Wakil Rakyat DAP dihalau daripada pasar Ramadan

Michigan soccer ref dies after being punched during game

June 29: An undated photo provided by the Livonia Police Department is of Baseel Abdul-Amir Saad.The Associated Press

 
The Michigan soccer referee critically injured this weekend after he was sucker-punched during an adult-league game died Tuesday in an area hospital.

John Bieniewicz, 44, was left in critical condition Saturday in Livonia after witnesses say he was punched in the head as he reached down for a red card.

Police said Baseel Abdul-Amir Saad punched Bieniewicz after he indicated that the 36-year-old Dearborn resident was going to be ejected. Livonia police and the Wayne County prosecutor's office have not named the referee, whom Jim Acho, a childhood friend, identified as Bieniewicz.

"I speak for all his friends when I say we are devastated. Crushed. Just a senseless way for a great guy to go out," Acho said. "He deserved better."

One witness told MyFoxDetroit.com that Bieniewicz was punched near his throat and fell without raising his arms. The death was confirmed by the hospital and a family friend.

Saad was arraigned Monday in Livonia District Court on a charge of assault with intent to do great bodily harm. Bond was set at $500,000, and a probable-cause hearing was set for July 10.

"As the case progresses we expect to learn the cause of the referee's injuries," Brian Berry, Saad's lawyer, said.

Saad was reportedly not at the field when police arrived. Saad surrendered Monday, police said.

The charge could be amended now that Bieniewicz has died. A message from FoxNews.com left with a spokeswoman for the Wayne County prosecutor's office was not immediately returned.

Bieniewicz was a dialysis technician with a wife and two sons, said Acho. Acho says a fund is being set up to help pay for his friend's funeral and burial expenses, as well as his children's futures.

According to Acho, Bieniewicz was the only student-athlete in the class of 1988 to letter in both football and basketball at the ultra-competitive Detroit parochial school. Acho, who ran a basketball camp with Bieniewicz for four years after high school, said his 6-foot-5 friend would "wow the kids with dunks."

But much to the surprise of his friends, Bieniewicz gravitated to soccer and fell in love with the sport. He has been a well-respected referee for two decades. He was doing what he loved on Sunday when he was attacked at Mies Park, Acho said.

MyFoxDetroit.com reported that Saad’s team has been kicked out of the league.

In April 2013, a 17-year-old player punched referee Ricardo Portillo after being called for a foul during a soccer game in Taylorsville, Utah, near Salt Lake City. Portillo, a father of three, died after a week in a coma. The teen pleaded guilty to a homicide charge.

The Associated Press contributed to this report

A-G and IGP apply to be parties in two interfaith custody disputes - TMI

The Attorney-General and the Inspector-General of Police have applied to the Court of Appeal to intervene in two controversial interfaith custody disputes.

A-G Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail and IGP Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar said the civil courts had exceeded their authority when they issued recovery orders to the police to locate the children of S. Deepa and M. Indira Gandhi, who are with their ex-husbands who had converted to Islam.

Both Gani and Khalid said, if their applications to be interveners were allowed, they want the Court of Appeal to suspend the High Court orders to compel police to locate Muhammad Ridzuan Abdullah and Izwan Abdullah.

The court papers were filed on June 26.

Khalid said he was in a quandary because there were two custody orders, from the High Court and Shariah High Court, and executing one would mean he was showing disrespect to the other. The Shariah courts had granted both fathers custody of the children.

Gani and Khalid said a stay of the orders was vital or else their attempts to appeal would be futile as the status of the High Court and Shariah Court under Article 121 (1A) of the Federal Constitution had to be determined.

One view is that the civil court is superior to the Shariah Court while another stand is that both are of equal status.

Lawyers K. Shanmuga, who is appearing for Deepa, and N. Selvam, representing Indira, said they had received copies of the court papers from the A-G's Chambers.

"I will be taking instructions from my client to file an affidavit in reply. We will be contesting the A-G's and IGP's applications," he said.

Selvam said their team of lawyers would meet in anticipation of "serious legal and constitutioal challenges arising from the case now".

Last week Gani said he was applying to suspend both orders issued as both cases in Seremban and Ipoh have become cases of public interests which touched on religious sensitivities and have the potential to threaten public order.

On April 7, Seremban High Court judge Datuk Zabariah Mohd Yusof had granted Deepa custody of Sharmila and Mithran, both of whom had been converted to Islam by her husband last year without her knowledge.

The judge allowed Deepa's application as the civil court had jurisdiction over the matter and provide the relief for custody and dissolution of the couple's marriage.

Two days later, Izwan abducted Mithran, saying it was for the child's "protection".

She then obtained a recovery order from the High Court on May 21 to get police to search for Izwan and Mithran.

In Indira's case, her ex-husband, Rizduan has also yet to hand over their youngest daughter to her despite a 2010 Ipoh High Court order awarding her custody of their three children.

Ridzuan has held on to Prasana Diksa since April 2009 when she was 11 months old.

The Shariah High Court in Ipoh had in 2009 given Ridzuan custody of the three children after he unilaterally converted them to Islam.

However, in July last year, the Ipoh High Court, in a landmark ruling by judge Lee Swee Seng, quashed the certificates of conversion of the three children and ruled that the certificates were null and void because they were unconstitutional.

Last month, the court also issued an order to arrest Ridzuan but police have yet to act on it.

Hindu mothers denied justice following A-G, IGP intervention in custody cases, say lawyers

Two Hindu mothers have been denied justice and protection under the law following the move by the attorney-general and the inspector-general of police to intervene in their controversial interfaith custody disputes, lawyers said.

They said the High Court had issued recovery orders to the women and police should have swiftly executed the directive.

The lawyers also said the court was not the forum to find a permanent solution to cases of unilateral conversion as such cases would crop up in future.

They were of the view that instituting legal reforms was a better option than asking the court to interpret the Federal Constitution and the law.

Last week, A-G Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail and IGP Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar filed applications in the Court of Appeal to be interveners in the disputes.

They also want the appellate court to stay the recovery orders granted to S. Deepa and M. Indira Gandhi to compel the police to locate their children who are with their former husbands.

Gani and Khalid said the court had acted beyond its authority in giving the orders under the Child Act 2011.

They said a stay of the orders was vital or else their attempt to appeal would be futile as the status of the High Court and Shariah Court under Article 121 (1A) of the Federal Constitution had to be determined.

Gani in a statement on June 26 also indicated that he might consider going to the Federal Court to get a legal opinion on constitutional issues arising from these cases.

He said the cases were of a public interest because they touched on religious sensitivity and posed a potential threat to public order.

Lawyer Meera Samanther said the authorities were acting as if they were above the law in refusing to act on court orders.

"The IGP should have instructed his men to act immediately once the orders were served on him," said Samanther, who is also president of the Association for Women Lawyers.

She questioned why the A-G and the IGP chose to ignore the plight of the mothers.

"Why have these cases become a potential threat to public order?" she asked.

Samanther said justice and legal protection for the two women were only a distant dream as the police have refused to comply with a directive from the judiciary.

She also said Putrajaya must act on the 2007 memorandum submitted by a group of NGOs calling for amendments to certain laws following the legal tussle in a 2004 unilateral conversion case involving S. Shamala and Dr C.M. Jeyaganesh.

The NGOs wanted the Federal Constitution, the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act, the Distribution Act and the Infants and Guardianship Act be amended to render justice to the non-converting wives and children.

Lawyer Ravi Neko said it was not common for a civil court to issue such orders as in custody battles the spouse would also be given visitation rights.

"However, in these cases, the mothers had gone to court because the Muslims fathers are still holding on to the children despite custody having been awarded to Deepa and Indira," said Ravi, a Bar Council member.

He said both Izwan Abdullah and Muhammad Ridzuan Abdullah were now in contempt of court for violating the custody order issued by the civil court.

Ravi said the marriages of these couples were solemnised by civil law and, therefore, dissolution of their union and reliefs must be decided by the civil court.

On April 7, Seremban High Court judge Datuk Zabariah Mohd Yusof granted Deepa custody of Sharmila and Mithran, both of whom had been converted to Islam by her husband last year without her knowledge.

The judge allowed Deepa's application as the civil court had jurisdiction over the matter and provide the relief for custody and dissolution of the couple's marriage.

Two days later, Izwan abducted Mithran, saying it was for the child's "protection".

She then obtained a recovery order from the High Court on May 21 to get police to search for Izwan and Mithran.

In Indira's case, her ex-husband, Ridzuan, had also yet to hand over their youngest daughter to her despite a 2010 Ipoh High Court order awarding custody of their three children to the mother.

Ridzuan has held on to Prasana Diksa since April 2009.

The Shariah High Court in Ipoh had in 2009 given Ridzuan custody of the three children after he unilaterally converted them to Islam.

However, in July last year, the Ipoh High Court quashed the certificates of conversion of the three children and ruled that the certificates were null and void because they were unconstitutional.

Last month, the court also issued an order to arrest Ridzuan but police have yet to act on it.
- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/hindu-mothers-denied-justice-following-a-g-igp-intervention-in-custody-case#sthash.OqSbYmvR.dpuf

Zainuddin’s ranting shows arrogance

The rantings and ravings of some prominent political figures show just how shallow their interpretation of Malaysian politics is.

By Chua Tong Ka

Dear Zainuddin Maidin,

As a former cabinet minister and chief editor of Utusan Malaysia, I am sure you are far wiser than what your rantings about MCA suggest of you.

I am assuming that what you wrote was more political in nature rather than based on national or public interest. Make no mistake – I am in no position to defend MCA. I am just trying to make sense of your arguments.

First, please don’t tell those who disagree with you politically to go to hell (pergi mampus). That is akin to cussing and rather tribalist of you. If you were from one of our many uncouth NGOs, I would be better able to accept it.

Asking others to go to hell takes absolutely no courage or heroism on your part as it only shows up your arrogance and bullying nature, thinking that others are powerless to rebut you.

I presume the notion of “ketuanan” and dominance is totally ingrained in your psyche. Hence, MCA must kiss the hand of BN and show gratitude now that the party is back in the cabinet.

By all means argue that UMNO has taken pity on MCA. On the other hand, has it ever occurred to you that MCA and other component parties in BN are hapless and have sacrificed too much in the past for UMNO’s wayward ways?

You are right – MCA was decimated in the last general election. But as a thinking man, you ought to know the reasons why unless your intransigence and parochialism have completely blinded you.

The Prime Minister appointed MCA to the cabinet out of political expediency and reality, not because he took pity on MCA. At least I could get that right.

What are you ranting about when MCA is trying to get the support of the Chinese back? Is this not what Barisan Nasional advocates – each party for its own race?

You fail to see that getting back the support of the Chinese is not about being anti-Malay. Just as criticising the Home Affairs Minister on his statement about the cow head incident is not anti-Malay.

I am sure you know the difference – anti-racism and anti-sectarianism are different from being anti-Malay.

You are a former minister – you should not behave like those unfortunate NGO personalities, who prefer to twist and turn everything into either anti-Malay, anti-Islam and anti-royalty rhetoric.

I expected much more from you.

State religious body rules Kassim Ahmad expressed ‘apostate’ thoughts

(Bernama) – The Terengganu Fatwa Committee has unanimously ruled that the statements made by social activist Kassim Ahmad (pic) at a seminar in February as “kufur” (disbelief) and apostate thoughts.

State Islamic Affairs Commissioner Datuk Mohd Rozali Salleh said the decision was made at a special meeting of the committee on March 9.

Such thoughts were deviant and a threat to public order and damaging to Islam, as there were elements of irregularities like disputing the “syahadah”, hadis, Islamic rules, women’s hair as aurat, the selawat, and condoning apostasy, Rozali told a news conference in Kuala Terengganu today.

Kassim was alleged to have uttered statements at “The Thoughts of Kassim Ahmad: A Review” Seminar organised by the Perdana Leadership Foundation on February 6.

He reportedly accused religious scholars of controlling Islam through a “priesthood caste” system, questioned the use of the hadis (Prophet’s sayings and actions) to explain Quranic teachings, and said it was wrong for Muslims to beatify the Prophet as “he was just a messenger of Allah”.

He also questioned the wearing of headscarf by Muslim women, saying “the hair is not part of the aurat” (parts of the body which need to be covered) in his lecture.

Rozali said the committee banned publication, broadcasting and dissemination of any books, pamphlets, films, videos and anything relating to the anti-hadis belief while Muslims were forbidden from possessing, printing, selling or distributing the material.

The meeting also agreed that the decision against anti-hadis movement to be gazetted as a fatwa and action could be taken against those who defy the ruling.

Missed opportunity to defend religious freedom

by Dr. Lim Teck Ghee

News that the Federal Court refused to grant leave to hear the appeal by the Archbishop Emeritus of the Catholic Archdiocese of Kuala Lumpur in the ‘Allah’ case did not come as a surprise. As many Malaysians expected, the judges by a majority decision of four to three predictably upheld the earlier Court of Appeal's decision to ban the use of the word in the Catholic weekly, The Herald.

In the extensive media coverage given to the decision, much attention has been given to the reasoning provided by each of the judges, especially the three dissenting judges. Reading through the reports and analysis, what should be of utmost concern is the failure of any of the judges to touch on the central issue that was placed before them and which they circumvented – that of the threat to the freedom of religion that was stark and explicit in the case before them.

None of the seven judges – not even the dissenting three – found it necessary to cut through the political and legal thicket set up by the government to diminish religious freedom or to state the case against any diminishment of that freedom. None of them found it important to articulate or restate the need for fidelity and unfailing adherence to the core principle of religious freedom enshrined in our secular constitution.

In retrospect, the position taken by all the seven judges – including the dissenting – should raise alarm bells that professional independence and competency has been so compromised in our judicial system that we cannot expect redress from our courts when it comes to defending our fundamental liberties.

But what are the larger implications of this court decision?

If Umno leaders and hardline Muslim organizations such as Perkasa, Isma and others are celebrating this decision as a 'victory' they should think again.

Firstly, they should reflect on the origin of the dispute over the word. The initial damage to the previously stable relationship between Muslim and Christian Catholics on this particular issue which flared up in 2009 can be traced to the political ambitions of one man, the then Home Affairs Minister; and the subsequent lack of resolve from the Barisan government, including the non-Muslim Ministers in the Cabinet.

Earlier, following court appearances and negotiations, the Catholic publication received permission to use the word ‘Allah’ as long as it stated on its masthead that The Herald was “For Christians only”.

Syed Hamid Albar, the then Minister, had even signed the order permitting the publication.

However, 12 days after the order was gazetted on February 16, 2009, he backpedalled and reinstated the ban on the Herald from using the word Allah. It has been postulated that with the looming Umno election in March, Syed Hamid who was vying for a Supreme Council position and wanting to be retained in the Cabinet, was engaged in a last ditch effort to revive his political fortune. The 'Allah' case clearly provided him the opportunity to demonstrate his strong Islamic credentials to Umno members.

Since then, Umno leaders, wannabe Malay and Islamic 'heroes', the vigilante Malay media, and a phalanx of newly pious and devout Muslims have jumped on the bandwagon to defend their faith and assuage their newly arisen anxiety that Islam is faced with attack from an alleged insidious enemy, bent on destroying their religion and converting their weaker Muslim brothers and sisters to another religion.

Why did the Home Minister and his Umno colleagues start this fire over a word which East Malaysian Christians have used for decades even before Sabah and Sarawak merged with Malaya in 1963; and which the great majority of Malay Muslims – until the use of the word was politicised and dragged into the public spotlight – had no concern or problem with? If the use of ‘Allah’ is in violation of syariah law, then surely the ulama, Umno, PAS and others would have objected to it much earlier and more vehemently.

How can an in-house religious magazine circulating within the Catholic community and using the word ‘Allah’ which was halal under previous Home Affairs Ministers suddenly become haram in 2009 on the eve of the Umno general assembly meeting? How can anyone take seriously the claim by Umno leaders and a small group of Muslim zealots that their faith alone has exclusive right to use the word ‘Allah’ in Malaysia, and that any other religion using it, is seeking to proselytize Muslims and disrupting peace and harmony?

Umno members and its proxies may not want to ask these crucial questions but the rest of the world has.

What next?

A colleague has pointed out some of the larger implications and argued for one way forward. I am quoting his opinion* in extenso because it is an important contribution in pointing the way towards finding a solution when our religious and other basic liberties are under threat and when there appears to be no recourse from our own courts in safeguarding the sanctity of the constitutional provisions on them.

“The prohibition of the use of the ‘Allah’ word by non­Muslims is a clear violation of the Malaysian Constitution and a violation of the Malaysia Agreement (1963), which mandates freedom of religion in the former, and no imposition of any one of officially mandated religion on Sabah and Sarawak, in the latter.

Given that Iban people have used the term ‘Allah’ in their Christian prayers for Iban of varied Christian denominations, denial of the use of ‘Allah’, based on the legal judgment of the court and its interpretations, clearly imposes an Islamic restriction on BOTH the Peninsula, where Islam is only an official religion, and NOT THE SOLE NATIONAL RELIGION, and on Sabah and Sarawak,which per the 1963 Agreement, HAVE NO OFFICIAL RELIGION IN EITHER STATE.

.............................................

It is for Malaysia to meet its obligations, according to the Constitution and the 1963 Malaysia Agreement. The State may think it is ‘compromising’ by meeting its requirement. This is false.

Meeting a legal requirement and fulfilling Constitutional law is not ‘compromise’, it is MANDATORY by law. Nations that fail to meet their legal and historical obligations are not democracies, but autocracies that do not recognize their own laws. Any such nation must be held to account for illegal actions and their consequences. Malaysia has failed to meet its obligations, and therefore, it is patently clear that Umno has violated the right of freedom to believe and practice one's faith, unhindered by governmental interference, and it has violated the terms of the 1963 Malaysian agreement, in both failing to recognize and accept non­Muslim Bumiputera religious practices, and imposing a religious doctrine (Islam) on such practices, on two States within the federation, that legally are not mandated to have any of official religion, and therefore cannot be compelled to accept religious strictures from the Peninsula and Putrajaya, let alone coming from non­democratic Malay NGOs.

These violations of human rights of belief and practice, mandate international legal adjudication,as Malaysia has displayed no proof of judicial impartiality whatsoever, and redress of such violations can only properly be judged outside Malaysia. In fact judicial impartiality is rare, if not completely absent, from Malaysia's court and judicial system, whether civil or Islamic (Shari'a Law).

As Malaysia is a signatory to UN human rights provisions, and in fact at one time, a Malaysian even led the UN, as President of the UN General Assembly, 1996­1997 (Ambassador Tan Sri Razali Ismail), and was heavily involved in human rights issues at the UN, relating to Myanmar and human rights activist Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Malaysia's particular involvement in UN human rights activities, make such domestic human rights violations even more problematic and visible.

No nation can serve the UN as a fair arbiter of international human rights issues, while denying such fairness at home. Thus, Umno, as the sitting government of Malaysia, must be held to account for allowing the courts, upon whom it gives its imprimatur, by appointing judges to the High Court, the highest court in the land, to issue illegal rulings that abrogate already established Malaysian legal and constitutional provisions. Umno/BN is therefore part and parcel of the High Court, by virtue of judicial imprimatur and judicial appointments, and is therefore, ipso facto, responsible for the High Court's legal decisions, as Umno by law must implement all High Courtdecisions.

On that basis, Umno is in violation of its national responsibilities to the nation and should befound guilty of such violations, as it is required to implement legal decisions that are in violationof the nation's very own Constitution and historical legal agreements. If Umno does not put such legal decisions in abeyance, and implements contradictory and illegal laws, there is no known legal basis to judge the Malaysian Government as anything but illegal, in itself, by its own chosen actions. The notion that a national government would violate its own Constitution and historical legal agreements, is more than just odious; it is,in fact, entirely unacceptable, without any caveats.

A nation that violates its laws, as we know from history, inevitably results in its citizens also violating such laws. This situation cannot, and must not, be allowed.

Only an international court, like the International Court of Justice, in The Hague, Netherlands, can properly weigh the evidence against Umno and its judicial proxies, like the High Court, and assess whether, by international standards of human rights and the UN Geneva Conventions,

Malaysia, as represented by Umno/BN as the sitting Government, has violated the Malaysian Constitution and the 1963 Malaysia Agreement, and if such violations are found to be true and validated by the ICJ, and such violations are also found inconsistent with international law based on all known UN conventions, then an indictment of human rights (religious freedom) violations by the Malaysian Government becomes legally binding and internationally recognized. We propose that the Malaysian Government has indeed violated two cornerstones of Malaysia's own historical existence, and we seek remedy to such violations, in order to ensure that the Malaysian Government meets all its commitments to the nation, as required by law, and as required in fact for every nation on the planet, not simply Malaysia alone. To do less, is to allow flagrant human rights abuses and to tolerate the persecution and abuse of Malaysian people, by ethnic, cultural and religious intolerance and deprivation.”

He has also provided this addendum:

“The whole point of the Constitution is to protect ALL MALAYSIANS. No Muslim may fear, through irrational paranoia, that Catholics will try and convert them, because the Constitution says they CANNOT. Isma's and Perkasa's straw man about non­Muslim threats to proselytise and inhibit Muslims from practicing their faith, is wrong, and is as prohibited by the Constitution, as is Muslim proselytisation. The only diference being most non­Malays respect the Constitution and don't go around (usually) trying to turn Malays into Catholics or Hindus, while many Muslims break the constitutional legal requirement that they not interfere with non­Muslim religious practices. The Malays don't know the Constitution affords them protection, or they do know, and don't care, and really want the Constitution to ONLY protect Muslims, which the Constitution cannot do as currently written. Few sane Malaysian would accept a Constitution that only protects one group (Muslims), and this would be totally unacceptable.”

* I would normally disclose my source but the colleague whom I have quoted lives abroad, has family members in Malaysia, and has legitimate fears that he may be denied entry during his next visit should his name be brought to the attention of the authorities.

** The article is taken from “The Big Issue”, issue 7, July 1­15, pp. 23­8

1946, when it all went wrong for us

Wong Chin Huat - The Malaysian Insider


Where Malaysia is heading, with sensational news from Muslim-only Allah, Hudud for all, body-snatching, wedding gate-crashing, police defying the Common Law Courts, to now Muslims buying only from Muslims?

The common question asked by many Malaysians is either “what have gone wrong?” or “Where have we gone wrong?” The relevant question, to my mind, is neither of these but “when have we gone wrong?”

Yes, not what and where, but when. And my answer is 1946.

The ultimate question

What happened in 1946? The British who returned to Malaya after the war started their preparation for her decolonisation.

An utmost pertinent question emerged: can multiculturalism and common citizenship co-exist?

Put it bluntly, can the minorities ask for citizenship with equal rights if they refused to be assimilated?

The expectation of assimilation had its grounds, both globally and locally.

Then, the homogenous nation-state model – one nation, one state, one language, one culture — laid down by the French since their Revolution in the 18th century was the norm. Countries with diverse populations were anomalies.

Such a view was even shared by many liberals. Liberal thinker John Stuart Mill said, “Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities. Among a people without fellow-feeling, especially if they read and speak different languages, the united public opinion, necessary to the working of representative government, cannot exist.”

In other words, cultural homogeneity or homogenisation is a pre-requisite for democracy.

Locally, thanks to the spread of both the Malay language and Islam in Nusantara by 17th-18th century, and later by the British colonial policy to back and consolidate the Malay kingdoms to facilitate their indirect colonial rule, Malays became a composite ethno-religious category.

If you embraced Islam and you spoke Malay, you could be absorbed as Malays. This was not limited to Minangkabaus, Bugis, Acehnese, Mendalings, Banjarese or later Javanese, but also the Arabs and Indian Muslims.

In early 20th Century, the last two groups were once called Darah Keturuan Arab (DKA) and Darah Keturunan Keling (DKK) and greatly resented by Nusantaran Malays for taking up economic shares as Malays.

The resentment against the Arab- and Indian-Malays subsided when the non-Muslim and non-Malay-speaking Chinese and Indians were seen as the real threat to the Malays.

Hence, by 1946, Malays – not withstanding their parochial loyalty to their states and cultures – had become a culturally defined “melting pot” ethnic group, not unlike America, France or even China.

The 1946 question, reframed in this lens, would be: should the Chinese and Indians be given equal rights if they refused to be “melted”?

The Yes and No struggles

Offering a liberal naturalisation scheme to the Chinese and Indians, the Malayan Union proposed by the British was a “Yes”.

Years later, “the Malaysian Malaysia” idea espoused by People’s Action Party (PAP) and later Democratic Action Party (DAP) is a “Yes”.

The Malays in 1946 answered the question with a loud “No”, which was embodied in the formation of Umno.

And the replacement of the Malayan Union by Persekutuan Tanah Melayu (Federation of Malaya) indicated the victory of the “No” camp.

It did not only establish Umno’s hegemony, but also dictated why we have a centralised and rigid federal system when most federations elsewhere exist to accommodate and manage differences between rival groups.

If accommodation was the goal, the Malayan Union – a multi-ethnic unitary state – should have been kept as the Federation of Malaya was really a federation of Malay ethnocracies.

The 1957 compromises

The “No” victory was however soon cut short by the eruption of the Communist insurgency. Malay nationalists were forced by the British to recognise the reality of the de facto civil war at home and cold war at the global level.

This led to Umno founder-president Dato Onn’s championing of the radical idea of opening up Umno to the non-Malays and his eventual departure from the party.

The electoral challenge posed by Dato Onn’s Independence of Malaya Party (IMP) then forced Umno to cooperate with MCA at the local level for the 1952 Kuala Lumpur Municipal Election.

The success of this ad-hoc experiment sealed the rule of the game for multi-ethnic politics. By 1955, when the Alliance swept 51 out of 52 seats contested in Malaya, it was already a tripartite coalition speaking the language of moderation and accommodation.

The ethnocratic aspiration of Umno was diluted but not completely abandoned. The outcome of pragmatism of all sides was the Merdeka Compromises with three important quid-pro-quo deals.

The first was on citizenship. In exchange for the jus soli principle which would allow most non-Malays to obtain citizenship, special status was granted for the Malays.

Interestingly and perfectly consistent with the historical evolution of the Malayan Malays, Malays are defined not by biological lineage, but by religion, language, custom and the geographical origin of Malaya or Singapore. In other words, this is an open melting pot that one can opt in.

The second was on religion. Religious freedom was guaranteed on two counter-conditions: first, Islam – already the official religion for the Malay states – was made the religion of the Federation; and second, written as a proviso to the constitutional provision itself, religious conversion can only be one-way, from non-Muslims to Muslims.

The third was on language. Linguistic freedom was guaranteed with the establishment of Bahasa Melayu as the national language as the corresponding parallel. At the policy level, the Chinese- and Tamil-medium schools would stay but the ultimate goal would be unifying all schools with the Malay language.

Reading together the three exchanges of the Merdeka Compromise and the constitutional definition of the Malays, Malaya was a gentle and gradual nation-building project to eventually make everyone a Malay.

The project had two tools: first, the differential in citizenship right as an inducement; second, the protectionist environment that prevents the minority faiths and languages from flourishing fully and competing with Islam and Bahasa Melayu.

The phrasing out of Malaya by the larger federation of Malaysia did not change this project. Rather, the project of building a Malay nation-state just became the de facto Malaysia.

East Malaysian leaders who stood in the way of the Malayanisation process were either ousted (Stephen Kalong Ningkan) or ousted then tamed (Donald Stephens and Pairin Joseph Kitingan).

The de-legitimation of plural society

The ultimate goal of building a mono-ethnic nation-state is well entrenched in the officialdom and indoctrinated through historical textbook. By secondary school, Malaysians are taught that the plural society is basically a threat or challenge to national unity.

And its emergence is reduced to two simple factors, both tied to the colonial history: first, the importation of the Chinese and the Indians as mining and agricultural workers; second, the failure of the Colonial Government to have them assimilated, primary by allowing the development of separate education systems.

This anti-diversity discourse in simplified anti-colonial language – using convenient short-hands like “divide and rule” – ignores two important facts.

First and foremost, if there was any ground of such discourse for Malaya, Malaya has been replaced by the larger Malaysia and the Bornean Malaysia was never Malay countries.

Sabah and Sarawak did have plural societies and melting-pot-style amalgamation by a single dominant faith or language never happened, as it did in Malaya.

Second, even in Malaya, the story was never thorough. Chinese miners in Perak and Selangor were much brought in by rivalling Malay chieftains, with whom they later took sides in the Malay civil wars. Most tellingly, Chinese immigrants in Johor were mai
nly brought in by Temenggung Ibrahim and his son Sultan Abu Bakar, who had not a single drop of English blood.

In other words, the immigrant communities were really more the natural consequence of capitalist development, much like why we have millions of foreign workers today, rather than some colonial conspiracy.

The crime of honesty

Lacking a nuanced and honest analysis of our colonial history de-legitimises our multiethnic society, making it something needs to be tolerated and contained rather than celebrated or advanced.

It also de-legitimises secularism and democracy, which are seen as part of the post-colonial order.

The 1957 order was shifted in 1969 to be more pro-Malay in the aftermath of the May 13 riot.

The 2008 political tsunami marked the beginning of a counter-shift towards centre, against the excesses of the 1969 shift.

The controversies staged by Perkasa, Isma and Utusan are but efforts to stop or reverse this counter shift. From their standpoints, these are rational moves that should not surprise anyone really.

After all, if the 1957 model of gentle and gradual assimilation is the unquestioned premise, then really the measure of moderation would be just really about gentleness and gradualness, much like how much heat you apply to a slow cooker so that a live frog in it would believe it is having a spa treatment.

Then, Perkasa, Isma and Utusan of course are gravely guilty of honesty.

108 nabbed under Sosma

The New Straits Times

A TOTAL of 108 individuals of various nationalities have been detained nationwide for involvement in militant activities since 2010, the Dewan Negara was told yesterday.

Deputy Home Minister Datuk Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar said the ministry was working with foreign intelligence agencies to prevent the infiltration of militant elements into the country.

“This includes the exchange of intelligence information between countries, especially between Asean countries.”

He said the ministry was monitoring the movements of suspicious groups and individuals who had been involved in militant activities.

He said the ministry was conducting programmes to rehabilitate those who were detained and their families.

Wan Junaidi was replying to a question by Senator Datuk Noriah Mahat, who asked about the total arrests involving militant cases and actions taken by the ministry to eliminate such activities.

Wan Junaidi said the repeal of the Internal Security Act in 2011 had made investigations into militant activities difficult for the authorities.

He said such investigations were time consuming and the maximum of 28 days’ detention provided by the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 was insufficient.

“We have to look forward.

“The ministry is working around current provisions and is striving to improve the steps taken (to combat militant activities).”

Karpal gets Public Service Award from Ghandi Memorial Trust (Updated)

The Sun
by Lee Choon Fai

KUALA LUMPUR: The late Karpal Singh (pix) has been posthumously awarded the Public Service Award by the Ghandi Memorial Trust (GMT) for his contributions to the country.

GMT chairman S. Radhakrishnan said Karpal had contributed much to the nation in politics, the judiciary, and social activism for the past 40 years before his untimely demise on April 17.

"His commitment to these principles did not waver despite an accident in 2005 that left him wheelchair-bound," he said during his opening speech.

The award came with a chrome pewter tiger, representing the moniker "Tiger of Jelutong", which was presented to his family who attended the ceremony.

Former Minister Datuk Mohd Zaid Ibrahim said in his speech that Karpal was a fearless lawyer and human rights defender who had contributed much to Malaysian parliamentary democracy.

"His greatest contribution as MP was his push for good governance, and for the government to be responsible to Parliament; he was also suspended many times due to his outspokenness," said Zaid.

Zaid said Karpal often paid a heavy price when doing what he thought was right and that he (Zaid) himself was not spared from Karpal's sharp-tongue during his short stint in the government.

He also commented on Karpal's conviction under the Sedition Act before his passing, saying "nobody who had contributed so much to Parliament and the public should be labelled seditious".

Former Bar Council president Datuk S. Ambiga said Karpal would be sorely missed, especially now when extremist voices are getting increasingly intolerable.

"This is where we miss Karpal as a statesman, extremism is getting out of control; there is a culture of 'might is right' that needs changing and Karpal will definitely speak up about it," she said.

She also said Karpal was never anti-Islam as alleged by his critics even though he opposed the implementation of hudud law and the claims that Malaysia is an Islamic state.

Ambiga said he was a staunch defender of the Federal Constitution, a voice for the voiceless, a warrior for the people, and a principled man above all.

Retired Court of Appeal Judge Datuk Mahadev Shanker said Karpal is the embodiment of Mahatma Gandhi's life principles of "plain-living but lofty in thought".

However, he pointed out that Karpal's voice was a loud roar, a call of redemption and the observance of the rule of law, that he was personally subjected to as compared to Gandhi's gentle and soft-spoken voice.

Veteran lawyer Datuk Jagjit Singh fondly recalled his years as a law student in the University of Singapore, where he met Karpal as a young student activist.

Jagjit said even then, the hallmarks and values of leadership was apparent in Karpal, and his excellent memory coupled with straight to the point arguments made him a formidable lawyer.

Karpal's daughter Sangeet Kaur also gave a short but emotional speech, saying her late father was a giant in life whose shoulders she stood upon for support.

Also present at the event were DAP national advisor Lim Kit Siang, Bar Council president Christopher Leong, lawyer and social activist Haris Ibrahim, and Bar Council Human Rights Committee chairman Andrew Khoo.

Najib Announces RM500 Financial Aid To Civil Servants Up To Grade 54

KUALA LUMPUR, July 2 (Bernama) -- Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak today announced the payment of a Special Financial Aid of RM500 to civil servants in Grade 1 to Grade 54 as preparations for the Hari Raya Aidil Fitri .

The Prime Minister also announced a Special Financial Aid of RM250 to 684,000 government pensioners to appreciate their contributions, deeds and services.

"The payment of the special aid will be made on July 15," he said in a statement, here today.

Najib said the Special Financial Aid payment to the civil servants and government pensioners involved a financial allocation of RM890 million.

The government hoped that the special financial aid could ease the financial burden of the civil servants and pensioners in making preparations to celebrate the festive season at the end of the month.