, fairplay and tolerance means allowing everyone
to express their view, how much it may go against our own. Justice,
fairplay and tolerance means defending the right of other people to
express their opposing view, while reserving our right to disagree.

We say that Islam was never propagated at the point of a sword but
spread because Islam proved a better and more just religion. We say
that countries like Spain invited the Muslims to rule them because
they saw that all those countries which were under Islam were better
countries. This is what we say. And we sell Islam by saying that
Islam is democracy, capitalism, socialism, and more, all rolled into
one. If you accept Islam then you do not need all these man-made and
Western isms because Islam is a package deal that offers you
everything under the sun -- not just the best of both worlds, but the
best of all worlds, the after-world included.

Respecting the right of Marina to express her view does not mean we
agree with what she says. We can always counter her opinion with
ours. We can always rebut what she says. And rebutting does not mean
telling her to shut up and not speak. Allowing her to speak would
demonstrate how open and tolerant Islam is towards opposing views and
this can only be positive for Islam.

There are some who say, “Do unto others as you would others do unto
you.” President Bush, as does Malaysia’s Internal Security Act, goes
by the doctrine “Do unto others BEFORE others do unto you.” So you
whack them first even as they are merely thinking of whacking you and
have not yet decided whether to do so or not.

Yes, do unto others as you would others do unto you. But somehow this
appears to be something many still cannot hold dear. And this is
evident in the way we treat others -- while if others do the same to
us we will scream blue murder.

Many have died in defence of the dignity of Prophet Muhammad. And
they died in the effort to express outrage at the way the western
media has insulted Prophet Muhammad. Well and fine. I am all for
defending the dignity of our religion if we are really committed to
our religion. And I feel expressing our opinion either in the form of
writing, talking or demonstrating is not only allowed in Islam but
fundamental to the western idea of democracy. Therefore the western
and Muslim worlds are united as to what represents fundamental rights.

However, there are certain boundaries and limits to be observed when
expressing our opinion -- whether it be written, spoken or
demonstrated. For example, we can argue and debate with an opponent
to get our points across, but we cannot take out a gun and shoot the
adversary in the head if he or she disagrees with our view. We can
demonstrate, even how noisy the demonstration may be, but we cannot
burn down a building or kill anyone as the protection of life and
property is paramount in Islam.

Islam allows us to retaliate of course. But we can only retaliate if
our life and that of our family, or our property, are in jeopardy. If
a foreign country declares war on Malaysia and invades us, it is not
only allowed but our Islamic duty to take up arms and repel the
invaders. That is how important our territory, meaning property, is
to Islam.

If this is the importance Islam places on our life and property, how
do you think Islam views the life and property of others? As much as
we may take up arms and kill in defence of our life and property (as
well as that of our family and nation), we must also take up arms in
defence of the life and property of others, especially if they are
being oppressed. This is very clear in Islam.

Okay, we are obligated to fight against the oppressor in defence of
the oppressed. But what if the oppressor is Muslim and the oppressed
non-Muslim? Well, then we have to fight against the Muslim in the
interest of the non-Muslim. Yes, of course, all Muslims are
‘brothers’, but if the Muslim is zalim (cruel), then we have to
oppose him or her. And if the Muslim oppresses the non-Muslim, then
we have to take the side of the non-Muslim. Justice cuts across all
racial and religious boundaries.

So, express outrage all you want. When non-Muslims act zalim towards
Islam, express outrage, as this is required in Islam. But when
Muslims also act zalim, even if it is towards non-Muslims, then we
must express outrage as well. Do unto others as you would others do
unto you. Scream when non-Muslims insult the Prophet by publishing
caricatures of him, which are not really that funny anyway. But also
scream when Muslims equally insult the Prophet by giving him a bad
name in acting zalim and using Islam as the excuse for doing so. This
act is worse than any caricature of the Prophet as it does more harm
than mere cartoons.

Salman Rushdie is a most controversial Islamic writer who I believe
still has a price on his head. I would certainly not want to claim
that he is my role model but this is what he wrote of the ‘silent
Muslims’ in a New York Times article three years ago: “As their
ancient, deeply civilized culture of love, art and philosophical
reflection is hijacked by paranoiacs, racists, liars, male
supremacists, tyrants, fanatics and violence junkies, why are they
not screaming?”

Someone sent me the piece below which I would like to share with you.
I did not write this but I think it is good we all understand what
they have to say so that we can get a better perception of the non-
Muslim view towards Muslims. If not for anything, at least it would
make us more aware of what others think of us.

We wake up this morning to CNN showing rampaging Muslims around the
world. In Europe, the Middle East, the Pacific Rim, Muslim mobs
spreading mayhem. It seems that these mighty mad Muslims are rioting
and firing their ever-present AK-47s into the air because of
cartoons. Yup, this latest epidemic of Muslim outrage comes to us
because some newspapers in Norway and Denmark published some cartoons
depicting Muhammad, in one of them as having a turban that looks like
a bomb.

Muslim outrage huh. OK ... let's do a little historical review. Just
some lowlights:

Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City. No
Muslim outrage.

Muslim officials block the exit where schoolgirls are trying to
escape a burning building because their faces were exposed and 15
girls die. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to a
Christian school in Indonesia. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq. No
Muslim outrage.

Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and
hotels in Egypt. No Muslim outrage.

A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India. Kills six.
No Muslim outrage.

Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan,
Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back. No Muslim outrage.

Let's go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich
Summer Olympics. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children
in Israel. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways
and buses. Over 700 are injured. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder. No Muslim
outrage.

Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali. No Muslim outrage.

Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one
of the 125+ shooting wars around the world. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their
shoes, then hang them from a bridge. No Muslim outrage.

Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting Mohammad.
Muslims are outraged.

Dead children. Dead tourists. Dead teachers. Dead doctors and nurses.
Death, destruction and mayhem around the world at the hands of
Muslims. No Muslim outrage. But publish a cartoon depicting Mohammad
with a bomb for a turban and all hell breaks loose.

We know and understand that these bloodthirsty murderers do not
represent the majority of the world's Muslims. BUT WHEN WILL THE
MAJORITY OF THE WORLD'S MUSLIMS BECOME OUTRAGED? When will THEY take
to the streets to express their outrage at the radicals who are
making their religion the object of worldwide hatred and ridicule?

Ends