Saturday 13 September 2014
Rotherham MP Opposed Call for Inquiry into Mass Sex Abuse
It has emerged Labour Members of Parliament in the North of England may have conspired to ignore the abuse of young girls by Pakistani grooming gangs because of the "vast reservoirs" of votes the "Kashmiri Muslim" community afforded them, and that crucial detailed evidence about the scandal has "disappeared" from archives.
A local MP has confided the abuse remained unspoken of for so long because "there was a culture of not wanting to rock the multicultural community boat, if I may put it like that". A culture of intimidation locally may have also played a part.
Although reports about child sexual abuse began to surface relatively regularly in the national press in 2011, a year later when John Healey, a Labour MP local to Rotherham, received a letter from a constituent expressing concern he dismissed it. London newspaper The Times reports today that the man, an engineer, wrote to his MP in 2012 to inform him locals were “deeply disturbed by what . . . is happening in Rotherham”.
The constituent asked whether Healey, MP for the area since 1997 (also believed to be the year the abuses of the 1,400 girls in Rotherham began), would "call for an investigation of all parties at fault", meaning local child protection agencies and police as well as the perpetrators. Healey replied" "I am not sure an inquiry would help the girls and their families, especially if it focuses solely on Rotherham and on Asian men grooming white girls".
A reluctance to focus attention on the perpetrators of these crimes for reasons of "community cohesion" or electoral expediency appears to be a common theme. Former Rotherham MP Denis Macshane who was first elected in 1994 but resigned in 2012 prior to a six month jail sentence for expenses fraud, has admitted his political leanings stopped him from addressing the problem.
Speaking to the BBC, Macshane said he was aware of illegal incest and "the oppression of women within bits of the Muslim community in Britain" but turned a blind eye. He admitted: "Perhaps yes, as a true Guardian reader, and liberal leftie, I suppose I didn’t want to raise that too hard". The Times reports him as having said: "I, like so many MPs, preferred to keep silent on some of the dirty secrets about bad practices in the Kashmiri Muslim community", a community that supplies "vast resevoirs" of votes at election time.
Blaming the abuse on British culture, and linking the Rotherham abuse gangs to celebrity groomers, he said: "Nobody pursued Jimmy Saville, nobody pursued Rolf Harris, nobody pursued Cyril Smith… There is in our country, just a dreadful culture and I wouldn’t pick particular on one ethnic community but it is a real problem, it’s a longer story about the nature of that community, their sexual relations, and the way they treat women".
The first Times report from 2011 which referred to a place in "Northern England" where local sources "are so scared of reprisals that their town must not be named" went some way to explain why the abuser's own community didn’t reveal their activities, which were often conducted in broad daylight.
The article refers to comments by the community sources, who speak of the "widespread view that betraying members of one’s own community to the police would be an even greater sin than child sexual exploitation." White girls are targeted by such men because "if they did it to a Muslim girl, they’d be shot".
As the parliamentary inquiry into the conduct of local agencies and authorities continues questions have been asked of the competency of the very bodies that were supposed to protect the abused. During the questioning of resigning Rotherham chief executive it emerged that an important and detailed piece of evidence, a 2008 report on child abuse has “disappeared” from the council’s archives.
The inquiry continues.
A local MP has confided the abuse remained unspoken of for so long because "there was a culture of not wanting to rock the multicultural community boat, if I may put it like that". A culture of intimidation locally may have also played a part.
Although reports about child sexual abuse began to surface relatively regularly in the national press in 2011, a year later when John Healey, a Labour MP local to Rotherham, received a letter from a constituent expressing concern he dismissed it. London newspaper The Times reports today that the man, an engineer, wrote to his MP in 2012 to inform him locals were “deeply disturbed by what . . . is happening in Rotherham”.
The constituent asked whether Healey, MP for the area since 1997 (also believed to be the year the abuses of the 1,400 girls in Rotherham began), would "call for an investigation of all parties at fault", meaning local child protection agencies and police as well as the perpetrators. Healey replied" "I am not sure an inquiry would help the girls and their families, especially if it focuses solely on Rotherham and on Asian men grooming white girls".
A reluctance to focus attention on the perpetrators of these crimes for reasons of "community cohesion" or electoral expediency appears to be a common theme. Former Rotherham MP Denis Macshane who was first elected in 1994 but resigned in 2012 prior to a six month jail sentence for expenses fraud, has admitted his political leanings stopped him from addressing the problem.
Speaking to the BBC, Macshane said he was aware of illegal incest and "the oppression of women within bits of the Muslim community in Britain" but turned a blind eye. He admitted: "Perhaps yes, as a true Guardian reader, and liberal leftie, I suppose I didn’t want to raise that too hard". The Times reports him as having said: "I, like so many MPs, preferred to keep silent on some of the dirty secrets about bad practices in the Kashmiri Muslim community", a community that supplies "vast resevoirs" of votes at election time.
Blaming the abuse on British culture, and linking the Rotherham abuse gangs to celebrity groomers, he said: "Nobody pursued Jimmy Saville, nobody pursued Rolf Harris, nobody pursued Cyril Smith… There is in our country, just a dreadful culture and I wouldn’t pick particular on one ethnic community but it is a real problem, it’s a longer story about the nature of that community, their sexual relations, and the way they treat women".
The first Times report from 2011 which referred to a place in "Northern England" where local sources "are so scared of reprisals that their town must not be named" went some way to explain why the abuser's own community didn’t reveal their activities, which were often conducted in broad daylight.
The article refers to comments by the community sources, who speak of the "widespread view that betraying members of one’s own community to the police would be an even greater sin than child sexual exploitation." White girls are targeted by such men because "if they did it to a Muslim girl, they’d be shot".
As the parliamentary inquiry into the conduct of local agencies and authorities continues questions have been asked of the competency of the very bodies that were supposed to protect the abused. During the questioning of resigning Rotherham chief executive it emerged that an important and detailed piece of evidence, a 2008 report on child abuse has “disappeared” from the council’s archives.
The inquiry continues.
UK Muslima, a doctor, happily poses with severed head: “Dream Job”
And she is a doctor to boot. Doesn’t Mujahidah bint Usama know that poverty causes terrorism?
“Jihadi DOCTOR stands with severed head in her hand as kids look on in horror,” by Sophie Alexander, Daily Star, September 8, 2014:
A BRITISH doctor and suspected jihadi holds aloft a severed head while two children look on in horror.
The sickening snap is posted on Mujahidah Bint Usama’s Twitter page and shows her wearing a white lab coat, veil and holding her arm outstretched, with what appears to be a decapitated head.
The photo is captioned “Dream Job.. A Terrorist Doc” which she has added a smiley face song and two hearts to.
On the description of herself she has a quote from Anwar al-Awlaki – a high profile terrorist for al-Qaida.
It reads: “Running away from Jihād will not save you from death. You can die as a coward or you can die as a martyr.”
The jihadi is just one of a frighteningly increasing number of British women who have travelled to Syria and Iraq to fight for the IS.
Many have been put in charge of stamping out “immoral” behaviour at the centre of the terror group.
They have joined the feared al-Khansaa brigade – an all female force intent on hunting down those who do not strictly follow sharia-law.
They brigade operates in Raqqa – the Syrian city where the IS set up its headquarters and close to where American hostages James Foley and Steven Sotloff are believed to have been executed.
A key figure in the al-Khanssaa brigade, according to researchers at the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation (ICSR), based in King’s College in London, is Aqsa Mahmood, a 20-year-old woman from Glasgow who fled to Syria in November last year.
She rose to notoriety for praising the killers of drummer Lee Rigby and recently posted on social media: “If you cannot make it to the battlefield, then bring the battlefield to yourself.”
A group of four British women have used Twitter to express their interest in joining the unofficial sharia police force.
One of them – known only as Umm Farriss – arrived in Syria in February and posted a photo online of her suicide bomb.
Sixteen-year-old twins Salma and Zahra Halane are both thought to have married jihadists since fleeing their Manchester home in June.
Sally Jones, 45, ran away to wage jihad with her tomboy husband, Junaid Hussain, 20.
She is thought to have snuck into Syria at the end of last year after an online romance with computer-hacker Hussain.
Jones, recently tweeted a message saying: “You Christians all need beheading with a nice blunt knife and stuck on the railings at Raqqa. Come here. I’ll do it for you!”
Raja dan Islam
Islam tidak pernah menetapkan bentuk sesebuah negara untuk dikatakan sebuah negara Islam. Sistem beraja pernah dan masih menjadi bentuk sebuah negara yang tertegak di dalamnya nilai dan perundangan Islam.
Sebuah negara demokrasi juga boleh menjadi pemerintahan Islam, begitu juga sebuah negara republik tidak menghalang tertegaknya pemerintahan Islam di dalamnya.
Islam dan pemerintahan menjangkau perbahasan bentuk dan format, kerana nilai pemerintahan yang bermatlamatkan keadilan adalah tanda aras kepada sebuah pemerintahan.
Tidak ada maknanya walau apa nama negara yang dibentuk, tetapi keadilan dikesampingkan waima nama negara itu dinamakan dengan nama Islam sekalipun.
Raja atau Sultan merupakan individu yang memainkan peranan besar menjelmakan nilai pemerintahan Islam dalam dunia dan alam Melayu.
Peranan besar yang dimainkan ini berjaya membentuk institusi kesultanan atau institusi beraja yang sinonim bentuk perlindungan kepada kedaulatan Islam sehingga mereka menamakan diri mereka sebagai Zillullah Fil Ardh atau “Bayangan Allah di Bumi”.
Walaupun tradisi beraja sejak zaman pra Islam memakai konsep ini dengan kesesuaian dogma kepercayaan waktu itu, konsep figura suci raja-raja setelah datangnya Islam diberi makna baru kepada perlindungan syariat dan menegakkan keadilan dalam kerangka syariat Islam.
Transformasi sistem kesultanan kepada kerangka Islam tidak syak memainkan peranan Islam dijelmakan dalam bentuk kedaulatan sebagai kerajaan. Oleh kerana Islam tidak mengenali perpisahan antara kerajaan dan agama, maka ulama sebagai institusi menjadi penasihat supaya raja-raja Melayu tidak tergelincir daripada ajaran Islam.
Namun hubungan Islam dengan kesultanan kadangkala dicemari kebimbangan tidak dapat mengekalkan status-quo kuasa, dengan kata lain faktor kuasa dan kecenderungan mempertahankannya termasuklah mereka yang mendapat manfaat menumpang kuasa kadangkala mengabaikan nilai utama pemerintahan, iaitu hak kebebasan bersuara dan menegur pemerintahan.
Pertembungan antara melindungi kuasa dan memberikan hak bersuara sering menyaksikan natijah yang lebih berpihak kepada melindungi kuasa lebih diutamakan.
Kebebasan bersuara yang dianggap tidak banyak berpihak kepada kepentingan dapat terus berkuasa akan berpotensi diabaikan, malah kadangkala dibenamkan.
Demikian halnya dengan apa sahaja bentuk kerajaan yang wujud dahulu dan sekarang, konflik antara memberikan hak kebebasan bersuara dan menjaga kepentingan kuasa akan membentuk hubungan yang menekan antara kerajaan dan rakyat.
Hari ini negara kita memeluk konsep dan bentuk negara yang mengamalkan demokrasi berparlimen, di mana institusi beraja mempunyai kuasa dalam kerangka perlembagaan yang mendefinasikan kuasa Raja atau Sultan.
Istilah yang digunakan ialah Raja Berperlembagaan. Hakikat bahawa institusi beraja dipandu oleh perlembagaan membezakan kita dengan konsep absolute monarchy atau “raja mutlak” yang mempunyai kuasa penuh ke atas perjalanan kerajaannya.
Apapun status raja dalam kategori kuasa, Islam meletakkan beberapa prinsip asas dalam memahami konsep pemerintahan demi memelihara nilai kebebasan bersuara supaya tidak diabaikan dan dibenamkan.
Hak bersuara sebahagian daripada maksud kemuliaan insan yang diiktirafi oleh Islam dalam Al Isra’ ayat 79.
Prinsip asas ini mestilah dipatuhi dan dibela oleh kerajaan dan rakyat kerana antara mempertahankan kuasa yang dimiliki oleh kerajaan dengan mempertahankan hak kebebasan bersuara maka mempertahankan hak kebebasan bersuara adalah lebih utama, kerana kerajaan dengan kuasanya boleh datang dan pergi tetapi hak kebebasan bersuara akan kekal selamanya.
Justeru Islam meletakkan beberapa prinsip asas:
1. Kekuasaan mutlak (absolute and eternal) hanyalah pada Allah yang menentukan kuasa kepada siapa yang Dia dikehendaki. Segala kuasa lain termasuk kuasa kerajaan atau raja hanyalah sementara yang dipinjamkan. Segala sesuatu yang sementara (temporal) bermakna kuasa mereka mestilah dilaksanakan mengikut kehendak dan perintah pemilik mutlak. Jika ‘peminjam’ membuat sesuatu luar daripada ditetapkan, maka menegur kerajaan atau raja tidak boleh dianggap derhaka malah merit teguran itu mesti diadili atas neraca Allah yang mempunyai milik mutlak kuasa.
2. Sahsiah figura atau ketua negara atau apa sahaja istilah yang digunakan seperti perdana menteri, presiden atau raja bukanlah suci daripada sebarang kesalahan, dan kerana itu keperluan menegur adalah sesuatu yang pasti. Menganggap mana-mana figura yang berperanan sebagai ketua tidak boleh ditegur kerana kemaksumannya atau sakralnya adalah khurafat besar yang mesti dihapuskan. Budaya Melayu mengajar kita dari kata-kata Hang Jebat yang malangnya dikaitkan dengan penderhakaan, “Raja adil raja disembah, raja zalim raja disanggah.”
3. Raja, perdana menteri atau presiden adalah aparatus untuk menegakkan keadilan dan membela hak kepada yang berhak. Apabila aparatus atau alat gagal berfungsi untuk melaksanakannya, maka teguran untuk membetulkan aparatus itu perlu dilakukan kerana tidak mungkin ‘alat’ lebih besar dari matlamat apabila menegur ‘alat’ dianggap derhaka dan tidak patriotik.
4. Kuasa dan bebanannya bukanlah kepada kenikmatannya tetapi kuasa dan bebanannya adalah kepada menjalankan tugas dengan penuh tanggungjawab dan insaf. Raja atau perdana menteri berada pada tempatnya untuk menjadi contoh unggul, dan paling utama akhlak seseorang raja ialah berendah diri dengan kuasa dan menjinakkan kuasa yang ada pada dirinya, dan bukan dijinakkan kuasa lalu menjadi hamba kepada kuasa. Apabila Raja atau perdana menteri menjadi hamba kuasa maka bertakhtalah ia di hati, maka rakyat akan menjadi mangsa sebagaimana kisah Sultan Mahmud memenuhi nafsunya. Raja yang rendah diri dengan kuasanya dan sedia ditegur adalah raja yang berhati di jiwa rakyat dan apabila seseorang berada di hati kita, maka hubungan raja dan rakyat adalah hubungan kasih.
Islam menentang sikap kuku besi kerana segala nilai kebebasan menegur dan mengkritik secara membina tidak akan menemui cahaya harapan. Berbeza dengan set minda doktrin yang mengangap kritikan kepada raja adalah penderhakaan, Islam meletakkan kritikan kepada raja sebagai kasih untuk menyelamatkan ketua dan untuk memelihara kepentingan umum.
Rasulullah bersabda, “Tolonglah saudara kamu yang zalim atau yang dizalimi”, berkata seorang lelaki, “Wahai Rasulullah, aku akan menolongnya jika ia dizalimi, bagaimana pula aku akan menolongnya jika dia seorang yang zalim?” jawab baginda, “Engkau boleh menahannya daripada melakukan kezaliman, maka yang demikian bererti engkau menolongnya” (Riwayat Bukhari)
Hubungan raja dan rakyat adalah hubungan kasih dipandu ajaran agama Islam yang suci kerana raja dan rakyat berpisah tiada seperti umat dan syariat terikat padu bagaikan satu.
#HapuskanAktaHasutan #SolidaritiUntukMangsaKebebasanBersuara – 13 September, 2014.
* Ini adalah pendapat peribadi penulis dan tidak semestinya mewakili pandangan The Malaysian Insider.
Sebuah negara demokrasi juga boleh menjadi pemerintahan Islam, begitu juga sebuah negara republik tidak menghalang tertegaknya pemerintahan Islam di dalamnya.
Islam dan pemerintahan menjangkau perbahasan bentuk dan format, kerana nilai pemerintahan yang bermatlamatkan keadilan adalah tanda aras kepada sebuah pemerintahan.
Tidak ada maknanya walau apa nama negara yang dibentuk, tetapi keadilan dikesampingkan waima nama negara itu dinamakan dengan nama Islam sekalipun.
Raja atau Sultan merupakan individu yang memainkan peranan besar menjelmakan nilai pemerintahan Islam dalam dunia dan alam Melayu.
Peranan besar yang dimainkan ini berjaya membentuk institusi kesultanan atau institusi beraja yang sinonim bentuk perlindungan kepada kedaulatan Islam sehingga mereka menamakan diri mereka sebagai Zillullah Fil Ardh atau “Bayangan Allah di Bumi”.
Walaupun tradisi beraja sejak zaman pra Islam memakai konsep ini dengan kesesuaian dogma kepercayaan waktu itu, konsep figura suci raja-raja setelah datangnya Islam diberi makna baru kepada perlindungan syariat dan menegakkan keadilan dalam kerangka syariat Islam.
Transformasi sistem kesultanan kepada kerangka Islam tidak syak memainkan peranan Islam dijelmakan dalam bentuk kedaulatan sebagai kerajaan. Oleh kerana Islam tidak mengenali perpisahan antara kerajaan dan agama, maka ulama sebagai institusi menjadi penasihat supaya raja-raja Melayu tidak tergelincir daripada ajaran Islam.
Namun hubungan Islam dengan kesultanan kadangkala dicemari kebimbangan tidak dapat mengekalkan status-quo kuasa, dengan kata lain faktor kuasa dan kecenderungan mempertahankannya termasuklah mereka yang mendapat manfaat menumpang kuasa kadangkala mengabaikan nilai utama pemerintahan, iaitu hak kebebasan bersuara dan menegur pemerintahan.
Pertembungan antara melindungi kuasa dan memberikan hak bersuara sering menyaksikan natijah yang lebih berpihak kepada melindungi kuasa lebih diutamakan.
Kebebasan bersuara yang dianggap tidak banyak berpihak kepada kepentingan dapat terus berkuasa akan berpotensi diabaikan, malah kadangkala dibenamkan.
Demikian halnya dengan apa sahaja bentuk kerajaan yang wujud dahulu dan sekarang, konflik antara memberikan hak kebebasan bersuara dan menjaga kepentingan kuasa akan membentuk hubungan yang menekan antara kerajaan dan rakyat.
Hari ini negara kita memeluk konsep dan bentuk negara yang mengamalkan demokrasi berparlimen, di mana institusi beraja mempunyai kuasa dalam kerangka perlembagaan yang mendefinasikan kuasa Raja atau Sultan.
Istilah yang digunakan ialah Raja Berperlembagaan. Hakikat bahawa institusi beraja dipandu oleh perlembagaan membezakan kita dengan konsep absolute monarchy atau “raja mutlak” yang mempunyai kuasa penuh ke atas perjalanan kerajaannya.
Apapun status raja dalam kategori kuasa, Islam meletakkan beberapa prinsip asas dalam memahami konsep pemerintahan demi memelihara nilai kebebasan bersuara supaya tidak diabaikan dan dibenamkan.
Hak bersuara sebahagian daripada maksud kemuliaan insan yang diiktirafi oleh Islam dalam Al Isra’ ayat 79.
Prinsip asas ini mestilah dipatuhi dan dibela oleh kerajaan dan rakyat kerana antara mempertahankan kuasa yang dimiliki oleh kerajaan dengan mempertahankan hak kebebasan bersuara maka mempertahankan hak kebebasan bersuara adalah lebih utama, kerana kerajaan dengan kuasanya boleh datang dan pergi tetapi hak kebebasan bersuara akan kekal selamanya.
Justeru Islam meletakkan beberapa prinsip asas:
1. Kekuasaan mutlak (absolute and eternal) hanyalah pada Allah yang menentukan kuasa kepada siapa yang Dia dikehendaki. Segala kuasa lain termasuk kuasa kerajaan atau raja hanyalah sementara yang dipinjamkan. Segala sesuatu yang sementara (temporal) bermakna kuasa mereka mestilah dilaksanakan mengikut kehendak dan perintah pemilik mutlak. Jika ‘peminjam’ membuat sesuatu luar daripada ditetapkan, maka menegur kerajaan atau raja tidak boleh dianggap derhaka malah merit teguran itu mesti diadili atas neraca Allah yang mempunyai milik mutlak kuasa.
2. Sahsiah figura atau ketua negara atau apa sahaja istilah yang digunakan seperti perdana menteri, presiden atau raja bukanlah suci daripada sebarang kesalahan, dan kerana itu keperluan menegur adalah sesuatu yang pasti. Menganggap mana-mana figura yang berperanan sebagai ketua tidak boleh ditegur kerana kemaksumannya atau sakralnya adalah khurafat besar yang mesti dihapuskan. Budaya Melayu mengajar kita dari kata-kata Hang Jebat yang malangnya dikaitkan dengan penderhakaan, “Raja adil raja disembah, raja zalim raja disanggah.”
3. Raja, perdana menteri atau presiden adalah aparatus untuk menegakkan keadilan dan membela hak kepada yang berhak. Apabila aparatus atau alat gagal berfungsi untuk melaksanakannya, maka teguran untuk membetulkan aparatus itu perlu dilakukan kerana tidak mungkin ‘alat’ lebih besar dari matlamat apabila menegur ‘alat’ dianggap derhaka dan tidak patriotik.
4. Kuasa dan bebanannya bukanlah kepada kenikmatannya tetapi kuasa dan bebanannya adalah kepada menjalankan tugas dengan penuh tanggungjawab dan insaf. Raja atau perdana menteri berada pada tempatnya untuk menjadi contoh unggul, dan paling utama akhlak seseorang raja ialah berendah diri dengan kuasa dan menjinakkan kuasa yang ada pada dirinya, dan bukan dijinakkan kuasa lalu menjadi hamba kepada kuasa. Apabila Raja atau perdana menteri menjadi hamba kuasa maka bertakhtalah ia di hati, maka rakyat akan menjadi mangsa sebagaimana kisah Sultan Mahmud memenuhi nafsunya. Raja yang rendah diri dengan kuasanya dan sedia ditegur adalah raja yang berhati di jiwa rakyat dan apabila seseorang berada di hati kita, maka hubungan raja dan rakyat adalah hubungan kasih.
Islam menentang sikap kuku besi kerana segala nilai kebebasan menegur dan mengkritik secara membina tidak akan menemui cahaya harapan. Berbeza dengan set minda doktrin yang mengangap kritikan kepada raja adalah penderhakaan, Islam meletakkan kritikan kepada raja sebagai kasih untuk menyelamatkan ketua dan untuk memelihara kepentingan umum.
Rasulullah bersabda, “Tolonglah saudara kamu yang zalim atau yang dizalimi”, berkata seorang lelaki, “Wahai Rasulullah, aku akan menolongnya jika ia dizalimi, bagaimana pula aku akan menolongnya jika dia seorang yang zalim?” jawab baginda, “Engkau boleh menahannya daripada melakukan kezaliman, maka yang demikian bererti engkau menolongnya” (Riwayat Bukhari)
Hubungan raja dan rakyat adalah hubungan kasih dipandu ajaran agama Islam yang suci kerana raja dan rakyat berpisah tiada seperti umat dan syariat terikat padu bagaikan satu.
#HapuskanAktaHasutan #SolidaritiUntukMangsaKebebasanBersuara – 13 September, 2014.
* Ini adalah pendapat peribadi penulis dan tidak semestinya mewakili pandangan The Malaysian Insider.
The Selangor MB crisis, beyond a matter of decorum
The Selangor Palace is clearly peeved by what they see as insolent and defiant conduct by two of the Pakatan Rakyat coalition parties – for refusing to supply more names for the Sultan's consideration for the post of Menteri Besar (MB).To many, the obdurate stance of these parties is puzzling. Just give the two or more names and all will be well and over.
But will that solve the crisis? Or breed yet another?
In his 22 years as prime minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad informs, there has always been one name submitted to the monarch by the major party of the ruling coalition for the MB's post; the Sultan then constitutionally endorses the decision of the party in power.
Why then is there a departure in what should constitutionally be a routine selection and endorsement by the Sultan of the choice made by the current coalition in power in Selangor?
And what should be made of the contention that the Palace – in determining who commands the majority of the members of the state legislative assembly – can choose anyone whose name is not even provided by the majority party, and on the basis of a wide range of subjective criteria?
This seems to suggest that the Sultan has absolute discretion in choosing whoever he feels fits the criteria and that he is free to decide who commands the majority – even if there is a clear indication by the party in power of who is their chosen candidate and who commands the majority in fact.
Quite naturally it is always prudent, and indeed well known, that in submitting a candidate for the post of MB, parties invariably take into consideration the acceptability of the candidate to the Ruler.
This shows, said the late Sultan Raja Azlan Shah of Perak "the importance of the role of the Rulers even in matters in which they have no absolute discretion, even though at times their actions are difficult to justify". This averts any major constitutional crisis.
But as both Sultan Azlan Shah and our first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman noted, "The Rulers too should reciprocate;" "... and show their appreciation and play the role they are expected to".
This is really the nub of the matter.
In a constitution grounded in democracy, the respective players must play their part.
One runs the government on the basis of the mandate given in an election, the other ensures that the will of the majority is carried through, including in the choice of their leader to run the government.
In appointing the prime minister or the MB (as the case may be) – implied Raja Azlan Shah in an article written after he relinquished the highest post in the judiciary to become the Sultan of Perak ("The Role of Constitutional Rulers in Malaysia") – the Yang DiPertuan Agong (and by extension the Sultan) "is not completely free".
The Constitution requires him to appoint a member of the House of Representatives who in his judgement commands the confidence of the majority of the members of that House.
And there has not been any problem if (inter alia) the Sultan or the King endorses the decision made by the major party in the coalition. Because "when a party chooses its leader it is always with the understanding that if the party comes to power, he would be the PM" said Raja Azlan Shah.
A crisis emerges when these roles are confused and this does not take place.
The matter goes beyond hurt feelings over a lack of decorum? These can, and seem to have been, assuaged by appropriate apologies.
But upholding the basis of a functioning constitutional democracy – are these not the fundamental principles at stake? – September 12, 2014.
* Gurdial Singh Nijar is a professor of law at Universiti Malaya.
Court orders IGP to arrest Ridhuan, retrieve child
High Court judge Lee Swee Seng granted the order of mandamus (order to compel) the IGP to respond and make the arrest.“It is hoped that with the mandamus order and the full resources of the state at the IGP's disposal, Indira will be able to see her child perhaps even before Malaysia Day, which is next Tuesday,” Justice Lee said.
The people have an expectation that the IGP, being the chief law enforcer, would execute his duties fairly and firmly, without fear or favour and that as we celebrate Malaysia Day, we can yet affirm that we are a country where the rule of law prevails, that no one is above the law, and that the court, as established under the constitution,does not act in vain,” he said.
The judge also noted that the Ipoh Syariah High Court had issued no order to execute the order on the police.
Justice Lee also refused senior federal counsel Nor Hisham Ismail’s application for a stay order.
The Ipoh hearing is the result of a review application filed by M Indira Gandhi in June to compel IGP Khalid to arrest Ridhuan and hand Prasana Diksa back to her mother.The IGP or his representative had been ordered to answer to the High Court in Ipoh today to explain why he has not been able to make the arrest till now.
Although Justice Lee hopes that the order would be complied with before Tuesday, one of the orders allowed demands that the IGP to do so within seven days of the court order.
This was tweeted by one of the lawyers appearing for kindergarten teacher Indira, M Kulasegaran, in this unilateral conversion and custodial dispute.
It was reported on Wednesday that the Court of Appeal had refused to grant Ridhuan an extension of time to file his Memorandum of Appeal after it allowed an objection filed by Indira's lawyers that the contemptor (Ridhuan) cannot be heard in court.
Ridhuan can no more set contempt order aside
With Wednesday’s decision, Ridhuan has exhausted all his avenues to set aside the contempt order the High Court in Ipoh issued on May 30 to return Prasana Diksa.
Khalid
had previously stated that the police could not comply with the civil
court order as there is an Ipoh Syariah court order which granted
custody to Ridhuan.He had proposed “a middle path” in inter-faith custody disputes by placing the child in welfare centres until the situation is resolved by the courts.
Prasana Diksa was taken by Ridhuan in 2009, when she was just 11 months old when he converted to Islam, and later he converted the child to Islam.
Indira Gandhi and Ridhuan have two other children, a son and a daughter who are with the mother.The couple was married in 1993 according to Hindu rites.
Kulasegaran, who appeared with lawyers Aston Paiva, and A Sivanesan, expressed hope outside the court that Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak would direct Khalid to carry out his obligations and duties.
He said the continued refusal of IGP Khalid to enforce the arrest warrant is misconceived and directly challenges the judicial process.
"To the best of my knowledge the open defiance by the IGP to enforce court orders is the first in the Commonwealth.
“The action of the IGP is uncalled for, unnecessary and conveys a wrong message to citizens. I am perplexed by the continuous stubbornness of the IGP in his refusal to enforce the court orders,” he said.
Kulasegaran also urged Najib to intervene and direct the IGP to carry out his obligations as set out in the Police Act.He said in short the IGP is plainly flouting the law and who else other than the PM can order him to adhere to the court orders.
Failing this the people will lose confidence in the democratic institutions and process of the country,” he said.
Failing this the people will lose confidence in the democratic institutions and process of the country,” he said.
Kulasegaran said although the order on the IGP is for seven days, it the court will take sometime to produce it , technically it would take two weeks.
Indira Gandhi's case differs from that of S Deepa, in that her husband N Viran @ Izwan Abdullah, has a Seremban Syariah High Court order compelling the police to help retrieve his two children.
Ridhuan, despite given custody by the Ipoh Syariah High Court, faces no such order.
Will reports be made over Dr M's 'Malays are lazy'?
COMMENT So
will right-wing Malay groups make a beeline outside police stations to
file a battery of reports against former prime minister Dr Mahathir
Mohamad?
What about the self-appointed defender of the Malays, Ibrahim Ali? What is the Perkasa chief's take on the scathing indictment of his race by the movement's patron?
And will Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (Isma) chief Abdullah Zaik Abd Rahman sound the clarion call?
Last but not least, will the identity crisis suffering Ridhuan Tee Abdullah pen a vitriolic response to these "ultra kiasu" comments in his weekly newspaper column?
Speaking of Ridhuan, it is often suggested that the 89-year-old former prime minister, too, is afflicted by a similar condition.
Speaking at the book launch of ‘Wahai Melayu’ by entrepreneur Anas Zubedy yesterday, Mahathir systematically ran down the country’s majority ethnic group.
He called them "lazy", "unashamed of being failures" and accused them of "lacking integrity in handling money" and even went as far as suggesting that they are petty thieves.
Such derogatory remarks are far worse than calling Umno "celaka" and one wonders if Umno Youth would storm the octogenarian's house in protest.
Furthermore, aren't Mahathir's remarks considered seditious? Will the current sedition law dragnet include him as well?
This is not a call for the police to investigate the ex-PM under the Sedition Act but to point out the double standard and selective application of the law.
As for Mahathir, such racially-tainted statements come as no surprise, given his track record. He is known for his sweeping remarks and has, time and again, condemned Malays as he did the Jews last month.
When airing his views on the military strikes on Palestine, he had dismissed all Jews as evil following the brutal actions of Israel.
Never mind that many Jews around the world also protested against the Zionist regime.
Similarly, there are many Malays who are hardworking and possess immaculate integrity in matters of finance.
Contradictions
One observer quipped that perhaps Mahathir was using Umno leaders as the yardstick for his critique.
In the foreword of Anas’ book Mahathir penned, he again defended the New Economic Policy (NEP) and warned Malays against the perils of rejecting affirmative actions.
Is this not a contradiction?
On one hand, he supports a policy that provides a head start to its recipients of a certain race, who in return might slip into a comfort zone and lose their competitive edge.
And on the other hand, he accuses them of bone idling and not working hard enough.
Affirmative actions must be colour blind and be extended to those in a disadvantaged economic positionm irrespective of colour and creed.
In the case of the NEP, there has been much abuse over the decades, which have rendered the policy's aims unachievable.
As for Mahathir and his tongue-lashing, "lazy" he is not, "unashamed" he is not, but the jury is still out on whether the former prime minister of 22 years is qualified to broach the subject of "integrity".
What about the self-appointed defender of the Malays, Ibrahim Ali? What is the Perkasa chief's take on the scathing indictment of his race by the movement's patron?
And will Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (Isma) chief Abdullah Zaik Abd Rahman sound the clarion call?
Last but not least, will the identity crisis suffering Ridhuan Tee Abdullah pen a vitriolic response to these "ultra kiasu" comments in his weekly newspaper column?
Speaking of Ridhuan, it is often suggested that the 89-year-old former prime minister, too, is afflicted by a similar condition.
Speaking at the book launch of ‘Wahai Melayu’ by entrepreneur Anas Zubedy yesterday, Mahathir systematically ran down the country’s majority ethnic group.He called them "lazy", "unashamed of being failures" and accused them of "lacking integrity in handling money" and even went as far as suggesting that they are petty thieves.
Such derogatory remarks are far worse than calling Umno "celaka" and one wonders if Umno Youth would storm the octogenarian's house in protest.
Furthermore, aren't Mahathir's remarks considered seditious? Will the current sedition law dragnet include him as well?
This is not a call for the police to investigate the ex-PM under the Sedition Act but to point out the double standard and selective application of the law.
As for Mahathir, such racially-tainted statements come as no surprise, given his track record. He is known for his sweeping remarks and has, time and again, condemned Malays as he did the Jews last month.
When airing his views on the military strikes on Palestine, he had dismissed all Jews as evil following the brutal actions of Israel.
Never mind that many Jews around the world also protested against the Zionist regime.
Similarly, there are many Malays who are hardworking and possess immaculate integrity in matters of finance.
Contradictions
One observer quipped that perhaps Mahathir was using Umno leaders as the yardstick for his critique.
In the foreword of Anas’ book Mahathir penned, he again defended the New Economic Policy (NEP) and warned Malays against the perils of rejecting affirmative actions.
Is this not a contradiction?
On one hand, he supports a policy that provides a head start to its recipients of a certain race, who in return might slip into a comfort zone and lose their competitive edge.
And on the other hand, he accuses them of bone idling and not working hard enough.
Affirmative actions must be colour blind and be extended to those in a disadvantaged economic positionm irrespective of colour and creed.
In the case of the NEP, there has been much abuse over the decades, which have rendered the policy's aims unachievable.
As for Mahathir and his tongue-lashing, "lazy" he is not, "unashamed" he is not, but the jury is still out on whether the former prime minister of 22 years is qualified to broach the subject of "integrity".
Jangan tuduh Melayu malas dan tidak jujur
Pengerusi Majlis Gagasan Malaysia gesa Tun Mahathir menarik semula kenyataan mengenai orang Melayu kerana menganggap ia tidak adil untuk orang Melayu keseluruhannya.
PETALING JAYA: Pengerusi Majlis Gagasan Malaysia, Manivannan Rethinam membidas kenyataan mantan Perdana Menteri, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad yang mengatakan “Melayu malas” dan “Melayu tidak berfikir dua kali untuk mengambil wang yang bukan milik mereka”..
Menurutnya, kenyataan daripada Dr Mahathir itu tidak benar kerana ia seperti menuduh semua orang Melayu malas dan tidak amanah sedangkan hanya segelintir yang begitu.
“Secara peribadi, saya mempunyai ramai kenalan dan rakan dari kalangan orang Melayu yang jujur dan mempunyai nilai etika yang boleh dipandang tinggi.
“Kenyataan Tun Dr Mahathir yang mengatakan kegagalannya untuk mengubah orang Melayu daripada bersikap malas dan tidak amanah setelah 22 tahun memerintah adalah salahnya sendiri,” katanya dalam satu kenyataan kepada FMT.
Tegasnya, beliau mengesa supaya Dr Mahathir tidak membuat kenyataan melulu yang seolah-olah ditujukan kepada semua orang yang berbangsa Melayu.
“Jangan menuduh orang Melayu pemalas dan tidak jujur. Kenyataan mantan perdana menteri ini tidak sesuai buat masa ini kerana boleh melemahkan bangsa Melayu,” ujarnya.
Semalam dalam ucapannya di majlis pelancaran Buku #WahaiMelayu karangan Anas Zubedy, Dr Mahathir menyatakan pandangannya yang menyentuh tentang orang Melayu pada masa ini kurang amanah.
Menurut Dr Mahathir, setelah 22 tahun, beliau masih gagal untuk mengubah persepsi yang mengatakan orang Melayu malas dan kurang amanah.
Di dalam ucapannya juga, beliau mengatakan yang orang Melayu tidak malu jika gagal dalam peperiksaan mahupun gagal dalam kehidupan.
Menurutnya, kenyataan daripada Dr Mahathir itu tidak benar kerana ia seperti menuduh semua orang Melayu malas dan tidak amanah sedangkan hanya segelintir yang begitu.
“Secara peribadi, saya mempunyai ramai kenalan dan rakan dari kalangan orang Melayu yang jujur dan mempunyai nilai etika yang boleh dipandang tinggi.
“Kenyataan Tun Dr Mahathir yang mengatakan kegagalannya untuk mengubah orang Melayu daripada bersikap malas dan tidak amanah setelah 22 tahun memerintah adalah salahnya sendiri,” katanya dalam satu kenyataan kepada FMT.
Tegasnya, beliau mengesa supaya Dr Mahathir tidak membuat kenyataan melulu yang seolah-olah ditujukan kepada semua orang yang berbangsa Melayu.
“Jangan menuduh orang Melayu pemalas dan tidak jujur. Kenyataan mantan perdana menteri ini tidak sesuai buat masa ini kerana boleh melemahkan bangsa Melayu,” ujarnya.
Semalam dalam ucapannya di majlis pelancaran Buku #WahaiMelayu karangan Anas Zubedy, Dr Mahathir menyatakan pandangannya yang menyentuh tentang orang Melayu pada masa ini kurang amanah.
Menurut Dr Mahathir, setelah 22 tahun, beliau masih gagal untuk mengubah persepsi yang mengatakan orang Melayu malas dan kurang amanah.
Di dalam ucapannya juga, beliau mengatakan yang orang Melayu tidak malu jika gagal dalam peperiksaan mahupun gagal dalam kehidupan.
Sarawakians ‘confused’ over Merdeka Day
People in Sarawak feel that Aug 31 is not their day of independence.
KUCHING: Sarawakians on both sides of the divide are unanimous that Aug 31, the common day for Sabah and the peninsula, is not their Hari Merdeka (Independence Day).
Otherwise, they appear divided on what should be seen as their independence day.
The Sarawak Government, for the first time in 50 years, recognised July 22 as Sarawak’s Independence Day, which then Chief Minister Abdul Taib Mahmud referred to as Liberation Day.
The Sarawak Association for People’s Aspirations (Sapa), an NGO for Sarawak rights, has vowed that it will observe Sept 24 as the “real” independence day of Sarawak. That was the day in 1841 when the Sultan of Brunei ceded 3,000 sq mls around the Sarawak River in Kuching to English adventurer James Brooke.
From that day, Sarawak steadily expanded with more territory joining it until it reached its present size. Brunei escaped being swallowed up by Sarawak when the British stepped in and declared it as their protectorate.
Sapa President Lina Soo said that her NGO will urge all Sarawakians to observe Sept 24 as Fair Land Sarawak Day after the old Sarawak anthem, “Fair Land Sarawak”.
“Sarawak does not need to observe Aug 31 as it did not gain independence on that date,” said Soo whose organisation has the support of several other NGOs on not celebrating Aug 31.
Sept 24 is something new to other Sarawakians but her stand on Aug 31 has struck a cord with Parti Rakyat Sarawak President James Masing, Sarawak Opposition Leader Baru Bian, social activist Peter Minos, Deputy Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly Roland Sagah, Temenggong Lu Kim Yong, Management of Kuching Chung Hua Primary Schools No. 1-6 Committee chairman Dr Chou Chii Ming, and Welfare, Women and Family Development Minister Fatimah Abdullah.
They were commenting on Minister of Communication and Multimedia Ahmad Shabery Cheek’s announcement that Malaysia would continue to commemorate Aug 31 as its Independence Day from next year, without mentioning the anniversary year.
“It’s important to put forward actual and accurate historical facts,” said Fatimah in rejecting Aug 31.
“We can continue with all the celebrations. We need to respect and compromise as well as take care of each other’s sensitivities,” said Lu.
James, joining several others in extending an olive branch, thinks that Sabah, Sarawak and the peninsula should decide on Sept 16 as the common date to celebrate National Day.
“We can join them – Sabah and the peninsula – on Aug 31 if they invite us,” he said.
Otherwise, they appear divided on what should be seen as their independence day.
The Sarawak Government, for the first time in 50 years, recognised July 22 as Sarawak’s Independence Day, which then Chief Minister Abdul Taib Mahmud referred to as Liberation Day.
The Sarawak Association for People’s Aspirations (Sapa), an NGO for Sarawak rights, has vowed that it will observe Sept 24 as the “real” independence day of Sarawak. That was the day in 1841 when the Sultan of Brunei ceded 3,000 sq mls around the Sarawak River in Kuching to English adventurer James Brooke.
From that day, Sarawak steadily expanded with more territory joining it until it reached its present size. Brunei escaped being swallowed up by Sarawak when the British stepped in and declared it as their protectorate.
Sapa President Lina Soo said that her NGO will urge all Sarawakians to observe Sept 24 as Fair Land Sarawak Day after the old Sarawak anthem, “Fair Land Sarawak”.
“Sarawak does not need to observe Aug 31 as it did not gain independence on that date,” said Soo whose organisation has the support of several other NGOs on not celebrating Aug 31.
Sept 24 is something new to other Sarawakians but her stand on Aug 31 has struck a cord with Parti Rakyat Sarawak President James Masing, Sarawak Opposition Leader Baru Bian, social activist Peter Minos, Deputy Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly Roland Sagah, Temenggong Lu Kim Yong, Management of Kuching Chung Hua Primary Schools No. 1-6 Committee chairman Dr Chou Chii Ming, and Welfare, Women and Family Development Minister Fatimah Abdullah.
They were commenting on Minister of Communication and Multimedia Ahmad Shabery Cheek’s announcement that Malaysia would continue to commemorate Aug 31 as its Independence Day from next year, without mentioning the anniversary year.
“It’s important to put forward actual and accurate historical facts,” said Fatimah in rejecting Aug 31.
“We can continue with all the celebrations. We need to respect and compromise as well as take care of each other’s sensitivities,” said Lu.
James, joining several others in extending an olive branch, thinks that Sabah, Sarawak and the peninsula should decide on Sept 16 as the common date to celebrate National Day.
“We can join them – Sabah and the peninsula – on Aug 31 if they invite us,” he said.
N.Surendran’s Sedition Charges Jeopardises Anwar’s Final Appeal
PRESS STATEMENT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
12 SEPTEMBER 2014
LFL: N.Surendran’s Sedition Charges Jeopardises Anwar’s Final Appeal
LFL views with serious concern the two sedition charges against N. Surendran for statements made in his capacity as Anwar Ibrahim’s lawyer. The first charge against Surendran was for mere criticism of the Court of Appeal’s judgment convicting Anwar; whereas the second charge was for comments relating to the case made after attending a case management hearing on behalf of Anwar at the Federal Court.
The alleged seditious statements made were in fact the crux of Anwar Ibrahim’s legal defence at the Federal Court appeal. It is shocking and unacceptable for a lawyer to be charged for statements made in relation to his client’s case, and even more so for statements which also form the basis of the client’s legal defence.
Needless to say, these charges have enormous ramifications on the independence of the Bar and the right of lawyers to defend their clients and to act without fear or favour. The public will be adversely affected if lawyers begin to fear criminal charges for speaking out on behalf of their clients.
The right to a fair trial crucially includes allowing lawyers to carry out their duties without threat or intimidation from the authorities. In this case, Anwar Ibrahim’s right to a fair hearing in the impending Federal Court appeal on 28 and 29 October 2014 has been seriously jeopardised by the sedition charges which has had a serious impact upon Anwar’s entire legal team.
It is unacceptable for the Federal Court to proceed with Anwar’s appeal with these sedition charges hanging over the head of one of his key lawyers for the appeal.
LFL urges the Attorney-General to urgently review and drop the charges against Surendran. In addition, the AG should also similarly review and drop all charges against all other persons charged under the Sedition Act and work towards the eventual repeal of this draconian law as promised repeatedly by the Prime Minister.
Eric Paulsen
Executive Director
Lawyers for Liberty
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
12 SEPTEMBER 2014
LFL: N.Surendran’s Sedition Charges Jeopardises Anwar’s Final Appeal
LFL views with serious concern the two sedition charges against N. Surendran for statements made in his capacity as Anwar Ibrahim’s lawyer. The first charge against Surendran was for mere criticism of the Court of Appeal’s judgment convicting Anwar; whereas the second charge was for comments relating to the case made after attending a case management hearing on behalf of Anwar at the Federal Court.
The alleged seditious statements made were in fact the crux of Anwar Ibrahim’s legal defence at the Federal Court appeal. It is shocking and unacceptable for a lawyer to be charged for statements made in relation to his client’s case, and even more so for statements which also form the basis of the client’s legal defence.
Needless to say, these charges have enormous ramifications on the independence of the Bar and the right of lawyers to defend their clients and to act without fear or favour. The public will be adversely affected if lawyers begin to fear criminal charges for speaking out on behalf of their clients.
The right to a fair trial crucially includes allowing lawyers to carry out their duties without threat or intimidation from the authorities. In this case, Anwar Ibrahim’s right to a fair hearing in the impending Federal Court appeal on 28 and 29 October 2014 has been seriously jeopardised by the sedition charges which has had a serious impact upon Anwar’s entire legal team.
It is unacceptable for the Federal Court to proceed with Anwar’s appeal with these sedition charges hanging over the head of one of his key lawyers for the appeal.
LFL urges the Attorney-General to urgently review and drop the charges against Surendran. In addition, the AG should also similarly review and drop all charges against all other persons charged under the Sedition Act and work towards the eventual repeal of this draconian law as promised repeatedly by the Prime Minister.
Eric Paulsen
Executive Director
Lawyers for Liberty
Bringing Malaysia back to the ‘middle’ ― Ahmad Iskandar
SEPT 10 ― At the formation of Malaysia, its leaders charted a course for a nation where a multiracial society would live within a democratic framework that embodied the spirit of harmony and understanding. On 16 September 2014, Malaysia will be 51 years old. From recent developments, it seems that Malaysia is veering away from the ideals envisioned when it was first formed.
In recent years and months,Malaysians have been relentlessly bombarded with hateful statements from the likes of Perkasa, Isma and other Malay ethnocentric groups. They have questioned the loyalty of their fellow Malaysians and suggested that the majority of non-Malays are a threat to Malays and national unity. Hiding behind the mask of race and religion, they claim to represent the voice of the majority of Malaysians particularly Malays.
Much more worrying are government ministers who pander to these groups. In efforts to gain political mileage and consolidate their waning support, they have made irresponsible statements and sowed seeds of discord among the communities, and behaving in ways unbecoming of those appointed to public office.
Blatant racism such as this has upset Malaysians at home and abroad. Many took to social media to express their disappointment at the current state of affairs. While some have blamed the media for sensationalising racial and religious issues; a portion of the responsibility should also fall on the shoulders of Malaysians for failing to take a united stand and voicing the strongest possible condemnation to these acts of blatant racism.
Moderate Malaysians are clearly, by far, the majority. Yet the shrill voices of the extremists are constantly heard simply because they have a sense of purpose, are better organised, well-resourced and have access to powers not available to moderate Malaysians. Therefore moderate Malaysians should band together to ensure Malaysia remains a viable moderate nation state.
The responsibility lies with moderate Malaysians to bring Malaysia back to the “middle” by organising themselves, and spreading the message that Malaysia belongs to all Malaysians ― those who came yesterday, today and tomorrow.
Ranting on social media alone will not be enough to improve the situation, but getting organised and taking concrete action will. The failure to nip this problem in the bud by maintaining silence, or apathy or feeling of hopelessness, have allowed those with extreme views to permeate throughout society; crowding out the silent moderate majority, thereby endangering the ideals of a moderate Malaysia.
Cynics might dismiss the optimism of one individual. They argue that one person cannot change the world.
There are many examples of the power of one. The civil rights movement in the United States (US) is illustrative. One woman’s act of disobedience against injustice proved to be crucial in catalysing actions that eventually led to the ending of institutionalised racial discrimination in the US. Rosa Parks, an African American woman, was arrested for refusing to give up her seat to a white person, as required under the existing law then. This incident led to the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the first mass action in the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.
When the boycott began to show its effectiveness, the White Citizens’ Council retaliated with some resorting to violence. They even firebombed Martin Luther King Jr’s house. After the attack, Martin Luther King Jr spoke to the 300 angry African Americans gathered outside. Instead of anger and hate, he was calm and implored the crowd to continue with their peaceful struggle. He said, “If you have weapons, take them home; if you do not have them, please do not seek to get them. We cannot solve this problem through retaliatory violence. We must meet violence with nonviolence.”
History would show that the US civil rights movement contributed significantly towards the reduction of institutionalised racism in the United States, though racism remains a serious problem. It laid the foundations for important reforms and inspired many other movements that fought for other just causes. President Barack Obama has paid tribute to Rosa Parks on many occasions. Indeed there would be no Barack Obama without Rosa Parks.
One should never dismiss any action by any individual as insignificant and futile. Rosa Parks was just one person, but what she did, made significant difference. There are many Rosa Parks in Malaysia. Like her, there are countless unsung heroes that have already done many things that have made a difference, and many more waiting to come forward. It is through these small actions that eventually leads to a critical mass, and snowball to major success in the future such as a moderate Malaysia.
The road ahead will not be easy for Malaysia and moderate Malaysians. For whatever flames of hatred that is fanned to damage the social fabric of the nation, moderate Malaysians should reciprocate by dousing it with calls for calmness and rationality. The first step could be as simple as sitting down and having a ‘teh tarik and roti canai’ with anyone living or working close to you ― your neighbour, colleagues ― of a different background, of a different view, of a different persuasion. With simple friendly exchange such as this, Malaysians could discover that they have more in common than initially believed.
Despite the outward differences, the concerns are similar in many areas such as living peacefully, reducing the cost of living, improving educational quality, reducing crime, and wanting a clean and transparent government ― as countless surveys shows. This understanding will help Malaysians realise that what matters is not who they are or where they came from, but what actions they take to make things better for all Malaysians.
As a collective, moderate Malaysians have to speak up, voice concerns and continuously participate in discourses in a calm and rational manner. The problems that Malaysians are facing today are caused by perverse incentives that benefit a few but impact many through a myriad of ways such as in the interpretations of laws, policies and the implementation of the law and policies. The crackdown by the government ― using the colonial era and draconian Sedition Act on law abiding Malaysians ― last week is an example of such perverse incentives. Lawyers, politicians, students, academics and journalists were charged for merely expressing their opinion.
The Sedition Act, 1948, defines sedition in such a broad scope that it allows any party in power to abuse it for its own benefit. Perceived as selective prosecution, this Act is used to instill fear among moderate Malaysians against speaking up; and reinforces the prevailing culture of fear. In fact, there many other laws or policies that are just as flawed that infringes on the citizen’s basic rights and liberty. They were passed through in parliament because Malaysians are constantly distracted by the issues of race and religion.
To move forward, Malaysians should be courageous, as Rosa Parks was; move away from identity (racial and religious) politics and strive to aim for new politics based on higher order principles. Fifty one years is a short time span for a nation state and Malaysia still has a long way to go. In this journey, moderate Malaysians have to constantly remind themselves and each other that they are stronger when they stand together.
The higher order principles of freedom, social justice, solidarity and equality in opportunity, should be the guiding light that helps moderate Malaysians to navigate their way towards unity in these challenging times.
Perhaps it is time to steer away from this detour into the wilderness of extremism and back on to the charted course agreeable to the majority of Malaysians: that is middle Malaysia. ― New Mandala
This article was first published here.
*Raja Ahmad Iskandar Fareez is an Australian National University alumnus and a member of the Democratic Action Party (DAP).
In recent years and months,Malaysians have been relentlessly bombarded with hateful statements from the likes of Perkasa, Isma and other Malay ethnocentric groups. They have questioned the loyalty of their fellow Malaysians and suggested that the majority of non-Malays are a threat to Malays and national unity. Hiding behind the mask of race and religion, they claim to represent the voice of the majority of Malaysians particularly Malays.
Much more worrying are government ministers who pander to these groups. In efforts to gain political mileage and consolidate their waning support, they have made irresponsible statements and sowed seeds of discord among the communities, and behaving in ways unbecoming of those appointed to public office.
Blatant racism such as this has upset Malaysians at home and abroad. Many took to social media to express their disappointment at the current state of affairs. While some have blamed the media for sensationalising racial and religious issues; a portion of the responsibility should also fall on the shoulders of Malaysians for failing to take a united stand and voicing the strongest possible condemnation to these acts of blatant racism.
Moderate Malaysians are clearly, by far, the majority. Yet the shrill voices of the extremists are constantly heard simply because they have a sense of purpose, are better organised, well-resourced and have access to powers not available to moderate Malaysians. Therefore moderate Malaysians should band together to ensure Malaysia remains a viable moderate nation state.
The responsibility lies with moderate Malaysians to bring Malaysia back to the “middle” by organising themselves, and spreading the message that Malaysia belongs to all Malaysians ― those who came yesterday, today and tomorrow.
Ranting on social media alone will not be enough to improve the situation, but getting organised and taking concrete action will. The failure to nip this problem in the bud by maintaining silence, or apathy or feeling of hopelessness, have allowed those with extreme views to permeate throughout society; crowding out the silent moderate majority, thereby endangering the ideals of a moderate Malaysia.
Cynics might dismiss the optimism of one individual. They argue that one person cannot change the world.
There are many examples of the power of one. The civil rights movement in the United States (US) is illustrative. One woman’s act of disobedience against injustice proved to be crucial in catalysing actions that eventually led to the ending of institutionalised racial discrimination in the US. Rosa Parks, an African American woman, was arrested for refusing to give up her seat to a white person, as required under the existing law then. This incident led to the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the first mass action in the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.
When the boycott began to show its effectiveness, the White Citizens’ Council retaliated with some resorting to violence. They even firebombed Martin Luther King Jr’s house. After the attack, Martin Luther King Jr spoke to the 300 angry African Americans gathered outside. Instead of anger and hate, he was calm and implored the crowd to continue with their peaceful struggle. He said, “If you have weapons, take them home; if you do not have them, please do not seek to get them. We cannot solve this problem through retaliatory violence. We must meet violence with nonviolence.”
History would show that the US civil rights movement contributed significantly towards the reduction of institutionalised racism in the United States, though racism remains a serious problem. It laid the foundations for important reforms and inspired many other movements that fought for other just causes. President Barack Obama has paid tribute to Rosa Parks on many occasions. Indeed there would be no Barack Obama without Rosa Parks.
One should never dismiss any action by any individual as insignificant and futile. Rosa Parks was just one person, but what she did, made significant difference. There are many Rosa Parks in Malaysia. Like her, there are countless unsung heroes that have already done many things that have made a difference, and many more waiting to come forward. It is through these small actions that eventually leads to a critical mass, and snowball to major success in the future such as a moderate Malaysia.
The road ahead will not be easy for Malaysia and moderate Malaysians. For whatever flames of hatred that is fanned to damage the social fabric of the nation, moderate Malaysians should reciprocate by dousing it with calls for calmness and rationality. The first step could be as simple as sitting down and having a ‘teh tarik and roti canai’ with anyone living or working close to you ― your neighbour, colleagues ― of a different background, of a different view, of a different persuasion. With simple friendly exchange such as this, Malaysians could discover that they have more in common than initially believed.
Despite the outward differences, the concerns are similar in many areas such as living peacefully, reducing the cost of living, improving educational quality, reducing crime, and wanting a clean and transparent government ― as countless surveys shows. This understanding will help Malaysians realise that what matters is not who they are or where they came from, but what actions they take to make things better for all Malaysians.
As a collective, moderate Malaysians have to speak up, voice concerns and continuously participate in discourses in a calm and rational manner. The problems that Malaysians are facing today are caused by perverse incentives that benefit a few but impact many through a myriad of ways such as in the interpretations of laws, policies and the implementation of the law and policies. The crackdown by the government ― using the colonial era and draconian Sedition Act on law abiding Malaysians ― last week is an example of such perverse incentives. Lawyers, politicians, students, academics and journalists were charged for merely expressing their opinion.
The Sedition Act, 1948, defines sedition in such a broad scope that it allows any party in power to abuse it for its own benefit. Perceived as selective prosecution, this Act is used to instill fear among moderate Malaysians against speaking up; and reinforces the prevailing culture of fear. In fact, there many other laws or policies that are just as flawed that infringes on the citizen’s basic rights and liberty. They were passed through in parliament because Malaysians are constantly distracted by the issues of race and religion.
To move forward, Malaysians should be courageous, as Rosa Parks was; move away from identity (racial and religious) politics and strive to aim for new politics based on higher order principles. Fifty one years is a short time span for a nation state and Malaysia still has a long way to go. In this journey, moderate Malaysians have to constantly remind themselves and each other that they are stronger when they stand together.
The higher order principles of freedom, social justice, solidarity and equality in opportunity, should be the guiding light that helps moderate Malaysians to navigate their way towards unity in these challenging times.
Perhaps it is time to steer away from this detour into the wilderness of extremism and back on to the charted course agreeable to the majority of Malaysians: that is middle Malaysia. ― New Mandala
This article was first published here.
*Raja Ahmad Iskandar Fareez is an Australian National University alumnus and a member of the Democratic Action Party (DAP).
Zahid: Prosecution is in the hands of the Attorney-General
The Star
PUTRAJAYA:
Home Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi says the police have full
faith on the discretionary powers of the Attorney-General to prosecute
anyone under the Sedition Act.
He reiterated that the duty of the police was to investigate when a report was lodged.
“These investigation papers will be handed over to the A-G’s Chambers and the prosecution lies in the hands of the A-G.
“The
police’s priority is to ensure peace and harmony in the country and we
place our full faith in the discretion of the A-G to prosecute according
to the law.
“As
long as there is a police report, we will carry out our duty (to
investigate),” Dr Ahmad Zahid told reporters after the ministry’s
monthly staff gathering here yesterday.
Meanwhile, the ministry briefed Pakatan Rakyat youth chiefs on developments involving the Sedition Act issue.
The
ministry’s security and public order division secretary Datuk Awang Din
Husain earlier received a memorandum from Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad (PKR),
Suhaizan Kaiat (PAS), and Teo Kok Seong (DAP) here.
“We
conveyed the concerns of the young over the progress (towards the
repeal of the Act),” Suhaizan told reporters after the meeting which
lasted less than an hour.
On
July 11, 2012, Najib announced that the Sedition Act would be repealed
and replaced with a National Harmony Bill as part of the country’s
political tranformation plan.
Court can make IGP arrest convert, return child in custody case, says lawyer
Lawyers for M. Indira Gandhi, who is embroiled in a custody battle with her ex-husband, will argue before a High Court judge tomorrow that the Inspector-General of Police had breached his duty when he refused to enforce two court orders issued on May 30.Lawyer Aston Paiva, who is a member of Indira's legal team, said the court could compel Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar to arrest Muhammad Riduan Abdullah and hand over Prasana Diksa to Indira.
Paiva said Khalid had a legal duty under the Police Act to enforce orders by a competent court.
A government lawyer is also expected to submit before judge Lee Swee Seng the reasons and circumstances that led police not to execute the orders.
If the judge is satisfied with the IGP's explanation, the police need not enforce the committal and recovery orders issued on May 30 this year.
On the other hand, if Lee is dissatisfied with the queries, he could still give time to the police to enforce the orders.
It is unclear, however, if a civil servant can be punished for refusing to carry out a legal duty as there is no past precedent.
A mandamus order is taken to compel a civil servant to perform or stop him from doing a certain act.
Paiva said Indira's mandamus application had now become stronger following the Court of Appeal's decision yesterday to strike out Riduan's appeal against his contempt of court for refusing to hand over Prasana Diksa.
A three-man bench led by Datuk Balia Yusof Wahi yesterday said the court would not hear a contemptor who has shown disrepect to court orders.
Lawyer M. Kula Segaran, who is representing Indira, said his client would drop her suit if police delivered Prasana Diksa to her.
"The IGP and his men still have time to locate Prasana Diksa and arrest the father (Riduan) and put him in a civil prison," he told reporters yesterday after a proceeding in the Court of Appeal.
He said in Indira's case, there was a conclusive finding that Riduan had shown disrespect to the civil court and there was also no Shariah court order to the police to do anything.
Applications to intervene by the Attorney-General and IGP were also disallowed after Riduan's appeal was struck out.
Riduan had refused to hand over Prasana Diksa despite a 2010 High Court order awarding custody of the couple's three children to Indira.
The Shariah High Court in Ipoh in 2009 had given Riduan custody of the three children after he unilaterally converted them to Islam.
However, in July last year, Lee quashed the conversion of the children and ruled that the certificates of conversion were unconstitutional.
On May 30, the court found Riduan guilty of contempt of court for failing to return Prasana Diksa to Indira.
The court also granted her a recovery order and warrant of arrest against her ex-husband.
Khalid, however, refused to follow the court and said police were caught between two court systems because of the different custody orders from a civil and Shariah court.
Safety Assurance Also For Journey To Crash Site - Hishammuddin
Defence Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein SEPANG, Sept 12 (Bernama) -- The safety of the Malaysian investigating team must not only be ensured at the crash site of the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 in Ukraine, but also throughout the journey there.
Defence Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein said the decision to enter the crash site could only be made after receiving a detailed report from all parties, including the intelligence team.
"We need to know which side is controlling the area, and must abide by their instructions," he said at a press conference held upon his arrival at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport here today, from a working visit to Ukraine, Russia and the Netherlands.
Flight MH17 crashed in eastern Ukraine on July 17 after it was believed to have been shot down in the troubled country while en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, with 283 passengers and 15 crew.
Besides 43 Malaysian passengers and crew, the other passengers included Dutch, Australian, Indonesian, British, German, Belgian, Philippine, Canadian and New Zealand nationals.
Hishammuddin also said the Malaysian investigating team would not be entering the crash site on their own but would be with teams from the Netherlands and Ukraine to reduce the risk.
On his visit to Ukraine, Russia and the Netherlands, Hishammuddin said it was complicated but had high hopes that all affected parties were on the same track as Malaysia.
While in Russia, he met with Ukraine Deputy Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Borisovich Karasin and Dutch Defence Minister Hennis-Plasschaert.
Non-Malays must be careful with what they post
Zaid Ibrahim says Malaysia is not the democracy as promised to be and leaders cannot be criticised or disagreed with publicly unless you want to go to jail.
KUALA LUMPUR: If you are a non-Malay or non-Muslim, be very careful with what you tweet and post on Facebook – you may end up spending time in jail, former minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Zaid Ibrahim said today.
Zaid said parents should take some interest in what their children were saying on social media.
“I have heard many things Muslims have said publicly about Christians, Christianity, Hindus, Hinduism and the Chinese that are insulting and derogatory, but the chances of them being charged are less likely. That’s the way the cookie crumbles in this country,” he said in his blog Zaidgeist.
He added that non-Malays and non-Muslims also need to take extra care in what they say or write about the Malay rulers.
“Although constitutional monarchs in democracies everywhere else in the world are not spared from public criticism and unsavoury comments, the situation here is different.
“Clearly, we are not the democracy we say we are and we are not the free country we were promised we would be on Malaysia Day in 1963.
He said the loyalty of non-Muslims were questioned all the time as well as those in Sabah and Sarawak who are unhappy with the treatment they have received since the formation of Malaysia.
“So do not say or write what you feel, unless you are prepared to spend time in Kajang,” he said
Zaid said for the first time in history, the Prime Minister and the Home Minister had publicly declared many times that the Malays and Islam were under threat.
He said the PM and the Home Minister were referring to non-Malays and non-Muslims as enemies of Islam and the Malays.
“It would be better to focus on intercommunal relationships at the grassroots level and show our leaders that we do not subscribe to their story.
“Show them that we are prepared to determine our future as a nation and who we are as a people. Let us craft an identity as Malaysians that is totally different from what they want to manufacture,” he said.
Zaid said parents should take some interest in what their children were saying on social media.
“I have heard many things Muslims have said publicly about Christians, Christianity, Hindus, Hinduism and the Chinese that are insulting and derogatory, but the chances of them being charged are less likely. That’s the way the cookie crumbles in this country,” he said in his blog Zaidgeist.
He added that non-Malays and non-Muslims also need to take extra care in what they say or write about the Malay rulers.
“Although constitutional monarchs in democracies everywhere else in the world are not spared from public criticism and unsavoury comments, the situation here is different.
“Clearly, we are not the democracy we say we are and we are not the free country we were promised we would be on Malaysia Day in 1963.
He said the loyalty of non-Muslims were questioned all the time as well as those in Sabah and Sarawak who are unhappy with the treatment they have received since the formation of Malaysia.
“So do not say or write what you feel, unless you are prepared to spend time in Kajang,” he said
Zaid said for the first time in history, the Prime Minister and the Home Minister had publicly declared many times that the Malays and Islam were under threat.
He said the PM and the Home Minister were referring to non-Malays and non-Muslims as enemies of Islam and the Malays.
“It would be better to focus on intercommunal relationships at the grassroots level and show our leaders that we do not subscribe to their story.
“Show them that we are prepared to determine our future as a nation and who we are as a people. Let us craft an identity as Malaysians that is totally different from what they want to manufacture,” he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)